PRI's The World » Ahmadinejad

Tensions Between Washington and Tehran Continue to Rise

The World — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 15:00:17 +0000

It’s not unusual to hear chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” in Tehran.

This week, though, those chants sound more chilling.

That’s because tensions between Tehran and Washington are rising rapidly.

Iranian leaders blame the US and Israel for the assassination Wednesday of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

American officials, on the other hand, are publicly warning Iran not to cross a couple of “red lines.”

One is the development of nuclear weapons.

The other is blocking the oil shipping lanes at the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

Marco Werman talks with Borzou Daragahi, middle east correspondent for the Financial Times, about increasing tensions between the US and Iraq.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman, this is The World. It’s not unusual to hear chants of death to America and death to Israel in Tehran. Today though, those chants sound more ominous. That’s because tensions between Tehran and Washington rose rapidly this week. Iranian leaders blame the US and Israel for the assassination Wednesday of an Iranian nuclear scientist. American officials on the other hand are publicly warning Iran not to cross a couple of red lines; one is the development of nuclear weapons, the other is blocking the oil shipping lanes at the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Borzou Daragahi is a Middle East correspondent for the Financial Times. Borzou, there is so much happening now in Iran, help us sift through it. What are the most important developments in relation to Iran this week?

Borzou Daragahi: I think you went through the very important ones. I think one thing that’s really significant that you didn’t mention is the fact that Iran says that it is now open to restarting talks over its nuclear program. It could show that Iran on the one hand it’s sort of increasing its bluster, and on the other hand it’s genuinely concerned and wants to keep diplomatic options open. We who have been examining Iran closely have always thought that the you know, nuclear program that Iran embarked on was a means for the regime to ensure its own survival. And if at some point the regime decides that the nuclear program is hampering its own survival, then it might change course in some way, but we’ll see over the next few days whether this talk of negotiation is actually genuine.

Werman: I want to get back to the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientist, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan. It really couldn’t have come at a worse time in terms of ratcheting up tensions between the US and Iran. Borzou, now that you’ve had a couple of days to think about it, is the assassination significant in itself or does its significance really lie in its timing?

Daragahi: I think the timing is very curious and there are some who have speculated that it could have been the result of someone within the regime or from abroad who wanted to scuttle any chance of reproach, and who wanted to increase tensions between Iran and the west. Maybe they got wind that there was an attempt at a diplomatic settlement and wanted to stop that from happening, perhaps someone in the regime, perhaps someone in another country. I don’t think we’ll ever know, but absolutely, the timing is extremely significant.

Werman: There’s been so much posturing from both sides, the US and Iran, I mean various statements have been made by the US this week about how Iran would cross a major red line if it tried to close the Strait of Hormuz. On the other hand, for example, Iran just sentenced to death an Iranian American whom they accused of spying. Now that you’ve done some sifting for us, Borzou, is it clear to you who the aggressor is?

Daragahi: You know, I think there’s a case of mixed signals here. The Obama administration is working according to one diplomatic playbook and they’re sort of slowly, incrementally ratcheting diplomatic pressure, economic pressure on the Islamic republic in order to obtain the desired result, which is to get them to compromise on their nuclear program. Iran doesn’t see it that way. Iran sees every step in this steady escalation as an affront to a great nation, an insult to its dignity, and sees every single step as a crossing of a red line. And so they see what the Obama administration sees as sort of incremental pressure as an existential threat. And I think these two parties need to get on the phone with each other and sort of explain that to each other.

Werman: The Financial Times’ Borzou Daragahi, thank you very much.

Daragahi: It’s been a pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Iranian Nuclear Scientist Killed in Tehran Explosion

The World — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:00:57 +0000

A university lecturer and nuclear scientist has been killed in a car explosion in Tehran.

Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, an academic who also worked at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and another unidentified person were killed in the attack.

The blast happened after a motorcyclist stuck an apparent bomb to the car.

Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years, with Iran blaming Israel and the US.

Both countries deny the accusations.

The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera is following the story.

Marco Werman: I am Marco Werman. This is The World. Iran says the assassination of a scientist in Tehran today will not stop progress on the country’s nuclear program. The scientist was identified as 32 year old Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan, a supervisor at Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility. He was reportedly killed after someone on a passing motorcycle attached a bomb to his car with a magnet. The blast is also said to have killed the scientist’s driver. The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera is following the story. He says the man who was killed may have had a unique role at the Natanz nuclear plant.

Gordon Corera: He appears to have been a specialist in a particular type of technique that’s used involving gas permeation which is part of the enrichment process and that seems to signify that he had some kind of specialist expertise in enrichment even though he was fairly young, in his early 30s. That would most likely be why he was targeted.

Werman: Who were the suspects in this killing?

Corera: Well, I think the assumption in a lot of quarters will be that this is the work of the Israeli spy agency, the Mossad. Now, of course they won’t confirm that. No one knows for sure. The Iranians have pointed the finger at the Israelis, also saying that the Americans and perhaps even the British, they’ve said in the past, might have been involved as well. But I think the assumption is always that the Israelis are behind this kind of activity. We can’t be sure about that. They do have a track record, it’s thought. If you go back even to the Iraqi nuclear program, late ’70s, they were doing these kind of covert actions to try and disrupt it. So, it’s something they have a tradition of doing, if you like. People in Israel won’t openly acknowledge it but they do talk about how they’re not displeased to see this kind of act take place.

Werman: Gordon, you’ve spoken with nuclear experts about the assassination. What do they make of it? I mean, is there a belief that you can actually stop a nuclear program by taking out scientists one by one?

Corera: No, I don’t think there is a belief in many quarters that you can stop it entirely. I think a lot of the covert campaign that’s been going on appears to be about delay. I think the hope is that whether it’s the killing of scientists, whether it’s the Stuxnet virus which sabotaged the centrifuges at Natanz, whether it’s some of the explosions that have taken place which are slightly mysterious, that these will introduce delay. Basically, all you can do is really buy time and, in that time, the hope is that perhaps sanctions, internal social, economic, political dynamics together those force a change of heart, a change of decision in Iran’s leadership in terms of where they want to go with the nuclear program. So, it’s essentially about buying time. I think it’s difficult to see that covert action can actually do any more than that; and there are risks too. I think it’s fair to say that, so far, Iran has been relatively restrained in its response, but at some point it may seek to strike back in some way and that could escalate the crisis in turn.

Werman: The BBC’s Security Correspondent Gordon Corera speaking with us from London. By the way, you can find a map of Iran’s key nuclear sites; it’s at theworld.org.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

The World Of Covert Operations In Iran

The World — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 14:50:33 +0000

The US has denied any involvement in the assassination of the nuclear scientist in Tehran.

Israel hasn’t commented on the incident but just yesterday, Israel’s military chief made a comment that’s interpreted by some now as a hint of involvement.

The Israeli official said Iran will be facing “un-natural setbacks” in the year ahead.

Gad Shimron is a former member of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.

