Iran: The Campaign to Free Atefeh Nabavi

An EA reader brings us news of a campaign on behalf of Atefeh Nabavi (Persian-language site here), the first woman to receive a prison sentence for post-election protest. Nabavi was sentenced on Tuesday to a mandatory four years in jail for participating in the mass demonstration on 15 June, three days after the disputed Presidential vote.

The campaign, "I Am Atefeh", has been been launched by social activists. It urges people to write about their participation in protests, confessing that they committed the same "crime" as Nabavi: “We want to say that we too think like Atefeh. We are all Atefeh. You have to imprison us all.” As one demonstrator has written, "I along with millions of other citizens, who were present on that afternoon, all belong in prison with Atefeh. Either she is not guilty or we are all criminals."

The Latest from Iran (27 November): Where Now?

2020 GMT: We've posted news of a campaign, "I Am Atefeh", to express support for Atefeh Nabavi, the first woman jailed for post-election protest.

2015 GMT: Ayatollah JavAdi-Amoli announced, during today's Friday Prayers in Qom, that this was his last sermon. Since June, Javadi-Amoli had expressed his displeasure over post-election events.

NEW Iran: The Campaign to Free Atefeh Nabavi
NEW Iran: A Nobel Gesture from Obama Towards the Green Movement?
NEW Iran’s Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? A Discussion on (Non)-Violence
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? The EA Discussion
Latest Iran Video: BBC’s Neda Documentary “An Iranian Martyr”
NEW Iran MediaWatch: Has “Green Reform” Disappeared in Washington?
NEW Iran: 3 Problems (for the Greens, for the US, for Ahmadinejad
The Latest from Iran (26 November): Corridors of Conflict

1815 GMT: One More Time --- The Talks Go On (But Time for Tehran to Deal). Here's the White House statement on today's IAEA resolution:

Today's overwhelming vote at the IAEA's Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program. It underscores broad consensus in calling upon Iran to live up to its international obligations and offer transparency in its nuclear program. It also underscores a commitment to strengthen the rules of the international system, and to support the ability of the IAEA and UN Security Council to enforce the rules of the road, and to hold Iran accountable to those rules. Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions.

The United States has strongly supported the Director General’s positive proposal to provide Iran fuel for its Tehran Research Reactor - a proposal intended to help meet the medical and humanitarian needs of the Iranian people while building confidence in Iran’s intentions. The United States has recognized Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy and remains willing to engage Iran to work toward a diplomatic solution to the concerns about its nuclear program, if - and only if - Iran chooses such a course. To date, Iran has refused a follow-on meeting to the October 1 meeting with the P5+1 countries if its nuclear program is included on the agenda. Our patience and that of the international community is limited, and time is running out. If Iran refuses to meet its obligations, then it will be responsible for its own growing isolation and the consequences.

Here's what it means:

1. The second enrichment plant at Fordoo near Qom --- of no relevance except as pretext;
2. The El Baradei statement of a "dead end" on verification --- tangential
3. The Iranian response to the Vienna "third-party enrichment" deal --- the be-all and end-all of this meeting.

In other words, this IAEA meeting has been a two-day setpiece to put Tehran's feet to the fire on the October proposal. If Iran now refuses that plan, and if the "West" decides that the Tehran counter-offer of a "swap" is out of bounds, then and only then will there a move beyond engagement. Even then, it is far from clear if that push for sanctions will have any backing from Russia and China.

1455 GMT: Forgive us for being Nukes, Nukes, Nukes, but little else is breaking at the moment. More posturing, this time from Iran's ambassador to the IAEA Ali Asghar Soltanieh, but note that this follows script of keeping channel open for discussions --- "jeopardise" is a mild democratic warning not to go farther:

.Adoption of this resolution is not only unhelpful in improving the current situation, but it will jeopardise the conducive environment vitally needed for success in the process of Geneva and Vienna negotiations expected to lead to a common understanding.

1355 GMT: At some point someone is going to figure out that IAEA members have not forced a showdown with Iran and, indeed, that they have not even moved away from talks and towards further sanctions. Here's the latest coded signal, courtesy of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband:

The resolution passed today by the IAEA Board of Governors sends the strongest possible signal to Iran that its actions and intentions remain a matter of grave international concern. As the resolution makes clear, Iran needs to comply with its obligations both to the IAEA and to the UNSC. Unless it does this, it remains impossible for the international community to have any confidence in Iranian intentions.

Britain and the other members of the E3+3 have made it very clear that our hand is stretched out to Iran. We are waiting for Iran to respond meaningfully. But if it is clear that Iran has chosen not to do so, we will have no alternative but to consider further pressure on Iran, in line with the dual track policy we have been pursuing.

