The Latest from Iran (27 October): Domestic and Foreign Collide

NEW Latest Iran Video: University Protests (27 October)
NEW Iran: More on Kian Tajbakhsh and Tehran’s “Velvet Revolution”
Latest Iran Video/Translation: Karroubi on Events in the Iran Media Fair
Iran’s Political Confusion: Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Nuclear Agreement
Latest from Iran (26 October): After the Fair

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

2015 GMT: 13 Aban Does Not Exist. Homy Lafayette offers more detail on the Government's order to state media to "refrain from disseminating any news, photo, or topic which can lead to tension in the society or breach public order" during the demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).

The article includes an English translation of the document, issued by Deputy Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Alireza Malekian.

1810 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Manoeuvre. If this story from Press TV is accurate, then Tehran is haggling over the details of third-party enrichment, rather than walking away from the deal.

The article re-quotes the source who spoke to Al Alam TV (see 1015 GMT), "Iran will announce its response to the proposal put forward by [International Atomic Energy Agency] Director-General [Mohamed] ElBaradei on Friday, October 30." The official added that Iran did not want to send 80 percent of its uranium stock in a single shipment to Russia, as set out in the deal from the Vienna talks: "Iran as a uranium buyer knows best how much uranium, enriched to a level of 19.75 percent, it needs [for its medical research reactor]; based on this argument, it will raise certain issues with this proposal."

In other words, Tehran will insist on a lower amount of uranium --- currently, the deal is for 1.2 million out of 1.5 million tonnes --- being sent to Russia in the first shipment. More would be delivered for enrichment as the medical reactor required new supplies.

The report is seconded by the head of Parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, "Iran can send the scheduled amount in separate shipments so that its fuel supply [provided by foreigners] is guaranteed....Iran can send only a part of its stockpile … and then as it receives its 20 percent enriched fuel it will send the next portion."

A word of caution on this interpretation: Boroujerdi is close to President Ahmadinejad and is putting the pro-deal view. It is unclear whether the dissenting voices such as Ali Larijani (and possibly, behind Larijani, the Supreme Leader) have come around to this position.

1750 GMT: Back from a teaching break to find that Rooz Online, following up a story prominent on the Internet this morning, has published details of an alleged Government order to censor and possibly shut out any news of mass demonstrations on 13 Aban (4 November).

1230 GMT: As reports continue to come in, with claims of 1500 students protesting at Azad University in Tehran, we've posted the first video footage.

1020 GMT: Reports that students gathered to demonstrate at Tehran University but are being forced to move by security forces.

1015 GMT: Reuters is reporting, from Iran's Al-Alam television, that Iran will accept the uranium enrichment agreement but will demand changes. The source is an "unnamed official" who indicates Iran's reply will be made within 48 hours.

0810 GMT: Detentions, Concerns, and Hunger Strikes. Human Rights Activists in Iran has posted a summary of latest developments regarding post-election detainees. Included is the information that journalist Henganeh Shahidi and student Payman Aref have started hunger strikes.

0800 GMT: Myth, Imprisonment, and "Velvet Revolution". We've just posted more on the jailed Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh and the regime's accusations and tactics with the claim of foreign-directed regime change in

0715 GMT: A reader has pointed us to a report posted by CNN on a prison riot in Karaj, west of Tehran, on Sunday. Interestingly, the story comes from the National Council of Resistance in Iran, the opposition movement headed by Maryam Rajavi and linked to Mujahedin-e-Khalq.

0635 GMT: Meanwhile CNN International (broadcast, not website) is focusing on a peripheral story. Pakistan detained and has now released 11 Iranians who crossed the border yesterday. The original line was that the detainees were Revolutionary Guard members, possibly pursuing or looking for leads on those linked to last week's bombings. Pakistan, probably after discreet talks with Tehran, is now calling the wanderers "security guards"; Press TV portrays them as "border police" pursuing smugglers.

0630 GMT: Now The Washington Post has picked up on the effect of the internal debate on the enrichment agreement (and vice-versa) with an overview by Thomas Erdbrink, "Iran officials appear split on nuclear plan".

0600 GMT: One of the standing rules for analysis, when students and I consider US foreign policy, is that what happens overseas cannot be separated from what happens at home.

So it is proving --- and may prove in a significant way in the next 72 hours --- in Iran.

Tensions over the decision on the uranium enrichment deal are now beyond simmering and openly bubbling. Even this weekend, all the signals from the Iranian Government were that it would work out any issues and sign the proposal, with a significant portion of Iran's uranium stock going to Russia for enrichment, by Wednesday or Thursday. Now, all bets are off.

