Today in EA (12 January 2010)

Iran: News from Iran this morning concentrates on the booby-trap bomb explosion in Tehran that killed Professor Massoud Mohammadi. We have the latest, which includes indication that Mohammadi was not involved in Iran's nuclear programme, and a video of state media's presentation of the event.

Links to this and other top stories, from EA and other media, are available as always, in our weblog.

Amidst recent coverage of Iran and Twitter,  and following yesterday's contributions on this issue, we have a comprehensive analysis today from Christopher Parsons, which seeks to dispell some of the fear, uncertainty and doubt around the Iranian Government's use of digital surveillance techniques.

Scott Lucas considers, amidst recent statements by Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohamad Khatami, the way forward for the opposition: "The question may not be how the regime reacts to these statements  but how the Green movement(s) respond."

US/Israel: Israel media suggest that, behind the scenes, Israel's relationship with the Obama Administration is flourishing, despite Washington's recent sale of arms to four "moderate" Arab states.

Turkey/Israel: A meeting between Turkish and Lebanese Prime Ministers turned into a platform for sharp criticism of  Israel.

The Latest from Iran (12 January): The Killing of the Professor

2110 GMT: Peyke Iran has published the news we heard earlier (see 1810 GMT) that all the detained Mothers of Mourning have been released.

1855 GMT: HomyLafayette has an excellent summary of information around the Mohammadi case.

1845 GMT: More on the Trial of the Baha'i (see 0725 GMT). An EA reader notes confusion over the court hearing for seven Baha'i members arrested in 2008 for "organizing riots". Many accounts say the trial was today but one Iranian source reports that testimony began yesterday, a day early.

1815 GMT: Not A Nuclear Scientist. A highly reliable EA source checks in on the Professor's case: "I hand checked all three UN black lists [of Iranian nuclear scientists]. Ali Mohammadi isn't there."

1810 GMT: Mothers of Mourning Update. Norooz reports that 14 of the mothers arrested in last Saturday's protest have been transferred to Evin prison while the rest have been released.

An Iranian activist is claiming, however, that all mothers have been freed.

1800 GMT: Oh. My. Goodness. The Supreme Leader's representative to the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, Ali Saeedi, has reportedly declared that the the deaths of 75,000 people will be worthwhile if the Islamic Republic is preserved. 1745 GMT: The Presidential website has made a contribution to the Mohammadi story, declaring that the Iranian nation will have its "revenge" on the "enemies" who killed the professor. More info, however, on Mohammadi as a particle physicist: his faculty profile and a list of publications which complements those we noted earlier (1445 GMT).

NEW Latest Iran Video: How State Media Frames Killing of “Nuclear” Professor (12 January) NEW Iran: How Far Do The Green Movements Go? NEW Iran & Social Media: Dispelling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Parsons) Iran Exclusive: The Latest Nuclear Riddle — Renewed Talks with “West”? Iran Analysis: Beyond the Headlines, The Regime Battles Itself Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and “Deep Packet Inspection” Iran & Twitter: Last Words on The Hell of Heaven (Shahryar) The Latest from Iran (11 January): Reading the Regime

1630 GMT: Rah-e-Sabz is reporting an explosion in Shariati Street, Tehran, which has killed one person.

1605 GMT: How the Mohammadi Story Was Clarified. It should be noted that the "Iranian blogger" mentioned at 1250 GMT, with the post which began to establish that Professor Mohammadi was a particle physicist and not a nuclear scientist, was one of Mohammadi's students.

1555 GMT: We've posted a video showing how Iran's state media are framing the killing of Professor Mohammadi. It is, according to Tehran University academic Seyed Mohammad Marandi, a "terrorist" act --- probably the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) --- supported by the US and Israel.

1535 GMT: Not A Nuclear Scientist. The Iranian Atomic Energy Agency has formally denied any professional relationship with Professor Mohammad Ali Mohammadi. We also have another link for Professor Mohammadi: his involvement in the project "Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East" (SESAME).

