Trump Administration on Verge of Junking Iran Nuclear Deal

July 20, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

The announcement came just hours before the midnight deadline for US President Donald Trump to inform congress whether Iran had met the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal. | Nicholas Kaam/AFP

The Trump administration once again announced the Iranian regime was following the two-year old nuclear deal, but barely.

In several revealing and extraordinary news stories, including one from Bloomberg which disclosed how President Trump was ready at the last minute to pull the trigger and find the Iranian regime was no longer in compliance with the agreement.

“So just as (Secretary of State Rex) Tillerson was preparing to inform Congress on Monday that Iran remained in compliance with what is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Trump called it off, according to administration officials. He wanted to know his options and what would happen if Tillerson didn’t make the announcement,” Bloomberg wrote.

“And for a few hours on Monday afternoon, it looked like the White House was going to tell Congress it could not certify Iran was complying, without saying Iran was in breach of the pact. This would have triggered a 60-day period in which Congress could vote to re-impose the secondary sanctions lifted as a condition of the deal, or to strike it down altogether,” Bloomberg added.

The fact that Trump was serious about getting tough on the Iranian regime was a welcome departure from the last eight years under the Obama administration, but also points to the tight spaces he must navigate to restrain the mullahs in Tehran.

The central driving force behind decertifying Iran lies with the regime’s behavior since the deal was signed. The president recognizes, as do most Americans, that in the past years Tehran has operated as if there wasn’t any agreement in the first place.

Its’ nuclear program was never halted, only briefly delayed, and it received vast economic benefits from the lifting of sanctions that essentially saved the regime from collapse and allowed it ramp up its proxy wars in Syria and Yemen.

Most importantly, the deal allowed Iranian regime the funding and breathing room to develop its ballistic missile program. Nuclear warheads aren’t much use unless you can deliver them to their targets and missiles make for an excellent Sword of Damocles to hang over Iran’s enemies.

The fact that the regime, along with the Iran lobby, fought hard to keep issues such as its ballistic missile program, separate and apart from the nuclear deal demonstrated its desire to have its cake and eat it too.

This is the quandary that President Trump finds himself in since confronting the Iranian regime isn’t just about the nuclear deal, but includes a whole host of issues including the wars it is fomenting in Syria and Yemen and the crises it created in Qatar, Pakistan and Qatar; not to mention the escalating tensions in international waters in the Persian Gulf and Suez Canal.

The president also needs to find ways to empower the Iranian resistance movement in order to foster the kind of internal regime change most likely to produce a peaceful transition in government without the specter of starting another war in the Middle East.

The potential key to making all this happen may be the potential of closing Iran off to further foreign investment and business as Lake makes clear in his article.

“All of this is also a lesson to Western businesses hoping Iran will be a safe place to invest in the aftermath of the nuclear bargain. Administration officials on Monday said the Treasury Department was still reviewing a proposed sale of civilian airliners from Boeing to Iran’s largest airline. That deal is under scrutiny because Iran uses its civilian air fleet to send supplies, personnel and weapons to the war in Syria,” Lake said.

The administration also moved forward in slapping additional sanctions on Iran not related to nuclear issues the other day in a demonstration of its willingness to hold the regime accountable, while at the same time certifying the nuclear deal in compliance. For President Trump, it is his way of having his own cake and eating it too.

The Treasury Department blacklisted 18 people and entities for supporting Iran’s military and Islamic Revolutionary Guard, which it said harassed U.S. naval vessels and tried to build ballistic missiles and steal U.S. computer software.

The sanctions mean it is illegal for U.S. citizens or companies to do business with those on the list, and any assets they have in the U.S. can be seized. It’s unclear whether the 18 have such assets or businesses.

Predictably the Iranian regime responded to the sanctions with what it called its own “reciprocal actions,” but it pointed out an uncomfortable truth for the mullahs which is that President Trump was moving closer to potentially designating the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization, which could potentially cripple the regime’s flow of illicit funds.

The Iran lobby also weighed in with the National Iranian American Council’s Trita Parsi issuing a press release criticizing the moves by the administration.

“Under Trump, diplomacy has been traded for threats, placing the US and Iran at risk of war once more. Rather than pursuing dialogue with Tehran to resolve remaining disputes, as every one of our European allies have done, the Trump administration has chosen to escalate tensions and eschew opportunities to come to a mutual understanding,” Parsi said.

Parsi continues to try and split the difference in separating the nuclear deal from other issues such as Iran’s ballistic missiles and support for terror or poor human rights record. While that strategy worked with the previous administration, President Trump seems to have determined that all of these issues are interconnected.

This will no doubt cause Parsi to be dismayed and the mullahs to be frightened, but it’s the correct pathway to follow and one that President Obama should have done four years ago when negotiations opened on a deal.

If he had connected the dots of Iran’s bad behavior with the leverage he possessed in negotiating the deal, things might have been very different these past two years.

Unfortunately, it is now up to President Trump to clean up the mess.

Laura Carnahan

Two Year Anniversary of Iran Nuclear Deal Shows Its Failures

July 14, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif before a meeting in Geneva January 14, 2015. Zarif said on Wednesday that his meeting with Kerry was important to see if progress could be made in narrowing differences on his country’s disputed nuclear program. REUTERS/Rick Wilking (SWITZERLAND – Tags: POLITICS) – RTR4LDZW

Two years ago, President Barack Obama was lauding a landmark nuclear deal, while the image of Iran’s foreign minister, Javid Zarif, shaking hands with U.S. officials was beamed around the world by a global news media largely snookered by the Iran lobby into believing that the Iranian regime had turned the corner and could be trusted as a responsible member of the international community.

What a difference two year’s make.

The world has witnessed the Middle East plunge into chaos with a body count in Syria alone reaching 400,000 dead and four million displaced as refugees. Conflicts rage from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean with the threat of wider wars now appearing on the horizon in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and around the Persian Gulf.

More importantly, conflict is not only confined to the battlefields with armies and proxies, but has been stretched by Iran’s introduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles that can now reach well into Europe, Asia and Africa.

