The Ahmadinedjad roadshow in the US has finally closed. Given that it was a last-minute decision for the Iranian President to go to New York for the nuclear non-proliferation conference, this was a major public-relations campaign. There were at least three significant television appearances --- one of them on a national morning programme --- and several newspaper interviews in addition to the United Nations speech.
I think Ahmadinejad, on the ground he has chosen, was successful in the tour. Of course he is unlikely to swing the opinions of many in the US, but he was able to put down his American interviewers. More importantly, he had a platform to play to opinion beyond the US, trying to persuade other countries --- especially "non-aligned", non-nuclear states --- that Iran has the high moral and political position on the atomic question.
The question is whether those states will support Iran's case against the "established" order. Both the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon criticised Tehran's stance even before Ahmadinejad took the podium on Monday. The Iranian President's speech, beyond the 11-point proposal for global disarmament, carried this message: "In the end, 'we' will stand against you and the 'nuclear' states like the US and Israel."
Will that get Ahmadinejad enough political space to bolster Iran's position abroad and his authority at home? And, on the specific nuclear question: is he trying to use that space to get a deal on enrichment --- the latest flutter is that Brazil will broker the talks --- or is he trying to avoid any commitment altogether?
1830 GMT: Economy Watch. Writing for Reuters, Alistair Lyon draws on the observations of several analysts to offer an overview of the Ahmadinejad Government's position: "Iran's home-grown economic ills pose a knottier challenge for its hardline leaders than possible new United Nations or U.S. sanctions over its nuclear programme."
1515 GMT: The UK Deportation Case. The partner of Bita Ghaedi, who fled Iran because of alleged domestic abuse and who has participated in protests against the regime, writes that her appeal against deportation has been refused by British authorities.
Ghaedi is booked on a Wednesday flight to Tehran. Her last chance against deportation is a request for a court injunction.
1510 GMT: Today's Karroubi Contribution. We have posted Mehdi Karroubi's latest statement, "The Movement Has Spread Everywhere", in a separate entry.
1440 GMT: "A Proud and Progressive Iran". Former President Mohammad Khatami, meeting former members of Parliament, has said:
We have always wanted and still want a proud and progressive Iran which also follows the moral, Islamic and humanitarian rulings; the spirit of reformism that we have talked about is the same thing....We are repeating again that the most important steps are the release of prisoners, avoiding unjustifiable conflicts, easing of the [political] atmosphere based on the Constitution, freedom of political and social activities, providing freedom of speech and thought, moving toward joyful and healthy elections and valuing criticism, and, on top of everything, defending the dignity, respect, freedom, and fundamental rights of the society and people.
1230 GMT: Here We Go Again.
Step 1: Iran Comes Under Pressure Over Its Nuclear Programme (as in this week's US approach to the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Conference)
Step 2: The Iranian Military Puffs Out Its Chest and Says --- As Much to Iran's People As to the Rest of the World --- "Don't Mess With Us. We're Very Tough" (as in today's declaration of "new naval war games" in the Persian Gulf and the assurance that it had photographed a US aircraft carrrier or the Iranian Minister of Defense blessing a new production line for an anti-aircraft missile).
Step 3. The International Media Jump to the Iranian Bell and Bark "Crisis, Crisis, Crisis".
1110 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch (At the Movies). The American entertainment writer Anthony Kaufman, who organised the petition by prominent Hollywood filmmakers calling for the release of Iranian director Jafar Panahi from Evin Prison, has an update on his blog.
Kaufman summarises the campaign and notes the response of Tabnak in Iran: "“It’s up to the government security agencies and the justice system to counter such poisonous media activities against the regime with providing clear explanation of the reasons for Panahi’s arrest and offering all the available evidence and documents against him. They should prevent such subversive behaviors against the regime and not allow the foot soldiers of the West’s media war to distort the truth by portraying Panahi as being innocent.”
1030 GMT: Iran and the Status of Women. The controversy over Iran's accession to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women rumbles on. Mission Free Iran has launched a vigorous campaign to rebuke the UN and those governments, including the US, who voted by acclamation to seat Iran.
0745 GMT: Tuesday Funnies. Fox News gives us a present of one of the worst --- and thus funniest --- pieces of "investigative reporting" we've seen recently. We've posted it in a separate entry: "Bin Laden in Tehran Shocker".
0740 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Rah-e-Sabz alleges that a dubious record has been set with more than 40 years of prison time handed out to political detainees in a single day.
The website also claims Professor Davoud Soleymani is in critical condition in Section 350 of Evin Prison.
0730 GMT: Greens and Azeris. Yesterday we summarised the discussion between between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Iranian Azeri reformists on how to maintain communications and promote the demands of the opposition. A couple of additional points of interest.
The meeting took place in Tehran, which brings to mind how the Iranian regime blocked Mousavi from traveled to Tabriz, the largest city in Iranian Azerbaijan, on 22 Bahman (11 February). So if Mir Hossein can't go to the mountain, then....
In addition to seeing Mousavi, the Azeri delegation also met Mohammad Khatami, Mehdi Karroubi, Behzad Nabavi, and Mohsen Mirdamadi.
0725 GMT: Preventing Unity? Reformist member of Parliament Majid Nasirpour has claimed that "hardliners" are trying to cut any relationship between moderates and reformists.
0720 GMT: Cover-Up. Reformist member of Parliament Jamshid Ansari has repeated his claim that the Majlis had no "truth-finding commission" to investigate the June 2009 attacks on Tehran University's dormitories and that no report will be produced.
