Qom: the most religious city in Iran; the well-spring of the Islamic revolution; and the location of the latest secret nuclear facility to be discovered. Years ago I passed through Qom on my way back to Tehran from central Iran. Earlier that day I was surprised to spot anti-aircraft and SAM sites sprinkled alongside a gently sloping mountain. It was Natanz, another nuclear facility built partially underground.

More recently Graeme Wood of The Atlantic visited Qom and was saw that:

Despite their conservatism, Qom’s pilgrims seemed motivated not by passion for Ahmadinejad—I never heard anyone say his name, though the “Leader” Ali Khamenei was mentioned repeatedly over outdoor loudspeakers—but by a total denial of politics, and a preference for something much simpler.

One observation of Iranians, universal in Western books, articles and travelogues, is that of the incessant need to talk politics — over tea, in the bazaar or even in a taxicab. This is in stark contrast to other Middle Eastern countries like Syria or Saudi Arabia. It has been noted as a sign of a democratic spirit. Iran’s parliament dates back to 1906, and is one of the oldest in the region. I engaged in countless conversations on politics, with both North Tehran liberals and self-proclaimed Muslim fundamentalists.

Thus Wood’s observation of “a total denial of politics” in Qom struck me. I am curious as to whether this has always been a characteristic of Qom, or is a recent development. Moreover, the alternative: since the beginning of the Green Movement, has the daily political chatter in the Persian Street been quietened? Can people talk openly about politics over tea and in the bazaar without fear of being turned in as a member of the Sea of Green?

Please enlighten me, dear reader.

As if the ongoing North Korea and Iran debacles aren’t enough, the IAEA and its unfit head Mohamed ElBaradei have provided yet more reason to doubt their legitimacy and incompetent:

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei said Sunday that “Israel is number one threat to Middle East” with its nuclear arms, the official IRNA news agency reported. At a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.”Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses,” ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Firstly, Iran being the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism and having a revolutionary government would be a seemingly obvious choice for biggest threat to the region. Second of all, Israel’s neighbors have had the opportunity to go nuclear for the past several decades. Some considered it, such as Egypt, but ultimately concluded it wasn’t necessary and understood Israel acquired them as a last resort due to its small geographic size and population. It a major reason the Egyptian program was shut down. Iraq attempted it but this author is not aware of any evidence linking Israel to that decision. Rather, given the nature of the Iraqi regime before 2003, its pursuit of a host of WMD and its belief that Iran (post 1979) was Iraq’s biggest threat, it again seems silly to argue tiny Israel is somehow the region’s largest threat.

With recent revelations of a previously undisclosed Iranian nuclear facility for uranium enrichment and a recent fit of long range missile testing, the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambition is reaching critical mass. However, what’s lost in the frenzy of media reports and official denouncements from western leaders is a more fundamental quandary.

Despite its president’s rhetoric I don’t believe the Iranian government, even in its currently fragmented state, is as loony or nihilistic as the world envisions it to be. Ahmadinejad’s calamitous anti-Israeli nonsense is less about Iran’s apocalyptic nuclear intention to incinerate Tel Aviv and much more about exciting his conservative base at home as well as serving a rally cry for Iran’s Arab proxies and allies during a time of waning Iranian, regional influence. Ahmadinejad’s need for a foreign bogey man is at an all time high, given the largely contested recent elections and the virtual, final nail in the coffin of the Khomeini revolution. So what does Iran hope to gain first, by its belligerent non-compliance with the NPT, and second in actually realizing the development of a deliverable nuclear weapon? Some thoughts:

While the world’s custodians of the NPT (specifically the US, UK and France as concerns Iran) envision it as a measure to mitigate nuclear proliferation, Iran utilizes it as a measure of leveling the geopolitical playing field. Lacking a stable, proliferate economy, anything resembling a robust, modern military (Iran lost it’s sole AWACS recently during an airshow) Iran is wholly reliant on three measures to project itself onto the radar screen of global matters. The threat of regional primacy, resource connectivity (Iran is China’s largest oil supplier) and the murky threat of possibly developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran isn’t currently pursuing a functioning and deliverable nuclear weapon. Iran want’s access to a functioning and deliverable nuclear weapon. In one respect, full development would bring Iran into the “Big Boyz Club” of global prominence. However, the mere existence of Iran’s nuclear program poses an existential threat to itself. Not likely from the above mentioned custodian’s of the NPT but almost certainly from Israel. In this Iran skates very thin ice.

