Group items tagged

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."

The most remarkable part of an acerbic encounter came when Ahmadinejad held up a file apparently referring to Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, and questioned her qualifications. "Can I speak about the education background of a lady with you – shall I," Ahmadinejad said in a goading tone. He accused Rahnavard, who has been campaigning with her husband, of gaining two degrees illegally and starting a PhD without sitting an entrance exam.He also said she had become a university lecturer and chancellor without the necessary qualifications.

After the debate, pro-Mousavi students took to the streets of Tehran chanting: "Ahmadinejad, impolite person, shame on you. Leave this country alone."

Member states, who wrangled for months over the draft document for the Geneva conference, had ultimately removed controversial statements about Israel; about what constitutes defamation of religion, a position pushed by Muslim states; and about compensation for slavery.

Besides the United States, the countries staying away included Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia. Canada and Israel announced months ago that they would not attend.

“Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering,” Mr. Ahmadinejad said, grinning as he spoke, his remarks coincidentally falling on the day that Jewish communities mark the Holocaust. “And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

The speech prompted the normally mild-mannered Mr. Ban and other top United Nations officials to voice uncommon criticism of the leader of a member state. “I have not experienced this kind of destructive proceedings in an assembly, in a conference, by any one member state,” Mr. Ban said.“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite,” he said, urging members to “turn away from such a message in both form and substance.”

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad for “grandstanding” from a United Nations dais and said his performance should not be an excuse to derail the important topic of the conference. She also made a not-so-subtle dig at Iran’s treatment of its own minorities, after noting that the president’s remarks were outside the scope of the conference. “This is what I would have expected the president of Iran to come and tell us: how he is addressing racial discrimination and intolerance in his country,” Ms. Pillay said.

Israel recalled its ambassador to Switzerland to protest both the conference and meeting Sunday between the Swiss president, Hans-Rudolf Merz, and Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Not everyone at the conference was critical of the speech, which also wandered through topics like the economic collapse and Iraq and Afghanistan. “If we actually believe in freedom of expression, then he has the right to say what he wants to say,” the Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Zamir Akram, told The Associated Press. “There were things in there that a lot of people in the Muslim world would be in agreement with, for example the situation in Palestine, in Iraq and in Afghanistan, even if they don’t agree with the way he said it.”

His candidacy underscores the political fragmenting of a conservative faction known as the Principlists, which threw its support behind Mr. Ahmadinejad when he ran for president in 2004. Some leading figures who supported Mr. Ahmadinejad then have not publicly backed him this time.

Mr. Rezai was a candidate in the 2004 presidential race, but he withdrew before the election.

Politicians who favor more political and social openness, along with closer ties to the West, have also been unable to coalesce around a single candidate. They are divided between a former prime minister, Mir Hossein Mousavi, and a former speaker of Parliament, Mehdi Karroubi.

“Mr. Mousavi had thought that he could easily raise huge support by announcing his candidacy,” said Saeed Leylaz, a political analyst in Tehran, referring to Mr. Mousavi’s unexpected announcement last month that he would run for president.“The situation can dramatically change in his favor if he clarifies his position with reformers,” Mr. Leylaz said.

Opponents have accused Mr. Ahmadinejad of economic mismanagement and of using government money to attract support for a second term. His government has come under attack in the past month for distributing about 400,000 tons of potatoes around the country and giving bonuses, including gold coins, to civil servants, Iranian newspapers have reported.

In another development, Iran announced Wednesday that it welcomed nuclear talks and said it was ready to offer a proposal to resolve the dispute over its uranium enrichment activities, the state-run IRNA news agency reported. Mr. Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran would take part in talks, and Wednesday’s statement appeared to be an official response to an April 8 invitation by six major powers for a meeting.

SPIEGEL: You are referring to India, Germany, South Africa? Should Iran also be a permanent member of the Security Council? Ahmadinejad: If things were done fairly in the world, Iran would also have to be a member of the Security Council. We do not accept the notion that a handful of countries see themselves as the masters of the world.