Marco Werman: The U.S. has denied any involvement in today’s assassination in Tehran. Israel hasn’t commented on the incident but just yesterday, Israel’s military chief made a comment that’s interpreted by some now as a hint of involvement. The Israeli official said Iran will be facing “un-natural setbacks” in the year ahead. Gad Shimron is a former member of Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad. He says Iran is highly invulnerable to infiltration.

Gad Shimron: It is relatively an open society. Relatively, I mean, if you compare it to North Korea for sure, but even to other countries in the world. You have tourists coming in. You have a very large Diaspora of Iranians who live outside Iran and have very good relations with families, with their relatives in Iran. What is most important, don’t forget, Iran is riddled with inner conflicts. You have the Baluchis in the east who want some more autonomy; you have the Kurds in the north-west; you have the Arabs in Kazakhstan, in the western provinces of Iran who really don’t think Iranians; and there are some very strong dissident organizations like the Mujahideen-e Khalq are fiercely anti-Ayatollahs, and therefore it is not that difficult to operate in Iran. There’s a lot of opposition, inner opposition in Iran. I believe there are locals…I believe there are Iranians who are guided, financed probably as well, by foreign intelligence organizations, and I think to their list of the usual suspects one should add not only Israel and the United States but also actually a wide coalition of international forces such as the British MI6, the Saudi Intelligence, even the Egyptian Intelligence before last year’s revolution was very much involved in the struggle to hold and delay the Iranian nuclear program.

Werman: And a magnetic bomb? I mean, we’ve seen these things in the movies but how widely are they used and is it an indicator of any particular strategy of any particular spy agency?

Shimron: No, you know. Nobody invents new things, they only just reuse them. The system is that two guys come on a motorcycle – there are a lot of motorcycles in Tehran, and in the traffic they just attach the magnetic bomb on the door…on one of the doors of the car and speed away. A few seconds later there is an explosion and the victim is gone.

Werman: What purpose do these sorts of assassinations really serve? I mean, could killing one person really affect Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

Shimron: Things like this cannot be quantified. It’s a matter of sending a message with the hope that, together with the economical sanctions which seem to work very well, will delay and eventually stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Werman: Why not just wait for sanctions to work?

Shimron: Because all the studies…If you go back in history and just study, let’s say, 200 sanctions imposed since 1920, sanctions alone don’t do the job. You always need something else and it seems that the recipe here is working. The combination of sanctions, the fact that the Iranian Rial is dropping very rapidly in the market – it’s losing a lot of value, unemployment is going up, the regime is facing very, very steep economical problems; this together with this problem of intimidating top scientists may even work. I mean, one cannot know. The results will speak for themselves later.

Werman: Journalist and former member of Mossad – the Israeli Intelligence Service, Gad Shimron thank you very much for your thoughts sir.

Shimron: Thank you.

Werman: I also spoke today with David Ignatius of the Washington Post about the moral issues involved in covert operations. Ignatius writes thrillers based on his in-depth knowledge of the intelligence community. He says he has no idea who is responsible for today’s assassination in Iran but…

David Ignatius: What I do know is the question of whether are…If covert activities in Iran should include activities that could have the effect of killing Iranians deliberately or by accident has been a very contentious one. This is the dirty side of state craft or undeclared warfare. It’s gone on since the times of the ancients. The Venetians had a masterful assassination service that was part of how they ran their commercial empire. It is a fact of life over many, many centuries but it’s an unattractive one. It’s for a good reason that governments refuse to acknowledge these activities because, if they did, I think the publics at home and abroad would be irate. These are things that look to people like murder.

Werman: David Ignatius of the Washington Post commenting on, as he put it, “the dirty side of state craft.”

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Visits Latin America Seeking to Reinforce Alliances

The World — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:20:34 +0000

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Latin America this week on a four-nation tour with visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.

Ahmadinejad is seeking to reinforce ties with the few allies Iran has left – and also possibly to annoy the United States.

Marco Werman speaks with Michael Shifter, president of the Inter-American Dialogue.

Marco Werman: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is in Latin America today. He’s on a four-nation tour with visits to Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador. Ahmadinejad is seeking to reinforce ties with his allies in the region. He may also be looking to annoy the United States. Michael Shifter is President of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington. Michael, you just wrote a piece in Foreign Policy Magazine with the subtitle “Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s latest tour of Latin America a waste of time?” Is it?

Michael Shifter: Well, I don’t think he’s going to get very much out of it. He is going to needle and irk the United States and annoy the United States; he’s already accomplished that. There’s been some reaction in Washington. But he’s not getting much play in the major countries of the region that are not very interested in joining alliance with Ahmadinejad; they reject him. He’s really going to four countries that are on the margins politically, so he’s not going to get very much out of it either in economic terms or in diplomatic terms.

Werman: This is his sixth tour, though, of Latin America since he came to power in 2005. What’s his real interest there? Does he want to expand Iranian influence in this hemisphere and what do the Latin Americans make of that influence anyway?

Shifter: I think he wants to expand and there have been some Embassies that have opened up in the region. Trade has increased with a number of countries. There have been some modest investments, but it really hasn’t amounted to very much. The country itself, Iran, is in dire straits and it’s very little what he can do in Latin America. The countries are open to the economic and diplomatic side but certainly are very wary and cautious and understand that he is under enormous international pressure because of the nuclear program.

Werman: If you look across Latin America though, aren’t there economic relations with Iran in place that are pretty significant; trade deals, oil deals, etcetera that many countries would probably prefer not to put at risk, and I’m wondering, will they abide by U.S. sanctions on Iran or not when push comes to shove?

Shifter: They have a number of trading relationships. Brazil is the most significant trading relationship which has more than doubled since 2005, but there have been a lot of projects that have been promised that haven’t delivered. That oil refinery in Ecuador, constructing a port in Nicaragua; Iran really hasn’t come through. So, Latin Americans are waiting to see whether Iran will come through this time, but there’s a lot of skepticism. As far as the sanctions are concerned, there’s not going to be any appetite to really confront Iran. Also, most Latin American countries, the major countries have said they’ve got to go along with sanctions that are supported by the United Nations and by the international community.

Werman: So, you don’t really see this as an Iranian threat in the U.S. backyard?

Shifter: I think it’s something to keep a close watch on, but I don’t think it’s a threat. Given that he’s going to these four countries really doesn’t amount to very much and it really is to provoke and needle the United States which I think he is accomplishing.

Werman: Michael Shifter, President of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, thanks very much.

Shifter: Thank you.

US Man Sentenced to Death in Iran

The World — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:00:41 +0000

An American of Iranian descent has been sentenced to death by a court in Tehran for allegedly spying for the CIA.

Former Marine Amir Mirzai Hekmati was “sentenced to death for cooperating with a hostile nation, membership of the CIA and trying to implicate Iran in terrorism,” semi-official Fars news agency said.

The 28-year-old’s US-based family say he was in Iran visiting grandparents.

The sentence comes at a time of fresh tensions between Iran and the West over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Lisa Mullins speaks with the BBC’s Mohsen Asgari about the case.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Today, the United States urged Iran to release Amir Hekmati. He’s a 28-year-old American of Iranian descent and he’s been sentenced to death in Iran on charges of being a CIA agent. US officials have denied the charges and State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland did so again today.

