Today's Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984

Sometimes a media "exclusive" is beyond parody. This from The Mail on Sunday in Britain:

Did Iran's president take part in a demo during a brutal afternoon in London (or was it a man who looked exactly like him?)
By JASON LEWIS

The features are unmistakable, the fervour irrepressible as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad turns against a crowd of opponents.

Iran: How a Non-Story about a Non-Jew Became Media Non-Sense
The Latest from Iran (29 November): Larijani Making A Move?

But despite the uncanny likeness, officially this is not the President of Iran who oversaw the bloody suppression of his country’s democracy movement.

This picture was taken in London in 1984 and raises puzzling queries over Mr Ahmadinejad, 53.

Much of his rise to Iran’s presidency is shrouded in the secrecy which surrounds what has gone on in the pariah state since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 swept the late Ayatollah Khomeini to power.

Now this photograph, unearthed by The Mail on Sunday, suggests a young Mr Ahmadinejad spent time in London and took part in a notorious incident which demonstrated his and the Iranian regime’s repressive and sometimes violent nature.

The picture, first published by the Daily Mail on April 27, 1984, shows a smart-suited man on the balcony of the Iranian consulate in Kensington, his fist raised in a menacing salute as he harangues anti-Khomeini demonstrators in the street below.

The man, who reports described as a diplomat, had stepped on to the balcony hours after protesters opposed to the Islamic regime stormed the building as part of synchronised worldwide action.

As demonstrators burst in chanting anti-Khomeini slogans, consulate staff, including members of the notorious Republican Guard, locked them in the reception room.

According to reports at the time, and witnesses who spoke to The Mail on Sunday last week, the Iranian staff then returned in numbers, armed with wooden and iron clubs. Inside, the 11 unarmed protesters were taken prisoner.

Some reports suggested they were tortured to discover the names of relatives and friends still living in Iran.

The late investigative reporter Paul Foot said: "The protesters were bound, interrogated and beaten. Two were beaten unconscious. One recovered but could not lift his head because it was stuck to the carpet in congealed blood." He said the beating went on for seven hours. Then at 6pm, a diplomat, and it is unclear if this was Mr Ahmadinejad, appeared on the balcony and announced that the protesters had been "dealt with".

The demonstrators were then thrown out of the building with placards hung around their necks accusing them of being terrorists in the pay of the US and France. No one from the consulate faced charges.

Last week the Foreign Office said it had no record of Mr Ahmadinejad being at the Iranian consulate in the Eighties. The Diplomatic List for 1984 contains no reference to the name Ahmadinejad, which he adopted after his family moved to Tehran when he was a boy, or to his real name Mahmoud Saborjhian. Yesterday the Iranian Embassy added that it "didn’t think it was right" that he had ever been based in London.

Two people who took part in the protest, who spoke to The Mail on Sunday last week, also said they had no recollection of him that day.

Mr Ahmadinejad was also alleged to have taken part in the beating of American diplomats at its embassy in Tehran after it was taken over by students in 1979.

A photograph purportedly showed Mr Ahmadinejad escorting a blindfolded US hostage.

But the Iranians produced a picture of the President as a young man which appeared to look little like the hostage-taker.

We passed the picture to photo-analysis firm OmniPerception, who regularly aid police. It said: "A database of several thousand people was complemented with four recent images of the President. A comparison using the 1984 image was made. The result indicated the four pictures to be the most likely match of all subjects in the database. If this was a police inquiry, this would give cause for further investigation."

Latest Iran Video: The Mothers of Martyrs Protest (28 November)

Early in the post-election crisis, mothers of those killed and detained began gathering on Saturdays at Laleh Park in Tehran. Joined by sympathisers, they have continued to protest: yesterday about 150 people marched, despite attempts by security forces to disperse them with tear gas.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAubG59KZEk[/youtube]

The Latest from Iran (29 November): Larijani Making A Move?

Iran: The Routes of 16 Azar

The most interesting news last night was low-key but noticeable. In early evening details of the routes for the protests of 16 Azar (7 December) spread across Twitter. There were references to new student movements organised in recent days.

It is still more than a week before National Students Day, but I have a sense that precisely because of the Government efforts to stamp out any significant dissent, particularly through the arrests of student activists, that the efforts to ensure a mass turnout have re-doubled. This may also be fuelled by the determination to show that the movement is not dependent on statements and actions "from the top" but is ready to press its demands at the grassroots.

The irony is that, on National Students Day, there will have to many non-students who are also on the streets. If the Government can represent this as "only" the protest of trouble-makers at universities --- because students, free from jobs and responsibility, are always the source of mischief --- then it will have contained the challenge.

8 days to go.

The Latest on Iran (28 November): Turning Attention Back to Tehran

1945 GMT: Reports that today's gathering of mothers of political prisoners, held every Saturday in Laleh Park in Tehran, was attacked by security forces with tear gas. Despite the assault, 150 people participated.

