Afghanistan: The Politics Behind McChrystal's Removal --- and Why It's Bad for the War (Shahryar)

UPDATE 1245 GMT: Full credit to Josh Shahryar for nailing this in his analysis. CNN says, from a "senior Pentagon official", that "Defense Secretary Robert Gates backed keeping Gen. Stanley McChrystal on the job because he was vital to the war effort in Afghanistan, but he was overruled". --- WSL

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal is in charge no more. After two days of intense talks about his departure, he tendered his resignation as the man in charge of NATO troops in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama –-- angered by remarks about the White House and the US ambassador in Kabul made by the general and his aides to Rolling Stone magazine--- graciously accepted the resignation. He immediately Gen. David Petraeus, the architect of the US troop surge policy in Iraq in 2008 that likely salvaged the war there, in his stead.
Has a crisis been averted? Probably not.

Afghanistan/McChrystal Analysis: Hyperventilating Over the Tip, Missing the (Petraeus) Iceberg
Afghanistan/McChrystal Watch: Petraeus Takes Over
Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$…To “Warlords” (DeYoung)

Even though President Obama saved face and probably made small gains with the hawkish portion of the US electorate --- just in time for the November mid-term elections, I might add --– the decision will have dire consequences for Obama’s war plan in Afghanistan. The reason is quite simple; nothing was actually done in the past days to understand the reasons why Gen. McChrystal made his remarks or to address the issues.

The situation with McChrystal and the White House is a by-product of two distinct but interrelated issues. The first is Gen. McChrystal’s relationship with President Obama, the Commander-in-Chief. The second is his relationship with the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ret. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, who was largely ignored in this fiasco by US media.

The first action that led to Wednesday's decision was the State Department's despatch of Eikenberry to Kabul in April of last year, two months before McChrystal’s appointment. Before his appointment, Eikenberry had served two terms in Afghanistan, commanding US and international troops. His last posting was as the Commander of the Combined Forces Command for 18 months before he stepped down in 2007.

McChrystal’s complaints about Eikenberry had some merit. During his tours in Afghanistan, Eikenberry’s role in the war was not appreciated, but in that time the Taliban got stronger and the insurgency spread further. And as a former commander of the same troops McChrystal was leading, it does not look like Eikenberry helped the new US commander very much. The clash was inevitable: McChrystal had an agenda, and Eikenberry’s presence in Kabul meant the general had to deal with someone with his own ideas and plans about Afghanistan.

McChrystal worked closely with the Afghan people. He took the war --- for the first time since the ouster of the Taliban –-- straight to the insurgency’s comfort zone. He carefully controlled the bombing of areas with high concentration of civilians. But most of all, he forged links with the Afghan government, which has had a sour relationship with President Obama since last year’s elections in Kabul. All of these strategies helped propel him in popularity within Afghanistan, as local actors looked set to help him accomplish his goals. It was not to be.

There’s an old saying in Urdu, “You cannot hang two swords in one scabbard.” Friction arose because Eikenberry was not as popular as McChrystal. Eikenberry was also a strong critic of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, with whom McChrystal was attempting to forge close ties to help fight the insurgency.

The second catalyst that brought McChrystal’s ouster was the President himself. Obama took an awful lot of time in deciding what to do in Afghanistan when he took office; the entire year of 2009 was wasted on crafting his war policy. By the time it was made public, winter had arrived and offensives against insurgents were impossible in snow-covered Afghan mountains.

Perhaps Obama wanted to study his options carefully. Maybe he had to focus on other issues. Whatever the reason, for a man of action like Gen. McChrystal, political considerations were not the main issue. He needed more troops to follow the US war plan. He only started getting them this spring. No general –-- especially not McChrystal, who’s known to resent civilian meddling in military matters –-- could escape frustration when faced with such a situation.

When McChrystal finally got troops, he had to figure out a way around Eikenberry’s meddling into what was supposed to be his operation. McChrystal may have been the most popular US general that has been put in charge of troops in Afghanistan. He may have led the offensive deep into Taliban heartland, forged close ties with the Afghan government and the people, and reduced civilian casualties dramatically. But he proved himself to be incompetent when it came to giving interviews to the media.

