US-UK Democratisation Drive.

The Financial Times on April 22 said the US and UK were working on a strategy to promote democratic change in Iran, citing "officials who see the joint effort as the start of a new phase in the diplomatic campaign to counter the Islamic republic's nuclear programme without resorting to military intervention". A newly created Iran Syria Operations Group inside the US State Department is "co-ordinating the work and reporting to Elizabeth Cheney, the senior US official leading democracy promotion in the broader Middle East".

The FT quoted a former Bush administration official as saying: "Democracy promotion is a rubric to get the Europeans behind a more robust policy without calling it regime change". The new direction, the former official said, reflected a growing belief in the US and UK that diplomacy through the UN and partial sanctions were unlikely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. The FT quoted the former official as saying: In the absence of a credible military solution, the argument went that international diplomacy could try to slow down the nuclear programme while more "robust" efforts continued towards the ultimate solution of regime change.

The FT quoted US officials as saying the British input was important because of the Bush administration's lack of experts on Iran, the legacy of 25 years of frozen diplomatic relations. Some see the UK as having a moderating effect as the US considers whether to fund opposition groups in exile, launch covert activities inside Iran, and/or "independent" satellite TV broadcasting in Farsi. But, the FT added, "US officials also detect a hardening of the UK stance in response to the confrontational approach of [Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad... Seeking to fill the US knowledge gap, the State Department in March set up the Iranian Affairs Office in Washington and announced new diplomatic posts for Farsi speakers. Barbara Leaf, an Arabist, is expected to head the office. At the same time, the separate Iran Syria Operations Group was established to plot a more aggressive democracy promotion strategy for those two 'rogue' states".

Funding is to come from $75m which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced in February she was requesting from Congress this year, plus some $10m already in the budget.

Adam Ereli, a State Department spokesman, denied the operations group existed. But the FT reported two other US officials and a European diplomat as insisting that it did. They said the inter-agency group, supposed to co-ordinate with the Pentagon and other departments, was headed by David Denehy, a special adviser who served in the coalition government in Iraq, and Alberto Fernandez, a public diplomacy official at the State Department.

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw accused Iran of deciding to "take on the international community" through its development of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism in a tough speech on March 13. Straw said the UK would "not take sides in Iran's internal political debates" and noted that Iranians were "understandably sensitive about any hint of outside interference". But in language which echoed Ms Rice's testimony to Congress a month earlier, Straw pledged UK support for the democratic "aspirations" of the Iranian people. He focused giving Iranians access to "independent authoritative information" and said states could help provide this.

The US is planning to increase satellite TV programming by Voice of America and may launch a new "independent" network with a prominent Iranian as front-man. US officials concede, however, that they are not encouraged by their experience in Arabic broadcasting in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.

The FT said: "Serious Iranian opposition politicians are virtually unanimous in saying that foreign funding of activities designed to promote democracy, especially by the US or UK, would be counter-productive".

Ali Akbar Javanfekr, a press adviser to Ahmadi-Nejad, recently said Iranians were "alert" to the "propaganda of enemies", and in general Iran's rulers show little concern over existing US broadcasts.

Iranian Meddling In Iraq: In an article on April 19, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director of the International Crisis Group (ICG), pointed to allegations of an Iranian role in Iraqi Kurdistan behind recent protests against Kurdish political leaders which took place in Halabja, a town near the Iranian border. On March 16, Kurds converged there to hold their annual commemoration of the Iraqi chemical attack which killed thousands in 1988. Normally, Hiltermann wrote, "it is an occasion for visits by Kurdish and foreign dignitaries, speeches extolling Kurdish suffering and advocating independence, and even some festive activities. When I visited last year, a power hang glider entertained the crowds by buzzing low over the Halabja memorial. This year, the event took a different turn".

Hiltermann added: "Townspeople had long accused the Kurdish leadership of exploiting the gas attack for political gain and withholding foreign assistance intended for the attack's survivors, many still suffering from debilitating illnesses. Instead of joining the commemoration, Halabjans demonstrated at the memorial, which houses a museum, an art exhibit, and a conference room. Guards of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), one of the two main Kurdish parties, panicked and opened fire. One demonstrator died, several others were injured. Enraged, the crowd stormed the monument erected to the memory of their loved ones and burned it to the ground. Deeply embarrassed, the PUK quickly pointed a finger at Iran.

"The Iranians have long meddled in Kurdish politics, supporting Islamist groups to check the secular parties' power. The Islamists are particularly strong in Halabja, where they gave rise to violent offshoots, such as [the Sunni but Neo-Salafi] Ansar al-Islam. Informed observers promptly offered a plausible explanation for an Iranian hand in the March 16 fracas: The 'spontaneous' demonstration was a warning from Tehran to PUK leader Jalal Talabani, Iraq's president, to stop opposing the... [Shi'ite] coalition's candidate...[for PM, Ibrahim al-Ja'fari]. Whether true or not, many Kurds certainly saw the event as an Iranian message".

Even if the Kurds, Sunni and secular Shi'ite politicians fail in their bid, the recent compromise agreement to set up an advisory National Security Council (NSC) may undermine the power of a Shi'ite PM. The rationale behind the NSC was to dilute the power of a UIA-led government. Whatever government emerges from this tug of war, in other words, will be weak.

Hiltermann warned: "This is a dangerous prospect in a country which balances on the brink of civil war. The irony is that neither Iran nor the US can afford to press their power struggle too far. Both support Iraq's territorial integrity, a principle threatened by spiraling conflict. If Tehran was indeed behind the Halabja demonstration which turned violent, it would be playing with fire by heightening tensions. Washington likewise finds itself under pressure to withdraw from Iraq even as it sees Iranian influence spread".

US attempts in Iraq to contain the Shi'ite parties which won the elections could unleash popular anger against the occupation. Hiltermann concluded: "Iran's recent decision to begin discussion with the US concerning Iraq may well be chiefly informed by its wish to deflect pressure stemming from the nuclear crisis, but both countries also share an interest in finding ways to stabilize Iraq. Both sides have much to gain and even more to lose in the current stand-off. There could not be a better time for both to sit down together and put their cards on the table in an all-out effort to save Iraq and, thereby, their own vital interests in the Gulf".