Archives: July 2010

Iran Analysis: More War, No Facts, Blah Blah (Chapter 23)

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 10:45:35 +0000

It's one thing for pontificator Charles Krauthammer to post an "analysis", void of logic and knowledge of Iran, to cheer-lead for threats of military action --- as we have noted often, he has long pushed for war with Tehran. It's another for "moderate" Washington insiders Steven Simon and Ray Takeyh (with whom I have worked) to turn speculation into the situation on the ground, making military action the centre of attention in their commentary in today's Washington Post: "If Iran came close to getting a nuclear weapon, would Obama use force?"

Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.

The article starts with Politics Fantasyland:

Imagine a moment when President Obama has only two alternatives: prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran or embark on the perilous path of military action to stop it. Imagine that diplomacy has run its course, after prolonged and inconclusive negotiations; that surging international oil prices have undercut the power of economic sanctions against Tehran; and that reliable intelligence says the Islamic republic's weapons program is very close to reaching its goal. Facing such conditions, would Obama use force against Iran?

Then, once again, we get the war-war meanderings of former Bush Administration official Michael Hayden as Very Significant --- they aren't --- before jacking up Obama's formulaic statement in an interview with Israeli television (note the audience), "I assure you that I have not taken options off the table." In limited mitigation, Takeyh and Simon then note the constraints on a possible US push for military action --- the United Nations, European opinion, the need for domestic consensus. But only limited mitigation: in the end, the two authors come off as Chicken Little soothsayers: "The world imagined here may not constitute destiny --- but it will be hard to escape." If Takeyh and Simon really wanted to make a contribution, rather than feeding water-cooler chatter (and the bias towards conflict), they might have queried their opening assumption that Iran is close to significant military nuclear capability (it isn't) or even if the regime intends to pursue that capability (unclear, though my personal reading is not at the present). Takeyh and Simon might have even taken a moment to note the current diplomatic situation in which, far from moving towards a military showdown, both Tehran and Washington are approaching renewed talks over Iran's uranium enrichment. But that would ruin the drama of the speculation, wouldn't it? Apologies for appearing harsh on the two authors rather than, say, venting concern and frustration towards a Krauthammer. However, Takeyh and Simon, unless Krauthammer, have experience working inside an Administration. And I also think, unlike Krauthammer, that they are not trying to wish a war into existence. So, please no more bombs-and-missiles fantasy. If we have to pose as a tough guy, let's try Jack Webb from TV's Dragnet: "Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

EA on the Road: Lost in England

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 07:07:32 +0000

We'll be travelling in northwest England today, so service --- including the LiveBlog from Iran --- will be limited. As usual, many thanks to our readers for keeping us up to speed with news, ideas, and comments. We will be to full service on Sunday afternoon.

Afghanistan Video: "The Ugly of War" (Smith/The Guardian)

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:50:04 +0000

Sean Smith of The Guardian of London has made a 15-minute film documenting the US military experience on the frontline of the Afghanistan War in Helmand province. Smith has also posted a diary of his time with the American troops, and The Guardian has posted the video of an interview with a US medical evacuation (Medevac) crew chief on "the most traumatic mission he has ever flown":

The Latest from Iran (31 July): Past and Present

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 06:14:34 +0000

1520 GMT: More War, No Facts, Blah. The deputy head of Iran's armed forces, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri, says the US is escalating its "war of nerves" against Iran: "US Congress Bill 1553 which gives the hated Zionist regime a free hand to confront Iran is part of a psychological warfare scenario devised at the request of an American think tank to affect Iranian nuclear insiders." Hmm...Resolution 1553, which backs Israeli miitary action against Tehran, has been sponsored by a minority of Republicans --- which is the minority party --- in the House of Representatives, the junior chamber of the US Congress. It is unlikely to be adopted by Congress, let alone be supported by the Obama Administration. Still, I'm not sure Jayazeri needs to worry about such details....(http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136890§ionid=351020101)

NEW Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)
Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning “Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone”
Iran’s Persecution of Rights: The Pursuit of Lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (Shahryar)
The Latest from Iran (30 July): Stepping Up the Criticism

