Iran Bombings: Former Pakistan Intelligence Chief Blames US

Iran: Taking Apart the Jundallah-US Narrative
Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US

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

Colleagues at La Stampa have kindly passed us this interview with Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by Syed Saleem Shahzad:

Islamabad: As Iran's President Ahmadinejad pointed his finger at Pakistani intelligence agencies for last Sunday's terrorist attack in Sistan-Baluchestan --- attributed to the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah --- which killed more than over 40 people, including six senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, Pakistani defense analysts are blaming the attack on the British and American establishments as part of their design to destabilize the region Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan (PIA).

Leading this response, in an exclusive interview with La Stampa is retired Lieutenant Gul Hamid Gul, "The Iranians have overstepped in their assessment” former Director General Inter-Services Intelligence and prominent Pakistani defense analyst retired Lt. General Hamid Gul said in an exclusive interview with La Stampa:

Their assessment is not well versed with reality. There are several facts which create doubts about Pakistan as the Pakistani government is so much under the influence of Americans. However, there are certain other facts which should be taken under the consideration.

While Americans are present in the region their utmost effort is to destabilize this whole region of Pakistan, Iran, and Afghanistan.

The immense American presence in Pakistan through its security contactors like Blackwater allow them to use Pakistani soil against Iran. Their operations in Baluchestan are along these lines.

On the record Americans have allocated $75 million to destabilize Iranian government. In reality the amount is $400 million. What a shame that a country openly allocates fund to destabilize another country.

Gul is mindful of the historical conflict between the two neighboring countries, Iran with its Shia majority and Pakistan as a Sunni Muslim country.
Nevertheless, the two countries had little dispute on the issue of Baluchestan and did not allow this regional conflict to provoke bitterness. Instead, Gul maintains, the Baluch issue has been manipulated by outsiders looking at wider contexts:

There are several issues which were exploited by the foreign powers for their purpose. There is a sense of deprivation among the Baluch population in Iran and the Sunnis also feel a little detached from the Islamic Revolution. At the same time in its foreign policy, Iran is more close to India than to Pakistan. Those are factors which were exploited by the western powers.

There is 900 km long border between the two countries but it completely unguarded, except of a very small presence of the para-military troops. This allows Americans and, even more than the Americans, the British --- whose officials have been playing up the intrigues in the region and who consider themselves as the experts --- to exploit the situation with the groups like Jundallah.

Sanity demands that both Iran and Pakistan understand the situation. President Ahmedinijad showed haste in making his statement but Ayatollah Khamenei showed statesmanship and did not blame Pakistan for the attack.

The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

NEW Iran Newsflash: Lawyer Shadi Sadr Wins Dutch Human Rights Award
NEW Iran: Taking Apart the Jundallah-US Narrative
Video (19-20 October): More University Demonstrations (Tehran & Karaj)
UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment
The Latest from Iran (20 October): Green Waves or Green Mirage?

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

1850 GMT: Spoiler Alert. And while Tehran is being encouraging about the draft enrichment agreement, the "Western" campaign to undercut it has already begun.

David Sanger of The New York Times, who seems to hang around in a hallway until a Government official tells him how to interpret a story, has fired the warning shot. After headlining, "Iran Agrees to Draft of Deal on Exporting Nuclear Fuel", Sanger swings a journalistic hammer at the apparent success. Making clear that "Western suspicions that Iran is secretly developing a nuclear weapon despite its repeated denials", rather than say, Iran's approach to the IAEA over its medical research reactor, "are at the heart of the negotiations", he "reports":

If the 2,600 pounds of fuel leave Iran in batches...experts warn, Iran would be able to replace it almost as quickly as it leaves the country....The estimate that Iran has about 3,500 pounds of low-enriched uranium “assumes that Iran has accurately declared how much fuel it possesses, and does not have a secret supply,” as one senior European diplomat [French? See 1835 GMT] put it....[President Obama] has not made the cessation of enrichment a prerequisite to talks, and the work is still under way, in violation of three United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Perhaps needless to say, Sanger doesn't name any of his "experts". Because this is not an analysis, it's a scare story. [Remember, it was Sanger who only on Monday was saying that Iran was threatening to walk out of the talks.] You Just Can't Trust the Big, Bad Iranians.