0635 GMT: Kahrizak Reopened? A few days ago, Mehdi Khazali, who holds markedly different views from his father, the "conservative" Ayatollah Khazali. asserted that Kahrizak Prison --- notorious for the abuse and death of post-election detainees and supposedly closed on orders of the Supreme Leader --- had been reopened under a different name.
The allegation is now getting political traction: the reformist member of Parliament Darius Ghanbari has asked for an immediate Majlis investigation.
0630 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Rah-e-Sabz, claiming sources close to the Expediency Council, claims former President Hashemi Rafsanjani (the chairman of the Council) is continuing to refuse his role as a Tehran Friday Prayer leader for two reasons: "unkindnesses of officials" and fear of possible uproar and harm to demonstrators.
Rafsanjani last presided at Friday Prayers in mid-July.
0625 GMT: Parliament's New Campaign. Another front in the contest between the Majlis and the Ahmadinejad Government is opened, as MPs propose the impeachment of Minister of Interior Mohammad Ali Najjar for "militarisation" of his Ministry and ineptitude.
0620 GMT: Meeting Across the Fence. How was it that Mehdi Karroubi engaged in friendly conversation last Saturday with his opponents, such as Ali Larijani, at the memorial service for the father of Minister of Culture Mohammad Hosseini? Peyke Iran offers context with a profile of four Hosseini brothers with very different political views.
0615 GMT: The Stabbing Victim. An update on Amir Kabir University professor and former minister Ahmad Motamedi, who was stabbed in his office yesterday. He is out of danger after four hours of surgery. Rah-e-Sabz reports he was attacked with a long dagger (ghameh), cutting the artery between liver and kidney.
0540 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. An Iranian activist reports that the manager of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign amongst Tehran students, Ali Vaghfi, has been sentenced to one year in prison with a further five years suspended.
0530 GMT: The showpiece speeches of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hillary Clinton (videos in a separate entry) have been delivered at the United Nations conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The expected grandstanding came from both sides: Ahmadinejad trying to bury the discussion of further sanctions on Iran and seeking to score big in the Middle East with his denunciation of the US and Israel and 11-point proposal for global disarmament, Clinton castigating Tehran's "diversion" while holding out the prospect of "weapons-free zones" in Africa and the South Pacific.
There was no commitment, however, to disarmament in the Middle East, the one initiative that could make a real difference in the US-Iran case, because of the one word missing from Clinton's speech (clue: it begins with an "I"). So one can only hope that the month-long conference, if it is to have any success, gets beyond yesterday's reduction to a US-Iran scrap and that attention to "Iran" goes beyond the nuclear focus.
The speeches on Monday by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the opening session of the United Nations 5-Year Review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The transcript of Ahmadinejad's speech has been posted in a PDF file by the UN; Clinton's transcript follows the two videos.
SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to thank the Secretary General, Director General Amano, Ambassador Cabactulan, for their outstanding leadership in pulling together this Review Conference and addressing the challenges of nuclear proliferation.
As you know, President Obama has made reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons and materials a central mission of our foreign policy, and the NPT lies at the core of that mission. I want to begin by reading a section of the message that President Obama has sent to this conference:
“For four decades, the NPT has been the cornerstone of our collective efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But today, this regime is under increasing pressure. A year ago in Prague, I therefore made it a priority of the United States to strengthen each of the treaty’s key pillars as we work to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to pursue the peace and security of a world without them.
“Today, the eyes of the world are upon us. Over the coming weeks, each of our nations will have the opportunity to show where we stand. Will we meet our responsibilities or shirk them? Will we ensure the rights of nations or undermine them? In short, do we seek a 21st century of more nuclear weapons or a world without them? These are the questions we must answer and the challenges we must meet. At this conference and beyond, let us come together in partnership to pursue the peace and security that our people deserve.”
Now, President Obama and I know that there are many different perspectives and historical experiences represented in this room. We know there are doubts among some about whether nuclear weapons states, including my own country, are prepared to help lead this effort. I am here to tell you as clearly as I can: The United States will do its part. I represent a President and a country committed to a vision of a world without nuclear weapons and to taking the concrete steps necessary that will help us get there. And along with my delegation, I come to this conference with sincere and serious proposals to advance the fundamental aims of the NPT and strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.
Now, President Obama and I have spoken often of rights and responsibilities, and for us that’s not just a slogan; it is the guiding principles of our efforts. We recognize the rights of all countries in compliance with the treaty to realize the benefits of nuclear energy. And we recognize our responsibility to commit the resources that will help spread those benefits as widely as possible.
We also recognize our responsibility as a nuclear weapons state to move toward disarmament, and that is exactly what we are doing. And as we work to uphold our end of the basic bargain of the NPT, we are asking all signatories to do the same, to work with us to strengthen global nonproliferation rules and hold accountable those who violate them.
So as we begin this conference, let’s remember why we are here, because it is easy to get lost in the jargon and the technical disputes. But there is a deeper mission here to create a safer world where all of our children and grandchildren can realize their God-given potential without the threat of nuclear proliferation.
This meeting comes 40 years after the NPT first entered into force. At that time, the world was at a crossroads. President Kennedy had warned that by the year 1975, up to 20 countries might have nuclear weapons, and many said that nuclear proliferation was inevitable. Well, today we can be grateful that this treaty helped dispel the darkest predictions of that era and that a nuclear weapon has not been used in those four decades.
Yet as we recognize the significance of the NPT, we must also acknowledge that like our predecessors 40 years ago, we stand at a crossroads too. Once again, we face the prospect of a new wave of proliferation. Once again, we hear claims that the spread of nuclear weapons is unavoidable. And once again, some say we must learn to live with the fear and instability of a world with more and more nuclear-armed states and networks.
