Secret Enrichment Facility Discovered In Iran

A day after passing a UN resolution to move toward total nuclear disarmament, Barack Obama joined Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown to disclose the existence of a secret Iranian site used to enrich low-grade uranium. Iran has acknowledged the site, but “The (IAEA) also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility." Obama had this to say:

Appearing before reporters in Pittsburgh, Mr. Obama said that the Iranian nuclear program “represents a direct challenge to the basic foundation of the nonproliferation regime.” President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, appearing beside Mr. Obama, said that Iran had a deadline of two months to comply with international demands or face increased sanctions.

“The level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the entire international community,” Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain said, standing on the other side of Mr. Obama. “The international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand.”

It sounds like US intelligence had been monitoring the facility, near the holy city of Qom, for years, but recently had their cover broken, which led Iran to disclose the existence of the plant to the IAEA. Obama said today that "the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program," although I'm wondering about the exact meaning of that remark, given the claim that no enriched uranium exists there, which American officials confirm (they say it could be ready by next year).

This comes right before the October 1 meeting between Iran and Western powers, and is sure to add some intensity to them.

This latest disclosure, along with the stolen election and state-sponsored repression of dissent, is turning Iran into a pariah regime, like North Korea.

Iran has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to learn how to produce enriched uranium to fuel the reactors it is building. But the centrifuges it is using are an open-ended technology, such that if a nation can learn to use them to enrich uranium to 22 percent (enough for reactor fuel), there is no absolute bar to its learning to enrich to the 95 percent required for a nuclear bomb. Iran can therefore only allay suspicions that it actually wants a bomb by allowing thorough (and even surprise) U.N. inspections and by granting greater access to its scientists, engineers and equipment. Iran was caught doing undeclared weapons-related research in 2002, which is forbidden in the NPT, so it is on a kind of probation from the point of view of the West [...]

Iran may be counting on Russia and China to come to its aid. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would be foolish to make that bet. Although Russia's prime minister (and de facto leader), Vladimir Putin, recently spoke out against further sanctions on Iran, President Dmitry Medvedev indicated in a CNN interview on Sunday that Russia's patience is not infinite. He said, "Iran must cooperate with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], this is an absolutely indubitable thing, if it wishes to develop its nuclear dimension, nuclear energy program." It is possible that Russia will be more flexible on the Iran sanctions issue now that President Obama has canceled plans to build missile shield facilities in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic, plans to which Moscow had vehemently objected. Likewise, Obama is seeking to blunt Iran's propaganda campaign concerning the nukes of the great powers by pushing for further nuclear disarmament in the U.S. and Russia.

From the standpoint of Obama, who may be on the verge of a reality check on Afghanistan, he cannot vow to end the existence of nuclear weapons in the world and then sit idle as Iran reveals yet another secret facility. The sanctions may only endanger the Iranian people; but so many are fed up with the ruling regime anyway that it could tip the balance.

Juan Cole has a photo essay contrasting Ahmadinejad's UN rhetoric with reality.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution Started In 1978

That's all you have to remember when reading about another sparking of protests in Tehran.

Tens of thousands of green-clad protesters chanted and carried banners through the heart of Tehran and other Iranian cities on Friday, defying tear gas and truncheons as they turned large swaths of a government-organized anti-Israel march into the largest opposition rally in two months [...]

Conservatives had warned against using the annual pro-Palestinian march as an excuse for renewed protests against Mr. Ahmadinejad, whose election plunged Iran into its worst internal crisis in three decades.

But the protesters turned out anyway, often walking alongside larger groups of state-sanctioned marchers bearing huge banners denouncing Israel. The protesters even flouted the day’s official message, chanting “No to Gaza and Lebanon, my life is for Iran.” And when government men shouted “death to Israel” through loudspeakers, protesters derisively chanted “death to Russia” in response. Many opposition supporters are angry about Russia’s quick acceptance of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory.

Opposition leaders Mir Hussein Moussavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Muhammad Khatami joined the crowds in Tehran, drawing appreciative cheers and chants of support. Later, Basij militia members tried to attack Mr. Khatami and Mr. Karroubi, but defenders fought them back, opposition Web sites reported [...]

There were reports of similar demonstrations and clashes in other cities Friday, including Isfahan, Tabriz, Yazd, and Shiraz, where protesters skirmished with Basij militia men, and freed a group of fellow protesters who were being arrested, opposition Web sites reported.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a lie, which is basically the closer in his comedy set. It's a bit upsetting that the White House even bothered to respond to this, as Iran is being squeezed internally to support a less belligerent approach to foreign policy. The October negotiations with the West on the nuclear question and other issues have been called a window of opportunity by the top Iranian envoy. Clearly the cracks in the ruling regime's legitimacy is pushing them to accept something broadly agreeable to their increasingly alienated public. I don't know if it will work. But that's driving the new approach. Ahmadinejad's a pleasant comic, but he's the opening act, not the headliner.

All In The Emphasis

You can kind of see how journalism can set an agenda by looking at news accounts of today's press conference remarks by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In the United States, where Ahmadinejad is seen as a more consequential leader than Ali Khamenei, and where talk of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities has been in the air for years, the President is described as brazen and defiant, quoted as saying that discussion about the country's nuclear program is "finished". In Britian, where such antipathy is less pronounced, the media report emphasizes the other half of Admadinejad's statement:

Iran's president has ruled out any discussion of its "undeniable" right to nuclear energy, but proposed talks with global powers on its peaceful use.

