The Latest from Iran (21 January): Speaking in Codes

2040 GMT: Pars Daily News claims that Seyed Hassan Ahmadian, head of Mir Hossein Mousavi's People Committee, has disappeared.

1840 GMT: "Foreign Enemies" Cause Regime Change...and Earthquakes. Investigative Journalism of the Day from Kayhan --- the earthquake in Haiti was caused by the redoubtable US "Harp" weapon, which is more powerful than an atomic bomb.

1830 GMT: More on Larijani's Challenge. In his recent speech, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani used the economy to challenge President Ahmadinejad, criticising the rising government budget and the failure of the 4th Development Plan. Only one-quarter of the Development Plan has reportedly been implemented.

Iran: How Should the US Treat the Green Movement? (Haghighatjoo)
NEW 2009: The View from Inside Iran
Iran Analysis: “Supreme Leader Warns Rafsanjani” — The Sequels
NEW Iran: Ahmadinejad and the Labor Movement
The Latest from Iran (21 January): Speaking in Codes

1805 GMT: Film Boycott. The famous director Abbas Kiarostami has refused to join the jury of Tehran's Fajr International Film Festival, which is scheduled to start on 25 January. Kiarostami joins other prominent figures, such as actor Ezzattollah Entezami and director Asghar Farhadi, who have turned down offers to be on the panel.

An EA reader updates: Theo Angelopoulos, the famous Greek filmmaker, has decided to withdraw from the festival.

1800 GMT: Academic Purges (cont.). Two of the Allameh Tabatabei University professors who have been banned from teaching are prominent political philosopher Seyed Morteza Mardiha and women's rights activist Saba Vasefi.

1755 GMT: The reformist Mohajedin of Islamic Revolution have issued a protest against the arrests of political activists, journalists, and students and the attacks on valuable members of the Islamic Republic for pseudo-offences, demanding their immediate release.

1630 GMT: The Tehran Prosecutor-General, Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi, has declared that anyone who associates with the Committee for Human Right Reporters is a "criminal".

Seven of the nine members of the central committee of CHRR are now detained.

1535 GMT: But the Best Will Come on Friday. Here, however, is a hint of the most explosive information we have gotten today. It will take us a bit of time to get it in proper context but....

The Plot to Remove Ahmadinejad: It involves at least three high-ranking officials in the Iran Government, one of whom is close to the Supreme Leader, one of whom is connected to the Revolutionary Guard and to Hashemi Rafsanjani, and one of whom is an influential politician but has remained almost silent in the post-election crisis. A fourth key person, who was involved in one of the Presidential campaigns and has a special grievance over the Kahrizak Prison scandal, is complementing the move with public statements.

The initial plan was to "take care" of the opposition in the current crisis and then move against the President, but it appears that this has been overtaken by events: Ahmadinejad may have to go even as the Green movement and Mousavi-Karroubi-Khatami cause complications for the plotters.

1530 GMT: Another Target for the Supreme Leader. A bit of additional (and so far unknown) information behind Ayatollah Khameini's warning to the "elites" to "take sides" this week:

Last week, Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, the former Friday Prayers leader in Qom, sent a letter to Khameini last week criticising the Government. Javadi-Amoli reportedly, after a public class in Qom, said that "nobody can solve a problem with money", a reference to the President's handout to Iran's poorest people, and that such actions were unfair because anyone "can get love" by buying it.

Khamenei's warning was, therefore, not only to Hashemi Rafsanjani and to the "conservative/principlist opposition within" but to Javadi-Amoli for going far publicly, especially as it is becoming apparent that the Supreme Leader fears a major protest on 22 Bahman (11 February).

1520 GMT: Why the Newspapers are Being Threatened (see 0955 GMT). Look to the Deputy Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Mo-Amin Ramin. An EA source says Ramin, a former Foreign Ministry official and a friend of Ahmadinejad (he reportedly is influential in the President's thoughts on the Holocaust), is behind the warnings to no less than 15 newspapers to stop publishing critical information about the Government.

The editor of Jomhouri Eslami, Masih Mohajeri, wrote to the Minister of Culture --- after Ramin threatened closure of the newspaper for publishing the 1 January statement of Mir Hossein Mousavi --- to ask him to "Ershad Ramin" (Ershad in Persian and Arabic means "Guidance"). The Parliament asked Ramin to appear before a committee and explain his actions.

Neither initiative seems to have had any effect.