Now, today, the vast majority of states are living up to their nonproliferation obligations. But a few outliers have demonstrated a determination to violate the rules and defy the international community. During the past decade, one state said it was withdrawing from the NPT after being caught cheating and subsequently announced two nuclear tests. Another has cynically claimed to be abiding by the treaty while violating its safeguards, expanding its enrichment program, failing to cooperate with the IAEA, and ignoring the injunctions of the Security Council.
But amid these challenges, once again, most nations have the opportunity to choose a different path. And the message that President Obama delivered in Prague last year has a new urgency. Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. And the world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now, at this conference, it is time for a strong international response.
These Review Conferences have been held every five years for the last four decades, but too often they have fractured along familiar lines: nuclear weapons states versus non-nuclear-weapons states, or the Western Group versus the Non-Aligned Movement. Instead of working together to meet a common challenge, we have retreated into predictable positions to protect our presumed interest. This time must be different. As one minister said to me, “We not only must think out of the box, we must think out of the blocs.”
We know there are some countries who will choose not to be constructive. This morning, Iran’s president offered the same tired, false, and sometimes wild accusations against the United States and other parties at this conference. But that’s not surprising. As you all heard this morning, Iran will do whatever it can to divert attention away from its own record and to attempt to evade accountability. Ultimately, however, we will all be judged not for our words but for our actions. And we will all be measured not by how assertively we claim our rights but by how faithfully we uphold our responsibilities. And as the Secretary General said, in this regard the onus is on Iran. So far, it has failed to meet its burden. Iran is the only country represented in this hall that has been found by the IAEA Board of Governors to be currently in noncompliance with its nuclear safeguards obligations – the only one. It has defied the UN Security Council and the IAEA, and placed the future of the nonproliferation regime in jeopardy. And that is why it is facing increasing isolation and pressure from the international community.
But Iran will not succeed in its efforts to divert and divide. The United States and the great majority of the nations represented here come to this conference with a much larger agenda: to strengthen a global nonproliferation regime that advances the security of all nations, to advance both our rights and our responsibilities. So now is the time to focus on promoting practical solutions, not pursuing unrealistic agendas. Now is the time to build consensus, not to block it. And I call on Iran to join with all the other delegations represented at this meeting to go ahead and fulfill our international obligations and work toward the goal of a safer world.
The stakes are as high as they were at the dawn of the NPT. And we cannot fall into the ruts left over from old divisions. So rather than allow a small minority to focus attention on our differences, we must acknowledge we are all in this together and set a course for 40 more years of progress to stem the tide of proliferation, prevent the use of these weapons, and use nuclear power for the purpose of peace and prosperity.
So to realize this goal, we must recommit ourselves to strengthening the three pillars of the nonproliferation regime. And with respect to those three pillars – nuclear disarmament, access to civilian nuclear energy, and nonproliferation – this Administration, the United States has led through deeds, not simply through words. Our commitment to the NPT begins with our efforts to reduce the role and number of nuclear weapons in our own arsenal. When President Obama came into office, he recognized that the greatest potential danger facing the United States comes from a terrorist group like al-Qaida obtaining a crude nuclear device, not from a global nuclear war. And we know that the threats of the 21stcentury cannot be addressed with a massive nuclear stockpile. So we are taking irreversible, transparent, verifiable steps to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons in our arsenal. Our new START treaty with Russia will limit the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by our countries to levels not seen since the 1950s. This agreement is consistent with the Secretary General’s call to pursue nuclear disarmament through agreement on a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments.
Our Nuclear Posture Review ruled out the development of new U.S. nuclear weapons and new missions and capabilities for our existing weapons. It also stated we will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapons states that are parties to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. We have made a commitment to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and we are ready – past ready – to start multilateral negotiations on a verifiable Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty.
And today, I am announcing we will submit protocols to the United States Senate to ratify our participation in the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established in Africa and the South Pacific. Upon ratification, parties to those agreements will have a legally binding assurance that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against them, and will fully respect the nuclear-weapons-free status of the zones. And we are prepared to consult with the parties to the nuclear-weapons-free zones in Central and Southeast Asia, in an effort to reach agreement that would allow us to sign those protocols as well.
We support efforts to realize the goal of a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East, in accordance with the 1995 Middle East Resolution. The Middle East may present the greatest threat of nuclear proliferation in the world today. Adherence to the NPT is not universal, and a few countries that are parties to the NPT have violated their treaty obligations. But in spite of these difficulties, we want to reaffirm our commitment to the objective of a Middle East free of these weapons of mass destruction, and we are prepared to support practical measures that will move us toward achieving that objective.
President Obama has made clear the Unites States will retain a nuclear deterrent for as long as nuclear weapons exist, one that can protect our country and our allies. But we will continue to seek further reductions and we will pursue concrete steps to improve the transparency of our nuclear arsenal. Beginning today, the United States will make public the number of nuclear weapons in our stockpile and the number of weapons we have dismantled since 1991.
So for those who doubt that the United States will do its part on disarmament, this is our record, these are our commitments, and they send a clear, unmistakable signal. We are also committed to bolstering another pillar: access to civilian nuclear energy. We unequivocally support the rights of states that are in compliance with the treaty to access nuclear technology and energy for peaceful purposes. The IAEA’s high-end projection for new nuclear capacity has nearly doubled since the last Review Conference five years ago. And the United States wants to help expand the ability of all states to utilize peaceful nuclear energy. Over the past decade, we’ve provided nearly $200 million to support the IAEA’s Technical Cooperation Fund. We are the largest contributor to that effort. And it has helped more than 100 countries develop or expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Today, the President has asked me to announce that the United States will make an additional commitment of $50 million over the next five years for a new IAEA Peaceful Uses Initiative. We hope other partners will match this contribution with an additional $50 million. We will use these resources to improve health care and nutrition, manage water resources, increase food security, and help countries develop the infrastructure for the safe and secure use of nuclear power.