Speaking at a news conference, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also proposed a public debate with President Barack Obama of the United States, Iran's main foe.

A US-set deadline is approaching for Iran to stop nuclear enrichment, which Washington says could be to make arms.
Mr Ahmadinejad said deadlines were "incompatible" with the world's needs.

"From our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is finished. We continue our work within the framework of global regulations and in close interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said.

"We will never negotiate over the undeniable rights of the Iranian nation."

He said Iran's co-operation with the international community would follow two tracks, developing clean atomic energy for peaceful purposes and preventing a proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Now, Ahmadinejad is eliding the point, given that the IAEA is calling their efforts mired in "stalemate" because of Tehran's refusal to clarify fully the questions about their nuclear program. However, both the American press accounts and the BBC's are correct. Ahmadinejad did say that the nuclear issue is finished and that his nation has an undeniable right to nuclear energy. He also said he wants global talks about peaceful use of that nuclear energy. You could emphasize the defiance, or emphasize the agreement to global talks. I guess it depends on what interests you want to serve.

Ahmadinejad's Inauguration Day

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term yesterday amid much protest and even more defiance.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was sworn in for a second term as Iran's president Wednesday while security forces battled hundreds of protesters chanting "Death to the Dictator" in the streets around parliament where the ceremony was held.

Key opposition leaders, moderate lawmakers and all three of Ahmadinejad's election challengers boycotted the swearing in ceremony. State-run Press TV said more than 5,000 security forces were in the streets around parliament and police with sniffer dogs patrolled the area after the opposition called for demonstrations to coincide with the inauguration.

Hundreds of protesters chanted "Death to the Dictator" before security forces broke up a demonstration near parliament, striking people with batons and blasting them with pepper spray, witnesses said.

The opposition has vowed to continue rolling protests. Iran society will never be the same, at least not until the regime either restores its legitimacy (through concessions or official violence), or is driven out.

And then there's the issue of engagement with the West, obviously strained even further by the arrest of three American hikers along the border with Kurdistan, who the Iranians have designated "spies." I do not hold high hopes for engagement, which is probably why the Administration is foregrounding the big stick in their public diplomacy right now:

The Obama administration is talking with allies and Congress about the possibility of imposing an extreme economic sanction against Iran if it fails to respond to President Obama’s offer to negotiate on its nuclear program: cutting off the country’s imports of gasoline and other refined oil products.

The option of acting against companies around the world that supply Iran with 40 percent of its gasoline has been broached with European allies and Israel, officials from those countries said. Legislation that would give Mr. Obama that authority already has 71 sponsors in the Senate and similar legislation is expected to sail through the House.

In a visit to Israel last week, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, James L. Jones, mentioned the prospect to Israeli officials, they said.

I wonder whether this will actually backfire and punish those in the street who are battling the regime, while the hardliners manage to keep what refined oil can get produced and shipped for themselves and their cronies. A country that is already beating and imprisoning its own people shouldn't have much difficulty causing them more suffering. There's also the question of getting the world to go along with this.

The promise of Iranian engagement has been really wounded by this internal strife.

Waves Of Dissent

Today was the 40th day since Neda Agha-Soltan was murdered by Iranian militia in Teheran, and in Shiite culture, that date is important for mourning. So thousands of opposition protestors appeared on the streets of Teheran to mark to occasion, and were beaten back by security forces.

Iranian police fired teargas and wielded batons to disperse thousands of anti-government protesters attending a graveside memorial today for victims of a government crackdown in the wake of the disputed presidential election.

Witnesses said plainclothes forces charged at the crowd in the latest unrest following June's disputed presidential election, some of them chanting, "Death to those who are against the supreme leader."

Earlier, hundreds of police surrounded Mir Hossein Mousavi, the defeated reformist candidate, as he and hundreds of his supporters tried to reach the graveside of Neda Soltan, the young woman whose death was captured on video, turning her into a symbol of the protest movement. Witnesses said police forced Mousavi to leave Behesht-e Zahra cemetery, on the capital's southern outskirts.

"Neda is alive, Ahmadinejad is dead," chanted some of those at the ceremony, referring to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who the opposition claims won the election fraudulently.

The police charge came when an ally of Mousavi, Mahdi Karroubi, who was also a candidate in the June 12 election, tried to give a speech. Even after the clash, thousands of supporters continued to visit Soltan's grave.

Eventually, during one of these mourning events, someone else will die. And the protestors will engage in a 40-day cycle of mourning for them. Or some other major event like Rafsanjani speaking at Friday prayers will lead to massive protests. This cycle will not end, I don't think, until the opposition receives a measure of justice. And the hardliners know it. That's why they've intensified their own infighting, with talk of Ahmadinejad being deposed now coming to the fore. This will continue to simmer for at least the rest of the year.

...I think you're going to see mourning over abuse in Iranian prisons get the 40-day cycle as well.

The Curious Case Of Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei

The civil unrest in Iran has sparked some very strange internal power struggles. While the main rift between reformers and hardliners continue, with the reformist former President Mohammad Khatami seeking a referendum on the legitimacy of the government (good idea, the way to deal with a stolen election is ANOTHER election), a Vice Presidential appointment by hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has caused yet another split:

Iran's president, under attack by reformists after his disputed election victory last month, on Tuesday openly defied his most powerful backer, refusing an order by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to dump a newly chosen vice president who is despised by hard-liners for insisting last year that Iranians had no quarrel with the Israeli people.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad finds himself under increasing pressure from Iranian hard-liners who appear eager to reap political rewards after leading a weeks-long crackdown on supporters of opposition figure Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who say vote fraud was responsible for Ahmadinejad's victory [...]