As word of McChrystal's imminent departure emerged and gathered strength, Afghan policians reacted by heaping praise upon him and pleading how important it was for the commander to stay in the country. Gen. McChrystal might have been forgiven for his Rolling Stone mistake had he not committed it just months before the November --- Defense Secretary Robert Gates seemed to have been open to the possibility of keeping him. President Obama’s political advisers, however, sided with a decision that would improve Obama’s image as a strong Commander-in-Chief and win him more votes. has welcomed his appointment. But the task of forming close ties with the Afghan government people to win a war –-- all in a year before US troops start departing Afghanistan in July 2011 --- looks impossible.

Would Obama look good if he kept someone who disrespected him so publically? Probably not. The President had to make a choice between a successful implementation of his war plan in Afghanistan and votes for the Democrats in November. He chose the latter.

However, the decision is likely going to backfirein Afghanistan once Gen. Petraeus steps into Afghanistan. He is the architect of the troop surge in the country, and the Afghan Government

Gen. McChrystal is not done. He’s around. He’ll be giving out more interviews and throwing some more mud on Obama and his political advisers, as well as Ambassador Eikenberry. So if Obama thinks he’s dodged the bullet by making a tough decision, he’s very wrong. The show’s only began, folks.

Afghanistan/McChrystal Analysis: Hyperventilating Over the Tip, Missing the (Petraeus) Iceberg

Little to report overnight in the saga of General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, and his interview --- replete with jibes and insults at the Obama Administration by McChrystal and his aides --- with Rolling Stone magazine.

NEW Afghanistan Revealed: US Hands Over Millions of $$$…To “Warlords” (DeYoung)
Afghanistan Special: McChrystal and the Trashing of the President (US Military v. Obama, Chapter 472)
Afghanistan Document: The McChrystal Profile (Hastings — Rolling Stone)

In advance of his meeting with McChrystal today, President Obama said, ""I think it's clear that the article in which he and his team appeared showed a poor - showed poor judgment. But I also want to make sure that I talk to him directly before I make any final decisions." Obama then re-stated his key talking point, beyond any Rolling Stone obstacle:

I want everybody to keep in mind what our central focus is - and that is success in making sure that al-Qaida and its affiliates cannot attack the United States and its allies. And we've got young men and women there who are making enormous sacrifices, families back home who are making enormous sacrifices,

And so whatever decision that I make with respect to Gen. McChrystal - or any other aspect of Afghan policy - is determined entirely on how I can make sure that we have a strategy that justifies the enormous courage and sacrifice that those men and women are making over there and that ultimately makes this country safer.

Obama's statement capped an extraordinary day for Washington watchers. From before dawn, when some media outlets posted soundbites from the Rolling Stone profile, to bedtime, all other news fell before the chatter about McChrystal. (The biggest winner from yesterday's furour? It could be British Petroleum, who suddenly found that they were not the lead story in the US.)

It was a classic frenzy in which token moves began banner headlines. McChrystal had called Administration officials to apologise. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he was concerned. The editor of Rolling Stone and the author of the piece, Michael Hastings, became media superstars for a day. Joe Klein of Time, using the time-worn device of an "unnamed source", seized centre stage by saying he most definitely knew McChrystal would resign.

That in turn left us with the white noise of "Will he/won't he? Should he/shouldn't he?" Hours of airtime and pages of print could be filled by simply re-wording the regretful conclusion: he's not the military Messiah, he's just a naughty boy.

When "perspective" was sought, it often verged on the historically ridiculous. Some journalists sought an analogy with President Truman's recall of General Douglas MacArthur in 1951, which might have been appropriate if McChrystal had threatened World War III by bombing China, bringing US forces to the verge of defeat, and calling for use of nuclear weapons.

OK, so what's the big deal? The media gets its drama. The Obama Administration buys time with statements to figure out how it is going to finesse the treatment of McChrystal, since 1) his firing/resignation or 2) his retention will bring another news cycle of criticism. And, apart from one press aide to the General, no one pays an immediate price.