Victoria Nuland: If it is true that he has been so sentenced we would condemn this verdict in the strongest terms, and we are working with all of our partners to convey that condemnation to the Iranian government. We’ve maintained from the beginning that the charges against him were a fabrication and we call on the Iranian government to release him immediately.

Mullins: That’s Victoria Nuland. Amir Hekmati is a former marine and a dual US and Iranian citizen. He claims he was in Iran to visit his grandmother’s, but that did not stop his trial from going forward.

Amir Hekmati: [speaking Arabic]

Mullins: Hekmati’s supposed confession was aired last month on Iranian state TV. In it he describes being part of a plot to infiltrate Iran’s Intelligence Ministry. Hekmati is the latest in a long list of US-Iranian dual citizens to face such a charge in Iran. The BBC’s Mohsen Asgari is following this case and the reaction to it in Tehran.

Mohsen Asgari: Actually, Iran has frequently accused America of sabotaging this system in the country or seeking for undermining its regime by doing some covert operational activities. So this is something very normal and usually the people in Iran don’t pay attention to these things a lot because they are obsessed with their economy problems. And they have heard a lot about the fact that some American citizens have been arrested by the Iranian system, but at the end they all have been released. In July 2009 remember that three Americans had been arrested and they had been kept in Iran for 2-1/2 years with the same accusations, but finally they were released on bail.

Mullins: So what does that say about the chances of this particular American, Amir Hekmati, being released as well?

Asgari: It’s a political thing I think because in recent weeks we have been receiving a lot of threatening messages from American officials against Iran. And they are talking about widening the sanctions on Iran’s economy. On the other side Iran has launched a military exercise and have test fired a lot of missiles at the Persian Gulf, threatening America. So this is a war of words between the two sides and this is a very risky threat I think if they want to execute this person. It is a [declaration] of war against America I think and the stake is so high potentially that no one wants it to happen.

Mullins: One other thing about that, if you’re saying you can’t separate the global politics from the individual court cases like the case against this American accused of spying, what is Iran saying is its strongest evidence that Mr. Hekmati is indeed a spy?

Asgari: Iranian system has not posted any documents yet accept the confession of Mr. Hekmati that was shown on Iran’s state TV saying that he has been deceived by the CIA to infiltrate into Iran’s security system and implicate Iran in terror reason. This is the whole document that we have heard so far. But their point is that Iran is trying to increase its bargaining power in the run up to the supposedly nuclear talks because Iran has at the same time sent a letter to 5-plus-1 countries to pave the ground for a fresh round of nuclear talks. By means of these things Iran is trying to increase its bargaining power.

Mullins: All right, Mohsen Asgari, thank you.

Asgari: You’re welcome.

World News Videos by NewsLook

Read tweets about Iran

Who is Amir Hekmati?

The World — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:50:10 +0000

Anchor Lisa Mullins finds out more about Amir Hekmati, the Iranian-American sentenced to death for spying in Iran, from Hadi Ghaemi, of the International Campaign for Human Rights, in New York.

Lisa Mullins: Amir Hekmati was tried and sentenced in Tehran as an Iranian citizen, but he’s also an American citizen, born to Iranian parents in Arizona and raised here in the US. Hadi Ghaemi has been in touch with Hekmati’s family. Ghaemi runs the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. He is based in New York.

Hadi Ghaemi: The family are in total shock at the news and they don’t know anymore than what the media has reported so far, and particularly given that Iranian judiciary has not allowed them to have legal representation inside Iran. They have no contact and no more information at the moment.

Mullins: And who is he being represented by if…

Ghaemi: In the lower court there was a court-appointed lawyer, who from what we understand, practically did nothing to present the facts and launch a credible defense for Amir.

Mullins: Well, what would have been appropriate in terms of his defense?

Ghaemi: Well, any good lawyer would have asked for any incriminating evidence that based on what evidence is being charged with his membership in the CIA and doing spy work in Iran.

Mullins: Excuse me for one second, do you know if that was ever presented by the government?

Ghaemi: Yes, the government is saying because of his record in the military he has been recruited by the CIA to go there and infiltrate the Iranian Intelligence Services, which is highly unlikely scenario given Amir had never been to Iran and had no understanding or record of working on Iran issues.

Mullins: He was in the Marine Corps where he served as a translator, and what was he doing for work at the time he was in Iran?

Ghaemi: At the time we understand that he was a freelance contractor. He actually did not have any permanent job and just wanted to go visit his grandmother on the even of a major holiday.

Mullins: And did the government know this, know about his background?

Ghaemi: Yes, yes exactly, the point is that when Amir applied for his passport processing at the intersection of the Iranian government in Washington, DC, he provided all details of his military service, which goes back to 2001 up to 2005. And sought assurances from them that this is not going to cause him any trouble. And they told him it should be all fine. And actually when he arrived in the airport there was no questioning and no issues. Only two weeks after he was in Iran he was detained.

Mullins: I wonder given the language skills of Amir Hekmati and the fact that he has local connections, family there, and given his military background, does it seem to you plausible that he could be a spy?

Ghaemi: Not at all. Again, why should he go there telling the Iranian government his entire background? Why should he carry IDs showing he has had been enrolled in the US military? And knowing the Iranian Intelligence Services and government it would be extremely difficult to penetrate and make connections to provide any kind of information out of that system. It’s extremely opaque and hard to have any access to the inner workings of the Iranian government.

Mullins: What else do you know about him?

Ghaemi: From what I understand he had never been to Iran, but had a great love for the culture and the country, and his family there. And that this summer since he was in the region he decided to go and pay a visit to his grandmother. He felt like he just was making a short vacation there, but they trapped him basically.

Mullins: Do you know anything about how he is coping since he’s been imprisoned for what is it, four months now?

Ghaemi: Yeah, more than four months, August 29 is when he was detained. And no, there’s been no access to him really. The Swiss embassy that represents the American government interest in Tehran has not been allowed any access to him. The family-appointed lawyer has not been given any information or access to him. So he’s been kept in pretty much isolation and this again, is just a classic pattern of holding people in solitary confinement for months and then urging them to cooperate with interrogators to get a lenient outcome. And it always turns the other way. People who do cooperate and keep silence, the families keep silent, are always shocked to find out that all of the promises made were false. And in this case a death sentence is very shocking.

Mullins: Hadi Ghaemi of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, speaking to us from New York, thanks.

Ghaemi: Thank you, it is my pleasure.

Iran and world powers hold nuclear talks

The World — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 21:25:45 +0000

Iran and key world powers have begun talks in the Swiss city of Geneva on Tehran’s disputed nuclear program. These are the first such talks in more than a year, although analysts say any breakthrough is unlikely. On Sunday Iran said it had delivered its first domestically produced raw uranium and would now go into the talks with “strength and power”. Western powers fear Iran may be trying to produce nuclear arms, but Tehran says its program is purely peaceful. Lisa Mullins talks with the BBC’s Iran correspondent James Reynolds who is at the meeting.
Download MP3

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Of the foreign policy dilemmas that face the Obama administration, none is more vexing than Iran. The Iranians say their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But Western countries suspect it could be used to make nuclear bombs; and neither the U.S. nor Israel has ruled out military action if Iran fails to head U.N. Security Council demands to freeze key nuclear programs. Today, delegates from the United States and other world powers met with representatives from Iran in Geneva. The BBC’s James Reynolds is at that meeting. What is the goal overall at the meeting, James?