Ahmadinejad surprised many observers by defending the vice president, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, an in-law, in the face of a torrent of criticism from his hard-line allies.

News agencies confirmed Tuesday that Khamenei sent a letter to Ahmadinejad on Monday asking for the removal of Mashaei.

"The president should announce the dismissal, or acceptance of the resignation of Rahim Mashaei right away," said Mohammad Hasan Abu- torabi, the deputy speaker of parliament, according to the semiofficial Iranian Students News Agency.

But Ahmadinejad insisted on state television that Mashaei "will continue his job," adding, "he is very loyal to the Islamic Revolution and a servant of people."

Kevin Drum thinks this is a sign of Khamenei's weakened power, but Juan Cole thinks something's up:

There is something fishy about this story, since if Khamenei wanted Ahmadinejad to do something, why would he do it in a secret letter that only two MPs have seen? [...]

One possibility is that Khamenei is displeased but does not want to weaken Ahmadinejad by publicly overruling him, at this juncture when things are already unstable. That would make sense of his sending a private letter. Maybe it was circulated to other hard liners only when Ahmadinejad declined to heed it?

In the Iranian constitution, Supreme Leader Khamenei can overrule Ahmadinejad on virtually anything, and can dismiss him at will. So if Khamenei really wants Rahim-Masha'i gone, he'll be history.

I could also see this being more about Ahmadinejad trying to gain favor on the moderate side by appointing someone more in line with their less strident perspective. Which would be a sign that the protests are taking their toll.

Hardliners have continued their assault on Ahmadinejad today. This has become a case of palace intrigue rather than a popular movement. But the popular movement is the catalyst. Ahmadinejad knows he can defy the Supreme Leader because his legitimacy has waned.

...Ahmadinejad caved, firing Mashaei. Should be interesting to see the fallout.

Rafsanjani Shows His Cards

It seemed that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was cutting bait. A member of the establishment, he was not willing to stick his neck out for the reformers, and seeing the crackdown in Iran, was content to work inside the system rather than openly commit to revolution. And then...

Reporting from Beirut -- A day after commanders of the Revolutionary Guard warned there was no middle ground in the dispute over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the political party of one of Iran's most powerful clerics Monday defiantly issued a statement dismissing the vote.

The statement by the Kargozaran Sazandegi, or Executives of Construction Party, all but cleared away weeks of ambiguity about the stance of the powerful cleric Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

The cleric, who heads two government councils that oversee the supreme leader and mediate disputes between branches, openly backed Mir-Hossein Mousavi. But he has not spoken definitively about the election since the June 12 vote, which was validated after a partial recount by the powerful Guardian Council.

"We declare that the result is unacceptable due to the unhealthy voting process, massive electoral fraud and the siding of the majority of the Guardian Council with a specific candidate," said the statement issued by the party.

That's a major statement of support, unprecedented from Rafsanjani since the election. It shows that the reform movement will not go away and doesn't mind a bit of boldness.

Opposition leaders are seeking the release of all political prisoners. Ali Khamenei is retrenching and blaming outside enemies. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will head to television tonight with a national address. There are large demonstrations scheduled Thursday.

This isn't over.

The Long War In Iran

We've hit the attrition stage in the Iranian election uprising. The protests have become more sporadic, but can the regime risk isolation from the rest of the world? Mir Hossein Mousavi wants to form a new political party dedicated to curbing the power of the mullahs and promoting democratic reform, but can he stay out of jail? The regime has been able to put down protests to this point, but could they possibly stop a general strike? And how will the statements of the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom affect the outcome?

An important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.

A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult.

“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember, they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”

This dovetails with Mousavi's release of documents detailing the fraud at the polls, including the printing of millions of extra ballots before the vote; as well as past statements from clerics that many Iranians are "unconvinced" about the poll results. It chips away at the legitimacy of the Supreme Leader, and even in dictatorial societies, you need legitimacy.

It's interesting that, in the midst of an internal crisis, Ahmadinejad wants to hold talks with President Obama, perhaps to buttress his own standing among his people. In this war of attrition, who would have thought that sitting at a table with an American President would aid an Iranian one in crisis?

Repression and the Long Game In Iran

Iranian paramilitary and security forces broke up another peaceful protest in Iran yesterday, reportedly using tear gas and clubs. The Guardian Council, which oversees the elections in Iran, certified the results today, making Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner and setting off more scattered protests. And many are asserting that the events amount to a military coup by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.



Clearly, there are competing loci of power. The ruling regime seems to be maintaining control through the IRGC and the Basiji and asserting a much greater role for them - close to a military dictatorship - while the opposition is trying to leverage the old clerisy that came to power in the 1979 Revolution. In the short run, those with the guns (as Fareed Zakaria says) are likely to win out. You can have all the defiance of women fighting for their rights, and all the admiration from throughout the Arab world, but ultimately, repressive states can hold power in the short term if they control the communications apparatus and deploy the security apparatus. Which is how Iran holds power today, and we're starting to see a consolidation of that control.

With the opposition visibly weakening in Iran amid a government crackdown, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supporters have begun to use his disputed victory in this month's election to toughen the nation's stance internationally and to consolidate control internally.

In recent days, they have vilified President Obama for what they call his "interventionist policies," have said they are ready to put opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's advisers on trial and have threatened to execute some of the Mousavi supporters who took to the streets to protest the election result [...]

