Despite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks about a turn towards “cooperation” with the West about its nuclear program, Iran seems to have once again managed to stall the process. Reports have been varied in their interpretation of Iran’s response to the nuclear deal drafted two weeks ago with the IAEA.
The IAEA reported that Iran gave an “initial response.” The New York Times reported Iran refused the deal, “according to diplomats in Europe and American officials briefed on Iran’s response.”
A senior European official characterized the Iranian response as “basically a refusal.” The Iranians, he said, want to keep all of their lightly enriched uranium in the country until receiving fuel bought from the West for the reactor in Tehran.
“The key issue is that Iran does not agree to export its lightly enriched uranium,” the official said. “That’s not a minor detail. That’s the whole point of the deal.”
AFP reported that Iran’s state IRNA news agency said Iran wants more talks on procuring nuclear fuel for its Tehran reactor before it would give a final reply on the nuclear deal at hand.
Regardless, this is the second week after the deal was drafted. One deadline has passed, which we must keep in mind was only a couple of days after the deal was proposed. Today the Iranian government seems to have managed not to ink a deal while keeping talks afloat. (Literally. Iran’s response to the IAEA was reportedly not even written down…) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier that she wants to “let the process play out.”
“We are working to determine exactly what they are willing to do, whether this was an initial response that is an end response or whether it’s the beginning of getting to where we expect them to end up,” Agence France-Presse quoted her as saying.
Analysts and officials did not expect this process of negotiating with Iran to be quick and easy, and so far it has been frustrating. Expectations have fluctuated during these ongoing talks about what sort of progress can/will be made on the nuclear issue. Iranian officials are going to have to start showing what compromise they are willing to make, not on their rights to a civilian nuclear program, but yes, compromise in the form of security assurances and some form of confidence building. Engaging the international community with this nuclear deal would not diminish Iran’s prestige or its standing in the world; but the Iranian government is certainly under mounting pressure whether it chooses to acknowledge it or not. Further, both sides cannot endlessly withhold some compromise with the other side in these negotiations because of mistrust.
Again, we must bear in mind these talks only began at the start of October, certainly not enough to call it a day on unprecedented negotiations. NSN sums this up neatly in their piece: “Diplomacy a Process, Not a One-Shot Deal”
Even if this nuclear deal had already been accepted by Iran, that would only be a part of a broader set of arrangements that need to be made in the long term–agreements for robust transparency and monitoring, for one thing–not the end game. The process should not be derailed by the difficulties of achieving progress on this first step of what will be an ongoing, long-term commitment for all parties to the negotiations.
The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) should clarify its position regarding the legality of Microsoft’s offering its instant messenger service within Iran. As a result of ambiguities within OFAC’s guidelines on Iran sanctions, Microsoft Corporation voluntarily withdrew its Windows Live Messenger program from Iran in late 2008. Preventing such a potentially valuable resource from being downloaded does not inhibit the Iranian government from accomplishing any of its goals, but it does impede the ability of ordinary Iranians to communicate. One solution is simple and effective: OFAC’s director should issue a general license to Microsoft to allow Windows Live Messenger to be made immediately available to the Iranian people.
Mowjcamp is reporting that a student from Sharif University of Technology was apparently arrested in Iran after criticizing Ayatollah Khamenei at a public event. At least some of the comments were made while television cameras were broadcasting the event live.
The event, a meeting between the Supreme Leader and various academics, took place on Wednesday. According to the article posted on Mowjcamp,
The student directly addressed the leader criticising him and the Islamic Republic for twenty minutes. His comments were followed by occasional applause and cheers from those present. Iranian state-run TV which was broadcasting live images of the meeting was forced to stop airing the programme for some time.
Based on the information included in the article, it appears that the general thrust of the student’s twenty-minute address was that freedom of speech is under attack in Iran. Although, he also articulated dissatisfaction,
[with] what he described as a campaign to idolise the leader while questioning the “cycle of power” in the Islamic Republic and the structure of the Guardians Council and the Council of the Elite.