1515 GMT: Curbing the Reformists. A group of members of Parliament has asked Speaker Ali Larijani to remove Ali Akbar Motashami, head of Mehdi Karroubi's Presidential campaign, as the chair of Committee for the Defense of Palestine. Motashami has criticised the outcome of the Presidential election since the day after the vote, and his Parliamentary opponents have claimed that he is responsible for the slogan, "No Gaza! No Lebanon! We Sacrifice for Iran!". Motashami was former Minister of Interior when Mir Hossein Mousavi was Prime Minister.

1510 GMT: Motahari's Move. High-profile member of Parliament (and brother-in-law of Ali Larijani) Ali Motahari has continued his recent criticism of the Ahmadinejad Government through a letter  to  Hossein Shariatmardari, the editor of the pro-Ahmadinejad newspaper Kayhan. Motahari declared that the President started the political crisis when he accused all of the candidates in the election of being "spinning tops" of Hashemi Rafsanjani. Motahari put four questions to Shariatmardari, including the reason why Ahmadinejad attacked Hashemi Rafsanjani in pre-election debates, and he concluded the letter, "Maybe you and your colleagues need a rest". Indeed, it would be better for Iranian society if Shariatmardari and his friends went "for a holiday in an enjoyable place" and allowed the situation to improve.

1505 GMT: The Attack on Rafsanjani. Cleric Hamid Rohani  has announced that former President Hashemi Rafsanjani is "not a very important man" and asserted that Imam Khomeini believed Rafsanjani could be "deceived" by others.

1455 GMT: Makhmalbaf Puts Out Mousavi's Message? The filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who is closely connected with Mir Hossein Mousavi, has set out a series of declarations, defining the state of the Green movement, in an interview:

Who are main leaders of the movement? It's the young generation. In each alley, in each street, you will see one smart youth lead 10 others. We have some famous people everywhere, but even if the government kills all of them, this movement will continue.

Makhmalbaf added a specific declaration on methods, "The past seven months have been the first time that we could ask people to think about non-violence. We are going to kill dictatorship, not dictators. We don't want to empty the prisons and then fill them with other people." The filmmaker also repeated his wish for "targeted sanctions" against the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps.

1445 GMT: More on the Particle Physicist. A fellow physicist has posted a link to 40 listed academic papers of "M. Alimohammadi" or "Mohsen Alimohammadi". None of them, according to the sources, are connected with nuclear physics.

1305 GMT: The Mohammadi Blame Game. Press TV, after carrying the message of Iran's Foreign Ministry of "signs of the involvement of the Zionist regime [Israel], the US and their allies" in the killing of Professor Mohammadi, rolls out the latest accusation

A terrorist group, whose radio station broadcast from the United States, took responsibility Tuesday for the fatal attack on an Iranian nuclear scientist in Tehran. The Iran Royal Association, an obscure monarchist group that seeks to reestablish the Pahlavi reign in Iran, announced in a statement that its "Tondar Commandos" were behind the assassination of Masoud Ali-Mohammadi.

And very quickly the "Iran Royal Association" denies the allegation.

1250 GMT: The Real Professor Mohammadi? A highly-reliable EA source provides the following important information:

I knew Ali Mohammadi personally and talked to him at length in Tehran in March. Almost certainly he had nothing to do with Iran's nuclear programme, according to very informed sources, and he was indeed a supporter of the Green movement. Rah-e-Sabz has published his signature on a letter sent by a group of university professors in support of Mousavi.

An Iranian blogger makes similar points, while adding that Mohammadi was a specialist on particle physics and linking to his Tehran University profile.

1050 GMT: The Battle over the Dead Professor. Wow, this is going to get heated. Ayande News , considered close to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, has fought back against state media's portrayal that Massoud Mohammadi was a "dedicated revolutionary" killed by "anti-revolutionary" elements with the reminder that Mohammadi was publicly identified as a supporter of Mir Hossein Mousavi. The Mousavi site Kalameh also pushes this line and adds that Mohammadi, one of the first Ph.D. graduates in physics at Tehran University, was instrumental in the development of the programme over the last 20 years. (English summary)

0930 GMT: Killed Professor in Iran's Nuclear Programmme? The Internet chatter that Massoud Mohammadi, the Tehran University professor killed in an explosion this morning (see 0720 GMT), is a nuclear physicist now appears to be confirmed. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has said that Mohammadi was a member of the country's "scientific elite" killed by Iran's enemies. (English summary in Los Angeles Times)

[NOTE: This update has been eclipsed by later news. It appears that the "nuclear physicist" claim is a line put out by Iranian authorities and does not represent Mohammadi's work.]

