Archives: November 2009

The Latest from Iran (30 November): Nuclear Distraction, Trashing the Greens?

2009-11-30T18:21:18Z

1915 GMT: Quiet Engagement. News is just emerging of five British nationals who have been held by Iran since their yacht Sail Bahrain strayed into Iranian waters on Wednesday. The significance behind the headline is that the story was kept quiet for five days. That indicates that Britain does not want the matter to escalate into confrontation and that Iran, for now, does not want to use the detention for political advantage.

NEW Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition — The Next Chapter NEW Video: The Bahari Interview on CNN (Part 2) Today’s Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984
Video: The Mothers of Martyrs Protest (28 November)
Iran: The Routes of 16 Azar The Latest from Iran (29 November): Iran’s Nuclear Bluff 1830 GMT: Just for the Nuclear Record. Iranian Foreign Manouchehr Mottaki used a press conference with the Russian Energy Minister (who confirmed Moscow's intention to complete the Bushehr nuclear plant by March 2010) to denounce the IAEA resolution:

We could not find any logical reason for the Board of Governors' decision. We cannot accept discrimination in international relations. Either there are rights or such rights do not exist. The age of discriminatory policies is over. This is the law of the jungle.

Nothing surprising here and no further indication as to Iran's next step. 1625 GMT: Mehdi Karoubi, in an interview on his website Tagheerwebsite (official website of Etemad-Melli party), responded to accusations from Kayhan newspaper:

I really did not want to point out the arrogance of these guys but when I saw that they repeatedly are talking about “conspiracy”, denying their role in the events after the election, and are influencing the Judiciary system, I decided to respond....My message to the management of Kayhan newspaper is that the our interpretation of Islam is different than yours.

1610 GMT: President Postponed. It appears that President Ahmadinejad's national broadcast (see 0715 GMT) has been postponed to Tuesday night. 1555 GMT: A Detainee Speaks. Amidst a slower afternoon, interesting revelations from Behzad Nabavi, the high-profile reform activist who has recently been given a six-year prison sentence. Nabavi is free on a 10-day release pending appeal: "They asked me the night before my release to sign a paper and agree not to engage in political activities or conduct interviews until the appeals court hearing; they told me not to meet or contact political parties and organizations, but I refused. When they couldn't close the deal with me they gave me [only] a 10-day break from prison [instead]." Nabavi claimed that the former Tehran Prosecutor General, Saeed Mortazavi, was present for at least one of his interrogations. He also claims that his arrest warrant had been issued on 9 June, three days before the Presidential elections (and six days before the supposed basis for his "crime", presence at the mass demonstration on 15 June). 1255 GMT: Larijani Baffles (Part 2). I have a hunch --- and nothing more -- that Ali Larijani, with his statement on the nuclear programme this morning, is setting himself up as an alternative to President Ahmadinejad, both for elements in the Iranian establishment and for the "West". But who is the target of this Larijani statement, keeping in mind the shaky translation of the Iranian Labour News Agency: "Commenting on the post-election events, the speaker remarked that the unjustified persistence of certain people on their own views would only benefit others"? 1220 GMT: Report that journalist Hengameh Shahidi has been sentenced to six years, three months, and one day in prison. 1204 GMT: Larijani Baffles. Press TV has summarised this morning's comments by Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani:

I believe there is still room for diplomacy and it is useful for them [the "5+1 powers] to adopt a diplomatic option. That way Iran would be able to make progress within the framework of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) while they would also be certain that Iran activities are peaceful. But of course, if they choose to take a different path Iran would also adopt a different stance.

Here's what puzzles me: given Larijani's hostility to the diplomatic process pursued by the Ahmadinejad Government in recent months, criticising apparent Iranian concessions, why is he now embracing "room for diplomacy"? Why not celebrate the apparent demise of the Ahmadinejad strategy? Suggestions welcomed. 1200 GMT: This is Interesting. Just over a week before the protests of 16 Azar, students from Amir Kabir University have met Mehdi Karroubi in his home. 1100 GMT: Ahmadinejad and Latin America. An EA reader points us to an intriguing discussion between Mohsen Milani, Aram Hessami and Babak Dad, "What is Ahmadinejad searching for in the USA's backyard?" The reader notes Dad's provocative speculation that one purpose of the President's recent tour of Latin America was to prepare a "safe haven" if one should be noted for him and his allies. 1020 GMT: Montazeri Criticises "lllegal" Violence. Lots of chatter this morning about a video of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri denouncing post-election violence by Basiji militia, betraying its mission “unite and mobilise everyone on the path to God not to the path of evil”. There's more. Montazeri also implicitly attacks the Supreme Leader for his thanks to the Basiji for "defeating the enemy in the events after election”: “Isn’t it a misery that one [i.e., the Basiji] goes to hell (in afterlife) for the wellbeing of others in this world?!” (Summary of remarks on Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi) 0940 GMT: You Might Want to Be More Subtle. The head of Iran's nuclear organisation, Ali Akhbar Salehi, kind of gives the political game away today:

