Iranian Intrigue: Interpreting The Derakhshan Arrest

This analysis comes from an Enduring America reader and specialist observer of Iranian affairs:

According to Jahan News, which is close to Iran's Intelligence community, Hossein Derakhshan, an Iranian-Canadian journalist who has been described as the father of Persian blogging has been arrested in Tehran.  Hossein returned to Iran about three weeks ago and in his most recent post on Twitter, published 27 days ago, he said he was "hanging out in Tehran, frustrated by slow Internet connection, but generally impressed," adding that he "LOVES living in Tehran again" (his emphasis).  Moreover, a quick look at his weblog reveals that he believed that if arrested it would be through violating "the rule of law" by going to Israel.  However he felt reassured that he would not go to jail for more than three months- since he was coming back to the arms of his forefathers for no other reason but to be at their service.

According to what the Jahan article says are "credible sources," Hossein has apparently admitted to spying for Israel, a charge that if pursued, is perhaps more serious than he expected.  Jahan news talks about Hossein's participation in a number of conferences in Israel. It says that Haaretz news paper described him as a friend of Israel.  It then quotes Jerusalem Post and Haaretz as saying that Hossein had described Israel as a model of democracy, and that the Israeli and Turkish system of governance, and participation of religion in government was a good model for Iran.

However, there has been surprise that, according to rumours, Hossein simply handed his laptop over to officials upon return to Iran.  Among the blogging community there has been questions raised whether he has actually even been arrested and his family has refused to comment on the whole affair. Moreover, a spokesman for the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations, told NPR that he had no information about the incident. Hossein has posted nothing on his Farsi blog or Facebook site since October 30, i.e. 20 days' silence. Earlier in October he was posting every few days.

It is open knowledge that Hossein visited Israel on two separate occasions.  During his June 2006 visit he stated that he went to Israel as a personal attempt to start a dialogue between Iranian and Israeli people.  However after his second trip there, he suddenly changed his opinion and started becoming vehemently anti- Israeli in his blog. He also became a strong supporter of President Ahmadinejad and came out justifying the arrests of scholars Ramin Jahanbeglou, Hale Esfandiari and businessman Ali Shakeri and condemned Iranian journalist Akbar Ganji. In a slightly ironic twist, he wrote a controversial article in which he asserted that Jahanbegloo's own "confession" was authentic - indeed even "the possibility of it being imposed on him by his interrogators" was, according to his logic, "ruled out".  He also accused Jahanbegloo of indirectly "helping the Bush administration in its plans for regime change in Iran through fomenting internal unrest and instability."

It is true Derakhashan began to make fairly regular vitriolic remarks on his blogs and alienating almost everyone who works on Iran, regardless of ideology.  Prior to his return to Iran, he also started attacking Ayatollah Rafsanjani in his blog. There have been suggestions that he fell foul of a power struggle within Iran.  However. it gets even more interesting when right-of-the centre conservative news websites like Parsineh also report that, according to the "rumours", Derakhashan was due to work for Press TV and collaborate with President Ahmahdenijad's government endorsed newspaper.

Some Iranian specialists speculate that Derakhshan's arrest will result in increased scrutiny of the many organizations he has had links with, including Radio Farda, Radio Zamaneh, Rooz Online and VOA.  One specialist stated the arrest would result in "a new genre of conspiracy and soft-regime change literature which will overwhelm the Iranian political milieu in the near future."  Another stated it would not be a surprise if he gave a long confession, with endless names informing the Iranian masses of years of brewing velvet revolution, anti-IRI activism, working as agents of World Zionism and other similar juicy stuff.  If Iran wants to stir up anti-Western hysteria (e.g. the PressTV item today) in order to sabotage any possible reconciliation with the US, this might be a way to do it.

Following this line, the IRNA has just posted the first of what is called in the Iranian political vocabulary "Tak-nevisi", which is a "single-liner serialised confessions".  The text refers to a man called Hossein D, which I can only presume is Hossein Derakhshan.  A very rough translation has some worrying quotes: "As of three years ago, many of my friends who were involved in the reformist press as writers and journalists were encouraged to leave the country, and write against the Velyate Faqih, the Hidden Imam, and lack of freedom in Iran, and were deceived by financial incentives...Now, they live under the worst financial conditions." According to Hossein D. many of these "misled people use tranquilising drugs, and some of them have attempted suicide once or twice... Westerners kept asking us to always write against a few things: Velayate Faqih, belief in the Hidden Imam, and fundamentalists. And if people do not write what the Westerners want, they try to blackmail them by threatening that if do you do not write what we want we will publish the evidence that we have against you. Some of my friends live in very bad financial and psychological conditions and may even wish their own death all the time."

Definitely a situation to be watched.

From the Archives (3 June 2008): Reservoir Academics and US Foreign Policy

Playing "Reservoir Academics" with US Foreign Policy: A Response to Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh was first published on Watching America at Libertas: The Centre for US Foreign Policy

I returned from vacation to an excellent discussion with a well-placed contact, complete with very good lunch at an Iranian restaurant (whatever you think of the Axis of Evil, it does have some quality food), about the state of US politics now and in 2009. The economic situation, the likely shifts in Congress after November, the possibility (or lack of such) of a meaningful American initiative on Israel-Palestine, even that perennial question "How 'anti-American' is American Studies?" were worked over and worked out.