Well, to be blunt: the story is not McChrystal and his boys laughing at Vice President Biden, declaring that the President is a fumbling ingenue, or sneering at their supporters like "old man" John McCain. Perhaps the most wayward statement from an "analyst" was the lament, "You think he's being fired for a pattern....He's being fired for an ARTICLE."

Wrong. Shrewder observers, drowned out in yesterday's clamour, know that the sticks-and-stones behind McChrystal's name-calling is the ongoing military battle to maintain policy supremacy over the civilians from the State Department to the US Embassy in Afghanistan to President Obama.

Twice Obama tried to set limits on a military-first approach to defeating the Taliban/extremists/Al Qa'eda/insurgents in Afghanistan. The day he entered office, having declared that he would seek a resolution to a US intervention which seemed to be going nowhere, the military presented him with three options, all of which called for an increase in US forces. Obama tried to curb the rush to escalation but gave way in March 2009 with a "limited" increase of 30,000 troops and support units.

Then the President, through National Security Advisor Jim Jones (the "clown stuck in 1985", according to a McChrystal aide), tried to draw the line: ask for any more soldiers and I will stare you out with "WTF?"

The outcome? The commanders called Obama's bluff: they said the intervention would be lost without another escalation, and they got the President's acceptance in December.

There was one headline caveat, however: Obama indicated --- to what degree of firmness depends on who is interpreting --- that the US forces would come out by July 2011.

McChrystal does not like that deadline. Nor does his boss.

That boss --- the head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus  --- was the dog who did not bark yesterday. Less than a week after testifying to Congressmen, leaving the clear impression that US forces would have to remain beyond July next year, Petraeus issued no statement, saw no reporters, provided no leaks.

If there is an important media angle here, it is this difference between McChrystal and Petraeus: the latter is far too clever in the ways of Washington to let a Rolling Stone reporter tail after him, putting verbal indiscretions on the record.

It is that difference in tactics --- not tactics against the Taliban, but tactics in the talking shops of Washington --- that means McChrystal is the point man in this US campaign, and he is expendable. After all, he got his current position after another American commander, General David McKiernan, was thrown under the bus last year.

Petraeus is in a different position. Having risen through the command ranks in Iraq, seizing the glory because of the mythical "surge", he is now at the apex of field authority. Afghanistan is his to win or lose.

His to win or lose, beyond and possibly despite the President. For --- take a look through EA's archives --- the spinning from January 2009 against Obama's limits has come from Petraeus and his allies, either at distance from Central Asia or in the corridors of Washington.

When the tip of this "crisis" is gone, that iceberg will remain.

UPDATE Afghanistan Special: McChrystal and the Trashing of the President (US Military v. Obama, Chapter 472)

UPDATE 1945 GMT: So who is defending General McChrystal? Well, let's go to Kabul for a statement from a spokesman: "[Hamid Karzai] strongly supports McChrystal and his strategy in Afghanistan and believes he is the best commander the United States has sent to Afghanistan over the last nine years."

UPDATE 1830 GMT: Thumbs Down from the White House? Or Just a Bit of Posturing?

The stingers from the statement of White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "All options are on the table [including McChrystal's resignation]....The magnitude and graveness of the mistake here are profound.”

Afghanistan Document: The McChrystal Profile (Hastings — Rolling Stone)

Gibbs said he gave an advance copy of the article, which had already gone out to the press, to Obama last night. The President was "irked".

Gibbs said the president wants to know “what in the world he was thinking.”

And here's Secretary of Defense Gates' careful statement:

I read with concern the profile piece on Gen. Stanley McChrystal in the upcoming edition of ‘Rolling Stone’ magazine. I believe that Gen. McChrystal made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment in this case. We are fighting a war against al Qaeda and its extremist allies, who directly threaten the United States, Afghanistan, and our friends and allies around the world. Going forward, we must pursue this mission with a unity of purpose. Our troops and coalition partners are making extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our security, and our singular focus must be on supporting them and succeeding in Afghanistan without such distractions. Gen. McChrystal has apologized to me and is similarly reaching out to others named in this article to apologize to them as well. I have recalled Gen. McChrystal to Washington to discuss this in person.

