Iran Talks: Shadows of Iraq, Legitimacy of Regime

Two elephants are and were in the room during negotiations on Iran's nuclear ambitions: the rigged elections that brought President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power and the shadow of Iraq in overestimating Tehran's weapons of mass destruction.

Obviously the Iraq and Iran situations differ. Iraq's Saddam Hussein did have chemical and biological arms, Scud missiles and designs for a nuclear arms program, most of which were neutralized by U.N. inspectors in the early 1990s. Sanctions worked at first and then served to impoverish Iraq. But most weapons were gone by the time of the 2003 US invasion, a subject of heated analysis and criticism.

How far Iran is from making a bomb is still in dispute as there are good faith differences in analyzing intelligence, even among Western allies. But that Tehran has nuclear ambitions is more than a fantasy since it kept its program a secret for 18 years and then revealed it to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency , the IAEA, only six years ago. Still, exactly what Iran -- which insists its program is for peaceful purposes -- is planning or has achieved is not fully transparent.

UN Inspection due at Qom

The IAEA will inspect Iran's newly-disclosed enrichment plant near the city of Qom on October 25. The Iranians informed the IAEA of the covert project, probably suspecting that the United States was about to blow the whistle. President Barack Obama has joined allies in talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions, as was the case with the Bush administration. At the same time he warned Iran to come clean about its nuclear program, which Western nations fear is a cover to build nuclear arms, or face further sanctions.

Any sanctions by the UN Security Council will have far more effect than if Washington and Western allies step up their own embargoes. But Russia, backed by China, has not agreed, at least until negotiations with Iran continue. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told UN diplomats last month and then announced publicly his opposition to tough measures at this time.

Most experts believe that Western intelligence agencies, especially the United States, are more rigorous and cautious in analyzing data because of the Iraq episode. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says war would only slow, not end, Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. And President Obama does not threaten war. Instead he said at the end of the Pittsburgh summit of G-20 countries last month:

When we find that diplomacy does not work, we will be in a much stronger position to, for example, apply sanctions that have bite. That's not the preferred course of action. I would love nothing more than to see Iran choose the responsible path.

Justifying June Elections

Yet the nuclear issue and the legitimacy of the Iranian government after the June elections are being kept separate. At the UN General Assembly gathering last month, few world leaders publicly mentioned that the Iranian government survives by violence, militia and Revolutionary Guards, who not only put down demonstrators but hold some lucrative government portfolios. (The violence was criticized by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon).

Both President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, went out of their way to justify the elections.

"Our nation has gone through a glorious and fully democratic election, opening a new chapter for our country in the march towards national progress and enhanced international interactions," Ahmadinejad told the General Assembly. He said Iranian voters "entrusted me once more with a large majority."

Questioned at a UN news conference by this reporter on the impact of the June election on the nuclear talks, Mottaki was adamant that Ahmadinejad had won fairly despite "international propaganda."

The election in Iran last June was one of the most glorious presidential elections ever held in the Islamic Republic of Iran...Election regulations were made so that no one could change the outcome of elections... Rioters were arrested and the innocent were released.

Of course that wasn't all. Mottaki said the facility at Qom was the "only case that is under construction." Both men had been on a charm offensive with the American press, craving recognition from the Obama administration and regularly complimenting the US President for advocating change.

But Ahmadinejad could not resist repeating his anti-Semitic remarks, prompting walkouts during his General Assembly speech, by alluding to a supposed worldwide Jewish conspiracy:

It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions.

Ahmadinejad says he wants to resolve the nuclear issue (the UN Security Council has forbidden Tehran to enrich uranium to a level of uranium that could be used for nuclear bombs) but only in the context of a broader understanding. Diplomats believe this would include a pledge not to call for "regime change."

Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, says that Iranian leaders may want prolonged talks to gain legitimacy at home and abroad.

"There is a danger that we send a message to the Iranian people that we don't care about them," he told NPR. "Many Iranians are saying, 'Don't legitimize this illegitimate government.'"

On Monday, Iranian officials meet in Vienna with delegations from the United States, Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China, the first of two October meetings. While Iran has refused to curb uranium enrichment, it agreed "in principle" to have its low-enriched uranium processed in Russia and France for use in a reactor that makes isotopes for cancer cures. (Such low-grade uranium could be enriched if it stayed in Iran.).

However, Iran's stance is till ambiguous. Will it move towards UN demands or draw out negotiations to head off sanctions?

 

Comments

[Evelyn Leopold - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for all the comments and the description of violence after the election. Militia on motorcycles clubbing demonstrators is not a fiction of the West. We don't know if Ahmadinejad would have won the June election or whether he would have been forced to engage in a runoff. But he and his supporters decided he needed a huge victory so ballot boxes were stuffed. Whether he would win an honest election now is debatable.

On the nuclear issue, I did mention that Iran's progress is still not transparent and the IAEA has stated that clearly. That is what the debate, the negotiations are all about. But in keeping the program secret for so many years, it is logical to suspect Iran had nuclear ambitions, even if the progress or lack of progress of any dangerous arms is unclear..