1510 GMT: An Afternoon of Inside Information. Have spent a few hours checking with some very knowledgeable people about the manoeuvres inside and outside the regime. Consider this "clerical alliance", for example:

On Tuesday, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the late Imam, went to the house of Ayatollah Sane'i in Qom. After a "very good meeting", Khomeini criticised the "hard-line" Society of Teachers and Researchers of Qom, headed by the pro-Ahmadinejad Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi.

With the visible support for Sane'i, who has been effectively ostracised (and arguably, after the death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, feared) by the Government, and the denunciation of the Society, Khomeini's allegiances have been re-confirmed. Indeed, the visit was quickly condemned by Hojatoleslam Ruhollah Hosseinian, a fervent backer of the President.

1034 GMT: Defend the Supreme Leader! If you're lost like me in the confusion around the intrigues for and against the Iranian Government, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani and Press TV hold out this simple lifeline:

"Velayat-e-Faqih is the foundation of democracy and religion in the country," Larijani told a gathering of clerics in central Markazi Province.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, is the current religious jurisprudent. Under Iran's Constitution, the the Assembly of Experts chooses and supervises the Leader.

(For US readers: think of it through the words of Paul Crowe (played by Burt Reynolds) in the 1974 classic The Longest Yard: "The most important thing to remember [in American football] is....Protect your Quarterback --- Me!")

1030 GMT: Ayande News stirs the pot a little more, published an analysis of why different "hard-liners" may be trying to bring down the regime.

1025 GMT: Massoud Nur Mohammadi has joined his brother Saeed, a member of the Islamic Iran Participation Front, in detention.

1005 GMT: On the Mortazavi Battlefront. The headline fight over the future of former Tehran Prosecutor General and Ahmadinejad aide Saeed Mortazavi continues. The President has expressed determination to defend Mortazavi against accusations of responsibility for detainee abuses.

0955 GMT: Hitting the Newspapers. As the conflict within the Iranian establishment intensifies, the warnings escalate. No less than 15 publications --- Tehran Emrooz, Bahar, Tose'e, Rouzan, Jahan-e Eqtesad, Ettelaat, Etemaad, Asrar, Jahan-e San'at, Mardomsalari, Arman-e Ravabet-e Omumi, Jomhouri, Poul, Farhikhtegan, and Afarinesh --- have been threatened with suspension for "inappropriate" material.

Those articles include the biting reply of member of Parliament Ali Motahhari, who is in the forefront of criticism of the Government, to Ahmadinejad Chief of Staff Rahim-Mashai, the critique of Hassan Rohani, an ally of Hashemi Rafsanjani, of the severe security situation (amniati) and the lack of freedom of speech on 29 Dey, and the most recent statement of Mohammad Khatami.

0905 GMT: Prisoners Revolt. Human Rights and Democracy Activists in Iran reports that solitary confinement prisoners at the Gohardasht facility, the site of alleged physical abuse and torture, gained control of their ward for a period of time on Monday. This is the third recent occasion when inmates have rebelled and temporarily taken over sections of the prison.

0855 GMT: Today's Unhelpful Help from the US. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, which has embraced support of the opposition as the way to regime change in Iran, James Glassman and Michael Doran are not even subtle and/or smart enough to hide their real priorities:

Al Qaeda bombers on U.S. airliners need prompt attention, but it is Iran, a supporter of terrorism now developing the capacity to fire nuclear-tipped missiles, that may pose the greatest threat to global stability and American security.

That threat can be diminished three ways: by military action, by compromise by Iran's regime, or by a new, less bellicose government taking power in Tehran. The first two appear unlikely, but the third, at least since protests broke out last June after the presidential election, seems more and more realistic. Yet so far the United States and its allies have shrunk from seriously encouraging that third way.

Having gone this far, I'm not sure why they didn't just put together the words "Green Movement" and "pawn". And take a wild guess what the Iranian regime will do with this opinion piece if it bumps into it.

Most importantly, compare this screed with the thoughts of reformist Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, which we've posted in a separate entry, on the best US approach towards the Iranian opposition.

(A far-from-unimportant opinionated side note: Glassman and Doran were both key officials in the George W. Bush Administration's disastrous and often unintentionally humourous efforts at "public diplomacy".)

0835 GMT: And here's more knife-twisting from Khabar Online: "Iran Rial Stands as the 3rd Weakest World Currency". In a not-so-subtle criticism of the Government's management of the economy, the website notes, "The latest figures on the value of various currencies against the US dollar show that Iranian rial is only stronger than dobra of Sao Tome and Vietnamese dong."