We are pleased that the IAEA’s director general has made expanding use of civil nuclear energy for humanitarian purposes one of his signature initiatives. The United States is also strengthening bilateral technical cooperation arrangements with more than 40 states, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, and Southeast Asia.
But this treaty is weakened when a state flouts the rules and develops illicit nuclear weapons capabilities. So as we pursue progress on these pillars, we must recommit our nations to bolster the nonproliferation regime. When leaders of the IAEA ask for more resources and authority to carry out their mission of verifying compliance with nonproliferation obligations, we must respond. When the IAEA calls on states to sign and ratify an additional protocol to ensure that parties to the NPT are meeting their treaty obligations, we must act.
But improving the IAEA’s ability to detect safeguard violations is not enough. Potential violators must know that they will pay a high price if they break the rules, and that is certainly not the case today. The international community’s record of enforcing compliance in recent years is unacceptable. So we need to consider automatic penalties for the violation of safeguards agreements such as suspending all international nuclear cooperation or IAEA technical cooperation projects until compliance has been restored. And we must use all of the possible financial and legal tools to disrupt illicit proliferation networks. That means tightening controls on transshipment and enhancing restrictions on transfers of sensitive technology. We should also find ways to dissuade states from utilizing the treaty’s withdrawal provision to avoid accountability.
Now, I am not proposing to amend the treaty to limit the rights of states to withdraw. But we cannot stand by when a state committing treaty violations says it will pull out of the NPT in an attempt to escape penalties and even pursue nuclear weapons. Parties to the NPT have invested decades in building a global nonproliferation regime, and that work will be rendered meaningless if the international community continues allowing nations to break the rules of the NPT with impunity.
Our work at this conference must provide a foundation for future actions, including strengthening IAEA safeguards, negotiating a fissile material cutoff treaty at the Conference on Disarmament and toughening enforcement against proliferation violations at the UN Security Council.
The last 40 years have proved that nuclear proliferation is not inevitable. We believe it can be stopped, but it will take all of us here recognizing common dangers and finding common ground, rolling up our sleeves and getting creative, taking practical steps together in the next month.
A lot of skeptics out there say that when countries gather at the United Nations, nothing happens but a lot of words are used up. Well, it is up to us at this conference to prove those doubters wrong. Forty years from now, our successors will mark the 80th anniversary of the Nonproliferation Treaty. And the men and women, who gather on that occasion in the new building, once it is finally completed, will not remember the words we speak today unless those words are matched by actions. But our children and our grandchildren will live with the consequences of what we decide this month. Whether the world is more or less secure depends on the path we take, and there is no greater reason than that to find a way to act together and to act decisively.
1915 GMT: Start with a Sideshow, End with a Sideshow. Not our top priority at EA, but as most of the media will be focused on Tuesday on the Ahmadinejad presentation, you can check coverage against the published text. And here's the video of the speech [now posted as a separate entry, together with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's presentation].
1830 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Navid Khanjani, a founder of the Population of Combat Against Educational Discrimination (PCED) and a member of the Committee of Human Rights Reporters (CHRR), has been released on bail after two months in detention.
1740 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Poorya Ghorbani, detained on Ashura (27 December), has been sentenced to six years in prison: four years for acting against national security, one year for propagating against the regime, and one year for insulting the Supreme Leader.
1700 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Gambit. The President's strategy at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation conference at the United Nations was simply, "Go Big".
The speech was dressed up as a declaration of 11 measures to lead to a nuclear-free world, but it effectively tried to block Western pressure on Iran's nuclear programme by proposing an entirely new system for international supervision. There would be a review of the Non-Profileration Treaty, a new independent agency to interpret the NPT, and states using or threatening to use nuclear weapons (effectively, the US) being expelled from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear states would promise not to pursue research and development of new weapons, while non-nuclear states would be given security guarantees.
This large proposal can be reduced to a dual gambit. On the international front, it is meant to check the pressure on Iran's nuclear programme from the US and other states. And on the domestic front, well, it's meant to take attention away from the domestic front.
1620 GMT: Meanwhile in Iran. Mir Hossein Mousavi met today with Iranian Azeri activists to discuss how to cope with the regime's restrictions on media, finding new ways to remain connected and to promote further interaction between reformist parties and the people.
Mousavi said, “We are moving within a moral framework, and for this reason during any event, the Green Movement has recognised the good and the bad for what they were. For this reason, the Green Movement will acknowledge any positive move on the part of certain segmants of the state which have until now stood against the vote and opinion of the people.”
Mousavi added that, while Iranian authorities have become captives of their own claims about the alleged links between the post-election protesters and foreign powers, the opposition will win out:
This approach [by the regime] may unite them for the time being, but it cannot prevent the truth from showing itself ... One cannot stop spring from arriving. Spring will come and greenness will prevail everywhere. This movement should not only be seen in the context of the street protests. The roots of this movement are undeniable. This movement eliminates ignorance. When people come together on different occasions, this is the greatest accomplishment [for the movement] and what is important is that this idea has been born.
In the specific context of Iranian Azeris and ethnic minorities, Mousavi maintained that the authorities' attitude and policies towards cultural diversity had not been appropriate. He made clear that he was against any form of separatism and stated that, on a national level, there was no place for those with separatist agendas.