James Reynolds: Lisa, the goal, according to negotiators I spoke to, is incredibly simple; they say Iran has to live up to its obligations. And those obligations are that it sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and it has to explain what on earth it’s doing enriching so much uranium. Essentially, that’s the key point.

Mullins: All right. Well, Iran is there at the meetings right now. How are they going and how is Iran responding?

Reynolds: Well, we’ve been told that the meetings are constructive. We usually of course hear that when there are big meetings like this. It was rather interesting, at the start Baroness Ashton, who is leading the negotiations for the EU and the U.N. security council, went and she bumped into Saeed Jalili, he’s the main negotiator for the Iranians, and they sort of nodded formerly at each other. She didn’t offer a handshake because of for religious and political reasons he wouldn’t have been able to take her hand. And so they walked and then stood in front of some flags at a rather respectful distance — you could’ve fitted about three people in between them with the distance they had. And we’re told that they had constructive talks. But here is the key point: nobody is expecting any kind of breakthrough. This is a problem which has been going on since 2002, eight years; we’ve had four rounds of sanctions in the United Nations. Nobody thinks that two days of talks here in Geneva, the frozen hills of Switzerland, are gonna end the problem.

Mullins: Well, it’s unlikely that this is a coincidence, but Iran announced yesterday it has established its own domestic supply of yellow cake. This is a significant announcement, as we said timing is everything. First, tell us what yellow cake is.

Reynolds: Yellow cake is a raw material needed in order to make enriched uranium. Enriched uranium can be used for civilian purposes, but it can also be the first step towards building a nuclear bomb. That’s why people are so worried about yellow cake. Now, foreign countries are not allowed to sell Iran yellow cake at the moment; that’s in one of the United Nations’ sanctions resolutions against Iran. So Iran has tried to mine its own yellow cake from inside its borders. It was delighted to announce just yesterday that it’s got enough yellow cake to get started. So symbolically, politically, that’s a hugely important point. But, Lisa, here’s the problem for Iran: practically, it may not make that much difference because experts that we’ve been speaking to suggest that Iran simply does not have enough of its own uranium inside its own mines and its own borders to be self sufficient to make enough uranium; that essentially they’re going to have to carry on looking outside their borders for yellow cake.

Mullins: All right, James, while the talks are going slowly there where you are in Geneva, it appears somebody is taking more direct action. There are cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear program and there has been, as you know, the assassination of some scientists on the streets of Tehran. To what extent are these incidents coming up in the discussions in Geneva?

Reynolds: We know that the assassination of one scientist last week and a serious injury to a second, they were mentioned by Iran right in the first statement of their chief negotiator’s cite, Saeed Jalili. We know that’s really important to Iran. I’ve just been skimming some official in-writing websites, and that’s really the lead story of the talks. Iran as soon as these scientists were killed made an allegation Western intelligence agencies were responsible for the attacks on the two men. We understand that Iran did not repeat that accusation at the talks, but it mentioned the fact that the gentleman were killed. And we understand Baroness Ashton for the European Union said that she condemned the attack unreservedly. In terms of the stocks net virus, this virus that apparently stopped some of Iran centrifuges from working, we don’t know whether that was talked about.

Mullins: All right. The BBC’s James Reynolds at the nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva. Nice to have you on the program, thank you.

Reynolds: My pleasure.

Iran’s “Daily Show”

The World — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 21:10:48 +0000

By Mitra Taj

Fati Zarei is one of about a million people who go online every week to watch Parazit. It’s an Iranian news satire show that some are calling a Persian version of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Like the Daily Show, Parazit delivers the more bizarre moments of political news with big doses of straight-talk, outrage, and satire. But the focus is Iran.

So instead of shots of Sarah Palin, there’s a montage of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeatedly warning of the foreign enemy:
Instead of clips from Fox News, there’s an Iranian journalist professing his desire to be the first to upload news that the Messiah has come.

Fati Zarei sometimes can’t quite believe what she’s seeing. “This is so stupid!” she says, but then she adds, “But this is real!”

And instead of Comedy Central footing the bill, it’s the Voice of America, the official broadcasting service of the U.S. government. It’s among a few foreign-based news outlets that offer an alternative to Iran’s state-controlled media.

Iranian officials maintain that the VOA is an arm of the CIA, waging a soft cultural war to overthrow the government.

Parazit, which means “static” — a reference to what happens when the Iranian government blocks the satellite airwaves that illegally broadcast the program into Iranian homes, plays on those claims.

In the opening credits, Parazit’s 35-year-old host Kambiz Hosseini announces Voice of America, and then mocks Iran’s suspicion of it.

“This is the show brought to you by children of the revolution, which is us, who have now become foreigners and enemies and infidels to spread imperialism all over Iran,” he says. “It’s an angry humor, dark angry humor. It’s a voice of my generation.”

The voice of a generation, or the Voice of America? — Whichever it is, Hamid Dabishi, a professor at Columbia University, says he loves the joke.

“The service of American imperialism,” he laughs. “It is ingenious!”

Dabishi adds that Iranians, like him who dismiss Voice of America as propaganda, have become online fans of Parazit.

“I don’t watch Voice of America,” he says. “Nobody watches Voice of America. Voice of America is the Voice of United States Congress. But I watch Parazit very regularly. The fact that it comes from the VOA is almost irrelevant.”

Kambiz Hosseini, who hosts Parazit from VOA headquarters in Washington, where he’s lived for the past three years, says he feels free to do what he wants on the show. He adds that after last year’s disputed presidential elections in Iran, that means meeting a new demand.

“All of a sudden in Iran we have many young people who they are interested in politics,” he says. “They’re getting entertained by politics, but they also don’t trust the news that they get in the newspaper.

Ali, an artist in Tehran who didn’t want to give his last name, says he was badly beaten by government forces during last year’s unrest. He says he watches Parazit to get informed about what’s going on — without getting too upset about it.

He says there’s a lot of bad news in Iran. “It’s bad for your blood pressure,” he says. “Naturally we want to forget it.” But he adds that if it’s delivered with some humor and irony, it’s a little easier to take.

Parazit regularly skewers TV programs that are awash with religious pronouncements. In one ski, an Islamic expert explains that Arabic, the language of the Koran, is spoken in heaven, and Persian, the language of Iran’s 72 million people, is spoken in hell. So Hosseini and a friend head to heaven, where they sweet talk their way past the bouncer at the door by repeating the only Arabic they know, a phrase for “welcome.” When they get in, they’re shocked to see an Iranian judge notorious for executions. Hosseini unconsciously slips back into Persian. There’s a clap of thunder, and he’s sent to hell where he can drink and talk freely.

