2145 GMT: Mowj-e-Sabz Suspends Publication. The editors and reporters of the Green Movement website Mowj-e-Sabz/Mowjcamp, a key source of information in the post-election crisis, have announced tonight that they are suspending the posting of articles.
The authors declare that this is the “end of a wave but the beginning of a path”, as they “leave the arena temporarily to other Green [activists]“. The announcement points to 22 Bahman (11 February), the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, as a key date for mobilisation.
Overall impression? The Mowj-e-Sabz activists, having been under constant regime pressure and having had their domain “seized” by hackers (the announcement claims they were Russians hired by the regime) this week, are taking a step back and drawing breath. The impression is of an opposition movement preparing to move more slowly but consistently in a long-haul battle.
2130 GMT: Paying Respects. Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, have visited former Vice President and recently-released detainee Mohammad Ali Abtahi in his home.
2125 GMT: More than 900 Sharif University students have signed an open letter protesting the arrest of protesters on 16 Azar (7 December).
1920 GMT: Propaganda of the Day (2). Israeli officials are putting out the story that President Obama, on his trip to Beijing in November, “warned his Chinese counterpart that the United States would not be able to keep Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear installations for much longer”. This “part of the U.S. attempt to convince the Chinese to support strict sanctions on Tehran” matches up with leaks to the US media from a faction (probably including Dennis Ross of the National Security Council) in the Obama Administration — which we noted — that Israel would send the missiles into Iran if nothing was done about Tehran’s nuclear program.
The bigger story, however, lies beyond the spin. The Israeli officials added that the effect on Beijing was short-lived: “the Americans now understand that the Chinese agreed to join the condemnation announcement [at the International Atomic Energy Agency] only because Obama made a personal request to [Chinese leader Hu Jintao], not as part of a policy change”. They noted that China has “refused a Saudi-American initiative designed to end Chinese dependence on Iranian oil”.
If true, that means — for all the bluster of the pro-sanctions crowd in Washington in conjunction with the Israelis — any notion of economic punishment including the Chinese is a fantasy. Read the rest of this entry »
UPDATE 1050 GMT: Another useful analysis, this time from Juan Cole. Cole first offers a detailed background with his “breakout” thesis on Iran’s nuclear programme:
Tehran genuinely does not want to actually construct and detonate a nuclear device….But having a rapid breakout capability — being able to make a bomb in short order if it is felt absolutely necessary to forestall a foreign attack — has a deterrent effect. So Iran would have the advantages of deterrence without the disadvantages of a bomb if it could get to the rapid breakout stage.
Cole’s immediate reading of the current position is hit-and-miss: he’s on shaky ground with his analysis that the Revolutionary Guard has vetoed the Supreme Leader’s acceptance of an enrichment deal (I don’t think anyone except Ayatollah Khamenei knows what he will do), but Cole is invaluable in reading the non-Iranian politics: don’t expect BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) to accept a move towards harsh economic measures agianst Tehran.
And Cole’s conclusion hits the bull’s-eye:
Bottom line: Friday’s vote was likely symbolic and a signal to Iran from the international community that there is discomfort with its secretiveness and lack of transparency, and that many are suspicious of its motives. In China’s case, it may have been a warning against actions that could harm the Middle Kingdom’s burgeoning economy. What it likely was not was a harbinger of tougher international sanctions against Tehran or a sign that BRIC is softening on that issue
UPDATE 0950 GMT: A ray of journalistic light — Sharwine Narwani offers an excellent analysis, “Eleventh-hour CPR On Iran Nuclear Talks”: “Our core problem is not with Iran’s enrichment program or it’s recently revealed Fordow nuclear plant buried under a mountainside. The central issue clogging up our hotlines is that we do not trust Iran. And they do not trust us.”
Looking once more at yesterday’s International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme, it is a most impressive two-card trick by the US Government.
Impressive initially because the first trick is on the media. So far, every major journalist whom I’ve read or listened to has been taken in by the magician’s display of a united “hard line” against Tehran. CNN headlines, “U.N. watchdog urges suspension of Iran nuclear facility”, never realising that the 2nd enrichment facility at Fordoo is now just a distraction. The New York Times, in print and in podcast, follows the same sleight-of-hand, adding the flourish that the “sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China”.