The report states that government security forces met the student as he was leaving the event.
Washington, DC – The Senate Banking Committee passed a broad set of Iran sanctions today, despite one Senator saying that the act was opposed by U.S. Department of State. The unanimous vote, 23-0 in favor, papered over differences that emerged in the hearing. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) raised repeated objections to the bill. “This is a tacit vote of no confidence [against the Obama administration],” Corker said. During an exchange with a colleague after the vote, Corker revealed the “State Department actually did not want to see this happen.”
Democratic supporters of the bill strongly disagreed with the notion that they were undermining President Obama. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) contended that the legislation “is about strengthening the administration’s hand at the end of the day, not weakening it.” Senator Dodd agreed with Menendez, though he confessed, “I’ve never met yet an administration of any stripe or color that welcomed Congressional intervention of any kind.”
This bill follows the House Foreign Affairs Committee sanctions bill passed yesterday. Like the House bill, this one expands unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions and targets companies exporting refined petroleum to Iran or helping to develop Iran’s oil refining industry. Other provisions would make American companies liable if their foreign subsidiaries do business in Iran, and would codify the embargo on goods shipped to and from Iran, including pistachios, Persian carpets, and caviar.
The bill, introduced by the Chair of the committee, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), would make it so the President can no longer lift the embargo on Iran without Congressional approval.
Tehran Bureau’s Selected Headlines included a blurb from Sepah News (via Ayandeh News), the semi-official loudspeaker of the IRGC, describing Commander Ali Jafari’s comment yesterday that “Preserving the Islamic Republic establishment is more important than performing namaz [prayers].”
Speaking in Urumiyeh, Jafari also stated that “No one dares claim that the Islamic Republic regime must be destroyed, and no one must dare to challenge the principles of this establishment.”
TB notes that this is the first time an IRGC commander has “appeared” to issue a religious edict. This is certainly going to ruffle some feathers in Qom.
Hillary Mann Leverett–fresh off her dynamite appearance alongside Trita at the J Street Conference’s Iran panel–has an article in today’s Foreign Policy magazine online in which she argues that the delay over Iran’s decision to ship its uranium stockpile out of the country stems from the inherent mistrust that has plagued US-Iran relations for decades. This, more than any internal political divisions in the post-election atmosphere, accounts for the IRI’s waffling back and forth over the proposal.
If the Iranian leadership believes that the United States is interested in a fundamental realignment of U.S.-Iranian relations and is prepared to live with the Islamic Republic as it stands, a consensus in favor of the reactor fuel deal could be forged in Tehran. …But I am skeptical that the United States has provided the security guarantees that would be needed to assuage Iranian concerns about Washington’s ultimate intentions.
Iran’s official response to the proposed nuclear deal is expected today (the LA Times notes Ahmadinejad’s speech this morning which skirts the issue somewhat but may be intended to soften the ground for Iran’s official acceptance of the deal), but like always it will be incredibly difficult to get a straight “yes” or “no” answer out of Tehran. Most likely the response will involve some sort of a request for an amendment to the deal.
But this decision won’t be made in a vacuum–and here is where Hillary’s point is incredibly important. The atmosphere between Iran and the West is rife with mistrust. Recent diplomatic progress has helped rebuild some of that confidence, but both sides are still incredibly wary of the other. This is why we’ve been so nervous about recent Congressional actions to approve tough sanctions this week.
In the already toxic atmosphere, the last thing the US needs to do is insert yet more doubt in our willingness to negotiate in good faith. Sanctioning Iran while the talks are teetering on the edge of progress will send the signal to Iran that it doesn’t matter what concessions they make at the negotiating table–Congress will punish them anyway. Thus, they have no incentive to make concessions in the first place, since they’ll end up getting hurt either way.
That’s a recipe for talks to break down.
