WARNING: Photos in the slideshow below depict graphic violence.

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prepares to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, a trove of photographs — most of which have never before been published — documenting the summer’s uprising against the disputed election has emerged, thanks to a dedicated network of digital smuggling.

Most of the photographs were taken by Iranian dissidents themselves, and several were shot with cell-phone cameras while in the midst of the protests that shook Tehran following the disputed June 12 elections. Some are extremely graphic, and show a level of repression exhibited against the Iranian people that did not appear in Western media. There are images of the aftermath of rubber-bullet welts, security forces on motorcycles terrorizing women, and bloodied protesters.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

The protests caught the world’s attention and led to a sustained crackdown on the Iranian opposition, particularly its ability to communicate with the outside world. One image shows the wreckage of a computer lab at Tehran University after regime elements targeted it in June. Human rights groups have documented widespread detentions and prison abuses, including rapes. On Sept. 11, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, the supreme leader of Iran, threatened a “harsh response” to those who continue denouncing the government. Yet this weekend, thousands of demonstrators turned the annual Jerusalem Day celebration into an occasion to denounce the regime at great personal risk.

As a result of the crackdown, tech-savvy dissidents have created a network stretching far outside of Iran to pass information out of the country. Sympathetic political activists outside of Iran operate clandestine servers beyond the regime’s technological reach that serve as a clearinghouse for information like these photos. TWI was given access to one such server on condition of anonymity, by Iranian dissidents and their international allies in advance of Ahmadinejad’s remarks to the U.N. general assembly — anticipated to focus on a defense of the Iranian nuclear program — at a time when many in the Iranian opposition worry that global interest in Iranian repression has dissipated.

At a speech Friday previewing the U.S. agenda for this week’s general assembly session, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the Iranian regime had to make a fundamental choice about whether it wanted warmer relations with the U.S. and Europe, a path accessible only through a perishable offer to negotiate on issues beyond Iran’s nuclear program. “The international community has made abundantly clear what is possible for all Iranians if Iran lives up to its responsibilities on the nuclear issue – the benefits of economic connections to the rest of the world, cooperation on peaceful nuclear energy, and partnership in education and science,” she said. “But there will be accompanying costs for Iran’s continued defiance – more isolation and economic pressure, less possibility of progress for the people of Iran.”

Clinton singled out the regime’s treatment of its dissenters, denouncing it for launching “a campaign of politically motivated arrests, show trials, and suppression of free speech” and saying it “stands in the way of the justice it seeks.”

The Iranian uprising and subsequent crackdown “undoubtedly complicated” the Obama administration’s efforts at diplomacy with the regime, and forced the administration to reconsider some of its assumptions, one administration official conceded. “First, there was the concern of not wanting to do anything that may undermine the Iranian opposition,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They also splashed cold water on any possibility of making real substantive gestures towards Iran beyond symbolic outreach, raised the domestic political costs of engagement, and most importantly ensured that in the short-term Iran would be ruled by a more hardline regime less likely to negotiate. The elections also caused a significant delay in our engagement policy by ensuring that rather than looking outward Iran would be internally absorbed and unable to make major foreign policy decisions.”

Yet as the Iranian regime has looked inward — which, in this context, means violently suppressing dissent — some Iranian human-rights advocates believe the world has looked elsewhere. On Monday afternoon, Human Rights Watch and the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran will hold a joint press conference across from U.N. headquarters in New York, in which a tortured Iranian dissident will speak.

“The Iranian government is doing its best to prevent any news from inside Iran to reach the outside word,” said Hadi Ghaemi, the director of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “The level of repression is increasing and detentions of activists is continuing. But the international community should realize that the protests in Iran are not over, just as we saw yesterday with tens of thousands risking their lives to publicly protest. As Ahmadinajed comes to the U.N., the focus should be on the grave human rights violations of the past three months: murder of protestors, torture and rape of detainees. The U.N. General Assembly should hold Ahmadinejad accountable by appointing a special envoy to investigate and document the extent of crimes that have taken place.”

…the judiciary should charge the leading “rioters” as being “mohareb” or one who wages war against God.

“They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely,” he said. Under Iran’s Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as mohareb is execution.

Khatami added, presumably for good measure, that the judiciary ought to “punish” the protesters “without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson.” He says that the protesters are “rioters” who have murdered the militiamen of the Basij, and public safety can’t tolerate a balloon-based assault. I’m sure he’s really talking about the “judiciary” here, and not other means of government control empowered to show no mercy.

