admin – Page 45 – Iran Lobby

Hassan Rouhani Begins European Tour Under Cloud of Executions

January 25, 2016 by admin

Hassan Rouhani Begins European Tour Under Cloud of Executions

Iran regime leader Hassan Rouhani begins a European tour previously postponed because of the terrorist attacks in Paris with stops in France and Italy which has been highlighted by the regime as a goodwill tour as well as a shopping spree to use some of the $100 billion in frozen assets being returned to Iran as part of the nuclear agreement.

Both in France and Italy there are companies with long established business relationships in Iran but they remain hesitant given the regime’s actions in the months immediately following signing of the deal including the test launching of ballistic missiles violating United Nations sanctions against development of nuclear-capable missiles and the continued escalation of the Syrian conflict and support for proxy militias in Iraq and Yemen leading to broad sectarian violence.

More recently the regime engaged in a prisoner swap, releasing several Americans being held by the regime including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, in exchange for a large number of Iranians who had been charged and convicted of arms smuggling and trading in illegal nuclear and military components.

Additionally, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail have expressed doubts over the regime’s ability and willingness to give up its militant ways, as well as what the mullahs plan do with all of the billions of dollars they are about to receive. Several pieces of legislation have been put forward addressing the levying of additional sanctions on Iran should the regime prove recalcitrant moving forward.

This has caused the Iran lobby to push back and attempt to make the issue of new sanctions a partisan issue by placing blame on Republicans, even though support for a tough approach to Iran has come from both sides of the aisle.

“From the European side, there is a concern that if they enter Iranian market they will be subjected to American sanctions. Because there are conflicts in the U.S.,” said Trita Parsi, head of National Iranian American Council, the regime’s chief lobbyist. “Congress is very skeptical about the deal and republicans are still pushing for new sanctions and this is sending a conflicting message making Europeans concerned.”

Parsi made his comments to regime-controlled media in an attempt to convince European companies on the eve of Rouhani’s visit to open wide the doors of trade and investment to the regime even with growing doubts over the corrupt nature of the economy and high level of censorship, human rights abuses and control of most industries by the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Those doubts were only reinforced this weekend by comments made by top mullah Ali Khamenei who commended the actions taken by Revolutionary Guard Corps members in detaining American sailors, calling their actions “courageous.”

“You did a brilliant, interesting and timely job. In fact, this event should be considered God’s work. He drew them towards our waters so that with your timely measure, they would be arrested in that manner – with their hands on their heads,” Khamenei said on his official website.

The statements being made by Khameneni, Rouhani and other regime officials over all the incidents are often conflicting; adding to the confusion over what the regime’s true goals and aims are. Doyle McManus examined this almost bipolar quality within the Iran regime in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times.

“The underlying problem is that Iran still hasn’t made the choice Henry Kissinger described several years ago: whether it is a country or a cause — a normal state, or a revolutionary one,” McManus writes. “On the other hand, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected proposals for normal diplomatic relations with the U.S. (an offer floated by George W. Bush before Barack Obama). They even rejected a U.S. proposal for a hotline between the two countries’ armed forces, even though that could avert unnecessary clashes.”

“This resistance to formal normalization is partly about preserving Iran’s revolutionary self-image,” he added. “So even as he has authorized a de facto rapprochement with the United States, Khamenei has released an uninterrupted flow of statements denouncing the Great Satan and warning against Western subversion.”

This explains much of what is confounding to outside observers about the regime and why the arguments made by the Iran lobby about regime “moderation” is so much hot air. As Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, pointed out in a recent editorial:

“So what to make of President Hassan Rouhani’s election? Rouhani might have embraced a softer rhetorical style than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his predecessor, but he is no more reformist. True, he purged a lot of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officers from the cabinet, but he replaced them with Ministry of Intelligence veterans. Public executions have skyrocketed under Rouhani.”

“Khamenei is not only supreme leader, but he’s also master marionette, playing factions off each other in order to maintain his own power. The seeming rotation between hardline and less hardline factions has less to do with liberalization and more to do with simply cleaning house before any alternative power can consolidate.” Rubin added. “Obama may believe change in Iran to be inevitable. Unfortunately, it is not the change he imagines. That the Iran deal as constructed provides the cash to Iran’s most hardline elements will only catalyze the slow decline of Iranian reformism.”

It is against this backdrop that Rouhani’s European tour comes soaked in the blood of over 2,000 men, women, children, political opponents, dissidents, activists and others who have been executed since Rouhani took power; a large number of them in grisly public hangings.

According to human rights groups, Iranian dissidents and even United Nations officials, the pace of executions have been stunning even for Iran’s bloody history and are likely to continue unabated. According to the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the first two weeks in January have already seen over 52 executions.

The prospects for the future remain bleak as the regime’s Guardian Council, comprised of 12 Islamic jurists appointed by Khamenei, disqualified more than 6,500 candidates from upcoming parliamentary elections, with opposition groups claiming upwards of 90 percent of “reformist” candidates had been eliminated.

For Europeans meeting with Rouhani this week, it is best to think twice before making a big risk in trading with the regime in Iran, particularly since in the eyes of the Iranians inside and outside the country trading with the mullahs is the equivalent to neglecting the gross violations of human rights in Iran.