0830 GMT: Larijani v. Ahmadinejad Showdown. Following our report yesterday, the English version of Khabar Online, the website close to Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, uses "members of Parliament" to put the demand bluntly: "[President's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-] Mashai To Be Ousted or Resigned".

0820 GMT: Taking Apart Khamenei's Speech. I doubt it will worry the Supreme Leader, given the source, but the Green movement's Rah-e-Sabz has published a sharp critique in a general challenge of Khamenei's supremacy and policies.

The website asks how Khamenei can demand the support of "nokhbegan" (intellectuals), if he has to dictate to them what they have to think. It also condemning his "plot theory", based on "cultural attack", which he has put forward from the very beginning of his Leadership. Rah-e-Sabz raises the issue of "nokhbe-koshi" (killing intellectuals).

0710 GMT: Academic Purges (cont.). After our news yesterday that at least six Allameh Tabatabei University professors have been relieved of their duties, an Iranian activist is reporting further terminations of contracts.

0644 GMT: As we catch up with the news this morning, we will also continue the attempt to bring out the meaning in the recent speeches of the Supreme Leader, Hashemi Rafsanjani, and other prominent Iranian players in the post-election conflict. Who is threatening who? Who is allying with whom?

Meanwhile, we post a scholarly example of analysing "in code": Tehran-based Mahmoud Reza Golshanpazhooh's survey of 2009 considers the tensions within the country as well as the nuclear question and Iran's foreign relations. And we have a not-so-coded interview with Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former reformist member of Parliament who had to leave Iran for the US in 2005: "The United States should carefully and delicately support the opposition movement based on United Nations conventions [on human rights]."

Comments

[John]

Re: the WSJ piece, the authors aren't smart enough to hide their interests? Why should they? Of course the success of the Green movement would be in U.S. interests, as well as morally desirable in its own right. So, we should help if we can. What exactly do you object to in this? It's one thing to argue that our help won't help; fine. But why you are saying seems to be that it's somehow wrong to take sides, since the U.S. has goals and interests that are its own. You can only support the Greens if you're a purely disinterested observer? What a strange, not to mention ahistorical and self-defeating, view of international affairs. Agents with different but converging ends make common cause all the time.

[Scott Lucas]

John,

To clarify: the blunt expression that "we" should help the Greens primarily to get regime change for 1) an abolition of Iran's nuclear programme; 2) an end to Iran's interest in the Middle East (the "terrorism" charge); and 3) a pro-American Government.....

1) Reduces the aspirations and demands of the opposition to "our" agenda, which is not necessarily theirs;

2) Plays into the hands of an Iranian regime eager to portray its opponents as being manipulated by "foreign intervention" rather than expressing legitimate political, economic, and social aspirations and goals.

S.

[Rev. Magdalen]

John I think it's not so much that we have to be disinterested to help, it's more that that WSJ article will now be used as evidence against political prisoners at their cases. The Regime is looking hard for any hint that this whole Green thing is just a foreign plot, because their egos won't let them admit that they screwed things up horribly and Iranians are naturally upset about it and forming an internal opposition to do something about it.

[John]

Thanks for your reply; and sure, I'll avoid the 'we'. But 1) is not true at all: A can take help from B with its eyes open and for its own reasons, without being 'reduced' to anything. There are a battery of historical examples of this, as you certainly know.

And as for 2), the secret's out, isn't it? Everyone in the U.S., U.K., etc., all the evil, arrogant Satans, want to see the Greens prevail (maybe not the Leveretts). If it's such a fatal charge in Iranian politics that you want what they want, the opposition is doomed anyway. Even if there's an argument (as I think is reasonable to claim) against, say, Obama openly backing the Greens, in an open society people are going to say what they think - and in this case everyone knows it anyway.

[John]

Not to mention that there really are points of convergence on US and Iranian-opposition foreign policy, whether a democratic Iran would define itself as 'pro-American' or not. What do the Greens think of Hezbollah and Hamas? (and must we really have the scare-quotes on 'terrorism'? Hamas blows up buses, yes?) Ample reason to think they look at Nasrallah and see something every bit as sinister as they do in Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.

[Scott Lucas]

John,

Thanks for your points.

"A can take help from B with its eyes open and for its own reasons, without being ‘reduced’ to anything."