1515 GMT: All Hail Rahim-Mashai. He may be widely disliked, even amongst conservatives, but the President's chief of staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai continues to pile up the posts. Indeed, the latest may help Rahim-Mashai answer his critics: Fars News says he will manage the Islamic Republic News Agency. (http://is.gd/dUUoU) 1340 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. A group of families of political prisoners have reportedly gathered in front of the office of the Tehran Prosecutor General to protest the detention of their relatives. (http://fb.me/ER74sOKd) 1330 GMT: Larijani Watch. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has said that that he is ready to “confront the government through legal channels” if they refuse to send their legislation to the parliament for review: “According to the constitution, government legislation has to be relayed to the parliament to assure correspondence with the law. But it is a while now that this has not been done and this is a blatant breach of law.” Asked if he will summon President Ahmadinejad to the Parliament, Larijani said that it is not yet time for such an action. The President’s parliamentary deputy has denied the allegation and said the Government is delivering the new legislation to Parliament before execution. (http://bit.ly/ccwHpe) 1315 GMT: We have posted a separate analysis considering the establishment of War with Iran as part of "normal" discussion in the US media. 1300 GMT: Missing Lawyer Mostafaei Update. A follow-up to this week's story on EA by Josh Shahryar about prominent human rights lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who went into hiding after Iranian authorities tried to detain him, arresting his wife and brother-in-law.... Mostafaei has now written to the Tehran Prosecutor General, Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi. An Iranian activist summarises the letter, "I'll give myself in if my wife and brother-in law are released, and I am guaranteed a fair trial and legal process. Otherwise, catch me if you can." (http://bit.ly/9e9TLz) 1100 GMT: Threat of the Day. The head of Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, has become the go-to guy for Iranian state media for quotes challenging sanctions, and he does not disappoint today: “The European Union will receive an appropriate response should it put into practice [new] sanctions against the Iranian nation.” (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=136860§ionid=351020104) 0600 GMT: We begin this morning with a feature from Mr Verde considering how the current political crisis is bringing out new information and debate on the Iran of the 1980s and the war with Iraq.

Meanwhile....

Getting (and Understanding) the News from Iran

Azadeh Moaveni has a sharp, incisive anlaysis on Foreign Policy, "What the West Isn't Hearing About":

With reporters on the ground so compromised by self-censorship, our ability to get a decent read of public opinion in Iran, let alone any smart, rigorously reported insight into domestic politics -- the opposition's strategy, the displeasure of the ayatollahs in Qom, the establishment's discomfiture at the prospect of sanctions -- is nonexistent. Even small, telling stories have become too sensitive to report, like the post-election defection of young journalists from Press TV (the government's English-language TV network) [Editor's Note: EA knows about this from personal correspondence with sources] or the distressing rise of so-called "experimental hires" as firms exploit young people's desperation for jobs to extract months of unpaid work under the false premise of a trial period....

It is perhaps understandable that Western readers are less interested in granular details from Iran than in the broad geopolitical sweep of the last year. But the loss of these stories is still a travesty, for it obscures the extent to which the spirit of the opposition still rules Iran. Certainly, the Islamic Republic knows better than to underestimate the scale and depth of people's disillusion and the swiftness with which inchoate grievances can be transformed into running street battles. A year after events so extraordinary that staid Tehran matrons found themselves setting fire to the barracks of Iran's feared Basij paramilitary, it would be unfortunate indeed if Western journalists, with whatever good intentions, faltered in their understanding of Iran, when it is so obvious that the regime itself acknowledges the power of its foes.

The Detained Americans

President Obama has made another appeal to Tehran to free three Americans --- Sarah Shourd, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal --- detained one year ago when they allegedly crossed the Iran-Iraq border on foot.

Sarah, Shane and Josh committed absolutely no crime. Yet for a full year, they have been held in prison, causing extraordinary grief and uncertainty for them, for their families, and for their loved ones. I want to be perfectly clear: Sarah, Shane and Josh have never worked for the United States government....

I call on the Iranian government to immediately release Sarah, Shane and Josh. Their unjust detention has nothing to do with the issues that continue to divide the United States and the international community from the Iranian government.

On a related matter, Iranian-American academic Kian Tajbakhsh, sentenced last autumn to 15 years in prison (later reduced to 5 years on appeal), remains on temporary release.

Iran Analysis: Looking Back on the 1980s (Verde)

Scott Lucas — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 05:28:05 +0000

