The Latest from Iran (24 October): Resurgence at the Fair?

NEW Iran: Football's Going Green (with the help of Press TV)
NEW Iran: The Karroubi Effect
NEW Iran: Karroubi Statement on Events at Iran Media Fair
NEW Video: Karroubi & Crowd at Iran Media Fair (23 October)
Reading Afghanistan and Iran: Scott Lucas on “The Beautiful Truth” Radio

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

1935 GMT: A Note from the Media Fair. As the rumors and discussion continue over the events and protests of the week, another incident, reported by the Iranian Labor News Agency and passed on by an EA correspondent:

A stand for the "Wave of Law" website (a deliberate twist of the term "Green Wave") was dismantled at the press exhibition in Tehran for collecting signatures for a petition seeking a complaint against Mir Hosein Moussavi. The stand faced reluctance from exhibition visitors.

Permission to set up the stand for this new website was given in circumstances in which eligible applicants had been refused. Warnings from the organizers of the Tehran Press Fair were instrumental in the stand's ejection.

1920 GMT: The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has intervened again with an open letter to the former prosecutor of Tehran, judges, Revolutionary Guard, and the Ministry of Intelligence:

We do not open this letter with “greetings”, as it is a symbol of all that you and your colleagues have denied us and those like us....The mass assault of the agents of the former Tehran prosecutor on the central office of the Participation Front, the election headquarters, and newspapers as well as the mass arrest of the members of the Participation Front, other political, and media activists happened not long ago, and the wave of arrests still continue.

This time you and your colleagues have created a new wonder. Thirty years after the establishment of the “Islamic” system, you silenced the “O God! O God!” prayer in the throats of this nation’s sons and daughters and the innocent families of [political] prisoners by your weapons and handcuffs. We remind you of this because it is the duty of every Muslim to stop their religious brothers and sisters from committing bad deeds that we hope are not being committed deliberately and knowingly but rather unintentionally and under pressure.

Before it is too late come to your senses and don’t be the tools of oppression for the tyrant masters of power. Someday that God willing is coming and is not too far away, they will be too caught up as the results of their words and actions to be able to help you.

1715 GMT: We haven't forgotten you. It is just a relatively quiet period in Iran, and we're heading out to catch up with friends and colleagues. Back later to round up the day's events.

1530 GMT: Saturday Football Story. Looks like the Green wave has made it into a photo of the Iran national team on the Press TV website --- see separate entry.

1455 GMT: The Curious Development with the Nuclear Deal. Something very strange is happening as the Iranian Government deliberates whether to accept the Vienna proposal on uranium enrichment.

Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani has now come out against the agreement, declaring, "Westerners are insisting to go in a direction that speaks of cheating and are imposing some things on us. They are saying we will give you the 20 percent [enriched uranium] fuel for the Tehran reactor only if you give us your enriched uranium. I see no link between these two things."

Larijani's remarks follow those of the Deputy Speaker, Mohammad Reza Bahonar. Neither have had a role in the current negotiations with the "5+1" powers, although Larijani was the former head of Iran's nuclear programme.

So is Larijani, like Bahonar, just staking out some Parliamentary autonomy over whether the deal goes through (and, if so, why)? Or is he reflecting the views of the Supreme Leader, whose endorsement is required for the agreement to proceed?

1430 GMT: For almost two hours, rumours have been racing that Mohammad Khatami and/or Mir Hossein Mousavi have been at the Iran Media Fair this afternoon. The Iranian Labor News Agency was even reporting that Khatami was inside the Mossalla, where the Fair is taking place, before removing the article.

Latest rumours include that Mousavi approached the Fair but did not enter on the advice of security and that one man disguised as Khatami was arrested.

1100 GMT: "Western" Media Foolishness. If Iranian media are highlighting their capacity for distortion and misinformation in their coverage of the Karroubi-Media Fair events, their British counterparts are giving them a run for their money with their representation of Iran's position in the uranium enrichment talks (as we predicted at 0845 GMT). The Times proclaims, "Barack Obama's policy on brink of collapse",while The Daily Telegraph --- citing that most reliable of sources, Mr John Bolton --- yells, "Israeli Military Strike More Likely".

1035 GMT: More Other Side of the Story (see 1015 GMT). The strategy of the Islamic Republic News Agency is to use a member of the Parliament's Cultural Commission to argue that Mehdi Karroubi and his supporters planned yesterday's events at the Media Fair as part of their strategy for "overthrow" of the Iranian system.

