Watching Iran

How the WikiLeaks disclosures could put a sweeping U.S. effort to monitor the Islamic Republic in jeopardy.

BY BARBARA SLAVIN | DECEMBER 6, 2010

Searching for up-to-the-date country-specific information among the WikiLeaks cables is for the most part a pretty easy task. Interested in eavesdropping on contemporary France? Click on the collected messages from the U.S. Embassy in Paris. Want to browse the latest political proceedings in Russia? Go to the Moscow embassy link. But there's one exception to that impressive efficiency. The dispatches from Tehran all date from 1979 or earlier, before the United States severed its diplomatic ties with the Islamic Republic (in 1980) while 52 Americans were being held against their will in their country's embassy on a main boulevard downtown.

That's not to say U.S. diplomats have stopped following their main Middle East adversary. To the contrary, Iran is famously at the center of much of the diplomatic business recorded in the WikiLeaks cables -- that business, though, is forced to take place in other countries. Indeed, WikiLeaks has shed light not only on the content of America's Iran strategy, but on the unorthodox ways in which Washington finds itself gathering information about a state with which it has had limited direct contact. At the center of those efforts are the so-called Iran Watch stations, a set of monitoring posts the United States has been operating in more than a dozen cities on Iran's periphery and in Western Europe.

These offices were established starting in 2006 by then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Dismayed by the State Department's failure to cultivate linguistic and diplomatic expertise on Iran, she beefed up the department's Iran desk and insisted that Farsi-speaking U.S. diplomats be placed in embassies and consulates outside the Islamic Republic. Nicholas Burns, then the undersecretary of state for political affairs and the George W. Bush administration's point man on Iran, compared the strategy to posting Soviet expert George Kennan to Riga, Latvia, in the 1920s before the United States recognized the Soviet Union.

The new push began with the Iran Regional Presence Office in Dubai, just across the Persian Gulf from Iran's Hormozgan province and adjacent to the Strait of Hormuz, the geographic bottleneck through which nearly 40 percent of the world's traded oil passes. Dubai is also home to a large Iranian expatriate community. With about a half dozen staff, Dubai's is the largest Iran Watch station and benefits from the regular traffic between the emirate and Iran by Iranians and others visiting the Islamic Republic.

Other Iran Watch posts are single-officer affairs and are currently located in Baghdad, Baku, Berlin, Istanbul, London, Paris, and Tel Aviv. There was also an Iran Watch officer in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, for several years, but the office closed in part because of the repressive nature of the local government and the lack of high-value Iranian contacts. Aside from reporting on Iran, the watchers interact with Iran experts in local governments. The creation of these monitoring stations is having a cumulative impact on the State Department's bureaucracy, helping re-create an Iran-centered career track within the agency. But, more substantively, the posts are useful in providing a reality check for U.S. policymakers in the form of unvarnished information about Iranian political developments, says John Limbert, who was responsible for the Iran Watch stations during his recently ended nine-month stint as deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs.

A U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic, agrees. "It's the internal reporting about what's afoot in Iran that Washington is starved for," the U.S. official said. "It supplements what we get from other sources."

Still, Limbert, who personally visited all the Iran Watch stations, expressed frustration that the diplomats' views were often not taken into account by an administration that has focused more in recent months on economic sanctions than on outreach.

"I liked them a lot, given the limitations they were under. They did some good stuff," he said. "One of my jobs was to encourage them. These are really smart people, and somebody needs to validate them."

AFP/Getty Images

 

Barbara Slavin, a former diplomatic correspondent for USA Today and assistant managing editor of the Washington Times, is the author of Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S., and the Twisted Path to Confrontation. She has been to Iran seven times.

