“It is no secret that America, Israel and European countries are seeking to impede Iran’s nuclear plans, overtly and covertly. Yet the assassination theory was widely dismissed. The professor’s known works on particle and theoretical physics did not seem central to Iran’s nuclear programme. And his name had appeared on a list of Iranian academics favouring Iran’s protest movement. So, ran the prevailing theory, Israel or America had little reason to kill him, though Iranian hardliners may have wanted to do so.

But listen to the whispers of Western spies and diplomats, and the Iranian regime may turn out to be right. Well-placed sources in two Western countries now say the professor was “one of the most important people involved in the programme.”

This is lightly sourced but The Economist is veddy conservative and wouldn’t indict Western powers lightly. This remains a most puzzling case.

“The media will tell us much about Iran’s supposed military and nuclear capabilities in the coming weeks and months, if ultimatums and deadlines continue. But for Iran and its neighbors, and the entire region, the far more momentous question is the following: can this rigid authoritarian system reform itself? For more than one country, Iran’s domestic reverberations and their endgame are far more worrying than its nuclear chess game.”

via Beirut’s  The Daily Star.

More than a few commentators, and the Iranian government,  blamed Israel for the remote control bombing that killed an Iranian nuclear socientist in January. Friends of Israel did not seem bothered by the allegation. In Haaretz, Yossi Melman attributed his murder to “opponents of Iran’s nuclear program.”

Israel acted in a similar fashion during the 1960s against German scientists working to develop missiles in Egypt, and during the 1970s against various scientists. These included Egyptians and the Canadian scientist Gerald Bull who worked on Iraq’s nuclear and missile projects under Saddam Hussein.

But Frontline’s Tehran Bureau, came out with a better-sourced narrative last month, reportings that  Ali-Mohammadi was supporter of the Iran’s reformist Green Movement, was knowledgeable about the dual-use technologies, and interested in visiting the West.

In sum, the new information on Professor Ali-Mohammadi’s background and the circumstances surrounding his murder, and the fact that he had turned against the hardliners and had become a strong supporter of the Green Movement, all point in one direction: the likelihood that he was killed by hardliners terrified by the prospect that he might disclose information on Iran’s nuclear program.

This is hardly the final word on a murky crime but it has more more convincing reporting to back it up.