And this position is not altered by Prime Minister Gordon Brown's rhetorical blast: "[Iran] should accept the offers that have been made that they can have civil nuclear power with our support, but they've got to renounce nuclear weapons. I believe the next stage will have to be sanctions if Iran does not respond to what is a very clear vote from the world community."

1210 GMT: We've just posted an urgent assessment on the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution, passed today, on Iran's nuclear programme. The real significance --- and this is being missed by the media, who are just following the original Reuters report (see Al Jazeera English, for example) --- is that it is a very mild rebuke of Iran. That in turn means talks with Tehran on uranium enrichment are still alive.

1120 GMT: Iran's Nobel Prize Response. We saw this one coming yesterday when we reported on the Iranian Government's seizure of the Nobel Peace Prize medal and diploma of lawyer and human rights activist Shirin Ebadi. Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast said today, "Much the same as European countries, tax evasion is a crime in Iran and individuals would face legal penalties should they commit such an act."

Mehman-Parast added that if Norwegian officials really cared about human rights, they would not have abstained in the United Nations vote on the Goldstone Report on the Gaza War.

1023 GMT: Filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf has won the Freedom to Create Prize, donating the $125,000 prize to non-governmental organisations helping victims of Iran's post-election conflict and dedicating the award to Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. A video of the presentation has been posted on YouTube.

0955 GMT: Nuke Update. Nothing yet coming out of the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting in Vienna. The media, as in this CNN report, is just recycling yesterday's leaked soundbite of Mohammad El Baradei's statement that IAEA analysis of Iran's nuclear status is at a "dead end".

0945 GMT: Dutch television has obtained an interview with Mehdi Karroubi. The exchange is in Farsi with Dutch subtitles.

0830 GMT: Morning Media Moment. Emily Landau of The Jerusalem Post gets in a pre-emptive strike of fanciful "analysis" with her claim, "Dangerous Misreading Iran". That "misreading" is any thought that Iran's position in the nuclear talks is affected by internal development and, in particular, the post-12 June tensions:

The confusion emanating from Iran is simply the most recent manifestation of a well-known pattern that has been repeated in different forms for close to seven years. The "yes, no, maybe" answers from Iran are the tactic that serves its overall strategy in the nuclear realm.

Which would be a fair hypothesis if Landau produced a paragraph, a sentence, even a few words setting out this "well-known pattern". She doesn't.

The serious point here is a leading Israeli academic, "the director of the Arms Control and Regional Security Project, Institute for National Security Studies, Tel Aviv University", could show not one scrap of perception about the internal dynamics behind Iran's nuclear programme and foreign policy. Instead, "analysis" rests on the unshakeable position: There Cannot (and Should Not) Be a Deal with Iran.

At least the headline's good: I just suspect it's better applied to the author than to her straw-person targets.

0755 GMT: The international media are likely to be dominated today by speculations and leaks about the second day of discussions at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear programme.

So, before getting drawn into that issue, we've taken the time --- with the help of readers and fellow bloggers --- to post two discussions about the next steps for the Green Wave(s). The use of the plural is deliberate, as you'll soon see in the debate on the evolving nature of the movement(s); the other, equally important discussion is on non-violence as protest moves towards 16 Azar (7 December) . So is our desire in posting them, not for a conclusive answer but for reflection on how and where protest and resistance develop in this marathon conflict.

Iran: A Nobel Gesture from Obama Towards the Green Movement?

The Newest Deal offers a bit of intriguing speculation: with the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony coming up on 10 December, will its recipient, one Barack Hussein Obama, take the occasion to note the political and human rights situation in Iran?

As President Obama's nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic have dragged on, there have increasingly been calls -- from the left, right, and the Iranian diaspora community -- for Obama to couple his engagement on the nuclear front with a more direct condemnation of human rights abuses occurring inside of Iran. PBS and the BBC's recent documentaries centered around the death of Neda Agha-Soltan, as well as the media blitz that has accompanied Newsweek's Maziar Bahari's release from detention in Iran, have only added to such calls.

Iran MediaWatch: Has “Green Reform” Disappeared in Washington?
The Latest from Iran (27 November): Where Now?

This month's suspicious death of an Iranian doctor who truthfully reported the results of an autopsy he performed on Mohsen Rouholamini, the son of a prominent conservative adviser to Mohsen Rezaei, has also been receiving significant coverage. (Ramin Pourandarjani, the doctor involved, had written in his report and testified to an investigatory committee that Rouholamini was tortured to death while incarcerated by Revolutionary Guard agents.) Suffice it to say, events such as these have certainly not helped the Obama administration frame the Iran issue in exclusively nuclear terms.

