Another assassination in Teheran

[LaCroix]

Reuters.com

TEHRAN | Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:42am EST

(Reuters) - Iran said one of its nuclear scientists was killed on Wednesday by a magnet bomb fixed to his car by a motorcyclist and blamed Israel for the attack, intensifying diplomatic tensions the West over Tehran's nuclear program.

The bombing, which Iranian officials said bore all the hallmarks of assassinations of other nuclear scientists in the past years, came as Washington sought to persuade a skeptical China to help efforts to toughen sanctions against Iran.

Iran has blamed Israeli, British and U.S. intelligence for the attacks in the past, which it said were aimed at assassinating key people working on Iran's nuclear program. Both Israel and the United States have rejected the claims.

"The bomb was a magnetic one and the same as the ones previously used for the assassination of the scientists, and is the work of the Zionists," Tehran Deputy Governor Safarali Baratlou told the semi-official Fars news agency, referring to Israel.

"Iran's enemies should know they cannot prevent Iran's progress by carrying out such terrorist acts," state news agency IRNA quoted First Vice-President Mohammad Reza Rahimi as saying.

Heightened tensions over the nuclear program, which major oil producer Iran insists is purely for civilian use but Western powers suspect has military goals, have driven oil prices higher, with Brent crude up more than 5 percent since the start of the year to above $113 a barrel.

The European Union has brought forward to January 23 a ministerial meeting that is likely to confirm an embargo on oil purchases, and big importers of Iranian oil are moving to secure alternative supplies.

Iran is the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) second biggest exporter.

NUCLEAR AGENCY DEFIANT

The victim was a nuclear scientist who "supervised a department at Natanz uranium enrichment facility," Fars said.

Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation confirmed in a statement that chemistry engineer Mostafa Ahmadi-roshan was part of Iran's nuclear enrichment program and vowed not to be deflected from its development of nuclear technology:

"America and Israel's heinous act will not change the course of the Iranian nation," it said.

Witnesses told Reuters they had seen two people on the motorcycle fix the bomb to the car. As well as the person killed in the car, a pedestrian was also killed. Another person in the car was gravely injured, they said.

Other Iranian media also reported the death but there were differing accounts of the killing.

Two daylight bomb attacks on the same day in Tehran in November 2010 killed one nuclear scientist and wounded another. Physics lecturer Masoud Ali Mohammadi was killed in January 2010, when a remote-controlled bomb attached to a motorcycle exploded near his car in Tehran.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility for Wednesday's attack.

"It is not our practice to comment on this sort of speculation," an Israeli official, when asked about Tehran's accusation over Wednesday's killing.

On Tuesday, Israel's military chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Benny Gantz, was quoted as saying that Iran should expect more "unnatural" events in 2012.

His comments, to a closed-door parliamentary panel in Jerusalem, were widely interpreted as alluding to previous acts of sabotage.

"For Iran, 2012 is a critical year in combining the continuation of its nuclearization, internal changes in the Iranian leadership, continuing and growing pressure from the international community and things which take place in an unnatural manner," Gantz was quoted as saying.

IRAN ON NUCLEAR COURSE

Despite public infighting within the Iranian ruling establishment, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Monday that Iran had no intention of changing its nuclear course because of tightened foreign sanctions.

New U.S. sanctions against Iran have started to bite. The rial currency lost 20 percent of its value against the dollar in the past week and Iran has threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz, through which 35 percent of seaborne traded oil passes.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, visiting Beijing, appealed for Chinese cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation, while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Iran's move to enrich uranium near the city of Qom was "especially troubling."

"This step once again demonstrates the Iranian regime's blatant disregard for its responsibilities and that the country's growing isolation is self-inflicted," Clinton said in a statement after Iran's announcement it had started enrichment in the Fordow mountain bunker complex.

Iran's decision to carry out enrichment work deep underground at Fordow could make it much harder for U.S. or Israeli forces to carry out veiled threats to use force against Iranian nuclear facilities. The move to Fordow could narrow a time window for diplomacy to avert any attack.

"It's impossible to say who is behind the apparently carefully targeted attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists over the past couple of years. But Iranian perceptions will be that Israel, the U.S. and other Western states are behind the attacks, seeking as they are to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program," said Gala Riani at IHS Global Insight.

"It's hard to say whether it (Wednesday's attack) could be in response to anything really, if it is being carried out by foreign intelligence services then its more likely to be part of a longer-term agenda to derail and set back Iran's nuclear program ... rather than a quick-reaction to the start of enrichment activities in Fordow," Riani added.