The Guardian Council, which is in charge of the recount rejected by opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi, issued a statement through its spokesman today that “the election was the healthiest since the revolution.” That’s where Khatami’s government-based religious injunction for executions comes into play.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

… at least three Iranian newspapers reported that of 290 members of the Iranian Parliament invited to a victory party for him Wednesday night, only 105 attended, suggesting a deep divide within the political elite over the election and its aftermath.

That won’t overturn an election, but it might be an indicator that the center of gravity for meeting minimal demands of the protesters is with the elites, and not out on the streets. In Qom, ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is doing … something that we don’t really know about, but reportedly (well, much-speculated-ly) he’s attempting to convince the Assembly of Experts to dislodge Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei. I don’t know if this bit of elite-based speculation is well-grounded. But it looks like there needs to be some renewed exogenous event to re-spark a mass opposition movement. Mir Hussein Moussavi told supporters that he’s not backing down, but the regime has little incentive to compromise if it can break up the demonstrations through violence and withstand elite challenges.

Relatedly, how long until State Department spokesman Ian “there’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats” Kelly finds, uh, a new position where he can spend more time with his family?

Such a compromise may be shaped by the battles inside the corridors of power. The clergy, whose blessings are a key source of legitimacy for the regime, is clearly divided over the government’s handling of the election and its aftermath. Much has been made of the fact that the Assembly of Experts, the 86-member clerical body that picks the Supreme Leader, also has the right to remove him from office, and there has been speculation that former President and Mousavi ally Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who chairs the Assembly, has been lobbying clerics to rebuke Khamenei’s handling of the debacle. Whatever the reality, there’s little doubt that many of Iran’s senior clerics view Khamenei as having degraded the principle of a clerical Supreme Leader acting as a guide and arbiter to the regime’s factional battles. Khamenei has clearly become a partisan participant.

This really does hinge on unknowable questions about the rationality of various regime personages. We don’t really know what Rafsanjani is doing. But let’s say he is indeed trying to oust Khamanei. And let’s further say he succeeds. Would whatever governing arrangement comes next be prepared for a re-vote? What would its relationship be with the security apparatus? How would it consolidate its control if there’s a sudden ouster? All these questions precede any move for a “compromise.” We shouldn’t presume that an anti-Khamenei Assembly of Experts is necessarily more prepared to compromise, or even has the leverage to offer a compromise that the opposition can accept.

Documents found in the building indicate an ongoing plot against Iran’s security was being implemented, the police said in a statement.

“After scrutinizing the building, which was the campaign office of a presidential candidate, it was discovered that the organization of illegal gatherings, the promotion of unrest, and efforts to undermine the country’s security were carried out from the building,” the statement added.

Even for a regime that blatantly stole an election, this is egregious.

If he had been talking a little tougher even a few days ago, we might not have been seeing the violence and bloodshed of this repressive regime in Tehran over the last few days.

Later in the interview Rohrabacher dished out what is, by my count, the 12,432th ahistorical comparison between this president’s actions and Ronald Reagan’s relationship with the Soviet Union (as opposed to Iran, which he armed).

It’d be like Ronald Reagan, going to the Berlin Wall and saying, “Mr. Gorbachev, that’s your business over there, we don’t want to have any business doing this.” Of course Mr. Gorbachev wouldn’t have permitted the wall to come down then.

On a day when the Politico runs a speculative story about a “Republican comeback,” it’s worth remembering that the some of the foreign policy analysis in the opposition party is still completely childish.

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

First, I’d like to say a few words about the situation in Iran. The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran, and the future that they – and only they – will choose.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

This is in line with Trita Parsi’s recent suggestion that Obama should expand his rhetoric on Iran. Obama doesn’t inject himself into the Iranian crisis — indeed, he rejects the idea as a conspiracy theory — but he makes it very clear what the obligations of the Iranian government are, and where his sympathies lie.

“We haven’t used those funds, and we should use them,” said Santorum. “The most important action we can take is to make sure dissidents can communicate. I don’t care if we make noise one way or another about what we’re doing as long as we’re behind some concrete action. We should be supporting labor unions and other groups that organizing right now. We should be looking at expatriate community. There are a lot of ways to get involved.”

I asked Santorum about a fairly popular argument on the right, that the American experience in Iraq has given hope to Iranian protesters. “There’s no question that Iraq not being a threat to Iran right now,” he said, “when it’s been a threat to Iran since Saddam Hussein took power, has created opportunities for dissent. It’s no longer a boogeyman that the regime can make people afraid of. And I don’t think it’s surprising that we’re seeing protesters holding up signs, written in English. That’s for the United States to read, and that’s a good sign as to who they’re looking toward.”

