The victim was 50-year-old Masoud Ali Mohammadi, a professor of nuclear physics at Tehran University. He was killed when a remote-controlled bomb rigged to a motorcycle blew up outside his home this morning.

An Iranian prosecutor claimed the C.I.A. and Mossad probably had a hand in the killing. But Mohammadi had publicly backed opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi.

For more about covert efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear program, Daljit Dhaliwal speaks to Flynt Leverett, director of the Iran initiative at the New America Foundation and author of the blog RaceForIran.

For more, view our Voices of Iran extended coverage page and listen to our online radio show on Baha’i faith and modern Iran.

This week, world leaders from almost 200 countries are meeting to discuss the future of our planet. From Tonga and Mauritius to Japan and Brazil, the community of nations hopes to enact lasting change.

Watch all the videos from Worldfocus’ signature series: Green Energy in Denmark.

While a host of difficult decisions often scare business leaders, voters and politicians, global pressure continues to mount. China and India, as well as the U.S. and E.U., have already committed to significant cuts in the release of harmful greenhouse gases.

Will China accept slower economic growth, stricter rules and higher energy costs that could result? While virtually no one in China denies climate change, debate focuses on the speed of the shift to renewable energy.

Joining Martin Savidge from Beijing is Greenpeace China’s senior campaigner Rashid Kang and from Washington D.C. Julian Wong, senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.

Windmills in China’s far western Xinjiang provice. Photo: Flickr user gzlu

They explore the following issues:

• how China is greening rapidly and developing many alternative energy programs — from the world’s most efficient coal power plants to vast wind power fields and solar water heating technology
• why nuclear power could be the wrong alternative energy solution for China
• how food security affects China’s alternative energy strategy
• why there are no climate change skeptics in China, but why China can’t go green overnight
• and, the holy grail of renewables — energy storage.

GUESTS:

Rashid Kang is a senior campaigner on climate and energy issues for Greenpeace China. Originally from an overseas Chinese Malaysian family and trained as an engineer, he has worked on development and democratization issues in different parts of Asia over the past 10 years.

Julian L. Wong is a senior policy analyst at the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington, D.C., where he works on climate change, energy and environmental policy. Julian researched clean energy as a Fulbright scholar in Beijing and writes regularly at GreenLeapForward.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Ben Piven and Lisa Biagiotti

North Korean Major Im Dong-chul. Photos: Ben Piven

Part 3 of 6 in our Inside the Hermit Kingdom series on the people and culture of North Korea. Worldfocus multimedia producer Ben Piven writes about his encounter with Major Im Dong-chul while on the north side of the Demilitarized Zone that separates the two Koreas.

Since 1953, it has been the world’s most militarized border. Bill Clinton has called it the scariest place on earth. Undoubtedly, my most compelling moment in North Korea was at the DMZ — Demilitarized Zone.

Many Americans visit the south side of the 2.5-mile wide buffer zone that runs across the 38th parallel, dividing the Communist north from the democratic south. But our group was given a rare glimpse of the north side, where more than one million soldiers lie in waiting.

Our tour guide, Im Dong-chul, was a 21-year veteran of the Korean People’s Army with a sharp jaw and oval eyes. He offered us our only opportunity to engage in real political conversation with a North Korean soldier. Although the dialogue began with tremendous tension, we moved toward a cordial rapport during our 90 minutes together.

Speaking in Korean, Major Im fielded questions about war and peace. The major and I squared off, with two dozen others crowded around, and I seized the challenge of bilateral hardball. I was simultaneously engaged as a journalist and a diplomat. And since Americans of neither profession are common in North Korea, the task at hand was immense.

Promoting the elusive two-party talks sought by North Korea, I asked what message I should relay to President Obama.

Major Im, with the line of control and U.S.-administered building on the South Korean side in the far background.

“The U.S. should end its hostile attitude towards the DPRK by withdrawing its forces from the Korean peninsula. This is the biggest issue blocking reunification,” he said.

“As a representative of the American people, I know that we voted for a new president because we wanted big changes in foreign policy,” I responded. “President Obama is sincere, but he’s busy with a dozen other problems.”

“If every American were like you, there would be peace,” he concluded. “And I hope Obama’s policy shift happens soon.”