Parazit’s FaceBook page now has 160,000 followers. That’s more than the page of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader who has commanded huge street protests in Iran. Still, despite the growing popularity of Parazit, Hosseini says it’s not easy being Iran’s Jon Stewart. He notes that great comedy comes from tragedy, but it’s hard to deal with human rights issues and “the many violations” of the Iranian government.

Still he admires what Jon Stewart does. “I think people look at politics in a different way because of what Jon Stewart does.”

Then, with a reference to Stewart’s October rally in Washington, Hosseini says, he hopes that “someday we could restore sanity in Iran also.”

It’s unlikely that Hosseini would lead a rally anytime soon in Iran. His home country is a dangerous place for journalists, fake or real. Last year, Iran imprisoned Maziar Bahari of Newsweek magazine. He was charged with conspiring with the West. The evidence? A clip of his appearance on the Daily Show, talking with a news correspondent dressed as a spy.
Download MP3

Parazit on Facebook
BBC Persian

Karzai confirms cash from Iran

The World — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:25:29 +0000

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has acknowledged that his office has received cash from Iran, but insists it was part of a “transparent” process. Karzai was responding to a report in the New York Times that Tehran had been passing bags stuffed full of cash to Karzai’s aides. The cash was intended to promote Iran’s interests in Kabul, the report said. However, Karzai said the money was not for an individual but to help run the president’s office. Speaking at a news conference, he said many countries had given money to Afghanistan in this way, including the US. Lisa Mullins gets the latest from the BBC’s Quentin Summerville in Kabul and a reality check from Pamela Constable, former Kabul bureau chief for the Washington Post. Download MP3

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Afghan President Hamid Karzai today confirmed that, once or twice a year, his office receives bags of cash, containing close to a million dollars, from Iran. His tone in addressing the matter seemed to say, “What’s all the fuss about?”

HAMID KARZAI: This is transparent and this is nothing hidden. We are grateful for the Iranian help in this regard. The United States is doing the same thing. They are providing cash to some of our offices.

MULLINS: The BBC’s Quentin Summerville is in Kabul and he listened to the Afghan president earlier today.

QUENTIN SUMMERVILLE: What the president was getting at was cash is king here in Afghanistan and many countries, not just Iran, in fact even the United States, regularly make cash payments. Big bundles of hard currency handed over to President Karzai’s government to help run the presidential office or other government departments. And indeed we’ve even had allegations that the security services, the CIA included, have been paying regular payments to members of President Karzai’s government. Now, the reason President Karzai says this takes place is because Afghanistan isn’t a normal country like many other countries. It doesn’t have a modern banking system and you have to give cold hard cash if you want to make sure that that money’s going to get to the right places.

MULLINS: If it’s true, and tell me if we know for sure that it’s true, that many countries are giving money, I mean cold hard cash, in this way to Karzai’s office, is it legitimate? Is it different when Iran does it versus when Washington does it?

SUMMERVILLE: This is worrying for a number of reasons. Or at least some of President Karzai’s foreign allies will find this worrying for a number of reasons. One, it’s Iran and certainly Western allies believe that Iran has an agenda here which isn’t helpful and which isn’t peaceful and which isn’t in line with their interests. The other thing is that President Karzai’s government has a terrible reputation when it comes to corruption. And the last thing you want is big bags of cash floating around freely without receipts, without documentation, and so forth, when you suspect that corruption is endemic in a government. And the final thing is where does all this money go to? Because huge amounts of aid have come into this country over the past nine years and Afghanistan remains one of the poorest countries in the world. So, this is an explanation that foreign donors want, but not just that, also the Afghan people would like to know what happened to this money. Did every single cent of it or every single Euro make it into the Ministry of Finance and how’s it been properly accounted for? We don’t have answers on that. The reason we might not have heard from those foreign donors, we haven’t heard from the US embassy here in Kabul, we haven’t heard from the British embassy in Kabul, we’re getting a firm “no comment,” is because we suspect that other countries do similar activities.

MULLINS: They do similar activities in order to provide a slush fund for Hamid Karzai, for the president’s office? What would be the end result?

SUMMERVILLE: Slush funds are certainly not how President Karzai described it. One of the things that’s worth remembering here is that they aren’t money laundering laws. This kind of thing happening here in Afghanistan isn’t illegal under Afghan law. And you might remember that a few months ago we heard that billions of dollars had left this country over the space of a few years, going through Kabul International Airport, it had also left in cash, and the reason we know it left because it was declared. The people taking this money out, this hard currency out, simply wrote out a form at customs and the Ministry of Finance kept a log. When I spoke to Dr. Zakhilwal, the finance minister, and asked him how can you allow this to happen, he said because we don’t have money laundering laws. If we started putting those laws in place, foreign donors would run a mile. We wouldn’t get any kind of investment here in Afghanistan. So there is a huge amount of money sloshing around in Afghanistan, much of it undocumented, and frankly President Karzai’s admission of that isn’t surprising.

MULLINS: Alright. Thanks very much. The BBC’s Quentin Summerville speaking to us from Kabul, Afghanistan. Thanks again.

SUMMERVILLE: Thanks very much. You’re welcome.

MULLINS: Pam Constable is the former Kabul bureau chief for the Washington Post and she’s now a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Pam, is Iran doing anything that the US hasn’t done in one mode or another?

PAM CONSTABLE: The short answer is no. I mean there have been times when the United States has covertly given up cash to all sorts of leaders and insurgents including former anti-Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan during the war. But it’s very, very different to have a sitting government that’s supported by the United States and Western allies to be accepting large amounts of cash from another government that is, in many ways, anathema to the West and whose interests in Afghanistan could be said to be extremely suspect.

MULLINS: So, for those who would say look, what’s happening right now with Iran giving cash to the Karzai government, I mean directly to the president’s office, basically describes what the US has been doing vigorously, are you saying there is a significant difference?

CONSTABLE: I am. I’m saying there’s a big difference. I’m saying that this is an elected civilian government that is embroiled in a war with Islamic insurgents that has been receiving millions, if not billions, of dollars in aid from a number of countries, from Japan to Canada to the United States, all of which, if not certainly most of which, has been channeled through international aid organizations and private organizations because there’s a huge problem with corruption in the Afghan administration and bureaucracy. So as far as I’m aware no one has been handing bags full of cash to the Karzai administration from the West. In fact, I would almost say the opposite. They’ve really felt they had to channel a lot of the aid through non-governmental organizations.

MULLINS: Interesting that Hamid Karzai, his office anyway, says just the opposite. That this is what has been happening on a regular basis with many countries and that there’s nothing wrong with it.

CONSTABLE: Certainly, I mean, I have no inside knowledge and it’s easy to say from afar that this is a terrible thing and that it’s completely unique. During the early days of the conflict, it’s absolutely true that cash was being given to warlords in Afghanistan because they were going to fight the Taliban. So they’re never completely clean hands in a conflict, but I do think there is a difference between what goes on in the time of an on-the-ground conflict and what goes on between elected democratic sitting government.