Stepping up pressure on Tehran, U.S. President Barack Obama approved a law on New Year's Eve that will sanction financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, a move that makes it difficult for consumers to pay for Iranian oil.

MORE SANCTIONS

Geithner is in Asia this week to drum up support for Washington's efforts to stem the oil revenues flowing to Tehran, and made his first stop in China, Iran's biggest customer.

China has backed U.N. Security Council resolutions calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities, while working to ensure its energy supplies are not threatened. As a permanent member of the council, China wields a veto.

It has said the United States and European Union should not impose sanctions beyond the U.N. resolutions.

Geithner is likely to face an easier task in U.S. ally Japan, the next stop of his tour on Thursday, where a government source has said Tokyo will consider cutting back its Iranian oil purchases to secure a waiver from new U.S. sanctions.

Japan has already asked OPEC producers Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to supply it with more oil, Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba said on Tuesday.

South Korea is also considering alternative supplies in case the U.S. sanctions cut off Iranian shipments.

Nuclear talks between Iran and the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany collapsed a year ago over Iran's refusal to negotiate over its right to enrich uranium.

The United States and Israel say they are leaving the military option on the table in case it becomes the only way to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon.

(Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Mitra Amiri in Tehran, Allyn Fisher-Ilan in Israel, Fredrik Dahl in Vienna, Lucy Hornby in Beijing and Andrew Quinn in Washington; Writing by Parisa Hafezi and Peter Millership; Editing by Alastair Macdonald)

Oh come on! As if there wasn't already a naval blockade discussed and a hostage taken - somebody (I'm looking at you, Mossad) had to stir the pot, as well...

[CJvR]

Probably, although I wouldn't put it above the Iranians to blow up one of their own to stir up trouble - particulary if the fellow wasn't a raving fundie lunatic.

[K. A. Pital]

Targeting Iran's nuclear scientists is not new. So I really doubt that's Iran. More like Israel just playing the old game regardless of the state of tensions with Iran right now. After all, Israel never gives a flying fuck about anything or anybody at all.

[Sidewinder]

Considering all the fuckups the various American intelligence agencies have committed, I STRONGLY doubt the Iranian scientist's death was at the hands of a CIA/NSA/whatever agent. They probably lack the resources and the COMPETENCE to pull off something like this.

[Simon_Jester]

Citation requested.

Arranging an assassination isn't really that hard; random lunatics have managed it against heads of state before. The fact that some percent of CIA operations crash and burn doesn't mean that the CIA is too stupid to do the espionage equivalent of tying its own shoelaces.

[open_sketchbook]

Yeah, we typically only hear about the CIA when they screw up, so it paints an inaccurate picture of their competence.

[Sidewinder]

Citation requested.

Arranging an assassination isn't really that hard; random lunatics have managed it against heads of state before.

Heads of state are easily recognizable. A nuclear scientist? If you see a guy walking around in a lab coat, can you tell if that guy's a nuclear scientist, a dentist, or a random test tube cleaner without the competence to do more, if the locals do NOT conveniently tell you who he is? To assassinate a nuclear scientist, you need to be able to IDENTIFY him as a nuclear scientist, which means you need local contacts and informants who can finger him for you. I doubt the CIA has the necessary contacts in Tehran.

The fact that some percent of CIA operations crash and burn doesn't mean that the CIA is too stupid to do the espionage equivalent of tying its own shoelaces.

Let's see, failing to provide warning of the 9/11 plot, early enough to PREVENT the attacks? A turf war with the FBI, which scuttled an opportunity to do so, in 1999? Telling W what he wanted to hear, regarding Iraq's supposed WMD programs, instead of the truth?

The CIA may not fuck up as often as I believe, but it fucked up TOO OFTEN for me to trust its competence.

[LaCroix]

Also, brute-force assassination is know to be Mossad's preferred tool. Using a bomb is perfectly fine for them.

There isn't much history of CIA assassinations, besides the couple attempts on Castro and drone strikes. CIA usually has a bigger picture than "kill that one", like inciting regime changes and stuff, which usually doesn't rely that much in killing one person than supporting whole organizations to do the job. Also, they usually prefer poison or snipers.

[Simon_Jester]

Citation requested.
Arranging an assassination isn't really that hard; random lunatics have managed it against heads of state before.

Heads of state are easily recognizable. A nuclear scientist? If you see a guy walking around in a lab coat, can you tell if that guy's a nuclear scientist, a dentist, or a random test tube cleaner without the competence to do more, if the locals do NOT conveniently tell you who he is? To assassinate a nuclear scientist, you need to be able to IDENTIFY him as a nuclear scientist, which means you need local contacts and informants who can finger him for you. I doubt the CIA has the necessary contacts in Tehran.