The actions reflect the growing power of a small coterie of hard-line clerics and Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders, Iranian analysts say. Revolutionary Guard members, in particular, have proved instrumental to the authorities since the June 12 election, and analysts say their clout is bound to increase as the conflict drags on.

The emerging power dynamics leave Mousavi with tough choices. Confronted with increasing political pressure over what supporters of the government say is his leading role in orchestrating riots, he can either acknowledge his defeat and be embraced by his enemies or continue to fight over the election result and face imprisonment.

"Everything now depends on Mousavi," said Amir Mohebbian, a political analyst. "If he decreases the tension, politicians can manage this. If he increases pressure, the influence of the military and security forces will grow."

I don't know if that analysis is quite right. Mousavi's only ally is time. The cycles of mourning dictate that discontent and unrest will continue to have outlets into the future, and the full face of repression has been made clear to too many people for it to credibly turn back. While the regime has the upper hand in the short term, Mousavi - and actually, the demonstrators, who have driven this process more than he has - can allow the anger to simmer and use targeted, timely actions to continue that boiling. The crisis in Iran is one of legitimacy, and using clubs and tear gas doesn't exactly put that genie back in the bottle. Repressive societies can only keep control for so long.

Mousavi's Long Game

Mir Hossein Mousavi has not given up the fight in Iran.

Iran protest leader Mir Hossein Mousavi says he holds those behind alleged "rigged" elections responsible for bloodshed during recent protests.

In a defiant statement on his website, he called for future protests to be in a way which would not "create tension."

He complained of "complete" restrictions on his access to people and a crackdown on his media group.

A BBC correspondent in Tehran says the statement is a direct challenge to Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

It's important to recognize that the 1979 Iranian revolution began in 1978. And Mousavi was among the revolutionaries who brought that about. He, and Rafsanjani and some of the other reformists, have played the long game before.

Meanwhile, the regime continued their crackdown yesterday, detaining hundreds of protestors, including possible Mousavi's wife. And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, silent in this uprising for the most part, lashed out at President Obama and compared him to George Bush for daring to question his authority or legitimacy.

As usual, Nico Pitney has the best coverage.

Either Over, Or Starting. Crack Analysis!

The ruling regime in Iran has given their blessing to the June 12 election, and are now planning to swear in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for another term by August. They've arrested a good portion of the leadership of the street protests, and even opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi is reportedly under a 24-hour guard and possibly house arrest. Tehran has been quieter in the past couple days in the midst of a repressive crackdown. The regime has restored order.

At least that's one reading of recent events. The other reading is that a quiet coup is in the works, as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has control of enough members of the Assembly of Experts to oust Khamenei and call for a new election. This sense that Khamenei has lost his legitimacy among the political establishment is only bolstered by the appearance of clerics in the anti-government protests. Add to that the cycle of mourning for those who have lost their lives on the streets, which will restart the protests in waves, and the inspiring defiance of women - "When they want to hit me, I say hit!" - which really chips away at the moral authority of the regime, and you have the alternative reading that the battle for power in Iran has only begun.

Meanwhile, almost as interesting as the violence and protest in Iran is the overall effect on Iraq, where America still has 140,000 soldiers. The Shi'a clerics in the holy city of Najaf, the spiritual home of the faith, have remained silent. Iraqi leaders have expressed worry at the instability that could easily spill over the 800-mile border.

Iraqi officials say it is impossible to predict how -- and to what extent -- the unrest in Tehran will affect their country.

In interviews, several politicians said they hope the crisis will make it harder for Iran's government to meddle in Iraqi affairs in coming months. Iraq is gearing up for a national election and is asserting more control over security as U.S. troops continue to draw down.

"All their energy is diverted to how to deal with the situation," Kurdish lawmaker Tanya Gilly said. "I think this is keeping them busy with their own affairs, rather than getting involved with other people's affairs. Maybe we'll have some quiet."

A senior Shiite leader from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Dawa party said he was concerned because Iran has a history of fueling conflicts abroad to divert attention from its domestic problems.

"Iranian influence in Iraq has many faces," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation.

Iraq has enough violence and sectarian struggle of their own to contend with, but this adds a layer of worry, for unrest in Iran can easily destabilize a region where America already fights two other wars.

Obama's Needle Threading In Iran

Pete Hoekstra's Twitter FAIL is symptomatic of a larger trend of conservatives wanting to use the allegedly stolen election in Iran as a means to reveal their greater glory of an Arab spring. At first they expressed pleasure at Ahmadinejad's survival because extremists need one another to start wars, and now they seek Obama's direct confrontation into an election in a foreign country. They've kind of been all over the map.

[F]ringe actors like al Qaeda and the neocons or Ahmadinejad and Bibi need each other for political survival. The relationship isn’t even antagostic, it’s a symbiotic mutualism. Intractable, crazy antagonists legitimize the position of extremists who oppose them.

Fortunately, we have in the White House someone who understands that his words matter. His White House seeks a focus on human rights and peaceful resolution rather than wading into the election itself, which is clearly the right policy.

A senior Obama administration official who did not want to be identified or quoted explained that the president was deeply conscious of appearing not to favor any side in the election. Officials had ruled out calling for a recount or a revote out of a concern for undermining the Iranian opposition. The official said it was important to have a policy toward Iran that advanced the administration’s desire for liberalization and human rights in Iran, not one that merely vented American outrage at Ahmadinejad.