Does this mean that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, can save themselves the trouble of holding talks with Iran? Will uranium enrichment not be discontinued under any circumstances? Ahmadinejad: I believe that they already reached this conclusion in Vienna. Why did we become a member of the IAEA? It was so that we could use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. When a country becomes a member of an international organization, must it only do its homework or is it also entitled to rights? What assistance have we received from the IAEA? Did it provide us with any know-how or knowledge? No. But according to its statutes, it would have been required to do so. Instead, it simply executed instructions coming from America.

We say: We are willing to cooperate under fair conditions. The same conditions, and on a level playing field.

Ahmadinejad: I do not believe that the European countries would have been as indulgent if only one-hundredth of the crimes that the Zionist regime has committed in Gaza had happened somewhere in Europe. Why on earth do the European governments support this regime?

The second observation concerns the warmongers and Zionists … SPIEGEL: … your eternal enemy of convenience … Ahmadinejad: …whose existence thrives on tension and who have become rich through war.

Palestinians should be allowed to decide their own future in a free referendum.

the unnatural Zionist state

Do you believe that the German people support the Zionist regime? Do you believe that a referendum could be held in Germany on this question? If you did allow such a referendum to take place, you would discover that the German people hate the Zionist regime.

We have no interest in building a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad: Allow me to set things straight, both legally and politically. At least 10 members of the UN Security Council… SPIEGEL: …which includes, in addition to the permanent members, US, Russia, Great Britain, France and China, 10 elected representatives based on a rotating principle… Ahmadinejad: …have told us that they only voted against us under American and British pressure. Many have said so in this very room. What value is there to consent under pressure? We consider this to be legally irrelevant. Politically speaking, we believe that this is not the way to run the world. All peoples must be respected, and they must all be granted the same rights.

there was no response to a report that ministry employees were instructed to rig the election results on the basis of a fatwa – religious edict – from a pro-Ahmadinejad ayatollah.

According to the Tehran Bureau website, the unnamed cleric is said to have stated: "If someone is elected president and hurts the Islamic values that have been spread [by Ahmadinejad] to Lebanon, Palestine, Venezuela and other places, it is against Islam to vote for that person. We should not vote for that person, and also warn people about that person. It is your religious duty as the supervisors of the elections to do so."

During the presidential campaign of 2005, the supreme leader endorsed Mr. Ahmadinejad because the humble son of a blacksmith appeared to be just such an obscure candidate. But he entered the presidency with a coterie of veterans and ideologues shaped by the Iran-Iraq war who were conservative, religious, largely populist and disdainful of the old guard from the 1979 revolution.

Today, these allies, many of them former midlevel Revolutionary Guard officers in their 50s, run the Interior, Intelligence and Justice Ministries. They also include the commander of the Basij popular militia, the head of the National Security Council and the head of state-run broadcasting. They are aligned with another member of their generation who has emerged as the most important figure in the Khamenei camp, the spiritual leader’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei.

Mr. Ahmadinejad has also changed all 30 of the country’s governors, all the city managers and even third- and fourth-level civil servants in important ministries like the Interior Ministry. It was Interior that announced that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won the June 12 election with just 5 percent of the votes counted, analysts pointed out, and it is the Intelligence Ministry that has been rounding up scores of supporters of the reform candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, and other dissidents.

At the same time, Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s spiritual mentor, runs three powerful educational institutions in the holy city of Qum, all spun off from the Haqqani seminary, which teaches that Islam and democracy are incompatible. The ayatollah favors a system that would preserve the post of supreme leader and eliminate elections. The Ahmadinejad administration has provided generous government subsidies to the seminary, and its graduates hold significant government posts nationwide.

Perhaps the most important media organization to spread the government’s message is the hard-line Kayhan newspaper. Its general director, Hossein Shariatmaderi, in recent days has resurrected a standard accusation: that foreign governments were manipulating the demonstrations on Iran’s streets.

In a letter to Khamenei, published by the semi-official Mehr news agency, Rafsanjani said tens of millions of Iranians had witnessed "mis-statements and fabrications" during the debate."I am expecting you to resolve this position in order to extinguish the fire, whose smoke can be seen in the atmosphere, and to foil dangerous plots to take action," said Rafsanjani.

His comments were echoed by 14 high-ranking clerics from the holy city of Qom, who expressed "deep concern and regret" that Iran's image had been harmed in the debate."Accusing those who were not present at that debate and could not defend themselves is against our religion," they said in a statement also published by Mehr.