0920 GMT: Trials for US Citizens? The Iranian Foreign Ministry has repeated this morning that the three American citizens detained this summer when they crossed on foot into Iran from Iraq will soon be in court: "The judiciary will make a decision and we know that they will be tried soon." (Original story from Fars)

0750 GMT: A Cyber-Attack Too Far? Remember the "Iranian Cyber-Army", the group that carried out attacks on Twitter and, more importantly, the opposition website Mowj-e-Sabz? Well, they're back with a curious operation. This morning, their "diversion" attack posted their images and slogans on Baidu, China's top search engine. Baidu is now back in operation, but news of the hijacking has quickly spread. More importantly, so has the head-scratching. Why, given Tehran's need for Chinese support on a number of issues, would an Iranian group take down a prominent site accepted by the Chinese Government? If the Iranian Cyber-Army is close to the Government, someone has authorised a very stupid operation. If, on the other, the ICA is just a private group carrying out a bit of damage and silliness, it is not really helping anyone.

0745 GMT: Free the Mothers of Mourning. Amnesty International has called on Iran's authorities to release 33 Mothers of Mourning and their supporters, detained at the weekly protest in Laleh Park on Saturday.

0740 GMT: Nuclear Talks. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed, after  discussion of further US sanctions and Iran's latest proposals, that talks of the "5+1" powers (US, UK, France, Germany, China, Russia) on Tehran's nuclear programme will take place in New York at the end of this week.

0725 GMT: Blaming the Baha'is. A story that we should have noted this weekend. The Iranian regime will soon try seven leaders of the Baha'i faith, held in Evin prison since spring 2008. While the detentions occurred two years ago, the handling of the cases is now clearly tied to the Government's manoeuvres in the post-election crisis, blaming groups like the Baha'i, "terrorists", and foreign powers for the conflict. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi declared:

These people were not arrested because they were Baha'is....In searching their homes, a number of weapons and ammunition were discovered....[They] played a role in organizing the riots and sending pictures of the riots abroad. That is why they were arrested.

0720 GMT: Press TV is reporting that Dr Massoud Mohammadi, a Tehran University professor, has been killed near his home by the explosion of a booby-trapped motorbike. Mohammadi recently presented a paper on water resource management at an Australian conference. 0715 GMT: We begin today with two analyses. After yesterday's major development, the issuing of statements by Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammad Khatami, we put the question, "How Far Do The Green Movements Go?" in their demands. And amidst the recent discussion of #IranElection and Twitter, Christopher Parsons busts some fears and dispels some myths about Iran and social media.

UPDATED Iran & Twitter: Last Words on The Hell of Heaven (Shahryar)

UPDATE 12 JANUARY: Patrick Philippe Meyer has posted a thoughtful response, "Where I disagree with Will Heaven vs Josh Shahryar", which concludes: "Digital activists really need to get up to speed on nonviolent civil resistance tactics and strategies just as the latter need to get up to speed on how to communicate more securely in repressive environments."

---
EA's Josh Shahryar, to move beyond the myths of "security" on Iran and social media so we can continue in the task of information and analysis, offers some final thoughts to Will Heaven:

Before I get to your arguments, I want to clear something up first. My first response was rather insulting --- and it was knowingly so. You had clearly gone out of your way to insult people that I have come to know and cherish both as friends and as colleagues. These people are not 13-year olds with laptops who listen to Emo music all day and cut themselves for fun. They are experienced professionals from fields as diverse as psychology, law, journalism, medicine, politics, and information technology. And they care. So any attempt at undermining their efforts will be swiftly answered. Anyone questioning their intentions or work is going to receive a reply. And any insults hurled at them will result in ridicule for the hurler.

Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and “Deep Packet Inspection”
Iran & Twitter 101: Rereading A Tale of Two Twitterers
Iran & Twitter 101: Getting The Facts Right — A Response to Will Heaven
The Latest from Iran (11 January): Reading the Regime

Now let’s get to your latest, hopefully last, argument, posted on The Daily Telegraph website last Friday:

Picture this scene. In Tehran, during the summer of 2007, a group of young students – male and female – are enjoying a house party. It’s a very hot day. They are drinking, smoking pot and listening to music around a swimming pool. Then, unexpectedly, there is loud knock at the front door. Men wearing the uniform of the Revolutionary Guard barge in. The music is switched off and the party falls silent. The girls are wearing bikinis, and the boys are holding beers – they’ve all been caught red-handed. But the order given by the guards is this: every one of you with a laptop or a computer must hand it over to us now.

This anecdote – passed onto me by a trusted British-Iranian source – illustrates something very important about Iran’s authoritarian regime. For a long time, it has actively hunted for compromising hard-drive data in order to assert its control over the lives of Iranians. By confiscating the students’ laptops, the Guards gave themselves access to photos, documents and emails. Enough evidence, in other words, to prosecute (or at the very least threaten) the party-goers, who attended these sorts of events frequently.

More recent stories suggest these efforts have escalated. Take, for instance, Evgeny Morozov’s Iranian-American woman, who was asked by officers at Tehran’s International Airport to log into Facebook when she arrived there in July. At first, she denied having a Facebook account – so when they proved her wrong, they also noted down all of her Facebook friends’ names. I personally know of another Iranian who was arrested and imprisoned after posting anti-regime slogans, rather naively, on a publicly-listed Facebook profile.

I personally, as someone who looks at more substantial evidence, decline to tackle the anecdote you present. As for Morozov’s story and your other Iranian friend, yes, the regime has been actively hunting for data for years. But Morozov’s opinion about social media is pretty negative, not just about Iran but in general, and so I am not going to debate someone who has made up his mind even before tackling the Twitter Revolution. That Revolution is about awareness, not provoking a political revolt or helping it directly.

You persist:

It’s overwhelmingly clear, then, that it is dangerous for Iranians to partake in online protests on sites such as Twitter and Facebook, or to post compromising information online with the intention that it is read by a Western audience. Clearer still – as I wrote in the Daily Telegraph last week – that when Westerners encourage this communication, or provoke it, they could be putting Iranian lives in danger, especially given the prolific use of “Deep Packet Inspection” (DPI). It’s terrifying to think that a simple “re-tweet” could lead to torture, but it’s also worryingly plausible.

Your perception of what foreigners are doing for Iranians is unfounded and wrong. As for your continued worries about Deep Packet Inspection, the report about the Iranian regime using DPI is hotly contested --- have a look at Mike Dunn's dissection, posted today on EA, of your flimsy evidence or responses from professionals like David Isenberg or Christopher Parsons. DPI is not something that you can detect by simply checking systems from the outside. Indeed, About the only way you can tell if DPI is being utilized is if the user actually shows it to you.

You concede:

Now, I have received a lot of criticism for putting forward this view. The most recent from Daily Nite Owl writer Josh Shahryar, an influential#Iranelection Tweeter who has also written for The Huffington Post. His argument is forcefully made (to put it mildly), and he alleges that I have misunderstood the role played by Twitter in Iran. He writes:

Shahryar is spot on about one thing: Twitter has helped to share news about what is happening inside Iran – as I made clear in my Telegraph piece, “spreading awareness” is in theory a good thing. He is also to be commended for his efforts to conceal the identities of those Iranians who spread information online, by providing them with anonymity network software such as Tor and Freegate.

Thank you for the kind words, I certainly don’t deserve any of that. But our efforts are not concentrated on making the revolution a success. That is the job of Iranian protesters. Our job is to simply let the world know what is going inside Iran. If you have to measure our results, do it at how we have managed to spread the news about the protesters. I think there is enough evidence that that we have made a difference in that specific quest.

Instead of measurement, however, you make another fling at tearing down that effort:

But those softwares, as Shahryar admits, are only used by a “select few”. And it is foolish to think that their use guarantees safety: if the Revolutionary Guard were to find someone using the software, the consequences would be dire. “No one actually communicates with people in Iran,” he contests. “They post their stuff and they leave.” But who does he think they are posting their “stuff” for? If the regime was able to match information posted by someone in Iran with similar information being passed around in the US, does Shahryar think they would be forgiven?