If and when Obama speaks about the violence in Iran over the coming days, the official predicted, he will emphasize the need for respecting human rights in Iran and for Iranians to reach their own solution. Potential multilateral efforts at calling attention to electoral improprieties and the resulting violence were said to be on the radar of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice. No administration official mentioned recognizing the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s proclaimed victory at this point as a policy option under consideration, in keeping with Biden’s call for further “analysis” about the true election result, despite the fact that the European Union’s presidency, currently held by the Czech Republic, recognized Ahmadinejad as the victor despite noting “irregularities” in the vote.

The President himself said it best - we have a history in meddling in the foreign affairs of Iran (as well as many other nations), and overt calls for recounts or revotes at this point would enable Ahmadinejad and the hardliners to marginalize what appears to be real dissent in their country as the work of American puppets. It's the right policy, one of engagement without engaging. As Bush's former ambassador to Iran said, the President is threading the needle correctly:

In an interview today with NPR, (Nicholas) Burns praised Obama’s handling of the crisis, and said that a more aggressive response would actually play into the hands of President Ahmadinejad.

“President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see a very aggressive series of statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this,” Burns said. “And I think President Obama is avoiding that quite rightly.”

“This is not a dispute for the U.S. to be the center of,” Burns said at another point. “It’s up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s future leaders will be. He said he respects Iran’s sovereignty. I think it was important to do that.”

Without Americans driving the discussion and seeking the spotlight, the Iranian resistance has advanced the ball. The mullahs had to offer a limited recount but it has failed to stop the protests in all the major cities. A senior ayatollah has now come out against the election, reflective of a real split inside the ruling class. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is being forced to address the issue at Friday prayers this week. Even the Iranian soccer team wore green armbands yesterday during a nationally televised match, in solidarity. The reformers are doing just find without America trying to put their thumb on the scale. Obama should take the lesson and apply it to the rest of the world, too.

We Had To Kill The Media In Order To Save It

The fact that the best reporting on the Iranian election crisis is coming from Twitter and random comments from students inside the country is not necessarily a testament to the expansive power of new media but to the irredeemable failure of the old media. Robert Farley has a pretty good roundup that matches my experience on vacation yesterday, trying to find a few scraps of information:

So, I'm trying to find out something about what's going on in Iran, and on CNN I can watch a rerun of Larry King interviewing several gentlemen without shirtsleeves who apparently assemble choppers. On Fox Mike Huckabee is trying to explain why Jesus hates credit card relief. MSNBC is rerunning something about a prison in New Mexico. CNBC is evaluating whether college students should be able to afford Chanel tote bags.

Media fail.

Sadly, if the elections were not a planned occurrence we wouldn't have any media in the country at all. The major TV networks have almost no international bureaus anymore, pooling their resources in London and sending out correspondents to act as individual news gathering machines, one-man or woman networks without the benefit of producers or editorial desks. This allows for a bit more flexibility, but also flattens the landscape so that the news-gathering capabilities of established media differ in no legitimate respect from a native speaker with a Twitter account or a Facebook page. It's not that the tweeters have ascended into the media stratosphere, it's that the traditional media has descended into the depths.

A few national newspapers do seem to have decent reporting on the ground. And thanks to the Internet, we can access a good deal of information about the world from local sources. And some bloggers, like those at the National Iranian American Council and Tehran Bureau (until they were shut down, allegedly by a denial of service attack from inside Iran), are doing heroic work. I would highly recommend this post by Brian Ulrich, positing the entire enterprise as a military coup, with the Revolutionary Guard consolidating power. However, I think we all remember how the networks would pull away from programming for hours to cover international crises as they unfolded. There's clearly an attitude of indifference this time around, but that is as much budgetary as it is cynical. Television simply cannot cover the story anymore. And that's to the great disservice of the still-overwhelming mass of people around the world who depend on it for news and information. The triumphalism of those who would see the sorry spectacle of TV news shoved aside fails to account for the remaining digital divide in the country as well as the tendencies of a mass of people who are not likely to otherwise be reached. And they become more closed off to the world, more uncomfortable with opposing points of view, more clueless about international relations or foreign affairs. And there are clear dangers to such an environment of mass ignorance.

I don't really have a solution to this, but the paucity of the Fourth Estate in this international crisis just leaves me sad.

...To balance out this post with some respect for the organizing capability of Twitter, please wear green tomorrow in support of the reformers in Iran. Maybe Abbi Tatton will report on it!

Electoral Theft In Iran

I left kind of a flip Twitter message about how, unlike in Iran, here in the US we never have stolen elections and irregularities at polling places, but this disputed election and the subsequent protests in the Islamic Republic is actually a bit more serious than that. You could see this coming a mile away - wildly divergent polls, an expected high turnout, a country known for at least limiting their elections, though they are probably more free than other countries in the region. It set the table for the unrest we see:

Supporters of the main election challenger to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clashed with police and set up barricades of burning tires Saturday as authorities claimed the hard-line president was re-elected in a landslide. The rival candidate said the vote was tainted by widespread fraud and his followers responded with the most serious unrest in the capital in a decade.

By nightfall, cell phone service appeared to have been cut in the capital Tehran. And Ahmadinejad, in a nationally televised victory speech, accused the foreign media of coverage that harms the Iranian people. There was more rioting at night and fires continued to burn on the streets of Tehran.

Several hundred demonstrators — many wearing the trademark green colors of pro-reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign — chanted "the government lied to the people" and gathered near the Interior Ministry as the final count from Friday's presidential election was announced.