[BiBiJan]

"But he and his supporters decided he needed a huge victory so ballot boxes were stuffed. Whether he would win an honest election now is debatable. "

Any supporting data/evidence to go with this assertion? Why wouldn't a 51% victory suffice?

"But in keeping the program secret for so many years, it is logical to suspect Iran had nuclear ambitions"

Would it not be logical that after a 2 year suspension of enrichment and enactment of the 'additional protocol' where IAEA inspectors went wherever they wanted, unannounced, that we should see some dilution of the worst case scenarios. Given the sanctions, threats and impunity with which Israel/US operate in the region, do you really not see any other justification for keeping some minor aspects of a nascent nuclear program private?

"Militia on motorcycles clubbing demonstrators is not a fiction of the West. "

Any numbers to go with this? Any context? better/worse than Lebanon, Gaza, Baghdad, tianemen Square?

[Brewerstroupe]

"in keeping the program secret for so many years, it is logical to suspect "

Here is the logic:

Why is there no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme?

There is no evidence of a nuclear weapons programme because it was kept secret

In that case, how can we be sure there is a secret nuclear weapons programme ?

Because there is no evidence.

[wereeverywhere]

From Ergon's earlier post:

"Along with the TFT poll, the WPO-PIPA survey would appear to be the strongest evidence that the election result was genuine and that allegations of fraud are unfounded"

If indeed the best evidence for Aham are those two woefully lacking polls, once again I feel sorry for those trying to paint the stolen election as fair or representative. But those to thick to see that closing down newspapers, hauling off reporters to jail, beating up mourners at Neda's funeral, show trials, and the near countless other abuses by IRI since the fraudulent elections signal anything but a fair operating procedure by the government are probably hopeless cases anyway.

[BiBiJan]

My reply is being deleted. So, I guess you get the last word.

[BiBiJan]

From Ergon's reply:

A summary of all the polls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009#Opinion_polls , some of which had far larger samples, shows how Ahmadinejad was the legitimate winner.
"A post-election national poll was conducted in late August and early September 2009 by the American polling agency, World Public Opinion, which is affiliated to the University of Maryland. The scientific poll found that,although 27% of respondents did not state their chosen candidate, 55% said that they had voted for Ahmadinejad. Both Mr Karroubi and Mr Rezai received minimal support. 87% of respondents replied that they had voted compared to 85% according to the offical figures,which is within the margin of error provided. Also, the survey found that 62% of Iranians had "strong confidence" in the election result whilst 64% expressed a similar feeling towards the incumbent president. This finding almost exactly matches up with the proportion of the vote that Ahmadinejad received.[­61]. Along with the TFT poll, the WPO-PIPA survey would appear to be the strongest evidence that the election result was genuine and that allegations of fraud are unfounded"
Mousawi supporters really have to get past their urban middle class fixations and realize they do not represent the majority of Iranians.

[wereeverywhere]

Since offering up polls seems to be all the rage, here's another one. I have no absolutely no faith in the numbers for the candidates, but I admit the opinions on Ahma's populist credentials are interesting (but I'm not saying they're necessarily valid). Note that Rafsanjani, who backed Mousavi, is associated with ILNA.

http://www.roozonline.com/english/news/newsitem/article/2009/april/12//mousavi-has-52-ahmadinejad-36.html
April 12, 2009
Mousavi Has 52 %; Ahmadinejad 36%

Iran’s ILNA labor news agency published a poll which speaks of presidential hopeful Mir ‎Hossein Mousavi’s lead among workers. The polls of the news agency, which is linked to ‎Khane Kargar (literally the House of Workers, the largest workers organization in the ‎country), show a 16 point lead for Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad and an 8 point leaf for ‎Karubi vs. Ahmadineja­d.‎

According to ILNA, the poll was conducted towards the end of Iran’s calendar year ‎‎(which ended on March 20, 2009), 62.2 percent of those polled said they would ‎participate in the June 2009 elections. 57.3 percent of workers believe that the workers ‎conditions have worsened in comparison with the conditions that existed in the former ‎administration (of Khatami), and only 37.4 percent from amongst those polled considered ‎Ahmadinejad’s administration to be supportive of the deprived classes in the country.‎

[duxguts]

The administration know that they could never sell the idea of an invasion to the UN again so they will help Israel bomb Iran. No one will care who is right or wrong and that's the sad truth. Israel can't live with anyone in the region so people must die.

[Khirad]

"But Ahmadinejad could not resist repeating his anti-Semitic remarks, prompting walkouts during his General Assembly speech, by alluding to a supposed worldwide Jewish conspiracy"

Yes, and we fell for it. What do you think Ahmadinejad would rather talk about, Israel, or the brutal crackdown and executions taking place since the elections? I don't think that we are necessarily prevented from commenting about human rights at nuclear negotiations. I'm of a few minds at how this would be broached though; and I'm fully cognizant that Bush & Co. didn't leave us an especially high moral ground from which to preach - nor has Gov. Perry's most recent execution in question. Nevertheless,

"[I]n only 50 days following the disputed June 12 presidential elections, 115 persons were executed in Iran, although the authorities have disclosed almost no information about who they were, or the crimes for which they were convicted.­"