1915 GMT: The Revolutionary Guard Posturing. It comes from commander Mohammad Ali Jafari: "The era of threatening Iran with force is over, especially at a time when the majority of Iranians are willing to defend the Revolution and their country."

Speaking in Shiraz, Jafari added that the intimidation "even failed at the height of the nuclear issue, and now Iran is standing firm despite economic, political and cultural pressures".

NEW Iran’s Nukes: Obama’s Team Buys Time for Engagement
Iran: The Campaign to Free Atefeh Nabavi
Iran: A Nobel Gesture from Obama Towards the Green Movement?
Iran’s Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? A Discussion on (Non)-Violence
Iran: Where Now for the Green Wave(s)? The EA Discussion
The Latest from Iran (27 November): Where Now?

1815 GMT: Tough talk. The Associated Press is featuring a statement by Mohammad Karimirad, a member of Parliament's National Security Commission, declaring that Iran should block IAEA inspections and consider withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The media are also noting hostile statements from the Revolutionary Guard.

All this is to be expected, both in the posturing and in the reaction of Western media. None of it means much at this stage. Wait for a signal from the Iranian Government on its next step in the uranium enrichment discussions.

1715 GMT: My thanks to EA reader Samuel for pointing out that Ahmad Khatami's denunciation of the IAEA resolution was made today and not during Friday Prayers. My apiologies to readers for my error.

1330 GMT: Offensive Images. At left is the picture --- a tourist advertisement with a Baha'i temple --- that led to the banning of Hamshahri, the prominent newspaper linked to Tehran mayor Mohammad-Baqer Qalibaf.

1320 GMT: Press TV's website has now posted a summary of Ahmad Khatami's Friday Prayer attack on the IAEA resolution on Iran's nuclear programme: "Rather than hurting Iran, the new resolution will impair the UN nuclear watchdog and Security Council."

So nothing significantly new there. Instead, this question: why did it take Press TV 24 hours to post news from Friday Prayers?

0920 GMT: Friday Prayers and Nukes. Agence France Presse notes that Ahmad Khatami, leading Friday prayers in Tehran, put in his two cents on the nuclear talks:

It is your obligation, under the law, to provide fuel for the Tehran reactor. If you did this, the issue would be closed. If you do not cooperate you should know that the nation ... which achieved its rights to technology will also provide fuel for its reactor. It is legal and in accordance with international safeguards.

0900 GMT: Don't Mention Neda. Two weeks ago we noted that Queen's College, Oxford University, had established a postgraduate scholarship in philosophy in the name of Neda Agha Soltan, the philosophy student killed on 20 June by a Basiji gunshot.

Well, it appears that it's not only the Iranian Government that is unhappy with the endowment:

A senior [British] diplomatic source said that the Government would have advised Queen’s College not to set up the scholarship when Britain is desperately trying to free local embassy staff in Iran who have been detained by the regime for their alleged involvement in the protests.

“If we were asked, we would have advised against it because it was always going to be deemed as provocative by the Iranian Government,” the source said. “But Oxford University did not ask us about setting up the scholarship, and does not have to because it is an independent educational institution.”

The diplomatic signal here for Tehran is that the scholarship is in no way "official" and should not be seen as pressure by the British Government over Iran's internal developments.

0815 GMT: With media attention primarily on Iran's nuclear programme and the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, we've had to give over time and space to an analysis pointing out the real significance of the IAEA resolution, unnoticed by the headline media: the US Government has just bought some more time to try and get an "engagement" deal on uranium enrichment.

Time to return to Iran, however, and notice the simmering within the Establishment. In Qom, Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli announced from the podium that the Friday Prayer was his last. The declaration was one of sadness and frustration: “When the Friday Imam articulates the problems that people face and those problems are resolved, it is evidence that he has expressed them well. But if the problems are not resolved that means he was not successful.”

Javadi-Amoli's decision is a setback for those seeking voices of reconciliation, but it is also a marker of the discontent amongst Iran's clerics. Another leading Qom Friday Prayer leader, Ayatollah Ostadi, had also suspended his sermons after denouncing "extremism" in support of the regime, including the Supreme Leader.

In Tehran, the curious, confusing, and significant story of the Parliamentary challenge to President Ahmadinejad took another twist yesterday. Khabar, which apparently has been suspended in print but continues to publish online, features criticism by leading members of Parliament against the Government's handling of the nuclear talks.

The Secretary of the National Security Council, Saeed Jalili, has met 40 MPs who back the Government, and Alaeddin Boroujerdi, a member of the National Security Commission, tried to quell the opposition with assurances that information on the negotiations will be provided. The stinger in the Khabar article, however, comes at the end: two weeks ago, when MPs "were notified [by Jalili] about the decisions made by" the Ahmadinejad Government, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani and other leading principlist legislators were not invited.