Meanwhile, central Tehran saw chaotic scenes for a second day when supporters of Mousavi – many of them young women – flocked in their tens of thousands to another demonstration, shouting anti-Ahmadinejad slogans and waving the green ribbons, banners and posters that have become the symbol of his campaign. A "human chain" rally on Monday night was likened by many to the events that shook Tehran before the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Previous Mousavi rallies had to be cancelled at the last minute because permission to use large venues was suddenly withdrawn by the authorities. On Sunday a rally at Karaj outside Tehran could not be held because the electricity supply to the public address system failed.

Last night, in the last of six televised debates, Ahmadinejad clashed over the economy with the other conservative candidate, a former Revolutionary Guards commander, Mohsen Rezaei.Ahmadinejad insisted that over the last four years he had slashed inflation to 15%, but Rezaei, an economist, said the true figure was 25%.

The fourth candidate, reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi, dismissed as "psychological warfare" rumours that he might withdraw from the race to boost Mousavi's chances.

Ahmadinejad remained defiant towards the outside world, especially over the nuclear issue that has done so much to isolate Iran.At a campaign event in the Caspian Sea province of Mazenderan he said: "Let the world know that if the Iranian nation should re-elect this small servant, he would go forward in the world arena with the nation's authority and would not withdraw an iota from the nation's rights."

Thousands of supporters of the reformist former prime minister took to the streets of Tehran shouting "Down with the Dictator" as it became clear that Mousavi had lost.

"There are so many inconsistencies, they are even reporting that Ahmadinejad won the city of Tabriz, which is Mousavi's home town, with 57 per cent. That seems extremely unlikely.

"How come the votes were counted so quickly, even though the polls were open six hours extra?" he asked.

Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili, reporting from Tehran, said that the results declared by the interior ministry would still need to be signed off by the state audit body and the audit commission of the supreme leader. "Mousavi has the option of going to these two bodies and saying 'look I want definitive proof from you that these are clean numbers'," he said.

Karroubi added his voice to those criticising the result, saying it was "illegitimate and unacceptable".

Mr. Ahmadinejad is seeking re-election on June 12. The letter he sent to the court was the first time he had intervened in a judicial case in his four years in office. Analysts said it would help his prospects if he could advance negotiations with the United States before the election.“Mr. Ahmadinejad wants to take serious steps towards improving ties with the United States before the elections,” said Ibrahim Yazdi, a political analyst in Tehran. “If he succeeds, it would be to his interest.”

If the United States were to establish an interest section in Tehran, for example, that would allow Iranians to obtain visas to the United States, without traveling to a third country, as they have to do now.

But outside analysts said the suspicions surrounding Mr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election would create new problems. “This is the worst result,” said Thomas R. Pickering, a former under secretary of state. “The U.S. will have to worry about being perceived as pandering to a president whose legitimacy is in question. It clearly makes the notion of providing incentives quite unappetizing.”

Many analysts and Middle East officials asserted that the outcome reinforced the reality that ultimate power resides not in the democratically elected president, but rather in Iran’s supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.“We should be clear about what we’re dealing with,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Just as we deal with Assad’s Syria and Mubarak’s Egypt, we now have to deal with Khamenei’s Iran,”

In Israel, which has hinted that it might launch a military strike on Iran to disable its nuclear capability, officials said Mr. Ahmadinejad’s victory underscored the threat from Tehran and the need for a tough response rather than patient diplomacy.Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom said in Tel Aviv that the victory “sends a clear message to the world” that Iran’s policies have broad internal support and will be continued. The results, he added, also “blow up in the faces of those” who thought Iran was ready for “a genuine dialogue with the free world on stopping its nuclear program.”

“It is easy to insult and confront and have Iran as a foe when Ahmadinejad is president,” said an Egyptian diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity in keeping with diplomatic protocol. “A lot of people would have been inconvenienced if someone else had become president.”

Mr. Obama, officials said, has long said he was willing to negotiate with whoever would respond, including Ayatollah Khamenei. “The administration will deal with the situation we have, not what we wish it to be,” another senior official said.

