Iran Eyewitness: An "Army of Strollers" and Allah-o-Akbar on 12 June (Tehran Bureau)

"A Contributor in Tehran" writes for Tehran Bureau:

"The most stable and democratic country in the world." Thus Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who last year was "reelected" (many say "selected") as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, described his nation at a recent press conference in Istanbul. Ahmadinejad, of course, is hardly renowned for well-considered, precise, statesmanlike observations. In fact, he is notorious for quite the opposite: making off-the-cuff statements whose substance bears little relation to reality. Yet the depiction of Iran in such terms days before the 12 June anniversary of the vehemently disputed presidential election was an extraordinary distortion of the truth, even by Mr. Ahmadinejad's loose standards. The truth of his statement, needless to say, was tested on the anniversary.

As expected, "the most stable and democratic" government on earth failed miserably. It denied permission to the opposition to hold a simple peaceful rally in order to commemorate last year's election --- even though, according to the Iranian Constitution, such gatherings do not require government approval to begin with. For weeks, security and other officials had warned that the regime would not tolerate any protest rally on June 12. The Interior Ministry, raising some ludicrous technical excuses, refused the permit, as it had done similarly on numerous occasions in the past.



By contrast, government-sanctioned rallies and ceremonial events, such as the one that took place on 4 June  --- the 21st anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic -- enjoy the regime's full support and sponsorship. On that occasion, hundreds of thousands, many of them members of the Basij militia, were mobilized throughout the country to travel, at government expense, to Tehran to attend the commemoration and listen to the Friday Prayer sermon delivered by Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, Khomeini's successor as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic. This particular event was to be a showcase for the power and "popularity" of the regime in advance of 12 June. The initial plan was thus to assemble about two million people from throughout Iran for the event. By independent accounts, the regime fell far short of its goal.

Just a couple of days prior to the election anniversary, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, two of Ahmadinejad's rivals in last year's election and the de facto leaders of the Green Movement, the popular reform movement that emerged following the rigged vote, announced that because of their concern for people's safety they would cancel the rally they had planned. They asked their supporters to pursue their struggle for change through means less risky than participation in a public protest that the government was determined to violently suppress.

Given that most opposition political figures and activists have been imprisoned or rendered inactive over the past year, and that many political parties and civil society organizations have been banned, there are few avenues available to those opposing the regime to communicate with one another and organize en masse. The few Reformist newspapers face heavy censorship and are under constant threat of closure if they cross the government's ambiguous "red lines." Foreign news and analysis broadcasts, like the popular Persian services of the BBC and VOA, are routinely jammed -- especially when an important day, such as 12 June, approaches. The Internet is often strangled and access to most sites with uncensored information is systematically denied through a pervasive filtering system (though many have by now learned how to circumvent it). In short, the regime exerts its full power to deny people the means and even the hope of organizing peaceful protests, short of risking their livelihoods and their very lives.

Nonetheless, the message somehow spread that a silent protest would be held in Tehran from 4 to 8 p.m. on June 12, a Saturday. It was understood that Mousavi and Karroubi, as responsible leaders, could not ask their supporters to jeopardize their lives by attending a formally declared rally. Yet people concluded that they could make their presence felt and in the process expose the regime's true anti-democratic nature, its illegitimacy, and the extent of its fear by simply "strolling" peacefully and silently from Imam Hossein Square to Azadi (Freedom) Square. The route, around ten kilometers long, was chosen in part because along it lies Ferdowsi Square and Enghelab Square, where two major universities are located.

Read rest of article....

Afghanistan/McChrystal Analysis: Hyperventilating Over the Tip, Missing the (Petraeus) Iceberg

Little to report overnight in the saga of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, and his interview --- replete with jibes and insults at the Obama Administration by McChrystal and his aides --- with Rolling Stone magazine.

