The Latest from Iran (30 November): Nuclear Distraction, Trashing the Greens?

1915 GMT: Quiet Engagement. News is just emerging of five British nationals who have been held by Iran since their yacht Sail Bahrain strayed into Iranian waters on Wednesday.

The significance behind the headline is that the story was kept quiet for five days. That indicates that Britain does not want the matter to escalate into confrontation and that Iran, for now, does not want to use the detention for political advantage.

NEW Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition — The Next Chapter
NEW Video: The Bahari Interview on CNN (Part 2)
Today’s Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984
Video: The Mothers of Martyrs Protest (28 November)
Iran: The Routes of 16 Azar
The Latest from Iran (29 November): Iran’s Nuclear Bluff

1830 GMT: Just for the Nuclear Record. Iranian Foreign Manouchehr Mottaki used a press conference with the Russian Energy Minister (who confirmed Moscow's intention to complete the Bushehr nuclear plant by March 2010) to denounce the IAEA resolution:

We could not find any logical reason for the Board of Governors' decision. We cannot accept discrimination in international relations. Either there are rights or such rights do not exist. The age of discriminatory policies is over. This is the law of the jungle.

Nothing surprising here and no further indication as to Iran's next step.

1625 GMT: Mehdi Karoubi, in an interview on his website Tagheerwebsite (official website of Etemad-Melli party), responded to accusations from Kayhan newspaper:

I really did not want to point out the arrogance of these guys but when I saw that they repeatedly are talking about “conspiracy”, denying their role in the events after the election, and are influencing the Judiciary system, I decided to respond....My message to the management of Kayhan newspaper is that the our interpretation of Islam is different than yours.

1610 GMT: President Postponed. It appears that President Ahmadinejad's national broadcast (see 0715 GMT) has been postponed to Tuesday night.

1555 GMT: A Detainee Speaks. Amidst a slower afternoon, interesting revelations from Behzad Nabavi, the high-profile reform activist who has recently been given a six-year prison sentence. Nabavi is free on a 10-day release pending appeal: "They asked me the night before my release to sign a paper and agree not to engage in political activities or conduct interviews until the appeals court hearing; they told me not to meet or contact political parties and organizations, but I refused. When they couldn't close the deal with me they gave me [only] a 10-day break from prison [instead]."

Nabavi claimed that the former Tehran Prosecutor General, Saeed Mortazavi, was present for at least one of his interrogations. He also claims that his arrest warrant had been issued on 9 June, three days before the Presidential elections (and six days before the supposed basis for his "crime", presence at the mass demonstration on 15 June).

1255 GMT: Larijani Baffles (Part 2). I have a hunch --- and nothing more -- that Ali Larijani, with his statement on the nuclear programme this morning, is setting himself up as an alternative to President Ahmadinejad, both for elements in the Iranian establishment and for the "West".

But who is the target of this Larijani statement, keeping in mind the shaky translation of the Iranian Labour News Agency: "Commenting on the post-election events, the speaker remarked that the unjustified persistence of certain people on their own views would only benefit others"?

1220 GMT: Report that journalist Hengameh Shahidi has been sentenced to six years, three months, and one day in prison.

1204 GMT: Larijani Baffles. Press TV has summarised this morning's comments by Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani:

I believe there is still room for diplomacy and it is useful for them [the "5+1 powers] to adopt a diplomatic option. That way Iran would be able to make progress within the framework of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) while they would also be certain that Iran activities are peaceful. But of course, if they choose to take a different path Iran would also adopt a different stance.

Here's what puzzles me: given Larijani's hostility to the diplomatic process pursued by the Ahmadinejad Government in recent months, criticising apparent Iranian concessions, why is he now embracing "room for diplomacy"? Why not celebrate the apparent demise of the Ahmadinejad strategy?

Suggestions welcomed.

1200 GMT: This is Interesting. Just over a week before the protests of 16 Azar, students from Amir Kabir University have met Mehdi Karroubi in his home.

1100 GMT: Ahmadinejad and Latin America. An EA reader points us to an intriguing discussion between Mohsen Milani, Aram Hessami and Babak Dad, "What is Ahmadinejad searching for in the USA's backyard?" The reader notes Dad's provocative speculation that one purpose of the President's recent tour of Latin America was to prepare a "safe haven" if one should be noted for him and his allies.

1020 GMT: Montazeri Criticises "lllegal" Violence. Lots of chatter this morning about a video of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri denouncing post-election violence by Basiji militia, betraying its mission “unite and mobilise everyone on the path to God not to the path of evil”.

There's more. Montazeri also implicitly attacks the Supreme Leader for his thanks to the Basiji for "defeating the enemy in the events after election”: “Isn’t it a misery that one [i.e., the Basiji] goes to hell (in afterlife) for the wellbeing of others in this world?!” (Summary of remarks on Facebook page supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi)

0940 GMT: You Might Want to Be More Subtle. The head of Iran's nuclear organisation, Ali Akhbar Salehi, kind of gives the political game away today:

We had no plan to build many nuclear sites like Natanz [enrichment facility but it seems that the West do not want to comprehend Iran's message of peace. The West adopted an attitude toward Iran which made the Iranian government to pass the ratification on construction of ten sites.