In recent weeks, one of the effects of the post-election crisis in Iran has been a look back at the early history of the Islamic Republic. In June, Mostafa Tajzadeh wrote an open letter asking for forgiveness for actions taken by reformists in the 1980s. This week, Mir Hossein Mousavi --- before his 1988 resignation letter as Prime Minister was published on the website of former President Abolhassan Bani Sadr --- issued an statement to disclose his version of events during the Iran-Iraq War. Mr Verde explains the significance: No one in the Iranian public knows anything about the decisions taken by politicians and military commanders during the Iran-Iraq War. There has never been any public scrutiny of the decisions taken. There is no independent information available about the actual events. On the regime side, the narrative is this: “Backed by both the West and the East, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in order to destroy the revolution, hence the war is called 'jang-e tahmili' (imposed war). The army of Islam fought heroically, hence the war being referred to as 'defa’-e moghddass' (Holy Defence). The whole world supported Saddam and eventually we were forced to accept the ceasefire, which Ayatollah Khomeini referred to as a chalice of poison.” I am not saying this narrative is entirely false. Of course, Saddam started the war and the Iranian forces fought heroically against the odds on many occasions. My point is that the narrative is tainted by official propaganda. That is far from unexpected, but the problem is that there is no independently verifiable information, with the excuse that this is a "holy" matter, about the official thinking and decisions beyond the propaganda. Some people may be reluctant to question issues regarding the war, because it may appear that they are disrespecting the many servicemen, volunteers, and civilians who were killed during it. However, this crisis and infighting within the Islamic Republic is producing an unexpected result. The recent revelations were spurred by the claims of Mohsen Rafighdoost, who was Minister of the Revolutionary Guard from 1982 to 1989. He makes it sound like the war was used as a tool for internal in-fighting of the regime: “Mr Hashemi [Rafsanjani, who had been put in charge of the war by Ayatollah Khomeini] told me: go and sit in your Ministry, I want to throw the ball into the court of the Government. He then gave an order that Mr Mousavi [then Prime Minister] became the head of the war effort, Mr Behzad Nabavi became the logistical deputy, and Mr [Mohhammad] Khatami became the propaganda deputy.” Rafighdoost's implication is that Rafsanjani, knowing that the war effort was in bad shape, wanted to put Mousavi in charge so that once Iran had to accept the United Nations ceasefire resolution --- an acceptance which soon occurred --- Mousavi would be blamed for the failures. Rafighdoost also says that the government of Mousavi was hindering the war effort. Mousavi responds that when he was put in charge, Iran was indeed in a very bad shape. He claims that in the first War Council meeting that he chaired, the regular Army and Revolutionary Guard commanders told him that Iran would certainly lose the Khuzestan Province to an Iraqi attack. He claims that the bulk of Iranian forces were massed around an unimportant height in Kordestan Province at the time, and even there they were in danger of being outflanked by the enemy. As for management of the war, Mousavi claims that it had been handled badly since 1982. At this stage it is impossible to know whose account to believe (maybe a combination of the two?). A few years ago, after a public quarrel with Mohsen Rezaei, Revolutionary Guard commander in the 1980s, Rafsanjani published a secret message from Khomeini, in which the Ayatollah detailed his reasons for accepting the ceasefire. Unexpectedly Khomeini’s main reason for accepting the ceasefire was a letter from IRGC commander Rezaei. That letter said that Iran did not have any attacking capabilities for at least another five years. Even after that, it would only be possible to win the war if Tehran had hundreds of new planes and tanks and other modern weaponry such as laser-guided missiles and atomic bombs and if foreign powers were stopped from exerting influence in the region. Ayatollah Khomeini said that the Government was unable to support the war effort to this extent and everyone else except Rezaei was of the opinion that the war should be stopped. I cannot help getting the feeling that officials are using nationally important information for their personal or factional gain, yet one effect of these disclosures is that they will further erode the Islamic Republic's historical foundations. In this crisis, the regime’s important days being tarnished: Qods [Jerusalem] Day in became “not Gaza, Not Lebanon” day, 13 Aban [in November] was a day when the regime's commemoration was so heavily guarded that it looked as if its marchers were prisoners, 16 Azar [National Students Day in December] became an occasion on which universities across the country voiced their protests, the funeral of a Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in the holy city of Qom turned into an anti-Khamenei demonstration, the religious celebration of Ashura [27 December] became a day on which the regime murdered its own citizens on the street, 22 Bahman [11 February] saw Iranian cities turned into military camps, and 14 Khordad [4 June] saw the humiliation by regime insiders of the grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini on the anniversary of his death. Now the carefully guarded regime-backed version of the Iran-Iraq War is being disputed by regime insiders. Next chapter to come soon?

China This Week: South China Sea Issue; Military Drills; High-Speed Rail Plan; Sino-Russia Grid Agreement