NEW Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$$…To “Warlords” (DeYoung)
Afghanistan Special: McChrystal and the Trashing of the President (US Military v. Obama, Chapter 472)
Afghanistan Document: The McChrystal Profile (Hastings — Rolling Stone)

In advance of his meeting with McChrystal today, President Obama said, ""I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor - showed poor judgment. But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions." Obama then re-stated his key talking point, beyond any Rolling Stone obstacle:

I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is - and that is success in making sure that al-Qaida and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies. And we've got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices,

And so whatever decision that I make with respect to Gen. McChrystal - or any other aspect of Afghan policy - is determined entirely on how I can make sure that we have a strategy that justifies the enormous courage and sacrifice that those men and women are making over there and that ultimately makes this country safer.

Obama's statement capped an extraordinary day for Washington watchers. From before dawn, when some media outlets posted soundbites from the Rolling Stone profile, to bedtime, all other news fell before the chatter about McChrystal. (The biggest winner from yesterday's furour? It could be British Petroleum, who suddenly found that they were not the lead story in the US.)

It was a classic frenzy in which token moves began banner headlines. McChrystal had called Administration officials to apologise. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he was concerned. The editor of Rolling Stone and the author of the piece, Michael Hastings, became media superstars for a day. Joe Klein of Time, using the time-worn device of an "unnamed source", seized centre stage by saying he most definitely knew McChrystal would resign.

That in turn left us with the white noise of "Will he/won't he? Should he/shouldn't he?" Hours of airtime and pages of print could be filled by simply re-wording the regretful conclusion: he's not the military Messiah, he's just a naughty boy.

When "perspective" was sought, it often verged on the historically ridiculous. Some journalists sought an analogy with President Truman's recall of General Douglas MacArthur in 1951, which might have been appropriate if McChrystal had threatened World War III by bombing China, bringing US forces to the verge of defeat, and calling for use of nuclear weapons.

OK, so what's the big deal? The media gets its drama. The Obama Administration buys time with statements to figure out how it is going to finesse the treatment of McChrystal, since 1) his firing/resignation or 2) his retention will bring another news cycle of criticism. And, apart from one press aide to the General, no one pays an immediate price.

Well, to be blunt: the story is not McChrystal and his boys laughing at Vice President Biden, declaring that the President is a fumbling ingenue, or sneering at their supporters like "old man" John McCain. Perhaps the most wayward statement from an "analyst" was the lament, "You think he's being fired for a pattern....He's being fired for an ARTICLE."

Wrong. Shrewder observers, drowned out in yesterday's clamour, know that the sticks-and-stones behind McChrystal's name-calling is the ongoing military battle to maintain policy supremacy over the civilians from the State Department to the US Embassy in Afghanistan to President Obama.

Twice Obama tried to set limits on a military-first approach to defeating the Taliban/extremists/Al Qa'eda/insurgents in Afghanistan. The day he entered office, having declared that he would seek a resolution to a US intervention which seemed to be going nowhere, the military presented him with three options, all of which called for an increase in US forces. Obama tried to curb the rush to escalation but gave way in March 2009 with a "limited" increase of 30,000 troops and support units.

Then the President, through National Security Advisor Jim Jones (the "clown stuck in 1985", according to a McChrystal aide), tried to draw the line: ask for any more soldiers and I will stare you out with "WTF?"

The outcome? The commanders called Obama's bluff: they said the intervention would be lost without another escalation, and they got the President's acceptance in December.

There was one headline caveat, however: Obama indicated --- to what degree of firmness depends on who is interpreting --- that the US forces would come out by July 2011.

McChrystal does not like that deadline. Nor does his boss.

That boss --- the head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus  --- was the dog who did not bark yesterday. Less than a week after testifying to Congressmen, leaving the clear impression that US forces would have to remain beyond July next year, Petraeus issued no statement, saw no reporters, provided no leaks.

If there is an important media angle here, it is this difference between McChrystal and Petraeus: the latter is far too clever in the ways of Washington to let a Rolling Stone reporter tail after him, putting verbal indiscretions on the record.

It is that difference in tactics --- not tactics against the Taliban, but tactics in the talking shops of Washington --- that means McChrystal is the point man in this US campaign, and he is expendable. After all, he got his current position after another American commander, General David McKiernan, was thrown under the bus last year.