Well, perhaps not. But I'm not sure You Can Trust the Objective New York Times either.

1835 GMT: Iran Presses Its Nuclear Advantage. Ali Aghbar Soltanieh has offered a revealing summary of the Vienna talks to the Iranian Student News Agency. First, he made clear that Tehran would be holding Moscow close as the talks progressed:

We have announced that we are willing to cooperate with Russia within the framework of an agreement. Although certain other countries, including the U.S. and France, have been mentioned in the draft agreement, the main party in the agreement will be Russia.

Then Iranian diplomats celebrated an apparent victory over France. Not only had Paris been a vehement critic of Iran's nuclear programme in the run-up to the talks, but Iran --- as our readers noticed --- has a long-standing grievance against Paris over money paid for pre-1979 nuclear projects that were never completed. According to ISNA, "The French delegation apologized to Iran on Wednesday for their country’s past conduct toward Iran and asked IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei to make an effort to put France back in the draft agreement with Tehran."

1635 GMT: Not So Quiet Anymore. This may be the most significant piece of news that will go unnoticed this week.

This morning we wrote, "Watch Qom....The Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs --- Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane'i, Safi Golpaygani --- are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with secular' players in the political game."

Mehr News now reports:

Majlis Cleric Committee members are going to visit Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Mahdavi Kanni, MP Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said on Wednesday. The committee members, during their meeting, will discuss the incidents that followed up the June 12 presidential election and the proposal for the establishment of a national election committee, Rahbar, who also heads the committee, added.

The National Election Committee, put forward by 2009 Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, may not be as prominent in discussions as the National Unity Plan, but it has still provoked heated opposition, both from those who think President Ahmadinejad's legitimacy is being questioned and those who believe it would curb the powers of the Supreme Leader. Conversely, it is galvanising senior clerics who are looking to press their challenge against the post-election abuses of the regime.

1445 GMT: A relatively quiet afternoon. There are rumours and uncertainty over whether or not President Ahmadinejad went to Tehran University today (see 1050 GMT). In the Parliament, there are twists over the complaint that pro-Ahmadinejad MPs were going to file about post-election behaviour by their opponents; the latest story is that Mir Hossein Mousavi is not named.

Meanwhile Press TV is featuring the story that the IAEA has passed the draft plan for uranium enrichment to national delegations for confirmation. It adds no details to reports from Western journalists.

1135 GMT: With many thanks to an EA reader, we've posted the news of a Dutch human rights awards for lawyer Shadi Sadr.

1055 GMT: Breakthrough? According to reporters in Vienna, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad El Baradei has declared that a draft agreement on Iran's uranium enrichment has been reached. Deadline for confirmation by states is Friday.

1050 GMT: We're chasing the report that President Ahmadinejad has made a surprise visit to Tehran University and has been greeted by student protests.

1045 GMT: We've updated our page on the Supreme Leader's health after his appearance with female scholars yesterday.

0900 GMT: Following up our analysis of the effect of Sunday's bombing on Iranian politics and its relations with countries such as the US, we've posted an analysis by Josh Mull posing questions over the alleged link between the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and the US Government.

0750 GMT: As the death toll from Sunday's bombing rose to 57, the UN Security Council "underlined the need to bring perpetrators, organisers, financiers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism to justice and urged all states ... to co-operate actively with the Iranian authorities in this regard".

0735 GMT: And just to add one more not-so-weak signal of both opposition potential and Government uncertainty from the last 48 hours. The videos from the University protests are striking: a Government representative shows up at a discussion to face loud protests and even a thrown shoe; 1000s gather despite the threat of academic punishment if not detention.

0645 GMT: Never underestimate the importance of timing. For all the plans and resources that a Government might have, the convergence of events can put a question mark over its efforts. For all the challenges that an opposition faces, developments far removed from their immediate concerns can provide opportunities.