In the short term, so long as the Israeli’s believe Iran’s nuke program remains in the nascent stage (partial enrichment of uranium below weapons grade) diplomatic measures remain the mainstay globally and politically feasible in Tel Aviv. The closer intelligence or, more importantly, media reports tie Iran to a viable nuclear weapon the more eminent and politically necessary Israeli interdiction becomes. Iran is neither blind nor deaf to this reality. By staging incremental, if internationally illegal, steps in stockpiling uranium at low levels of enrichment (5%) Iran is building a framework for the ability to piece together a functioning nuke in a relatively short period of time. In going this route Iran gains some weight to throw around regionally and globally while ceding first strike capability to Israel and other nuke states.

The question, of course, is how long Israel is willing to hold back and endure the status quo. I expect nothing in terms of groundbreaking accomplishment from Iran’s October 1st palaver with the Group of Six. However the talks will set the mood, if you will, for what happens next. Should Iran’s representatives bring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fire and brimstone nonsense to the table I wouldn’t expect Israeli willingness to stand around waiting for the UN Security Counsel to bicker about sanctions.

Image credit: The Guardian

Yukiya Amano, a Japanese diplomat and long-time government specialist in arms control and nuclear nonproliferation, has been elected to be the next director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The end of three terms of Mohamed ElBaradei is an important change in itself. Yet I am intrigued by the potential effects of Amano’s nationality on nuclear nonproliferation over the next few years.

This news just broke, so the following is entirely speculation. I would like to start with the Japanese domestic perception, and work my way out.

The election was close, and has been somewhat followed in the Japanese media. The gaining of such a prestigious international security position will be welcome news for the Japanese politicians and pundits that have been longing for the elusive UN security council seat since the early 1990’s. Despite Amano’s internationalist CV and absolutely no indications suggesting Amano will use his position for the gain of the Japanese state, I am sure Japanese nationalists will be ecstatic that one of their nationals will be in a position to put pressure on North Korea. This will not work in Amano’s favour.

Amano is a professional diplomat that has been active on the international scene for many years. He is well-versed in in disarmament issues and was previously the Chair of the Board of Governors for the IAEA (2005-2006). Amano is a professional diplomat that has been active on the international scene for many years. Such nationalist maneuvering is below his integrity, I am sure. Yet wait to see how fast the KCNA paints Amano as a “Japanese reactionary” and accuses the UN of being a “bourgeois beast”. “We will thwart your frantic attempts to stifle us!” (or some such other insult as per the generator).

It will also be interesting to see how China will react to this news. Will China’s hatred of all things Japanese prod it to be more protective of the Hermit Kingdom? With the Norks launching more missiles again today, I can’t see China’s patience lasting much longer. But they still must keep their distance from Japan.

As for Iran, going by my minor experience in the country, the Japanese are well respected there. Japan has close energy relations with Iran. Throughout the 1990’s Japan hosted thousands of Iranian migrant workers. Furthermore, Japan has maintained active cultural exchanges with the Iranians over the years. This close relationship has prevented the Japanese administration from speaking out on the current uprisings in Iran so far. All this in contrast to the Islamic Egyptian ElBaradei. The Japanese, who have never had any imperial ambitions on Persia, and who are not “People of the Book”, are the ultimate neutral arbiters. Being Japanese, Amano might represent a clean break with the past. Back in 2006 foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki asked Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for Japanese participation in Iran’s nuclear power plants. A year before that I argued that Japan is well-positioned to engage with Iran.

Ideally the nationality of a representative of an international organization such as the IAEA should not be relevant. However this is not an ideal world. During Amano’s term as DG, we may see the effects of nationalism preventing progress on the Korean peninsula while simultaneously contributing to a breakthrough in the Middle East.

• Iranian envoy: CIA involved in Neda’s shooting? – Iran’s ambassador to Mexico has said that the death of online martyr Neda is “suspicious” and says that the US CIA may have been behind the killing. He said that the bullet was found in her head and that it was not of a type used in Iran. “I am not saying that now the CIA has done this. There are different groups. It could be the [work of another] intelligence service; it could be the CIA; it could be the terrorists. Anyway, there are people who employ these types of methods.”