For the United States, the larger problem is that while the election has frozen the dialogue, Iran’s nuclear program has speeded ahead. This month, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that by May’s end, Iran had built and installed 7,200 centrifuges to enrich uranium and was quickly adding to its stock of nuclear fuel.

Now, the administration faces a vexing choice. It can continue to demand that Iran give up all of its enrichment capability — still the official position of the United States, but considered an all but impossible goal. Or it can tacitly accept that Iran is not going to stop enriching.

Unless the street protests achieve unexpected momentum, the election could cast the pro-reform classes — especially the better off and better educated — back into a state of passive disillusionment, some opposition figures said. “I don’t think the middle class is ever going to go out and vote again,” one Moussavi supporter lamented.

Although his first election was marred by allegations of cheating, Mr. Ahmadinejad was credited with being genuinely street smart. He roused crowds with vague attacks on the corruption of the elite, with promises of a vast redistribution of wealth, and with appeals to Iranian pride. By playing to the Muslim world’s feelings of victimization by the West and hatred of Israel, he won adulation on the Arab street even as Arab leaders often disdained him, and that in turn earned him credibility at home.

As president he has presided over a time of rising inflation and unemployment, but has pumped oil revenues into the budget, sustaining a semblance of growth and buying good will among civil servants, the military and the retired. More important, he has consolidated the various arms of power that answer ultimately to the supreme leader. The Revolutionary Guards — the military elite — was given license to expand into new areas, including the oil industry and other businesses such as shipbuilding.

The Guardian Council, which oversees elections, had its budget increased 15-fold under Mr. Ahmadinejad. The council has presided over not only Friday’s outcome, but over parliamentary majorities loyal to Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The president seemed to stumble often. He raised tensions with the West when he told a United Nations General Assembly that he rejected the post-World War II order. He was mocked when he said at Columbia University in 2007 that there was not a single gay person in Iran. In April, nearly two dozen diplomats from the European Union walked out of a conference in Geneva after he disparaged Israel.

But political analysts said that back home, the supreme leader approved, seeing confrontation with the West as helpful in keeping alive his revolutionary ideology, and his base of power.

I agree that our reputation with the American government and some European governments is not positive. But that's their problem. All peoples are fed up with the American government.

The Afghan government should have been given more responsibility in the last seven years. President Hamid Karzai said to me once: They don't allow us to do our work.

Are you seriously insisting on an American withdrawal from the region? Ahmadinejad: One has to have a plan, of course. A withdrawal can only be one of several measures. It must be accompanied by other, simultaneous actions, such as strengthening regional government. Do you know that narcotics production has grown fivefold under the NATO command in Afghanistan?

We have lost more than 3,300 people in the fight against drug smuggling. Our police force made these sacrifices while guarding our 1,000-kilometer border with Afghanistan.

Ahmadinejad: Look, more than $250 billion (€190 billion) has been spent on the military campaign in Afghanistan to date. With a population of 30 million, that comes to more than $8,000 a person, or close to $42,000 for an average family of five. Factories and roads could have been built, universities established and fields cultivated for the Afghan people. If that had happened, would there have been any room left for terrorists? One has to address the root of the problem, not proceed against its branches. The solution for Afghanistan is not military, but humanitarian.

Naturally, we cannot expect to see problems that have arisen over more than half a century resolved in only a few days. We are neither obstinate nor gullible. We are realists. The important thing is the determination to bring about improvements. If you change the atmosphere, solutions can be found.

the Afghan people have close historical ties to Iran. More than 3 million Afghan citizens live in our country

Ahmadinejad: We believe that the Iraqi people are capable of providing for their own security. The Iraqi people have a civilization that goes back more than 1,000 years. We will support whatever the Iraqis decide to do and which form of government they choose. A sovereign, united and strong Iraq is beneficial for everyone. We would welcome that.

Ahmadinejad: We pay no attention to the reports of American intelligence services.

Kadivar: Above all, stands justice and the fulfillment of the will of the people. Under the rule of Ali, our first Shiite imam, there were no political prisoners, non-violent protests were permitted and critical comment even invited. One must not betray those values. SPIEGEL: And Khamenei and Ahmadinejad did? Kadivar: Yes. I plead for a truly Islamic and democratic state, a state that respects human dignity and does not refuse the rights of women, a state where people can freely elect their religious and secular leaders.