And so, 96 hours after the Supreme Leader's reappeared, 72 hours after the bombings in southeastern Iran, 48 hours after the opening of the technical talks on Iran's nuclear programme, the Ahmadinejad Government --- which had been reasserting its position after the 18 September demonstrations --- seems to be drifting in the political arena. And, to add to its concerns, those who might take advantage are not just the Green Wave; "conservatives" and "principlists" who back the National Unity Plan that has gone to the Supreme Leader know that its first effects will be upon the authority of the President.

Ironically, the present show of strength for Ahmadinejad and Co. is in Vienna rather than Tehran. Iran's diva-ish manoeuvres yesterday, apparently refusing to show up for talks and then pursuing bilateral talks with the US to limit or exclude France in any plan, put the message that any "third-party enrichment" will not be imposed on Tehran but will be framed to meet its concerns. Whether this is because Iran wants a direct return of processed uranium from Russia or --- as a reader helpfully evaluates --- because it is punishing France for holding Iranian payments for pre-1979 nuclear contracts that were never fulfilled, the Iranian Government is dividing the "5+1" countries while maintaining engagement with Washington.

The regime's response to Jundallah's Sunday attacks is not so secure. Politically, the line set out by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki yesterday was quite clever, looking to turn the bombing into co-operation with the Pakistani Government. The Revolutionary Guard appears to be spiralling into threats of vengeance, not only against Jundallah but against any foreign Government that comes to mind. The Guard's latest demand, that Pakistan allow Iranian troops to enter the country and hunt down insurgents, seems to be pointless bluster, as Islamabad will turn down the request quickly, if not sharply. This follows statements by Guard commander General Jafari, with the promise to retaliate against the US and Britain, that could have put the Government's political strategy --- based on engagement despite Sunday's events --- into disarray.

Possibly Ahmadinejad and the Guard are pursuing a good cop/bad cop strategy. Even so, the eyes of the Iranian military seem to have been diverted from the internal political situation. And with the Government occupied with other matters, there has been a curious silence --- both with respect to the Green movement and with respect to the National Unity Plan --- since last week.

This does not mean that the Government's power to assert its authority has been diminished. To the contrary, yesterday's announcement that the Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh would spend 12 to 15 years in jail (a sentence passed several days ago) was meant to show that the fist was still clenched against supposed opponents at home and abroad.

Still, the space for political manouevre --- the space the regime hoped to close down with its threats, surveillances, and disruptions of communication --- has reopened. We still await the responses and unfoldings around Mir Hossein Mousavi's Sunday statement. Meanwhile, a well-placed EA source gives us another, equally important dimension.

This source advises, "Watch Qom". His interpretation is that the Grand Ayatollahs and Ayatollahs --- Dastgheib, Bayat-Zanjani, Sane'i, Safi Golpaygani --- are pressing for reforms to meet the post-election challenge, and he adds that none of those clerics are fans of Ahmadinejad. Just as significant, they do not operate in a vacuum but interact with "secular" players in the political game. So the vehement attack of the "conservative" member of Parliament Ali Motahari on the legitimacy of the President is not just because of Motahari's personal animosity and his connection with the Larijani brothers; it is also because Motahari, the son of an Ayatollah, is working with and reaction to another wave, this one from the Qom seminary.

It is 14 days to 13 Aban (4 November).

Iran: Taking Apart the Jundallah-US Narrative

LATEST Iran Bombings: Former Pakistan Intelligence Chief Blames US
Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US
The Latest from Iran (21 October): Room for a Challenge?

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

UPDATE 1945 GMT: Take this for what it's worth from former CIA operative Robert Baer: "I've been told that the Bush Administration at one point considered Jundallah as a piece in a covert-action campaign against Iran, but the idea was quickly dropped because Jundallah was judged uncontrollable and too close to al-Qaeda. There was no way to be certain that Jundallah would not throw the bombs we paid for back at us."
--
We followed up Sunday's bombing in southeastern Iran with a discussion between EA's Mr Smith and Chris Emery on the likely attackers, the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps and Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani were claiming that Jundallah was supported by foreign intelligence services, including US operatives.

