Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

« Afghanistan: Obama's Options (From Cage Fighting to Rugs) | Main | Israel-Syria-Palestine: Sarkozy the Mediator? »
Wednesday
Nov182009

The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing

NEW The Latest Iran Video: Demonstration at University in Karaj (17 November)
NEW Iran: Re-Evaluating the Green Movement After 5+ Months
NEW Latest Iran Video: “A Death in Tehran” on Neda Agha Soltan (17 November)
The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

RAFSANJANI2105 GMT: Apparently Saeed Sharati was freed "on the order of Tehran's Revolutionary Court", which seems like an acquittal. If so, that would be to my knowledge the first release of a prominent reformist after a trial.

2045 GMT: Carrot and Stick. Is the Government showing confidence that it has the reformists under control with a combination of jail sentences for some and releases for others? Saeed Shariati, a high-ranking Islamic Iran Participation Front members detained for more than three months, and Ashkan Mojallali, Mahdieh Minooie, and Iman Mirabzadeh, arrested at a prayer gathering last month, were freed --- presumably on bail --- earlier today.

1820 GMT: When Analyses Attack. From this morning's post: "One explanation for the shift may be that the Government’s 5+ months of restrictions on the communications and movements of the oppositonal leadership, “supported” by detentions and trials, have worn down the scope of the leadership’s declarations and ambitions."

This afternoon's news: "Rasoul Montajeb-Nia, the vice chairman of the Etemad Melli party [of Mehdi Karroubi] in an interview said that they are waiting for the authorities to remove the ban on this party's main office for further legal operation and activities."

Meanwhile, former President Mohammad Khatami visited Fatemeh Shahidi, a journalist for the reformist (and suspended) Etemade Melli newspape,) who was recently released after months in detention.

1355 GMT: Is This the End of the Nuclear Deal? Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has made a declaration to the Islamic Students News Agency which appears to be significant:
We reviewed [the Vienna proposal] from an economic and technical aspect. We will definitely not send out our 3.5 percent enriched uranium....We will [instead] consider swapping the fuel simultaneously in Iran....Iranian experts are reviewing the issue of swap to see how much fuel can be transferred. The amount they mentioned for the swap is not acceptable ... and our experts are still studying it.

If I read this correctly, Iran is proposing that a delivery of "20 percent uranium" be brought in from outside the country and swapped for Iran's "3.5 percent uranium". That would mean no initial reduction in Iran's overall uranium stock of 1500 kilogrammes --- the Vienna proposal would have taken up to 80 percent outside Iran for enrichment in Russia.

Considered this way, the question thrown back at the "5+1" countries is whether they can accept that the existing level of uranium production and stock will remain inside Iran's border and thus in its control. That's not a death blow to the negotiations; as Mottaki noted in another interview:
Q: From what I gather, you are looking to modify the basic P5+1 proposal but U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said this is a ‘take it or leave it’ offer.

A: In diplomacy, we do not have zero or hundred. Therefore, flexibility is considered the essence of diplomacy. I believe this, and I guess the American side will understand this point as well…. Earlier, when they wanted to talk to us, they put some preconditions (like suspension of enrichment).But today they are talking and participating in talks without any preconditions.

However, the swap suggestion could be a measure too far for the US and European countries. As Mottaki noted, "We have called for another meeting of the technical people who were part of Vienna talks and we will explain our considerations. But so far such meeting has not convened."

1305 GMT: Iran's chief of police Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has declared that the death of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-old physician at Kahrizak Prison, "was the result of suicide. The doctor had complaints of being threatened with a five-year jail term and had lost his spirit." Previously, state media said Pourandarjan had suffered a heart attack or stroke (see updates earlier this week).

"He committed suicide after he was summoned to the court."

1255 GMT: Journalist Kambiz Norouzi has been sentenced to two years in prison and 76 lashes after conviction "advertising against the establishment" and participating in post-election protests.

Ali Behzadiyan-Nejad, the nephew of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign manager, has been sentenced to six years in prison for “disturbing the security of the country” and “advertising against the establishment”. Behzadiyan’s lawyer said some of the evidence used against  by the prosecutor were “comments people wrote in [Behzadiyan's] personal blog”.

1225 GMT: Don't Do It. The commander of Basij militia, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, has warned that his forces will confront any further "street riots". Naqdi claimed that demonstrators had staged riots in response to calls from US-based satellite stations run by Iranian expatriates: "Those groups that chant slogans against the revolution's values ... should know that they will be confronted by Basij."

1015 GMT: The Banknote Rebellion. Soon after the post-election crisis began, protesters began inscribing Green slogans and criticism of the Government on Iranian banknotes. An EA reader points us to the follow-up story that the Central Bank of Iran has tried to take the banknotes out of circulation, but with so many about, they have given up the effort.

1000 GMT: Nuclear Manoeuvres. Trying to offset apparent pressure from Russia, the spokesman for Parliament's National Security Commission insists that the Bushehr nuclear reactor will soon be operational. Russian officials said earlier this week that the plant would be delayed past its proposed opening date of the end of 2009.

0930 GMT: A Surfacing from Raf? An interesting article, given the relative silence of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani since August. Emrooz, the newspaper linked to Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, claims inside information from a meeting of Rafsanjani with several former members of Parliament.

One of those former MPs says Rafsanjani set four conditions, first offered in his 17 July sermon, for his return to Tehran Friday Prayers: the release of political prisoners, support for those injured in post-election conflict, rebuilding of relations with Grand Ayatollahs and clerics, and an opening-up of state radio and television to different viewpoints. Another source claims, “Without naming any specific individual, Hashemi warned against the growth of a movement that seeks to ignore the regime’s achievements and implicate everyone who cares about the regime.”

