The Latest in Iran (19 November): It's the Nukes Today

NEW Iran: What Happened on Election Night? The Ghalam News Editor’s Account
NEW Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran’s Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)
NEW Iran’s 16 Azar Video: Greens Fight “The Pirates of the Persian Gulf”
The Latest Iran Video: Demonstration at University in Karaj (17 November)
Iran: Re-Evaluating the Green Movement After 5+ Months
The Iran Cul-de-Sac: 4 Points on Obama’s Embrace of Ahmadinejad (and Rejection of the Green Movement)
The Latest from Iran (18 November): Bubbling and Surfacing

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

2055 GMT: Keeping the Students Down. The Government effort to contain student protest continues. Iran's national student organisation Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat reports that its political director, Abbas Hakimzadeh, has been arrested.

Kohzad Esmaili, head of the Gilan branch of the alumni organisation Advar-Tahkim-Vahdat (Office of Strengthening Unity), has been re-arrested after being freed on $20,000 bail.

2045 GMT: A Non-Crowd Story? While those pre-occupied with the nuclear issue try to read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Tabriz speech for signals (see 1425 GMT), the Green movement has other concerns, namely those who did or did not turn out:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a very cold welcome from the citizens. Yoldash, the Green news organisation in Tabriz, reported that, despite the fact that the chief of "popular welcoming staff" of Ahmadinejad assured 100,000 people would be present at his speech today, only about 10-15,000 people participated in this event which can be easily recognized in the pictures taken by pro-coup Mehr news agency.

An EA source says that the Government tried to ensure a large turnout by giving university students, school children, and workers time off and transport to the rally. However, possibly because of the rain, possibly for other reasons, seats remained empty.

1805 GMT: Is Rafsanjani Lining Up with the Government's Nuclear Proposal? Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani has told the Swedish Ambassador to Iran that the International Atomic Energy Agency is legally obliged to provide 20 percent nuclear fuel to Tehran.

Sweden currently holds the European Union's rotating presidency.

1800 GMT: Clinton Speaks Out? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared to journalists in Kabul:

It is a very unfortunate, distressing development to see these sentences handed down in Iran, imposing the death penalty on people who participated in expressing their opposition to the government in demonstrating in the streets.It underscores the approach that the government in Iran takes for their own people.

We will continue to stand up for the rights of the people of Iran to speak for themselves, to have their votes counted, to be given an opportunity to have the measure of freedom and rights that any person deserves to have

1755 GMT: What Happened on Election Night? We've posted the account of Abolfazl Fateh, the editor of Ghalam News, a paper close to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

1550 GMT: Football Politics. In its latest friendly match, Iran's national football team drew 1-1 with Macedonia. The Tehran Times says 1000 people attended; an EA source says the number was closer to 500.

Still, that's better than the 100 who turned up at the match earlier this month with Iceland.

1455 GMT: The Clerics Plot. An EA source brings intriguing information from Qom. On Wednesday, Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi and Ayatollah Nouri-Hamedani, whom Karroubi wrote last week, discussed next moves in the post-election crisis. Nouri-Hamedani reportedly said,  "I am ready to go to Tehran and talk to both sides" about a plan for national unity, and the two clerics (possibly joined by others) decided to seek a meeting with the Supreme Leader.

1440 GMT: And What is "The West" Doing? "Six world powers will meet in Brussels to discuss what measures could be applied against Tehran for its refusal to halt its nuclear enrichment program, an EU official said Thursday. Friday's meeting will include the U.N. Security Council's permanent members — Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S. — plus Germany, the official said on condition of anonymity because she was not authorized to disclose details of the gathering."

1435 GMT: Negotiating from Strength, I Tell You. And hundreds of miles away in The Philippines, Foreign Minister Mottaki --- having put the Iranian counter-offer on uranium enrichment --- is serving as Ahmadinejad's wingman, warning against further sanctions on Iran: "“I think they [the world powers] are wise enough not to repeat failed experiences. Of course it's totally up to them."

1425 GMT: Mahmoud's Negotiating from Strength. Back from an academic break to read about President Ahmadinejad's speech in Tabriz today. His twin-track rhetoric is now established: the door is open to agreement with "the West", but Iran is holding that door open out of its principled leadership in the world, not out of weakness:

Iran is a nation supportive of peace and friendship and backs constructive cooperation on the international arena. Tehran is therefore ready to cooperate with the international community in different arenas including the revival of economy and the establishment of stable security across the globe....

....Iran is not after aggression. It only seeks its legal rights ... Those who say they want constructive interaction should know that...if the Iranian nation witnesses a genuine transparent change of their policy…if they respect the rights of the Iranian nation…if they honestly extend their hand of friendship then the people of Iran will accept [such overture]....

