"Iranian expatriate human rights activists report that 4,000 students demonstrated in Tehran to mark Students Day today, shouting "Death to (Iranian Supreme Leader Ali) Khamenei " and "Khamenei is a Murderer and His Religious Authority Is Null and Void," as well as "Death to the Government That Deceives the People."
At Amir Kabir University in Tehran, 1,500 students shouted for the "coup government" to step down, and chanted "Death to the Dictator" (referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)." -more
"All it takes . . ." is a reference to the often quoted and more often ignored piece of folk wisdom "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".
Below is an editorial from yesterday's (Nov.5, 09) Wall Street Journal about Obama's response to the pro-Democracy protests in Iranian cities:
Obama on Tehran's Democrats:
"We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs"Tens of thousands of protesters yesterday braved police batons and tear gas canisters in the streets of Iranian cities to denounce their theocratic rulers and call for a change of regime. In spite of repression by the Basiji thugs and the West's short attention span, the Green Revolution lives on.
On this, the 30th anniversary of the hostage taking at the U.S. Embassy, their message was to a large degree intended for America and President Obama. The opposition hijacked the day, usually an occasion to denounce the Great Satan, to declare their desire to break with that past and build a free Iran. They marched alongside state-sanctioned rallies, before their protests were broken up violently.
For this broad coalition of democrats, America is a beacon of hope and the Iran of the street arguably the most pro-American place in the world. Earlier this year, before the huge demonstrations in the wake of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's brazen theft of the June presidential election, one popular opposition chant was, "O ba ma!"—in Farsi a play on the new American President's last name that translates as, "He with us!"
But the opposition's dreams of American support, moral as much as anything, have been dashed. Mr. Obama was slow and reluctant to speak out on their behalf and eager to engage the Iranian regime in nuclear talks as soon as the summer of protest tapered off. Iran's democrats are now letting their disappointment show. The new chant passed around in Internet chat rooms and heard in the streets yesterday was, "Obama, Obama—either you're with them or with us." -more
The collapse of President Obama’s daft strategy for “engaging” with the tyrants of Tehran has left his cheering section with some terrible questions. After spending months soft-pedaling Iran’s stolen election, abuse of dissidents, as well as the danger from its funding of terrorists and, of course, the threat from its drive for nuclear weapons, the administration thought it had fixed the problem with the deal it negotiated to have the Iranians ship their enriched uranium out of the country for processing. It was doubtful that the deal would have worked or that the Iranians wouldn’t have cheated. But Tehran’s rejection of the pact that its representatives had negotiated has the Obama camp thoroughly perplexed.
Their problem is that they can’t accept the obvious answer to the question as to why their solution has been sunk. Having been warned by skeptics of engagement that the Iranians’ only objective in negotiations was to prevaricate, the administration now finds itself scrambling for an explanation as to why their goodwill and generous offers have gotten them exactly nowhere. But ready as always with an explanation for their dilemma is the New York Times, which served up a healthy serving of excuses today in an article designed to rationalize both Iran’s stalling and Washington’s failed strategy. The piece, titled “Iran’s Politics Stand in the Way of a Nuclear Deal With the West,” claims that left to his own devices, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would love to ratify the pact and fulfill its requirements. But he can’t, says author Michael Slackman, because Iranian dissidents as well as a pesky school of “pragmatic conservatives” won’t let him get away with it. According to Slackman, liberal foes of the regime such as former presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi, are trying to score points with the public by hammering Ahmadinejad as insufficiently nationalist, while the “pragmatists” to the right of him think he is betraying the Islamist cause by allowing the West to “cheat” Iran.
The way the Obama administration portrays them, this week's talks between Iran and the so-called 5+1 group of nations represent a diplomatic breakthrough. Indeed they do—for Iran, that is.
The group, consisting of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, talked to the Islamic Republic for almost five years with no results. The U.S. played a key part throughout—first indirectly, then with a high-level presence. Until Mr. Obama entered the scene, the talks had a clear purpose: First, to persuade the Islamic Republic to stop uranium enrichment, or to face additional U.N. measures. Second, to offer Tehran inducements to abandon its nuclear ambition. Mr. Obama's policy of the "outstretched hand" has changed all that. Using what diplomats term "creative ambiguity," the new administration has tried to circumvent U.N. resolutions by offering unconditional talks.
Sources in Tehran say neither of the two letters that Mr. Obama has written to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei demands compliance with U.N. resolutions. The view from Tehran is that Mr. Obama has already accepted Iran's nuclear program as fait accompli.
As Iran's official news agency, IRNA, put it in an analysis on Sept. 14, "Based on real indicators of its national interests and possible threats, America has no problem with Iran's nuclear project."
It went to note that "[America's] extensive problems originate in that country's military presence in the Middle East. And, since Iran is the most powerful nation in the region, America will have to cooperate with it under any circumstances."
Iran's clarity going into the talks contrasts with Mr. Obama's uncertainty.
"Iran wants its regional supremacy to be recognized by America and the West," says Hussein Pour-Ahmadi, an advisor to the Iranian foreign ministry. "Once Iran's regional dominance is acknowledged, Iran would be ready to help with regional security."
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly claimed that Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. Iran enters the talks assuming that the negotiations that began five years ago have ended, and that a new process is about to start. The mandate in Geneva for Saeed Jalili, Iran's top negotiator, now is to assert Iran's claim of a share in global leadership. The Islamic Republic resents that some small Third World nations are invited to the G-20 summit while Iran, the self-proclaimed regional superpower, is excluded.
"Our package covers a range of issues such as energy security, reducing poverty, economic development, nuclear disarmament, fighting terrorism and protecting the environment," Mr. Jalili told reporters in Tehran on Wednesday.