UPDATE 1740 GMT: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has issued a far-from-robust defence of General McChrystal. He expressed "concern" over the "significant" mistake of the Rolling Stone interview.

McChrystal also may have lost the backing of key Senators like former Presidential candidate John McCain former Vice Presidential candidate Joseph , ieberman, and Lindsay Graham, who called the General's remarks "inappropriate, inconsistent with relationship between the Commander-in-Chief and the military".

UPDATE 1450 GMT: The executive editor of Rolling Stone says that General McChrystal was shown the advance copy of the profile and raised no objections.

UPDATE 1230 GMT: Department of Defense officials say General McChrystal has fired a press aide over the Rolling Stone episode.

The US Embassy in Afghanistan, despite the military's ridicule of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, has maintained that Eikenberry and General McChrystal "are both fully committed" to President Obama's Afghan strategy and are working together to "implement" the plan.

UPDATE 1200 GMT: Five minutes after posting this, with the projection of a "quick cover-up" of the episode: "Top administration official says McChrystal has personally called Vice President Biden, [Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff] Mullen, [Secretary of Defense] Gates, and NSC advisor Jones to apologize."

In the first week of Barack Obama's Presidency, we noted that his senior military commanders were trying to alter his policies in key areas, to the point of undermining him. We noted their opposition to his plans to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and his timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and their determination to escalate the military intervention in Afghanistan.

That challenge has continued for almost 18 months with Obama --- in my view --- getting "rolled over" on the Afghanistan issue as he twice conceded to the demands for troop escalation.

That is the background to today's hot media story. Rolling Stone magazine has released advance copies of an interview with General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan. The soundbites are so explosive that McChrystal has already issued his "sincerest apology" for "a mistake reflecting poor judgement". He is flying back to Washington, reportedly for a meeting with the President.

All very dramatic. It's far from surprising, however: if this is to be more than a shiny bauble for the media, McChrystal's interview --- when it is released in full on Friday --- will need to be considered as far from "a mistake". It is part of the ongoing military contest with Obama.

Consider the soundbites from the advance copies of the interview.

1. Taking on the President. McChrystal and an aide refer to a 2009 meeting with Obama. The aide belittles the President for "a 10-minute photo op": "Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was... he didn't seem very engaged. The boss was pretty disappointed."

Gen McChrystal says, "I found that time painful. I was selling an unsellable position."

Hmm... McChrystal's pain smacks of a self-serving "poor me" pose. His supposed weariness over the "unsellable" is a bit ironic, given that McChrystal's visit was quite likely the ultimate in sales jobs: he was pitching for the increase in troop deployments that Obama granted in December.

2. Dismissing the Vice-President. Joe Biden may have tried to assert his authority with personal visits to Afghanistan but this snapshot from Rolling Stone portrays a military smacking his annoyance aside.

"Are you asking about Vice-President Biden?" McChrystal asks. 'Who's that?"

An aide then says: "Biden? Did you say: Bite Me?"

3. Trampling on the Ambassador. One of the high-profile episodes in that battle occurred last autumn, when a memorandum from the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry (a retired General), was leaked. It questioned the drive for military escalation, given fundamental political problems and corruption in Afghanistan.

McChrystal's considered reaction? "I like Karl, I've known him for years, but they'd never said anything like that to us before. Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so'."

4. Dismissing the Advisors. Last August, in an effort to check the military's drive for more troops, National Security Advisor James Jones --- another former General --- went to Kabul and warned commanders that, if they pushed for escalation so soon after March's build-up of forces, Obama would ask, "WTF [What the F***]?"

The view of Jones from McChrystal's aide? "A clown stuck in 1985".

And here's the respect that Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, gets. Told of an incoming message, McChrystal says: "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke....I don't even want to open it."

Only Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it appears, gets approval from McChrystal's staff.