But the President added, "They should also know that if they are after deception and corruption in our region,” the Iranian nation would be the same “decisive” answer that it has already given to arrogant powers.

1140 GMT: Worst Media "Analysis" of the Day. In The Wall Street Journal, Mark "Black Hawk Down" Bowden explains, "How Iran's [1979] Revolution Was Hijacked". The historical part of the article is OK, with Bowden --- who has written a book on the US Embassy crisis -- claiming, "Nine months after Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi fled it was still unclear what kind of government Iran was going to have....[Ayatollah Khomeini] was ambivalent about the idea of clerical rule."

It's Bowden's jump to 2009 that turns reflection into farce: "So 30 years after seizing power, the mullahs of Qom find themselves in a difficult spot. To turn back the domestic tide of reform they must employ the very tools employed by the despised shah—mass arrests and trials, torture, execution and censorship."

Which "mullahs of Qom" would these be? Montazeri? Sane'i? Bayat-Zanjani? Dastgheib? Safi Golpaygani? Makarem Shirazi?

1050 GMT: The Preview of the Deal? Press TV, quoting from the Islamic Republic News Agency, has just posted a significant statement from Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, who says that UN inspectors will visit the second uranium enrichment facility at Fordoo today.

Here is the key line, however, from Soltanieh: "This site will from now on be under the IAEA supervision." That may be an unsubtle olive branch to the international community for the bigger deal: you can oversee our facilities inside Iran, so you can trust that we'll let you oversee uranium stocks as well.

1000 GMT: So What About Those Sanctions? President Obama may be issuing the warning that he's opening up a can of economic pain if Iran does not accept a nuclear deal, but the signals --- which we've noted for weeks --- are that the US is limited in what it can do:

Western powers are gearing up for talks on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Tehran over its nuclear program but will not target Iran's energy sector to ensure Russia's and China's support....The scaling back of the West's expectations for new U.N. steps against Iran for defying Security Council demands to stop enriching uranium shows that the Europeans and Americans have accepted that Moscow and Beijing, with their close trade ties to Tehran, will not let Iran's economy be crippled.

Diplomats said the Western powers are eager to ratchet up the pressure on the Islamic Republic. But they also need to keep Moscow and Beijing on board to send a clear signal to Tehran that the world's big powers are united against it.

If there is a move for UN sanctions, they will target "at least another bank, more individuals, more companies -- possibly a shipping company -- a tighter ban on arms, possibly political measures". Meanwhile, Washington will fall back on the notion that it can organise multilateral restrictions outside the United Nations. Steps could include a ban on Euro transactions for Iranian and withholding technology to produce liquefied natural gas.

0855 GMT: Extending our initial update (0650 GMT), Mr Smith brings us the Analysis of the Day, considering the latest Iranian offer in the nuclear talks and advising the "West" how to respond to it.

0815 GMT: Anticipating the protests of 16 Azar (7 December), we have posted a video "advertisement" for the demonstrations which is a pretty good parody: Welcome to "The Pirates of the Persian Gulf".

0800 GMT: Away from the nuclear issue, Michael Slackman of The New York Times has picked up on the case of Ramin Pourandarjan, the 26-year-0ld physician at Kahrizak Prison who died in mysterious circumstances (see our updates throughout this week).

0650 GMT: International media is likely to be dominated this morning by stories on the nuclear negotiations. Most outlets have noted Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's counter-proposal, replacing the delivery of 50-80% of Iran's uranium stock to Russia with a "swap" inside Iran of 20% enriched uranium for Tehran's 3.5% supply. And almost all are jumping on the soundbite reactions, from French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner to President Obama.

Obama warned again that time was short for a deal and "consequences" would follow if Iran did not accept an agreement. He did the same on Sunday but, on this occasion, he added a tough if vague post-script: "Our expectations are that over the next several weeks we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take that will indicate our seriousness to Iran." (It's notable that not only international media like Al Jazeera but also Iran's state broadcaster Press TV are carrying the story.)

But do the news agencies really have a handle on what is going on? CNN, for example, headlines, "Iran rejects key part of nuclear deal" and drops in, as one line in a 26-paragraph story, "Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran might allow its nuclear material to be reprocessed inside Iran."

In contrast, the Los Angeles Times devotes almost all of its article to Mottaki's statement. Its headline and opening sentence, however, are just as negative: "Iran's foreign minister vowed Wednesday that his nation wouldn't allow any of its enriched uranium supply out of the country." This is "either a dismissal of a U.S.- and United Nations-backed proposal to ease international tensions over Iran's nuclear program by lowering Tehran's supply below the threshold required to make a bomb, or an attempt by Iran to haggle over the deal".