Fars News, meanwhile, continues to push the story as one of pro-Government crowds confronting Karroubi with the "Death to the hypocrite" chant, to which Karroubi's bodyguards responded by brandishing guns.

1030 GMT: Deaths in Tehran. Iranian state media is reporting six people, including a judge, have been killed in the Iranian capital. The incident, however, appears to be unrelated to post-election conflict and instead stems from a "family dispute".

1015 GMT: The Other Side of the Story. It is illuminating to compare Mehdi Karroubi's account of the Media Fair experience with that from state media. Press TV portrays a balanced reception --- "Former Iranian presidential candidate Karroubi has been met with slogans both in favor of and against himself....The opponents shouted 'Liar, get lost' and 'Death to Monafeq [hypocrite]' while the proponents chanted, 'Long live Karroubi'." There's also a balance in blame for the violence, "The fair turned into a scene of clashes and some booths were damaged after the politician was attacked by a shoe."

No balance or indeed context in the headline, however: "Karroubi's bodyguard fires into air at Tehran fair".

0920 GMT: We've posted the English translation of Mehdi Karroubi's statement on yesterday's events at the Iran Media Fair in a separate entry.

0855 GMT: Responding to Karroubi. In a signal of the interaction of yesterday's events with the growing clerical movement against the regime, Grand Ayatollah Bayat-Zanjani talked with Mehdi Karroubi by phone after the incidents at the Media Fair. Bayat-Zanjani expressed his admiration for Karroubi’s resistance in front of obscene and hideous acts, calling him a fighter and a true believer: “The more influential you are, the more they [Ahmadinejad supporters] resist you and these insulting attempts [just] reveal how successful you are.”

0845 GMT: The Enrichment Deal is On. Just to be clear, while there will be much huffing and puffing about devious/manipulative/dangerous Iran today, Tehran's delay in signing the Vienna deal on third-party enrichment is --- for now --- only another step on the path to agreement.

The US signalled that it would allow more time for Iran's decision, while making the necessary tough noises, in a statement by State Department spokesman Ian Kelly:

Obviously we would have preferred to have a response today. We approach this with a sense of urgency. We can stretch things for a few days, and that's really what we're talking about. But we're not going to wait forever.

An EA reader adds that there is also an easing of hostility in the French media on the Iran nuclear issue, with newspapers like Le Monde accepting that Tehran's response will come next week.

0745 GMT: Pedestrian has posted an English translation of Mir Hossein Mousavi's remarks on Wednesday to the staff of his Kalemeh Sabz newspaper, which was raided and closed by Government forces on 22 June: "We must not allow the events of the past few months to create pessimism about the revolution."

0725 GMT: Inevitably we are picking up on two major stories this morning.

On the international front, the signs continue that the Iranian regime --- albeit several days after a deadline because of its gamesmanship and the rumblings of its bureaucracy --- will accept the uranium enrichment deal. While it deliberates, the Government has offered another significant concession to the "West"; officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency will arrive in Iran on Saturday to inspect the second uranium enrichment plant at Fordoo near Qom. The visit will last 2-3 days.

However, it is the Mehdi Karroubi story that dominates our initial thoughts this morning. As conversation continues to buzz about his appearance at the Iran Media Fair, the crowd enthusiasm, and the subsequent scuffles, we've posted an analysis of the significance.

UPDATED Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel

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

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 15 October 0835 GMT: Finally! An unnamed journalist picks up on the third-party enrichment story at yesterday's State Department briefing by Philip Crowley:

QUESTION: The meeting coming up, the technical talks in Vienna about the low-enriched uranium – who is the U.S. sending, and how far do you expect to get in those meetings? What’s the sort of agenda and hopes for an outcome?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s – we haven’t decided. Those arrangements are still being worked as to what the representation will be....These are technical talks, really, to work through the practical issues of how to ship the fuel out of Iran, and then provide the fuel that – for this research reactor....

QUESTION: But your understanding is that the Iranians are going forward with this, you know, a hundred percent. [Are the talks] actually just about implementing it right now, or is [the meeting] about in theory how it would work?

MR. CROWLEY: ...This is a confidence-building measure. There is the research reactor. It’s running out of fuel. And we think there’s a mechanism that can be put in place so that we can see that the shipment out of some of the existing Iranian stocks and then fuel for this particular reactor provided. I mean, it really is about working through the technical aspects of this. And...we believe that the meeting will go forward on October 19, and we’re working through the appropriate representation.