LOGICAL123

6:16 PM ET

December 6, 2010

It is time for a grown-up US policy towards Iran

Instead of all these dinky little stations grasping for every straw about Iran, why not take the simple path of direct interaction with Iran. The fiasco of false nuclear accusations against Iran that started with President Bush is just continuing endlessly with President Obama. One would think that Barbara Slavin would be able to add an ounce of insight to the problem. The US officials are just spinning their wheels on absolutely nothing. Iran is successfully beating all the sanctions. For example, the embargo on gasoline exports to Iran has turned into a total farce since Iran now exports gasoline. But, does anyone admit it? Obama and Hillary Clinton are total amateurs and those who write about the US-Iran relationships just repeat the same nonsense we have heard for ten years. Will there ever be a search for the truth? Will anyone ever admit that the US is in the wrong path and it is time for a grown-up policy towards Iran?

 

FP101

1:50 AM ET

December 7, 2010

Relations

For the US to normalise relations around the world would require really great and strong leadership from Obama, and I am not sure he is up to it, even though he might want to go down that path.

The Republicans immediately call him weak and an appeaser any time he tries to build bridges and they have got him where they want him. And they want to create conflict around the world for the US to wade into to support their thesis of god-given right and American exceptionalism. Just look at the commentary coming out of the Tea Party, Fox news etc, which if you look at the Economist is where the most influential Republican voices are.

The best thing for the rest of the world is probably the hardest path if Obama doesn't step up, which is that an extreme right wing nationalist Republican president gets in next time and the world - having experienced GW once - stand up to the US once and for all.

It will be interesting to see the Anti-American Europe, China, Russia, Middle East, Latin America start to make moves in that direction soon. China, Russia and Europe need to start getting their act together on this.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

1:23 PM ET

December 7, 2010

wrong

your idea that somehow it is us v.s. them is completely off base. It might seem like the public in China, Russia and Europe want to start turning away from the U.S. but they dont really know the score...large groups of people rarely do. The leaders throughout the world will not turn away from America, because they know that despite the way its been seen by millions of undereducated people around the world, America wants nothing but what's best for humanity and safety, and security and freedom. In our collective heart, we want to make the world a better place...we stumble, we make mistakes, and as always happens, our intentions are misrepresented/ misinterpreted.. sometimes, they have been less than noble, but show me one country who is perfect, and always makes the right choices and i will show you a lie. Humans are fallible, government is a collections of humans...

America is nothing but a promise, the promise of hope, the promise of freedom...everything else is up for interpretation. What we are today, will not be what we are tomorrow, no country is more fluid in its ability to change. If history is any judge, the recent problems with the U.S. will prove to be nothing more than a hiccup in history. the sky was falling in the late 1800's, the sky was falling in 1929, the sky was falling in 1950, in the 60's, and now it's happening again...America will be fine, we will remain a power, if not be made more powerful. We ARE an exceptional country, we have simply forgotten why. We will figure it out, we will learn. no country on earth has a more perfect economic and power projecting setup as does the united states...2 coasts, safe neighborhood, large navy, large, young, stable populace, educated working class, acceptable infrastructure, freedom of speech, a democracy, etc. etc. We will survive. Unless we are obliterated by Aliens, the United States will remain the worlds dominant power for the next hundred years...guaranteed. You can stop you're worrying and or celebrating.

 

AARKY

3:01 PM ET

December 7, 2010

Diplomatic gossip about Iran

Hurricanewarning: The only thing you left out were the Jingoistic statements that God had ordained that we should go to those places in the world that are backward and teach them about democracy and if they object we'll have to use a bayonet to persuade them.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

4:03 PM ET

December 7, 2010

you're stereotyping

you're stereotyping americans. I do not believe in any god, organized religion puzzles me. I do however know that we dont enforce our values on other people with a bayonet...??? when was the last time we did that?....the expansion westward and our dealings with the native americans maybe?? it's been awhile. If you think that is what we doing in Iraq and afghanistan, then you are unbelievably ignorant and need to begin reading some books about our operations in those areas.