All of this, said Santorum, was tough to consider under a president who “doesn’t believe in America’s moral authority.”

“For all of his starry-eyed socialistic dreams for America, this president has a very different view of America’s role in the world,” he said. “This is someone who doesn’t believe in activism and America’s greatness as a way to change things around the world. He only believes we should do those things at home.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

This Washington Post story about the Washington debate over Iran is revealing for two reasons. First, the administration doesn’t seem to be phased by Manichean, inwardly focused arguments through analogy about why President Obama needs to intercede, rhetorically, into the Iranian opposition’s uprising. “We’re trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves,” a senior administration official told the paper’s Scott Wilson. Second, a different quote in the piece indicates the administration doesn’t want to step in the way of a phenomenon that might mean a whole lot of good things for those interests: “There is something particularly authentic about those who are carrying out these demonstrations … The more you keep this in Iranian terms, the better the chances of change.”

That matches background conversations I’ve had with administration people as well, and they typically cash this issue out in terms of the nuclear question. Just check out State Department spokesman Ian Kelly’s minuet with the press yesterday. As with all administration statements on Iran since June 12, Kelly preserves administration options on future-scope negotiations with the Iranians on their nuclear program. Even if the opposition triumphs — and I don’t think we even know what that means — it’s still unclear what that will mean for the nuclear question. Mir Hussein Moussavi’s public statemens indicate a willingness to pursue nuclear energy without weaponization,  but who knows what domestic constraints he would be under even if he miraculously becomes president under a system giving the presidency greater foreign policy authority. Still, the nuclear question is the one that really does concern the administration. I think it’s fair to say that administration officials consider a nuclear-armed Iran to be high on its list of foreign-policy disasters.

But what about Iran’s other effects? On the entire Middle East?

And here comes the irresponsible speculation. In 2004, Jordanian King Abdullah came to Washington and warned about a Shiite “Crescent” of Iranian influence spreading across the Middle East. As he saw it, Iran’s inroads into war-torn Iraq had helped ignite a spark of sectarian conflict that benefited Iranian interests and facilitated the expansion of Iranian power in the region. Hezbollah received increased weaponry and funding that aided it in provoking and then battling Israel in the 2006 war. Hamas received weaponry and funding that aided it in taking over Gaza in 2007 and then provoking and battling Israel, much less well, in this past winter’s war. Shiite political parties all types of in Iraq received funding and in some cases weaponry, as Iran opted for a bet-on-all-horses approach to the country’s politics. Syria expanded its bandwagoning relationship with Iran. The rhetoric from Iran  grew increasingly bellicose — a contributing factor was being surrounded by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan — and in 2007 Iran briefly took British sailors captive.

There’s so much we don’t know about the Iranian opposition. We don’t know what it would mean for it to take power. We don’t know what constraints on its ability to influence foreign policy would be. We don’t know what its desires for regional and global foreign policy are. We don’t know how its various factions define Iranian interests, or how those definitions conflict with each other. We don’t know what its relationships with the security apparatus would be. We don’t know what its relationship with the millions of Ahmadinejad supporters would be.

But it’s crazy to think that the rise to power of the opposition, as miraculous as that looks on June 23, wouldn’t have some effect on Iranian power in the Middle East. Various Iranian clients would have to reassess their considerations of the strengths of their ties to the regime. Some would have to ask if they’d have the same sort of client-proxy relationship they currently enjoy. Others — Hamas, probably — would wonder whether they’d have a continued relationship with a vastly changed Iran. U.S. partner regimes in the region, consequently, would ask whether Iran remains the threatening, hegemony-seeking entity that they’ve perceived for years.

Again, it’s way, way, way too early to really have an evidentiary basis for any of this. The opposition, of course, still hasn’t won yet, and things are looking bleak and tense. Hussein Ibish may be right that this is “a revolutionary situation,” and so much can happen in revolutions, as deposed revolutionary Iranian President Abolhassan Bani Sadr can attest. And the Obama administration does not see the Middle East as a canvas in the way that some Bush administration officials did. But the understandable calculus of keeping its focus on what posture is best for addressing the nuclear question shouldn’t obscure the likelihood that if the opposition wins, a significant amount of Middle Eastern politics and diplomacy will change. The direction of that change is unpredictable, but the prospect of its occurrance is fairly strong.