EA correspondent Josh Mull dissects the Jundallah-US narrative to put some questions not about the claim but about the significance of the bombing. --- WSL

My immediate question is why the blaming of Jundallah head Abdolmalek Rigi automatically makes Tehran's anti-Western rhetoric more credible. Who else could they have named that would NOT lend credibility to their anti-Western rhetoric? The Kurdish PKK? The Baluchistan Liberation Army? The Mujahedin-e-Khalq? The US is said to have supported all of them against the Tehran regime at one point or another, so what makes Jundallah an extra-credible outlet for US activities?

Let's presume Tehran is telling the truth and that that was a deliberate covert action by the United States using Jundallah assets in Islamabad:

1. What is the specific motivation of the United States to use this specific tactic, with these specific assets, against this specific target, at this specific time?

2. This would be a grievous act of aggression against a country with which the US claims to be in diplomatic discussions. It is an attack massacring dozens more than the globally-condemned Taliban attacks against Indian personnel in Afghanistan. How does this reconcile with the US strategy of engagement on the nuclear issue?

3. What are China and Russia's motivations to continue along the US path, knowing that the US will commit these atrocities without regard to diplomatic consequences?

4. The Obama administration has previously claimed to have ceased aggressive covert actions against the Iranian regime, so is this an outright lie? What would be the motivation and benefits of covert operations?

5. What is the cost-benefit of outrageous suicide tactics against a worthless and irrelevant target? If you're going to use a suicide bomber, why not hit a nuclear facility, or something else important to US national security interests?

6. Why would Pakistan allow Jundallah assets to operate in Islamabad, given their well-known ties to the Baluch insurgency, who would likely jump at the chance to strike this deep in Pakistani territory?

7. Why would the US run such an incredibly sensitive operation out of one of their most watched Embassies on the planet? India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia: all are highly operationally capable in Islamabad, and any aggressive covert actions which would compromise their own national security interests vis-a-vis the US and Iran would raise a lot of red flags and alarms.

8. Why not use closer, more efficient assets, such as an enormous special forces apparatus in Afghanistan, or similar forces in Iraq, or even sea-borne assets from the Persian Gulf? We're talking communications here, so why is a crowded and compromised embassy better than an invisible submarine or clandestine outpost?

9. If Iran really could decrypt US covert satellite communications, why not such evidence to the United Nations and/or the International Criminal Court? It constitutes a smoking gun.

If any of those questions could be answered, we might be on to something in blaming the US for a suicide bombing against an Iranian army base. Failing that, perhaps a simpler explanation might hold up. It appears that Jundallah has pulled off a spectacular and vicious attack against the institution most involved in the systematic oppression of Sunni and Baloch Iranian citizens.

We can presume that Jundallah perceives, far more acutely than we do, weakness in the regime. It may seek to exacerbate that weakness by antagonizing the military, the institution which oppresses them but would also be used to maintain order against a restive reformist movement as well. It can be reasoned that Jundallah calculates a reformist regime would be slightly more open to their demands than a fanatical, military-supported regime.

The Latest from Iran (20 October): Green Waves or Green Mirage?

NEW Video (19-20 October): More University Demonstrations (Tehran & Karaj)
UPDATED Iran’s Nukes: The Real Story on Vienna Talks and the Deal for Uranium Enrichment
Iran Snap Analysis: Mousavi’s Webcast Takes “National Unity” Beyond Politics
Video: Mousavi’s First Post-Election Webcast (18 October)
The Latest from Iran (19 October): Beyond Bombings, The Pressure on the Government

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



2005 GMT: A look at the economy as we draw to a close today. The Iranian Parliament has passed a large portion of the Ahmadinejad Government's proposals for reductions in subsidies on food and energy, objecting only to cuts in subsidies on medicines.