1615 GMT: Al Jazeera is now reporting that the French delegation also left the conference hall.
1610 GMT: Walking Out on Ahmadinejad. Nothing surprising in the President's speech at the UN conference on Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: it's a harsh denunciation of the US and Israel as nuclear powers with double standards discriminating against non-nuclear states and threatening the world.
The twist in the show's script, however, is that the British and US delegations (and possibly others unseen by Al Jazeera's cameras) have just walked out.
1420 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Maziar Khosravi, the editor of the Hammihan website, has been arrested and taken to Evin Prison. Khazravi had recently written an article about the attacks on Tehran University's dormitories days after the Presidential election.
The National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC) has offered to assist the US in efforts to prevent an ecological disaster from the spreading oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico....NIDC managing director Heidar Bahmani announced the firm's readiness to use its decades-long expertise to fight the oil slick, the company's public relations office told Press TV. "Our oil industry experts in the field of drilling can contain the rig leakage in the Gulf of Mexico and prevent an ecological disaster in that part of the world," Bahmani said.
1410 GMT: The Stabbing of the Minister. Amir Kabir University students are staging a sit-in protest over this morning's knife attack on professor and former Minister Ahmad Motamedi (see 1100 GMT).
1400 GMT: Top May Day Quote. Leaving the memorial service for the father of the Minister of Culture, Mohammad Hosseini, Mehdi Karroubi was heckled by a group of men he believed were plainclothes security officers. Karroubi approached the group and pondered why they might be present at a May Day demonstration: "It looks like your unemployment problem has been solved!"
1055 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Ehsan Mehrabi has been released on bail.
Students at Allameh Tabatabei University have remembered their imprisoned professor Arab Mazar by sticking flowers to the door of his office and leaving messages of support.
1050 GMT: Detaining Teachers. Human Rights Activists News Agency has confirmed the names of 11 teachers arrested yesterday on National Teachers Day.
1035 GMT: Unity Does Not Mean Repression. Massoud Pezeshkian, Minister of Health from 2001 to 2005, has declared that "unity" is not possible by arresting, beating and issuing files, but requires cooperation and a desire not to create division in society.
1025 GMT: Clerical Challenge. Ayatollah Mousavi Tabrizi has renewed his criticism of the Government, saying that the judiciary does not follow justice in acting against law-breakers: those are poor or who do not have links to power or influence have no guarantees that they will be treated justly. Mousavi Tabrizi added that the Parliament does have not power to make laws, and those that they do pass are not implemented due to ineptitude.
1000 GMT: The Naderan Allegations. Yesterday we reported on the sweeping allegations of member of Parliament Elyas Naderan, linking charges of corruption to mismanagement and manipulation of power by the Ahmadinejad Government.
Khabar Online (gentle reminder: linked to Ali Larijani) has driven home the point with a lengthy English translation of Naderan's assertions:
Based on the experiences of the ninth government and his chanted slogans [2005-2009] on fighting with corrupt economy figures, Mr. Ahmadinejad was expected to revise the appointment of some government managers. He was supposed to make up for the shortcomings of the ninth administration and remove the concerns of his defenders including members of Hezbollah (Party of God) but actually the opposite happened....
On the one hand Mr. Ahmadinejad removed a number of ministers who were mostly dedicated to serve the Islamic Republic including Lankarani, Mohseni Ejei, Saffar Harandi, Fattah, and Jahromi [former Health, Interior, Culture and Islamic Guidance, Energy, and Labor and Social Affairs Ministers] and made new appointments of some whose unpleasant and negative characters are known to the majority of people and elites.
Naderan then focused on changes Iran's oil industry:
A few days ago, the Minister of Oil Mas'oud Mir Kazemi assigned Mr. Qal'eh Bani as the new managing director of National Iranian Oil Refining and Distribution Company (NIORDC). Earlier when Mr. Qal'eh Bani was to be appointed as the head of Industrial Development and Renovation Organization of Iran (IDRO), his suspicious financial activities was revealed through some documents published by Alef website [which belongs to the Principlist MP and Government critic Ahmad Tavakoli].
Later Qal'eh Bani filed a lawsuit against the website but to no avail, since the managing editor of Alef was acquitted of charges. At the time I think that the Minister of industry, Ali Akbar Mehrabian had made such a decision himself [to bring the lawsuit] to perpetuate his position, but now it's clear that the decisions are made at a higher rank. We must bear in mind that the financial authority of the NIORDC managing director is much more than any other in both governmental and nongovernmental organizations of the country.
Naderan concluded, "Such removals and assignments enhance the suspicion that these are intended to put an impact on the forthcoming elections," arguing that Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai (who was blocked by Parliament from serving as 1st Vice President) has intervened in the next elections for city and village councils.
0755 GMT: As for Rafsanjani.... More on Hashemi Rafsanjani's statement yesterday to academics who are members of Parliament. The former President again played his balancing act, saying "illegal actions from each group cause serious public misbelief".
0750 GMT: Larijani Watch. Looks like Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani is bolstering his political position through another call of allegiance to the Supreme Leader. In an article in Khabar Online, he has said that "hardliners must unite", be pious, and accept velayat-e-faqih (ultimate clerical authority). ht
0615 GMT: Remembering the Teachers. Sunday's National Teachers Day passed with little fanfare, despite some talk about protest and hunger strikes amidst detentions and firings that have taken teachers out of the classroom. Photos from Shiraz are among the few markers we have noted of the day:
0605 GMT: Corruption Watch. The sky over alleged mismanagement and fraud involving members of the Ahmadinejad Government is getting darker.
