Latest Iran Video: Protest & Hunger Strike at Sharif University

Video: Sharif and Khaje Nasir Universities Protests (1 November)
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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

Two of ten videos now posted on YouTube

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O2nmg5VAjI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRGiz2wSTCM&feature=channel[/youtube]

Iran: A Response to an American Who Asks, "What if the Green Movement Isn't 'Ours'?

LATEST Iran: A Response to “What If the Green Movement Isn’t Ours?” (The Sequel)

Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran’s Middle Way?
Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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

I want to be careful here. I don't want to be too emotive, and I don't want to be seen as taking a cheap shot at a US journalist. However, I have just read an opinion piece which is one of the most unsettling I have encountered since 12 June.

In today's Washington Post, Jackson Diehl frets about "Iran's Unlovable Opposition". This is his opening:

Iran has been controlled since June by a hard-line clique of extremist clerics and leaders of the Revolutionary Guard who believe they are destined to make their country a nuclear power that dominates the Middle East. It follows that their opposition -- a mass movement that has been marching to slogans such as "death to the dictator" and "no to Lebanon, no to Gaza" -- is bound to be a more plausible partner for the rapproachement that the Obama administration is seeking.

Or maybe not. The enduring nature of Iran is to frustrate outsiders who work by the usual rules of political logic or who seek unambiguous commitments.

What has disturbed Diehl to the point where he rejects the Green Wave? Apparently it is a single encounter "with one of the leading representatives outside of Iran of the 'green revolution', who seemed determined to convince would-be Western supporters that they were wasting their time".

That representative is Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister of Culture in the Khatami Government and an ally of Mehdi Karroubi. In mid-October, Mohajerani was a speaker at the annual confernence of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where --- in Diehl's words --- "the mostly pro-Israel crowd was primed to cheer what they expected would be a harsh condemnation of Ahmadinejad and his bellicose rhetoric, and a promise of change by the green coalition".

Unfortunately, Mohajerani didn't deliver what many in his audience wanted. He condemned the US for its involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. He said "the green movement has no expectations whatsoever" on Western support for its cause. Most importantly, he refused to concede that Iran should not have a nuclear programme, pointing instead at Israel's undeclared atomic weapons, and "asked whether Israel had a right to exist, he refused to respond".

The point here is not to defend Mohajerani on these hot-button issues. Instead, it is to ponder how this one speech can be re-framed as a make-or-break movement for Iran's opposition when it comes to American support.

I knew at the time, from discussions with colleagues and contacts, that many in Washington were disturbed by what they saw as the former Minister's brusque and undiplomatic approach. But I couldn't see how Mohajerani was a spokesman for the "Green movement". I especially did not see him as an envoy asking for the endorsement of WINEP, given that the agenda of that organisation can often be seen as Israel-first and that some of its leading members have endorsed regime change, rather than reform, in Tehran.

And Diehl's article doesn't change that perception. It is based on two and only two people. There's Mohajerani. Then there's Mehdi Khalaji of WINEP, who dismisses the speech's importance, "The true leaders of this movement are students, women and human rights activists, and political activists who have no desire to work in a theocratic regime or in a government within the framework of the existing constitution." That's an argument Diehl immediately dismisses:

The fact remains that, were Karroubi and fellow opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi somehow to supplant Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the main changes in Iranian policy might be of style.

I'm not sure how Diehl knows that, since he has not spoken to Karroubi or Mousavi or Mohammad Khatami or Alireza Beheshti or Ayatollah Dastgheib or Mohammad Ghoochani or anyone involved inside Iran. I'm not sure how Diehl knows that because there is no evidence that he has read any of the political positions of the post-12 June movement apart from "statements last week by green-movement leaders attacking the uranium swap plan".

But I don't think Diehl wants to spend all his time dealing with complexities such as Iran's judicial system and the abuses of detainees or the concept of clerical leadership under velayat-e-faqih or accountability for Iran's economic policies or even rights to free expression and assembly.