We had no plan to build many nuclear sites like Natanz [enrichment facility but it seems that the West do not want to comprehend Iran's message of peace. The West adopted an attitude toward Iran which made the Iranian government to pass the ratification on construction of ten sites.

Hmm....So you haven't make any previous moves to build beyond the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordoo but now you've going to throw all your resources at a crash construction programme because of Friday's IAEA resolution? Wouldn't back Salehi as a poker player: this is either clumsy deception --- Iran has already started on other sites --- or clumsy bluff. 0930 GMT: We've posted the second part of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari's interview with CNN. We've also been moved by his comments on the Green movement(s) to consider again how Washington may be viewing (and belittling) the opposition. 0810 GMT: Blackout. Fears are growing that, in addition to "containing" the protest of 16 Azar (7 December) through a 48-hour holiday just before it, the Government may try to pull the curtains down on it through a cutoff of Internet and mobile phone service. 0730 GMT: Sigh. The coverage of Iran this morning on the BBC's flagship radio programme? Declare "time is running out" for Tehran, then turn over seven minutes of airtime just after 7 a.m. to the Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor for comments such as: "Iranians are not just carpet makers but carpet weavers; they will divide one red line into 100 pink lines and then cross the red line"; "Israel's nuclear capability is irrelevant in the current situation"; "all options are on the table". 0720 GMT: Russia Mending Political/Nuclear Fences? Russian energy minister Sergei Shmatko, in Iran for talks with his Iranian counterpart and other officials, has pledged that Iran's first nuclear power station will soon be completely. Shmatko said earlier this month that the Bushehr plant would be delayed beyond its announced opening date of the end of 2009. The political significance of Shmatko's statement overshadows the technical dimension: days after supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution, Moscow is tacking back politically towards Iran. That means some continuing level of co-operation (though the Russians can always dangle and pull back support) and no sanctions. 0715 GMT: President Ahmadinejad will speak on national television this evening. 0645 GMT: Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani is now holding a press conference on Iranian television. 0630 GMT: Reality Check. Here are two reasons, courtesy of Gary Sick, why the Iran Government's nuclear announcement is "all mouth and no trousers". The declaration of 10 enrichment plants is for 500,000 centrifuges. In the last nine years, Iran has constructed and installed fewer than 9000 centrifuges, of which only about half are operating. At that rate, the plans announced yesterday will be completed in the year 2509. According to documents, construction began on the second enrichment site at Fordoo in 2003. There are still no centrifuges installed, and the site is due for completion in 2011. At that rate, 10 enrichment plants would take 80 years to construct, if they were built one after another. If they were all pursued at the same time, it would put great strain on Iranian resources and manpower, to say the least. What's more, the proposed plants would be the same size as Iran's primary enrichment facility at Natanz, much larger than Fordoo. 0610 GMT: One week before the demonstrations of 16 Azar (7 December), but all the headlines are far away from the internal conflict in Iran. The Ahmadinejad Government's declaration of "10 new enrichment plants" has successfully walked the international media down a nuclear garden path, even though the proposal at this point is a fantasy. In addition to our coverage in yesterday's updates, we'll have further analysis laying out both the technical and political realities later this morning. However, while Tehran's move is political symbolism, it reinforces the mood in the US that engagement is now a long-shot. A clear sign of that is in Trita Parsi's piece for The Huffington Post, "Washington Can Give An Israeli Attack On Iran The Red Light". That headline in itself is a hyperbolic diversion --- for reasons beyond the Obama Administration, Israel will not be launching military operations --- but it shows that Parsi, the President of the National Iranian American Council and a fervent supporter of a political settlement with Iran, has now all but given up on the process.

Iran: What Do 1.4 Million Tweets Look Like?

2009-11-30T11:46:56Z

An interesting "interim" post from Ali Fisher at Wandren PD, who is pursing an ongoing protest to map the use of Twitter in the post-election crisis. He has added to his October post, "The Iranian Election: Following a Conversation", by taking on the daunting task of mapping data from those using the #IranElection tag:

The level of traffic limited the extent to which a user could keep up with the flow of information from #IranElection. at its peak the #tag was running at over 22,500 tweets an hour and nearly 100,000 tweets in a day. There is little anyone can get from reading 375 tweets a minute, forcing users to rely on filters such as the more specific tags, or choosing only to follow certain users; narrowing the field of view but having a chance to understand what is being produced.