Combine that threat with the insidious rise of North Korea’s own mushrooming missile launches and the world is now faced with missile threats from both sides of the planet controlled by autocratic regimes that have shown a complete disregard for the value of human life.

The picture is bleak and the reason for it rests largely on what the Iran nuclear deal failed to accomplish which is to alter the behavior of a regime controlled by mullahs in Tehran who viewed the deal as a windfall energizing their faltering government.

The Obama administration slowly and inexorably whittled away concession after concession at the request of the mullahs and recast the nuclear deal in evolving terms that changed its nature from a potential instrument of regime change to little more than a slight postponement in the regime’s plans for regional domination.

In the annals of international diplomacy, it has vaulted to rank near the Munich agreement that Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler brokered that gave away Austria in terms of futility.

The central conceit of the Iran lobby was that the nuclear agreement would bring Iranian regime back into the fold of civilized nations and empower the “moderate” elements within the government; none of which has come to pass. If anything, the reactionary, cold-blooded mullahs have demonstrated they remain firmly and clearly in control of the levers of powers and were only emboldened by the agreement.

For top mullahs Ali Khamenei, the nuclear agreement only confirmed in his mind that the Obama administration was less concerned about restraining Iran than in securing a historical legacy for the president. Obama showed his inclination to avoid confrontation with Iran and his willingness to compromise on any issue:

Remove human rights and support for terrorism from the terms of the nuclear deal? Check;
Remove any restrictions from Iran’s ballistic missile program from the nuclear deal? Check;
Include provisions to ransom American hostages as a condition of finalizing the nuclear deal? Check;
Eliminate any inspection of suspected nuclear sites in Iran by international inspectors on the ground? Check;
Allow Iranian regime to retain all of its centrifuges and allow it to acquire better and more efficient centrifuges to produce nuclear fuel? Check.

In each case, the Iranian regime was allowed to lift restrictions from some of its more problematic activities such as its missile program, but most importantly, it eliminated “consequences” for the regime’s actions.

The nuclear deal was a badly flawed document because there were no mechanisms to adequately punish the regime for breaking the agreement since it reaps virtually all of its benefits—namely cash—from the outset.

Now the Trump administration is faced with having to live with the consequences of this deal, specifically whether or not to renew another 90-day compliance finding for the JCPOA, as the agreement is called, to Congress.

President Trump is likely to renew the compliance finding since his administration is in the midst of a policy review for Iran, as well as engaging Iranian-backed militia units on the battlefield in Syria.

If Trump does state Iran is in compliance, it would be his second time since taking office in January to do so despite his promise during the 2016 campaign to “rip up” what he called “the worst deal ever,” according to Reuters.

What is troubling are recent reports from German intelligence agencies that the Iranian regime is still actively seeking components used in nuclear weapons manufacturing and research. This and other disturbing actions by the regime over the past two years point to a pattern that the mullahs are still actively and aggressively seeking to build their nuclear program.

The advanced ramp up of its ballistic missile program mirrors the same crash program North Korea pursued in developing its nuclear and missile programs.

None of this stopped the Iran lobby from praising the anniversary of the nuclear deal as the National Iranian American Council issued a self-congratulatory press statement and criticized efforts to dismantle the agreement:

“Unfortunately, however, the JCPOA remains under attack from elements within both countries that prefer conflict over dialogue and mutual suspicion over greater understanding. Continued sanctions, calls from the White House for nations to refrain from investing in Iran, and an increase in military encounters between the US and Iran all threaten the deal. The JCPOA represented an opportunity for the US and Iran to change course, broaden engagement and end the policy of sanctions and antagonism. Unfortunately that opportunity has largely been squandered,” said Trita Parsi, head of the NIAC.

On the second anniversary of the Iran Deal, the remarks to dub the flawed deal, as a good deal continues, by the Iran Lobby. It is indeed time to rid Washington from the Iranian regimes lobbies such as NIAC and from people like Trita Parsi.

Michael Tomlinson

Warnings Not to Soften on Iran Regime Mount

July 14, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Warnings Not to Soften on Iran Regime Mount

One of the more interesting aspects of the transition in the White House has been the lack of support the Iran lobby receives. During the Obama administration, key Iran lobbyists such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council had almost unfettered access to the White House; visiting as often as insurance lobbyists during the Obamacare debate.

Key administration staffers helped construct the much-debated “echo chamber” to lend support for the debate about the Iran nuclear deal and help influence the news media with so-called strategic analysts to place editorials and appear on newscasts promoting the agreement.

Even former NIAC staffers were hired to fill key positions in the State Department and National Security Council much to the consternation of long-time critics of the Iranian regime who warned of the conflicts of interest stemming from having staffers with close ties to the Iranian regime overseeing U.S. policy on Iran.

The changeover in administrations not only significantly reduced the influence and clout of the Iran lobby, it also encouraged closer scrutiny and questioning of not only the Iran lobby’s positions, but also the thinking that went into the appeasement policies of the Obama administration.

The world has had the benefit of hindsight after two years since the nuclear deal was signed and has clearly seen that the Iranian regime is now the most destabilizing force in the Middle East with the eruption of proxy wars, terror incidents and deployments of new weapons on a large scale.

The laundry list of Iranian actions reads like a butcher’s bill for chaos, including:

Deepening the Syrian civil war the past two years by sending thousands of fighters to support Assad and drawing Russia into the conflict, as well as supporting the use of chemical weapons used on civilians;
Provoking open war with Saudi Arabia by starting the Houthi rebellion in Yemen and supporting additional efforts to destabilize Bahrain;
Igniting a border conflict with Pakistan that recently escalated to lobbing rockets and mortar shells at each other;
Spark the collapse of the Sunni-Shia coalition government in Iraq, thereby driving disenfranchised Sunni tribes to support ISIS leading to the fall of Mosul and giving ISIS its first stronghold to build on; and
Launch a massive development program to build a ballistic missile fleet with heavier payloads and intercontinental range, as well as use them for the first time in firing at targets in Syria; and
Deploy its military aggressively, including its navy to threaten international shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean, Gulf of Aden and Suez Canal.