I apologized for American bombers leveling Pyongyang during the Korean War, and the major responded to my empathy. I then reiterated the bottom line of denuclearization: the north needs to implement security guarantees for the south.

It was shocking that Major Im even tolerated our input. Apparently, American tourists had never engaged him before. We too felt the pressure, especially in the DMZ meeting room straddling the Korean border.

I wondered about the significance of the exchange. I had come to terms with our contribution to the tourist economy but hoped that we were not becoming apologists for the state’s Juche ideology.

Back at the hotel that night, we noticed signs of diplomatic progress on BBC World News. But the process is cyclical: the North relaxes its stance, opens to talks, and then postures militarily after making impossible demands. The leadership clams up, afraid to risk humiliation at the bargaining table.

Later in the trip, we heard endless misinformation at the Korean War museum and during our tour of the captured U.S.S. Pueblo spy ship.

In the conference room that straddles the line of control between the two Koreas.

We were told repeatedly that the Korean War was used to lift the Americans out of the depression and that the U.S. had initiated the war.

Yet, we heard not a peep about the American role in liberating Korea from Japan in World War Two, though we often heard more animosity toward the Japanese than toward the sworn American enemy.

During five days in the DPRK, North Korean people never reacted contemptuously to our group as Americans. While anti-American dogma figures into museums and monuments, strangers were deferential and usually avoided us. Tourism workers were often excessively nice, especially if we addressed them in Korean or Mandarin.

My conversation with Major Im was a small but promising victory for the prospects of diplomacy aimed at bringing the world’s most isolated, nuclear-armed regime in from the cold.

- Ben Piven

In Ahmadinejad’s most positive comments to date, the leader said, “We welcome cooperation on nuclear fuel, power plants and technology, and we are ready to cooperate.”

To analyze today’s events in Iran, Daljit Dhaliwal spoke with Flynt Leverett, director of the Iran Project at the New America Foundation and a professor at Pennsylvania State.

Leverett examines the details of the Iranian and United States’ proposals for enriching uranium. He also discusses his belief that Iran intends to keep developing its fuel cycle infrastructure.

Even if Iran complies with the UN proposal to ship its uranium overseas, do you think it will still secretly try to develop nuclear weapons?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

For more, view our Voices of Iran extended coverage page and listen to our online radio show on Baha’i faith and modern Iran.

According to Iran’s state-run Press TV, Amiri worked as a researcher at Tehran’s Malek Ashtar University.

Many in Iran assume that Amiri defected, but the U.S. denies any involvement.

Nazanine Moshiri of Worldfocus partner Al Jazeera English reports from Tehran.

Ambassador Azmat Hassan

Azmat Hassan is a career diplomat and former ambassador of Pakistan, where his postings have included Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco, and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York. He currently serves as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University.

The outcome of the recent Geneva talks between the P5+1 and Iran is good news. The international community is rightly concerned at the ambiguity surrounding Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s agreement to turn over the enriched uranium fuel from its reactors to Russia represents a significant concession. But more significantly, it is a victory for diplomacy. It staves off, at least temporarily, the hawkish option of preemptive attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities by either Israel or the United States.

The latter course would be disastrous as it almost certainly would unleash more bloodshed and uncertainty in the Middle East — and probably tilt Iran toward joining the nuclear club. Iran feels hemmed in by the only nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel; by the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan; and by nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. The Geneva talks open up the possibility of diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran.

The U.S. and Iran have not spoken to each other for 30 years. They have to reengage to serve their mutual interests. Normalization would enable American diplomats on the ground in Tehran to better gauge the dynamics of Iranian politics. Ditto for Iranian diplomats in Washington. If matters proceed well, it might enable Obama to have a direct channel to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Pakistan helped the U.S. and China to reconcile forty years ago, and it would be a possible mediator between Washington and Tehran.

I vividly remember accompanying President Leghari of Pakistan in a meeting with Khamenei, when the former was on a state visit to Tehran in 1994. Khamenei sat on the floor, and so did the Pakistani delegation, on exquisite Persian carpets interspersed with cushions. Far from the West’s caricature of Iranian clergy as a bunch of scowling mullahs in black robes, Khamenei appeared both genial and worldly.