His work is at an early stage, but here's a number to make the head spin: in the 10 weeks after the election, there were 1,466,708 tweets using #IranElection. Equally important (from my point of view), there are still quite a few using that tag, even as we add #16Azar.

Afghanistan: The Danger of Washington's "Experts" on Intervention

2009-11-30T10:10:49Z

On the eve of President Obama's announcement on the next steps for the US in Afghanistan --- expect a public escalation of 30,000 more troops and a lot of rhetoric about non-military programmes and the necessity for the Afghan Government to be free from corruption and to take responsibility for security --- The Security Crank offers a loud, troubling polemic against so-called "expertise" in Washington. It’s settled: the discussion about Afghanistan is no longer about Afghanistan. It is, instead, now a contest of who can write the most ridiculous article demonstrating their ignorance of the country. This isn’t a small deal: most of the people we’ll highlight below hold positions of great influence, including on General McChrystal’s review team this past summer. But they are all, pro- and anti-war, morons.

Afghanistan-Pakistan Video & Text: US Envoy Holbrooke Briefing (23 November)

It’s important to note that these opinion-mongers are not operating in a vacuum—they have willing accomplices in the media, most of which is utterly subservient to the U.S. military. In a lot of cases, this change is recent: Dexter Filkins, for example, used to write hard-hitting, critical pieces about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, he writes this:

The Pashtuns, who form the core of the Taliban, make up a largely tribal society, with families connected to one another by kinship and led by groups of elders. Over the years, the Pashtun tribes have been substantially weakened, with elders singled out by three groups: Taliban fighters, the rebels who fought the former Soviet Union and the soldiers of the former Soviet Union itself. The decimation of the tribes has left Afghan society largely atomized. Afghan and American officials hope that the plan to make peace with groups of Taliban fighters will complement an American-led effort to set up anti-Taliban militias in many parts of the country: the Pashtun tribes will help fight the Taliban, and they will make deals with the Taliban. And, by so doing, Afghan tribal society can be reinvigorated. The Afghan reconciliation plan is intended to duplicate the Awakening movement in Iraq, where Sunni tribal leaders, many of them insurgents, agreed to stop fighting and in many cases were paid to do so. The Awakening contributed to the remarkable decline in violence in Iraq.