We can only hope that Tehran is tuning out the background noise coming from the US Congress long enough to accept the proposal. Rebuilding trust after thirty years is going to take some leaps of faith–and they’ll most likely get harder before things get easier.
***
{PS I’d also like to note that Hillary Mann Leverett and Flynt Leverett–both renowned Iran experts–have started a fantastic new blog called The Race for Iran. They have tons of great material up already, so click the link, bookmark it, and take a look!}
IRPSA would expand unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions and target companies exporting refined petroleum to Iran or helping to develop Iran’s oil refining industry. Before the hearing, Rep. Berman amended the legislation to make lifting the sanctions in it conditional on Iran ceasing all uranium enrichment.
The bill received vocal support from much of the committee, including the ranking Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). “Unless we impose the maximum pressure on Iran, and this bill is a major step forward in that direction, the regime will continue its march towards acquiring nuclear weapons,” said Rep. Ros-Lehtinen.
However, a bipartisan group of representatives voiced their opposition to the legislation.
It was pointed out by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) that many human rights defenders inside Iran, such as Shirin Ebadi, are against additional economic sanctions. Quoting Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, he said that “sanctions would not actually act against the government; rather they would only hurt the people.” Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) echoed those concerns, and Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) said he did not support IRPSA because unilateral sanctions are ineffective and punish American allies.
Committee members who supported IRPSA frequently stated their belief that the bill would be an effective deterrent for Iran’s government. “Since Iran imports forty percent of its refined petroleum, this legislation will have a significant impact on Iran’s economy, and will send a clear message that Iran must stop its nuclear enrichment program,” said Rep. Mike McMahon (D-NY).
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) said he would vote for the measure, but made clear he felt it was less than ideal. Meeks argued that sanctions should be targeted at Iran’s leaders, not the general population. According to Rep. Meeks, “We need to find sanctions that are going to affect those few who, in effect, have hijacked the entire country.” Meeks also emphasized that President Obama’s diplomatic efforts should be given time to succeed.
The Senate Banking Committee will consider a more expansive Iran sanctions bill tomorrow.
Ayatollah Khamenei stated on Wednesday that questioning the results of the June election is a crime. According to an Associated Press article, Khamenei said “The day after the election, some people, without logic or reason, called the glorious election a lie,” and disputing the election results is “the biggest crime.”
The Supreme Leader’s statement contains an implicit threat to opposition leaders Mahdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, who continue to question the veracity of the election results. Khamenei also said that he “sent private messages to those who continue to question the election telling them they may not be able to control the future direction of events.”
Thus far, the government has refrained from arresting Karroubi and Mousavi; although, Karroubi is the subject of an investigation over his allegations that government forces raped and tortured protestors after the election. During rallies, protesters have reportedly shouted “If Karroubi is arrested, there will be insurrections across Iran.”
While Khamenei did not order the arrest of the two leaders, his statements may indicate that he is running out of patience with the opposition.
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) has introduced legislation emphasizing the threat of military strikes against Iran and expanding unilateral, extraterritorial sanctions against Iran. The bill declares “the United States is wholly capable, willing, and ready to use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining or developing a nuclear weapons capability.”
Franks’ bill, the “Peace Through Strength Act of 2009” (PTSA), also requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to Congress on the status of Iran’s weapons and nuclear programs, an outline of “military options toward the Government of Iran to counter a nuclear ballistic missile threat,” and the readiness level of US forces to carry those military options.
The legislation mandates that the United States not “compromise elements of national missile defense systems, or offensive strategic weapons” in order to facilitate greater diplomatic pressure on Iran by Russia, though these provisions are not enforceable. It also requires the U.S. government to “employ all instruments of national power” in its efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. To that end, the PTSA incorporates language from the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (IRPSA).
Thus far, the legislation has not collected any co-sponsors, and is likely to be outshone by other measures such as IRPSA which are being given greater attention from lawmakers. IRPSA is set to be considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee today.