I did not detect any fire and brimstone in his remarks. Engagement almost always softens the rough edges of animosity and misperception among adversaries. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of the U.K. said that a real hero is one who turns an enemy into a friend.

Diplomatic engagement between the U.S and Iran is imperative if we desire a more peaceful Middle East. This will be good for all actors. Iran is just too important and powerful to be intimidated or isolated. Nixon’s opening to China showed the enormous benefits of bringing China into the world’s mainstream. The same can happen with Iran. Diplomacy means putting oneself in the shoes of one’s antagonist. It means viewing intractable issues from a different prism. Ultimately, it means searching for accommodation. If the U.S. were to open up and normalize with Iran, it could open the way for a broad-based rapprochement between Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab countries and Iran. It could unlock the gridlock in Iraq and Afghanistan. It could thus be win-win all around — instead of the zero-sum game that the hawks want us to play.

- Azmat Hassan

For another perspective on the responsibilities of the P5+1, read contributor Dwight Bashir’s thoughts: Amid Iran nuclear talks, don’t forget human rights.

Should the P5+1 stand in solidarity with Iran’s reformers?

For the past 15 years, Dwight Bashir has worked on international conflict, human rights and religious freedom issues. He is a senior advisor for an independent U.S. commission focusing on international religious freedom. The views expressed here are his own personal views.

Now that the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, France, Russian, China + Germany) have embarked on multilateral negotiations with the Iranian government, it is time to look forward, not backward. The one-day talks in Geneva held last week will resume after an October 25 visit to Iran by representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to assess Iran’s newly-declared nuclear facility.

As expected, international attention has focused on Iran’s apparent willingness to send most of its enriched uranium out of the country and to allow the IAEA to inspect its latest facility. What has not received adequate attention is what happened on the fringes of the formal talks –- separate discussions between American and Iranian diplomats on human rights.

Here’s how the U.S. State Department spokesman characterized these conversations: “In addition to the focus on the nuclear program, they also had a frank exchange on a number of other issues, including issues of human rights. And we also raised the issue of American citizens who are being held in Iran…”

Understandably, the United States government asked about American detainees in Iran, but what other human rights issues were discussed? Unfortunately, there has been no further explanation.

Did anyone inquire about the hundreds of Iranian citizens injured or killed while peacefully protesting the contested outcome of the June 12 elections? Or the scores of dissidents and reformers who have been beaten by Iranian security and militia forces and unlawfully detained for weeks? What about before the elections, and the thousands of brave women’s rights activists, journalists, bloggers, ethnic and religious minorities, human rights defenders and others who have been unjustly imprisoned?

For that matter, did anyone raise specific cases such as the seven Baha’i leaders, in jail since early last year, who could be sentenced to death on October 18 on baseless espionage charges? What about the status of two Christian women, Maryam and Marzieh, who reportedly have serious health concerns yet continue to languish in prison — now for more than six months — without charge and facing the death penalty for apostasy?

Let’s also not forget that just two weeks ago, President Ahmadinejad arrived in New York on very shaky international standing with internal turmoil alive and well in Iran. Nevertheless, he still felt confident enough to spew anti-Semitic rants and anti-Western vitriol during his address to the United Nations General Assembly.

All is not lost. There is a way forward.

In addition to holding the Iranian government to account for its nuclear ambitions, the P5+1 should use its new platform to raise substantive human rights issues, and not just behind closed doors. The Iranian government has already agreed to “embark on comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive negotiations,” so human rights are fair game. In particular, the P5+1 should publicly express its genuine concern about the plight of Iranian citizens, as well as raising specific cases (a similar method was used successfully by the United States during the 1970s when it raised human rights effectively during arms talks with the Soviet Union). This message must emerge in future deliberations, otherwise the morale of Iran’s reformers and — of advocates of freedom and democracy globally — will have suffered a major blow.

The P5+1 can cite Iran’s obligations under international human rights law; in particular, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Iran is a party. Not only would this present a unified front among P5+1 partners, but would also demonstrate solidarity with the Iranian people. If Russia and China balk, the four Western partners can still take a powerful stand. The Iranian people need to know that the international community cares about their fate and will not trade away 30 years of transgressions for potential nuclear concessions.