I think the issue is whether the diverse range of opposition groups inside Iran would welcome the assistance as laid out by Glassman and Doran (and, indeed, others writing in a similar vein such as Charles Krauthammer and former Bush official John Hannah). This all reads as an agenda of these gentlemen --- we failed to get regime change in the Bush years; wait, we can get it now --- rather than support of the agenda of the Green movement(s). My concern is that when it becomes the Green movement(s) follows an agenda which is different (even in the cases of Lebanon and Palestine that you mention), then this new support will turn into hostility.

(Indeed, it already did during this crisis: have a look at the response to Ataollah Mohajerani's talk at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in October.)

"The secret’s out, isn’t it? Everyone in the U.S., U.K., etc., all the evil, arrogant Satans, want to see the Greens prevail."

There's a fine but important line between supporting the aims of the opposition and taking over those aims with the proclamation of "regime change". For example, not everyone in the Green movement(s)/opposition wants the removal of "Islamic" from the Republic, and there are differences over the future place/concept of velayat-e-faqih.

Pieces such as Glassman/Doran allow the regime to convert what is a complex internal movement into one whose strings are being pulled by the "regime change" puppeteers abroad --- Mousavi, Karroubi, and number other Green movement activists have warned against this. And, for me, that's a pretty good guide on being very careful with advocacy, not despite but because of the importance of the cause.

Once again, look at Fatemeh Haghighatjoo's interview that we posted today and see the importance differences in approach from that of Glassman/Doran.

S.

[ange paris]

Few days ago, I watched a report in TV on Obama's life before and after his presidency; It was showed how the journalists are angry with him because they have been waiting for hours before his press conference (3-4 hours ), and when he made his speech , he left the stage without any question-response; in this programme, there was an old lovely journalist ( I have forgotten her name I think 89 years old, for the birthday of whom Obama came into the room with a cake and candles singing "Happy Bithday to you") that answered to an other journalist questionning her about what is wrong with Obama :
"he dosen't take a blunt and precise position ; in life we have to be able to make a few enemies to have lots of friends and allies ." It's what I do in my daily life too .
If Obama has ( after too long time and after those massacres, rapes and totures) decided to help Green movement , he has eventually taken "his position" and it's a noble decision ; in any case, iranian regime has said that green movement is beeing manipulated by foreign intervention and in fact they knows actually that it's wrong but it's only not to loose face in Iran; so there is no problems because all the sensible people all over the world are against the iranian regime !!
I don't see any problems with WSJ and its article .

[ange paris]

Today Sazegara said that in a survey , 76 % of Iranians want a regime change; he said that the aim of green movement is to owerthrow AN and SL and after we will have a referendum to say what we want :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyF7r3K5qIM

[Megan]

John,

I agree with you.

Scott,

I was disappointed with your analysis. Please do not boost up your points by writing Bush next to the name of any person you disagree with. You do this much too often as if a person who worked for Bush or any administration we do not support cannot bring something worthwhile to the table.

[Megan]

Rev. Magdalen,

We have tiptoed enough. No matter what U.S. says or does, the response from the fools in IR regime is the same as it has been for the past 31 years and that is “down with America”. You cannot massage your words and walk softly to please Iran regime. If there is a traffic jam some place in Tehran, IR will say Americans did it.

Thousands have died in the past 31 years, millions live in exile. As we ponder how soft we talk and walk more innocent lives will be lost. I want to see outrage, I want to see International community to be louder.

People like Fatemeh Haghighatjoo wo advocates U.S. should quietly support opposition lives in this country. She is safe now. If she was in Evin prison and were fearing execution would have favored quite support of opposition.

[Megan]

Ange,

Right on. I am with you on WSJ article.

[John]

Scott, thanks again for your response, Megan, thanks for getting my back,

We have this handy expression, 'the narcissism of small differences.' Scott, I'm not trying to call you names, but I think I see a bit of it in your reaction to conservative Iran punditry. Of course, they've been hoping for regime change for years, and they still are. But isn't that what you want to see as well? The term clearly rankles you, but isn't the success of the Greens at this point tantamount to regime change? Maybe it wasn't always, but with Khamenei's utter refusal to compromise, and the reality that the IRGC is largely running the show, the possibility of middle ground is vanishing: the bottom-line of the regime is now 'what I (Khamenei) say goes' (as you just pointed out) and whatever the internal tensions in the Green movement, their bottom line is 'that doesn't work for us.' How can they possibly come out on top now, without it constituting de facto regime change?