The Supreme Leader closed ranks around Ahmadinejad's victory as a "divine assessment." Meanwhile Mousavi denounced a regime based on "lies and dictatorship." I think it's clear we're going to see more protests and, in all likelihood, violent clashes with the Revolutionary Guard, which has vowed to "crush" any popular movement.

Juan Cole lays out the evidence, in compelling fashion, that the hardliners and conservatives stole the election. He doesn't think the protests will eventually have much of an impact:

The public demonstrations against the result don't appear to be that big. In the past decade, reformers have always backed down in Iran when challenged by hardliners, in part because no one wants to relive the horrible Great Terror of the 1980s after the revolution, when faction-fighting produced blood in the streets. Mousavi is still from that generation.

My own guess is that you have to get a leadership born after the revolution, who does not remember it and its sanguinary aftermath, before you get people willing to push back hard against the rightwingers.

So, there are protests against an allegedly stolen election. The Basij paramilitary thugs and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards will break some heads. Unless there has been a sea change in Iran, the theocrats may well get away with this soft coup for the moment. But the regime's legitimacy will take a critical hit, and its ultimate demise may have been hastened, over the next decade or two.

My only hesitation would be that more attention is being paid to Iran now than in the past, and sustained effort would receive support outside the country. But that's quite a burden on the reformers, even if, as alleged, they represent a majority in Iran. And anyway, the White House is cautiously hedging away from lending support to the reformers, mindful that any words from the West could easily be used by hardliners as proof that the infidels are trying to overthrow the government. This spokesman for the Iranian resistance explains:

Robert Gibbs' White House statement may not fully capture the depth of the crime committed against the Iranian people. "But I think it's wise for the U.S. government to keep its distance," Ghaemi says. The White House can and should "show concern for human life and protesters' safety and promote tolerance and dialogue." But to get any further involved, even rhetorically, would "instigate the cry that the reformers are somehow driven and directed by the U.S., whether under Bush or under Obama, and there's no reason to give that unfounded allegation" any chance to spread.

Ghaemi continues to say that the international community should present a united front that gives "no legitimacy" to the election. In particular, he wants U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to express "serious grievances" about how the election was conducted. "Sanctions and military threats, all these things are counterproductive," Ghaemi says. The initiative has to be expressed and promoted by the Iranians themselves, particularly from Mir Hossein Moussavi and other exponents of popular Iranian outrage. "It very much depends on what leading reformers, including Moussavi, ask them to do, and how much responsibility do they take for exposing them to danger. If they put their tails between their legs and walk away, it will be very sad."

Ultimately, the President of Iran holds less power than assumed. But the Supreme Leader Khamenei's assent of this apparent fraud is a bad sign for future engagement with the Obama Administration. The hardliners are consolidating power.

Everyone's A Winner In Iran

Both Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have declared victory in the Iranian elections before the polls have even closed. That raises the possibility of an Orange Revolution scenario, especially if the hardliners hand victory to Ahmadinejad, where a popular revolt in the streets forced the ruling party to succumb. Not to be alarmist, but I can see it happening.

Meanwhile, what few seem to be saying is that, with four contestants in the race, it's unlikely that anyone will get the 50%+1 required for victory, and Ahmadinejad and Mousavi will probably go to a runoff.

If he does lose, Ahmadinejad will make wingnut history as the first fascist dictator to lose an election and leave office.

Iran's Choice - Rejecting Confrontation

I've been fascinated by Iran's June 12 election over the past couple days, in particular because the result could genuinely surprise, as four years of Holocaust denial and high-profile rhetorical bomb-throwing have possibly threatened Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's chances for re-election. I say possibly because it's so hard to tell: while one "secret poll" reported by Newsweek has the Iranian President trailing Mir Hossein Mousavi by 2-1, a more recent public opinion survey has Ahmadinejad ahead by the same ratio, albeit with 27% undecided. It appears unlikely that either candidate, or the two others, will reach the 50% + 1 necessary to avoid a runoff. Record turnout is expected,with campaign rallies shutting down Tehran, so perhaps the modeling is bad, producing the wildly divergent results. Is there an Iranian Nate Silver?

Certainly Iranians have cause to find fault with their President, who I like to point out is not their leader - that would be the Supreme Leader, who blasted the President for his completely bizarre debate performance a few days back:

In the most significant development, Ahmadinejad appeared to have irked the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, over his performance in Wednesday night's debate with Mir Hossein Mousavi, his main opponent in next week's presidential election.

"One doesn't like to see a nominee, for the sake of proving himself, seeking to negate somebody else," Khamenei said in a speech commemorating the 20th anniversary of the death of the Iranian revolution's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. "I have no problem with debate, dialogue and criticism but these debates must take place within a religious framework." [...]

Apparently trailing in the opinion polls, Ahmadinejad attempted to link Mousavi – the main reformist candidate – to the past governments of Rafsanjani and the reformist ex-president Mohammad Khatam, which he said had been guilty of widespread graft. Among others, he singled out Rafsanjani's sons as well as Ali Akbar Nateq-Nouri, the current head of the supreme leader's inspectorate.

Khamenei's criticisms echoed those of Mousavi, who told Ahmadinejad during the debate: "This is a sin. We are Muslims, we believe in God. We cannot name people like that and accuse them."

It's not just the Supreme Leader (who still has endorsed Ahmadinejad) who have reason to call out the incumbent for criticism. Reformers who boycotted the last election after Mohammed Khatami failed to make meaningful inroads with his agenda are coalescing around the little-known Mousavi, particularly the young, who are completely turned off by the President's confrontational style. The poor economy has cut off Ahmadinejad from his rural base, who are angered by his policies of driving up inflation and rewarding political friends. And even the conservative elite has turned away from Ahmadinejad, who they find counter-productive.