Readers took yesterday's analysis of the possible conflict between the Supreme Leader and President Ahmadinejad to a new level with their comments, but this morning I still find myself with questions rather than answers. The straightforward explanation would be that the Supreme Leader, working through the statements of Parliamentary leaders like Ali Larijani and Mohammad Reza Bahonar, is now blocking agreement. But, if so, why did he apparently endorse "engagement" to the point where the deal was almost struck? What could be the calculation in approaching the International Atomic Energy Agency, and thus Washington, in the summer and now walking out on the deal at the 11th hour?

Other theories from our readers include an Iranian "good cop, bad cop" act which would allow Ahmadinejad to portray himself as the guy who wanted to work with Obama but had to give way to Ayatollah Khamenei and the Iranians walking out of the arrangement because their ploy --- getting uranium for the medical reactor enriched for free while retaining enough of their stock to pursue other programmes --- hasn't yielded enough of a result.

Fortunately for my confusion, if not the general situation, there should be some clarification by Friday. Iran can't spin out the post-Vienna deliberations beyond the weekend, given that the US has already let last Friday's deadline slide in expectation of a Tehran decision within a few days. So it's accept, reject, or try to bring the "5+1" powers back to the table for talks.

And that declaration from Iran will in turn give the US Government, as well as the European powers, Russia, and China, a somewhat paradoxical choice. If Tehran does not sign the enrichment agreement, does the Obama Administration continue engagement, possibly strengthening the Iranian President against his own Supreme Leader? Or does it walk away (or is forced away by Congressional and public hostility to any more talks), now watching an internal Iranian situation in which Washington is no more than a bystander?

Iran's Nukes: Text of IAEA Head El Baradei Statement (21 October)

UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

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

On Wednesday afternoon Mohammad El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, issued the following statement to the press on the Vienna talks between Iran and the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany):

We just concluded our meeting of 2 1/2 days on "how-to" modalities, and how to ensure that Iran will have the fuel required for its research reactor.

As you know that research reactor is used for producing medical isotopes for diagnosis and treatment of cancer, so it is a purely humanitarian mission, objective.

However, everybody is aware that that transaction using Iran´s low enriched uranium to be manufactured into fuel is a very important confidence building measure that can diffuse a crisis that has been going on for a number of years and open space for negotiation.

I must say that, everybody who participated at the meeting was trying to help, trying to look to the future and not to the past, trying to heal the wounds that existed for many, many years.

I have circulated a draft agreement that reflects, in my judgement, a balanced approach on how to move forward.

The deadline for the parties to give, I hope, affirmative action, is Friday, two days from now. And if we do get an affirmative action, then I hope that we will have an agreement we can send to the BoG.

There has been talks on technical issues, legal issues, policy issues, issues of confidence and trust and that is why it has taken us some time and that is why we need to send the agreement to the capitals for final approval.

I very much hope that people see the big picture, see that this agreement could open the way for a complete normalization of relations between Iran and the international community.

It´s a very unique technical meeting, because it is a technical meeting although, that has been followed by heads of States, in fact with the actual engagement in the process. I would cross my fingers that by Friday we should have an okay, an approval, by all parties concerned.

Q: Can you tell us details?

Everybody should, including of course Iran, should sign up on this by Friday.

Q: France will also be included?

My proposal has France included.

Q: Do you think by the end of your term, this agreement could be endorsed?

I hope so, if we get an affirmative response by all parties by Friday then we have an agreement, then we just go to the Board for formal ratification. I will have to wait until Friday, I am optimistic and as I said, the spirit here was very constructive and forward-looking.

UPDATED Iran's Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment

Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel
The Latest from Iran (20 October): Green Waves or Green Mirage?

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



UPDATE 1930 GMT: Talks have ended for the day, to be resumed tomorrow. IAEA head El-Baradei said that negotiations were moving forward though more slowly than he had expected.

Julian Borger of The Guardian has a useful summary.

UPDATE 1825 GMT: Yep, that's where the not-so-silly games are heading. Iran, wanting France out of the loop, is talking directly to the US delegation, according to Lara Setrakian of ABC News.

Press TV gives more details: An Iranian source confirms the "positive and constructive" bilateral discussions, adding, "It was agreed that more studies should be held on...renewing the secondary, control and electronic facilities" of the medical research reactor, the source added.