The proof of how false the Iran lobby’s arguments were has been on display the past two years and there is little debate about Iran being at the center of the woes besetting the region. This has led to an emboldened Iranian resistance movement, as well as open criticism of Iran with little defense of the regime from the Iran lobby.

The wave of social media posts, editorial commentary and press releases by groups such as NIAC have fallen precipitously as Iran’s actions have clearly blown them out of the water, though are now trying to prevent policy changes against the regime, namely the black listing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the main vehicle behind its terrorist activities and its interferences in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.

That criticism is now coming from all quarters as the Iranian opposition movement has gathered steam—culminating in the massive rally in Paris of the leading Iranian dissident groups totaling over 100,000 people with a global parade of nations all criticizing the mullahs in Tehran earlier this month.

In the U.S. Congress, the bipartisan support for the imposition of new economic sanctions on Iranian regime for its ballistic missile program grows each day, alongside calls by Senators on the Trump administration and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson not to certify the Iranian regime being in compliance with the nuclear agreement.

“We believe that a change in that policy is long overdue,” Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton and three colleagues wrote to Tillerson in a letter Tuesday.

“In light of Iran’s malign actions since the signing of the [nuclear deal], the only reasonable conclusion is that the full suspension of U.S. sanctions is not in the vital national security interests of the United States and that Iran has consistently violated the terms of the [nuclear deal].”

Under federal law, a finding that Iran is not complying with the deal — the certification must take place every 90 days — would set the stage for “an expedited process for Congress to rapidly restore its sanctions.” Cotton and the other senators said that time has come.

They cited several violations, including Iran’s refusal to allow international inspectors to access their research and military facilities, and exceeding limits on water stocks needed to create a plutonium pathway for nuclear weapons.

Several news organizations similarly reported violations by the Iranian regime, especially in its ongoing efforts to acquire illicit nuclear technology.

Weekly Standard reporter Benjamin Weinthal revealed Friday that recent reports by German intelligence agencies show that Iran is still attempting to procure illicit nuclear technology, such as specialized valves that can be used in the heavy water reactor in Arak.

Weinthal cited a report by the state of Hamburg in northern Germany which said “there is no evidence of a complete about-face in Iran’s atomic policies in 2016” after the announcement of the U.S.-brokered nuclear deal.

Iran is still seeking “products and scientific know-how for the field of developing weapons of mass destruction as well (as) missile technology,” the report claimed.

The Hamburg report also listed “49 separate instances of Iran engaging in illegal procurement and terrorist activities, such as cyberwarfare, espionage, and support for the terrorist group Hezbollah,” according to The Tower.

Another intelligence report by the state of Baden-Württemberg described Iran’s use of foreign import-export firms to obtain equipment that can be used for illicit nuclear activities.

Additional reporting recently indicated that Iran was building additional missile manufacturing facilities in Syria which raises the ugly specter that Iran could marry its ballistic missiles with Syria’s chemical weapons stocks that were never destroyed as part of the much-maligned compromise brokered by Russia that persuaded President Obama not to cross his infamous “red line.”

The only good thing coming out of this summer may be the fact that the Iran lobby is shrinking in influence and importance and that is a positive development.

Michael Tomlinson

Is the Open for Business Sign for Iran Now Closed?

July 11, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Is the Open for Business Sign for Iran Now Closed?

One of the primary reasons why the Iran lobby was conceived and brought to life was a recognition by the mullahs in Tehran that they lacked all credibility when it came to the Western news media and needed surrogates to help shape the world’s perception of them as more open, accommodating and moderate than they really were.

This was especially important in light of the crippling economic sanctions that were bringing the Iranian regime’s economy to its knees, which was part of the discontent that was on display in the aftermath of the scandalous 2009 presidential election.

The massive street protests came at the height of the Arab Spring protests toppling governments throughout the Middle East and threatened to take down the mullahs in Tehran.

After brutally putting down the protests, the mullahs figured out they needed help to keep their grip on power which led to the election of “moderate” Hassan Rouhani in 2013 and a massive PR push aimed at the Obama administration to craft a nuclear deal that would lift the economic sanctions on Iran.

Much has already been written about the launching of Iran lobby advocates such as the National Iranian American Council and its prominent role in pushing for the nuclear deal by working in coordination with the Obama administration in creating the much-discussed “echo chamber” of supporters.

The aftermath of the nuclear deal and hasty implementation by the outgoing Obama administration created a narrow window of opportunity for the Iranian regime to get what it needed most at that time: cash and lots of it.

The regime was bleeding cash in its support of wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen so accessing frozen assets, as well as the planeloads of cash paid as part of ransom payments for American hostages, helped stave off imminent collapse.

The next aim for the regime and Iran lobby was the lifting of economic sanctions so that business and investment deals could be struck to provide steady future sources of revenue.

After an initial rush by some European companies, later followed by Russian and Chinese military sales, the proverbial land rush slowed to a crawl amid uncertainty that the Trump administration and U.S. Congress might reinstitute sanctions because of Iranian regime’s support for terrorism and an alarming increase in ballistic missile launches.

It didn’t help the mullahs that their technological partner, North Korea, was busy flinging ballistic missiles into orbit faster than reruns of Real Housewives of Orange County, and alarming most of the nations in the Pacific.

The prospect that the U.S. might levy new sanctions slowed investment to a crawl, aside from a few high-profile sales of commercial jetliners, there has been few business deals announced.

That drought of new investment once again stirred ordinary Iranians to anger in the most recent presidential election a few months ago which saw mass protests throughout Iran; even including harsh demonstrations aimed at Rouhani himself.

The poor condition of the Iranian economy was also a contributing factor to the implosion of the candidacy of Ebrahim Raisi, the handpicked would-be successor by top mullah Ali Khamenei, leading to broad speculation that the mullahs’ grip on power was slipping.

The most recent high-profile deal announced by Iran was with French petroleum giant Total, which agreed to a deal to jointly develop Iran’s massive South Pars gas field. Total was the first, and so far, only major oil player to commit to returning to Iran, while other firms, especially U.S. and British ones remain on the sidelines uncertain of the potential of the re-imposition of economic sanctions.