I didn’t realize the Taliban were led by a group of tribal elders. Yuck. This reads almost like a press release from ISAF [International Security Assistance Force]: demonstrate one’s understanding of a SAMS course on Afghanistan, then talk about how it’s America’s job to reshape Afghan society into what we think our image of it should have been before the Soviets ruined everything. The arrogance the first pair of paragraphs requires—starting with the assertion that Pashtuns are tribal and form solidarity through kinship and ending with the assumption that we can repeat the Awakening movement in Afghanistan—is really just… wow. These assertions have been discussed at length in a paper prepared by the Human Terrain System, which practically begs the Army to stop trying to repeat the Sunni Awakening in Afghanistan. “The desire for “tribal engagement” in Afghanistan, executed along the lines of the recent “Surge” strategy in Iraq,” it says, “is based on an erroneous understanding of the human terrain.” The reasoning is that tribes in both countries are structured fundamentally differently, and that Afghans, even Pashtuns do not primarily organize around tribal lines. (More on the tribal militia idea-that-just-won’t-die is here.) The military has largely ignored this paper—why is that, do you think? Do they not like having their assumptions about a neat tribal solution to all of Afghanistan’s problems challenged? Like this former Taliban official says, no one in the West has done their homework. Well, no one in charge, I should say. To bring up our old theme: they just don’t care. But it’s not just reporters losing their clinical distance who have been dumbing down the public understanding of Afghanistan. Below are some key concepts the willfully ignorant propagate in order to push whatever pet issue they have, which also happens to either obscure or twist a much broader, more fundamental issue—a children’s treasury of ridiculous assumptions and pet issues. Pretending the War is Ethnic Selig S. Harrison is by far the worst offender of the bunch. Without any evidence, and with a history that jumps from Alexander the Great (326 BC) to the British Army (1842) to the Soviets (1979), he says that all Pashtuns are xenophobic zombies who will unite against all outsiders and always win. Harrison supplements this argument by saying that this time, the Taliban’s xenophobia is being driven by a hatred of the Tajik minority lording itself over the Armed Forces, police, and government agencies. Needless to say, his argument is confusing and contradictory, starting with his apparent belief that Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun, is a Tajik puppet. Gareth Porter makes a similar argument: Tajiks are disproportionally more prevalent in the Army, so therefore Pashtuns are culturally compelled to resist the government. Missing in both kinds of argument is a realization that their ideas of what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate ethnic ratios are 100% arbitrary, utterly dependent on which native informant happened to be whispering in their ear at that time. Neither demonstrates any understanding of ethnic relations (the original Taliban wasn’t xenophobic but kafiphobic—mistrustful of all non-Muslims), or why the Taliban actually gains social market share. But the neo-Taliban are a pan-Islamist resistance movement: they reject tribal and ethnic distinctions so long as everyone follows their version of Islam. There’s nothing ethnic about it. Assuming arbitrary troop numbers will fix things One of the key offenders here is Leslie Gelb, an otherwise respectable foreign policy scholar. The fact that anyone with his background—that is, with almost no academic or policy experience in Afghanistan of Central/South Asia—would say he’d prefer 15,000 trainers over the 34,000 foot soldiers President Obama is due to approve speaks volumes to the astounding ignorance of our pundit-class. Why would he know? Gelb has argued elsewhere that the troops in Afghanistan are being misused: how could adding more troops into that mix correct that? SUUUUUUURGE! You have to love the Kagans [Frederick and Kimberly]. They helped create the Surge in Iraq, which funneled troops into an area already in open revolt against AQIM [Al Qa'eda in Mesopotamia]. And of course, they blame themselves for it working, and not the thousands of Sunni Iraqis who decided to reject the insurgents operating in their neighborhoods half a year before the first surge troop arrived. It wasn’t those dirty browns we’re trying to rule, it was us and our surging, that saved the day! Anyway, so they’ve been writing weekly op-eds in major newspapers about how badly we need more troops in Afghanistan ever since they realized their impassioned pleas in 2006 for America to ignore Afghanistan in favor of surging into Iraq was in fact a bad idea that needed to be reversed, even though they refuse to acknowledge they were one of the main drivers of said strategic inattention, but still this time their advice is super correct because they clearly got Iraq right because the country is peaceful and everyone really likes living there. Their latest op-ed is a real gem, however: in a thousand-word explication on the necessity of using troops for political leverage, a lamentation of how the debate has ignored force levels (when in reality the debate has been dominated by a discussion of troop numbers), they can’t bring themselves to mention the Taliban once. I mean, even ignoring the ridiculous assertion that more troops will improve governance, development, education, law enforcement, health care, and whatever else… even ignoring all of that, they say troop numbers will fix Afghanistan but don’t mention why we need troops in the first place. Somehow, these people are taken seriously. Do you get it? Healthcare! I don’t even know what to say: in a world of limited resources, the Obama administration is choosing to emphasize physical security over additional health care spending. This is a tragedy for the Afghans who won’t get health care, to be sure… but is it really undermining the government and the war? Pee-yew. This is exhausting. I’m sure you get the idea. It is damned tough to find knowledgable people writing about the wars these days. For some reasons, the opinion pages seem dominated by ignorant celebrity-pundits, who of course tell us that we are good and never do wrong and always on the side of Right. Of course we want to believe them—who wouldn’t? But listening to these people both within and outside the government will, quite literally, result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. They are making life and death arguments, and doing so without even basic diligence. I think we owe everyone—ourselves and the world—a tiny bit more effort than that.

Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition --- The Next Chapter

2009-11-30T09:24:38Z

Carefully tracking US policy towards Iran, we've noticed since October that many inside and outside the Obama Administration have either stigmatised or dismissed opposition movements. This reduction has both stemmed from and reinforced the Administration's quest for "engagement" and a nuclear deal. The latest chapter in this belittling of the opposition comes from Mahiar Bahari, the Iranian-Canadian journalist who has been writing and speaking about his post-election detention. We noted last week his curious, rather muddled attitude in a Washington Post opinion piece towards protest and the Iranian people. Now this comes out of the second part of his CNN interview, filmed almost two weeks ago but aired yesterday: Latest Iran Video: The Bahari Interview on CNN (Part 2) Iran MediaWatch: Has “Green Reform” Disappeared in Washington? Iran Video: Maziar Bahari Tells CBS of His Detention and Post-Election Conflict Iran Video & Text: Maziar Bahari on His 118 Days in Detention