EA Admin — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:01:58 +0000

Foreign Minister Warning on South China Sea: Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Sunday warned other countries not to "internationalize" the territorial dispute over the South China Sea, following comments by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the issue at the Association of Southeast Asian NationsRegional Forum in Vietnam. Clinton said resolving disputes over the South China Sea was "pivotal" to regional stability and suggested an international mechanism to solve the issue. "International practices show that the best way to resolve such disputes is for countries concerned to have direct bilateral negotiations," Yang responded. "China and some ASEAN nations have territorial and maritime rights disputes because we are neighbors. And those disputes shouldn't be viewed as ones between China and ASEAN as a whole just because the countries involved are ASEAN members." Yang noted the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea signed by China and ASEAN member countries in 2002 has helped ease regional conflicts. In the declaration, countries pledged to "exercise restraint, and not to make [the South China Sea] an international issue or multilateral issue”. Navy Live-Ammunition Training in South China Sea: Naval units of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) conducted a large-scale live-ammunition training exercise in the South China Sea, according to a front-page report in Thursday's PLA Daily newspaper. In the exercise, carried out on 26 July, warships and submarines from the Navy's South China Sea Fleet carried out precision strikes on surface targets by firing guided missiles, as warships conducted anti-missile air defense operations. China Conducts Two Military Drills:The Chinese military conducted two exercises near the Yellow Sea, as the United States and South Korea engaged in a joint military drill. On Tuesday, an army unit based at an inland province in the Jinan Military Command ferried combat forces and arms to "a coastal city" in Shandong province. Two days earlier, as Washington and Seoul began their joint exercise, the Nanjing Military Command tested a new long-range artillery rocket on land toward the Yellow Sea. It was the first time China has carried out such a large-scale long-range artillery rocket drill. As Washington and Seoul completed their first joint exercise on Wednesday, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency quoted a high-level military officer that the two sides will "present a joint military exercise once every month until the end of the year". The official also said a US-South Korea drill is scheduled to take place in the Yellow Sea in September. Communist Party in "Dialogue" with US Parties: The Communist Party of China (CPC) has scheduled a high-level dialogue with the Democratic Party and Republican Party in the US by the end of this year, Li Jun, spokesman for the International Department of the CPC Central Committee, has said. The invitation follows the first high-level dialogue between the three main political parties when a US delegation led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Assistant Secretary of State Richard Williamson visited China from 30 March 30 to 3 April. China, Japan Talk on East China Sea Issue: On Tuesday, China and Japan on Tuesday conducted the first round of negotiations on the implementation of principles of consensus concerning the East China Sea. The two sides agreed to make concerted efforts to implement the principlesand attain the common goal of turning the East China sea into a sea of "peace, cooperation and friendship". High-speed Rail Links to be Doubled by 2012: China will spend 800 billion yuan ($120 billion) as part of an ambitious plan to double its high-speed rail network by 2012, the Ministry of Railways said on Wednesday. The sum will be invested to lay more than 6000 km of new high-speed tracks across the country, pushing the total length of high-speed railways to 13,000 km by 2012, said Yu Bangli, chief economist with the Ministry. He Huawu, the ministry's chief engineer, said that China will set a new record by running trains at 380 km (228 miles) per hour on the Beijing-Shanghai link, scheduled for completion before 2012. China and Russia Sign Power-Grid Agreement: The State Grid Corporation of China has signed a framework agreement with the Russian national grid operator to extend their collaboration on grid technology, cooperation, and management. According to Rusnews.cn, a Russian news portal, both companies will begin construction of a 500 kV, cross-border power line in the Amur region of Russia in 2011. China to Recruit More Global Experts: Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping has said more efforts should be put into a programme for recruiting global experts, which was initiated in 2008. By May this year, 662 people had been recruited under the program, which gives priority to leading scientists who are able to make breakthroughs in key technologies, develop high-tech industries, and lead new research projects. According to the National Medium and Long-term Talent Development Plan (2010-2020), unveiled in June, the government will work out favourable policies on taxation, insurance, housing, children and spouse settlement, career development, research projects, and government awards for high-calibre overseas experts who are willing to work in China. Foreign Seeds Cause Worries over Food Safety: The aggressive tacticsof foreign seed companies in China have increased concerns over the nation's food safety, especially at a time when agricultural yields are falling. Worries surfaced after prices of some agricultural products spiraled in the past few months, amid concerns that the prevailing variations in weather will affect yields over the next few months. UN Official Hails China's Role in Protecting Ozone Layer: An official with the UN Environment Program on Thursday hailed China's role in phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals while launching a joint initiative with the European Commission to protect the ozone layer. Rajendra Shende, head of the UNEP Ozone Action Branch, told Xinhua that China has just completed preparing a national strategy to phase down and phase out the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFSs) and will submit it in a couple of months to the UN funding agency.

US Politics: Why "Filibuster Reform" May Be the Big Issue of 2010 (Haddigan)