Petraeus is in a different position. Having risen through the command ranks in Iraq, seizing the glory because of the mythical "surge", he is now at the apex of field authority. Afghanistan is his to win or lose.

His to win or lose, beyond and possibly despite the President. For --- take a look through EA's archives --- the spinning from January 2009 against Obama's limits has come from Petraeus and his allies, either at distance from Central Asia or in the corridors of Washington.

When the tip of this "crisis" is gone, that iceberg will remain.

Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$$...To "Warlords" (DeYoung)

Want a break from the whipped-up drama over General Stanley McChrystal and his "mistake" of an interview? Possibly to read something more significant?

Karen DeYoung writes for The Washington Post:

The U.S. military is funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.

The security arrangements, part of a $2.16 billion transport contract, violate laws on the use of private contractors, as well as Defense Department regulations, and "dramatically undermine" larger U.S. objectives of curtailing corruption and strengthening effective governance in Afghanistan, a report released late Monday said.

The report describes a Defense Department that is well aware that some of the money paid to contractors winds up in the hands of warlords and insurgents. Military logisticians on the ground are focused on getting supplies where they are needed and have "virtually no understanding of how security is actually provided" for the local truck convoys that transport more than 70 percent of all goods and materials used by U.S. troops. Alarms raised by prime trucking contractors were met by the military "with indifference and inaction," the report said.

"The findings of this report range from sobering to shocking," Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) wrote in an introduction to the 79-page report, titled "Warlord, Inc., Extortion and Corruption Along the U.S. Supply Chain in Afghanistan."

The report comes as the number of U.S. casualties is rising in the Afghan war, and public and congressional support is declining. The administration has been on the defensive in recent weeks, insisting that the slow progress of anti-Taliban offensives in Helmand province and the city of Kandahar does not mean that more time is needed to assess whether President Obama's strategy is working.

"I think it's much too early to draw a negative conclusion," said a senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "I think there's more positive than negative. We're heading toward a year-end assessment, which will be a big one for us." The review was set when Obama announced in December that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and begin to withdraw them in July 2011.

Tierney is chairman of the national security subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose majority staff spent six months preparing the report. A proponent of a smaller U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan and targeted attacks on insurgents, Tierney said in an interview Monday that he hopes the report will help members of Congress "analyze whether they think this is the most effective way to go about dealing with terrorism. Or the most cost-effective way."

The report's conclusions will be introduced at a hearing Tuesday at which senior military and defense officials are scheduled to testify. The report says that all evidence and findings were made available to Republicans on the subcommittee. A spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the ranking Republican, said the lawmaker will not comment until he has seen the entire report.

In testimony shortly after Obama's strategy announcement, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that "much of the corruption" in Afghanistan has been fueled by billions of dollars' worth of foreign money spent there, "and one of the major sources of funding for the Taliban is the protection money."

Military officials said that they have begun several corruption investigations in Afghanistan and that a task force has been named, headed by Navy Rear Adm. Kathleen Dussault, director of logistics and supply operations for the chief of naval operations and former head of the Baghdad-based joint contracting command for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rear Adm. Gregory J. Smith, communications chief for U.S. and NATO forces in Kabul, said that the entire Tierney report has not been examined but that Dussault will be "reviewing every aspect of our contracting process and recommending changes to avoid our contribution to what is arguably a major source of revenue that feeds the cycle of corruption."

The U.S. military imports virtually everything it uses in Afghanistan -- including food, water, fuel and ammunition -- by road through Pakistan or Central Asia to distribution hubs at Bagram air base north of Kabul and a similar base outside Kandahar. From there, containers are loaded onto trucks provided by Afghan contractors under the $2.16 billion Host Nation Trucking contract. Unlike in the Iraq war, the security and vast majority of the trucks are provided by Afghans, a difference that Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has praised as promoting local entrepreneurship.

Read rest of article....

UPDATE Afghanistan Special: McChrystal and the Trashing of the President (US Military v. Obama, Chapter 472)

UPDATE 1945 GMT: So who is defending General McChrystal? Well, let's go to Kabul for a statement from a spokesman: "[Hamid Karzai] strongly supports McChrystal and his strategy in Afghanistan and believes he is the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years."