UPDATED Iran's Nukes: Obama's Team Buys Time for Engagement

UPDATE 1110 GMT: Cole also has posted the text of the IAEA resolution, which bears out both his analysis and that of EA.

UPDATE 1050 GMT: Another useful analysis, this time from Juan Cole. Cole first offers a detailed background with his "breakout" thesis on Iran's nuclear programme:

Tehran genuinely does not want to actually construct and detonate a nuclear device....But having a rapid breakout capability --- being able to make a bomb in short order if it is felt absolutely necessary to forestall a foreign attack --- has a deterrent effect. So Iran would have the advantages of deterrence without the disadvantages of a bomb if it could get to the rapid breakout stage.

Cole's immediate reading of the current position is hit-and-miss: he's on shaky ground with his analysis that the Revolutionary Guard has vetoed the Supreme Leader's acceptance of an enrichment deal (I don't think anyone except Ayatollah Khamenei knows what he will do), but Cole is invaluable in reading the non-Iranian politics: don't expect BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) to accept a move towards harsh economic measures agianst Tehran.

And Cole's conclusion hits the bull's-eye:

Bottom line: Friday's vote was likely symbolic and a signal to Iran from the international community that there is discomfort with its secretiveness and lack of transparency, and that many are suspicious of its motives. In China's case, it may have been a warning against actions that could harm the Middle Kingdom's burgeoning economy. What it likely was not was a harbinger of tougher international sanctions against Tehran or a sign that BRIC is softening on that issue

UPDATE 0950 GMT: A ray of journalistic light --- Sharwine Narwani offers an excellent analysis, "Eleventh-hour CPR On Iran Nuclear Talks": "Our core problem is not with Iran's enrichment program or it's recently revealed Fordow nuclear plant buried under a mountainside. The central issue clogging up our hotlines is that we do not trust Iran. And they do not trust us."

Looking once more at yesterday's International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran's nuclear programme, it is a most impressive two-card trick by the US Government.

Impressive initially because the first trick is on the media. So far, every major journalist whom I've read or listened to has been taken in by the magician's display of a united "hard line" against Tehran. CNN headlines, "U.N. watchdog urges suspension of Iran nuclear facility", never realising that the 2nd enrichment facility at Fordoo is now just a distraction. The New York Times, in print and in podcast, follows the same sleight-of-hand, adding the flourish that the "sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China".

Iran’s Nukes: IAEA Non-Resolution on Enrichment Means Talks Still Alive

How did the White House pull off this trick?

Easily, with a sustained effort in Washington as well as Vienna, to put out the distracting message. Beyond the official statement trumpeting the "broad consensus" behind the resolution, "a senior administration official" added:

What happened in Vienna today is a significant step, and it’s a sign of the increasing seriousness of the international community [and its] growing international impatience....Time really is running out. We hope that the board of governors [vote] reinforces the message that, you know, we’re committed to putting together a package of consequences if we don’t find a willing partner.

How then to uncover the trick and reveal the real strategy of the Obama Administration? Well, the unnamed official offered a sneak peek in those final words "if we don't find a willing partner". At this point, at least some key members of the Obama Administration are still pursuing "willingness".

To be blunt, because that seems to be necessary to knock professional observers out of their wide-eyed daze: the White House has not closed off the talks for a deal of Iran's nuclear enrichment.

Those officials who want a deal, primarily those in the State Department but also I suspect the President, are not willing to give up on months of effort, and they certainly do not want to face both the diplomatic difficulties of pursuing tough sanctions --- watch how quickly it becomes near-impossible to maintain that line of "broad consensus" --- and facing the consequences. It will no longer be a question of losing possible co-operation with Tehran in areas like Afghanistan but of facing possible Iranian counter-moves in the region, including Iraq.

At the same time, those pro-deal officials are fighting a contest against Administration colleagues who just want to go through the motions of negotiations to set up the increased pressure of harsh economic measures. Those colleagues (to find them, go to the National Security Council and follow the path to a Mr D. Ross' office) are the ones spinning newspapers like The Washiington Post that this IAEA resolution is the symbolic step to a sanctions regime which will include Russia and China. (They also are the ones willing to play up the "Israeli military action" that would follow if sanctions are not adopted.)

So the IAEA magic-show pulls out two tricks: it holds the Obama White House together while setting a very real line on the discussions with Iran. The Ahmadinejad Government and the Supreme Leader are being told publicly that "third-party enrichment" has to occur outside Iran; no swaps of uranium inside the country. This is getting close to a take-it-or-leave-it declaration to the regime.

But what if Ahmadinejad and/or Khamenei says "Leave It"? Then, I suspect, you'll see the magic evaporate. For while Ross and others wanting a showdown may get it, I'm not sure they have thought through their next tricks.