Scott Lucas — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:21:48 +0000

On Tuesday the Republican minority in the Senate prevented the proposed DISCLOSE Act, a campaign finance reform measure already passed by the House of Representatives, from proceeding to a floor vote. They failed to force an end to discussion of the Bill, losing a vote of cloture. (The Democrats had a majority of 57-41 but 60 votes are required to cut off debate.) While the DISCLOSE Act is not, as yet, officially dead, Democrats will struggle to convince the lone Republican needed to force cloture before the Senate goes into recess, with implications for the near-future that extend far beyond the issue of campaign finance reform. Democrats, angry at this latest obstructionism in the Senate by Republicans, have begun discussing what changes they can make in Senate rules to prevent similar filibuster tactics. With the Democrats likely to have only a slender majority in the Senate after the mid-term elections, the future course of the Obama Presidencymay well rest on what reforms Democrats can make to Senate rules in the next few months. The DISCLOSE (Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act was introduced on 21 July by Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York. Its intention is to restrict some of the electoral influence granted to corporations in the Supreme Court’s historic ruling in January in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case. In that decision the Court ruled that corporations, like individuals, can fund electoral campaigns under the First Amendment protection of political free speech. Corporations are still prohibited from donating directly to a candidate’s campaign fund or a national party committee, a restriction placed into law by the Tillman Act of 1907, but are now permitted to use "independent spending" to explicitly support a candidate. "Independent spending" means that corporations and advocacy groups can fund political advertisements with their internal money, as long as they are independent from, or not associated with, the official campaign operations of the candidate. Corporations were formerly banned by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 from using their general treasury accounts to pay for television and radio advertisements that named the candidate they supported, or opposed, in the weeks before Federal elections for President or Congress. Critics of Citizens United, largely Democrats, argue that the easing of curbs on corporations' funding of campaigns will lead to a sharp increase in the number of so-called ‘attack ads’ in the days before an election. This, opponents contend, will give a disproportionate influence on the outcome of an election to those wealthy organizations that can flood the airwaves in the critical period prior to the vote. The DISCLOSE act attempts to weaken that political sway by requiring that all "electioneering communications" (i.e., media advertisements) include a full disclosure of who is funding the message. Democrats hope that this measure will allow the voter the chance to recognise when their vote is being "bought" by special interest groups. The Act also wants to prevent “persons negotiating for or performing government contracts”, companies that received bail-out funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and “United States corporations controlled by foreign entities” from exerting undue influence over elections. The Act suggests, “Independent expenditures and electioneering communications that benefit particular candidates or elected officials or disfavor their opponents can lead to apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements.” As Citizens United mandates the principle of constitutional protection of political speech for corporations, there is little Congress can do to ban them from "independent expenditures and electioneering communications". But the DISCLOSE Act would limit the ‘apparent and actual ingratiation, access, influence, and quid pro quo arrangements’ of all corporations by limiting the number eligible to legally finance independently an electoral campaign. I am no business expert, but I’ll warrant the guess that all corporations in America with the financial clout to potentially affect an electoral result could wbe precluded from electioneering communications because they are government contractors/TARP funded/foreign-controlled. The last restriction, regarding foreign corporations, was especially written with the widest possible latitude for the Supreme Court to narrow campaign financing regulations. The Act states that: “As recognized in many areas of the law, foreign ownership interests and influences are exerted in a perceptible way even when the entity is not majority-foreign-owned”, leading to the contention that the “Federal Government has broad constitutional power to protect American interests and sovereignty from foreign interference and intrusion6.” Republicans oppose the DISCLOSE act. They are, in general, excited at the prospect of corporations and advocacy organizations financing the campaigns of Party candidates. Despite the efforts of Democrats to sway the vote of three wavering senators, and President Obama’s pleas from the Rose Garden on Monday to end the threat of “shadow groups (that) are already forming and building war chests of tens of millions of dollars to influence the fall elections”, the Republicans managed to stall the Act by unanimously voting against cloture. With similar delaying tactics by Republicans on banking reform and the extension of unemployment insurance payments, Democrats are becoming increasingly frustrated at the use or threat of the silent filibuster by their political adversaries. As a result there is increasing support in Democrat ranks, especially among progressive activist groups, to end the tradition of a Senate filibuster and make redundant the necessity of votes for cloture. The use of a cloture vote to end a filibuster is not a constitutional issue. Congress is granted by the Constitution the right to determine for itself the procedural rules that organize the operations of the House and Senate. Cloture was introduced in 1917, in Senate Rule XXII, to end the delaying tactics of a small number of isolationist senators who opposed the arming of merchant ships in World War I. These tactics traditionally take the form of a senator, or group of senators, commenting on issues relating (however incidentally) to the proposed Act for as long as possible, ending in no vote taking place as time has run out. Traditionally there is no limit on the time a Senator may hold the floor to debate a law, unlike the House which introduced cut-off points in 1842. This has led to the splendid fictional spectacle of Jimmy Stewart’s filibuster in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and the rather less edifying real-life performance of Senator Strom Thurmond talking for more than 24 hours in a vain attempt to filibuster the 1957 Civil Rights Act (although he did succeed in watering down the Act’s provisions). Senate Rule XXII of 1917 required a two-thirds majority to force a cloture vote. That number proved almost impossible to achieve, and in 1975 the majority number was reduced to 60. But, as the Democrats have found, obtaining a three-fifths majority to end a threatened filibuster is also a formidable obstacle to overcome. Hence, with an eye to the reduced majority they will command after November, Democrats are considering changing the rules of Senate procedure so that a simple majority (or a 50-50 tie broken by the vote of the Vice President) can bring debate on a proposed law to an end. Democrats are mulling over the chances of using the constitutional option, or colloquially the "nuclear" option, for changing Senate procedures. This method of changing Senate rules was first given substance in 1979, when Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia was posed with the threat of filibuster on a rule change he had proposed. Invoking the example of the first Senate meeting of 1789, Senator Byrd argued that when each new Senate gathers for the first time, it is permitted to decide what rules will govern their operations for the next two years. Just as Congress should not oppose the right of the majority of members to decide what laws are passed, Byrd maintained, the Senate cannot prevent the will of the majority of senators from becoming the operating rules for that particular congressional session. Under this procedure, on the opening of the new Senate, using tabling motions, a simple majority can change rules to nullify the filibuster. Immediately after the cloture vote on the DISCLOSE Act failed, Max Baucus, a Democrat senator from Montana backed by liberal advocacy group People For the American Way, announced he would present to Congress a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. There is little likelihood, despite PFAW’s claims that a June poll shows 77% support, that the amendment will get serious consideration. More ominously for Republican supporters of Citizens United, last weekend Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, to huge applause, that he would consider filibuster reform at the opening of the next Senate session. Vice President Joe Biden, who is also President of the Senate, has also spoken out against the filibuster, and if these two influential Democrats back the rule changes, it will be a brave Democrat senator who balks the party leadership and votes to continue the three-fifths majority currently needed for a vote on cloture. The topic of filibuster reform, even if the DISCLOSE Act is eventually passed into law, is certain to provide one of the most acrimonious subjects of debate in the mid-term elections. Any electoral reform proposal that makes the American democratic system more open and participatory is sure to meet with joyous approval from the "progressive" Left. Filibuster reform would energize a constituency who are disillusioned at the lack of real change the current administration has achieved. Conversely, Republicans will be apoplectic --- furious does not adequately convey the sense of outrage in this instance --- at any proposed rule changes. They will object not only because the measures will seriously hamper their immediate efforts to halt Democratic policy proposals, but also because filibuster reform strikes at one of the central principles of conservative belief. Conservatives argue that the Constitution explicitly, through the system of checks and balances, adopts the idea that a simple majority is not by itself an adequate recommendation for political change. There is a long way to go, and many scenarios that may be played out, before a new Senate gathers in January. It is more than possible that Democrats will step back from making such a radical change. But considering the current resurgence in the principles of traditional conservatism, and the progressives' need to find a ‘populist’ issue to boost the interest and commitment of the electorate in November, a bitter fight over filibuster reform looms large in the coming months.