The risks for Total, and for that matter any other foreign company, doing business with Iran are substantial, as outlined in an insightful editorial by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American Council, in Arab News.

“U.S. pressure and sanctions on Tehran will likely continue to escalate, affecting American and non-American companies. The US may re-impose its sanctions bill that targets non-American companies doing business with Iran. If a company does business with both countries, its investments could be in peril. Quitting Iran’s market would not be easy for those with long-term investments,” Rafizadeh said.

He also alludes to the increasing political instability within Iran, as well as the tightening grip on the Iranian economy by Khamenei and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. That grip exists because of the rising need by the IRGC to funnel even more funds for its foreign adventures which have expanded in various fronts.

Also, as Iranian regime ramps up its ballistic missile program, the United Nations may feel compelled to act and sanction Iran lest it has to deal with both an Iran and North Korea crisscrossing the sky with ballistic missiles.

Recognizing the threat of possibly having its economy shutdown once again, the mullahs are moving rapidly to take advantage of the Total deal to ready an additional 14 oil and gas exploration for tender offers to foreign companies.

Sitting on some of the world’s biggest energy reserves, Iran has already been working on deals to develop fields such as South Pars, South Azadegan, Yadavaran, West Karoun, Mansouri and Abteymour, Reuters reported.

France’s Total last week became the first major to sign a post-sanctions development deal with Iran. Russia’s Lukoil and Denmark’s Maersk are also potential investors.

“Next on the horizon is the search for new oil, with the National Iranian Oil Company planning to tender 14 oil and gas blocks for exploration in the next two to three months,” NIOC’s deputy director for exploration blocks, Rahim Nematollahi, said in Istanbul.

But these deals may become moot should either the U.S. or UN act to impose new sanctions, especially any sanctions once again removing Iran from accessing the international wire transfer network or currency exchanges.

All of which places any foreign entity in a precarious position should it decide to invest in Iran. A company also runs the risk being labelled a supporter of terrorism since the vast majority of revenue Iran generates from one of these deals would inevitably be used to fund its proxy wars and support its terrorist allies.

This may mean that for the short-term at least, the “open for business” sign for Iran may be just another example of fake news.

Laura Carnahan

Iran Regime Continues to Suffer Setbacks at Home and Abroad

July 4, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Iran Regime Continues to Suffer Setbacks at Home and Abroad

It must be tough to be a ruling mullah within the Iranian regime these days. Only a few months ago you must have been feeling on top of the world.

Syria was a carnal house of chaos that was diverting global attention away from all of your schemes and plots.

ISIS was busy destroying everything and everyone in its path and you got plaudits for claiming to fight them.

You had a nuclear deal in hand that flooded your depleted bank accounts with billions in cash enabling you to go on personal shopping sprees for new weapons and upgrade your ballistic missiles and you didn’t have to give anything away for it!

Your lobbying and PR machine were running an echo chamber braying loudly in support of your causes and portraying your handpicked puppet president as a paragon of moderation.

What a difference a few months make.

ISIS is being pushed back by determined Iraqi troops and Syrian rebel groups backed by U.S. forces who have now shown a willingness to shoot Iranian drones, convoys and troops if threatened.

The incoming Trump administration has openly called for and getting a legislation imposing new economic sanctions for Iran’s support for terrorism and its development of ballistic missiles.

The cash flow may soon run dry as European countries, eager to invest in Iran, are now confronted with the stark possibility of running afoul of U.S. Treasury officials.

Your latest presidential campaign where your boss, Ali Khamenei, tried to engineer the election of his hardline successor fell flat on its face.

Worst of all, the longest-running Iranian dissident group is experiencing a resurgence in support not only in many world capitals, but more distressingly on the streets of Iranian cities.

It’s enough to make a mullah want to cry, except the mullahs that control Iran and its people aren’t likely to get sentimental or panic. If anything, they will do what they have always done which is crack down on its people, engineer more attacks abroad and use its overseas lobbyists to threaten global leaders.

But that same old recipe may no longer find much traction as the ground has shifted considerably on the regime.

One big blow came when U.S. federal prosecutors won a courtroom victory in their nine-year effort to seize a midtown Manhattan office tower owned by an Iranian charity.

A jury on Wednesday found that the charity, the Alavi Foundation, was controlled by the Iranian government. It also agreed with prosecutors that the charity’s management of the Fifth Avenue office building, which has generated millions of dollars in rental income annually, constituted a violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran, according to Bloomberg.

The verdict, which came after a day of deliberations, means that Manhattan prosecutors can move ahead with their attempt to seize the building at 650 Fifth Avenue, a prime location. The government plans to sell the property, which is valued at more than $500 million, and distribute much of the proceeds to victims of Iranian regime-sponsored terrorist attacks.

The finding “represents the largest civil forfeiture jury verdict and the largest terrorism-related civil forfeiture in U.S. history,” Joon H. Kim, the acting U.S. Attorney in Manhattan, said in a statement.

In 2014, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest granted summary judgment to prosecutors’ forfeiture request, agreeing that the government had established that the building’s primary owners — the Alavi Foundation and a shell company controlled by the government of Iran — had been violating Iran sanctions laws since 1995.

The blow is especially big for the Iran lobby since the Alavi Foundation was a prime financial supporter of noted lobbying groups such as the National Iranian American Council and the Ploughshares Fund, both of which are likely to be crippled by the loss of cash.

This comes in contrast to the strong growth of the Iranian resistance movement within Iran, which has fought hard to stifle any news of protests from getting out, but lately those acts of defiance have grown bolder and been more publicized thanks to social media.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)/People’s Mujahedeen Organization of Iran (MEK) says hundreds of videos and photos of the incidents have been taken in dozens of towns and cities, and compiled a sample in a video clip.

Photos of NCRI leaders Maryam and Massoud Rajavi feature prominently, along with slogans which the NCRI translated as saying, among other things, “My vote regime change, down with Khamenei, our choice Maryam Rajavi.”

Such demonstrations are highly risky in Iran, a repressive state that has outlawed the NCRI/MEK as a “terrorist” group and executes hundreds of people each year for crimes including political and security offenses.