Nearly 2000 students of Tehran’s Azad University protested the Iraninan “coup government” and its treatment of student activists. Students gathered and chanted slogans for the green movement including “Death to the dictator,” “Coup government, resign, resign!”, and “Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein!”
The protests persist in the face of threats and pressure from security forces. Basij and security forces are also reportedly trying to intimidate protesters by filming them.
The detention of Iranian Americans by the government in Tehran serves the purpose of those hardliners who want to avoid diplomatic engagement with the United States. This is the argument Karim Sadjadpour takes in his recent Foreign Policyarticle. Sadjadpour argues that the imprisonment of his friend Kian Tajbakhsh is not about Tajbakhsh’s supposed role in the post-election protests; as the Iranian government views it, “da’va sar-e een neest…that’s not what this fight is about.”
Tajbakhsh was not the opposition mastermind that the government alleges. As the protests against the June election were reaching their height, Tajbakhsh maintained a low profile. He even continued to “meet with his minder” from the Ministry of Intelligence, like he had been doing since his four month imprisonment in 2007. Sadjadpour contends that the Iranian government is using Tajbakhsh as a means to an end. The leadership wants to strengthen its negotiating position in relation to the United States.
Sadjadpour points out that,
While neighboring Dubai and Turkey have managed to build thriving economies by trading in goods and services, Iran, even 30 years after the revolution, remains in the business of trading in human beings.
In an attempt to answer the question why this is still the case and what is to be done, Sadjadpour looks to both the left and the right. Continuing to engage with Iran can only boost the ability of the United States to help people imprisoned by the Iranian government. At the same time, hardliners in Iran work to sabotage engagement with the United States as a way to distract people from the country’s real problems. Imprisoning Iranian Americans, like Tajbakhsh, is one of the methods hardliners use to wag the dog.
Perhaps it is time that the Iranian government begins to worry more about the economic well being of its citizens, and less about its relative standing in the world. Indeed, in all likelihood Iran’s standing in the world would increase if the government stopped oppressing its own people and looked to their needs.
Even Niccolo Machiavelli, the ultimate advisor on power politics, recognized that rulers should avoid being hated: “the prince must consider…how to avoid those things which will make him hated or contemptible; and as often as he shall have succeeded he will have fulfilled his part, and he need not fear any danger in other reproaches…And one of the most efficacious remedies that a prince can have against conspiracies is not to be hated and despised by the people.” A government that resorts to fear and repression as methods of retaining control also begins the process of undermining its own authority in the eyes of the people.
It is time that Iran’s leaders begin to act like a government that has an interest in the welfare of the Iranian people, and begin to act less like men with guns. In a fitting conclusion, Sadjadpour allows Tajbakhsh to have the last word on the state of the Iranian government,
Iranians might ponder Barack Obama’s challenge to Iran to articulate ‘not what it is against, but what future it wants to build.’ Each Iranian will wonder how much thought our rulers or our fellow countrymen have given to this critical question and why answers to it are so vague and so few.
Eleven Iranian troops have been arrested inside of Pakistan, on what appears to have been a mission related to the recent Jundallah bombing. According to various news sources, at least three of the troops were Revolutionary Guard officers.
The Iranian soldiers were traveling in two vehicles, which were also seized by Pakistani forces. They were arrested by Pakistani forces “after they shot out the tires of a car driven” by smugglers. Speaking about the episode, a Pakistani official said,
It’s a serious matter…We are investigating why they crossed into our territory.
Iran has stated that the eleven soldiers were actually border guards who unintentionally crossed into Pakistani territory. The Revolutionary Guards Corps has also denied that any of its members were involved in the incident.
What will happen to the eleven detained troops, as well as the nature of Pakistan’s response, is still unclear. If it is true that the troops were on a secret mission against perceived Jundallah elements, it would seem to have been a poorly thought-out decision by the Iranian government considering the recent escalation of tensions between the two countries.
Posted by Lloyd Chebaclo 
Posted by Matt Sugrue 
Posted by Matt Sugrue 