When I returned to my office, I encountered a far different approach to these issues of “What Next”. Our colleagues Timothy Lynch and Rob Singh had e-mailed us their analysis from the Wall Street Journal to reprint on the Guest Blog page (thanks to both of them for the opportunity). Their argument is all in the headline, "Don't Expect a Big Change in US Foreign Policy."

For Lynch and Singh, “none of the main candidates has disavowed the war on terror". And, as past US presidents have deployed US forces overseas, so the next occupant of the White House will also have US forces overseas. Let's put aside any thought of "a peacenik vision of immediate withdrawal" from Iraq.

It seems that there’s nothing of difficulty to see here, folks. Move along. Because, if you’re a Bush-basher, your celebration of foreign policy after George is no more than "the joy of fools".

As an alleged Bush-basher, I am pleased to find that I share some common ground with Messrs. Lynch and Singh. I, too, don't expect a major change in US foreign policy in January 2009. US military forces are well-embedded in Iraq. The Bush Administration, despite opposition from almost every major Iraqi political faction apart from Prime Minister al-Maliki, is pursuing the Status of Forces Agreement that exempts American personnel from any oversight under Iraqi law (and exempts the President from going to Congress for approval of a formal treaty). A disturbing article in the Washington Post this week set out the latest American long-term investments, including a new prison north of Baghdad.

Contrary to the hopes expressed by others such as Joseph Nye, I don't expect a significant move by a new Administration on Israel-Palestine. Barack Obama, scrambling to cover his electoral flanks, is having to defend by distancing himself from engagement with the spectre of Hamas --- his appearance before the America-Israel Political Action Committee this week is already being framed in defensive terms, with demands that he distance himself from contacts with mad, bad, and dangerous people like Columbia University's Rashid Khalidi. Ditto re engagement with Iran, at least openly rather than through back channels. And, with every expert in Washington these days reducing Latin America to bad boy Hugo in Venezuela and, thus, someone who can be the good boy (Uribe in Colombia), even the prospect of a coherent American approach to the Western Hemisphere seems remote.

In other words, seven years of defining US foreign policy via a War on Terror to bolster policy judgements has succeeded in painting a global house of good and evil. Indeed, it's been such a success that the new President is handed the brush to carry on, only to find himself standing in one corner of one room.

Where I differ from Lynch and Singh's explanation of continuity in US foreign policy is that they forego the burden of these complexities in their portrayal of Life After George. It's only one leap of faith from a perpetual War on Terror --- "the debate is over how, where, and when" --- to victory: "We're winning the war in Iraq." Never mind that the next American administration is likely to jettison the phrase "War on Terror", since it has been distinctly unhelpful in the US political and military campaign from Afghanistan to Iraq to Europe. Never mind that Iraq (and indeed Afghanistan, which is absent from Lynch and Singh’s article) has long since moved beyond the easy sticker of "Mission Accomplished", since the issue is not of perpetual military dominance but of the failure to get a stable political resolution. Anyone questioning of both the US mission and its undoubted success can be brushed aside, not through everyday evidence but through reference to their dubious status --- "Euro-liberal", "Latin American leftist", "radical Islamist" --- and the reassurance that Bush is only doing what previous Presidents have done (he's just doing it bigger and better).

On the grounds of presentation rather than substantive analysis, I admire Lynch and Singh. Their forthright bravado, in the context of wobbly British academia, is quite clever. The masculine hyper-confidence, which has not just shades but colourful reflections of US writers like Victor Davis Hanson and Robert Kagan, gives them a distinctive platform, in contrast to other analysts who have to acknowledge the problems and challenges that have arisen from the last seven years of US foreign policy. With their duet, they provide reassuring music for the dwindling but still prominent orchestra in the United States (Wall Street Journal on first violin) claiming that American greatness is, always has been, and always will be assured.

This is not a posture without merit. It is useful to note that the fires set by the War on Terror, even as the term is set aside by those framing US foreign policy, still burn brightly. It is worthwhile to predict that they will not be extinguished in the near-future. To celebrate that firestorm, however, is useful more as a marketing pose --- let’s call it Reservoir Academics --- than as a constructive analysis of 2009 and beyond.

Fact x Importance = News: The Stories We're Watching

Top Story of the Day: Hillary or Nicolas?

Nope, it's not Senator Clinton, who may or may not be the next Secretary of State.

Nor is it the Global Financial Summit --- yet. Although President Bush welcomed the guests last night, the serious talkin' doesn't start until today. And even then, given the relatively low profile the US will have --- the Bush Administration is almost paralysed, and the Obama folks have chosen to stay in the background --- it will be up to the Europeans to make the running.

No, the surprise headline for this morning is the rocket that French President Nicolas Sarkozy sent to Washington. Or, rather, the US missiles that he is trying to hand back to President Bush.

In talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Sarkozy "joined Russia in condemning the Pentagon's plans to install missile defence bases in central Europe yesterday and backed President Dmitri Medvedev's previously ignored calls for a new pan-European security pact".

The New York Times spectacularly misses the significance, somehow deciding that it lies in "Russia Backs Off on Europe Missile Threat". Russia's feint at putting missiles on its western borders was a political manoeuvre, and to the extent that it has brought Sarkozy away from (or reinforced his existing opposition to) US missile defence, it's worked.

The French President's statement isn't a detachment of Europe from the US. His proposal is that the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe, to which both Russia and the US belong, discuss the security pact next summer.

It is, however, a distancing of France from not only missile defence but the US-preferred attempt to expand NATO's reach. That is going to prompt an immediate tangle between France and governments such as Czechoslovakia, which are still clinging to the US missile defence plan, but I suspect Sarkozy is looking to Germany for backing. And I think --- with a smile --- that will put a marker down for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

All in all, the timing of Sarkozy's announcement should add a bit of political spice to the financial talks in the US today.

Under-noticed Story of the Day: Food rather than Rockets

The sad ritual is again being played out on the Israel-Gaza border. The Israelis have made tank raids across the border, and Palestianian groups have lobbed rockets into southern Israel. The Israelis send out their Government spokesmen and, as few US and British media outlets will speak to a Hamas representative, the narrative of Tel Aviv standing firm against Hamas-backed terror gets another paragraph.

The far-from-insignificant story behind the story is the effects of the Israeli blockade on Gaza. On Wednesday, Juan Cole highlighted a UN report that it is running out of food to distribute in the besieged area. The Washington Post in cautious terms --- "residents are warning of a humanitarian crisis because Israel has sealed the territory's borders" --- has now picked up on this, but it is The Independent of London that highlights the impact:

The Israeli blockade of Gaza has led to a steady rise in chronic malnutrition among the 1.5 million people living in the strip, according to a leaked report from the Red Cross.

Speculation of the Day: Obama and Gitmo

William Glaberson in the New York Times pens the analysis that Barack Obama's "pledge to close the detention center is bringing to the fore thorny questions under consideration by his advisers". Significantly, however, this is no comment from the Obama camp.

Adam Cohen in the NewYork Times has a more substantial development. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, in my opinion one of the most honourable men in Congress, is not going to let President Obama rest in indecision on issues such as Camp X-Ray, surveillance, and other civil rights issues:

Mr. Feingold has been compiling a list of areas for the next president to focus on, which he intends to present to Mr. Obama. It includes amending the Patriot Act, giving detainees greater legal protections and banning torture, cruelty and degrading treatment. He wants to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to restore limits on domestic spying. And he wants to roll back the Bush administration's dedication to classifying government documents.

Negotiation of the Week: Talks with the Taliban?

As violence escalates in Afghanistan, The Independent of London reported on Thursday: "The Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, will today brief Gordon Brown on talks being held with the Taliban with the aim of ending the conflict in his country."

This is a continuing development. Karzai and the Pakistani Government are now pressing the option of discussions with the "moderate" Taliban. Western governments are not necessarily averse to the idea, with US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates saying it should be considered. However, with the Bush Administration in a no-win position --- it gets no credit if talks eventually succeed under an Obama-led effort and it takes the rap if the discussions collapse before 20 January --- this story will be carried forward by folks outside the US.

Obama, His Chief of Staff, and Palestine: The 2002 Interview

Juan Cole offers an incisive analysis of the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff to Barack Obama. I share his view of Emanuel's family and political background:

Emanuel is not responsible for his father's activities or views. Rahm Emanuel was the one in the Clinton White House who arranged the logistics of the handshake between then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1993. He supported the Oslo Peace Process and the Camp David negotiations, which the Israeli Right absolutely hated.

That said, I'm not as sanguine as Cole about Emanuel's views on the Middle East, as least as they emerge in the 2002 interview on MSNBC that Cole has reprinted. It's not just a case of Emanuel being firmly against any pronouncement of a Palestinian state before an "end to terrorism". Emanuel's closing line, in the context of the last seven years of US foreign policy, is disturbing:

People believe we're in a real battle here. That is defined in people's minds. And you'll see people either with us or against us.

More on the 2002 interview and Cole's analysis....

Obama and Israel/Palestine: The Significant One-Liner

It is only one sentence, tucked away at the bottom of a story in the Washington Post on a completely different topic, a phone call from Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Barack Obama. It is only one sentence, but it is far more important than any controversy over the selection of Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel.

The story notes that the statement of Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal that he is ready to talk to Obama with "an open mind" and that the election of an African-American President is a "big change". It then gives the response from Obama foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough:

"President-elect Obama said throughout the campaign that he will only talk with Hamas if it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist and agrees to abide by past agreements."

That position is no different from the one taken by the Bush Administration. Indeed, it is no different from the American position from 2006 when Hamas rose to power in the Gaza Strip.

In May of this year, I listened to another Democratic foreign policy specialist predict that a President Obama, soon after he entered office, would shift American policy and recognise Hamas as a legitimate actor in the Middle East peace process.

That exchange is now a distant --- possibly obsolete --- memory.