UPDATE 1810 GMT: Oh my, the Iranians are playing silly games now. Having wound up the media with their pre-talk threats, Tehran's delegation decided today to give France a poke in the eye by never showing up at discussions. Other diplomats are insisting that this is not a walkout, and the French Foreign Ministry maintains, "It is a meeting of experts, in which we are participating." However, Iranian officials via Press TV are declaring, "The elimination of France from the deal's draft is certain."

There is a likely explanation for this rather comic manoeuvring. Under the "third-party enrichment" proposal backed by the US, Iranian uranium is to be enriched by Russia and then sent to France to be shaped into metal plates. Tehran may be insisting that Paris is cut out of the process, with Russia sending the uranium, raised to 19.75 percent, directly back to Iran.

Some of the media coverage of yesterday's opening of the Vienna technical talks on Iran's uranium enrichment was beyond hopeless.



It was unsettling to see international broadcasters suddenly and excitedly discovering that there were talks and then, when those talks did not produce an outcome within hours, suddenly and not-so-excitedly proclaiming disappointment. At least, however, that produced comic moments such as CNN's Matthew Chance, like a boy discovering there was no candy in the shop, sinking from "lot of anticipation" to "jeez...all day silence...now the talks have broken up".

Far worse this morning is the spectacle of reporters, despite having some time to collect information and consider, repeating distracting and irrelevant spin as "analysis". The Wall Street Journal goes off on a tangent into nuclear Never-Never Land, "Iran Drops Deal to Buy Uranium in France". Swallowing Iran's eve-of-talks posturing rather than understanding it, The New York Times and David Sanger declare, "Iran Threatens to Back Out of Fuel Deal" with Tehran's "veiled public threats".

Really? Then how does Sanger explain the comment of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammad El Baradei, "We're off to a good start" in the second paragraph of his story? Maybe he could reflect a bit more on the quote handed to him by "a participant" (fourth paragraph):

This was opening-day posturing. The Iranians are experienced at this, and you have to expect that their opening position isn’t going to be the one you want to hear.

The real story, which EA has reported since Glenn Kessler's breakthrough story in The Washington Post last month, is that the deal to ship 80 percent of Iran's low-enriched uranium for processing in Russia and to use that uranium in a medical research facility (rather than for bombs) is on the table. Yesterday's public chest-puffing by Tehran does not change that agenda.

Indeed, both Time magazine and Sanger add details to that deal (although Time, in particular, does not have the professional decency to acknowledge Kessler's original article). Approaching the IAEA, Iran revived the idea --- broached by other countries months earlier --- of third-party enrichment of its uranium stock for the medical facility, and the Obama Administration ran with it during the President's trip to Moscow in early July. The top US official for nonproliferation, Gary Samore, put the proposal to the Russians.

Discreet talks between Iran, the IAEA, Russia, France (which would shape the enriched uranium as metal plates before it was returned to Tehran), and the U.S. followed. On three occasions, twice with El Baradei and once with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, President Obama stepped in to confirm and advance the initative. The deal was considered at the first direct talks between Iran, the US, and the other "5+1" countries at Geneva on 1 October, producing the agreement for further technical discussions in Vienna.

The very fact that the Administration would be is leaking so much information to well-placed reporters should indicate that the real story here is that the US, irrespective of Iran's public posturing, is going to persist with this proposal. That trumps any misleading headlines from journalists who yearn for drama to break "all day silence" and are prone, beyond the details in their own articles, to the image of a talk-stalling, deal-breaking Iran.

UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

The Latest from Iran (11 October): “Media Operations”

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

UPDATE 13 October 1900 GMT: For the love of Ed Murrow, is there a journalist out there who is not being led by the nose on the US-Russia Sanctions on Iran story?

Both The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times prefer to take the bait of Oh No, Russia Will Not Support US Sanctions, quoting Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, “Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” This apparently "throw[s] cold water on the Obama administration’s hopes that Russia had bxeen persuaded to cooperate with its effort to intensify the global pressure on Tehran".

Reuters prefers to be the mouthpiece for Oh Yes, Russia Will Support US Sanctions, relying on a US State Department spokesman who assures everyone that Russian President Dmitri Medvedev is "quite clear that, while pleased with the Geneva results, he expects Iran to implement them and if they don't there should be sanctions."

None of these journalists takes the time to ponder that they are being taken for a public ride. The proposal on the table for Secretary of State Clinton and her hosts is not sanctions but the Russian enrichment of 80 percent of Iran's uranium. All else at this point is a diversion.