Mr. Khamenei is not that charismatic and he is currently in the process of destroying the tie of justice between the religious leaders and the people. When he, together with Ahmadinejad, speaks about foreign countries being behind the protests in Iran, he very much reminds me of the king (the Shah). He used the same arguments and could not recognize that he was witnessing a national and democratic protest movement of his own people. Towards the end, the shah only thought of holding up his regime. Today, Mr. Khamenei does not think any differently.

I can even imagine that Mr. Hashemi Rafsanjani as head of the Assembly of Experts might actually invite the religious leader to the assembly for a frank discussion. Theoretically, he could even dismiss Khamenei. Then Ahmadinejad would fall too. SPIEGEL: But for that to happen, the majority of the grand ayatollahs would have to oppose the two. Kadivar: Among the grand ayatollahs in Qum, the resentment towards Ahmadinejad's arrogance is growing. Only one of the 12 has congratulated him so far. Several, including my most revered teacher Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who is greatly venerated in the whole country, spoke out sharply against the election fraud.

Last night saw violent clashes after Ahmadinejad was confirmed as the winner of the presidential election on Friday, barely an hour after the polls had closed.Protesters set fire to rubbish bins and tires, creating pillars of black smoke among the apartment blocks and office buildings in central Tehran. An empty bus was engulfed in flames on a side road.

More than 100 reformists, including Mohammad Reza Khatami, the brother of former president Mohammad Khatami, were arrested last night, according to leading reformist Mohammad Ali Abtahi. He told Reuters they were members of Iran's leading reformist party, Mosharekat.

A judiciary spokesman denied they had been arrested but said they were summoned and "warned not to increase tension" before being released.

Mousavi, who had been widely expected to beat the controversial incumbent if there was a high turnout - or at least do well enough to trigger a second round - insisted he was the victor and appealed against the result to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

But Khamenei replied that the election had been conducted fairly. He ordered the three defeated candidates and their supporters to avoid "provocative" behaviour. "All Iranians must support and help the elected president," he warned.

Israel reacted immediately by demanding intensified efforts to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

"The regime is making a decision to shape the direction of Iran for the next decade," Saeed Laylaz, a political analyst, said. "I'm sure they didn't even count the votes. I do not accept this result. It is false. It should be the opposite. If Ahmadinejad is president again, Iran will be more isolated and more aggressive. But he is the choice of the regime."

Laylaz had warned before the result that a second presidential term for Ahmadinejad could create a "Tiananmen-type" situation in Iran. Ominously, as three weeks of campaigning drew to a close last Wednesday, an official of the powerful Revolutionary Guard Corps warned that any attempt at a popular "revolution" would be crushed.

Overt signs of repression included the failure of phone lines for hours after the polls closed and the blocking of the English and Persian-language websites of the BBC and Voice of America - which are regularly attacked by the Iranian authorities as "imperialist". Text messaging also failed.

Ahmadinejad, who just a week ago had suggested that Iran was ready for a new relationship with the United States, blamed America and its allies for a long list of ills, including the world economic crisis. He suggested that the Western model of economic liberalism was exhausted and that Western leaders, in their efforts to contain the crisis, "are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth."

Turning to Israel, he started by asking why the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have so much power over other nations. Although such powerful countries condemn racism in words, he said, by their deeds they "ridicule and violate all laws and humanitarian values."

"Following World War II," he continued, according to an official English-language text of his remarks, "they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish sufferings and the ambiguous and dubious question" of the Holocaust. "They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world, in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine," he said, "and in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racists, in Palestine."

Ahmadinejad said Zionist supporters enjoy undue influence over Western governments, imposing "their domination to the extent that nothing can be done against their will," and he suggested that the only solution is to defeat them. "So long as Zionist domination continues, many countries, governments and nations will never be able to enjoy freedom, independence and security," he said. "As long as they are at the helm of power, justice will never prevail in the world and human dignity will continue to be offended and trampled upon. It is time the ideal of Zionism, which is the paragon of racism, be broken."

