In Iran, a chorus of dissent rises over nuclear rhetoric

Iran’s leadership is facing mounting public unease and the seeds of mutiny in parliament over the combative nature of its nuclear diplomacy.

For the first time since Iran resumed its uranium enrichment program, there is broad, open criticism of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s defiance of the Bush administration and United Nations Security Council, and warnings have emerged that the public may not be prepared to support the Islamic regime through a war.

The criticism and public wariness come at a time when the Bush administration has moved additional ships to the Persian Gulf and Washington and Israel have refused to rule out a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The mounting dissent does not appear to have chipped away at Iran’s determination to maintain an active nuclear program, say politicians, diplomats and political analysts here. But they say it opens the door to a face-saving compromise and signals that a broad range of Iranians hope to avoid an all-out confrontation.

“If [Ahmadinejad] wants to start a new war, from where does he think he’s going to produce the army?” asked Mohammed Atrianfar, a well-known political commentator allied with former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has been working behind the scenes in recent weeks to ease the tension.

“We are not agreeing with his radical, extreme policies,” Atrianfar said. “It is because of the propagandist speech of Ahmadinejad all over the world that we’re in the situation we’re in.”

The U.N. Security Council voted Dec. 23 to ban the sale to Iran of materials that can be used in uranium enrichment, nuclear material reprocessing and production of ballistic missiles. Ahmadinejad has declared the resolution “a torn paper.”

Some experts in Iran think the U.N. sanctions, with the backing of China and Russia, took the country’s leadership by surprise.

“They were counting on it not getting that far or that it wouldn’t be unanimous,” said a Western diplomat based in Tehran. “Many advisors weren’t telling [supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] it would get this far. The fact that it was unanimous and they couldn’t count on Russia and China was a bit of a shock. Hence this debate on where they’re going to go next.”

Parliament responded by calling in Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to discuss whether Iran’s defiance was giving Washington ammunition to argue for escalating the sanctions once a 60-day deadline to halt enrichment expires this month. The combative exchange was broadcast on state radio.

Ahmadinejad is “making some adventures in foreign relationships that don’t benefit our country,” Akbar Alami, a reformist lawmaker who led the charge in parliament, said in an interview. “The nuclear issue and the right of Iran to have nuclear power is a matter of national pride. But we cannot limit this issue to one person like Mr. Ahmadinejad.”

Although Ahmadinejad attracts attention in the West, his power as Iran’s president has limits. The ultimate authority is held by the top Islamic clerics, led by Khamenei, who control the armed forces.

Analysts here say it is significant that Khamenei, who has been a strong supporter of the nuclear program, has not silenced Ahmadinejad’s critics.

Indeed, Jamhouri Eslami, a newspaper once owned by Khamenei that often reflects his views, has voiced its own criticism of the president.

“Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda slogan gives the impression that you, for the sake of covering up flaws in the government, are exaggerating its importance. This is harmful for you and your government,” the paper said in an editorial last month.

It remains unknown whether Khamenei will try to rein in public dissent.

Many in Iran are aghast at the idea that a nation that spent eight years at war with neighboring Iraq could be in for another conflict.

“I’m 100% worried that there will be another war,” said Zari, a 26-year-old theater director who declined to give her last name. “But it’s not in our control. Both Bush and Ahmadinejad are powerful enough to do something, and we can’t do anything to stop them.”

Abbas Maleki, a political analyst who recently returned from Harvard University, said many Iranians feared speaking out.

“People cannot show their concern because of the need for solidarity. But they really are concerned now, and this is the discussion deep in all of the families,” Maleki said.

“Iranians want to have a better situation. They are working and they are trying to have better education for their sons and daughters, and all of these issues will be destroyed with one strike.”

The dissent does not mean Iranians are entirely rejecting the country’s nuclear program.

Even politicians who have criticized Ahmadinejad seem to share the view that Iran is entitled to peaceful nuclear power and the uranium enrichment technology that goes with it.

Although blessed with one of the world’s largest reservoirs of oil and natural gas, Iran spends billions of dollars a year importing gasoline.

Many analysts think the nation faces the prospect of reduced oil exports if it does not find a solution to its domestic energy problem.

Hampered by sanctions and forced to develop much of the technology on its own, Iran has made slow progress in setting up an industrial-scale uranium enrichment operation, international nuclear experts say.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported this month that Iran probably would meet its goal of building 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by March, but it would be another year before engineers could get them linked and running.

Even the test centrifuge cascades being built at the Natanz nuclear facility are not running smoothly, the institute said.

The report estimated that Iran was at least two or three years from being able to produce enough material for a nuclear bomb, should it attempt to do so. Tehran strongly denies that it is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

In the debate over how fast and how far to push the nuclear program, Ahmadinejad and his allies are convinced, analysts say, that the United States has been weakened by the war in Iraq, economic constraints at home and a population wary of more global conflicts.

“The first approach taken by some here in Iran is that the United States is commencing its disintegration as an imperialist state and will be defeated in one or two years,” Maleki said. “Therefore Iran can enjoy the fruits of this confrontation: The United States will collapse and Iran will be in power.”

He said Ahmadinejad and his allies appeared certain that this would be the case.

“The second approach says, ‘Yes, there are several signals and signs that the United States is becoming weakened. But it is not 100% sure that this year or next year it will be collapse. Maybe it needs 100 years.’ And this approach says that the best way for Iran is to refrain from any issues with the United States, to avoid any confrontation on any level. Experience shows that the second approach now is dominant in Iran.”

The dissenting voices remained muted until the Dec. 15 elections for municipal councils and the clerical Assembly of Experts.

Candidates from Ahmadinejad’s camp were trounced, and Rafsanjani, running for the assembly, had 500,000 more votes than his nearest opponent.

“There’s definitely been a big internal debate going since the municipality elections went badly for Ahmadinejad,” the Western diplomat said. “Then the gloves sort of came off for the critics. The reformists have stuck their heads above the parapet, saying, ‘Is this really the direction we want the country to go in?’ It was almost as if they’d been given the green light.”

The reformists’ momentum could provide ammunition for Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, to find common ground with Western leaders during scheduled talks in Germany this weekend. Analysts said it was conceivable Iran could agree to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily, possibly in exchange for a halt to U.N. sanctions and a security guarantee from the United States.

But this is far from guaranteed. A peaceful nuclear program has widespread support in Iran, and conservative lawmakers are not likely to be swayed by the threat of new sanctions or military action.

“We are not worried about a military attack, and we are completely ready to defend our country. If they want, we can make the Persian Gulf the tomb of the United States of America,” said Hamidreza Taraghi, political director of the conservative Islamic Coalition Party.

“But the United States doesn’t want to do this because they cannot right now. They are weak,” he said. “They don’t have enough power to start another war. Lots of American politicians are against starting another war, and everybody knows this.”

*

kim.murphy@latimes.com