None of the coverage considers that, from the perspective of the Ahmadinejad Government (and possibly others), Mottaki's response is far from a rejection or a dismissal. Instead, it is a counter-offer which keeps the discussions alive --- indeed, I suspect it may have come out of talks with International Atomic Energy head Mohammad El Baradei. It puts the question to the US and its partners: will they accept a bargain in which Iran's uranium supply is swapped for 20% fuel which is for civilian rather than military purposes? Or is the initial export and warehousing of the majority of Tehran's low-enriched supply an unconditional requirement?

Beyond the negotiating table, Mottaki's statement is a pointer to another story, one which I suspect will go unnoticed today. In the context of the Iranian establishment, this is an attempt to bring peace between battling factions. President Ahmadinejad wants an agreement --- not perpetual "haggling" but an agreement --- and Mottaki's suggestion keeps open that prospect. Others (the Larijanis? the Supreme Leader?) have consented to or been forced to accept the opening.

If the Washington-led "5+1" powers reject that proposal, however, what next? What next not only for the nuclear discussions but also for the interna contests in Iran?

Comments

[Pedestrian]

Completely unrelated to nuclear day, but:

I can't remember if you wrote about this when it was first released (and subsequently it disappeared):
an account written by Abolfazl Fateh, Mousavi's campaign manager, of the night of the election:
http://www.sidewalklyrics.com/?p=2323

Mousavi was never able to put forth any viable evidence of fraud. Neither were Karoubi or Rezaie. They weren't able to prove anything, and they never acknowledged that they weren't. This is one of the things that the pro-government factions are pressing them on, and I really think they should talk about it. This whole thing started with their claims after all. Even if, as everyone claims "this is no longer about an election"

[Scott Lucas]

Pedestrian,

Had been waiting for a quiet moment when I can post. That moment should be within 30 minutes.

S.

[kevina]

I'm more curious/concerned by the last 2 paragraphs in the Raf-Sweden story. Now, are they posturing or genuine? If genuine, then it's, geopolitically, a worry.

Hillary's comments are interesting, and, given the timing, I wonder if it's part of a "Plan B": Offering more rhetorical support to the Greens.

Finally, from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/223345/page/1" rel="nofollow">Khamenei Will Be Iran's Last Supreme Leader.

[Barry]

Kevin

Re your last sentence

Good article - but does it really matter if there is a SL or who he is?

I asked elsewhere at another time, just who is driving the bus in Iran anyway? So many statements (often conflicting) come out of Iran- from the President, Govt Ministers, Parliament, SL, various senior Ayotollahs, military - that it is impossible for me to really understand. Either it is a very well orchestrated situation - with agreement between parties as to what should be said and when - or it is just a shambles.

It is said that when you have to decide whether something is a conspiracy or a mess , always bet on the mess

Barry

[kevina]

^@Barry:

It's a good question, but eliminating the SL position adds loads of clarity to the power structure and, in theory, makes it more republican in nature.

[Hamid]

@Barry:

At the very least it takes the clergy out of the "executive" branch role. This might, just might, give it a more stabilising & balanced role as in Iraq. There might also be less probability of a military dictatorship without the umbrella of a SL.

And I agree with your assessment of a mess, but with serious conspiracies within sub-group such as the military establishment.

@Pedestrian:

Many believe that there was fraud but even if that can't be formally proven given that the regime terrorizes (or kills) witnesses and whistle-blowers, it is perception that counts. And the overwhelming perception among Iran's middle class is that there was massive fraud.

[A cold welcome « FREE IR]

[...] Via Enduringamerica Veröffentlicht in Hintergrund. Kommentar schreiben » [...]

[pessimist]

Is there any possibility that the SL resigns, is that even feasable in the constitution or from bad health that he may 'retire' ? Must he be automatically replaced ? And if so or not, who decides on such things ?

[Megan]

Re: 18.00 GMT

Hillary Clinton has been consistent. Those who followed 2008 presidential election in the U.S. may recall that in numerous debates during primary election she was asked about the Iran nuclear ambition and what she would do if she was elected president. She said the solution was support of democratic movement in Iran. She specifically talked about Iran demographics (70 percent under the age of 30) and how that was our best bet in having a democratically elected government in Iran that would live up to its obligations under UN charter. In so many words she was saying she would support Iranian people to get rid of the government they do not want and with that U.S. and the world community have a far better chance to resolve the nuke issue.