UPDATE 15 October 0730 GMT: The Hole in the Middle. Michael Slackman of The New York Times has a good but ultimately curious article this morning. In "Some See Iran as Ready for Nuclear Deal", he quotes analysts such as Trita Parsi, Flynt Leverett, and Juan Cole, as well as past statements from top Iran officials, to build his case.

The curiosity? Slackman never mentions the "third-party enrichment" proposal that proves his point.


UPDATE 1855 GMT: If you're clued up on the real story, then this statement by Vladimir Putin, former President and now Prime Minister of Russia, makes sense: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians. There is a need to reach agreements; there is a need to search for compromises." Stay the course on the ongoing, quieter discussions on third-party enrichment and Iran's second enrichment facility near Qom.

If you're not clued, then you're the ideal receptive audience for Press TV's spin on Putin's statement --- The Russians Are With Us Against the "West" --- "Putin Warns against Intimidation".

The story so far: last weekend we picked up on a scoop by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post that, for four months, the US had been developing a plan for "third-party enrichment" by Russia of 80 percent of Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. The processed uranium, now at 20% enrichment, would be used in Iran's medical research facilities. The proposal was presented to Iran before the Geneva talks at the start of October, and Tehran has accepted it as a basis for discussions.

We noted that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Moscow this week, the proposal was likely to be at the forefront of US-Russian talks on Iran. After all, the technical talks on enrichment between Iran and the 5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) are next Monday. At the same time we wondered if the media, dazzled by the surface issue of sanctions, would take any notice.

Well, Clinton has had her meetings with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and no one --- as far as we know --- figured out the real diplomatic game, as opposed to the diversionary one.

During the midst of Clinton's talks yesterday, news services were so at sea that they were blaring, almost at the same time,"Yes, the Russians Will Support Sanctions; No, the Russians Won't Support Sanctions", without giving a passing thought to enrichment.

Today is no better. The New York Times, still stuck on Lavrov's public posture that sanctions would be "counterproductive", headlines, "Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran". The Guardian of London swallows the opposite PR line, "Clinton hails US-Russian co-operation on Iran", and the BBC, thrilled to get an interview with Clinton, nods its head as she declares, "Clinton: Russia Sees Iran Threat".

But the top prize for media dizziness goes to Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post, who clearly doesn't read the stories published in her story (or at least those by Glenn Kessler). She expends more than 500 words shouting, "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions". Buried well within them is the single line, "Under heavy international pressure, the Islamic republic agreed to admit inspectors and send much of its uranium to Russia for enrichment," which --- to say the least --- is a hydrogen bomb's distance from the account Kessler gave of the US-Iran talks.

And it is not as if Clinton didn't offer a clue to the real story to anyone sharp enough to listen: "Iran has several obligations that it said it would fulfill. We believe it is important to pursue the diplomatic track and to do everything we can to make it successful."

What are those obligations? "[Iran will] fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they're doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium."

At which point a journalist on his/her game would have said, "Secretary Clinton, can you confirm that the agreement in principle concerns the plan developed since June for Iran to transfer uranium to Russia, enriching it from 3.5 to 20 percent?"

Unfortunately, the journalist who was called on to ask the final question ignored that possibility in favour of the "Oh Yes, The Russians Will. Oh No, The Russians Won't" script:"It sounds like you did not get the commitment from the Russian side in terms of sanctions or other forms of pressure that could be brought to bear on Iran. Could you comment on that?"

And who was that journalist? Take a bow, Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post.

Israel FM Lieberman: Distance from US, No Agreement with Palestine

Israel-Palestine: Sacrificing the Goldstone Report to the War of Politics

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

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has reached boiling point. After the leak of a secret memorandum calling for a radical refocus of Israeli foreign policy toward the developing world, he said on Thursday that "it was not the right time to have a final peace agreement with Palestinians".

Lieberman's five-page memorandum is calling for a move from  "lone dependence" on Washington, even if there is no replacement for Israel's special relationship with the United States) to  broader and closer ties with other world powers.

Doing this, Israel will expand ties with "neglected" parts of the world and create a "zero-tolerance" policy for anti-Semitic expression. But here's the immediate significance: Israel will also lower international expectations of a breakthrough in negotiations with the Palestinians

For the time being, this is the only official "response" from Washington, coming when tState Department Spokesman Ian Kelly was asked about Lieberman's statement on Israel Radio:

QUESTION: Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman.

MR. KELLY: Foreign Minister.

QUESTION: He made this [statement] through Israeli radio – TV?