Shabnam Madadzadeh, a young Iranian woman and former political prisoner who just recently was able to exit Iran, has written articles and delivered remarks in different events shedding light on Iran’s dungeons atrocious conditions and gave a powerful interview to Forbes describing conditions in Iran’s prisons.

“I was a college student in Iran and like my brother I spent five years in the regime’s jails as a political prisoner. Long interrogations, solitary confinement, forced to witness my brother being beaten, deprived of any contact with my family, death threats and mock executions were the tortures I was placed through,” she said.

“During my time behind bars I was deprived of any furlough. I witnessed many crimes by the regime authorities, many executions and tortures inflicted not only on political prisoners, but also ordinary inmates arrested on other charges,” she added.

It may be time for the mullahs to pull out the tissue and have a good cry.

Laura Carnahan

Iran Regime and Lobby Using Fear of War to Stave Off Action

June 23, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Iran Regime and Lobby Using Fear of War to Stave Off Action

The Iranian regime’s default argument in favor of its militant actions is usually for self-defense. Why did we save the Assad regime in Syria? For self-defense.

Why did we not object to Assad using chemical weapons against his own people? For self-defense.

Why did Iran supply the Houthis in Yemen and foment a revolution that threatened a war with Saudi Arabia? For self-defense.

Why did Iran crack down on journalists, dissidents, students, artists and even women who take Zumba dance classes? For self-defense.

The Iran lobby was no different with regime advocates such as the National Iranian American Council consistently excusing regime acts such as firing ballistic missiles as a necessary adjunct to national defense in the face of U.S. or Saudi aggression.

Few people around the world actually believe these are really acts designed for self-defense so for our purposes, let’s move past the false arguments and get to the real heart of the matter; Iranian regime is posing for the world stage.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American Council, wrote about this in an editorial for the Arab News.

“Iran’s military adventurism and destabilizing behavior have reached an unprecedented level that could turn regional tensions into a conflagration. Tehran’s stepped-up interference in Yemen is a direct threat to the Bab Al-Mandab strait and the security of neighboring countries. US officials say Iran is now providing cruise missiles to Yemen’s Houthis,” he writes.

“In Iraq, Tehran is obstructing efforts by state and non-state actors to bridge Sunni-Shiite gaps. It seeks to control Iraq, and has started a widespread campaign to influence decision-making and secure a victory for Shiite groups in parliamentary elections,” he adds.

He also cites Iran’s first use of ballistic missiles on the battlefield as a disturbing development since it crosses the proverbial Rubicon for Iran in the mullahs’ willingness to use these weapons.

“Iran is beginning a new stage in its interventions in Arab countries via its ballistic missile capabilities. This will intensify sectarianism, radicalization and militarization of regional conflicts. If this is met with silence, Tehran will be further empowered and emboldened because it interprets silence as weakness,” Rafizadeh said.

“The US and the international community should hold Iranian leaders accountable. This can be accomplished by a combination of political pressure, economic sanctions and force. The US should seek assistance from European allies and a united front with several Middle Eastern powers; this would be a powerful bulwark against Tehran. Sanctions from Muslim countries would be a significant blow to Tehran’s self-portrayal as a leader of the Muslim world,” he added.

But none of that has stopped some world leaders from slipping back into questioning whether or not appeasing Iran might not still be a sound policy to follow; all evidence to the contrary.

Security Council Resolution 2231 called on Iran not to test ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. When Iran conducted missile tests in March 2016, critics led by the United States were infuriated, calling the country’s behavior a violation of the Security Council resolution and a sign that it would not honor provisions of the nuclear accord.

In a report to the Security Council last July on compliance with Resolution 2231, Ban Ki-moon, then the secretary general, said he was concerned that the missile tests might not be consistent with the “constructive spirit” demonstrated by the nuclear accord. He called on Iran to “refrain from conducting such launches, given that they have the potential to increase tensions in the region.”

Of course, with the missile launches in Syria, the Iranian regime basically burned Resolution 2231 in a dumpster.

Which leads us back to the original issue of the mullahs trying to distract attention from their extremist activities.

Brenda Shaffer, a professor with the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown and a fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, discusses Iran’s use of ISIS to district from its actions in cracking down in dissidents in a piece for Fox News.

“Through recent news reports we’ve learned that those rounded-up as part of the attacks are all members of the Kurdish and Baluch ethnic minorities. The conflict with Iran’s Kurdish and Baluch minorities is not new: Tehran has been battling for close to a decade a much larger insurgency with both groups, without any evidence of direct links to ISIS,” Shaffer said.

“Tehran’s focus on ISIS as the driving force behind recent terror attacks is right out of the country’s playbook for dealing with ethnic conflict. Even if the Kurdish attackers cooperated with ISIS, their motivations and goals are very different than other affiliates. And even while dozens of Kurds and Baluch have now been jailed, this conflict is not going away anytime soon. Kurdish, Baluch and other domestic ethnic groups in Iran have extensive grievances and there continues to be fallout from the regular executions of activists from these communities,” she adds.

For Iran, the use of fear, distraction and misdirection all are tools to hide the truth.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Attacks Trump Administration for Favoring Regime Change

June 16, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Iran Lobby Attacks Trump Administration for Favoring Regime Change

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson gave testimony to the House and Senate Foreign Affairs Committees this week in detailing the State Department budget priorities for the upcoming year. While the bulk of his testimony concerned the issues such as North Korea and Russian relations, Tillerson made a few comments on Iran that engendered a full-fledged response from the Iran lobby.

While the majority of news media gave ample coverage to Tillerson’s testimony concerning Russia, he was asked a question regarding Iran by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), a noted critic of the Iranian regime and the mullahs who control it, that drew scant attention, but clearly worried the Iran lobby.

Tillerson was asked about future plans to enter into negotiations with the Iranian regime and he replied the administration had no immediate plans to do so and expressed support for elements within Iran working towards regime change and a transition to democracy in Iran.

Predictably, the National Iranian American Council, staunch supporters of the Iranian regime, led the charge against Tillerson’s comments; literally breathing fire.