Let's quit with the saturated nuclear talk already, and we don't even need to talk about the thorny issue of the irregular events surrounding the closing of polls taken by even the Supreme Partisan - no longer reliably the neutral arbiter of all Iranians. What happened after should speak volumes. No amount of mollahs or tie-less diplomats echoing, nearly verbatim, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi's fears of foreign propaganda will change that. (curious how hardliners of the permanent revolution mindset forget the BBC helped popularize Khomeini)

---
The Death March
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2009/10/the-death-march.html

[BiBiJan]

Ahmadinejad was not being particularly original. The Shah said much the same before he was deemed expendible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s

[wereeverywhere]

Thank you for keeping this is perspective, Khirad. From your link:

"More than a hundred detainees have been on trial for the past two months in what have been widely condemned by human rights organizations as "show trials" without minimal adherence to standards of due process and fair trials. The defendants are a mixture of well-known personalities, regular street protesters, and a small group who were detained before the election and accused of connections with opposition groups."

Next time I'm in a demonstration I won't be able not to think of what the Iranians put on the line when they try some political expression.

[joabear]

Five Schelduled Executions in Iran

http://iranian.com/main/blog/jahanshah-rashidian/five-schelduled-executions-iran

[BiBiJan]

Shadows of Iraq indeed. If a recipe works why change it.

Demonize the government. Paint it as illegitimate, and only in power by brute force. Paint the people as hopeless, helpless, and crying to be rescued. Mix in WMD. And the final spice: they are so irrational they cannot be deterred from suicidal acts.

But:

In a September 17, 2009 press statement, IAEA stated:

”With respect to a recent media report, the IAEA reiterates that it has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon programme in Iran.”

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2009/MA200919.html

According to an early 2008 Survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org and Terror Free Tomorrow:

"66% approved of "the way President Ahmadinejad is handling his job as president"
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/527.php

According to a May 2009 Survey by Terror Free Tomorrow and New America Foundation Ahmadinejad was forcasted to best his nearest rival 2 to 1.

http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT%20Iran%20Survey%20Report%200609.pdf

According to Aug 2009 survey by University of Maryland's WorldPubli cOpinion.o rg:
"Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/639.php?nid=&id=&pnt=639&lb=

[BiBiJan]

P.S. I ought not be up to your readers to inject a little hard facts into a worst case scenarios you paint.

If I called myself a journalist, and I wanted to put honestly earned food on the table for my family, and I was AWOL once when the country succumbed to hysteria and consequent fiasco of a war, I would present facts as well as speculations to my readers.

Also, the terror Free tomorrow poll has been criticized by Juan Cole. A critique of his critique can be found here:

http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/articles/Iran-election.htm#Foot%201

[Ergon]

Thanks. 'Mousawi's supporters seem to have been blinded into expecting a majority'

[Jubin]

Let everyone judge: Iran regime hid its nuclear ambitions for 18 years; Hassan Rohani, head of NSC admitted to using negotiations with EU3 to gain time to advance nuclear aims; constant reports from Iran opposition of intelligence of illicit nuclear weaponization work in Iran with exact locations and names; regime has used terrorism, proxy war to advance its foreign policy aims; it fans sectarianism in the region; suppresses its own people; rapes and kills opponents; is illegitimate by any standard; violates human rights with impunity; carries out complex espionage and misinformation campaigns to mask activities and intentions; has assembled a network of front companies worldwide to elude sanctions; allies with China, N. Korea, Russia, Venezuela to blunt isolation.
Would you trust this regime more than its people do?
Besides, what moral integrity would be left for US to shake bloody hands of Iran's leaders and strengthen it against its own rebelling nation?
These are difficult times with formidable challenges. But must we not stick to our core values of democracy and human rights in making policy choices or are we to acquiesce to rotten rulers and regimes?
Insisting on a nuclear priority in dealing with Iranian regime and sacrificing human rights is wrong not only because it will not work, but most of all because it will rob America of a strategic ally in Iran: the Iranian people who today thirst for freedom and democracy.
Does President Obama want to repeat the 1953 experience with Iran?

[EstherHaman]

Few more things to set straight. If you need to know, Iran reported the Qom facilities to UN and IAEA 12 month ahead of the official deadline by the UN. So, why state that fact differently?

You also accuse Mr. Ahmadinejad of being an anti Semite, but as you may not know again the Palestinians are also Semitic people, so why such accusations. Your editor read these articles before publishing? although you tried to show what he said in a dark and evil light, but you failed to show what he said is not true!!

If Mr. Karim Sadjadpour "Many Iranians are saying, '....", does not include MOST or ALL of the Iranians. Even here in the US there are People that don't want to see B. Obama as president and during the first presidency of G.W. Bush (Supreme Court decided the out come of the US Presidential election), people were shocked and disappointed, would that make these election illegitimate to you??

We must stick to the facts. Be careful what you put out there.

[wereeverywhere]

The term anti-semite specifically refers to anti-jewish racism. Sorry if that's inexact in the literal sense, but that's language for you- blame 19th century Germans. And Ahmadinejad's speech on Qods Day was rife with anti-semitism.