Unfortunately...we cannot really talk about an opposition movement in Iran because the Green Movement in Iran is just a collection of different groups coming together against the Government. Some of them are monarchists, some of them are Communists, some of them are terrorists. The majority of course wanted a peaceful reform in the Government, but since the Government crackdown which started in June, people just started questioning themselves, "What should be the next step?" At the moment, the slogans are political and cultural, but soon these slogans will be economic. Factory workers [who] were not paid will...join the opposition movement. Farmers who cannot sell their crop will join the opposition movement and then we will see a serious change in Iran.... Soon there will be a more united opposition movement. The danger really is both the opposition and the Government is becoming more militarised. The terrorists both within the regime and the opposition are taking over. As we saw in Baluchistan, there was a suicide attack....I'm sure we'll see more of it.... I think Obama is on the right track right now. I think the world community has to stop a nuclear Iran by any means possible, but most importantly through smart sanctions. But the Obama Administration also has to respect the Iranian people, I think, through smart sanctions and through keeping the dialogue open with the Iranian Government but at the same time talking about human rights abuses in Iran, helping the human rights organisations in Iran, talking about freedom of expression, helping the alternative media.

So, to break this down 1) the US Government cannot really put any faith in the current Iranian opposition; 2) at some point in the (distant?) future Washington can look upon a "more united" movement; 3) in the meantime, the fear of disorder outweighs the hope for change; 4) which, put on top of a nuclear-first policy, means a priority on dialogue with the Ahmadinejad Government while maintaining some supportive general rhetoric about the "Iranian people". Engagement with the internal situation in Iran, as opposed to engagement with the Iranian Government, will consist of some steps to target elements in the regime through sanctions and to assist dissenting groups with communications. I suspect readers will raise eyebrows and possibly voices over some of Bahari's analysis. In particular, he not only portrays "terrorism" in the opposition movement but somehow connects post-election protest to the activities of the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and suicide bombings. His contrasting hope seems to be that a mass repository of factory workers and farmers will save the movement from itself, offering the cohesion that is now lacking. That's not the immediate point, however. Bahari is very well-connected and well-respected in Washington and that significance has been elevated by his recent detention. So I would think that his line of reasoning will resonate with, and possibly be shared by, key members of the Obama Administration. The problem for the US Government is that, combined with the difficulties in the nuclear talks, that --- in contrast to Bahari's articulate description of his detention --- that doesn't lead to clarity but even more muddle.

Latest Iran Video: The Bahari Interview on CNN (Part 2)

2009-11-30T08:04:00Z

On Sunday CNN aired the second part of Fareed Zakaria's interview with Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, who was freed after 118 days in detention on charges of "working with foreign governments" in the post-election conflict. (Part 1, as well as Bahari's article in Newsweek, was posted on Enduring America last week.) Beyond Bahari's personal reflections, the most interesting parts of the interview are his framing of a Revolutionary Guard takeover of the Islamic Republic and his representation of the Iranian opposition. Bahari reduces the current Green movement to an uncoordinated, confused collections of groups which include "terrorists" and are becoming "militarised". We're so intrigued and concerned by this perception of the opposition, and whether it is shared by the Obama Administration, that we've posted a separate analysis. Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition — The Next Chapter Iran Video & Text: Maziar Bahari on His 118 Days in Detention Iran Video: Maziar Bahari Tells CBS of His Detention and Post-Election Conflict Video (1 of 2) [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow4iYiYNgDg[/youtube] Video (2 of 2) [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TllGmYIcPF0[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (29 November): Iran's Nuclear Bluff

2009-11-29T13:23:04Z

2055 GMT: No Big Deal for Engagement. Iran's declaration of plans for "10 enrichment plants" changes little in the political equation. Here is the statement from British Foreign Minister David Miliband:

We have stated over and again that we recognise Iran's right to a civilian nuclear programme, but they must restore international confidence in their intentions. Instead of engaging with us Iran chooses to provoke and dissemble. Iran can flaunt its isolation but this will only increase the calm, determination and unity of the international community. I urge Iran to recognise this, and to accept the outstretched hand on offer.

2020 GMT: A Holiday from Protests. Pedestrian has noted the Government's sudden declaration that schools will be closed on 14 Azar (5 December) and that Government offices must give employees the day off if they wish. As 15 Azar (6 December) is already a holiday for Eid-e Ghadir, Pedestrian summarises:

This means that on Monday, 16 Azar, the day of the student demonstrations, many students will be away on holiday. Workers and employees will not able to take some of the day off having just gotten back after a 4 day holiday [Thursday --- some government offices, all universities and some schools are closed on Thursdays --- Friday, Saturday and Sunday]. More importantly, this will also mean that the crucial days before the demonstrations, all schools will be closed and students will not have the chance to do last minute planning.