Confident that the nuclear issue is off the table, the Tehran leadership has just revealed the existence of a hitherto secret plant for uranium enrichment. In a letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA, the Islamic Republic last week told of a new facility, built in a mountain stronghold southwest of Tehran. This could operate 3000 centrifuges.
Earlier, the man in charge of Iran's nuclear project, Ali-Akbar Salehi, had made another startling revelation. In a 5,000-word press release, the nuclear czar reported the existence of "a generation of new and much more efficient centrifuges." He offered no details and, more significantly perhaps, did not say why these superior machines were not being used to enrich uranium instead of the old and inefficient ones operating in Natanz.
The two revelations reinforce suspicions that Tehran may be running a parallel nuclear program of which the IAEA has no knowledge. And yet, Mr. Jalili's brief is to talk about everything except Iran's nuclear program. Iran analysts dub this the "Bikini Strategy"—showing everything except the most interesting parts.
Paradoxically, Mr. Obama's outstretched hand may have made a negotiated resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem more difficult. The perception in Tehran is that Mr. Obama, who has apologized for America's unspecified misdeeds against Iran, is acting from a position of weakness mixed with a desire to score points against his predecessor.
Over the past months, Iranian think tanks have organized a number of seminars on the coming talks. The participants have been divided into two camps, the first advising that Iran go for full victory over the American "Great Satan". Their argument is that the world has already entered a post-American era and that Mr. Obama's weakness and naïveté offer an opportunity for driving the U.S. out of the Middle East.
Last week, advocates of that view published a collection of essays under the title "America Is Coming to an End". The book, published by Ahmadinejad's office, claims that Mr. Obama's election indicated American popular support for a "strategic global retreat". They claim that the world is looking for "an alternative vision" that only Iran can offer.
Or, as Hamid Mowlana, former American University professor and current advisor to Ahmadinejad, says: "Today, only two men count: Ahmadinejad and Obama. As American influence fades, Iran must assert leadership with Ahmadinejad's message of justice."
To persuade the Islamic Republic to climb off its high horses was never easy. If the "End of America" camp wins the debate in Tehran, that task could become even more difficult.
The other view in Tehran says the Islamic Republic should not press its advantage too far. According to Manuchehr Muhammadi, a foreign ministry advisor, Mr. Obama has already acknowledged the Islamic Republic's regional power status.
Therefore, it would be counter-productive to inflict diplomatic humiliation on Washington. The Khomeinist regime committed such a mistake with President Jimmy Carter in 1979, after Mr. Carter went out of his way to give Khomeini everything he wanted. Mr. Carter's humiliation was a factor in Ronald Reagan's election victory. Advocates of this view argue that Iran should offer Mr. Obama a fig leaf to let him claim success where George W. Bush failed, though without conceding an inch on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Tehran's reading of Mr. Obama's intentions may be off the mark. For the time being, however, the outstretched hand, far from persuading the regime to consider changing its trajectory, has encouraged its nuclear quest.
Mr. Obama may have encouraged those in Tehran who urge an even faster pace in developing a nuclear arsenal, and all with the best of intentions.
Mr. Taheri's new book, "The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution," is published by Encounter Books.
Two factors in the timing of Iran’s new offer of negotiations have been largely ignored in the U.S. media. These factors have substantial explanatory value. One is an Iranian-sponsored initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations to obtain a new UN ban on military strikes against nuclear facilities. The other is the ongoing internal dissent in Iran, which is expected to crescendo on Friday, September 19, with a mass demonstration by reform supporters.
Iran has been working the NAM proposal for some time now, and with official support from more than 100 NAM members, it intends to submit it to the IAEA, as the UN’s cognizant body, when the IAEA’s membership convenes for a general conference on September 14. (The NAM letter of support submitted to the IAEA is here.) Tehran’s official protestations aside, the proposal is an obvious bid to trigger a UN showdown—pitting NAM nations against the U.S., UK, and France on the Security Council—over any strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel or the United States. The offer of negotiations from Iran is timed to present the appearance of a cooperative attitude as IAEA takes up the strike-ban initiative.
Meanwhile, Iran’s reformers continue to protest the June election and the regime’s handling of its aftermath, from Basiji brutality to the show trials and torture decried by dissenters and Western pundits. Michael Ledeen reports that all references to opposition leaders Mousavi and Karoubi were banned in the Iranian press as of September 12, a Soviet-style measure that seems thus far to be performing contrary to the spirit of its intention, if not the letter. Scheduled on September 19, “Qods (Jerusalem) Day” is a “monster demonstration” against the regime by reform supporters, which observers expect to represent a decisive, showdown-level event.
September is thus a big month for Tehran’s mullahs. The regime would like to retrieve the political initiative, internally as well as abroad, with a string of diplomatic successes: blunting the West’s strategic focus on Iran’s nuclear program with a new round of negotiations; getting IAEA to endorse the strike-ban proposal; and showcasing Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN General Assembly this month with, as Emanuele points out, an impression of Iranian initiative and global leadership. The timing of Tehran’s offer of negotiations is neither random nor, as Jennifer drily observes, a response to toughness from the Obama administration. It is part of a comprehensive strategy.
The objective of the strategy remains the same: developing nuclear weapons with which to wield deterrent power and hold Israel and other American allies at risk in the Middle East. Iran wants to negotiate today because that is the best means of forestalling action (including tougher sanctions) against its nuclear program, an interim goal that all Iran’s policies are oriented to. We can assume Netanyahu and Russia’s leadership had their discussion last Monday with full understanding of that reality. We may wonder, however, if that understanding extends to Obama, his advisers, and the U.S. State Department
Love of the Land: Synchronicity, Tehran-style
Posts
All Comments