Your initial argument was that Westerners are encouraging Iranians to engage in those activities. Now you’re saying not that we should stand aside but that we should intervene to discourage them from posting this information online? Who are we to do that?

"The select few" of whom I spoke  currently have software that is undetectable through even DPI. The exact nature of that software needs to remain a secret for their own safety. The other Iranians already have more primitive proxy server software that they use to access information.  They don’t post anything, but they certainly get informed.

If you genuinely have concerns about DPI, read the articles that I mentioned above. But remember this as well:

It is naïve to think that Iranians are totally dependent on Westerners to protect them. More than two-thirds of Iran’s population is young and a large majority is very well-educated. They know their way around the Internet better than some folks in Britain and the US. And they  know the risks that they face. Again, it is immature --- and rather insulting --- to think that they are kids that are being manipulated by the ‘superior’ race in the West into doing things – and rather insulting.

Insulting to them when you reach desperately for evidence that they are being manipulated by "outsiders":

The idea that, as Shahryar puts it, “we aren’t encouraging anyone” could not be further from the truth. Here are a few tweets from the #Iranelection hashtag posted in the last few days, most of which have been re-tweeted numerous times:

@houmanr: How to stop basij motor bikes http://vasabaha.com/1388/04/07/mikh/ #iranelection (2 days ago)
@jefryslash: ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ? ???? ?? ????http://tinyurl.com/luex5x How to DEFEND AGAINT BASIJ & POLICE #iranelection in Streets #iranelection (2 days ago)
@PersianTechie: Two nails will stop basiji bike/car/truck. http://twitpic.com/7ychu #iranElection (3 days ago)
@fr33dom_fighter break the basiji knees with fierce strikes w/Bat and break their pride and make them humble #iranelection (4 days ago)
@tehranweekly: take all pictures of basij agents and post on twitter &facebook so we can retweet them #cn4iran#iranelection (1 day ago)

And that was just a quick search. It seems difficult to deny that these sorts of messages --- mainly posted by Iranian-Americans -- incite those inside Iran to commit very dangerous acts. Even if they are not carried out, they could be used as evidence against those Iranians who choose to re-tweet them or post them online.

Many of those who use Twitter "on the outside" are Iranian-Americans; many still retain their Iranian citizenship, and they certainly have a stake in their homeland. However, for the very few "Westerners" who cross the line with provocation, you also note my reference to how much we --- as the members of the #IranElection hashtag on Twitter --- are opposed to such childish activities. Your argument is self-defeating: it is we, not you, who are maintaining "security".

So unable to prove danger, you choose to belittle us. More importantly, by reducing Iranians to our helpless victims, you belittle them:

The positive aspects of online activism for change in Iran have been vastly overstated. And when you consider the danger posed to Iranians by online participation – compared with what online participation has achieved – the overall result is hardly tangible, and certainly not worth the risks which have been undertaken. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his brutal regime remains in power after a vicious crackdown. Tens (if not hundreds) of Iranians have been killed, dozens tortured and raped, and many more imprisoned. The Twitter revolutionaries, however, are too proud to re-think their strategy.

You ignore any counter-arguments, including those in my previous response, and just keep on beating your own drum. But let me try one more time to make you stop.

Will, the overwhelming majority of people who were arrested, killed and beaten faced that terror on the streets while protesting. No one online is responsible for that. They willingly chose to go and engage in those activities.

If you’re suggesting that Iranians are going out to protest because we’re asking them to...then I don’t know if I should mourn the lack of your common sense or the waste of my time engaging in this debate. We weren’t even around when Iranians started protesting and they came out in millions. They want to do this. If you don’t get that, then I’m not sure what you do get.

Once more, the main purpose of the Twitter Revolution is to help spread the word about news and human rights events outside Iran.