It appears that the concept of promoting democracy in Iran strikes mortal terror in the hearts of Trita Parsi and his fellow travelers at the NIAC.

Darius Namazi at NIAC whipped out a statement condemning Tillerson’s remarks and taking a swipe at Iranian dissident movements, namely the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), which had supporters in attendance at the hearings to express support for democratic change in Iran.

Poe asked Tillerson whether the U.S. supports “a peaceful regime change” and whether it is U.S. policy “to lead things as they are or set up a peaceful long-term regime change.”

Namazi claimed that Tillerson implied that it was U.S. policy to move toward supporting regime change, stating the U.S. would “work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of those governments.”

Only the NIAC would have a problem with the concept of a “peaceful regime change,” but that is par for the course for the Iran lobby.

The NIAC contends that any effort to force regime change would naturally be tantamount to an open declaration of war on the mullahs in Tehran, which is understandable considering the last time there was a mass effort for regime change following the disputed 2009 presidential elections, protests were brutally put down and innocent Iranians killed in the streets.

Of course, Namazi accuses the MEK of seeking to “violently overthrow the Iranian government,” as part of the Iran lobby’s continuing efforts to denigrate any organized opposition movement to the mullahs’ rule.

Namazi goes on to criticize Tillerson’s statements that the administration had no plans to negotiate with Iran on a range of issues such as the situations in Syria and Yemen, but Tillerson only correctly pointed out that granting Iran a seat at the bargaining table when it is the key agent causing the chaos in the first place was a pointless exercise.

According to Tillerson, “The Iranians are part of the problem…They are not directly at the table because we do not believe they have earned a seat at that table. We would like for the Iranians to end their flow of weapons to the Houthis, in particular their flow of sophisticated missiles to the Houthis. We need for them to stop supplying that, and we are working with others as to how to get their agreement to do that.”

These are not unreasonable sentiments, but apparently for the NIAC they are totally unreasonable.

Not that their efforts mattered since the Senate passed new sanctions on the Iranian regime by near unanimous margins in a further sign that the U.S. is moving past the failed policies of appeasing the Iranian regime under the Obama administration.

The Senate passed the sanctions bill by a 98-2 margin. The bill places new sanctions on Iran over its ballistic missile program and other activities not related to the international nuclear agreement reached with the United States and other world powers.

To become law, the legislation must pass the House of Representatives and be signed by Trump. House aides said they expected the chamber would begin to debate the measure in coming weeks, according to Reuters.

The Iranian regime itself didn’t waste time in attacking Tillerson’s assertions that Iran has “aspirations of hegemony in the region.”

The top U.S. diplomat’s remarks are “interventionist, in gross violation of the compelling rules of international law, unacceptable and strongly condemned,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said in Tehran Thursday.

Qassemi went on to blame a history of U.S. “meddling in Iran in different forms” since the 1950s, saying the policy has only brought about “defeat and global shame” for Washington.

For all the bombastic the Iranian regime and its allies are hurling, the plain truth is that the U.S. is moving quickly and broadly on a number of fronts to rein in Iranian expansionism and militancy.

Congress is seeking new authorities that would enable it to expose and crack down on an Iranian state-controlled commercial airline known for transporting weapons and terrorist fighters to hotspots such as Syria, where Iranian-backed forces have begun launching direct attacks on U.S. forces in the country, according to new legislation obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Congressional efforts to expose Iran’s illicit terror networks more forcefully come as U.S. and European air carriers such as Boeing and Airbus move forward with multi-billion dollar deals to provide the Islamic Republic with a fleet of new airplanes, which lawmakers suspect Iran will use to amplify its terror operations.

The new sanction legislation targets Iran’s Mahan Airlines, which operates commercial flights across the globe while transporting militants and weapons to fighters in Syria, Yemen, and other regional hotspots.

A crackdown on Mahan could indicate that Congress is more seriously eyeing ways to thwart Iran’s mainly unchecked terror pipeline in the region.

We breathlessly await the NIAC’s next bout of hyperbole.

Iran Lobby Tries to Take Advantage of ISIS Attack to Reset Debate

June 9, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Iran Lobby Tries to Take Advantage of ISIS Attack to Reset Debate

The attack claimed by ISIS on Iranian targets the other day, including the Parliament building that killed 17 people, would normally be cause for universal condemnation and sympathy for the dead and wounded, but only the Iran lobby can find a way to use tragedy for its own purposes as various groups stepped up the rhetorical assaults against Saudi Arabia and the U.S.

Most notable was the National Iranian American Council which issued a full broadside of press statements, tweets, editorials and media interviews all focused on blaming Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Iranian dissident groups for the attack.

“ISIS has had very little success striking inside Iran. Main reason is they can’t recruit Iranians easily, so no local knowledge,” said Trita Parsi, president of the NIAC. “Only group with local knowledge that can slip into Iran easily is the Iranian terror group the MEK.”

It is interesting Parsi uses the same language as the Iranian regime in depicting Iranian dissident groups as “terror groups” knowing full well these groups are largely engaged in humanitarian efforts, information and news gathering and exposing the corrupt practices the regime government.

But more interesting is how attempting to reset the debate away from the recent history of Iran’s involvement in the bloody civil war that helped spawn ISIS in the first place, but instead pivot to accusations against Saudi Arabia and foreshadowing military action against the kingdom from Iran.

“Iranians believe there has been a lot of provocation, but they’ve been very restrained so far vis-a-vis Saudi Arabia,” Parsi said to the Washington Times. “Now the nation’s leaders are going to be under a lot of pressure from the Iranian public to respond in some way.”

Parsi said aggressive statements by Saudi leaders have “created a context in which the IRGC can convince the Iranian public not only that the Saudis were connected to Wednesday’s attack, but that the U.S. is also connected,” even if there may not be any evidence for such.

According to Vice News, hours before Wednesday’s attacks, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir characterized Iran as the leading sponsor of terrorism and called for action to be taken against it over its destabilizing actions in the region, where it is involved in Lebanon and Yemen, as well as Syria and Iraq. In turn, Iran blamed Saudi Arabia for supporting the rise of Sunni extremist groups in the region.