Powerful reformists and conservatives within Iran's elite have joined forces to wage an unprecedented behind-the-scenes campaign to unseat President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, worried that he is driving the country to the brink of collapse with populist economic policies and a confrontational stance toward the West [...]

They have used the levers of government to foil attempts by Ahmadinejad to secure funds for populist giveaways and to permit freewheeling campaigning that has benefited Mousavi. State-controlled television agreed to an unheard-of series of live debates, and the powerful Council of Guardians, which thwarted the reformist wave of the late 1990s, rejected a ballot box maneuver by the president that some saw as a prelude to attempted fraud.

Some called it a realignment of Iranian domestic politics from its longtime rift between reformists and conservatives to one that pits pragmatists on both sides against radicals such as Ahmadinejad.

"Some of the supporters of Mousavi like his ideas; others don't want Ahmadinejad," said Javad Etaat, a professor of political science and a campaigner for Mousavi. "They've decided that preserving the nation is more important than preserving the government."

I don't think we can know for sure what the results will be, but there certainly are signs that Ahmadinejad's belligerence played better in the "Arab street" abroad than at home. Regardless of who is elected in Iran, the hardline clerics who actually run the country seem determined to continue nuclear energy production which contains the genesis of the entire conflict with the West (although nobody has reasonably explained what has changed from the most recent NIE on Iran, which said that they had not restarted nuclear weapons development, and today). But if Ahmadinejad is defeated on the 12th, it will truly signal that hardliner belligerence can be as much a hindrance for a politician as a help. And that's a good thing.

But I'm more interested in seeing our American Taliban's head spin around at the prospect of seeing the supposedly fascist dictator of Iran defeated in a peaceful election.

Irandecision '09

Iran may not have listened intently to the Obama Cairo speech. Because another political drama is playing out on their streets. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is up for re-election, and while he does not control the military arsenal or responsibility over much of the lawmaking in Iran - that's reserved for the Supreme Leader - the elections, which are more free than other parts of the Muslim world, represent a good way to sort of take the temperature of the Iranian people. And the results have been, to this point, quite remarkable:

I don't know whether you have been reading the various press accounts of the election campaign in Iran. I know that the candidates' list is fixed, but I can also see democratic spirit when it is bang in front of me. There appears to be a genuine fight for votes; and the images from the Mousavi rallies look more like Obama rallies than assemblies in a totalitarian state. Notice how young these people look, and how unafraid.

Now check out this video of a public clash between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi supporters in the streets of Tehran. It's vivid, electrifying stuff - not a sign of a brutal totalitarian regime. I know we have to be cautious and I know who holds the military power. But we should not be blind to change when it emerges. Ahmadinejad has discredited himself in the eyes of many Iranians. They are looking for change they can believe in. This is the target audience for Obama this Thursday. He needs to reach out to the democratic forces in that country and remind them that America is their ally.

Sullivan has some residual "Arab Spring" issues to deal with, but there's no question that the democratic impulse is robust in Iranian society right now. "Mousavi" is Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former Prime Minister and reformist candidate with the support of former reformist President Mohammed Khatami. Their debate the other night was pretty remarkable:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his main rival in the June 12 election, former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, held a remarkably frank debate Wednesday night that exposed deep differences among Iran's leaders and presented voters with two completely opposing views.

During the 90-minute debate, which was televised live, the candidates openly delved into topics in a way never seen in the Islamic republic, touching on foreign policy and corruption. In addition, Ahmadinejad raised questions about the academic credentials of Mousavi's wife, a former professor.

The candidates represent two factions in Iran's system of Shiite clerical government. In the debate, Ahmadinejad, in a beige suit and surrounded by stacks of papers, portrayed his opponent as a pawn of Iran's political elite, which he said was corrupt and weak in the face of Western pressure.

Mousavi, a painter and architect, said Ahmadinejad's controversial international and domestic policies were a danger to Iran's future. He accused the president of driving the country toward a "dictatorship" and acting as if he owned the truth. "You think you are higher than all," he told Ahmadinejad.

A large part of the debate centered on foreign policy. Mousavi said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust had cost Iran much international standing. "Tell me, who are our friends in the region?" he asked the president. Mousavi said the country had became internationally isolated.

These are open debates that Iranians can access and engage with. It puts the lie to the conservative idea of Iran as a monolithic society of America-haters. And the results should be extremely interesting.

Most Dangerous Trouble Spot In The World Update

It's concerning enough that the Pakistani Taliban has responded to the offensive against them in the Swat Valley with bombings in Lahore and Peshawar. Clearly they are embedded enough in local populations to carry out attacks without a base of operations in Swat, even in cities like Peshawar which are not Taliban strongholds. Juan Cole makes the argument that this could all turn public opinion against the Taliban, which is possible.

While is is possible that the public will blame the government for stirring up so much trouble with the Swat campaign, it is also possible that the public will turn decisively on the Taliban. There are precedents for such loss of popularity. After the 1997 attack on innocent tourists in Luxor, Egypt, the Egyptian public turned against the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Grouping (al-Gama'a al-Islamiya), the two small terrorist groups that had committed many acts of violence in the 1970s and 1980s and had assassinated President Anwar el Sadat in 1981. EIJ declined into irrelevance in Egypt, and al-Gama'a al-Islamiya's leadership has renounced violence.