UPDATE 1510 GMT: From Deception, Enlightenment. Want to see the clues to the possible US-Iran-Russia deal on enrichment? All you have to do is find the right angle on the mainstream media's simple reporting.

For example, Paul Harris in The Observer of London recites the finger-wagging party line of "American officials", "Clinton woos Russia over Iran sanctions", when she is in Moscow on Tuesday. Actually, in light of this story, expect the Secretary of State to be discussing --- privately, not publicly --- the details of third-party enrichment.

The Los Angeles Times has an even bigger tip-off. Modifying earlier media reports of a defiant position by the spokesman for Iran's nuclear energy organisation, it quotes from a later interview with Ali Shirzadian:

We’re looking at three options. We hand over 3.5% enriched and receive in return 20% enriched, or we buy 20% enriched on the market, or we will be allowed to enrich ourselves. I stress that no matter what option we take it will be monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency....Any of these options will work for both sides.

There have been been few "scoops" for the mainstream media during the post-election crisis in Iran, but Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post can claim one this morning:

"Iran four months ago discreetly contacted the United Nations-affiliated agency for nuclear energy to outline a worrisome situation: A research reactor in Tehran that produces medical isotopes that detect and treat the diseases of about 10,000 patients a week will run out of fuel by the end of 2010. Iran also had a request: Can you help us find a country that will sell us new fuel?"

The outcome? "An unusual deal, brokered largely by the United States, that aims to buy time for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran's nuclear ambitions. If it works, Iran will end up with fuel necessary to treat desperately ill patients -- and greatly reduce its stock of low-enriched uranium."

This is the deal at the heart of the headline discussion of "third-party enrichment", probably by Russia, of Iran's uranium. Kessler explains that the source for the medical programme, 50 pounds enriched to almost 20 percent by Argentina, is running low. The Iranians have been asking for use of their stock of 3300 pounds, currently at about 3-4 percent enrichment, but that, of course, is tangled up in the debate over whether Tehran is looking for a pretext to produce weapons-grade uranium.

Under the Obama Administration's plan, "Iran...would have to give up about 80 percent of its stockpile to get back the same amount of uranium supplied by Argentina in 1993". Kessler, obviously using Administration sources, says that "White House official Gary Samore broached the idea to Sergei Kiriyenko, head of Russia's atomic energy agency, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. A senior U.S. official said, 'Both of them immediately said this is a great idea.'"

France is also involved, shaping the enriched fuel into uranium-aluminum
metal plates. And the International Atomic Energy Agency has helped broker the plan in talks with Tehran, including Mohammad El-Baradei's recent visit.

In the slow-moving world of international diplomacy, these are dramatic developments. However, there are two important points that Kessler --- in part because he feels obligated to sprinkle his article with superficial nay-saying ("critics question why the United States would be assisting a nuclear pariah"; "it will be too easy for Iran to extract the more highly enriched uranium for weapons") --- does not address.

First, this is the clearest possible sign that Washington --- come the hell or high water of its domestic opponents --- will be pursuing engagement. This is high-profile public relations: "senior Administration officials" have gone out of their way to place this story with the Post, knowing that it will get maximum attention over Sunday breakfasts through the capital. Every one of the boilerplate criticisms in Kessler's article is knocked back with an assurance such as "Iran has no known technical expertise at extracting uranium from a metal alloy".

Talk of deadlines and sanctions are now just window-dressing to distract the sceptics. While the Iranian regime will undoubtedly draw out negotiations, ensuring that the deal is not seen as a sign of its weakness, it sees value in the proposal: as Kessler notes, "[US officials] were relieved when, on the eve of the Geneva talks, he was quoted as saying that Iran would ship its low-enriched uranium to a third country for processing."

But here's the second point that does not even dawn on Kessler. "Four months ago", when Iran contacted the IAEA, was also "four months ago" when Iran was holding its Presidential election. Kessler does not identify when the US was informed of Tehran's approach, but one can assume it was soon afterwards.

So the Obama Administration took the decision that any position on Iran's internal turmoil was secondary to striking a nuclear deal. If the cost of that bargain was a granting of "legitimacy" to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it was a price worth paying.