Parsi has laid out the argument justifying military action against Saudi Arabia now that the mullahs in Tehran feel they have justification now to engage in even more provocative action. Whereas supplying the Houthis in Yemen to threaten Saudi Arabia’s border was seen as the extent of Iranian actions, Parsi is now laying the intellectual foundation for an ever-widening war.

A curious position for the NIAC to take since its stated purpose is to help resolve differences among Iranian-Americans.

But there is a broader agenda at play here since legislation is moving through the U.S. Senate now to impose new sanctions on Iran for violations of ballistic missile testing. Parsi and his cohorts in the Iran lobby see new sanctions as an existential threat to the Iranian regime and doing all they can to reset the debate away from Iran and even cull some sympathy from the attacks.

The NIAC is now vigorously attacking the sanctions bill and attempting to leverage the ISIS attack into an argument that passing the legislation would even hamper the fight against ISIS.

A corollary to that argument is the opposition by the NIAC to the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the Trump administration.

The NIAC’s Adam Weinstein authored an opinion piece in Defense One arguing that the IRGC was a key element in the fight to oust ISIS from Mosul, Iraq.

“The success of this offensive is in large part due to the ability of the Iraqi army to act as an intermediary between Iran-backed militias and U.S. troops. However, a Senate bill, the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017, will likely lead the Trump administration to label the IRGC as a terrorist group. Combined with the administration’s increased alignment with Saudi Arabia against Iran, this step threatens to fracture this de facto coalition in Mosul, detract from the fight against ISIS, and recklessly endanger the lives of U.S. forces,” he writes.

It’s a stretch of an argument since IRGC troops are now in the forefront in Syria engaging with U.S.-led forces, even to the point where the U.S. warplanes attacked an Iranian-backed convoy of Shiite militias as it approached U.S. bases.

That hardly sounds like the actions of a U.S. ally determined to fight ISIS.

In fact, the truth is Iran’s play in Syria has always been to target anti-Syrian regime forces and largely leave ISIS forces unscathed. Even after persuading Russia to enter the fray, Iranian officers providing targeting data to Russian warplanes not of ISIS positions, but often anti-regime forces and civilian targets in areas controlled by rebels.

What Weinstein, Parsi and their colleagues fail to recognize is that Iran’s own actions are the determining factor in how the U.S. is going to shape its foreign policy. So long as Iran continues the slaughter in Syria, pushes Saudi Arabia with the Houthi rebellion in Yemen, and broadens tensions with its support for Qatar, as well as increasing turmoil in Bahrain, then the regime is going to reap what it has sown.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Tries to Blame ISIS Attacks on Opposition

June 8, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

The body of a terrorist, at background left, lies on the ground while police control the scene at the shine of late Iranian revolutionary founder Ayatollah Khomeini, just outside Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 7, 2017. Several attackers stormed into Iran’s parliament and a suicide bomber targeted the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on Wednesday, killing a security guard and wounding 12 other people in rare twin attacks, with the shooting at the legislature still underway. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

An attack by six assailants armed with rifles and explosives took Iranian regime security forces by surprise the other day in a series of attacks aimed at the heart of the government, including a takeover of the Parliament building and the tomb of the regime’s founder, leaving a dozen dead and 46 wounded that shook the religious theocracy ruling Iran.

The attacks lasted for hours and was claimed by ISIS, which if true, would represent the first successful attack by the terror group on Iranian soil and a significant and somewhat ironic turn of events in the growing sectarian conflict between and extremist Sunni and extremist Shiite ideologies.

Predictably, the default response from Iranian officials was to point the finger of blame at regional rival Saudi Arabia and even Iranian dissident groups such as the Mujahedeen-e Khalq. As Iranian officials struggled in the wake of the attack, one could sense confusion and even a slight note of panic setting in as the prospect of Tehran joining the ranks of cities such as London, Paris and Berlin as prime terror targets began to seep.

For the Iranian regime, much of the blame for the notable rise in Islamic extremist groups lies squarely on its doorstep. The mullahs constant vitriol aimed at Israel, the U.S. and the its Sunni Arab neighbors has only made routine the kind of hate that groups like Hezbollah have acted on for decades.

The use of proxies and terrorist groups has always been a part of the statecraft toolbox for Iran as it has used Hezbollah and the Houthis to conduct open warfare in Syria and Yemen, meanwhile bolstering Shiite militias in Iraq to push Sunnis out of the coalition government there and into the waiting arms of ISIS recruiters.

According to the New York Times, tensions in the Middle East were already high following a visit by President Trump last month, in which he exalted and emboldened Saudi Arabia, Iran’s regional rival. Saudi Arabia and several Sunni allies led a regional effort on Monday to isolate Qatar, the tiny Persian Gulf country that maintains good relations with Iran

In a statement, the Revolutionary Guards Corps said, “The public opinion of the world, especially Iran, recognizes this terrorist attack — which took place a week after a joint meeting of the U.S. president and the head of one of the region’s backward governments, which constantly supports fundamentalist terrorists — as very meaningful,” a reference to Saudi Arabia’s ruling monarchy.

Saudi Arabia swiftly rejected the claim and the Trump White House, while expressing sympathy for the victims, was quick to note that “states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil they promote” in a statement.

The MEK also denied any involvement and accused regime officials of a smear attack saying “their intention is to either use this event” against the group or justify their own previous crimes” in a statement.

But that didn’t stop members of the Iran lobby from stepping up to also blame Iranian dissident groups for the attack either directly or indirectly.

Paul R. Pillar, a stalwart for the Iran lobby, wrote in Consortium News blaming the MEK for alleged terrorist attacks in Iran and claiming that prior attacks had left the regime much better prepared to counter terrorism.

We hate to tell Pillar that his measure of “preparedness” by Iranian security forces leaves much to be desired judging by the daylong standoff at the Parliament building.

Pillar even begins laying the ground work for the Iranian regime to step up its terrorist activities in the wake of the attacks saying “in the months ahead, Iran may take actions outside its borders in response to the attacks.”

“Iran may see a need to be more aggressive in places such as Iraq or Syria in the interest of fighting back against ISIS,” Pillar said.