But what REALLY bothers me is the series of attacks over the border, in Iran. A Shiite mosque in Zahedan was struck earlier in the week, and yesterday, gunmen fired on a campaign office for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Preelection tensions rose Friday in Iran's religiously and ethnically mixed southeast after gunmen opened fire on the president's campaign office and a radical group claimed responsibility for the bombing of a mosque the day before that killed up to 23 people and injured scores.

Iranian authorities blamed the United States for the violence in Zahedan, on the border with Pakistan.

"The hands of America and Israel were undoubtedly involved in this incident," prayer leader Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami told supporters in Tehran, referring to Thursday's bombing of a Shiite mosque. "Although Wahhabis and the infidel and evil Salafis were an accomplice to the crime, they were being led from somewhere else."

Wahhabi and Salafi are puritanical schools of Sunni Islam rooted in Saudi Arabia. They have inspired Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda terrorist network, as well as the Taliban and other groups that denounce Shiite Islam, the majority sect in Iran [...]

Hours earlier, the Sunni militant group Jundallah, which is linked to Al Qaeda and draws support from Iran's ethnic Baluch minority, claimed responsibility for the mosque bombing on a Shiite holiday. It made the claim in a phone call to the United Arab Emirates-based Al Arabiya satellite news channel.

The caller claimed that the victims were hard-line pro-government militiamen discussing the June 12 election.

Now, this province is basically lawless anyway, so I don't want to make too much of it. But I fear that this widens the larger Shiite-Sunni struggle inside Islam, but that hardliner cleric trying to push blame onto the Americans is a ploy to increase tensions and move away from any reconciliation and negotiation. You can clearly see the tensions between Shiite Iran and their Sunni competitors here. You can also see it in Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki throwing up his hands at any further gestures to the Saudis, accusing them of allowing Sunni insurgents to flow through their borders. This is something that many of us worried about at the start of the Iraq conflict, the spread of sectarian violence throughout the region. I really hope this is not the beginning.

Forget The Hype, Look To The Facts In Iran

Another outrage today concerned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments at the UN Conference on Racism, which prompted several diplomats to walk out of the meeting. This is the typical anti-Zionism and Holocaust denial of which Ahmadinejad is famous, and it's all terribly familiar. I would argue that the uproar is not at all significant compared to this development.

Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, just convicted of espionage and sentenced to 8 years in prison, should be afforded every opportunity for a thorough legal defense in her appeal, according to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Saberi's conviction and sentence are an irritant in the attempt to President Barack Obama to improve relations with Iran, and Ahmadinejad, who is no fool, knows it [...] Ahmadinejad does not want Saberi's case to derail the current thaw between Washington and Tehran.

It is also likely that Ahmadinejad is worried that the Saberi case will reflect badly on him with Iranian youth and women, who in past years swung toward reformist candidates pledging greater personal liberties. Mir Hossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's rival, has now taken up that mantle, and he could benefit from a backlash in the Iranian public over the Saberi case.

One opinion poll showed Ahmadinejad trailing Mousavi among workers.

That is just a huge reversal, evident of a split, even among hardliners, inside Iran. While some in the government want to use the Saberi case as a bargaining chip, Ahmadinejad would rather use the case, and his advocacy for Saberi, in his election campaign. This shows that, at least at some level, Iran actually must respond to the will of its people, which is a powerful thing to remember as the diplomacy over their nuclear program continues.

US-Iran Face-To-Face Talks

The President is walking the walk from the campaign with respect to engagement with Iran.

The Obama administration said Wednesday that the United States for the first time would participate regularly with other global powers in negotiations with the Iranian government about its nuclear program.

The announcement marked a significant step toward the direct engagement with Iran that President Obama has promised. It came after the United States and five other powers — Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia — invited Iran to join a new round of talks on its nuclear program. Also on Wednesday, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made unusually conciliatory remarks about the United States.

Iran would welcome direct talks with the Obama administration, Mr. Ahmadinejad said in a speech, provided that the shift in American policy was “honest.” [...]

“The Iranian people would welcome a hand extended to it if the hand is truly based on honesty,” said Mr. Ahmadinejad in a speech in Isfahan on Wednesday, the Fars news agency reported.

“Yet, if it has an honest appearance but is dishonest by nature, the Iranian people would give the same response that it gave to George Bush. Therefore the change should be in action, not in words.”

Remember that Ahmadinejad is in the midst of a political campaign, one in which his chief rival is pushing from the left, as it were, and arguing for increased freedoms. My point is that Ahmadinejad wouldn't take the position of engagement at this time if he didn't think it politically popular in his country.

Meanwhile, we have evidence that such steps are popular in this country:

QUESTION: Do you think Obama administration officials should hold diplomatic talks with the leaders of Iran in the next few weeks, or should they wait to hold diplomatic talks with Iran until that country makes significant changes in its policies towards other countries?

In next few weeks: 59 percent
Only after Iran makes significant changes: 40 percent

Quite a turnaround from the saber-rattling of the Bush years, ay?

Obviously this is only a beginning. The Iranian capture and prosecution of freelance NPR and BBC journalist Roxana Saberi, shows that tensions still exist between the countries. But the hopes are higher than ever that they will be settled amicably.

This also bodes well for Obama's expressed interest in a nuclear-free world, and the best thing that could be done to support that is to pass the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratification through Congress. Signaling the US intention to reduce nuclear stockpiles and move the world to a goal of zero ultimately pressures every proliferator to do the same.