UPDATE 1830 GMT: Thumbs Down from the White House? Or Just a Bit of Posturing?

The stingers from the statement of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "All options are on the table [including McChrystal's resignation]....The magnitude and graveness of the mistake here are profound.”

Afghanistan Document: The McChrystal Profile (Hastings — Rolling Stone)

Gibbs said he gave an advance copy of the article, which had already gone out to the press, to Obama last night. The President was "irked".

Gibbs said the president wants to know “what in the world he was thinking.”

And here's Secretary of Defense Gates' careful statement:

I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person.

UPDATE 1740 GMT: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued a far-from-robust defence of General McChrystal. He expressed "concern" over the "significant" mistake of the Rolling Stone interview.

McChrystal also may have lost the backing of key Senators like former Presidential candidate John McCain former Vice Presidential candidate Joseph , ieberman, and Lindsay Graham, who called the General's remarks "inappropriate, inconsistent with relationship between the Commander-in-Chief and the military".

UPDATE 1450 GMT: The executive editor of Rolling Stone says that General McChrystal was shown the advance copy of the profile and raised no objections.

UPDATE 1230 GMT: Department of Defense officials say General McChrystal has fired a press aide over the Rolling Stone episode.

The US Embassy in Afghanistan, despite the military's ridicule of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, has maintained that Eikenberry and General McChrystal "are both fully committed" to President Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to "implement" the plan.

UPDATE 1200 GMT: Five minutes after posting this, with the projection of a "quick cover-up" of the episode: "Top administration official says McChrystal has personally called Vice President Biden, [Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff] Mullen, [Secretary of Defense] Gates, and NSC advisor Jones to apologize."

In the first week of Barack Obama's Presidency, we noted that his senior military commanders were trying to alter his policies in key areas, to the point of undermining him. We noted their opposition to his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and their determination to escalate the military intervention in Afghanistan.

That challenge has continued for almost 18 months with Obama --- in my view --- getting "rolled over" on the Afghanistan issue as he twice conceded to the demands for troop escalation.

That is the background to today's hot media story. Rolling Stone magazine has released advance copies of an interview with General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan. The soundbites are so explosive that McChrystal has already issued his "sincerest apology" for "a mistake reflecting poor judgement". He is flying back to Washington, reportedly for a meeting with the President.

All very dramatic. It's far from surprising, however: if this is to be more than a shiny bauble for the media, McChrystal's interview --- when it is released in full on Friday --- will need to be considered as far from "a mistake". It is part of the ongoing military contest with Obama.

Consider the soundbites from the advance copies of the interview.

1. Taking on the President. McChrystal and an aide refer to a 2009 meeting with Obama. The aide belittles the President for "a 10-minute photo op": "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was... he didn't seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed."

Gen McChrystal says, "I found that time painful. I was selling an unsellable position."

Hmm... McChrystal's pain smacks of a self-serving "poor me" pose. His supposed weariness over the "unsellable" is a bit ironic, given that McChrystal's visit was quite likely the ultimate in sales jobs: he was pitching for the increase in troop deployments that Obama granted in December.

2. Dismissing the Vice-President. Joe Biden may have tried to assert his authority with personal visits to Afghanistan but this snapshot from Rolling Stone portrays a military smacking his annoyance aside.

"Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?" McChrystal asks. 'Who's that?"

An aide then says: "Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?"

3. Trampling on the Ambassador. One of the high-profile episodes in that battle occurred last autumn, when a memorandum from the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry (a retired General), was leaked. It questioned the drive for military escalation, given fundamental political problems and corruption in Afghanistan.

McChrystal's considered reaction? "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before. Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so'."

4. Dismissing the Advisors. Last August, in an effort to check the military's drive for more troops, National Security Advisor James Jones --- another former General --- went to Kabul and warned commanders that, if they pushed for escalation so soon after March's build-up of forces, Obama would ask, "WTF [What the F***]?"

The view of Jones from McChrystal's aide? "A clown stuck in 1985".