Now, a lot of this might be put down to day-to-day tensions in the difficult environment of Afghanistan. But --- and this is the point that seems to be eluding the media so far --- these examples of anger, impertinence, disrespect, and near-subversion of the President's authority did not occur in the heat of the moment.

They were offered, after the event, to a reporter as the "real" impressions of senior members of the US military.

That's not frustration. That's a deliberate challenge, in an ongoing campaign to challenge, to the President.

As McChrystal flies to Washington, possibly for a quick cover-up of the episode by all concerned, it needs to be remembered as such. For deliberate challenges do not suddenly evaporate.

The Latest from Iran (19 June): How Does Mahmoud Respond?

2115 GMT: Cyber-Shutdown. After the filtering of a number of Wordpress-based news sites, including EA, Iran has reportedly blocked Rapidshare and Hotfile.

2055 GMT: The Oil Squeeze. Iran acknowledged on Saturday that oil swap deals with Caspian Sea producers had stopped this month, but said it was seeking talks with some oil companies on new terms.

The swaps, in which Iran imports crude into Caspian ports and supplies the equivalent barrels of oil from the Persian Gulf, were reportedly supsended after Tehran steeply raised fees on operations to avoid an oil glut following lower sales of its own oil.

The four companies affected are Select Energy Trading, Dragon Oil (Emirates), Swiss Vitol, and Irish Caspian Oil Development.

NEW Iran: Working Together? The Women’s Movement & The Greens (Kakaee)
NEW Iran Analysis: Why the 2009 Election is Not Legitimate (Ansari)
Iran Request: Nonsense about “Twitter Revolution”. Please Stop.
Iran Analysis: How Europe Can Help (Mamedov)
Iran Document: The Tajzadeh Criticism and The Reformist Way Forward (Sahimi)
The Latest from Iran (18 June): Hardliners Criticise Ahmadinejad

2040 GMT: The Battle Within. Rah-e-Sabz sees more rifts within the establishment. Member of Parliament Jalal Yahyazadeh has complained that the radical positions of hardliners have isolated moderates, so the "hard-line" camp is not as united as it should be. Reza Akarami asserts that the economic situation is not good, and Ahmadinejad has not fulfilled vows made during his first series of provincial tours.

2030 GMT: The Day in Hijab. Hojatoleslam Ebrahim Raeesi has given assurances that Iran's judiciary supports the security forces in the enforcement of proper hijab.

According to Peyke Iran, Ebrahim Kalantari, the Supreme Leader's deputy in Tehran University, has said that there will be classes for relationships between girls and boys and that a think tank for hijab will be established soon

1910 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Ali Badragheh, dean of the Eslam Shahr campus of Azad University, has reportedly been arrested.

1905 GMT: Freedom of the Press Update. The economic daily Pool has suspended publication after being warned by the supervisory press authority for publishing "false material and accusing Iranian officials".

1900 GMT: Economy Watch. More than 400 workers of the Godeleh Sazi steel plant are on the sixth day of a strike. The walkout began when only 40 of 500 employees passed hiring examinations.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad opened the plant to great fanfare in April.

1855 GMT: Reformists Banned. The Iranian judiciary has upheld the ban on political activity of the two leading reformist Iranian parties, the Islamic Iran Participation Front and the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution.

The IIPF had filed a complaint against the decision of the Political Parties Commission in March to withdraw its permit. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi said that the Commission's request to dissolve the two parties has been sent to the Revolutionary Court.

1845 GMT: The Flight of the Journalists. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that at least 29 Iranian editors, reporters, and photographers have fled the country in the past year, “the highest annual tally from a single country in a decade”.

At least half of those who fled Iran are currently in Turkey living in “precarious situations". They are reportedly threatened by individuals, believed to be working for the Iranian regime, saying that family in Iran will suffer if the journalists speak publicly about political issues.

As dire as this report is, the situation may be even worse. EA sources have reported that
the number of journalists who have left Iran is far greater than 29.

1700 GMT: Remembering. Daneshjoo News reports "thousands", watched by security forces and plainclothes agents, attended the memorial in Mashhad for protester Mostafa Ghanian. The service was held at Imam Reza's shrine.