2000 GMT: We've posted updates on today's Vienna talks on Iran's nuclear programme in a separate entry.

1950 GMT: Now that the Iranian press has announced the sentencing of Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh (see 1620 GMT), the State Department has commented with further details. Spokesman Ian Kelly said that Tajbakhsh had been given 15 years in prison, clarifying the "more than 12 years" in Iranian reports. Kelly added that the US was "deeply concerned":

Mr. Tajbakhsh poses no threat to the Iranian government or its national security. Given the groundless nature of charges against him we call on Iran to grant his immediate release. As an independent, internationally respected academic, Mr. Tajbakhsh has always sought to foster better understanding between Iran and the United States and Iran and the international community.

1850 GMT: More University Demonstrations. AUT News reports on a protest at Qazvin University today.

1800 GMT: Great Moments in Journalism. Press TV devotes several paragraphs to the "hundreds of Iranian students [who] gathered in front of the Saudi Arabian Embassy to protest the Kingdom's policies towards Muslims" but somehow has failed to notice the thousands of students who protested at Iranian universities today.

1755 GMT: Reuters reports, from Fars News, that more than 100 members of Parliament have filed a complaint with the Iranian judiciary against opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi for "harming the image of the system".

1655 GMT: Protest of the Day. Kayhan, the fervently pro-Government newspaper, had to shut its guestbook and take down its flag at the Iran Media Fair today after visitors filled the guestbook with sentences and decorated the flag with green ribbons. The show of support for the opposition took place even though the Fair was moved behind closed doors because of the fear of protest.

1645 GMT: An Iranian report on the latest demonstrations at Tehran University, involving more than 1000 students, has been posted.

1635 GMT: A "National Unity" Warning to Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami? An interesting and disturbing to the Sunday comments of Habibollah Asgharoladi, the member of Parliament who revealed that the National Unity Plan had been sent to the Supreme Leader for critique. Tabnak reports, from Mehr News, that Asgharoladi has given a warning to Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammad Khatami, after their "provocative" post-election activity, that they must decide whether or not to come "within the system".

1620 GMT: Stunning and Depressing. In a dramatic illustration of stick following carrot, Iran has followed the release of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari (see 1600 GMT) by imprisoning Iranian-American scholar Kian Tajbakhsh for at least 12 years. Reports of the sentence circulated this weekend, but it was only confirmed today by the Islamic Republic News Agency.

I must say I am surprised that the regime would make this move, even to show its strength. While Tajbakhsh has been paraded as proof of the "velvet revolution", imposing such a stiff sentence risks a strain in engagement with the US Government, which has asked Tehran to release the academic. And this time, unlike the Roxana Saberi case, where an Iranian court handed down a long prison term before President Ahmadinejad intervened, this verdict had to have the full backing of the Government.

1615 GMT: The Supreme Leader's Back. Ayatollah Khamenei's official website has posted a photograph and full report of the Supreme Leader's meeting with thousands of female scholars and teachers. Khamenei declared that Islam show its "respect and dignity for women and women's talents" in the family, society, and national and international activities. He repeated his criticism of Western academia, specifically the humanities, for its teaching and worldview in contrast to an Iranian approach based on Qu'ranic principles.

The Islamic Republic News Agency is also featuring photographs and repeating the official article word-for-word.

1600 GMT: Newsweek magazine has announced that its journalist, Iranian-Canadian dual national Maziar Bahari, has arrived in London after being allowed to leave Iran. Bahari was detained from 21 June until last Saturday, when he was freed on $300,000. It is unclear whether Bahari will have to return to Iran to stand trial again or will simply forfeit the bail.

1510 GMT: Back from teaching with a key piece of information from a valued EA source. The Supreme Leader did meet the head of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, Ezatullah Zarghami, at the end of last week. Previously we had reported that the meeting was scheduled but, amidst the rumours about Ayatollah Khamenei's health, had no confirmation that it took place.

One of the topics of conversation may have been a proposal for a statement by the Supreme Leader on IRIB announcing a "five-year plan" for Iran.

1100 GMT: We've posted videos of yesterday's demonstration at Amir Kabir University, Tehran, and today's at Azad University, Karaj. We're waiting for footage from today's protest at Azad University, Tehran.