And here's the respect that Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, gets. Told of an incoming message, McChrystal says: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke....I don't even want to open it."

Only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it appears, gets approval from McChrystal's staff.

Now, a lot of this might be put down to day-to-day tensions in the difficult environment of Afghanistan. But --- and this is the point that seems to be eluding the media so far --- these examples of anger, impertinence, disrespect, and near-subversion of the President's authority did not occur in the heat of the moment.

They were offered, after the event, to a reporter as the "real" impressions of senior members of the US military.

That's not frustration. That's a deliberate challenge, in an ongoing campaign to challenge, to the President.

As McChrystal flies to Washington, possibly for a quick cover-up of the episode by all concerned, it needs to be remembered as such. For deliberate challenges do not suddenly evaporate.

The Latest from Iran (22 June): Rumbling On

2130 GMT: The University Argument. Having started with this in the morning, I guess we should conclude this evening with the Parliament v. President fight over control of Islamic Azad University.

Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has criticised the pressure on Parliament, from demonstrations outside the Majlis to remarks in "hard-line" newspapers: "If the norms are observed in the criticism of (government) branches, it will be good and will promote the progress of that branch, but (this should) not (be done) with bad language,” Larijani told lawmakers.

NEW Iran’s Revolutionary Guard & the US: Oil Spills Are Thicker than Hostility?
NEW Iran: To Lead or to Follow? 4 Cartoons on Mousavi and the Greens
UPDATED Iran Special: EA Unfiltered by Authorities
Iran, One Year On: The Names of 107 Killed in Post-Election Violence
The Latest from Iran (21 June): Beyond Quiet Remembrance

Indirectly responding to stories, including an assertion by Iran's Attorney General, that the Parliament's bill on Islamic Azad could be set aside, Larijani said that what the lawmakers chose to ratify, if endorsed by the Guardian Council, would come into force and should be respected.

1915 GMT: The Energy Squeeze. Pakistan has backed  away from a deal with Iran to construct a gas pipeline because of impending US sanctions.

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani told a press conference, “If the U.S. imposes sanctions, they will have international implications and Pakistan as a member of the international community will follow them.”

Tehran had announced the deal earlier this month, but President Obama's special envoy for Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke urged Pakistan to be wary of proceeding.

1900 GMT: Khatami's Back. Returning from a break (and the General McChrystal fiasco in Afghanistan), I find that former President Mohammad Khatami has made another pointed intervention, starting with the recent attacks on clerics and moving to a renewed call for civil rights:

Unfortunately today insults, lies and false accusations even against those who were allies of Imam Khomeini even before he came to the scene and after the Islamic Revolution were major figures of the revolution has become common and they are being accused of various kinds of accusation without being able to defend themselves.

When in the national-TV constantly false and biased issues are being mentioned (even if they were right, insults and cursing are wrong) is a catastrophe.”

Let the legitimate freedoms mentioned in the constitution exist and people will be the judge and this will solve many of the problems.

Many of the good individuals who have been arrested or are wanted should be able to come to the scene, the groups and parties should be able to restart their legal activities, we never want to confront the system although are being accuse unjustly to all sorts of accusations and those who are accusing us are causing the most damage to the system.

1310 GMT: Meanwhile in Parliament. Amidst the university dispute, this news --- significant, I think --- has received little notice: the Majlis has approved a bill postponing municipal elections for two years.

1300 GMT: The University Conflict Escalates. Fars News is claiming that, following this morning's Basij/student protest in front of the Parliament, the Majlis' bill asserting control over Islamic Azad University will be nullified.

Radio Farda, via Peyke Iran, reports that Iran's Attorney General, Gholam-Hossein Mohseni-Ejei, has written to the head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani. The message? The Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution has the final say on the issue, effectively overruling any Parliament decision.

1020 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amnesty International has issued a call for "urgent action" over the detentions of Narges Mohammadi, the Deputy Head of the Center for Human Rights Defenders, and CHRD member and journalist Abdolreza Tajik.