This is not a new trick: I recall that, earlier in the post-election crisis, the Government also offered a last-minute holiday before one of the mass gatherings.

NEW Today’s Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984 NEW Video: The Mothers of Martyrs Protest (28 November) NEW Iran: The Routes of 16 Azar Iran’s Nukes: Obama’s Team Buys Time for Engagement
Iran: The Campaign to Free Atefeh Nabavi The Latest on Iran (28 November): Turning Attention Back to Tehran 1944 GMT: Advar News has posted a story and photographs of today's protest at Tehran University. 1930 GMT: Sigh. After the rush of of political manoeuvring this morning, little news coming out from inside Iran. Instead, the "Western" media has gone viral over the "10 enrichment plants" story (see 1635 GMT). This is understandable, as it fits the narrative of devious Iran. It also ignores the political dynamics: this is the logical (if ham-fisted) symbolic response to the "third-party enrichment" deal, keeping the uranium stock inside Iran. It ignores the technical issue that Iran does not have the uranium supply to keep its primary enrichment facility at Natanz 100% busy, let alone 10 more (see 1645 GMT). And, perhaps surprisingly, the media are not even reflecting on their shock-horror claim that Iran is making this move to control the process of 20% enrichment for its medical research reactor. That's a civilian use of uranium, a long way from the "Iran is on the verge of military capability" narrative. 1700 GMT: Nukes Plus Internal Situation = A Challenge? And while everybody watches the Parliament and Government strike their poses, here comes Hashemi Rafsanjani. The former President has used a speech today to twin the latest on the nuclear issue with a swipe at the internal situation. After criticising the IAEA resolution, Rafsanjani declared that "street violence is caused by the lack of an atmosphere of free criticism". 1645 GMT: Why the Government Response is a Bluff. While Western media quickly seizes on the Government's declaration of 10 new enrichment plants, consider this: the immediate problem for Iran is not enrichment capacity but the lack of uranium stock. The response to the IAEA resolution means little unless Tehran can establish new lines of uranium supply. 1635 GMT: The Nuclear Response. The Parliament appears to have established its challenge not only to the "West" but to President Ahmadinejad. It has approved a resolution asking Ahmadinejad to submit plans for reduced interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency. However, the most recent development indicates that the Government will not have to be pushed, at least in the symbolic short-term. Iranian state television reports that the Government, declaring that it will ensure the production of 20 percent uranium for civilian use, has approved plans to build 10 new uranium enrichment plants. The Iranian nuclear agency has been instructed to begin construction on five plants, with locations for five more to be established over the next two months. 1630 GMT: Report that university lecturer, journalist, and activist Dr. Fayaz Zahed has been released on bail after 80 days in detention. 1325 GMT: Fighting the Velvet Revolutionaries. The Iranian Parliament passed a law today earmarking $20 million to "support progressive currents that resist illegal activities by the governments of the US and Britain", to "confront plots and unjust restrictions" by Washington and London against Tehran, and to disclose "human rights abuses by the two countries". The proposal of the $20 million was tabled months ago, and there had been reports that up to $50 million would be sought. A committee with representatives from Iran's intelligence services, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Foreign Ministry, and the communication and culture ministries will oversee the funds. 1140 GMT: Today's Media Iran Low-Light. The Mail on Sunday in Britain has a classic non-story about someone who is probably Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who protested in London in 1984. We've bowed down to this journalistic triumph in a separate entry. 1115 GMT: We've posted a video of yesterday's weekly gathering of the "Mothers of Martyrs" and sympathisers at Laleh Park in Tehran. 1023 GMT: More Detainee Testimony. An EA reader follows up the account of a detainee in Evin Prison (see 0805 GMT) with the letter from lawyer and human rights activist Heshmatollah Tabarzadi to the Supreme Leader. The reader has kindly provided an English translation on a video featuring the letter, which details abuses of detainees. 0813 GMT: Half the Story. Press TV has posted the Ali Larijani comments denouncing the IAEA resolution on Iran's nuclear programme (see 0755 GMT):

If you keep up this ludicrous carrot and stick policy, Iran will make 'new arrangements' in its interaction with the Agency. The resolution passed by the Board of Governors shows that we must be more alert when considering their proposals. This motion shows that they had no intention whatsoever to negotiate a solution but were engaged in "political chicanery”.