Ghanian, 26, was killed by snipers on 17 June 2009 while he was calling Allahu Akbar (God is Great) from the roof of an eight-story building in the Saadat-Abad section of Tehran.

1630 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Reports come in that journalist and human rights activist Emaduddin Baghi will stand trial on Tuesday.

The father of student activist Salman Sima has confirmed that his son has gone on hunger strike in Evin Prison.

Sima was arrested on the anniversary of the election, 12 June, his third post-election detention. His father said that Sima was asked to pick up items at the Ministry of Information Followup Office and was stopped and taken away by a plainclothes agent on his motorcycle on the way.

1625 GMT: Threatening Khomeini. Back from a break to find that some hardliners have not given up on the assault on Seyed Hassan Khomeini, grandson of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Member of Parliament Hossein Fadaee has accused the younger Khomeini of plotting to become the next Supreme Leader, supported by former Presidents Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami.

1150 GMT: Counter-Attack. Minister of Defense Ahmad Vahidi has accused the United States of "deception" and insisted Tehran's missiles are only for self-defence after US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates charged that the Islamic republic could rain missiles down on Europe.

"The Islamic Republic's missile capability has been designed and implemented to defend against any military aggression and it does not threaten any nation," Vahidi said in a statement carried by state media.

1145 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. University professor Rahmatullah Bastani has been acquitted.

0816 GMT: Admissions? We noted yesterday that Iran's police chief, Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam, may have been a bit too open as he tried to minimise the opposition and justify the actions of his forces.

Keep in mind that Rooz Online is an opposition outlet, but its summary of Ahmadi-Moghaddam's remarks, if close to accurate, is telling:

Speaking to the monthly Soroush, Iran’s police chief confirmed the validity of a video clip showing Basij forces and special guards attacking the Tehran university student dormitory in early morning hours of June 15, 2009. At the same time, he asked reporters not to focus excessively on the crimes committed at Kahrizak and the Tehran University dormitory. In his descriptions and presentation, he implied that it was the volunteer paramilitary Basij forces and not the police who were responsible for the attack on Tehran University’s dormitory. The request to enter Tehran University according to him was made by its president, Farhad Rahbar.

And despite the large number of casualties and arrests that have taken place in Iran since June 12, 2010, Ahmadi-Moghaddam gave his forces a mere “unsatisfactory” grade in handling the protests.

But, in perhaps his most significant remarks, the head of the Islamic republic’s law enforcement forces said that none of the ballot boxes were opened and counted until 11 pm on Friday, June 12.

However, the first reports of Ahmadinejad’s victory with claims of 24 million votes were released between 10:30 and 11pm on Friday, June 12 by website and news agencies such as Fars, IRNA (the Islamic Republic’s official news agency), and Raja News.

Similarly, the Islamic republic television announced its first results based on 11 million counted votes at 11:30pm the same night. In light of Ahmadi-Moghaddam’s remarks, it is not clear how the interior ministry officials were able to count 11 million votes in less than half an hour.

In another segment of his remarks, Ahmadi-Moghaddam said, “One week before the election, I gathered the provincial governors here and told them that you will face crises until at least the first week of summer. I said the election would end in either Mr. Mousavi’s favor, in which case we would have one kind of crisis under the name of a victory celebration and there would be attempts to capture the next targets; or Mr. Ahmadinejad would win, in which case his opponents would claim fraud. Of course, we couldn’t accurately predict the extent of the problem, but we thought that we would certainly have problems and you must definitely be prepared.”

0815 GMT: We've posted an analysis by Parisa Kakaee of the relationship between the women's movement and the Green Movement.

0655 GMT: We start this morning with a stroll down Memory Lane, as Ali Ansari reminds us why the 2009 Presidential election is still not legitimate.

0645 GMT: No doubt about it. On Friday, the big story from Iran came courtesy not of the opposition but of the "establishment", with the escalating fight between hardliners and the President.

Always buffeted by those in Parliament who don't like his economic plans, his advisors, or him, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad now faced the wrath of clerics and officials unhappy with his criticism last week of the "morality police". You know it's serious when Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, used Tehran Friday Prayers to give the President a loud spanking.