In our fight against economic corruption, there are rumours of opposition from certain individuals which unfortunately have also gotten into the media with amateur coverage....The judiciary will never allow people to take possession of public property and the treasury for themselves and their children through cheating and falsifying documents.
It remains to be seen whehter Larijani's defensive remarks --- yes, we really are going to pursue the corruption allegations, even if high-ranking officials are involved --- are more than public protest.
Meanwhile, Elyas Naderan, the member of Parliament who has accused 1st Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi of running a corruption ring, told a group of university students, “In government meetings it has been announced that whoever speaks out against Mr. Rahimi will be dealt with.” He repeated that, as Rahimi is a liar and his credentials are fabricated, the Vice President is unfit for his position in the government.
0555 GMT: For most media, inside and outside Iran, today will almost certainly be taken up by the sideshow of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's trip to New York. The Iranian President, at relatively short notice, asked to attend the United Nations conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the US Government, after some speculation that it might balk at the request, granted a visa. So Ahmadinejad took off from Tehran yesterday, with the conference and Mahmoud's moment in the cameras taking place today.
There is a chance that, behind the scenes, there may be some meaningful manoeuvring over the "third-party enrichment" proposal for Iran's uranium stock, given the presence at an international gathering of brokers (Turkey, Brazil), the "5+1" powers taking up the issue (Britain, France, China, Russia, Germany, and, most significantly, the US), and Iranian officials.
Publicly, however, the headline is Diversion. Just as Ahmadinejad used a trip to New York last autumn, with the guaranteed pantomime coverage of "Western" vilification and Iranian state media's glorification, so we are likely to get an outcome bigging up the President's international presence and belittling (if noting at all) the internal dynamics in Iran.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton popped up on NBC Television's Meet the Press on Sunday. The chat started initially with domestic issues --- the oil spill off the Louisiana coast and immigration --- but then took in Afghanistan, Iran, and Sudan.
Notable points are Clinton trying to evade both the question of an inclusion of the Taliban in the Afghanistan political process and the recent revelation of an expansion of the Taliban's influence across the south of the country and her snippy dismissal of President Ahmadinejad's appearance at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation conference at the United Nations: "I don't know what he's showing up for."
Clinton's appearance begins around the 11:00 mark in the video:
MR. GREGORY: What's certainly in the headlines this weekend is this oil spill off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi, and it becomes a bigger issue and even a national security issue in--as it applies to climate change, which is an issue that you've dealt with. How will the administration approach this, particularly given the president's interests in offshore drilling? Does that have to stop now?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, David, I think that the president has ordered the departments that deal with this, Homeland Security, Interior, Environmental Protection, Defense to all immediately, not only do everything possible to mitigate the effects of this spill, but to try to come up with recommendations going forward. First order of business, however, is to try to get this spill under control--which has been, as you know, very difficult--and to prevent further damage to the coastline along Louisiana to the fishing waters, to the wildlife. I think it does raise questions, which the president has said have to be answered. He put forth a very comprehensive approach that included the potential of drilling off of our own shore. That is a national security concern because we have to do better to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. But it has to be done safely. It can't be done at the risk of having to spend billions of dollars cleaning up these spills. So, as with so much in these difficult areas, it's going to require a balancing act.
MR. GREGORY: Another area that has become a domestic political debate over immigration has also taken on some international ramifications. Mexico, because of the law, the stringent law against--anti-immigration law passed in Arizona has issued a pretty unusual alert...
SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: ...to its own citizens traveling to Arizona. I'll put it up on the screen. This is the alert, a travel alert over Arizona immigration law. This is how the USA Today reported it on Wednesday. "The country warned that the state's adoption of a strict immigration enforcement law has created `a negative political environment for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.'
"`It must be assumed that every Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time,' according to the foreign ministry." The president, President Calderon, with whom you'll meet soon has talked about criminalizing--"this law criminalizes a largely social and economic phenomenon of migration." This is a pretty big shot across the bow to America here.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, it is, and, and I think if you look at it, again, you have a lot of unanswered questions. This law, which is clearly a result of the frustration that people in Arizona and their elected officials feel about the difficulty of enforcing the law along our border and preventing the continued immigration, people who are not documented. But on the other hand, it is written so broadly that if you were visiting in Arizona and you had an accent and you were a citizen from, you know, my state, of New York, you could be subjected to the kind of inquiry that is call--that this law permits.
MR. GREGORY: You think it invites profiling, racial profiling?
SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't think there's any doubt about that because, clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you're a legal resident, you still have to carry papers. Well, how are--how is a law enforcement official supposed to know? So, again, we have to try to balance the very legitimate concerns that Americans--not just people in Arizona, but across the country--have about safe and secure borders, about trying to have comprehensive immigration reform, with a law that I think does what a state doesn't have the authority to do, try to impose their own immigration law that is really the province of the federal government.
MR. GREGORY: That's important. Do you think this law will not stand up legally?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I don't want to offer a legal opinion. I, I think I'll leave that to the Justice Department, but I know the attorney general of Arizona has raised questions about the legality. And you're right, we have a visit from President Calderon coming up, a state visit. He's a very important partner to us on trying to stop illegal activity along our border--the importation of drugs, of arms, of human beings, all of the crime that that's associated with--and we believe that he has really done the best he can under very difficult circumstances to get this under control. We don't want to make his life any harder either. We want to try to support him in what has been a courageous campaign against the drug traffickers.
MR. GREGORY: Let me move on to some other issues that are obviously on your plate, which is a, a big plate of issues.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Yes.
MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Afghanistan. A big offensive is being planned for Kandahar, a very important visit by President Karzai's coming up after a period of turbulence between the U.S. and Karzai, which I know the administration has tried to tamp down. And yet, it's the nature of the insurgency that our fighting men and women are dealing with, and the Pentagon issued a report that was reported on by the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. Let me put it up on the screen. It says, "The report presented a sobering new assessment Wednesday of the Taliban-led insurgency in the country, saying that its abilities are expanding and its operations are increasing in sophistication, despite major offensives by U.S. forces in the militants' heartland," like Marja.
"The new report offers a grim take on the likely difficulty of establishing lasting security, especially in southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency enjoys broad support. The conclusions raise the prospect that the insurgency in the south may never be completely vanquished, but instead must be contained to prevent it from threatening the government of the President Harmid Karzai."
A narrow question here. Are you resigned to the fact that the Taliban, the insurgency, will have to be a part of this government in the future?
SEC'Y CLINTON: No. And let me start by putting the, the recent report from the Pentagon into context. It was a look back. It goes from last October through March. When we were devising the strategy that the president announced at West Point in early December, it was during the August, September, October, November period. And there was no doubt that the Taliban had the initiative, that there was a very serious threat to not only our forces, obviously, on the ground, but to the stability and security of Afghanistan.
MR. GREGORY: But you hear all this talk, and Karzai wants some kind of reconciliation with the Taliban as well.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, but, David, I think that we have to sort of sort out what we mean by that. We talk about reconciliation and reintegration. They may sound the same, but they're somewhat different concepts. Reintegration refers to the foot soldiers on the field who are coming in increasing numbers and saying, "Look, you know, we're fighting because we get paid. We're fighting because we were volunteered to fight because the Taliban came to our village and intimidated our, our, our elders. So there, there seems to be an ongoing movement of people sort of out of the battlefield. And General McChrystal and his commanders on the ground are seeing that and kind of organizing and running that.
The larger question about reconciliation--I don't know any conflict in recent times that didn't have some political resolution associated with it. People either got tired of fighting and decided they would engage in a peace process, they were defeated enough so that they were willing to lay down their arms. What President Karzai is saying, and we agree with this direction, is that you've got to look to see who is reconcilable. Not everybody will be. We don't expect Mullah Omar to show up and say, "Oh yeah, I'm giving up on my association with al-Qaeda, etc." But we do think that there are leaders within the Taliban--in fact, there are some already who have come over to the other side. Now, if they do so, they have to renounce al-Qaeda, they have to renounce violence, they have to give up their arms, and they have to be willing to abide by the Afghan constitution.
R. GREGORY: Another adversary, of course, gets us to Iran and the fact that President Ahmadinejad from Iran will be coming to New York to the U.N. for a nonproliferation meeting.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Right.
MR. GREGORY: You're moving down a path of sanctions, we understand what that is. Do you feel like he's going to try to show up here the early part of next week and steal the show?
SEC'Y CLINTON: I don't know what he's showing up for because the purpose of the non-proliferation treaty review conference is to reiterate the commitment of the international community to the three goals--disarmament, non-proliferation, the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. So the vast majority of countries are coming to see what progress we can make. And this is a very high priority for President Obama. It's why he pressed so hard for the START treaty, which he signed with President Medvedev in Prague. It's why he convened the nuclear security summit to highlight the threat posed by nuclear terrorism. It's why we have begun to work out deals with India and others for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, which countries are entitled to under the non-proliferation regime. If Iran is coming to say, "We're willing to abide by the non-proliferation treaty," that would be very welcome news. I have a feeling that's not what they're coming to do. I think they're coming to try to divert attention and confuse the issue. And there is no confusion. They have violated the terms of the NPT, they have been held under all kinds of restrictions and obligations that they have not complied with by the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, by the U.N. Security Council. So we're not going to permit Iran to try to change the, the story from their failure to comply and in any way upset the efforts we are in the midst of, which is to get the international community to adopt a strong Security Council resolution that further isolates them and imposes consequences for their behavior.
MR. GREGORY: Madam Secretary, I'd like to spend a couple minutes on some other global hot spots that you're dealing with. The first one is actually with America's strong ally in the U.K., in Great Britain. Very interesting election going on. You've got three candidates, a resurgent third party in the Social Democrats, televised debates. You know something about those.
SEC'Y CLINTON: I do.
MR. GREGORY: And as you watch what's going on there, do you think there's a movement that could spread? Do you see a third party becoming viable in the United States?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, let's see whether it's viable in the U.K. I, I don't know the answer to that. We had, in my lifetime, and certainly long before, viable third party candidates. We've, you know, had Ross Perot, John Anderson, you know, just within my voting history. I think there's always room in a democracy for people to bring their views to the forefront. But I think one of the real strengths of our system has been our two-party approach, where each party may frustrate some of its own members because they, they do have a broad cross-section of voters and opinions. But, look, I'm going to be as interested in anybody in seeing what happens in the election in Great Britain.
MR. GREGORY: Final one has to do with the election in Sudan, where you have Bashir as the victor. And yet, this is--Sudan is a sponsor of state terror, according to the State Department. And this is someone who's boasting about the results and keeping the United States at bay. Nicholas Kristof wrote this in The New York Times: "Until he reached the White House," President "Obama repeatedly insisted" the U.S. "apply more pressure on Sudan so as to avoid a humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur and elsewhere. Yet, as president, Mr. Obama and his aides have caved, leaving Sudan gloating at American weakness. ...
"President" Bashir, "al-Bashir of Sudan - the man wanted" ... "for crimes against humanity in Darfur - has been celebrating. His regime calls itself the National Congress Party, or N.C.P., and he was quoted in Sudan as telling a rally in the Blue Nile region:" Every America--"`Even America is becoming an N.C.P. member. No one is against our will.'