British and French diplomats, whose governments had threatened a walkout if they heard anti-Semitic or anti-Israel remarks, left the room. Peter Gooderham, the British ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, called Ahmadinejad's remarks "outrageous" and "anti-Semitic," according to news reports.

Israel, preparing to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day starting at sundown Monday, derided the U.N. gathering for giving Ahmadinejad a forum. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu called him "a racist and a Holocaust denier who doesn't conceal his intention to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."

The UN high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, was even blunter, describing Iran's leader as "somebody who traditionally makes obnoxious statements" and who had done so once again.The speech almost certainly set back any rapprochement between the US and Iran, at least until the Iranian presidential elections in June, if not beyond.

As soon as the Iranian president had finished speaking, the Europeans walked back into the hall, to make the point that their quarrel was with him and not the aims of the conference.

Ahmadinejad traced the history of racism in the modern world to the control of a few powerful states and string-pulling Zionists behind them. "Following world war two, [powerful states] resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless, on the pretext of Jewish suffering and the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust .... and they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racists in Palestine," he said.

It was at that point that the EU delegates in the chamber rose in unison and filed out, to the competing jeers and applause of the crowd on the assembly floor and in the galleries. They did not stop to hear Ahmadinejad describe Israelis as "those racist perpetrators of genocide".

Diplomats said Ahmadinejad's speech may have been made with the elections in mind, but added it was unlikely that he would have delivered it without the approval of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ahmadinejad later told a press conference his sole aim was to promote "international love and tolerance". As expected, he gave no hint of compromise over Iran's nuclear programme, declaring the question "closed".

Mr Ahmadinejad spoke on Monday at the start of the five-day UN conference in Geneva. Jewish migrants, he said, had been sent from Europe and the US after World War II "in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine".

He continued: "And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

His comments prompted a walk-out by delegates from at least 30 countries, and a raft of condemnation from Western officials. Diplomats who remained, however, applauded as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his address.

Iran has so far reacted cautiously to U.S. overtures since Obama took office in January, saying it wants to see a real shift in Washington's policies rather than a change in words. Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday Iran sought "interaction and negotiation based on honor, justice and respect."

Analysts say Iran may be setting tough conditions for dialogue in a bid to buy time. Adding to uncertainty, it holds a presidential vote in June in which Ahmadinejad faces a challenge from a moderate politician seeking detente with the West.

One Iranian analyst said he expected Ahmadinejad to say in Isfahan, where Iran has a uranium conversion facility, that it has perfected the last of several phases of fuel output, with the production of uranium pellets and fuel rods for reactors.

“The most important goal is to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad from re-election, not to get Mr. Khatami elected,” Mr. Leylaz said. “The chances of getting a reformist president elected would decrease if we have several candidates running.”

In the meeting on Sunday, Mr. Khatami told campaign staff members that Mr. Moussavi might stand a better chance of winning than he would, the Mehr news agency reported.“Opponents want to divide my supporters and supporters of Moussavi,” Mr. Khatami was quoted as saying. “It is not in our interest. Also, some conservatives are supporting Moussavi.”He added, “Moussavi is popular and will be able to execute his plans, and I prefer he stays in the race.”

Mr. Leylaz said that Mr. Moussavi’s announcement to run came unexpectedly last week, even though Mr. Khatami had consulted with him before announcing his own bid for the office on Feb. 8. Before the announcement, Mr. Khatami had said that he would run only if Mr. Moussavi did not, to avoid diluting the reformist vote.“Mr. Khatami was offended and felt betrayed,” Mr. Leylaz said.

Mr. Khatami, 65, won a landslide victory in 1997 and was in office for two terms until 2005. A charismatic leader, he was expected to draw considerable support in the coming election. More than 20,000 supporters showed up at his speech last week in the southern city of Shiraz, despite government restrictions.

Mr. Moussavi was the country’s prime minister from 1980 to 1988. He is well remembered by many Iranians for managing the country during its eight-year war with Iraq. His presidential platform is not yet clear, but in the past he supported protectionist economic policies.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is supported by the conservative Iranian establishment, but his economic policies have unleashed inflation of over 25 percent, and two major setbacks last week suggested that he might be losing support ahead of elections.

Last week, Parliament rejected a major element of his proposed budget to cut energy subsidies and to distribute the money directly among the poor.