MR. KELLY: Yeah. No, I haven’t seen that. And we certainly see some urgency in moving beyond our facilitation of getting these talks started, to actually getting them started. And I know that Senator Mitchell, Special Envoy Mitchell is in the region. He met today with President Peres and with Foreign Minister Lieberman. And he’s also meeting, I think, now with Defense Minister Barak. He plans to see Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow, as well as Prime Minister Abbas tomorrow.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Obama's Balance Wobbles

The Latest from Iran (3 October): Debating Mousavi’s Strategy
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks
Latest Iran Video: Nuclear Official Jalili on CNN (1 October)
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Remarks on Geneva Talks

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

It only took 24 hours for the Obama Administration, after the "substantial progress" of Thursday's Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme, to hit the choppy waters of Washington and Tehran politics.

On Friday morning, it was looking very good for the White House. Most of the US media were putting out the news of Iran's agreement to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment facility and to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched. They were adding the Administration's gloss that this was all made to a forceful American stance which had pushed the Iranians into concessions.

By Friday afternoon, the public-relations glue had come unstuck, as a State Department briefing turned into black comedy. (Watch the clip from the 8:44 mark.) The first wobble was over the "third-party enrichment" which had supposedly been established. Journalists challenged that Iranian officials were saying only that they had agreed to consider the proposal; the Department spokesman, unprepared for this information, could only warble about an "agreement in principle".

He came off even worse in the second exchange over Iran's invitation to inspect the Qom plant, after he said there was "no hard-and-fast deadline" for the inspections. Why then, journalists clamoured, had Barack Obama pointedly mentioned on Thursday night a "two-week deadline"? Caught between his opening line of flexibility and the inconvenience of the President's firm marker, the spokesman, umm, stammered.

This would all be good voyeuristic fun if it did not pont to the two larger problems for the Administration. The first is that the Iranian Government is not going to go gently into the diplomatic night playing its assigned role. Tehran, in our view, was already going to be conciliatory at the opening discussions in the hope of getting more discussions. It was not going to jump into any hard-and-fast deal.

The spin that the US Government "forced" Iran's concessions only adds to the dfficulty. Not wanting to appear to be forced into anything, Iranian officials "clarify" that firm measures have not been agreed but must be the subject of further talks, in this case, technical discussions in Vienna on 18 October and the next Iran meeting with the 5+1 powers, possibly at the end of this month.

The second and even greater challenge for the Obama Administration from within. There has always been a group of officials in the Executive who saw negotiations as a process that had to be endured before, with the Iranians inevitably breaking the talks and/or agreements, more pressure could be put on Tehran.

So, even as the "significantly positive" outcome of Geneva was being announced, they were tossing a bucket of red herrings to the media. There might be even more "secret" sites that Tehran had not declared. Iran still had enough uranium to make The Bomb. The Israelis were watching carefully. (Juan Cole points out how all these diversions made their way into Friday's New York Times.)

The loudest of these heckles was that, whatever happened at Geneva, The Iranians Weren't Really Serious. Yesterday morning The Wall Street Journal, which might as well declare that it is a propaganda sheet masquerading as news, declared in its opening paragraph, "Analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program." (The two "analysts" were an Israeli reservist general and George W. Bush's "special envoy on nonproliferation issues".)

Lo and behold, this morning The New York Times headlines, "U.S. Wonders if Iran Is Playing for Time or Is Serious on Deal". Helene Cooper splashes about "administration officials" warning "the trick now for Mr. Obama...will be to avoid getting tripped up", which is actually only one "senior" official (Who is he/she? On the side of those pushing for a lasting agreement with the Iranians? On the side of those seeing no prospect of an agreement?) putting out the dampening comment, “That’s the big ‘if,’ isn’t it? Will they do it? No one wants to do a premature victory lap.”

Let's just put this basic comment out, already fearing that it will disappear in the media wash. The Iranian Government is playing this process "long". It is likely to allow an IAEA inspection of Qom, although even this will be subject to discussions on conditions, but other issues including third-party enrichment, will go into a set of committees. Any agreement will take months, rather than weeks, of contact.

From the start, the Obama Administration --- split between different factions --- have been locked into playing the process "short". A quick result had to be obtained, otherwise sanctions would have to be sought quickly. That is why all the fatuous talk of deadlines --- December? September? October? --- has loudly accompanied and even out-shouted the complexities of engagement.

The President has been unable to extricate himself from this unproductive dilemma. So once again, we will have a two-week cycle of domestic fury, even though the Administration has no stick to wield, before the technical talks in Vienna.