The Latest from Iran (30 July): Stepping Up the Criticism

Scott Lucas — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:52:29 +0000

2135 GMT: Political Prison Experience. Reza Rafii-Forushan, an Iranian stringer for Time magazine, has written an open letter appealing against his "frame-up" by Iranian authorities and complaining about abuses in prison. Rafii-Forushan was arrested on 27 June 2009 and held for 43 days in solitary confinement during his interrogation. 2130 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Arshama3's Blog lists the individuals, institutions, and companies subjected to new sanctions by the European Union. 1915 GMT: Going after Jannati. The reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has joined Mehdi Karroubi's attack on Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council (see separate entry), demanding that Jannati “clarify how and when he has secured...documents" that allegedly show a US-Saudi $50 billion plot for regime change. They question, "How can an individual that does not refrain from committing the biggest sins, be in charge of two positions that have justice as their first criterion?" This, however, may be the most intriguing sentence: "Has he made these revelations with the authority of the relevant officials?” EA sources indicate that, because Jannati is seen as being close to the Supreme Leader, the criticism of him is an indirect challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei's authority.

NEW Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning “Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone” NEW Iran’s Persecution of Rights: The Pursuit of Lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei (Shahryar) Iran Document: Karroubi Strongly Criticises Head of Guardian Council (29 July) Iran Analysis: Twisting & Turning to Prove the Leader is Supreme (Verde) Iran: How “Ahmadinejad v. Paul the Octopus” Became a Global Showdown The Latest from Iran (29 July): 22% Support?