Because even though Diehl positions himself as a staunch advocate of "democracy", often criticising the US Government for putting other political and economic interests ahead of the promotion of freedom, in this case his priority has nothing to do with the concerns of the Green Movement. Instead he is fixed on 1) Iran's position towards Israel and 2) Iran's nuclear programme. All else for him is window-dressing.

I don't think Diehl is as well-connected with the US Government as his fellow columnists David Ignatius or Jim Hoagland and he is not as influential as a Thomas Friedman. Yet he is still writing for one of the weather-vanes of the American political mood.

And doing so, he brings out all my fears about those who feign concern for what happens inside Iran but who seem --- forgive me here, but I must be honest --- to have an apparent lack of knowledge, understanding, or even appreciation about and for Iranians. I worry that these writers of opinion, who are not "neo-conservative" activists but self-styled "liberals", reduce all that has happened before and after 12 June into a little box that fits political agendas far removed from Tehran, Isfahan, Tabriz, and Mashaad.

I worry that, for these defenders of freedom, Green is only a distracting colour.

Iran Nuclear Talks: Tehran's Middle Way?

Latest from Iran (2 November): The World Takes Notice?

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

Writing for Iranian Diplomacy, foreign policy analyst Keyhan Barzegar suggests a "middle way" in the enrichment negotiations, in which Iran can send some of its uranium to a third country --- thus meeting "Western" concerns --- but retain some of its stock.

Barzegar's view is very much that of a pragmatic diplomat, and I'm not sure it takes account of the political considerations both in Western countries and within Iran. (It is interesting to see his representation of Parliamentary objections to the Vienna deal as a reflection of public anxiety rather than as part of a power struggle within the establishment.) The bottom line of the analysis, however, deserves attention: for Barzegar, Iran's response to the enrichment proposal is not a manipulation or evasion but a genuine reflection of its technical as well as political concerns.


Translated by Iran Review:

Explaining about a draft agreement on nuclear fuel for the Tehran research reactor, the Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki has noted, “The two sides decided to go through the draft. It has been done in Vienna and Iran will soon declare its viewpoint.” At the same time, some officials have already voiced their opposition to the recent nuclear agreement.

The main point evident in all those opposite remarks is lack of trust. Iran still distrusts the West and maintains that Western countries are trying to deprive it of its right to enrich uranium in the long run. Therefore, Tehran maintains that it should take a multilateral strategic approach to this issue.

In fact, they say, it is part of a US strategy to take all enriched uranium away from Iran and then raise expectations from Tehran in the next phase. It seems that their main concern is those expectations, which may finally bring the enrichment process, which has been a fixed policy of Iran, to a complete halt. This would cost dearly for those politicians who had insisted on enrichment in Iran, especially President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore, if the negotiations fail to reach a clear result, it could be quite disconcerting.

The opposition heard in the Majlis (Parliament) is in line with the general anxiety in Iran and the idea that negotiations with the United States are not beneficial to Iran because the United States will use its power to inflict losses on Iran in a step by step manner. Therefore, they are totally suspicious about the role of the United States in its power game with Iran and maintain that Iran would be the weaker side of the game.

In the time of Bush, the game followed totally clear rules. He tried to force other countries through bullying and unilateralism to give in to US policies and this built international consensus against him. Obama, however, has adopted a new strategy according to which he is planning to engage in direct talks with Iran. This does not mean that Washington sympathizes with Iran or pursues special relations with Tehran, but it means that the Americans have found out that negotiations constitute the sole means of convincing Iran to give up its nuclear program and this is done through a step-by-step strategy. Iranian politicians, who are wary of the US role in international interactions, regularly oppose negotiations.

The opposition, however, does not signify total negation of the necessity of negotiations, but it should be considered a warning to negotiators that they must be careful not to give concessions to the opposite side. At the same time, the role of the Majlis in nuclear issue and foreign policy decisions indicates that key problems are solved through consensual solutions. This is very important with regard to the nuclear case because it will balance various power levers. At the same time, it shows the foreign side that the nuclear issue is of national importance to Iranians.