Hmm....So you haven't make any previous moves to build beyond the enrichment plants at Natanz and Fordoo but now you've going to throw all your resources at a crash construction programme because of Friday's IAEA resolution?

Wouldn't back Salehi as a poker player: this is either clumsy deception --- Iran has already started on other sites --- or clumsy bluff.

0930 GMT: We've posted the second part of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari's interview with CNN. We've also been moved by his comments on the Green movement(s) to consider again how Washington may be viewing (and belittling) the opposition.

0810 GMT: Blackout. Fears are growing that, in addition to "containing" the protest of 16 Azar (7 December) through a 48-hour holiday just before it, the Government may try to pull the curtains down on it through a cutoff of Internet and mobile phone service.

0730 GMT: Sigh. The coverage of Iran this morning on the BBC's flagship radio programme? Declare "time is running out" for Tehran, then turn over seven minutes of airtime just after 7 a.m. to the Israeli Ambassador to the UK, Ron Prosor for comments such as: "Iranians are not just carpet makers but carpet weavers; they will divide one red line into 100 pink lines and then cross the red line"; "Israel's nuclear capability is irrelevant in the current situation"; "all options are on the table".

0720 GMT: Russia Mending Political/Nuclear Fences? Russian energy minister Sergei Shmatko, in Iran for talks with his Iranian counterpart and other officials, has pledged that Iran's first nuclear power station will soon be completely. Shmatko said earlier this month that the Bushehr plant would be delayed beyond its announced opening date of the end of 2009.

The political significance of Shmatko's statement overshadows the technical dimension: days after supporting the International Atomic Energy Agency resolution, Moscow is tacking back politically towards Iran. That means some continuing level of co-operation (though the Russians can always dangle and pull back support) and no sanctions.

0715 GMT: President Ahmadinejad will speak on national television this evening.

0645 GMT: Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani is now holding a press conference on Iranian television.

0630 GMT: Reality Check. Here are two reasons, courtesy of Gary Sick, why the Iran Government's nuclear announcement is "all mouth and no trousers".

The declaration of 10 enrichment plants is for 500,000 centrifuges. In the last nine years, Iran has constructed and installed fewer than 9000 centrifuges, of which only about half are operating. At that rate, the plans announced yesterday will be completed in the year 2509.

According to documents, construction began on the second enrichment site at Fordoo in 2003. There are still no centrifuges installed, and the site is due for completion in 2011.

At that rate, 10 enrichment plants would take 80 years to construct, if they were built one after another. If they were all pursued at the same time, it would put great strain on Iranian resources and manpower, to say the least. What's more, the proposed plants would be the same size as Iran's primary enrichment facility at Natanz, much larger than Fordoo.

0610 GMT: One week before the demonstrations of 16 Azar (7 December), but all the headlines are far away from the internal conflict in Iran. The Ahmadinejad Government's declaration of "10 new enrichment plants" has successfully walked the international media down a nuclear garden path, even though the proposal at this point is a fantasy. In addition to our coverage in yesterday's updates, we'll have further analysis laying out both the technical and political realities later this morning.

However, while Tehran's move is political symbolism, it reinforces the mood in the US that engagement is now a long-shot. A clear sign of that is in Trita Parsi's piece for The Huffington Post, "Washington Can Give An Israeli Attack On Iran The Red Light". That headline in itself is a hyperbolic diversion --- for reasons beyond the Obama Administration, Israel will not be launching military operations --- but it shows that Parsi, the President of the National Iranian American Council and a fervent supporter of a political settlement with Iran, has now all but given up on the process.

Iran: More on the Political Attack on the National Iranian American Council

As we expected, the whipped-up controversy over the activities of the National Iranian American Committee --- fuelled by the attack journalism in The Washington Times --- has descended into further invective and allegations.

The Lake piece gave cover to the earlier exaggerations and distortions not only of The Weekly Standard, which is trying to blow apart any engagement with Iran, but also Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic:

A couple of weeks ago I retracted my assertion that Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, did "leg-work" for the Iranian regime. I was trying to suggest, in a not-so artful way, that Parsi is trying to build his organization into an Iranian version of AIPAC, but "leg-work" seemed, in retrospect, like too harsh a description for his activities.

But now I may have to retract my retraction....

Meanwhile, the counter-allegation is spreading that Hassan Daioleslam, who is the source of the allegations and who is being sued by Parsi for defamation, is a long-term member of Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO). The group has sought the overthrow of the Iranian regime since 1979, often through violence, bombings, and assassinations.

Josh Rogin of the Cable blog of Foreign Policy is writing that Daioleslam is well-connected with Washington neoconservatives who are challenging NIAC to undercut the Obama administration's engagement strategy.