I know my statement sounded a bit nationalistic...but, you know what, I love my country, im sick and tired of Europeans and others trying to get me to hate my own country. they have MUCH more to hate about their respective histories then we do of ours...for the most part anyways. The USA IS an amazing country, it has been from the beginning...i mean, there are good things about america, and I wan to remind people of that. There are great things about other countries as well, I happen to be partial to my own, as most people are, i suspect...unless they live in the Sudan.

also: you seem to believe that all we do is go around the world trying to take it over...what a tired overly liberal (i am liberal) idea that is. The reality is that a world without the United States is not a world in which Europe or canada or Australia or any democratic country would want to live. You might think so, but without America over the last century, things could have ended up pretty bad for ALOT of people out there. Considering the MASSIVE amounts of humanitarian aid, disaster assistance, security aid, military protection, diplomacy and economic stimulus we pump into the world every year (for the last 50 at least) I would wager that one of the MAIN reasons the world is at a high point of development and economic means right now is BECAUSE of the USA. With development comes money, education, and usually some level of peace. Please...please, argue with me on this.

 

LOGICAL123

12:05 AM ET

December 8, 2010

You are dreaming about America

To HURRICANEWARNING: The America that you dream about no longer exists. It has become a miserable country with the worst poverty ratio in history, about 1% of its population in jail, 15 million people unemployed and universally hated in most parts of the world. America was the direct or indirect cause of the death of about one million Iraqis. American is killing innocent people by the dozens in Afghanistan and Pakistan practically every week. America is continuing to lie about Iran and is trying to take over its oil resources on the stupid and false pretense that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (which it is not). So, what are you proud of? Do you think the rest of the world could not exist without the United States? As the Iranian president said, "Iran does not need the US." So, you can jump up and down as much as you want. Iran is not buying whatever it is that you are selling.

 

PROCIVIC

4:16 AM ET

December 7, 2010

Condoleezza's Legacy

Nothing amuses a government more than seeing its adversaries spend millions on "intelligence" to corroborate what they want to hear. But the biggest kick is reserved for the "reliable sources" who are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

BEINGTHERE

8:15 AM ET

December 7, 2010

Assange put American careers at risk

No one has been really that concerned about American lives at risk, as the state department line goes. It's about careers. If our government was concerned about American lives, we'd be out of Afghanistan sooner than 2014. It's about the Clintons, Gates, Petraeuses and assorted (or sordid) diplomats. WikiLeaks had its moments.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

4:07 PM ET

December 7, 2010

way off

" If our government was concerned about American lives, we'd be out of Afghanistan sooner than 2014"

first off, we have a VOLUNTEER military and civilian corps...they know the risks, they know the danger, they serve anyway. They sacrifice for us...it's what makes them noble. Its BECAUSE they care about OUR lives that they sacrifice their own, thats their job. Dont act like you are doing them a favor by saying "if we cared about them we would leave"...in fact it is the exact opposite. But hey, on some level you are right, for the very high-ups, this is about careers. though I find it VERY hard to believe that their are no dangerous and negative impacts of these releases. Logic would dictate that SOMETHING bad will happen as a result of WIKILEAKS...just remains to be seen what it is exactly.

 

POLDERMAN

3:52 PM ET

December 7, 2010

Watching Iran; from a distance and through a peeping hole.

An interesting article by Barbara Slavin. I have however my doubt about the reliability of the information given to the Iran Watch posts. These informers are people with their own agendas, who for instance tend to exaggerate the strength of opposition forces (anyone remember Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress ?). So yes, the US should in the near future indeed restart diplomatic relations with Iran in order to get first hand information on what is going on there.