MULLINS: So, is the United States, in the voice of P.J. Crowley among other today from the State Department, legitimate in finding fault with Iran’s delivering cash to the Karzai government and what is it fearing?

CONSTABLE: Well, many things. Iran, as you know, has a very hostile relationship with the American government. Its interests in Afghanistan are very unclear. It appears to have been associating with insurgent groups. There are leaders of some of the anti-government insurgent groups in Afghanistan who were very closely tied to Iran whose leaders have been in Iran and established really close relationships with them. That’s why this picture is so complicated because it is not at all clear what Iran’s intentions are towards Afghanistan and as many people have said this week, they appear to be playing many sides of the fence at once. It’s a very tricky fence to be sitting on, but I would say that this is not at all a positive or, as you suggest, a normal occurrence.

MULLINS: And so in terms of Western influence, the Obama administration, what options does it have if these allegations do prove to be true, that Iran is supplying bags of cash directly to the president of Afghanistan?

CONSTABLE: It’s a very tough question. I mean this is far from the first thing that the Karzai government has done that’s angered or alienated Washington and the West. I mean he said many, many extremely critical things about the American government even as it’s been supporting his government with a great deal of money and is officially the invited guest of his administration in being there to combat the Taliban. So, it’s been a difficult and prickly and increasingly hostile relationship for well over the past year. So this development is not that far out of line with what’s been going on in this past year and basically the United States has been sort of resigned to saying look, this is still the elected government, we still have to deal with it, it’s still the fact. And so the United States has had to accept a lot of unhappy things about the relationship with Karzai of which this is simply the latest.

MULLINS: Alright. Thank you very much. Pam Constable, who’s a fellow now at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former Kabul bureau chief for the Washington Post. Thanks a lot.

CONSTABLE: You’re welcome.

Inside Hezbollah

The World — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:20:26 +0000

Marco Werman and Thanassis Cambanis (Photo: Steven Davy)

Israelis recently watched as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed a rally near the border with their country. Ahmadinejad was on a two-day trip to Lebanon, touring its southern border region. It was seen as a show of support for the Shiite militant group Hezbollah. Marco Werman talks with journalist Thanassis Cambanis, who spent time in Lebanon doing research among Hezbollah supporters. He is the author of ‘A Privilege to Die’ Download MP3

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad visited Lebanon this week. He toured the country’s southern region, which borders Israel, a country Ahmedinejad has said should be wiped off the map. The visit was seen as a show of support for the Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah. The group fought a brief border war with Israel in 2006. Thanassis Cambanis covered that conflict as the Boston Globe’s Middle East bureau chief. He later returned to Lebanon on his own, to learn more about Hezbollah and its supporters. His new book is called A Privilege to Die – Inside Hezbollah’s Legions and their Endless War against Israel. Cambanis says even children in Lebanon are aware of the close relationship between Hezbollah and Iran.

THANASSIS CAMBANIS: The Mahdi scouts, the Hezbollah boy and girl scout organization, they actually were badges of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution, on their scout uniforms. And I would venture to guess that many of them do know who Ahmedinejad is and they think of him as one of the patrons of their Islamist society. Now, the thing to remember is that half of Lebanon loves Hezbollah and subscribes, but the other half hates them. So, that’s the half that you might think of when you think of nightclubs in Beirut and cosmopolitan Lebanon. Those folks don’t like Hezbollah’s project, they don’t like Iran, they view this symbiotic relationship between Hezbollah and Iran as the first step into something very alarming in their own society.

WERMAN: How much do you think Hezbollah’s ties to Iran actually fuel the party’s desire to fight a war with Israel. I mean did you speak with anyone who seemed to feel there was a direct cause and effect?

CAMBANIS: If anything I think Hezbollah brings more legitimacy to the idea of perpetual war than Iran itself does. Someone I talked to used the term “more Catholic than the Pope,” but the idea I saw in the community I spent the last three years in is Hezbollah supporters really hold to the ideals of the Islamic revolution. Ideals that Iran itself has moved away from as it’s become increasingly preoccupied with its nuclear program, with holding power and with running a huge state. The animus towards Israel is deeply entrenched in Lebanese society. I mean this is a place that’s been at war with Israel since 1948. And for the Shia in the south, there’s been an unending cycle of war since 1982. And they genuinely want to keep fighting this war and it’s not something that they’re doing at Iran’s behest. And if Iran stopped supporting their militancy, I believe it would continue.

WERMAN: How high do tensions run in Lebanon between those who support Hezbollah and those who don’t?

CAMBANIS: The divisions are growing deeper. For a time, Hezbollah succeeded in really attracting a mainstream, sort of centrist wave of support. There’s an increasing sense that Hezbollah is walking away from its roots as a national resistance organization and taking on a much more polarizing and extreme position on domestic issues. There was a sort of miniature civil war in May of 2008 and I think right now they are arming and preparing for an internal clash and they’re hiring a lot of young thugs that I met patrolling the streets of south Beirut and these are not top-notch fighters getting ready to fight Israel, these are kids with pistols tucked into their jeans, popping wheelies on motorbikes and they are ready to crack heads with other Lebanese.

WERMAN: Now having been there for quite some time, what’s it like for an American man being among all these Hezbollah loyalists? I mean it’s a group that the US government considers a terrorist group.

CAMBANIS: Yeah, and it’s a group that doesn’t normally welcome outsiders. They’re very suspicious and assume a lot of outsiders are there to spy on them. I got lucky because I spent the war in 2006 in the front line villages of south Lebanon and that’s where I met men like Rani Bazzi who’s a charismatic Hezbollah fighter who was obsessed with the jihad for good digestion as well as the jihad against Israel. And I met these people when we were all under fire together really in the heart of this war zone. So I was able to then go back and visit these same families over the next three years. I wouldn’t say they completely felt that we shared the same values, but I think they trusted me enough that I would be able to tell their story.

WERMAN: Now, before we go on, you mentioned jihad against bad digestion. Explain what you mean by that.

CAMBANIS: Yeah, Rani Bazzi was obsessed with teaching his children what he saw as the chronically mandated diet for healthy eating and it was something that sounds a lot like macrobiotic eating. I mean vegetarians, [INDISCERNIBLE] light food, an odd and obsessive back to basics diet which I think was part and parcel with his whole world view. He also taught his kids how to fire mortars when they were [OVERLAPPING]

WERMAN: I was going to say. I mean here’s a very holistic approach to eating and let’s go load the mortars up now.

CAMBANIS: And that’s Hezbollah’s winning recipe from start to finish. They tell you what to do for fun on Saturday night and they give you meaning in your life and this endless war.

WERMAN: Did your time [INDISCERNIBLE] among the Hezbollah supporters change your perspective on the organization at all?

CAMBANIS: Absolutely. I mean this is not al-Qaeda, this is not the Iraqi insurgency. This is a group of people that are committed to a perpetual war, but they also really love life. They’re not nihilists. The more time I spend with them, the more I understood why it is that they are such an integral part of their society. Why [INDISCERNIBLE] they’re not going to go away. And frankly the surprise is to find how much of their support is actually won through persuasion and careful indoctrination rather than through intimidation and force.