1030 GMT: Although not as dramatic or as large as the protests at the start of the academic year, demonstrations have persisted in Iranian universities. Today's reports are of 3000 students protesting at Azad University in Tehran and a demonstration at Azad University in Karaj.

0820 GMT: Who's Not on the Enemy List? So Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki declares in a press conference on Tuesday, "[Foreign agents] are resident in Pakistan but violate [the] border of Iran and Pakistan They have links with intelligence services which are settled in the regional countries including Pakistan and Afghanistan." Later he says, "In Basra, British forces were in contact with certain terrorist groups and hold [training] courses for them. When Iranian authorities presented evidence about the issue, the British forces were forced to cut their links with terrorists in southern Iraq and left the area."

OK, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Britain have all supported troublemakers, such as the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah, inside Iran. But, wait, where is the US?

Mottaki's conciliation by not mentioning Washington, reflecting the Cabinet line on Sunday night, was accompanied by an outstretched hand towards Pakistan. He praised measures taken by Islamabad in the last year to jail or extradite "criminals", mentioned Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's talk with Pakistani President Asif Zardari on "effective measures", and said an Iranian delegation will soon be in Islamabad for discussions.

0745 GMT: On the international front, we've posted a special analysis after the first day of the Vienna technical talks on Iran's nuclear programme. Don't be distracted by Tehran's posturing and the subsequent poor journalism of "Iran Threatens to Walk Out of Talks". A deal for third-party enrichment is on the table.

0525 GMT: Yesterday morning we speculated, "Other events may prove more significant than the Baluchestan bombing." It has taken less than 24 hours for the speculative to become likely.

The bombing will undoubtedly have long-term effects. Beyond the diversionary headlines over Revolutionary Guard commander Jafari's press conference --- he was blaming the US, Britain, Israel, Pakistan; Iran would "retaliate" --- were his more important comments about a restructured and empowered Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and military ensuring security and control. The overall impression, however, is still of a regime which is trying to regain its footing. The Supreme Leader's statement (whether from him or from his office) is no more than a general bandage of rhetoric, and it was notable that no other high-ranking Government officials acted yesterday to steady the political ship.

Instead, the "other event" that tried to take the initiative was the webcast of Mir Hossein Mousavi. Even though communications are still restricted within Iran, the novelty of Mousavi's first Webcast --- as well as the declared significance of the message on "National Unity" --- should ensure that the news travels quickly. For all the limits on his movement (both physical and political), Mousavi has put out a rallying call to match those of the days before and after the 12 June election.

So far, however, reaction seems mixed. There was a buzz of excitement as word of the Webcast spread. And Mousavi's general invocations for a movement of all --- not just politicians or clerics or intellectuals --- to restore justice and responsibility, fulfilling the ideals of the Iranian nation and the Islamic Republic should raise spirits and hopes.

But then uncertainty set in for some (including, it must be admitted, some of us at EA). Mousavi's call is not to engage with the current political process around the National Unity Plan; it is go beyond it with his own conception of "National Unity" fulfilled by the "Green Path of Hope" social network. Some see this as a bold move to rally the Iranian people with a vision beyond the manipulations and compromises of politics; others see it as Utopian, evasive, or escapist.

Yet for all the importance and merits of that debate --- is the Green Wave overcoming the politics of the regime or dissipating in the face of it? --- the more important issue is whether Mousavi's call is part of a wider strategy encompassing other leaders, networks, and movements.

Early in the post-election crisis, a shrewd EA reader identified Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Mohammad Khatami as individual but complementary parts of a coordinated opposition machine. Mousavi made the rallying statements, Karroubi pressed the specific cases of injustice and Government abuses, and Khatami worked within the system to gather support. One conceivably could add to that scenario senior clerics such as Grand Ayatollah Sane'i and Grand Ayatollah Dastgheib. Even if Hashemi Rafsanjani proved not to be part of this coordinated movement, but rather pursued his own goals parallel to it, this might be enough to bring significant change.