Rogin is posting emails between Daioleslam and Kenneth Timmerman, in which the two plot strategy and discuss the plans to leak documents to Eli Lake, who wrote the Washington Times story. Timmerman is a longtime advocate of regime change in Tehran, through platforms such as the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which he co-founded in 1995 with Joshua Muravchik and the late Peter Rodman. He has accused Iran of a role both in the September 11 attacks and the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Iran: The Political Attack on the National Iranian American Council

The Latest from Iran (14 November): Political Fatigue?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

I had not intended to touch this story when I saw it being pushed by the polemical magazine The Weekly Standard --- why devote attention to an American political squabble, even if it had an "Iran" label, when there were matters concerning Iran that have far more significance than the point-scoring and agendas in Washington? Unfortunately, one cannot let barking dogs lie.

On Friday Eli Lake of The Washington Times paraded an alleged exposé, "Iran advocacy group said to skirt lobby rules", of the status and activities of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The article is lengthy, offering the appearance of background and context to frame its accusing "questions about whether the organization is using that influence to lobby for policies favorable to Iran in violation of federal law" and its warning to "prominent Washington figures" that they "could come to regret their ties to the group".

Neither length nor the article's placement in the news rather than opinion-editorial section should disguise, however, its intent. This is not journalism but a political attack.

Lake's piece follows weeks of allegations by The Weekly Standard, that NIAC is beyond political acceptability. (Far from coincidentally, the magazine has been pursuing the same line with J Street, the Jewish activist group that often criticises Israeli policy.) The articles claims to rest on thousands of NIAC documents filed in a lawsuit that NIAC's Trita Parsi has brought against Hassan Daioleslam for defamation. Daioleslam, who provided the documents to The Standard and then to Lake, charged in 2007 that NIAC was lobbying for Iran.

Lake cites a total of two of those thousands of documents, both e-mails from Patrick Disney, NIAC's acting policy director. One looks for a campaign to challenge the Obama Administration's appointment of Dennis Ross to shape policy on Iran, and the other queries if NIAC might be acting as a lobby although it has not registered under the Lobby Disclosure Act. (It should be noted that Disney claims that he wrote the e-mail when he had just joined NIAC and from a position of little legal expertise and that Lake carries the rebuttal.)

And that's it, really. Instead of offering any further evidence, or indeed referring to the court's deliberations on the documents Lake asked "two former federal law-enforcement officials" --- former FBI associate deputy director Oliver "Buck" Revell and former FBI special agent in counterintelligence and counterterrorism Kenneth Piernick --- "to review documents from the case showing that Mr. Parsi had helped arrange meetings between members of Congress and [Iran Ambassador to the United States] Zarif". They offer Lake's dramatic flourish:

Arranging meetings between members of Congress and Iran's ambassador to the United Nations would in my opinion require that person or entity to register as an agent of a foreign power; in this case it would be Iran....It appears that this may be lobbying on behalf of Iranian government interests. Were I running the counterintelligence program at the bureau now, I would have cause to look into this further.

Now, Mr Lake might want to correct me on this, but he has just asked for a legal opinion from two people who are not lawyers but federal police officers. He might want to expand on why he put their reactions above the line which he then sneaks in: "Two lawyers who read some of the same documents said they did not provide enough evidence to conclude that Mr. Parsi was acting as a foreign agent." Instead of letting this sink in for the reader --- the only legal experts cited have just said that the charge is without foundation --- Lake simply runs to a new possibility: Parsi is using his NIAC position for financial benefit, for himself and/or Iranian associates such as Siamak Namazi and Bijan Khajehpour, who just spent four months in detention in Iran.

For this is an article resting on the bedrock of insinuation. Parsi, who claims to represents Iranian-Americans, is not an American but "a green card holder". NIAC lies when it claims to represent many Iranian-American, for it "had fewer than 500 responses to a membership survey conducted last summer". Parsi, who has brought a lawsuit against someone for claiming he is an agent of Iran, still might be a foreign agent --- "Mohsen Makhmalbaf, an acclaimed Iranian filmmaker and unofficial spokesman for Iran's opposition Green Movement, told The Times, 'I think Trita Parsi does not belong to the Green Movement. I feel his lobbying has secretly been more for the Islamic Republic.'"

Let me be clear: I am not here to offer any judgement on the specifics of whether NIAC is a lobby --- if there is doubt, that is a matter for US federal authorities to determine. (It should be noted, however, that the salient issue is whether NIAC is a lobby, not whether it is a lobby acting on behalf of the Iranian Government --- that is another conflation in Lake's article.) I offer no judgement on the charges of improper financial and political behaviour by Trita Parsi; that is a matter for the court handling the defamation lawsuit --- NIAC's response to Lake emphasizes that the case is ongoing, as "the judge [has] denied [Daioleslam’s[ motion to dismiss the case on 18 out of 19 counts".

Instead, I ask: why now this campaign against NIAC by The Weekly Standard, now abetted by Mr Lake --- unsurprisingly, within hours of the article's appearance, the magazine was hailing the "blockbuster exposé"? What is it that is so threatening about its activities that it must be put out of action through allegations about its credibility and a "hands-off" notice to any politician, diplomat, or businessman who might choose to engage with it? (Lake serves his notice on two Washington insiders: "Among NIAC's advisory board members are former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, and John Limbert, a former U.S. hostage in Iran, was a board member until his recent appointment as deputy assistant secretary of state for Iran.")