No mention, however, in the Press TV article that Larijani has been a determined foe of the Government's strategy and that this could be part of a broader Parliamentary challenge to President Ahmadinejad. 0810 GMT: We've split off our first update of the morning, "The Routes of 16 Azar", as a separate analysis. 0805 GMT: EA readers point me to the account of a detainee who spent 21 months in Evin Prison for political activities, "Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here". 0755 GMT: Here Comes Larijani. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, who has been hostile toward a nuclear deal to the point of challenging President Ahmadinejad, told Parliament today, "If the West continues to pressure us, then parliament can review Iran's cooperation level with the IAEA." More important than any threat to suspend inspections or even leave the Non-Proliferation Treaty is Larijani's growing confidence. The IAEA resolution is a boost for him, as it helps him play the nationalist card against a Government that has been eager to engage with the "West", especially the US. Indeed, if I was playing cynical politics, I would suggest that continuing the threat of sanctions and denouncing Iran's motives is a way to build up an alternative to President Ahmadinejad, especially as Larijani has been linked to an even bigger post in a National Unity Plan. But Washington can't be looking that many moves ahead, can it? 0745 GMT: Brazil Says No Sanctions. A quick post-script on the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran's nuclear programme: Brazil's ambassador to the IAEA is making clear that his country stands against harsher measures, as sanctions "will only lead to a hardening of the Iranian position". Brazil abstained in the IAEA vote. The South American country has no seat on the United Nations Security Council, so the statement is more significant as an indicator that major countries outside the Council may stand back from any US-led effort to turn from engagement to confrontation.

Today's Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984

2009-11-29T11:36:14Z

Sometimes a media "exclusive" is beyond parody. This from The Mail on Sunday in Britain: Did Iran's president take part in a demo during a brutal afternoon in London (or was it a man who looked exactly like him?) By JASON LEWIS The features are unmistakable, the fervour irrepressible as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns against a crowd of opponents.

Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense The Latest from Iran (29 November): Larijani Making A Move? But despite the uncanny likeness, officially this is not the President of Iran who oversaw the bloody suppression of his country’s democracy movement. This picture was taken in London in 1984 and raises puzzling queries over Mr Ahmadinejad, 53. Much of his rise to Iran’s presidency is shrouded in the secrecy which surrounds what has gone on in the pariah state since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 swept the late Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Now this photograph, unearthed by The Mail on Sunday, suggests a young Mr Ahmadinejad spent time in London and took part in a notorious incident which demonstrated his and the Iranian regime’s repressive and sometimes violent nature. The picture, first published by the Daily Mail on April 27, 1984, shows a smart-suited man on the balcony of the Iranian consulate in Kensington, his fist raised in a menacing salute as he harangues anti-Khomeini demonstrators in the street below. The man, who reports described as a diplomat, had stepped on to the balcony hours after protesters opposed to the Islamic regime stormed the building as part of synchronised worldwide action. As demonstrators burst in chanting anti-Khomeini slogans, consulate staff, including members of the notorious Republican Guard, locked them in the reception room. According to reports at the time, and witnesses who spoke to The Mail on Sunday last week, the Iranian staff then returned in numbers, armed with wooden and iron clubs. Inside, the 11 unarmed protesters were taken prisoner. Some reports suggested they were tortured to discover the names of relatives and friends still living in Iran. The late investigative reporter Paul Foot said: "The protesters were bound, interrogated and beaten. Two were beaten unconscious. One recovered but could not lift his head because it was stuck to the carpet in congealed blood." He said the beating went on for seven hours. Then at 6pm, a diplomat, and it is unclear if this was Mr Ahmadinejad, appeared on the balcony and announced that the protesters had been "dealt with". The demonstrators were then thrown out of the building with placards hung around their necks accusing them of being terrorists in the pay of the US and France. No one from the consulate faced charges. Last week the Foreign Office said it had no record of Mr Ahmadinejad being at the Iranian consulate in the Eighties. The Diplomatic List for 1984 contains no reference to the name Ahmadinejad, which he adopted after his family moved to Tehran when he was a boy, or to his real name Mahmoud Saborjhian. Yesterday the Iranian Embassy added that it "didn’t think it was right" that he had ever been based in London. Two people who took part in the protest, who spoke to The Mail on Sunday last week, also said they had no recollection of him that day. Mr Ahmadinejad was also alleged to have taken part in the beating of American diplomats at its embassy in Tehran after it was taken over by students in 1979. A photograph purportedly showed Mr Ahmadinejad escorting a blindfolded US hostage. But the Iranians produced a picture of the President as a young man which appeared to look little like the hostage-taker. We passed the picture to photo-analysis firm OmniPerception, who regularly aid police. It said: "A database of several thousand people was complemented with four recent images of the President. A comparison using the 1984 image was made. The result indicated the four pictures to be the most likely match of all subjects in the database. If this was a police inquiry, this would give cause for further investigation."