I know there have been many debates that Iranians will pursue the nuclear capability as a matter of national pride and their rights irrespective of which form of government is in place. And indeed those who support this view have referenced statements by Rafsanjani, Mousavi , or speaker of parliament and a few others. We agree there is major difference between nuclear activities for warfare purpose and nuclear activities for peaceful purpose like energy and medical therapy. World community and the U.S. will not deny Iran from having nuclear capabilities for peaceful purpose and they recognize that as the right of any nation. The problem is that the U.S. and other world nations do not trust the current Iranian regime and believe its nuclear activity is for a sinister purpose. I agree with that assessment.

Iran regime whether through its brutal treatment of its own people or through support of terrorism outside its border, or through its utter disregard for international laws has proven its nuclear ambition is for one purpose and one purpose only, domination at all cost. Iran clergy system of government believes nuclear war head is its ticket to ultimate power. I am convinced it will get its nuclear bomb one way or the other unless it is stopped. The question is how to stop the Iranian regime and not why to stop it. For the HOW, I put my money on people of Iran. I still believe our best bet is to support people of Iran in getting rid of current corrupt clergy government and its infrastructure (IRG, Basiji and other variations of them) that keeps this morally bankrupt system in power.

I also think it is time for us to dissociate Green Movement from the so-called reformists such as Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, or Rafsanjani. I believe their ship has sunk. This movement though came to life by 2009 election and a candidate with green color designation for its campaign; it no longer has anything to do with either entity. Green has become a symbol of resistance not the color of one of a presidential candidate Mousavi and what he stood or stands for. I believe 2009 election fraud was a gift to Iranian people and the world. I believe the lack of leadership by any of so-called reformists was also a gift to Iranians. We now have seen neither of the reformists have leadership quality that requires enormous courage, risk taking, boldness, foresight, charisma, readiness to make personal sacrifice, planning, organization, etc. The democracy movement in Iran needs a Nelson Mandela type leader and reformists are no Mandela.

I believe People Movement (Green or otherwise) will not die. It will continue in a dormant stage until it gets a boost. Whether that boost will come about by implosion of domestic economy or by action or inaction of the world community, or more brutality by the brain-dead celery regime (similar to what regime thugs are doing in Saghez right now) we will just have to wait and see. The good news is it will come to an end and bad news is many will suffer and many will be no more as we wait and watch. And that is very tough to bear for many of us.

[Barry]

Is this to be believed ?? http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6381

If so - then an Israeli attack will definitively be on its way soon.

So far, as far as I can make out through news sources, there has not been much info released of the results of the IAEA inspection of Qom, except that yesterday they went back for another inspection. There have been claims of some "possibilities" - but nothing as specific as in the above release.

Who knows?? If it is true, it would be fairly damning.

Barry

[Scott Lucas]

Barry,

I'm always careful handling "information" from DEBKA --- more often than not, the site is used to put out claims supporting a particular political/military line. This strikes me as a bit of desperation from Israeli sources to keep pressure on Iran in the nuclear talks or to break them.

S.

[shangool]

Hey Barry

What if Iran already has nukes? Pakistan had them a long time before they let anyone know. These IRGC thugs are unpredictable. As for the link you provided, doubt they have reliable sources.

[Barry]

Thanks Scott

I am aware that there is a lot of dis-info around. Most of it is kind of "general" in nature. This is kind of "specific" ( actually very specific) - and hence very potentially deniable by those who know the truth (IAEA) . That is not to say that it is not or can not be a complete lie - I am interested in why the IAEA team went back to Qom so soon. (Seems soon to me)

Time will tell

Barry

[Barry]

Or is this http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=111444&sectionid=351020104 dis - dis - info, with PressTV quoting DEBKA and claiming that DEBKA is close to Mossad.

Or is it all just a game? Who is passing dis-info? - and who is twisting the dis-info to make it look like real authentic info, the subject of which they want "their" audience to regard as "bad"

(SMILE)

Barry

[Scott Lucas]

Barry,

On the nuclear issue, the DEBKA is over the reactor at Arak rather than the Fordoo (Qom) plant. Here, I would go back to the IAEA's report, which we posted earlier this week --- the Agency reported no evidence of diversion of materials. DEBKA is almost certainly putting out the "spin" of Israeli officials to undercut the IAEA's findings.

Press TV, as you note, is the other side of the propaganda coin, taking DEBKA's story of joint US-Israeli meetings to play up the "foreign intrigue" against Iran's legimitate Government. Nice to see that the two sides can at least converge on their "information", if not their political objectives.

S.

[Scott Lucas]

Barry,

The more serious "spin" over the nuke issue will come not from Israeli officials but from the ever-present, ever-cited "Western/European diplomats" leaking supposedly-secret sections of IAEA reports proving Iran's violations of agreements.

S.