His comments are instructive since the mullahs are likely to use the attacks as an excuse to step up their fights in Syria in to preserve the Assad regime and in Yemen to continue destabilizing the border to Saudi Arabia.

It is not inconceivable that the Iranian regime will use the attacks as a pretext to launch fresh initiatives in places such as Bahrain and Qatar to further split apart the Gulf states and weaken opposition to its regional ambitions to build a Shiite sphere of influence.

Pillar wasn’t alone in trying to drag the MEK into the mud, as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, gleefully attacked the resistance group in interviews claiming that the MEK was equipped to carry out these attacks because of its channels into the regime and its ties to Saudi Arabia.

“If the goal was to penetrate and destabilize Iran, the MEK clearly was Saudi Arabia’s best bet,” Parsi said. “Still unclear who’s behind the current attack in Iran, but the MEK (and their Saudi backers) are a main suspect. Timing is of course curious. Just last month, A Saudi Crown Prince said Riyadh is working hard to take battle to inside of Iran.”

Parsi and Pillar offered no proof, only suspicions that read like they came from a talking points memo from Ali Khamenei’s office as Iran struggles with the aftermath of the attacks and desperately seeks any scapegoat other than its own support for terrorism.

The roots for these attacks lie squarely in the Iranian regime’s long history of exporting terror as a tool and it has finally come home to bite them.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Expands Its Militant Activities

June 1, 2017 by admin Leave a Comment

Iran Regime Expands Its Militant Activities

With Hassan Rouhani ensconced for another four years, the mullahs in Tehran can turn their attention back to the work at hand which is continuing the expansion of the Iranian regime’s extremism and secure the gains it made during four years of an Obama administration’s failed policy of appeasement.

That expansion is on a variety of fronts. First and foremost, the regime is focused on expanding its military capabilities and has made aggressive moves to do so. It’s a vital step for the regime since the Revolutionary Guard Corps and its related units, such as the Quds Force, are the tip of the spear that also happen to control the economic purse strings of the country.

Through an elaborate network of shell companies, the IRGC control most of the major industrial sectors such as oil, manufacturing, telecommunications and financial services. It regularly uses the profits from these enterprises to pay for its military expenditures as well as the proxies it uses in its fighting.

The IRGC also pushed hard for the nuclear deal for one specific purpose which was to lift crippling economic sanctions that were cutting off its supplies of cash and arms. That was vital since the handwriting was on the wall since the Arab Spring democracy protests and the disputed Iranian presidential election of 2009 that the regime was under significant pressure that threatened the rule of the mullahs.

The flawed nuclear offered unjustified concessions for the regime not only because it lifted sanctions and flooded cash back into the mullahs’ coffers, but also it allowed the regime to unlink its abysmal human rights record and support for terrorism from the agreement itself.

This essentially gave the regime a blank check to continue to engage in militant actions without fear of reprisal.

Part of that military support has been a destructive expansion on Iran’s use of proxies such as the terrorist group Hezbollah to fight its battles, especially in the ever-widening Syrian civil war and the insurgency in Yemen with the Houthi.

News reports have pointed towards a fresh influx of support for Hezbollah and what that may mean for U.S.-backed rebel forces in Syria.

A top U.S. military official says rather than using any additional monies to invest more heavily in conventional forces, there are indications Tehran continues to focus on cultivating special operators to help lead and direct proxy forces, according to Voice of America.

“If anything, increased defense dollars in Iran are likely to go toward increasing that network, looking for ways to expand it,” U.S. Special Operation Forces Vice Commander Lieutenant General Thomas Trask told an audience in Washington late Tuesday.

“We’ve already seen evidence of them taking units and officers out of the conventional side that are working with the IRGC in Syria,” Trask added. “We’re going to stay focused on these proxies and the reach that Iran has well past Syria and Yemen but into Africa, into South America, into Europe as well.”

Yet despite Iran’s heavy involvement in Syria to help prop up the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, U.S. military officials see no indications much of that money has been set aside for bolstering Tehran’s conventional forces.

Nor do they see that as a likely scenario, even though the latest estimates from the U.S. intelligence community warn Iran is trying to develop “a range of new military capabilities,” including ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and armed drones.

Already, Iran is supplementing its own forces inside Syria by providing arms, financing and training for as many as 10,000 Shia militia fighters, including units from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Military and intelligence officials further worry about the sway Iran has over tens of thousands of additional fighters who are part of Shia militias fighting in Iraq.

Fighting involving U.S. aircraft against Iranian-backed forces in the border town of al Tanf where Syria, Jordan and Iraq meet gave a prelude to what may be a wider war as Iran continues to pour resources into Syria to consolidate gains made by the Assad regime with the backing of Russia.

But conventional warfare isn’t the only area the mullahs want to expand as Steve King, COO and CTO of Netswitch Technology Management, pointed out Tehran’s investment in cyberattacks in Lifezette.

Since 2015, Iran has been conducting a sophisticated online cyberattack campaign that uses custom-built malware to deliberately infect and gain access to sensitive industrial control systems and critical infrastructure in companies across the globe, King writes.

All of this activity during the last two years has been like spring training for the Iranians: mostly practice attacks designed to sharpen their skills, he added.

King noted that according to a 2016 Defense Department report, Iran has evolved its cybersecurity operations to become the primary pillar of its national security strategy and has been testing the limits of sanctions and repercussions associated with the nuclear deal as they might be applied to their activities in cyberspace. So far, no reaction from the West.

Cyberwarfare is now as important to Iran’s military strategy as its ballistic missile program used to be, he warns.

The broad array of threats being presented by the Iranian regime is becoming readily apparent even though the Iran lobby and its supporters continue to work to obscure all of the regime’s actions.

One example is a piece by Cornelius Adebahr in Carnegie Europe that extols the virtues of a Rouhani win and what it means for Europe. It’s a puff piece for the regime and ignores the historical record of Iranian extremism.

Sadly, Adebahr only regurgitates the same false messages offered by groups such as the National Iranian American Council. The brutal reality of Iranian policy can’t be seen in the ballot box but in the battlefields across the Middle East.

Michael Tomlinson