And so on December 10th, the stars may be aligned for President Obama will ratchet up his criticism of the Islamic Republic. Obama will be in Oslo on that date to accept his Nobel Peace Prize. By that point, the administration's self-imposed December deadline for the end of nuclear talks will have passed -- albeit due to political infighting within Iran rather than a lack of want to actually strike a deal -- and hence giving Obama yet another pretext to increase the pressure coming from Washington. The "peace" themed nature of the award, furthermore, is unlikely to be lost on many.

Making the occasion all the more fitting (not to mention symbolic) is the fact that the regime has now confiscated Shirin Ebadi's Nobel Peace Prize from her safe deposit box. (Ironically, Ms. Ebadi was recognized in 2003 for her work as a human rights attorney in Iran.) This is the first time in the prize's 108-year history that an award has been confiscated, by a state government or otherwise.

UPDATED Iran's Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive

UPDATE 1830 GMT: We've got the latest on the public framing of the resolution on our updates page. In brief: 1) the Western media are spectacularly missing the political game of this move by the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia) behind the IAEA; 2) the aim of that game is to get Iran to put away its counter-offer and accept a "third-party enrichment" deal.

Reuters has just posted the news of the resolution adopted by members of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear programme:

The U.N. nuclear watchdog's governing body voted overwhelmingly on Friday to censure Iran for developing a uranium enrichment site in secret, and demanded it freeze the project immediately.

The resolution, passed by a 25-3 margin with six abstentions, was the first by the 35-nation governing board in almost four years. With rare Russian and Chinese backing, it sent a message of international exasperation with Iran's nuclear secrecy and defiance.

Iran Nuclear Special: What Tehran’s Latest Offer Means (and Why the West Should Consider It)
The Latest from Iran (27 November): Where Now?

Cut through the hyperbole --- "overwhelmingly", "exasperation", "secrecy and defiance" --- and you'll find there is not much here.

The resolution on the second enrichment plant, at Fordoo near Qom, is a slap on the wrist for past "crimes". The facility ceased to be secret when Iran declared it to the IAEA on 21 September. There are no operating centrifuges in the plant, which was inspected by the IAEA earlier this month. As part of the discussions over uranium enrichment, Iran has said that it will accept IAEA supervision of the site.

At most, therefore, the resolution is a demand on Iran that, if further development of Fordoo occurs, it should be declared and the plant should be open to inspection.

But the real story is what is not in the resolution. There is no reference to the discussions on "third-party enrichment", no take-it-or-leave-it demand on Tehran, no mention of sanctions.

In other words, for all the media heat playing up Mohammad El Baradei's statement on Thursday as the sign of the breakdown of engagement with Iran (and possibly for all the stories in the next 24 hours distracted by rhetoric and thus missing the substance of the non-resolution)....

Nothing has broken down at all.

The Long War on Terror: Obama Administration Renews the Patriot Act

From William Fisher of IPS News via AlterNet:

With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA Patriot Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.

And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.

When a panicky Congress passed the act 45 days after the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, three contentious parts of the law were scheduled to expire at the end of next month, and opponents of these sections have been pushing Congress to substitute new provisions with substantially strengthened civil liberties protections.

But with the apparent approval of the Obama White House and a number of Republicans -- and over the objections of liberal Senate Democrats including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Dick Durbin of Illinois -- the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to extend the three provisions with only minor changes.

Those provisions would leave unaltered the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mail in the course of counterterrorism investigations.

The parts of the act due to expire on Dec. 31 deal with:

National Security Letters (NSLs)

The FBI uses NSLs to compel Internet service providers, libraries, banks, and credit reporting companies to turn over sensitive information about their customers and patrons. Using this data, the government can compile vast dossiers about innocent people.

The 'Material Support' Statute

This provision criminalizes providing "material support" to terrorists, defined as providing any tangible or intangible good, service or advice to a terrorist or designated group. As amended by the Patriot Act and other laws since Sep. 11, this section criminalizes a wide array of activities, regardless of whether they actually or intentionally further terrorist goals or organizations.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

This past summer, Congress passed a law that permits the government to conduct warrantless and suspicion-less dragnet collection of U.S. residents' international telephone calls and e-mails.

Asked by IPS why committee chairman Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont and other Democrats chose to make only minor changes, Chip Pitts, president of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, referred to "the secret and hypocritical lobbying by the Obama administration against reforms -- while publicly stating receptiveness to them." White House pressure, he speculated, "was undoubtedly a huge if lamentable factor".

He added that some committee members were cautious because of the recent arrests of Najibullah Zazi and others.

Zazi , a citizen of Afghanistan and a legal U.S. resident, was arrested in September as part of a group accused of planning to carry out acts of terrorism against the U.S. Zazi is said by the FBI to have attended courses and received instruction on weapons and explosives at an al Qaeda training camp in Pakistan.

Leahy acknowledged that, in light of these incidents, "This is no time to weaken or undermine the tools that law enforcement relies on to protect America."

Read rest of article....