• Iranian authorities arrest eight British embassy employees in Tehran – Iranian authorities arrested eight local employees of the British embassy in Tehran, accusing them of “playing major parts” in the recent unrest. All eight were members of the embassy’s political section. Britain expelled two Iranian diplomats from London last week after Tehran booted two British diplomats. Iranian authorities also ordered the BBC correspondent out of Tehran and arrested a British-Greek journalist. Iranian authorities have also targeted local staffers of the United Nations.

• Iran militia raids ‘target homes’ – Human Rights Watch has accused Iran’s volunteer Basij militia of carrying out night-time raids, destroying property in private homes and beating civilians. The New York-based group says the raids are an attempt to stop the nightly rooftop chants against the government. It also says satellite dishes are being confiscated to stop people from watching foreign news.

• Ahmadinejad blasts Obama for comments, meddling – Ahmadinejad struck back at Obama a day after the U.S. president praised protesters for showing “bravery in the face of brutality,” to which Ahmadinejad asked, “Why did he interfere and comment in a way that disregards convention and courtesy?” He said Western leaders who made “insulting and irrelevant comments will be put on a fair trial” by Iran at international gatherings. Ahmadinejad also vowed to take a tougher approach toward alleged meddling by the West during his second four-year term, which the government has said will begin this summer. “Without a doubt, Iran’s new government will have a more decisive and firmer approach toward the West,” Ahmadinejad said. “This time the Iranian nation’s reply will be harsh and more decisive” to make the West regret its “meddlesome stance,” he said.

Via Irantracker (showing Iran’s official results) certainly points to an overwhelming Ahmadinejad victory. Consider, however, this image taken from the province of Isfahan where these results show Ahmadinejad took, by considerable margin, every single city:

Via madyar on twitter (courtesy of Steve Schippert)  an impressive array of people less than enthusiastic about the victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I’d agree with Younghusband’s account, this entire deal is becoming less about the election results and more about a passive insurgency within a country whose youth, with zero personal memory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, far outnumber those pushing the status quo. Despite that I’d offer a bit of a caveat to those in the west that have shown spirited support for both Mir Hossein Mousavi and his increasingly mammoth following.

The end of Ahmadinejad in favor of Mousavi is not going to plunge Iran into some fantastical Revolution where Tehran magically becomes a national hub of Iranian secular, liberal, democracy. Mousavi may be a reformist by Iranian measures and has indeed run on a platform of more governmental transparency, equality for women, the end of the Moral Police and privatized (free) media. Mousavi has also called for constitutional reform to shift law enforcement and media out from under the fiat of the Supreme Leader to that of the President (as the President represents the people.) However, Mousavi hasn’t challenged the overall political/governmental structure of Iran.

Mousavi won’t be asking, a la Robespierre, for the head of the Supreme Leader nor has he holed himself up in a Parisian apartment to pen up a new constitution (a la Khomeini.) His intentions are not paramount to yet another socio-political revolution. On the contrary, he’s seeking to affect change from within the existing socio-political system.

I’m happy to see western (specifically US) solidarity with Iran’s mass resistance to apparent political fraud but from what I’m hearing and reading the expectations of many seem to be unrealistically high.

With Iranian officials booting foreign journalists out of country and cracking down on domestic news agency’s not towing the party line, twitter is doing a remarkable job of filling the information gap. Some suggested twitter profiles to follow for up to the minute coverage and a plethora of links to amateur footage Ahmadinejad, et al would prefer the rest of the world not see.

IranElection09

TehranBureau

Thomas_Erdbrink

tehranelection

Change_for_Iran

Mynumberone1988

mousavi1388

IRNA is reporting that primary results from today’s presidential election show incumbent President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has won in an apparent landslide.

According to the head of Elections Headquarters Kamran Daneshjoo, Ahmadinejad has recieved 69.04 percent of the counted votes until 23:50 hours local time.
Daneshjoo said Mir Hossein Mossavi has got 28.42 percent, Mohsen Rezaee 1.62 percent and Mehdi Karrobi 0.9 percent of the votes.