And comparing the Haghighatjoo interview with the WSJ piece, sure there are important differences (mostly in the adverbs - 'carefully' versus 'aggressively' supporting the opposition - and I fail to see how the one but not the other would keep the regime from successfully playing the foreign-meddling card, which they do and will play regardless). But to my eyes these are tactical disagreements among people with broadly common goals. What exactly is the difference between what you and Krauthammer want to see happen in Iran? And goals aside, on the level of analysis, isn't the longstanding, classic conservative take on the regime (it's fundamentally autocratic, incapable of incremental reform from within, deeply wedded to extremism and conflict with the west) looking better and better as this crisis develops?

John

(By the way, thank you for your work following all of this. I appreciate it very deeply.)

[Samuel]

It is extremely obvious to anyone currently breathing that the greenies are already in a de facto alliance with American imperialists on 1) Regime change; 2) Nuclear weapons and 3) Palestine. The greenie allies in Washington have already been actively lobbying for "targetted sactions" and other measures ostensibly to punish Iran for its Nuclear program but really to help the anti-govt. movement. This is why it is so important for the greenies to publicly denounce again and again Hezbollah and Hamas.

They know very well the power and influence of the Israeli Lobby in the United States ("American Likudniks" Professor Juan Cole often calls them) and they need to make it clear to America and its foreign policy establishment that they would pursue a pro-Zionist or at the very least neutral foreign policy while cutting off support to the resistance forces in Lebanon and Palestine. This is why the greenies not only advocate an end to Iranian help for Hezbollah but also seek every opportunity to blame the Lebanese group for assassinations and repression in Iran proper.

In effect the greenies are saying, nay shouting, "Look at us American Likudniks and Israeli Lobby we have a common enemy in Hassan Nasrallah's evil terrorist group."

The WSJ article adds nothing new to this scenario but I welcome it as yet further proof of who the greenies really are. The govt. should utilize such articles in its mobilization campaign.

[ange paris]

Samuel
So what ?? you were in the same place two months ago !!

[mukharbish]

Beyond questions of who is advocating it or why, how much difference would US support for the opposition make to the situation in practice? After all, the US has imposed sanctions on Iran and treated it as a pariah state for years with little or no impact on the stability of the regime.

Hardliners already accuse the opposition of having US support regardless of whether it does or not. People are defying the security apparatus and protesting in the streets, calling the whole system into question in their slogans, without waiting for US government backing. At most, the technical assistance with communications that Haghighatjoo calls for might provide the opposition with space to mobilise more effectively. But would the impact of this really be decisive when the movement has already come so far? I can understand that many Americans and Iranians would like to see the Obama administration back the protesters for moral and symbolic reasons, but in the end I think this issue is a sideshow. The key to what ultimately happens to the Islamic Republic are internal developments in Iran itself.

[Scott Lucas]

Thanks to all of you for your points.

I have two reactions as I read the now non-stop outpouring of Krauthammer-Hannah-Abrams-Glassman-Pletka-etc. advocating support for Iran's opposition. The first is that the primary interest should be the future of Iran, not the nuclear issue, not Israel, not the wider Middle East, certainly not the US position.

And that interest should be determined by the Iranian people. That may be "tantamount to regime change"; it may not. Indeed, unless you start from the premise that the overthrow of the Government and Supreme Leader is paramount and all else follows, "regime change" may overshadow rather than illuminate many of the issues in play here regarding justice, rights, compensation.

I hope that is seen not as a condemnation of the Green movement(s), even if it is a criticism of those whom I think may invoke the cause in support of other goals which are distant from Iran's internal situation.

My second reaction is that the folks I've listed above, often in connection with the Bush Administration, have been pushing for regime change for many years, Iraq and North Korea being two prominent examples. In the case of Iraq, I do not believe that any of them was motivated first and foremost by the Iraqi people --- that was just a pretext --- and I don't believe any of them understood much about the thoughts and aspirations of the Iraqi people. I have to say I fear the same is the case with Iran. (I certainly didn't notice any of them coming out for the Greens last summer; it has only been after post-October developments on the nuclear front that their support emerged.)

I realise, however, that I have been banging this drum too loudly, especially in light of mukharbish's point that this may be a sideshow and even an irrelevance to the important issues and internal developments. So I'll put away the second reaction and concentrate on the first.

Again, thanks to all for a constructive discussion,

S.

[Rev. Magdalen]

Megan, thank you for your thoughts, I definitely can see your point of view as well. Over these seven months I've learned how important face-saving is in Iranian culture, and so I think that might have something to do with the debate about what should America do. People say that Ahmadinejad actually gains whenever the US engages with him, because it shows he's "important" and a big shot on the world stage, even if the talks end up in sanctions.