We'll be watching for the fallout today. So far no response from Ahmadinejad. And Iranian state media? Well, it's trying to pretend the dispute does not exist: Press TV's summary of the Jannati speech closes its eyes under the headline, "New Sanctions Gave West Away", and the Tehran Friday Prayer does not show up on the front page of the Islamic Republic News Agency.

The Latest from Iran (18 June): Hardliners Criticise Ahmadinejad

1510 GMT: Twitter and Civil Rights. We have posted a response to the latest attempt to set straight the relationship between social media and the post-election political situation in Iran.

1430 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Ebrahim Rashidi, who disappeared on Monday, has reportedly called his family from Ardebil's intelligence detention centre.

NEW Iran Request: Nonsense about “Twitter Revolution”. Please Stop.
NEW Iran Analysis: How Europe Can Help (Mamedov)
NEW Iran Document: The Tajzadeh Criticism and The Reformist Way Forward (Sahimi)
Iran Snapshot: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Master of Irony
Iran Overview: Striking Poses from Sanctions to Cyber-War to “Terrorism”
Latest from Iran (17 June): Clearing Away the Smoke

Journalist Hassan Etemadi has been given a two-year sentence, and journalist Shahin Zeynali has been handed a term of two years and 91 days.

The former mayor of Ghasr-e Shirin, Ghodrat Mohammadi, has been detained and transferred to a centre in Kermanshah. No reason for his arrest has been given.

1330 GMT: Through the Looking Glass on the Hijab. Reviewing today's Tehran Friday Prayer by Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, I think we are now caught up in a contortion of politics. Iran has suddenly become a place where defenders of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad praise him for "a relatively liberal government approach" and turn their fire upon the "hardliners", rather than the opposition.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tZ2a0_3sNw&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

For the headline from Jannati's speech today, in contrast to his previous appearances, is not the threat of heavy punishment upon the opposition but his criticism of Ahmadinejad for raising the "cumbersome" issue of the "morality police" and their efforts to enforce "good behaviour" such as the wearing of the hijab.

Linking those who acted or dressed inappropriately to "drug traffickers" and "terrorists", Jannati said that women who defied the rules on proper clothing were "worse than poison". No one (he means you, Mahmoud) had "the right to tie the hands" of those enforcing the law.

1005 GMT: Ahmadinejad's Hijab Problem. It seems the President has got himself in a political tangle over his complaint about "morality police" cracking down on supposed social transgressions, including "bad hijab".

The Governor of Tehran, Morteza Tamaddon, has insisted that Ahmadinejad's directives are the basis for his officials' actions.

High-profile member of Parlaiment Ali Motahari has declared that the President has been adversely influenced by his chief aide, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai.

Ayatollah Alamalhoda, Mashhad's Friday Prayer leader, has asserted, "Unfortunately Ahmadinejad does not give the right attention to implementing religious rules."

Member of Parliament Mohammad Taghi Rahbar says he is ready to discuss the issue with Ahamadinejad on television.

0950 GMT: Today's Khabar Kick on the Government's Shins. Khabar Online, linked to Ali Larijani, has suggested that Vice President Mohammad Reza Mirtajoddini might have to resign because he wants to complete a Ph.D. dissertation.

The website, as reported by Peyke Iran, also points to 11 "suspicious" comments by the President in the last 76 days.

0945 GMT: Take Your Resolution and Stick It. Iran's National Security Council has issued a strongly-worded denunciation of the UN Security Council sanctions resolution on Tehran's nuclear programme:

Contrary to all expectations, the resolution has focused on Iran's nuclear program, without so much as a word about the Israeli regime's criminal activities and its attack on the Freedom Flotilla convoy carrying humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip only 10 days ago.

Also, the resolution brazenly ignores the 11 proposals put forward by Iran during Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, which have been welcomed by world countries.

The council takes issue with the adoption of the resolution, particularly since it came despite constructive cooperation and the release of a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming the non-diversion of Iran's nuclear material for the 22nd consecutive time....