1910 GMT: Containing the Cleric. It is being reported that Molana Abdolhamid, the Sunni Friday Prayer leader of Zahedan, has been barred from leaving country and his passport has been confiscated. 1830 GMT: Poster of the Day. Courtesy of the Iranian Government, "A Woman without Hijab is like a Chair with Three Legs". 1800 GMT: Client and Lawyer Watch. The Guardian of London has a lengthy profile of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the woman sentenced to death for adultery (on the basis, the article claims, of a 3-2 decision amongst the judges), who has sent a message from inside Tabriz Prison. Deep in the article is this sentence about Mohammad Mostafaei, Ashtiani's lawyer, who is hiding after authorities tried to detain him and arrested his wife and brother-in-law: "The Guardian has learned that Mostafaei is safe for the moment and plans to publish an open letter to Tehran's prosecutor." 1730 GMT: Larijani Watch. Today's claim of "strong Iran leader" by Ali Larijani comes in the pages of the Islamic Republic News Agency. Stressing that Iran's motives in the Middle East, as it does not seek an empire, Larijani declared, "If the Zionist regime bullies Palestine we will stand against it, and if it decides to attack Lebanon Hezbollah will confront it." As for uranium and sanctions, Larijani emphasised Iran's pursuit of peaceful nuclear capability: "When the US questions why Iran has nuclear and missile technology it is because [it is unhappy that] we have the ability to obtain such technologies.....Had we been producing fruit juice, mineral water, and tomato paste, it (the US) would never have raised an objection....They claim that Iran has nuclear weapons, but they never say [a word about] the Zionist regime, which is their friend [and] possesses nukes." 1645 GMT: Do Not Panic. Might be worth noting this reference from Mehr News to Ayatollah Emami Kashani's Tehran Friday Prayer: "He...called on people who have deposited their money in foreign banks to return their funds to Iran." 1620 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Back from a break to find a far-from-unexpected tweak in the sanctions tale. The Chinese Government has said that it does not approve of new sanctions imposed by the European Union while welcoming Tehran's offer to return to negotiations on uranium enrichment. A Foreign Ministry statement declared, "China does not approve of the European Union's unilateral sanctions on Iran. We hope that all relevant parties can support a diplomatic solution and appropriately resolve the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and negotiations." 1300 GMT: Your Friday Prayer Update. Have to be honest, it's hard working up enthusiasm over Ayatollah Emami Kashani's Tehran Friday Prayer. The cleric called for Iranian cohesion --- political, economic, and cultural --- in the face of sanctions. However, any white-hot rhetoric seemed to be cooled by the Iranian Government's indications this week that it would enter discussions, even with the "enemy", over its uranium enrichment programme. (Earlier on Friday, Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, said it was "out of the question for Iran to promise never to enrich uranium" but said the move for 20% enriched uranium could be suspended if talks were held.) That left Emami Kashani's defiance with the line that the great Iranian nation would not need "outside help" to produce the necessary uranium for civilian purposes. 1255 GMT: Mahmoud's University Push. Hmm, I get the feeling that the dispute over control of Islamic Azad University, supposedly resolved by the Supreme Leader's intervention, could flare up again.... Speaking to a student organisation, President Ahmadinejad warned that "enemies" are trying to create space for their activities within Iran's universities. 1215 GMT: Conspiracy Theory Update. First it was President Ahmadinejad with warnings of an imminent American strike on two Arab countries allied with Tehran , then it was Ayatollah Jannati, the leader of the Guardian Council with revelations of the US-Saudi $50 billion "regime change" scheme, now it's the "nuclear-pig-blood cigarette plot". Mohammad Reza Madani from the Society for Fighting Smoking said contraband Marlboros, part of the 20 billion cigarettes smuggled into Iran each year, have been contaminated with pig hemoglobin and unspecified nuclear material. Madani claimed Philip Morris International, which sells Marlboro outside the US, is "led by Zionists" and deliberately exports tainted cigarettes. 1055 GMT: Mousavi's 1988 Resignation Letter. Mr Verde stops by to discuss Mir Hossein Mousavi's letter of resignation as Prime Minister, reprinted yesterday on the website of former President Abolhassan Banisadr: The letter in general accuses Ayatollah Khamenei, who was President in 1988, of meddling in affairs which are not directly his responsibility. This is similar to the accusations about his current activity as the Supreme Leader. It also shows the internal workings of the Islamic Republic to be chaotic and haphazard. Point 2 of the letter talks about “external operations” and lists: a plane hijacking, a shooting in a Lebanese street, and discovery of explosives on Iranian hajj pilgrims. It says that these operations are disastrous for the country and could be repeated any moment. The tone of the letter is suggesting that all of these are carried out by the Islamic Republic's officials and that Khamenei is involved in them, although it says that the Prime Minister [Mousavi] is in the dark about it. These accusations are not coming from regime opponents or foreign governments. They are coming from the Islamic Republic's Prime Minister. 1. Mousavi is accusing Khamenei, as President, of being involved in terrorist activity overseas. This could be used to embarrass Khamenei further, placing the activity next to the actions of the Islamic Republic after Khamenei became Supreme Leader, e.g. Chain Murders, attacks on student dormitories, street killings, prison rapes, etc. 2. The letter suggests that the Islamic Republic was regularly involved in terrorist activity overseas, an allegation which could be damaging to the current regime . Will Mousavi confirm this, deny this, or, as he had for 22 years since the letter was first leaked, ignore this? What will Khamenei’s side do? Will they “leak” letters and information which would counter this letter? If they play the card of Ayatollah Khomeini, then Supreme Leader, it would mean tha,t despite his best efforts, Kahmenei has again have been forced to hide behind Khomeini. Although the current intra-regime arguments started with the dispute over the 2009 presidential elections, this episode has the potential to cause trouble well beyond that. One can't help get the feeling that events --- in this case but not only in this case --- may spiral out of control. 1040 GMT: EA's Hot Tips of Day. Based on information from sources: 1. Discussions earlier this month between Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, key member of Parliament Ahmad Tavakoli, and Secretary of Expediency Council Mohsen Rezaei on action against the President --- which we covered on EA --- have been followed by several meetings between Larijani, Rezaei, and Tehran Mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf. 2. The Supreme Leader's "I am the Rule of the Prophet" fatwa followed a visit to Qom, and specifically to Grand Ayatollah Makarem-Shirazi, by member of Ayatollah Khamenei's office. Makarem-Shirazi said he could not support a unilateral declaration by the Supreme Leader but he could accept a declaration framed as an answer to a question from a follower. The question and answer followed two or three days later. 0945 GMT: We've posted a separate entry on the music video, "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone!", which has just won an award in Britain, including an interview with the members of the Iranian band, Blurred Vision. The Independent of London has also posted an interview with the band members. 0815 GMT: Talking Tough. Hojatoleslam Mojtaba Zolnour, the representative of the Supreme Leader in the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, grabs the spotlight with the warning that there should be action against Iran in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Zolnour said Tehran would "act correspondingly" if its ships were challenged. He added, "Sanctions will backfire and have grave consequences for [these countries]." 0610 GMT: Watching Karroubi (and the Reaction to Karroubi). We're keeping eyes open for the reaction to Mehdi Karroubi's open letter to Ayatollah Jannati, head of the Guardian Council (posted in a separate entry). To call this a "criticism" is a major understatement: Karroubi is effectively accusing one of Iran's leading political and religious figures of being --- at the least --- an accomplice to election fraud and Government repression. 0600 GMT: We start today with a focus on human rights, specifically the regime's attempt to limit or even prevent the defence of them. Josh Shahryar offers a feature on the Government's pursuit of lawyer Mohammad Mostafaei, who is missing as his wife and brother-in-law sit in prison. Mostafaei's colleague Shadi Sadr, who was forced into exile by the regime, has written to the Iranian Bar Association:

It appears that the legal-security system, while forced to stop carrying out the stoning sentence [against Mostafaei's client Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani], is hell bent on taking revenge on Mr Mostafaei by some trumped-up charges. Since they were unable to find him, they have arrested his wife and brother-in-law.... This is not the first time in the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the family of a civil activist have been taken hostage. The policy of oppression of activists by pressurising their family members by different forms, from threatening them to extracting "confessions" by torture, has been used brutally in the past few years. In one of the recent cases, the husband of Mrs Shirin Ebadi, a member of the Bar Association of Iran, human rights activist and Nobel Laureate, was forced to speak against her on camera after several days of incarceration.... As a lawyer, a member of the Central Court lawyers, also as a client and defendant, I urge you, who lead this oldest civil law society in Iran, not to remain silent on state kidnap and retaliation....If we do not act against this policy, whose victims today are Shirin Ebadi and Mohammad Mostafaie, it will attack every single one of us tomorrow.

Israel-Palestine Analysis: What Message Has the Arab League Sent? (And To Whom?)

Ali Yenidunya — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 16:42:18 +0000

On Thursday, the Arab League supposedly made its decision. The Qatari prime minister Hamed Ben Jasem al-Thani announced that the group would support Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas if he decided to enter negotiations with Israel. Many newspapers reported that the Arab League gave the "green light" for direct talks. Did it? In a letter to the Obama Administration, the League stated that it needed a clear timeframe, specific terms of reference, and a monitoring mechanism to support direct talks. Indeed, al-Thani said, "There is agreement, but only about the way the talks will be held and the subjects that will be discussed." That's not a green light but a yellow one. The Arab League has avoided blame as "the supporter of Palestinians at any cost" and saved its credibility in the eyes of the US. At the same time it has not given an unqualified endorsement of discussions. So, where is the ball? It may seem like it is in the court of Ramallah --- will Abbas finally ease back on his insistence that the Israelis commit now to the 1967 borders and to a freeze on settlements? --- but it is actually in Washington. With its own "conditions", the League has supported Abbas' call for a clear definition on the borders and any land swaps and for a transparent timetable for discussions and implementation of measures. Arab League chief Amr Moussa reiterated, "I assure you I am not of the intention to enter into negotiations, without a time frame, without clear references and without monitoring." The question: will the Obama Administration insist on prominent steps by Israel, steps beyond the chant of "talks, talks, talks", before the settlements freeze ends on 26 September?

Iran Music Video Special: The Award-Winning "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone"

Scott Lucas — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 09:50:05 +0000

In February, just before the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, we posted a music video by an Iranian group, Blurred Vision, "Ayatollah, Leave Those Kids Alone". Well, this morning the BBC's flagship radio programme, Today, followed up the story. The music video, a reworking of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall", had won a special commendation at the Soho Shorts film festival. "Sepp" and "Sohl", two of the band members, offered insights into the music and the politics, including this revealing exchange:

EVAN DAVIS: [The BBC] has not been covering the post-election furour in much detail lately. What's actually going on at the moment? There's obviously a lot of discontent: is it manifesting itself in any way? SEPP & SOHL: It hasn't stopped. It's sort of lacked a little bit of the momentum because the repression has become so much [stronger] and grows on a daily basis. There's so much talk about nuclear advancements. Our goal is to talk about the human rights issue.

(The full four-minute interview can be found at this BBC location, just after the 1:45:00 mark.) [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIP38eq-ywc&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]