Unfortunately she repeats the obsolete nonsense about the rigged results of the Iranian elections (From Ashgabat of all places. A place about which Barabara Slavin herself reports: “but the office closed in part because of the repressive nature of the local government and the lack of high-value Iranian contacts”.
Anyone interested in a truthful and careful analysis of the 2009 elections should read “Did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Steal the 2009 Iran Election? by Eric A. Brill
See here http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html

As much as I support the goals of the Green Movement, I think they are mostly representative of the young well-educated urban young people, and still a minority. The overwhelming majority of the lower middle and labour classes, and the people in the countryside are still firmly behind Ahmadinejad. I also think the Green movement strongly disapproves of the efforts by the US and Israel to foment separatism among ethnic minorities like the Azeri’s, Kurds and Baluchis. And yes the Green movement also sees the enrichment of uranium for medical and energy purposes as a sovereign right of Iran under the NPT regulations.

 

LOGICAL123

11:56 PM ET

December 7, 2010

Ahmadinejad indeed won the elections

To POLDERMAN: You are indeed right about the fact that Ahmadinejad did indeed win the elections. The figures quoted by Barbara Slavin from the WikiLeaks cables seem to be completely wrong. Mousavi actually announced that he was the winner just a few hours after the election was over and before any significant counts of the ballots had been completed. FLYNT LEVERETT & HILLARY MANN LEVERETT wrote an article entitled, "Ahmadinejad won. Get over it," that explains the details of what happened. The article can be viewed at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html

 

NICHOLAS WIBBERLEY

9:41 AM ET

December 8, 2010

So what’s new?

It just suits the US to demonise Iran right now. Europeans largely go along because the US is a big bruiser, while other nations mostly watch from the sidelines with largely impenetrable expressions, unwilling to get involved at this stage. When the US decides to go for accord with Iran, Ahmadinejad will be sharing burgers in a Washington deli, his election will be acclaimed an example to other nations, the Green Movement will step back unto the shadows, pundits will start paddling in the new direction and the masses will follow.

 

ROOZBEH

5:46 AM ET

December 13, 2010

Nope Ahmadinejad didn't win!

It's part of Iranian regime propaganda to make it sensible that Ahmadi nejad indeed won the election by getting a massive votes form rural and poor people. Nope that's not true! according to current statistics more than 60% of people in Iran are livingi n big cities. There is no majority in rural areas any more. Also, the first 4 years of ahmadi nejad the situation for majorities of poor people got worst, at least a big part of them didn't support A.N for sure. In election, even 2 hours before finishing, the result was published!! can you imagine that? 15 millions white votes missing... SMS and Mobile phones were cut 1 day before election day and last for month. According to Tehran's mayor (who is conservative) 3 millions demonstrators attended in the rally 2 days after the result! (green movement doesn't have any media, it happened just by people telling each other, note in mentioned date, there is no SMS service, there is no Internet and no mobile calls). The brutal attack to people and firing foreign journalists from Tehran was the next move to close all breathing holes. 6 months after election in Islamic republic anniversary according to government analyse 20,000 people arrested! for 9 month people shouting against regime on their roof tops...

Green movement rally was silent and they couldn't even manage to control their angers. Only 5 thousands organized people were participating in A.N celebration in the day after election. Don't close your eyes!

 

PHILIP HENIKA

11:51 AM ET

December 10, 2010

US Policy Toward Iran: Cold War or Global?

US diplomatic relations with Iran are confined to sanctions over Iran's nuclear program which clearly embraces a Cold War, "engagement" tactic. If it is accepted that globalization has replaced the Cold War, then isn't a multifactor approach to diplomatic relations with Iran applicable? With such a diplomacy we would continue to ask the Iranian government the same set of questions: What is Iran doing to end war? What is Iran doing to enforce human rights? What is Iran doing re: energy efficiency i.e. does Iran has any plans to explore alternative energy sources other than nuclear energy? Is Iran fully prepared to respond to a pandemic such as H1N1 which is an effort that includes complete transparency re: the entry and exit of the disease? Has Iran consulted global models of climate change in anticipation of the climate change consequences? And we would continue to ask these questions even if we know the answers because the same questions need to be asked of every nation including North Korea.