"Memo to Mr. Obama: When a man who has been charged with crimes against humanity tells the world that America is in his pocket, it's time to review your policy." What do you say?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I would say that, number one, I, I can't take anything seriously that Bashir says. He is an indicted war criminal. The United States is very committed to seeing him brought to justice. But let's look at what's happening in Sudan, because I have the greatest respect, of course, for Nic Kristof and others who share my deep dismay at events in Sudan. But here's what we're trying to do. When we came into office, Bashir threw out the, the groups, the non-governmental organizations who were providing most of the aid in the camps in Darfur, which could have been a disastrous humanitarian crisis. We were able to get a lot of the help back in, and we're beginning to see some slight progress in Darfur. I don't want to overstate it because it is still a deplorable situation. But we're working to try to get the people back to their homes, out of the camps. At the same time, you had this election going on. It was, by any measure, a flawed election. There were many, many things wrong with it, but there hadn't been an election in many years. And so part of our goal was to try to empower opposition parties, empower people to go out and vote. Thousands and thousands did. The result, I think, was pretty much foreordained that Bashir would come out the winner, and that's unfortunate. We are turning all of our attention to trying to help the south and to mitigate against the attitudes of the north. I, I can't sit here and say that we are satisfied because I'm certainly not satisfied with where we are and what we're doing, but it is an immensely complicated arena.
Now, the United States could back off and say, "We won't deal with these people, we're not going to have anything to do with them, Bashir is a war criminal." I don't think that will improve the situation. So along with our partners--the U.K., Norway, neighboring countries--we are trying to manage what is a very explosive problem.
MR. GREGORY: Just a couple minutes left. I want to ask you about another big thrust of your time as secretary of State, and that is forging--well, I should say, a realization that there are limits to what government can accomplish around the world.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: You have spent a lot of time working with the private sector...
SEC'Y CLINTON: Mm-hmm.
MR. GREGORY: ...to achieve certain commercial goals, also to achieve goals like the empowerment of women. You've got an announcement this, this weekend having to do with the China Expo...
SEC'Y CLINTON: Right.
MR. GREGORY: ...and the U.S. role in the China Expo, as well as efforts to empower women around the world in developing countries through the help of the private sector. Why is this really the, the route of the future for the government?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Thank you for asking me that because that is exactly what I believe, that diplomacy today is not just government to government. Part of what I had to do when I became secretary of State was to rebuild America's image, standing, and leadership in the world; and certainly President Obama is, you know, our greatest advocate of that. But you can't just do that by the government saying things or even by our president making incredibly important speeches. You have to begin to engage the people in other countries; and, in order to do that effectively, I want more people to people contacts, I want more private sector partnerships with our public sector and with people around the world.
Let me give you two quick examples. You mentioned the Shanghai Expo. You know, there are probably 70 million plus people who go through that Expo. When I became secretary of State, there was no money raised because we don't put public money into a project like that. So with the help of a lot of very dedicated corporate sponsors, we now will be a player in that Expo. Now, what does that mean? Well, when those 70 million Chinese, mostly Chinese, but people from elsewhere in the world, go through, they're going to learn something about America. They're going to learn something about, you know, our values, about our products, about, you know, how we live. I think that helps to build the kind of understanding and connection that is at the root of good relations.
And on women's issues, we just had a great announcement through the combined efforts of a number of corporate sponsors, foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation. We're going to be working to help empower women doing what they do best and to try to up their education levels, their health levels. Why does this matter? Because it's the United States doing it. And it's not just the United States government, it's the people of the United States.
MR. GREGORY: Before you go, a question about whether you think it's realistic that you will stay on as secretary of State for the balance of the first term.
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I intend to, yeah.
MR. GREGORY: You do intend to?
SEC'Y CLINTON: I intend to, yeah. But, I mean, you know, people have been asking me this and in, in the interest of full disclosure, it is an exhausting job. But I enjoy it, I have a great time doing it. I feel like we're making a difference around the world, that--you know, I'm a big believer in setting goals, having a vision of where we're trying to get, but then trying to translate that into what we do today and what we do tomorrow. And we've made a lot of progress. We face incredibly difficult problems.
MR. GREGORY: But so, you, you think you'll stay for the whole first term?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Well, I think so. I think so. I mean, look, you know, ask me next month and the month after that. But that certainly is my intention.
MR. GREGORY: And yet you don't care to be on the Supreme Court?
SEC'Y CLINTON: Oh, never. I mean, I'm glad, I'm glad you asked me that.
MR. GREGORY: You're a lawyer with all that background.
SEC'Y CLINTON: I am--I do not and have never wanted to be a judge, ever. I mean, that has never been anything that I even let cross my mind because it's just not my personality.
MR. GREGORY: Do you think the president should pick another women--woman this time?
SEC'Y CLINTON: I think he should pick a very well-qualified, people-savvy, young person to be on the Court to really help to shape the jurisprudence going forward. I think that, you know, it's not a surprise that there's a real division on the Court, and a lot of decisions that have great ramifications for the people of our country, that I would like to see someone put on the Court who can really try to shift the direction of the current Court.
MR. GREGORY: Secretary Clinton, thank you, as always.
Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 7:21 
The Ahmadinedjad roadshow in the US has finally closed. Given that it was a last-minute decision for the Iranian President to go to New York for the nuclear non-proliferation conference, this was a major public-relations campaign. There were at least three significant television appearances --- one of them on a national morning programme --- and several newspaper interviews in addition to the United Nations speech.