Mohammadi, an associate of Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi, was arrested late on 10 June at her home in Tehran. Up to 18 June, she had been permitted to make only one phone call to relatives.

Tajik was arrested on 12 June, after being summoned to the office of the Ministry of Intelligence in Tehran. He has been held incommunicado in his third detention since June 2009. (see UA 171/09 and updates).

1005 GMT: The University Argument. Well, well, Press TV has decided to cover an event inside Iran (see 0720 GMT). The website notes:

Hundreds of Iranian students have staged a demonstration in front of the Parliament in protest at a bill passed by lawmakers regarding the Islamic Azad University.

The bill allows the University to donate its property worth $200 billion dollars for public purposes. The government says the bill violates the articles of association of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution.

The body, chaired by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supervises the country's universities. The ongoing controversy between the government and the Azad University started after the government decided to take control of the university.

However, according to Khabar Online news service, Majlis members voted for the public endowment of the university's properties under the condition that the premises belong to the university's board of trustees.

0933 GMT: Remembering the Dead. Rah-e-Sabz profiles Moharram Chegini, "a worker killed for freedom and his vote" last June.

Meanwhile, the website worries that, as the trial of 1 civilian and 11 security forces over the Kahrizak Prison abuses concludes, the former Tehran Prosecutor General (and current Ahmadinejad advisor) Saeed Mortazavi will get away without punishment. It features the plea from the father of Mohammad Kamrani, one of those killed in the prison, that a film of the court proceedings be made public.

0930 GMT: The Warning Within. Mohsen Rezaei, former Presidential candidate and current Secretary of the Expediency Council, has warned that defaming revolutionary figures [a challenge to the opposition or a challenge to those who verbally attacked Seyed Hassan Khomeni?] brings grave consequences for the next 10 years.

0920 GMT: The Wider Parliament-President Conflict. What does this latest row mean? Here are a couple of clues. Ali Larijani, countering attacks on Parliament from outlets like Keyhan, has said that Government supporters are ruthless and "insurgent" (ghougha-salar).

From the reformist side, MP Mostafa Kavakebian asks, "Don't we have a Guardian Council in this country to cope with these people, accusing the Majlis?"

0915 GMT: But the Next Move on Universities Begins. Peyke Iran is reporting that Basij students, protesting the rejection of the President's proposal to take control of Islamic Azad University, have gathered in front of Parliament.

Rooz Online follows up on Ahmadinejad's immediate protest, cancelling a meeting with Ali Larijani, the head of Parliament, and Sadegh Larijani, the head of judiciary.

0850 GMT: Blocking Ahmadinejad's University Move. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has more on the battle between the President and the Parliament over control of Iran's Islamic Azad University.

Ahmadinejad was seeking to remove the current head of the university, which is closely linked to Hashemi Rafsanjani, and to change the members of the governing board. Mir Hussein Mousavi but was removed from the board this spring.

In a vote on Sunday, the legislators rejected the President's proposal.

0720 GMT: The Issues Within. Let's see: has Press TV, international flagship outlet of the Iranian state, noticed the political, economic, social, and religious discussions in the country? The current top 7 "Iran" stories from the Press website:

1. Iran Warns against Cargo Inspections
2. Bahrain Calls for Expanded Iran Ties
3. Larijani: Deep Mistrust in US-Iran Ties
4. "West Must Compensate for Rigi Crimes"
5. Iran "Keeps Watchful Eye on PG [Persian Gulf] Skies"
6. Iran Wants UNSC [United Nations Security Council] Held Accountable
7. IRGC Offers to Contain BP Oil Spill (see separate entry)

Answer: No.

0635 GMT: We've published two features to start the day.

There is a look at the cartoons reflecting and reflecting upon the relationship between Mir Hossein Mousavi and the Green Movement. And we've got a surprise --- it looks like oil has brought Revolutionary Guard friendship for the US.

0515 GMT: No dramatic developments on Monday but a far from quiet day, with manoeuvres and criticisms, especially within the "establishment". There was scrapping over the economy, corruption, control of the universities, the enforcement of hijab, budget discrepancies....

So what does today bring?