The Latest from Iran (5 October): The Difficulty of Signals

UPDATED Iran: Rafsanjani Makes A Public Move with “Friendship Principles”
Video: Sharif Uni Protest Against Javad Larijani (4 October)
The Latest from Iran (4 October): Waiting for Developments

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

2030 GMT. Harrumph, harrumph. The Financial Times, which is vying with The Times of London to be the at-hand Government channel for "news", uses several hundred words as a backdrop for this fist-shaking from "a senior British government official":

It is important that IAEA inspectors are given access to Qom immediately. We regret that Iran is delaying this until October 25. We see no reason for a delay. What possible reason can there be for it?

Given that the IAEA and even most of the Obama Administration welcomed the agreement, one has to wonder whether this is the same "rogue" British official who gave the FT their recent non-story on "secret Iran nuclear arms plan", whether this is a concerted London effort to play "tough cop" alongside a more conciliatory US, or whether Gordon Brown's Government has decided it really doesn't want meaningful negotiations.

1945 GMT: We're not asleep. It's just a very slow night for news, and we're also suffering from a bit of fatigue after a heavy academic day.

However, I think you can look forward to some new analysis on Hashemi Rafsanjani by the morning. And we're trying valiantly to track down the video of last night's interview on CNN by Christiane Amanpour of Ray Takeyh, formerly of the National Security Council, and Seyed Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran.  (Coincidentally, I've worked with both on academic projects.)

1540 GMT: An EA correspondent hauls me up for being too quick (and optimistic) about the Green movement's web presence. Mir Hossein Mousavi's Kalemeh website has only returned (0510 GMT) in the sense that the original site, www.kalemeh.ir, redirects to a backup, www.kaleme.com, which has not updated since Qods Day.

1500 GMT: Tehran's Prosecutor General has denied the news, reported yesterday, that 20 prominent detainees are soon to be released. He asserted that the cases of the deatinees, including former Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi, reformist leaders Abdollah Momeni, Shahab Tabatabaei, and Saeed Shariati, and journalist Mohammad Atrianfar, would be handled within "the process of law".

1400 GMT: More Atomic Tourism. A helpful reader adds to our item (0620 GMT) on the Come Visit Us website for Fordo, the home of Iran's second enrichment facility: "You can also visit an observatory built 3 years ago. Location, location , location."

1350 GMT: Another Loosening of the Net? Following the report that Mousavi website Kalemeh could soon be back on-line (0510 GMT), the Etemade Melli newspaper, linked to Mehdi Karroubi, has been acquitted by a majority jury vote of complaints over its stories. This could pave the way for a resumption of the paper's publication, which was halted this summer.

1320 GMT: Mousavi Welcomed Into the Fold? Khabar Online adds to Pedestrian's excellent piece (see 0600 GMT) on the speech of judiciary official Javad Larijani at Sharif University, which called for an end to animosity against Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi and welcomed Mousavi's "move inside the system".

1300 GMT: Academic Pressures. It's hard to put all together, but stories are piling up of punishment of university students and lecturers for political activity and even for challenges over academic matters. Students across Iran have been summoned to disciplinary offices, and Rooz Online writes of five law professors at Allameh Tabatabai University who have been barred from teaching.

1200 GMT: Still slow on the domestic front in Iran, so one more note on the media lemmings rushing after Sunday's New York Times mis-story on the Iran nuclear programme.

Unsurprisingly, The Times of London takes the prize for turning an already flawed report into a seven-alarm exaggeration: "Iran has the know-how to produce a nuclear bomb and may already have tested a detonation system small enough to fit into the warhead of a medium-range missile." The Times not only uses this as the pretext to reduce Sunday's press conference by IAEA head El Baradei to an afterthought but to give him a good kicking: "He will not be missed by foreign policy hawks in the US who accuse him of acquiescing in years of nuclear prevarication by Iran."

0935 GMT: All the Spin That's Fit to Print. This morning's New York Times on Iran did not repeat its Sunday spectacular of misinformation --- Iran Close to Bomb! --- going for the neutral (and factually correct) headline, "Iran Agrees to Allow Inspectors on Oct. 25".

But you can't get keep a good Government outlet down, so David Sanger (yep, him again) and Nazila Fathi, drop this into Paragraphs 5-6:

Some administration officials expressed private skepticism that Iran would ultimately prove willing to allow the kind of widespread inspections that the United States and its Western allies have in mind. They want the inspections to include several facilities that American and European officials suspect could be part of a string of covert facilities built to supply the newly revealed enrichment center near the holy city of Qum.

Sanger and Fathi fail to offer the corrective that no published US intelligence report puts forth evidence or even speculates that Iran has "a string of covert facilities". No leaked US report makes that claim. Not even the ISIS/IAEA report, which Sanger mangled on Sunday into an imminent warning that Iran had the information for The Bomb, alleges this.