The U.S. Congress can also play its part. Both the Senate and House are moving forward on providing the Obama administration with a new set of targeted economic sanctions should Iran fail to produce tangible results in a timely fashion. Current legislation under debate identifies nuclear proliferation and support for international terrorism as justification for imposing new sanctions. Final legislation should add international human rights violations to the list. This inclusion would demonstrate that the Iranian government’s poor human rights record is on equal footing with other security concerns.

Even if symbolic, Congress should also consider triggering a targeted sanction under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA). Iran has been on the U.S. blacklist of religious freedom violators for 10 years, yet no new sanction has been imposed. In addition, the State Department has a statutory requirement under IRFA to identify foreign agencies and officials responsible for violations of religious freedom and can bar individuals from entry into the United States.

This requirement remains unfulfilled.

Ideally, the ultimate goal would be to get international agreement among the P5+1 on any new sanctions. Although this isn’t a must. Again, if Russian and/or China hold out, the four Western allies can still work together. Since late 2006, the U.N. Security Council has passed three rounds of sanctions penalizing Iran’s nuclear program and imposing travel bans on those individuals involved. Why not do the same for Iranian officials involved in human rights abuses? It’s high time to identify Iran’s human rights violations as a justification for tougher sanctions. This act alone would bolster Iran’s reformers to play their part inside Iran.

- Dwight Bashir

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Plug 1 under a Creative Commons license.

For more, view our Voices of Iran extended coverage page and listen to our online radio show on Baha’i faith and modern Iran.

They discuss the debate over next steps in the war in Afghanistan, as U.S. President Barack Obama considers sending tens of thousands of additional troops, a move that some in his administration oppose. They also explore developments in regards to Iran’s nuclear program.

For the U.S., the meeting was all about persuading Iran to come clean on its nuclear program. Thursday’s talks ended with Iran agreeing to more talks before the end of the month.

Flynt Leverett, the director of the Iran Project at the New America Foundation and professor of international relations at Penn State, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the outcome of the talks and the possibility of sanctions on Iran.

If the talks ultimately fail and sanctions are imposed on Iran, do you think Iran will give up its nuclear program?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

On Thursday, the United States, along with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, will meet with Iranian officials in Switzerland hoping to convince Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions.

They may be fighting an uphill battle. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mamhoud Ahmadinejad said that it’s the West that needs to change its ways.

Israel will be following the progress of the negotiations closely. There has been talk that the Israelis will take military action against Iran, if the talks don’t succeed.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies joins Martin Savidge to discuss whether an Israeli air strike against Iran’s facilities would even be effective. Read his opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

If the talks in Switzerland fail, would Israel be justified in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

On Monday, Iran said it was ready for any military threat and flexed its muscles by test-firing upgraded versions of its longest-range missiles, which have a range of 1,200 miles. It tested shorter-range missiles over the weekend.

While Iran’s foreign ministry said the tests have nothing to do with last week’s disclosure that Iran is developing a second uranium enrichment plant, analysts said the timing seemed aimed at bolstering Iran’s position going into this week’s talks.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Sunday that the American aim is to get Iran to resume negotiations on its nuclear program.

Ghassan Shabaneh, an assistant professor of international studies at Marymount Manhattan College, joins Martin Savidge to discuss how Arab nations view Iran.

At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, U.S. President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and French President Nicholas Sarkozy disclosed that Iran is building a new uranium enrichment facility that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

They warned Iran to come clean about its secret plant or face new, harsher sanctions. The facility is near Qom, the Shiite Muslim holy city about 100 miles southwest of Tehran.

On Friday afternoon, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held a news conference and said the facility will not be operational for 18 months, insisting Iran has complied with United Nations disclosure rules.

Fariborz Ghadar, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and professor at Penn State University, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the military significance of this newly-discovered uranium enrichment plant and the impact on nuclear talks.

Does this new revelation about Iran demonstrate that the U.S. and its allies need to take an even tougher line toward Iran?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

“I will repeat that I am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and a more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations,” Obama said. “But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards, if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability…if they are oblivious to the dangers an escalating nuclear arms race in both East Asia and the Middle East, then they must be held accountable.”