Latest Iran Video: The Mothers of Martyrs Protest (28 November)

2009-11-29T11:11:48Z

Early in the post-election crisis, mothers of those killed and detained began gathering on Saturdays at Laleh Park in Tehran. Joined by sympathisers, they have continued to protest: yesterday about 150 people marched, despite attempts by security forces to disperse them with tear gas. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAubG59KZEk[/youtube] The Latest from Iran (29 November): Larijani Making A Move?

The Long War on Terror: Obama Administration Plays Politics with Guantanamo

2009-11-29T08:42:59Z

This article from Nick Baumann at Mother Jones is filled with political-insider information, but I think it is a significant marker of how the closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility has moved from an Obama pledge in January 2009 to a site for internal Administration struggle in November. I learned several weeks ago that the Administration's top lawyer, Gregory Craig, was going to leave or be pushed out the door, in part because his political position was fixed to the promise to shut Gitmo. I was always sceptical, given the politics of the War on Terror, that the deadline of January 2010 was going to be met, so it was no surprise that Craig would have to walk the plank.

Britain’s Role in Pakistan Torture: Video and Human Rights Watch Report

The broader issue is that we are now in a mish-mash of measures. There will be trials in the US for a few detainees (such as 9-11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammad) whom the Administration is sure will be convicted without the use of lost or discredited (i.e., obtained "via duress") evidence. There will be military commissions for about 75 detainees whose convictions cannot be assured. And the rest of the prisoners will remain in the limbo of a Guantanamo that is open well into 2010. Liberals have not done enough public wrestling with Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf's Time article on the ouster of White House counsel Gregory Craig. Perhaps that's because they don't want to deal with the article's troubling implications. As Kevinexplains, Craig was "the White House lawyer tasked with dismantling Bush-era interrogation and detention policies. At first, Obama was on board with Craig's plans. Then, reality set in." By "reality," Kevin presumably means "political reality." Time says that as soon as Obama's positions on Bush era torture -- releasing the torture photos, for example -- became politically difficult, the president jettisoned them. He did this despite the fact that he had been "prepared to accept -- and had even okayed" those same positions "just weeks earlier":

First to go was the release of the pictures of detainee abuse. Days later, Obama sided against Craig again, ending the suspension of Bush's extrajudicial military commissions. The following week, Obama pre-empted an ongoing debate among his national-security team and embraced one of the most controversial of Bush's positions: the holding of detainees without charges or trial, something he had promised during the campaign to reject.

But perhaps the most damning part of the Time piece is this sentence, near the beginning, that summarizes exactly what has happened in Obama's White House:

[Obama] quietly shifted responsibility for the legal framework for counterterrorism from Craig to political advisers overseen by Emanuel, who was more inclined to strike a balance between left and right.

Take a minute to think about how the left would respond to this if Obama was a Republican president. Obama delegated the responsibility for determining what to do about detainees to his political advisers. If George W. Bush had charged his political advisers, including Karl Rove, with crafting such policy, the entire blogosphere would have melted down from outrage overload. Obama's actions here are deeply at odds with the public image he cultivated during his campaign -- idealist, civil libertarian, constitutional law professor, someone who rose above politics. You can claim that the president is a "pragmatist," and always has been, but Obama draped himself in idealism and principle during the campaign. The left always complained that Bush let politics drive his policy decisions. But in this instance, couldn't Obama be accused of the same thing?

Iran: The Routes of 16 Azar

2009-11-29T08:10:19Z

The most interesting news last night was low-key but noticeable. In early evening details of the routes for the protests of 16 Azar (7 December) spread across Twitter. There were references to new student movements organised in recent days. It is still more than a week before National Students Day, but I have a sense that precisely because of the Government efforts to stamp out any significant dissent, particularly through the arrests of student activists, that the efforts to ensure a mass turnout have re-doubled. This may also be fuelled by the determination to show that the movement is not dependent on statements and actions "from the top" but is ready to press its demands at the grassroots. The irony is that, on National Students Day, there will have to many non-students who are also on the streets. If the Government can represent this as "only" the protest of trouble-makers at universities --- because students, free from jobs and responsibility, are always the source of mischief --- then it will have contained the challenge. 8 days to go.