Forecasting Iran’s answer

Although it is difficult under the current circumstances to predict Iran’s response to the agreement, but all signs point to a middle way, which if chosen carefully, could be positive and in line with Iran’s national interests. In fact, if Iran kept part of the enriched uranium in the country and sent the rest to another country, it would pave the way for the continuation of cooperation. Iran should manage its nuclear case. I am not agreed to the recent opposition to the latest nuclear agreement because in any game, both sides try to benefit. If Iran believes in a win-win game, it should take a step and manage the situation. In fact, the trust building measures asked by Western countries should be started in Tehran. On the other hand, Iran is distrustful toward the West and expects Western countries to do something.

Therefore, a middle way can lead to a deal and that deal, under the current circumstances, would be to the benefit of Iran and its national interests. In any case, negotiations between Iran and the United States have reached a critical point and the nuclear case is the sole issue enjoying necessary potential to goad on those negotiations because it gives Iran a bargaining chip which forces the United States to accept to talk to Tehran.

Therefore, Iran should be careful not to sell that bargaining chip, that is, independent nuclear fuel cycle, for a low price. Both sides are taking steps to reach the agreed point. Iran is on the path to positive negotiations and is trying to take a positive step to pave the way for a deal. In the meantime, however, a middle way would be the best option to protect Iran’s national interests.

Israel: Gideon Levy's Plea "Washington, Stop Sucking Up to Tel Aviv"

Israel-Palestine: Criticism Mounts over Clinton Trip
Video & Transcript: Clinton-Netanyahu Press Briefing (1 November)
Clinton’s Trip: Desperately Seeking Israeli Concessions

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

Following US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's latest trip to the Middle East and negative Arab reactions to her "positive" statements, Gideon Levy published a provocative article in Haaretz, criticising Washington for its continuing praise of Tel Aviv despite Israel's inaction over peace talks.

America, stop sucking up to Israel

Barack Obama has been busy - offering the Jewish People blessings for Rosh Hashanah, and recording a flattering video for the President's Conference in Jerusalem and another for Yitzhak Rabin's memorial rally. Only Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah surpasses him in terms of sheer output of recorded remarks.

In all the videos, Obama heaps sticky-sweet praise on Israel, even though he has spent nearly a year fruitlessly lobbying for Israel to be so kind as to do something, anything - even just a temporary freeze on settlement building - to advance the peace process.

The president's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, has also been busy, shuttling between a funeral (for IDF soldier Asaf Ramon, the son of Israel's first astronaut Ilan Ramon) and a memorial (for Rabin, though it was postponed until next week due to rain), in order to find favor with Israelis. Polls have shown that Obama is increasingly unpopular here, with an approval rating of only 6 to 10 percent.

He decided to address Israelis by video, but a persuasive speech won't persuade anyone to end the occupation. He simply should have told the Israeli people the truth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who arrived here last night, will certainly express similar sentiments: "commitment to Israel's security," "strategic alliance," "the need for peace," and so on .

Before no other country on the planet does the United States kneel and plead like this. In other trouble spots, America takes a different tone. It bombs in Afghanistan, invades Iraq and threatens sanctions against Iran and North Korea. Did anyone in Washington consider begging Saddam Hussein to withdraw from occupied territory in Kuwait?

But Israel the occupier, the stubborn contrarian that continues to mock America and the world by building settlements and abusing the Palestinians, receives different treatment. Another massage to the national ego in one video, more embarrassing praise in another.

Now is the time to say to the United States: Enough flattery. If you don't change the tone, nothing will change. As long as Israel feels the United States is in its pocket, and that America's automatic veto will save it from condemnations and sanctions, that it will receive massive aid unconditionally, and that it can continue waging punitive, lethal campaigns without a word from Washington, killing, destroying and imprisoning without the world's policeman making a sound, it will continue in its ways.