Why do you doubt this? Iran has been one of the main focal points of America's hostile attention for twenty years. Do you really think building a basic spy network is that hard?

The fact that some percent of CIA operations crash and burn doesn't mean that the CIA is too stupid to do the espionage equivalent of tying its own shoelaces.

Let's see, failing to provide warning of the 9/11 plot, early enough to PREVENT the attacks? A turf war with the FBI, which scuttled an opportunity to do so, in 1999? Telling W what he wanted to hear, regarding Iraq's supposed WMD programs, instead of the truth?

The CIA may not fuck up as often as I believe, but it fucked up TOO OFTEN for me to trust its competence.

Um... do you understand that you are not being asked to trust its competence?

I feel like I'm having the following conversation:

Me: "Shoelaces were tied. Maybe it was Bob."
You: "NO WAY. Bob is WAY too dumb to tie his own shoelaces!"
Me: "Tying shoelaces is pretty easy, actually. All you need to do is look down, see they're untied, and perform a simple manual task."
You: "No way. If Bob is so good at looking down, why didn't he see that truck that ran over his dog? I don't trust Bob's competence!"

It seems like you have this picture of the CIA as being so incredibly foolish and useless that it's inconceivable that they would succeed at any espionage-related task, ever. Which makes it hard to see why you think the US even bothers to keep the CIA around, if they cannot perform such basic and urgent missions as getting information on the Iranian nuclear program and identifying the scientists involved.

Also, brute-force assassination is know to be Mossad's preferred tool. Using a bomb is perfectly fine for them.

There isn't much history of CIA assassinations, besides the couple attempts on Castro and drone strikes. CIA usually has a bigger picture than "kill that one", like inciting regime changes and stuff, which usually doesn't rely that much in killing one person than supporting whole organizations to do the job. Also, they usually prefer poison or snipers.

Now, see, this is a more nuanced and reasonable argument: that assassinating one person by brute force isn't a normal CIA modus operandi, whereas it's a common tactic for other intelligence agencies that might have a motive to do the same thing.

Because this doesn't boil down to "I refuse to believe the CIA is competent enough to tie their own shoelaces."

[Ziggy Stardust]

Let's see, failing to provide warning of the 9/11 plot, early enough to PREVENT the attacks? A turf war with the FBI, which scuttled an opportunity to do so, in 1999? Telling W what he wanted to hear, regarding Iraq's supposed WMD programs, instead of the truth?

The CIA may not fuck up as often as I believe, but it fucked up TOO OFTEN for me to trust its competence.

That Vanity Fair article is ridiculous, considering the notion was ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. You are acting like that is a no-brainer move, with no repercussions or consequences, and the CIA was stupid to not do so. Would it have helped? Sure. But you can hardly call the top-level government decision to not make a move that would have been incredibly controversial and scandalous if uncovered by the public a failure by the CIA. So that gets thrown out.

Do you have proof that the others are solely the fault of the CIA? The WMD stuff was a blatantly political move by the inner echelon of the Bush administration, and the failure to provide warning of 9/11 was a systemic failure in the intelligence sharing network.

Seriously, do you have any examples of the CIA fucking up ROUTINE spying/espionage activities (note the emphasis on routine)? I do, but I'm not doing your homework.

[weemadando]

Let's see, failing to provide warning of the 9/11 plot, early enough to PREVENT the attacks? A turf war with the FBI, which scuttled an opportunity to do so, in 1999? Telling W what he wanted to hear, regarding Iraq's supposed WMD programs, instead of the truth?

The CIA may not fuck up as often as I believe, but it fucked up TOO OFTEN for me to trust its competence.

That Vanity Fair article is ridiculous, considering the notion was ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING AN ENTIRE COUNTRY. You are acting like that is a no-brainer move, with no repercussions or consequences, and the CIA was stupid to not do so. Would it have helped? Sure. But you can hardly call the top-level government decision to not make a move that would have been incredibly controversial and scandalous if uncovered by the public a failure by the CIA. So that gets thrown out.

Given it's history, wiretapping an entire country would be way down the list of things that people would be outraged at the CIA doing should it all come out.

Do you have proof that the others are solely the fault of the CIA? The WMD stuff was a blatantly political move by the inner echelon of the Bush administration, and the failure to provide warning of 9/11 was a systemic failure in the intelligence sharing network.