The official announcement is expected tomorrow. More on this later.

Update IV Protests continue today. Ahmadinejad has dismissed the protests as “not important.” Mousavi has publicly declared the election’s void and encouraged his followers to continue their protests. Reformist party organizers (including the briother of former President Mohammad Khatami) have been detained and some foriegn journalists have been told to leave Iran. Not much from the White House which seems to be taking a wait and see approach. The EU, having apparently lived in a cave for the last eight years, has expressed concern but hopes:

the outcome of the elections will ease tensions between Iran and the international community over its nuclear program.

Update III Iran’s techno-black out has reached cell phones, which are reported to read “Emergency only.”

Update II Via Andrew Sullivan, according to a report from the Tehran Bureau, a spokesman from the Mousavi campaign points not to the Supreme Leader as the benefactor of election fraud, rather suggests the military staged a “coup” of sorts:

In an interview, Mr. Mohsen Makhbalbaf, the distinguish movie director and spokesman for Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi, has declared that there has been a coup in Iran whereby the elections have been rigged, and people’s vote have been altered on a vast scale, in order to declare President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the “victor.”

According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, in the early hours after voting had ended, the Interior Ministry had called Mr. Mousavi’s campaign headquarters to inform them that Mr. Mousavi would be the winner and, therefore, Mr. Mousavi must prepare a victory statement. Mr. Mousavi was, however, asked by the Ministry not to boast too much, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. Many of the president’s supporters are among the ranks of the Basij militia, and thus armed.

According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also informed of the developments. He also recommended a “good management” of the victory statement, meaning not boasting greatly about the victory, because that would be in Iran’s national interests and stability.

At the same time, the reformist newspapers were also informed that they can prepare their Saturday edition to declare Mr. Mousavi the winner, but were not allowed to use the word pirouzi (victory) in their articles, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters. One reformist newspaper prepared its front page with the title, “People took back the flag of their country [from Mr. Ahmadinejad].”

But, just a few hours later, a center that had been set up by Mr. Mousavi in Gheytarieh (in northern Tehran) for monitoring the election and vote counting, was attacked by armed security agents. They ransacked the center, destroyed computers, and attacked the staff. Supporters of Mr. Mousavi intervened and arrested 8 security agents. The police was called to take them to prison, but the police released the attackers.

According to Mr. Makhbalbaf, the central headquaters of Mr. Mousavi’s campaign was also surrounded by security forces, as was the Interior Ministry building. Then, new data began to be released by the Ministry, indicating that Mr. Ahmadinejad had won the elections decisively.

Update:

As noted in the commentary the reaction to what is largely believed to be a fraudulent election has been tumultuous as supporters of “defeated” reform candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi have taken to the streets of Tehran in protest:

Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei has essentially approved the election results:

The participation of over 80 percent of Iranians at the polls …. is a cause for true celebration and God willing this will ensure the continuation of the country’s progress and the maintenance of national security,

The spirit of calm presented by the nation, in the face of enemy propaganda and the nation’s mass participation was such that makes it indescribable in words.

This indicates any requests for appeal from Mousavi and his followers are likely to fall on deaf ears.

Internet service in Iran remains interrupted (obvious measure to limit outrage) and I’m reading rumors that Mir Hossein Mousavi has been placed under house arrest.

So I happened across this article and was prepared to post it with a comment on how barbarous this Saudi proposal appeared:

A Saudi inventor’s proposal to insert semiconductors subcutaneously in visitors and remotely kill them if they misbehave will not be patented in Germany.

On Wednesday, a German Patent Office spokeswoman said the application was received on October 30, 2007 and published 18 months later, as required by law, in a patents database. But inventions that are unethical or a danger to the public are not recognized.

Reporters said the document proposed that tiny semiconductors be implanted or placed by injection under the skin of people so their whereabouts could be tracked by global-positioning satellites. This could be used to prevent immigrants overstaying.

A model B of the system would contain a poison such as cyanide, which could be released by remote control to “eliminate” people if they became a security risk. The document said this could be used against terrorists or criminals.

a) Saudi Arabia hardly patents anything;
b) to make such a chip that cannot be readily removed would be a real challenge (see: James Bond in Casino Royale);
c) to have enough power to deliver a lethal dose of anything in such a device would be a real challenge; and
d) to have an antenna that could pick up a signal remotely seem highly unlikely.