If anyone in the Iranian Government still believes in the
Washington-directed “velvet revolution”, rather than using it as a stick to beat the opposition, he/she can breathe easy. The driving force for the Obama Administration’s approach to Iran is the quest for an agreement on uranium enrichment.
That ambition is led by the President, and his determination has brought general consensus in an Administration that was arguing over the value of talks earlier in 2009. Broadly speaking, the White House, the National Security Council, and the State Department are all on the same page now. Read the rest of this entry »
As American and Britain news agencies continue to misunderstand and misrepresent President Obama’s strategic approach on Iran — the BBC’s Justin Webb was particularly bad on Tuesday morning when he summarised his interview with the President — Foreign Policy’s blog The Cable offers an essential view from inside the Administration.
Using sources from the Interagency Working Group on Iran, The Cable knocked back the idea that the US was pursuing negotiations merely to set up tougher economic sanctions when the talks inevitably fail: “They insist there is hardly a prevailng assumption the effort will fail, and they are doing everything in their power to make it succeed.” Read the rest of this entry »
The article begins with a statement of the Israeli hopes for a hard line towards Tehran: “IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Gabi Ashkenazi (pictured), who is on an official visit to the United States, told his American colleagues Monday that the Iranian threat could still be handled via sanctions, but stressed that an Israeli military strike was a “serious” option.” Read the rest of this entry »
Amidst all the bluster and misinformation surrounding the issue of US-Iranian relations, a clear, concise proposal is always striking. Replying to his fellow Foreign Policy blogger Dan Drezner, who failed to distinguish between a nuclear energy programme and a nuclear weapons programme, Stephen Walt offered this suggestion:
A realistic approach to Iran’s nuclear program
At this point I don’t think it is possible to persuade Iran to give up full control of the nuclear fuel cycle. They’ve committed a lot of money and prestige to acquiring this capacity, the program is popular domestically, and it is legal within the confines of the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty]. So if our bottom line is for them to abandon enrichment, etc., we’re almost certainly going to fail.
Our goal, instead, should be to convince Iran that it is better off not developing nuclear weapons, because that’s the issue we really care about. Read the rest of this entry »
Moments ago, in a post on the US-Israeli talks this week on Iran, we suggested that “review” and “muddle” might mean the same thing in the current policy process of the Obama Adminstration.
The BBC lends weight to this possibility, ironically, in a story headlined, “US policy towards Iran shaping up”. The story begins with the revelation, “The Obama administration is finalising its policy for engaging Iran. The approach is likely to involve a combination of small steps to initiate contact between the two countries and may include an overture in the form of a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, according to Western diplomats and senior US officials.” Read the rest of this entry »
Iran’s Press TV is a bit over-the-top with its proclamation of “simmering talks of war”, but the attention to Tehran, rather than other Middle Eastern issues, is more than justified. While interchanges between Israeli and American military leaders, as part of Tel Aviv’s special relationship with the US, are commonplace, the presence of Ross at the discussions is significant. So is the timing. Read the rest of this entry »
2145 GMT: Mowj-e-Sabz Suspends Publication. The editors and reporters of the Green Movement website Mowj-e-Sabz/Mowjcamp, a key source of information in the post-election crisis, have announced tonight that they are suspending the posting of articles.
UPDATE 1110 GMT: Cole also has posted 
1. IT’S THE NUKES, STUPID
As American and Britain news agencies continue to misunderstand and misrepresent President Obama’s strategic approach on Iran — the BBC’s Justin Webb was particularly bad on Tuesday morning when he summarised his interview with the President — 
Amidst all the bluster and misinformation surrounding the issue of US-Iranian relations, a clear, concise proposal is always striking. Replying to his fellow Foreign Policy blogger Dan Drezner, 
Moments ago, in a post on the US-Israeli talks this week on Iran, we suggested that “review” and “muddle” might mean the same thing in the current policy process of the Obama Adminstration.
Here’s a story that has set a few tongues wagging and minds racing on the Internet.
Entries (RSS)