In an interview with the Associated Press, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said he expects next week’s discussions with the West about Iran’s nuclear program to be “free and open,” but called on the world’s nuclear powers to give up some of their weapons too.

Mansour Farhang is a professor of international relations at Bennington College and was revolutionary Iran’s first ambassador to the United Nations.  He joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss how Ahmadinejad’s nuclear stance is influenced by domestic Iranian politics, Israel and other concerns.

Iran signaled again this week that it is pushing ahead with its nuclear program, and Russia says it won’t back international sanctions. Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says it’s unlikely Congress will support any plan to send more American troops to Afghanistan, even though top military leaders apparently want to do just that.

Next week, the Obama administration is putting Israel front and center, sending three high-ranking officials there — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, National Security Advisor Jim Jones and special envoy George Mitchell.

Iran and its nuclear program are expected to be high on the agenda. This week, U.S. and Israeli officials aborted a test of a planned missile-defense shield for Israel.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies joins Martin Savidge to discuss the possibility that Israel might attack Iranian nuclear sites and how Iran and the U.S. would react to an Israeli attack on Iran.

Iran has so far refused to discuss or scale back its nuclear capabilities. Many experts believe Iran is several years away from being able to build a bomb, but a German news magazine quotes intelligence sources as saying there is evidence Iran could have a nuclear bomb within six months.

Reginald Dale, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, joins Martin Savidge to discuss the U.S. position and the likelihood that Iran will respond to Clinton’s call.

Meanwhile, a top Iranian nuclear official dismissed concerns over his country’s nuclear program as “politically motivated gestures by some countries.” But the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran needs to do much more to prove to the world that it is not developing a nuclear arsenal.

That possibility — a potential military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program — greatly worries Israel, which has hinted that it might attack Iran to disable its nuclear capabilities.

Daniel Levy, the co-director of the Middle East task force at the New America Foundation and a former adviser to the Israeli government, joins Martin Savidge to discuss Israel’s reaction to the Iranian election, Netanyahu’s endorsement of a Palestinian state and hopes for progress in the peace process.

North Korea has sentenced American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee to 12 years in a labor camp.

Earlier this week, North Korea sentenced two U.S. journalists to 12 years in a labor camp after they were convicted of illegal entry and crimes against the nation. Worldfocus anchor Martin Savidge writes that the U.S. is in a precarious position as it tries to ensure the journalists’ safe return while pressing North Korea on nuclear containment.

First off, if you can predict North Korea, then you are not an expert — you are divine.

That said, here goes. It is my sincere hope Laura Ling and Euna Lee will be back with their families ASAP. But I fear it could be some time — months, perhaps years. The North Koreans know they have something the U.S. wants. Also, North Korea has just begun what could be a difficult transition of power from father to third son. They don’t want reporters snooping around.

As long as North Korea holds the pair, they hold an edge over the U.S. and send a strong message to other journalists. The U.S. must disconnect the issue of journalist imprisonment from the larger issue of nuclear containment. Good luck on that…North Korea always feels like the Rodney Dangerfield of the world when it comes to respect.

So the U.S. needs to send an envoy. It’s got to be somebody well known, especially to them, but not a government official. Al Gore is the obvious choice. He’s known, he’s a civilian and he represents the company the journalists were working for when they were on assignment. Like any negotiation, North Korea will want something in return. There’s the rub for the U.S., which would prefer to punish the regime even more.

Truth is, the journalist capture and conviction couldn’t have come at a worse time. The Obama team has seen that the previous policy of carrot and stick used by the Clinton and Bush administrations didn’t work. Now they’d like to use more stick…but how likely are you to board a suspect North Korean ship carrying weapons or nuclear technology when they hold two Americans hostage?

Is North Korea America’s biggest problem now? No, that dubious honor still rests with the economy. But North Korea would like us to think they are our biggest problem. They love brinkmanship. They also, it seems, like nukes — and I’m not sure you are going to get them to give those up. It’s that respect thing again. The U.S. needs to defuse the problem by taking it out of the headlines and by opening the quiet and obscure channels of negotiation.

- Martin Savidge

Photo courtesy of Flickr user Steve Rhodes under a Creative Commons license.