0920 GMT: A later start this morning, as we worked on an analysis of the shifts in the Green movement and their significance; even as leaders show caution in their statements, the signs of a long-term but far-from-disappearing movement persist. We have also posted the Public Broadcasting Service documentary, shown in the US last night, "A Death in Tehran" on the story of Neda Agha Soltan and the post-election protests.

Regular readers will note our frequent references to and use of sources from the Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi. Tehran Bureau has a profile of the man behind the site, Mohammad Sadeghi.

Reader Comments (13)

RE all the recent back and forth with Russia, 'The Scotsman' published an interesting article yesterday, "Why Iran will never really trust its Russian 'friends'". It starts with this intriguing tidbit: "As the radical young leader of a student faction during the revolution 30 years ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now Iran's president, initially opposed seizing the US embassy. He instead proposed storming the Soviet embassy." and goes on to examine the long history of troubled relations between Iran and Russia.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Why-Iran-will-never-really.5829248.jp

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterCatherine

[...] post: The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing … Share and [...]

Thoughts:

Kudos to PBS for a job well done. Very good, if gut-wrenching, to watch.

I was wondering when Hashemi would resurface. Question with the one quote you use. Many will assume he's warning against radicalizing the opposition. That's probably what he meant, but could it ALSO be a roundabout reference to Hojjatieh bunch (whom Raf hates) too?

Finally, to be taken with a grain of salt, but http://twitter.com/oxfordgirl/status/5829625660" rel="nofollow">an interesting tweet from oxfordgirl.

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterkevina

Kevin,

I believe there is fire behind Oxford's smoke....

S.

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterScott Lucas

Scott

You may be right.

BUT - remember Stalin's famous quip "The Pope? How many Divisions does he have?"

That piece of past history is relevant here - in regards to any possible moves to eject the "Supreme Leader".

"Supreme Leader - doesn't that have a marvelous ring about it? I used to think that it might be nice to be a President, or a King - or better yet, an Emperor. But "Supreme Leader" does have that ring to it - it's so descriptive.

Barry

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterBarry

Regarding 0930 GMT post:

Who better to lead a counter-coup with disgruntled IRGC members than a popular war hero and technically competent political leader?

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterThomas

Thomas
Well said ! and I hope it from the depth of my heart; somebody who has the renown and deserves to lead ! and destroy this huge octopus for ever

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterange paris

Kambiz Noroozi is a journalist but he's also a very respected lawyer.

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterPedestrian

Pedestrian,

Thank you for the additional info.

S.

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterScott Lucas

If you tell someone, hey, we want to reduce the amount of enriched uranium you have in your country, because you and your neighbor have been having hostility, and reducing this supply, simply the act of moving some objects around on the globe, would ENORMOUSLY help cool off tensions and foster the peace process, if you tell someone that, and then they say hmm, ok, well how about instead you first bring us some MORE uranium, much more highly enriched, and then when we've got the extra AND what we have now, then, we'll trade some of the extra for some of what we have now simultaneously, when that happens, you have to reply: um, no, that actually is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE THE POINT of these negotiations! That would do NOTHING to foster peace!

Ahmadinejad's talk of national sovereign rights is irrelevant. A good leader should be willing to comply with regulations, even if they're crazy and based on prejudice, to get sanctions lifted for his people to prosper. He should be willing to say, "You guys are making a huge mistake. We're peaceful, I'm peaceful, I would never make a weapon with this. But SINCE YOU SUSPECT US UNFAIRLY, here you go, here's all the uranium, just take it. Lift the sanctions so my people can thrive." You know you're a dictator when you put pride before your people's welfare.

November 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRev Magdalen

@ Rev Magdalen

If they agree to the deal and send out almost all of the uranium that they'd produced it would hurt the anti-imperialist nationalist image they have developed out of the existence of the very nuclear program that enriched that uranium.

That in itself might not be so terrible and may lead to major diplomatic progress but what if at some future point there is a snag in the diplomatic process and relations with the west grow strained again? What if the deal is broken off and there are no returns on the uranium (it wouldn't be the first time)? That would spell political disaster for the portion of the political establishment that green-lighted the deal (and it seems that would go all the way up to the supreme leader on this kind of decision) and could therefore be used to force further political concessions.

I suspect that this is the reasoning employed by decision-makers in Tehran leading to their weariness of accepting the nuclear deal and not just simply pride.

Anyway, hopefully diplomatic progress can be made in spite of this.

November 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterSomebody

@Scott 20:47

I agree for two reasons. One, her info, esp. on Raf. and family, has been good. Two, read http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/sadjadpour_iran_final2.pdf" rel="nofollow">Pg. 27 from this 2-year old Sadjadpour piece. I read this, oh, 2 months ago, and it's stuck with me.

November 19, 2009 | Unregistered Commenterkevina

@Somebody You make really good points, and of course it would be a gamble in the sense that the regime would have to trust in the good faith of the deal, that the uranium would come back. I'm just saying in my opinion I'd rather have a leader less focused on uranium in general, and more focused on the people's needs.

If Ahmadinejad got everything he ever wanted in terms of uranium, there'd still be thousands of people who haven't been paid in months, high double-digit unemployment, serious economic and infrastructure problems that seem to be off the radar for him. He could stand at a podium and announce his triumph, but people would still be hungry.

November 19, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRev Magdalen

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>