I dread to think what's coming out tomorrow. Maybe it will be "Secret Government Installation for Mega-Giant Atomic Robots".

(P.S. No, it doesn't have to be this way. Simon Tisdall of The Guardian gets taken for a ride by the Sanger-Administration line, but The Associated Press, whose report runs in The Washington Post, gives the story a straightforward treatment with the El Baradei press conference and the public comments of President Obama's National Security Advisor, James Jones. They do not embellish --- and thus distort --- the story with the "on-background" spin of unnamed Administration and European officials.)

0800 GMT: Go Wide. Really Wide. Press TV, in its report on Sunday's press briefing by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, offers an unsubtle signal of the Iran Government' strategy to move negotiations far beyond direct consideration of Tehran's nuclear programme to international and regional issues: "The UN nuclear watchdog Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, says regional and global stability can only be achieved through total nuclear disarmament."

There is no reference at all in the story to the talks over Iran's uranium enrichment.

0620 GMT: Atomic Tourism. Fancy a different kind of vacation?

The Iranian village of Fordoo, the location of the second enrichment facility, has a website full of information for the wanna-be visitor. It has the latest news --- a reassurance from Press TV that no radioactive material has been moved into the no-longer-secret enrichment plant --- a biography of the village, and an inspirational quote: "The best way to predict the future is making it."

0600 GMT: Yesterday we posted the video of student protests at Sharif University of the speech by high-level Judiciary official Mohammad Javad Larijani. Pedestrian has a fascinating account of the occasion. It includes Larijani's attempts to "bond" with the kids, “I was once a student, I was once a part of your gang. I was part of the same chaos," before dropping the boom on the opposition movement:

I agree with [the] statement [of protesting students that "the coup d'etat government must resign"] very much. But that coup d’état was defeated and the leader of the coup d’état was [Mir Hossein] Mousavi.

There were individuals who were part of the system and participated in the election, but on June 12th, at 11p.m. they turned their backs on the system. Their actions constitute a coup d’état . They took a very harsh tone against the government, accused it of murder, theft, lying, etc. and they used the vocabulary of thugs.

Yet by far the most intriguing passage was Larijani's response to protesting pro-Ahmadinejad students, “We must free our hearts of hate towards Mousavi, [Mehdi] Karroubi.….Because with hate, we can not tell truth from lies.” He added that Mousavi had now "said that he plans to move inside the system and right the wrongs. I think this is a step in the right direction.”

0545 GMT: Another interesting but lower-profile move this weekend. Hossein Taeb, the commander of the Basiji commander, was named a Deputy Director at the Ministry of Intelligence. While some sharper-eyed Iran-watchers noted the development, they did not consider this: given the battle this summer between President Ahmadinejad and other politicians and clerics (including the Supreme Leader?) for control of the Ministry, with the firing of more than 20 high-level officials, who claims a victory with Taeb's appointment?

Meanwhile, Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqdi has been appointed as the new commander of the Basiji.

0510 GMT: The most intriguing development inside Iran yesterday was the statement by Hashemi Rafsanjani (see our analysis) setting out guidelines for political activity and also putting specific warnings, such as a "mysterious network" trying to undermine the Islamic Republic and the false or misleading information put out through various outlets.

Decoding Rafsanjani's elaborately framed words, the easy part is that he is telling the Iranian people: in these tense and confusing times, Trust Me. And the Supreme Leader. The one reliable source for the latest on political development are statements from the Expediency Council, which Rafsanjani heads. The one trustworthy politician, by unsubtle implication, is the former President.

But who is Rafsanjani putting off-limits with his reference to a mysterious network? Some might say the reformists, who have gone too far to unsettle the system that Rafsanjani says he will defend through a return to "unity". Others are arguing, persuasively, that the threat comes from elements within the regime, and they have support from the pointed clue about disinformation --- given that the first "National Unity Plan" came out through Fars News Agency, fed to it by person or persons unknown, the former President's most direct challengers probably hold high office somewhere inside the establishment.

Of course, Rafsanjani could be putting both sides on notice with his warnings, even as he elevates himself with his First Amongst Equals relationship with the Supreme Leader. That still leaves the biggest question, as we noted yesterday: what exactly is the plan that he favours?

Meanwhile, the Green movement has been boosted by the return of Kalemeh, the site of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign. It had been off-line for several days after the Government's crackdown on the  opposition before Qods Day.