I think Americans are used to thinking of politicians making statements as a sort of worthless thing, but it seems like to the Iranians it would mean a lot if more Western politicians would loudly condemn the Regime's abuses. As for newspapers, I agree, it's important they're free to print whatever they like, no matter what.

[mukharbish]

re: 1535, why so coy about the names? are you trying to create suspense before revealing all tomorrow? "a fourth key person, who was involved in one of the Presidential campaigns and has a special grievance over the Kahrizak Prison scandal..." sounds like Abdolhossein Ruholamini, adviser to the Rezai campaign whose son was killed in Kahrizak. The others could be some of the individuals mentioned in connection with earlier unity plans (which presumably also involved sidelining Ahmadinejad and co). Qalibaf? Ali Akbar Velayati? Hassan Rohani? I suppose I'll have to wait until tomorrow instead of idly throwing names around.

[ange paris]

mukharbish
"After all, the US has imposed sanctions on Iran and treated it as a pariah state for years with little or no impact on the stability of the regime."
Perhaps ,year after year, what has happened in Iran, is the outcome of these "light" sanctions;it's a conjunction of several elements and the stability of the regime ?? you can see the impact; it was weakened by the hard life and the anger of our people !

[Scott Lucas]

mukharbish,

Honestly, I want to ensure that I have got all the information lined up and the piece is set out fully and properly before giving out the details. (But, yes, I am being a bit cheeky in trying to build up expectations).

S.

[Greeny]

Re. 1535 GMT: But the Best Will Come on Friday... The Plot to Remove Ahmadinejad...

This sounds like a very dangerous move for SL and establishment. I would have thought that giving up Ahmadinejad would be SL’s last resort. After so much that SL has done and sacrificed to keep Ahmadinejad as president (he has broken many IRI laws, many religious laws, staked all his credibility on Ahmadinejad presidency), unless there are some very serious problems within IRI already, this seems to be too early for him to decided to drop Ahmadinejad.
Once/if he gives up Ahmadinejad he would have acknowledged that he is subservient to the will of the Greens (who in his words are a bunch of thugs, drunks, addicts, prostitutes, spies, traitors, simpletons, etc).
I am wondering whether this is not some rumour primarily based IRI insiders’ wishful thinking. Or it may be a ploy to divert public attention from anger towards Khamenie in the run up to 22 Bahman (to get people to think that SL is getting rid of Ahmadinejad and they decided to go to vacation during the long 22 Bahman weekend).
Maybe I am too pessimistic in thinking that the center of power in IRI has the capacity to think strategically. It would be good news if this were to be in fact true.
In any case from the few details here, it sounds like a conservative move to consolidate power: get rid of/weaken radical right and take advantage of reformist absent (as almost all are now in prison) to sweep in and take power and hope that the people will be kinder to them than to Ahmadinejad. And along side this weaken Khamenei, who is looking like a spent force, and whose speeches are getting more comic (did you notice the short sentence in his latest speech which utilized the word “enemy” three times: “clarity is the enemy’s enemy and obscurity is the enemy’s friend”?)
Let’s wait for the further details on Friday...

[ange paris]

Scott
For your second rection, both sides have the aims completely different, green movement dreams to establish democracy in Iran swiping economic weakness and financial errors ( pillaging countr's assets...) and Obama's administration wants to resolve the nuclear issue; both of these aims will be realized by reform in the regime ( abolition of veleyate faghih) or regime change !

[ange paris]

In one hand we have rumours like "AN will be removed" and in the other hand they continue to harass people and what they have done everyday; we can't rely on their honesty !!

[Barry]

@Angie Paris

"After all, the US has imposed sanctions on Iran and treated it as a pariah state for years with little or no impact on the stability of the regime."

I agree with your reply to this statement. In fact, I was going to state what you have stated almost exactly to the word - except that you beat me to the punch because of our time difference. :)

The fact is that Iran is now not stable!!! Why is that so? - Answer - for a number of reasons , one of which are the sanctions already imposed.

There is a saying -- SLOWLEE, SLOWLEE -- CATCHEE MONKEE

Barry

[Barry]

@Greeny

"This sounds like a very dangerous move for SL and establishment."

AGREE!!

But Khamenei is in a LOSE-LOSE situation. He loses if he doesn't discard AN, but loses even more big time if he does!! If I were him, I would not discard AN!! :)

Barry