I really hope you can eventually grasp that. Because then you won't resort --- perhaps unintentionally --- to the insult of those who have faced the risks not from our manipulation but from their bravery:

Witness the demise of @Persiankiwi, a twitter-user followed by some 30,000 people all over the world. In June, he or she (apparently from inside Iran) posted regular updates about the post-election protests. Here are the account’s final tweets:

@Persiankiwi we must go – dont know when we can get internet – they take 1 of us, they will torture and get names – now we must move fast -#Iranelection (June 24th)
@Persiankiwi thank you ppls 4 supporting Sea of Green – pls remember always our martyrs – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar – Allah Akbar #Iranelection (June 24th)
@Persiankiwi Allah – you are the creator of all and all must return to you – Allah Akbar -#Iranelection Sea of Green (June 24th)

After that, only silence. Was @Persiankiwi arrested or tortured, even killed? Was @Persiankiwi tracked down online by the Revolutionary Guard? Tragically, we’ll never know. But for me, that silence is a powerful reminder of the dangers faced by online activists working in dictatorships. I would not encourage the activity, unless the benefits clearly outweighed the enormous risks. In Iran, I’m afraid, that is plainly not the case.

First of all, you clearly have no idea who @Persiankiwi is, even if I thank you for the concern. From what I know, @Persiankiwi is safe. If you want to pay a real tribute to @Persiankiwi, note that when @Persiankiwi was tweeting, there was no Twitter Revolution. We followed him/her as we made our decisions to support those inside Iran in distribution of information.

Here are a couple of paragraphs just to remind you of something that you have ignored in your previous opinion and your current response. More than 200 years ago, when the British tried to crush the American Revolution, peasants, innkeepers, merchants, students and ordinary folk in general knew that, if they took arms and fought for their freedom against an unjust ruler, some of them would die. Many did. But they kicked the tyrants out and took their freedom through force of arms.

The same happened with revolutionaries in South America in the early part of the 19th century and it has repeatedly happened all over the world. Just because the revolutions in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, and Georgia were largely bloodless doesn’t mean revolutions are all going to be as peaceful. People don’t always get their rights by sitting at home and not doing anything. People have to put themselves in danger for what is dear to them. Sometimes, people die and still don’t get their rights. But the allure of having and enjoying human rights is too great.

The fact that Iranians are dying is not the fault of Westerners. It is not even a fault. It is a sacrifice that Iranians must make to gain their freedom. They know this very well. They aren’t doing it because anyone else is telling them to do it. They’re doing it because they’re humans. They’re not sheep. And humans need more than just food, clothes and a roof on top of their heads. Maybe you don’t get this, but Iranians do.

I don’t know you. You can be a perfectly nice guy in person. Criticism is just part of being a journalist. Here’s hoping next time I read something from you, I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Iran & Social Media: Dispelling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Parsons)

Following our recent posts on Iran and Twitter, including yesterday's contributions by Josh Shahryar and Mike Dunn, Christopher Parsons posts a thorough review on his blog of censorship, surveillance, and social media.

Since the election of incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world has witnessed considerable political tension in Iran. Protests over the questionable electoral results, beatings and deaths of political protestors, recurring protests by Iranians associated with the Green Revolution, and transmissions of information amongst civil- and global-actors have been broadcast using contemporary communications systems. Twitter, blogs, Facebook, and mobile phone video has enabled Iranians to coordinate, broadcast, and receive information. The existence of Web 2.0 infrastructure has set the conditions under which the Green Revolution operates.

Iran & Twitter: Last Words on The Hell of Heaven (Shahryar)
Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and “Deep Packet Inspection”

The Iranian government quickly recognized the power of cheap social coordination technologies and, in response, drastically reduced the capacity of national Internet links – the government, in effect, closed the nation’s Internet faucet, which greatly reduced how quickly data could be transmitted to, and received from, the ‘net as a whole. This claim is substantiated by Arbor Networks’ (Internet) border reports, which demonstrate how, immediately after the presidential election, there was a plummet in the data traffic entering and exiting the nation. (It should be noted that Arbor is a prominent supplier of Deep Packet Inspection equipment.)

Prior to trying to dispel the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) surrounding the contemporary Iranian ISP-surveillance system that is regularly propagated by the media, I need to give a bit of context on the telecommunications structure in Iran.

Read rest of article....