In the case of Iraq, the CIA pretty clearly failed to protect American citizens and interests by not speaking the truth about the scenario loudly and publicly to prevent and costly and utterly unnecessary war when it became clear that the information which they were giving was being ignored or misused. Complicit in that way or incompetent (failed completely to realise what every other intelligence service and gov't in the world seemed to be shouting at the top of their lungs) at the leadership level. You choose.

[Sky Captain]

Iran is producing ~5% of world oil. Do other countries have enough spare production capacity to make up for that if embargo is enforced? As I understand most countries are producing as much as they can when oil prices are as high as now. If Iranian supply is cut off and there is not enough replacement it would cause major oil price spike and if Iran decide to do something stupid involwing Hormuz strait because of sanctions then there would be far worse problem than Iran getting few crude nukes.

[Simon_Jester]

In the case of Iraq, the CIA pretty clearly failed to protect American citizens and interests by not speaking the truth about the scenario loudly and publicly to prevent and costly and utterly unnecessary war when it became clear that the information which they were giving was being ignored or misused. Complicit in that way or incompetent (failed completely to realise what every other intelligence service and gov't in the world seemed to be shouting at the top of their lungs) at the leadership level. You choose.

Weemadando, that entirely misses the point- you're turning a specific discussion about whether it's plausible for the CIA to have assassinated an Iranian nuclear scientist into a general round of shouting about the whys and wherefores of the Iraq War.

The argument that "it couldn't have been the CIA, they're too incompetent" hinges on the idea that the CIA is fundamentally bad at 'tradecraft:' that nebulously defined area that includes all the details of routine, day to day intelligence operations.

It has nothing to do with whether the CIA leadership is ethical, whether they have a duty to engage in whistleblowing or whether they're supposed to obey the elected leader set over them, or anything else of the sort. The leadership acting unethically, or failing to do something controversial for political reasons, does not affect the ability of the individual grunts on the ground to do their jobs.

You cannot use bad policy decisions at the leadership level to prove that the CIA is incompetent at the field operative level, any more than you can use "Hitler was a bad strategist for invading Russia" to prove that German soldiers on the ground couldn't have won a firefight.

[K. A. Pital]

Plausibility for the CIA to assassinate the guy is pretty much the same as Mossad. The latter has a greater reputation for assassinations, but seriously, CIA is not that incompetent.

[weemadando]

IIRC there was talk around the previous attack that it was related to an internal group somehow. Did anything ever come of that?

[madd0ct0r]

quite the opposite it seems:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

Iran says it has evidence CIA behind assassination of nuclear scientist



The IRNA state news agency said Saturday that Iran’s Foreign Ministry has sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. saying that it has “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins “directly involved” in Roshan’s killing.

The U.S. has denied any role in the assassination.

Iran delivered the letter to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which looks after U.S. interests in the country. Iran and the U.S. have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

IRNA also reported that Iran delivered a letter to Britain accusing London of having an “obvious role” in the killing. It said that a series of assassinations began after British intelligence chief John Sawers hinted in 2010 at intelligence operations against the Islamic Republic.

British media have quoted Sawers as saying that intelligence-led operations were needed to make it more difficult for countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Britain’s Foreign Office has condemned the killing of civilians. Israeli officials, in contrast, have hinted at covert campaigns against Iran without directly admitting involvement.

The killing has sparked outrage in Iran, and state TV broadcast footage Saturday of hundreds of students marching in Tehran to condemn Roshan’s death and calling for the continuation of the country’s disputed nuclear program.

The U.S. and its allies fear Iran’s program aims to develop nuclear weapons. Iran denies the charges, and says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.

In the clearest sign yet that Iran is preparing to strike back for Roshan’s killing, Gen. Masoud Jazayeri, the spokesman for Iran’s Joint Armed Forces Staff, was quoted by the semiofficial ISNA news agency Saturday as saying that Tehran was “reviewing the punishment” of “behind-the-scene elements” involved in the assassination.

“Iran’s response will be a tormenting one for supporters of state terrorism,” he said, without elaborating. “The enemies of the Iranian nation, especially the United States, Britain and the Zionist regime, or Israel, have to be held responsible for their activities.”

Jazayeri also accused the International Atomic Energy Agency of being partially to blame, saying that the U.N. nuclear watchdog made public a list of Iranian nuclear scientists and officials that “has provided the possibility of their identification and targeting by spy networks.”

[Block]

Because that's believable. Iran is so full of shit, if they had evidence they'd release it publicly.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just because it was probably a group like MEK doesn't mean that they didn't have help from someone else.

[Thanas]

Especially with the United States and MEK getting pretty cozy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Especially with the United States and MEK getting pretty cozy.

I'd say Mossad is more likely but it couldn't be ruled out.