So today we watch for the statements and measures taken not by Mousavi but by others. Was his declaration of "National Unity", made even as the National Unity Plan of others (conservatives, principlists, Rafsanjani) was being presented to the Supreme Leader, a dramatic but isolated appeal? Or was it only the first of a series of Green waves, all hoping to build strength against an unsettled Government?

Iran Discussion: The Bombings, Jundallah, and the US

Latest Iran Video: Larijani on The Bombings, Jundallah & The US (18 October)
Video: Blame on Sunni Group Jundallah, US For Bombing
The Latest from Iran (18 October): Today’s Bombings

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

One of the immediate headline issues in yesterday's bombings in Iran, which killed at least 42 people including six senior Revolutionary Guard commanders, was US involvement. For years, the Iranian Government has asserted American support of the Sunni-Baluch group Jundallah, who were the likely attackers. The Islamic Revolution Guard Corps made the allegation within hours of the bombings, and the claim was repeated by Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani. Interestingly, President Ahmadinejad and his Cabinet later distanced themselves from the US-first thesis, shifting to Pakistan, probably to maintain the engagement process with Washington.

Before the latest news from the Iranian Cabinet, EA's Mr Smith and Chris Emery went over the evidence of American links to Jundullah:

SMITH: We would normally dismiss the Iranian claims of foreign interference as the usual anti-West yarn from Tehran, but the claims against [Jundallah leader Abdolmalek] Rigi warrant extra attention. He is an extremely shadowy figure who appears to be well-protected, to the extent that his own brother has been caught and sentenced to death by the Iranian authorities but he himself is still at large. Also, he appeared several times on Voice of America Persian, identified as leader of the "Popular Resistance Movement of Iran", which is of course something VOA made up - it's not quite the Persian translation of Jundullah.

Exactly how the VOA got hold of him for a live interview, via satellite phone, is quite unexplained, as is the prominence and deference accorded to him. This interview caused a serious backlash in the Iranian blogosphere and discredited VOA Persian heavily.

EMERY: I think that the claims are much harder to dismiss when [investigative journalist] Seymour Hersh and [former CIA operative] Robert Baer have stated that Jundullah receives US support. I think it was very much a tit-for-tat policy after alleged Iranian support for Iraqi Shia groups in attacks on US troops. It has been reported that Obama ended these operations.

Iranians will still wonder why Jundullah is not on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organisations.

Obama cannot privately say to the Iranians that he stopped covert support, as it obviously an admittance of past US policy, but he can now offer cooperation via Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact, it will be interested to see how Iran approaches a now very distracted Pakistan; thus far, cooperation has been patchy. [EDITOR'S NOTE: In light of the subsequent Iranian Cabinet pressure on Pakistan, I find this a telling remark.]

SMITH: I am not really sure that that Obama Administration has ever supported Jundullah --- it looks to me more like a smelly leftover from the Bush administration's penchant for "Iran destabilisation" via the infamous $75 million allocated for civil society and incitement of ethnic groups. As always, however, the Americans are masters at starting a mess and leaving it there to boil.

And they appear to have created a real monster this time, as this is a well-fed, relatively efficient group that appears to be running the show in Sistan-Baluchestan and being able to strike at will. It is more an embarassment that anything else for the current US Government, as I doubt they now have the capacity to rein them in.

The VOA link I highlighted was really preposterous, as it harks back to the heydays of Bush's desire to come up with anything that was anti-Islamic Republic of Iran and appeared to operate inside the country.

EMERY: As well as the $75 million announced in 2006, which I'm not sure would have ended up in Jundullah's hands, Hersh alleges a seperate request made to Congress in late 2007. Apparently that was for up to $200 million.

SMITH: Perhaps the $75-200 million would not end up directly in the hands of Jundullah, but all these ethnic militant groups have fronts that serve as cultural associations. So in one way or another these groups are probably recipients of US and perhaps British money. This issue should be clarified once and for all by the Obama administration, and I hope a lid is put on this. It is simply an embarassment for anyone involved, including the Saudis (who incidentally are merrily allowing channels such as Al-Arabiya to air exclusives with Abdolmalek Rigi).