WERMAN: Journalist Thanassis Cambanis’s new book is called A Privilege to Die. Thanassis, thanks very much for coming in.

CAMBANIS: It was great to be with you, Marco.

Ahmadinejad in Lebanon

The World — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:15:17 +0000

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad pays a visit to Lebanon. He can expect a hero’s welcome in Hezbollah strongholds but how will it play at home in Iran or in Israel? Lisa Mullins talks with Los Angeles Times Middle East correspondent Borzou Daragahi in Beirut. Download MP3

LISA MULLINS: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World. Cheering crowds greeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he touched down today in Lebanon. It’s the Iranian president’s first state visit to Lebanon, the multi-sectarian country, and it’s bolstering the morale of those Lebanese who back the militant Shiite group Hezbollah. But Hezbollah has many rivals in Lebanon and they view Ahmadinejad’s trip with suspicion. They accuse Tehran of meddling in their country’s internal affairs. Los Angeles Times Middle East correspondent Borzou Daragahi is in Beirut where, as he says, there are a many reasons Ahmadinejad has support.

BORZOU DARAGAHI: There’s a certain segment that admires his defiance of the US, his rhetoric against Israel. The calls for the destruction of Israel have captivated some in the Arab world including in Lebanon. But largely in Lebanon he’s feeding off the charisma and the support of Hezbollah, the Shiite political organization and militia led by Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah. He has a real finger on the pulse of the Shiite community in Lebanon, Nasrallah does. And it was his calls to support Ahmadinejad and his calls for people to come out into the streets and meet him at the airport and this massive organization of students who go to Hezbollah schools. Scouts who are basically members of the Hezbollah boy scouts. The security teams that were out there in full force. It was that that created this rapturous welcome.

MULLINS: Did you say that Hezbollah has boy scouts?

DARAGAHI: Yeah, the [INDISCERNIBLE] scouts they’re called. I mean they have a whole massive social organization on multiple levels. They have clinics, they have a security force. They have their own fiber optic network. They control huge swaths of the country on the ground. So when someone as powerful as Nasrallah says okay guys, let’s show this guy a real welcome, you know they’re going to come out.

MULLINS: Well, they have apparently come out and they continue to through his visit here. We should mention also that one of the reasons they’re out, presumably, is that Iran provides a massive amount of financial and military backing for Hezbollah. A group, Hezbollah, that the United States considers a terrorist organization and a group which appears to be priming itself for a fresh war with Israel. In this case, is this considered by the rest of Lebanon, as it is by President Obama, as a provocative visit on the part of Iran’s president?

DARAGAHI: It is absolutely considered a provocative visit by many segments of Lebanese population. The so-called pro-US, Western-baked, Saudi-aligned March 14 coalition, the rank and file, definitely views this as a provocation.

MULLINS: Well, power there in Lebanon is shared among Shiites and Sunnis, Christians and [INDISCERNIBLE] political camps grouped roughly into a pro-Western, Saudi Arabian backed faction. And then there’s the Iranian and Syrian allied camp that is led, as you say, by Hezbollah. Does this visit by Iran’s president tip the balance in any way?

DARAGAHI: Some people might wish it would, but things in the Middle East have a very strange way of not working out they way people intend them to. I think there’s a message that Ahmadinejad is trying to send that Hezbollah is our friend and we support them, so don’t mess with them. And so Ahmadinejad’s visit is an attempt to tell other Lebanese factions you better watch it. But whether that’s going to work, I don’t know. I don’t see how it could work. And Ahmadinejad is pretty good at failed gambits like this.

MULLINS: Thank you very much. Los Angeles Times Middle East correspondent Borzou Daragahi, speaking to us from Beirut. Thanks, Borzou.

DARAGAHI: It’s been a pleasure.

Dealing with Iran

The World — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:25:53 +0000

John Limbert was the State Department’s point man for Iran under President Obama. Limbert’s experience and approach made him a good fit. As for his experience, Limbert was one of the 52 hostages held in Iran three decades ago. As for his approach, Limbert, like the President, is committed to improving relations with Iran. But Limbert resigned in July, after only nine months on the job. He’s now teaching history and political science at the US Naval Academy. Lisa Mullins talks with him. Download MP3

LISA MULLINS: John Limbert was the State Department’s point man for Iran under President Obama. Limbert’s experience and his approach made him a good fit. As for part of his experience, Limbert was one of the hostages held in Iran three decades ago. And for his approach, Limbert, like the President, is committed to improving relations with Iran. This past July, Limbert left government. He returned to the US Naval Academy, where he teaches history and political science. Today, Limbert says his stint at the State Department was frustrating because of the impasse in US-Iranian relations.

JOHN LIMBERT: I think part of it is simply the habits of 30 years are very tough to break. There is, of course, a huge reservoir of mistrust. There is a reservoir of suspicion, of hostility. There’s also, of course, perhaps maybe this is a little bit cynical, but people who perhaps profit by the status quo and keeping relations the way they are.

MULLINS: You talking about American officials or Iranian?

LIMBERT: Well, I’m talking about – on both sides of things.

MULLINS: I mean bring us into the fold then.

LIMBERT: I mean for 30 years we and the Iranians have essentially been shouting at each other and exchanging insults and exchanging sterile slogans and the outcome has not been satisfactory. Nothing has changed. And I must say there’s a certain amount of mirror imaging going on and when we say that the political system in one place is paralyzed and unable to respond, sometimes we have to look at ourselves too.

MULLINS: One thing that you have said, Mr. Limbert, is that on both sides, careers, I guess diplomatic careers, were made by seeing how nasty you could be to the other side and how creative you could be about being nasty.

LIMBERT: That’s right, Lisa, and it’s a shame that we funneled our creativity and let these wonderful creative Iranians function their creativity into so many negatives.

MULLINS: Can you give us an example of that? And I’m guessing that you lived through that when you were a hostage in Iran.

LIMBERT: When we say things like, this regime or this government – using regime is not the best way. But when we say this government must change its behavior, that’s a kind of phraseology that guarantees failure. If you’ve ever been in any kind of relationship at all, you will know exactly how futile it is to say to someone, well everything would be fine if you just changed your behavior.

MULLINS: And who has said that?

LIMBERT: Under the previous administration at least that was something the moderates – was identified with the moderates in the issue. I mean the hardliners talked about changing the government and changing the regime and people changing their behavior. Those were the softliners.

MULLINS: Okay, so those were the softliners in the Bush administration. Let’s hear right now from President Obama. This is something that he said to the BBC Persian Service just last week about relations with Iran.

BARACK OBAMA: What I’ve said consistently is that we are willing to reach out with an open hand to the Iranian government and the Iranian people. Because we believe that there’s nothing inevitable that should cause Iran and the United States to be enemies. There’s a history there that is difficult, but it can be bridged with mutual understanding, mutual respect and we want to see the people of Iran ultimately succeed.

MULLINS: Well, can you dissect the language there. It sounds pretty clear, but how is Iran to read that?