Of course, such tracking chips exist in pets, but you have to get REAL close to detect them.

But that’s just the common sense test. I did a patent search, and there it is no sign of such a device. Note that EU and WO Patents get a published review, and if a Patent has a review it will have an A1 or A3 at the end.

As this is an Iranian news site making the Saudis out to look like barbarians, maybe that’s what’s behind the story…?

With a rather large exception¹, that has some of his political base less than pleased, President Obama has nailed down his campaign promise for US withdrawal from Iraq. As of August, 2010 Iraq will “officially” enter it’s post America form and uncertainties both internally and regionally abound.

For me one of the more intriguing issues regarding the future of post America Iraq is the measure of influence it’s neighbor and former enemy will have in the coming years. More than a few pundits here in the States have suggested a premature US withdrawal from Iraq might result in the state becoming a proxy of Iran’s want for regional hegemony. I’ve found this assertion both a tad simplistic and indicative of a rather monolithic and naive vision of the two countries and their history.

The presumption seems to be based purely on the two countries most blatant commonality; that the majority of both their populations adhere to the Shia sect of Islam. This presumption is reinforced by the likes of Muqtada al Sadr, his Mahdi following and obvious ties to Iran. Evidence and allegations of Iran arming Iraqi resistance against US forces is touted as proof of the impending Persian envelopment of Iraq.

What’s largely ignored in the Iran will take over Iraq scenario is the ethnic and cultural differences that exist between the two countries, the concept of Iraqi nationalism, the “small” matter of a bloody, eight year war the two countries fought back in the 1980’s and a myriad of other details. As for the complicity of Iran in arming the resistance, well that doesn’t necessarily parlay into subservience for the receiving parties much less indicate Iraq is soon to be a vassal of it’s larger neighbor. See Pakistan’s involvement in first the Afghan/Soviet war, secondly in the Afghan civil war, lastly the current troubles in Pakistan, specifically the Swat valley.

I have little doubt that Iran has been and will continue to assert itself in the internal machinations of the very uncertain state that is the “new” Iraq. What I wonder is, to what depths will this influence reach? I’m curious for some feedback on this and suggest reading this article, which I’ll quote from below, as a mental springboard, if you will. It contains nascent aspects of not only Iran’s potential post American influence but a look at the Iraqi reaction to that influence.

“This is Baghdad,” laments one of the hotel staff, pointing despairingly at the women. “Do you see this? They all look like they are from Iran! What is our country coming to?” he wails.

Reluctant at first, one of the women agrees to talk, but insists it be done away from the crowd.

“Why is everyone dressed like this,” asks this reporter.

“Please don’t misunderstand. We don’t dress like this normally. It is too hot and this is not our style, but if we do not, they threaten us,” she explains. A friend standing by her side nods in agreement.

Another woman, a member of the election committee explained that they were told to dress that way and wear a coat, even in summer if they wanted to be on the committee.

“Iran is taking over everything,” she laments.

Another woman, an Iraqi Assyrian Christian, refuses to partake in a business meeting organized for women, because she is afraid she will be seen.

By whom? Asks this reporter, insisting that this is inside the so-called Green Zone, protected by the U.S military.

“I’m so sorry, but they will see me and it will be a problem for me” says the woman, a hint of trepidation clearly audible in her voice.

Does this mean “they” are watching inside the Green Zone?

The woman becomes very nervous: “They are from Iran,” she says. “They are everywhere. If I am seen they will cause trouble for me. They have hurt many.”

Refusing to accept the notion that Iranians are operating right under the eyes of U.S. forces, this reporter decides to have a look for himself.

Meeting with the Iraqi-American who is coordinating the event I relate the conversation just exchanged across the street.

“I am afraid she may be right,” he says, almost in a whisper.”There are Iranians all over the place,” he adds.

He goes on: “What is happening is that Iranians are coming, but they have Iraqi IDs. We keep telling the Americans that even though they may show up with Iraqi IDs they are in fact from Iran. They don’t want to hear about it. They are everywhere.”