"This clearly shows that Washington's commitment to Israeli security will never allow UN Security Council to fulfill its obligations with regards to securing the safety and the rights of different nations....

The Islamic Republic of Iran will respond fittingly to any attempt to violate the legal and legitimate rights of the Iranian nation," the statement added.

0845 GMT: We have posted an analysis by Eldar Mamedov, "Iran: How Europe Can Help".

0840 GMT: Economy Watch. Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili has complained that people are still not informed about the Government's subsidy reduction plan.

0805 GMT: A Boast (and an Admission?). Tehran police chief Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam, trying to wash away criticism of last year's attack on Tehran University's dormitories, has said, "We were prepared for the elections one week in advance." The dorm incidents were predictable because Communists and neo-Marxists following Mehdi Karroubi had come onto the streets.

Not sure if Ahmadi-Moghaddam realises this, but his statement gives indirect support to allegations of a manipulated election --- the security forces were preparing for violence because they knew in advance that there might be anger over an "adjusted" vote. (More on this on Saturday....)

Meanwhile, member of Parliament Elyas Naderan has kept up his pressure on the Government, saying that the Majlis never completed a full report --- despite its promises --- on the dormitory attacks: "Only parts of it exist and are in our minds."

0800 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics. Some more pressure on the regime: Ayatollah Abdolnabi Namazi, the Friday Prayer leader of Kashan, has said, "If attacks on marja in Qom become normal, the future is not predictable."  Hojatolelsam Mehdi Tabatabai asserts, "God will not forgive those who insulted the 14 Khordad [4 June] ceremony."

0645 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics --- An Apology? Hmm, wondering if this might be an important signal....

In a wide-ranging interview on Parleman News, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani makes the statement that "whoever does not respect the marja (senior clerics)... shows his worthlessness". Larijani asserts that the marja "are the pillars of nezam", the Iranian system, and "the Supreme Leader up to the chiefs of Iran's forces see them as such".

An EA correspondent gets to the point with the question, "Is this an indirect apology from Ayatollah Khamenei?"

0640 GMT: The Economic Squeeze. Reuters publishes a summary of foreign companies who have pulled back from operations inside Iran and those who continue to do business.

0550 GMT: A Victory in Britain. It is reported that actress and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activist Kiana Firouz has been granted "leave to remain"' in the UK, removing the threat of deportation to Iran.

Firouz had been refused asylum on two previous occasions, prompting a campaign to prevent her return to Tehran.

0535 GMT: The Attack on the Clerics. It is reported that the website of the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has been filtered.

Kalemeh publishes a letter from Ahmad Montazeri, the son of the Grand Ayatollah, to senior clerics in Qom. Montazeri describes Sunday's attack on the Grand Ayatollah's home and offices and asks for a denunciation of the assault.

0515 GMT: Today's white noise starts out of Washington rather than Tehran, as the Obama Administration --- trying to hold back the tide of Congressional action on Iran --- plays up rhetorically to the legislators.

Speaking at a hearing on Thursday, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave the rationale for the adjusted approach of the White House to US missile defence:

One of the elements of the intelligence that contributed to the decision on the phased adaptive array (approach) was the realization that if Iran were actually to launch a missile attack on Europe, it wouldn't be just one or two missiles, or a handful.

"It would more likely be a salvo kind of attack, where you would be dealing potentially with scores or even hundreds of missiles.

An editorial aside:I wonder if and when the Administration will ever realise that this appeasement --- not of Iran but of Congress --- will never free up its approach towards Tehran but will limit and even undermine any hope of crafting a thoughtful policy towards the Iranian situation.

Meanwhile, getting back to significant developments, we catch up with this week's potentially important analysis by reformist Mostafa Tajzadeh. A Deputy Interior Minister in the Khatami Government and post-election detainee, Tajzadeh has published a lengthy consideration of today's Iran through a review of the past, apologising for the reformists' role in the detention and execution of political prisoners in the 1980s.

We've posted extracts from the Tajzadeh analysis, accompanied by interpretation for Muhammad Sahimi of Tehran Bureau.