Illegal acts like the occupation and settlement expansion, and offensives that may have involved war crimes, as in Gaza, deserve a different approach. If America and the world had issued condemnations after Operation Summer Rains in 2006 - which left 400 Palestinians dead and severe infrastructure damage in the first major operation in Gaza since the disengagement - then Operation Cast Lead never would have been launched.

It is true that unlike all the world's other troublemakers, Israel is viewed as a Western democracy, but Israel of 2009 is a country whose language is force. Anwar Sadat may have been the last leader to win our hearts with optimistic, hope-igniting speeches. If he were to visit Israel today, he would be jeered off the stage. The Syrian president pleads for peace and Israel callously dismisses him, the United States begs for a settlement free ze and Israel turns up its nose. This is what happens when there are no consequences for Israel's inaction.

When Clinton returns to Washington, she should advocate a sharp policy change toward Israel. Israeli hearts can no longer be won with hope, promises of a better future or sweet talk, for this is no longer Israel's language. For something to change, Israel must understand that perpetuating the status quo will exact a painful price.

Israel of 2009 is a spoiled country, arrogant and condescending, convinced that it deserves everything and that it has the power to make a fool of America and the world. The United States has engendered this situation, which endangers the entire Mideast and Israel itself. That is why there needs to be a turning point in the coming year - Washington needs to finally say no to Israel and the occupation. An unambiguous, presidential no.

Israel-Palestine: Criticism Mounts over Clinton Trip

Israel: Gideon Levy’s Plea “Washington, Stop Sucking Up to Tel Aviv”
Video & Transcript: Clinton-Netanyahu Press Briefing (1 November)
Clinton’s Trip: Desperately Seeking Israeli Concessions

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

Despite US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "positive statements" after her meetings with Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday, criticisms from the Arab side escalated on Sunday.

Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat denounced Clinton's proclamation of "unprecedented" concessions from the Israeli side:

What the Israelis are offering is not unprecedented. What would be unprecedented is a comprehensive settlement freeze by Israel... and a halt to Israeli policies in occupied East Jerusalem such as home demolitions, evictions and rapid settlement expansion.

Without a settlement freeze and the eventual dismantlement of settlements, there will be no Palestinian state to negotiate and no two-state solution left to speak of.

Israel's position on settlements was nothing other than a failure of Israel to implement a comprehensive settlement freeze as it is required to do under the 2003 road map. Since 2003, the settler population in the West Bank has increased by 73,000 settlers or 17 percent.

Erakat then targeted Washington, "If America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do Palestinians have of reaching agreement with Israel on permanent status issues?"

He told CNN's Christiane Amanpour that he believed Abbas was serious about not running for a new term as President, "He feels betrayed by Arabs, Israelis, some Palestinians, and to a certain extent by the Americans."

Later, Abbas' spokesman Nabil Abu Rdainah stepped in. He criticized Washington and called for the Arab League to formulate a "unified Palestinian-Arab position" on the stalled peace process:

There can be no excuse for the continuation of settlements, which is really the main obstacle in the way of any credible peace process.

The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel's intransigence and America's back-peddling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon.

In Cairo, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Israel that its actions in East Jerusalem and other Arab areas were "derailing" peace efforts that would have a "catastrophic" effect on the region. Abdullah and Mubarak "stressed the need for an immediate cessation of Israeli unilateral actions, particularly the building of settlements and jeopardising the identity of Jerusalem and holy places, which could only derail the chances of peaces."

On the other side, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called for Palestinians to "get a grip" and drop their demand for a full halt on the settlements. Confidently using Clinton's "just start the negotiations with or without preconditions" statement, Netanyahu said:

We really hope that the Palestinians will come to their senses and enter the process. The peace process is important and is an Israeli and Palestinian interest. We hope that, as we are ready to begin the talks without delay, we will find the Palestinians hold a parallel position.

We've done things that have not been done until today, although while we are taking steps toward negotiations, we have encountered preconditions demanded by the Palestinian side, which were never demanded before.

Beginning negotiations is important to us, but it is no less important to the Palestinians. We are committed to negotiations, and we hope that the Palestinians will lift the precondition.