LIMBERT: I think this language gives the authorities in Tehran real problems. It’s very hard to portray President Obama as an enemy. What he has done essentially is rattle their cages. He has disarmed them. They cannot respond in the old way. They cannot use the old rhetoric.

MULLINS: There are reacting in the old ways and it would seem that if under the Bush administration the accusation is that the statements about Iran could be considered arrogant. Under this administration, if President Obama’s taking the soft glove approach, it doesn’t appear that Iran is responding to either approach.

LIMBERT: They have a problem in how to respond. What I think has worked in this case, is to continue with exactly the tone that the president uses.

MULLINS: I just have one final question for you. You are not only very well steeped in Iranian politics, but you’re also a scholar of Iranian literature and poetry and you speak the language, Persian, fluently. Does that make a difference in the diplomatic world?

LIMBERT: Because of the lack of ties for the last 30 years what I’ve often said is when the State Department felt it needed someone with Iran experience, they had to open the gates of Jurassic Park. They found someone like me grazing. I mean I had not been there for 30 years. Not for lack of desire to go, but just it hasn’t been possible. But we do need that experience because when we don’t have contact with each other, when we don’t talk to each other, the result is, as you’ve seen, a kind of demonization and misreading of the other side. You have to ask the question, if we say things in a certain way, how will they be responded, how will they be heard. I asked someone, for example, if someone says you have to change your behavior, how do you hear that? And the Persian version of that was someone is saying to us you have to become a human being and then we’ll sit down and talk. In other words, even more insulting than the original.

MULLINS: Alright. Well thank you very much for talking to us, John Limbert. We appreciate it.

LIMBERT: Thank you, Lisa. My pleasure.

MULLINS: John Limbert was the Obama administration’s top man on Iran. He spoke with us today from his home in Arlington, Virginia.

Obama condemns Ahmadinejad’s 9/11 remarks

The World — Fri, 24 Sep 2010 20:25:10 +0000

President Barack Obama has described as “hateful” and “offensive” the claim by Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that most people believed the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Mr Obama was speaking exclusively to BBC Persian television, which broadcasts to Iran and Afghanistan. Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech at the UN General Assembly triggered a walkout. Jeb Sharp reports. Download MP3

BBC coverage
BBC Persian
Video: Ahmadinejad UN speech sparks walk-outs

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman. This is The World. President Barack Obama has condemned yesterday’s comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad suggesting the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Obama gave an interview to the BBC’s Persian Television service this morning in hopes of reaching millions of viewers inside Iran. The World’s Jeb Sharp has more.

JEB SHARP: The President was asked right off the bat to respond to the Iranian leader’s remarks yesterday.

BARACK OBAMA: It was offensive, it was hateful. And particularly for him to make this statement here in Manhattan just a little north of ground zero where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation. For him to make a statement like that was inexcusable. And it stands in contrast with the response of the Iranian people when 9/11 happened, when there were candlelight vigils, and I think, a natural sense of shared humanity and sympathy was expressed within Iran.

SHARP: President Obama was clearly using the interview on BBC Persian to reach out to Iranians and to exploit that apparent gap between the Iranian people and the Iranian regime. He reiterated his longstanding offer of dialogue.

OBAMA: What I’ve said consistently is that we are willing to reach out with an open hand to the Iranian government and the Iranian people because we believe that there’s nothing inevitable that should cause Iran and the United States to be enemies. There’s a history there that is difficult but it can be bridged with mutual understanding, mutual respect and we want to see the people of Iran ultimately succeed.

SHARP: But it’s unlikely the two countries will overcome that history unless there’s progress toward resolving the nuclear issue. The international community has tightened sanctions on Iran recently in hopes of persuading the leadership to return to nuclear talks. President Obama defended that policy in his interview today.

OBAMA: But the government has taken Iran on a path that has lead to international condemnation. I think it’s very important to understand that the sanctions that arose this year had to do with the fact that alone among signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; Iran has not been able to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful. That’s not just my judgement, that’s the judgement of the international community, including countries like Russia and China, that generally are very hesitant to impose sanctions on other countries.

SHARP: President Obama said “a whole host of options” remained if sanctions didn’t work. He stressed that he and other leaders preferred to resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically but he wouldn’t answer a question about whether the United States would stop Israel from attacking Iran, saying he “didn’t want to engage in hypotheticals.” For The World, I’m Jeb Sharp.

A Persian insult, an Inuit dialect, and Urdu directions

Patrick Cox — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 06:13:41 +0000

Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Photo: Daniella Zalcman) is known for his fruity prose. This month he outdid himself with a new anti-American insult . In a speech to Iranian expats, he used the expression the bogeyman snatched the boob. It’s old Persian saying that mothers use when they’re trying to wean their babies off breast milk. But what’s acceptable for mothers to say in the privacy of their homes is considered über-coarse in a public setting. Some Iranians are astonished that their President would use the phrase. Their President, though, is a man who likes to show he has the common touch, especially when dissing the United States. He appeared quite full of himself too, in a recent interview with John Lee Anderson of the New Yorker.

Also, we hear from Cambridge University linguistic anthropologist Stephen Leonard who’s spending a year in Northwest Greenland, documenting the planet’s northernmost dialect. That dialect, or language — it’s been classified both ways — is called Inuktun, and it’s spoken by the Polar Inuit, or Inughuit of Northwest Greenland. Leonard doesn’t have much to go on. He speaks Danish and has been learning Standard West Greenlandic, both of which are understood by many of the Polar Inuit. But he only has a word list for Inuktun. The Inughuit’s way of life is severely threatened by global warming: the giant block of ice that recently broke off a glacier is close to their hunting grounds. As for cameraderie, this photo of a groups of Inuits near Cape Dorset, Canada (photo credit: Ansgar Walk) may paint too rosy a picture; also, people generally use snowmobiles these days, not dogsleds. Not many people. Not many dogs. Not much warmth. It may be a very long year.

Also in this week’s podcast, we have a report on how foreign language movies in the United States are seeking new ways of finding their audiences. And World in Words listener and self-professed language nerd Sofia Javed tells us about the difficulties of getting from Point A to Point B in Urdu, a language that has the same word for go straight and turn right.
Download MP3

Iran ‘concealed nuclear facility’

The World — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:27:42 +0000

Download MP3
Iran has been accused of concealing a second uranium enrichment plant in defiance of international calls for transparency over its nuclear plans. The leaders of the US, UK and France demanded UN inspectors be given immediate access to the facility. Iran revealed the existence of the plant to the UN watchdog on Monday, saying it was not yet operational and would only be used for nuclear energy.
Tehran has previously acknowledged it has one enrichment plant, at Natanz.

Iran’s decision to build a secret facility represented a “direct challenge to the basic compact” of the global non-proliferation regime, President Barack Obama said, making a statement in Pittsburgh, where he is hosting a G20 summit. Despite Iran’s assertions that the facility was for peaceful purposes, the new plant was “not consistent” with that goal, the President said. Katy Clark reports.

BBC coverage
Iran’s key nuclear sites
BBC Special Report: Iran crisis
Background Brief: Nuclear Standoff with Iran