By Michael Tomlinson

With Lifting of Sanctions Iran Lobby Pressing for Wide Open Trade

January 23, 2016 by admin

With Lifting of Sanctions Iran Lobby Pressing for Wide Open Trade

The transition for the Iran lobby was eventual and anticipated as it shifts gears from the lifting of economic sanctions to cheerleading investment by foreign companies into the Iranian economy in a bid to divert billions of dollars in capital into the regime’s coffers.

Nothing exemplified this newfound priority than an editorial by Tyler Cullis, a legal fellow with the National Iranian American Council, which appeared in Huffington Post. Cullis, a true apostle of the mullahs in Tehran, outlined the argument that the U.S. was coming late to the sanctions lifting party and not investing as wholeheartedly as it should.

“The U.S. trade embargo with Iran remains largely intact — outside of newly created authorizations for the import of Iran-origin carpets and certain foodstuffs and the sale to Iran of commercial aircraft. Under the trade embargo, U.S. companies are barred from engaging in trade with or investment in Iran — with few exceptions. Violating these U.S. sanctions prohibitions can lead to serious criminal and civil penalties,” Cullis writes.

“Moreover, considering the reputational risks of being seen doing business with Iran – which retains somewhat of a pariah status among the American public and which has remained under trade embargo for two-plus decades – few U.S. companies were willing to put themselves out on the limb for the chance to re-engage such an unfamiliar market. The result was that U.S. companies conducted virtually no real outreach to either the Obama administration or Members of Congress, which, in turn, fed into a perception in the White House that it lacked any real constituency for the openings that it could have otherwise supported,” Cullis adds.

His logic is fairly twisted on several levels. Cullis is correct that American companies are concerned damage to their brands through re-engagement in Iran, especially in sectors seen as bolstering industries largely controlled by the regime’s Revolutionary Guard Corps such as petroleum, telecommunications and transportation.

That damage to corporate brands can also result from calls for boycotts or other retaliation by human rights groups, Iranian dissidents and religious minorities – all of whom have been subject to brutal treatment by the mullahs there – who may seek to leverage the restart of economic involvement as a vehicle to have their plight heard on the world stage.

Cullis also neglects another key fact about doing business with the Iranian regime; any opening to Iranian markets will almost surely not be accompanied any meaningful reforms in the conduct of the economy by the mullah leadership which remains one of the most corrupt in the world.

According to Transparency International, Iran ranks 136^th out of 175 countries in terms of corruption with deficiencies in judicial independence, rule of law, press freedom, free speech and accountability and bribery.

Few American or even European companies would venture into the Iranian market given those conditions and those that do are most likely to work first with regime-controlled industries such as petroleum, shipping or transportation, which is why the first companies most likely to enter the market would be airplane manufacturers such as Airbus, oil companies and heavy equipment manufacturers.

But Cullis is woefully ignorant of the greatest barriers remaining for American companies, especially those engaged in consumer products and services, which the mullahs are hell bent on preventing access to anything that might lead to the Iranian people having greater access to items, goods and services the mullahs might consider “corrupting.”

American cornerstone industries such as entertainment would largely be excluded from Iran. Can we image movies such as “Argo,” “Zero Dark Thirty,” or “13 Hours” getting screen time in Tehran? Can we envision hit television shows such as “Homeland” or “Game of Thrones” airing on Iranian TV sets? Could we really see documentaries about Holocaust or the Iraq-Iran War finding an audience in regime-controlled media?

What about other U.S. industries such as Apple and the ubiquitous iPhone? Would the mullahs allow access to the iTunes store and give Iranians the freedom to use Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter or other social media platforms so far banned by the mullahs and even leading to the arrest and imprisonment of bloggers and other social media users?

Would the mullahs allow U.S. technology companies to enter the marketplace with tablets, WiFi routers, GoPro cameras, portable hard drives, etc? What is more likely is that instead of the rosy picture portrayed by Cullis is a more likely scenario where the mullahs will greatly restrict certain foreign companies from entering the Iranian market that could create a corrupting influence and threaten their reign of terror and suppression.

What is more likely is a “pay-to-play” model where companies will be forced to pay up bribes to regime officials to enter the market and be subject to tight restrictions on what could be sold and to whom. It is a scenario many companies would be reluctant to undertake which explains the reticence of many companies from jumping in with both feet the way Cullis is encouraging.

The fact of the matter is that while sanctions have been lifted, the mullahs still remain in charge and that alone is a significant obstacle for many companies. Coupled with the mullahs continued focus on aggressive military actions in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, as well as continued development of military capability such as ballistic missile design, it’s highly unlikely like McDonalds or Starbucks are going to be opening up locations in Iran and offering free WiFi to Iranians to go with their Big Macs and lattes.

For the vast majority of American consumer brands, entry into the Iranian market is far from a sure thing and remains a risky proposition as long as Iran remains a religious theocracy controlled by a cadre of mullahs who insist on imposing medieval punishments such as public hangings and amputations.

By Laura Carnahan

With Sanctions Lifted and New Ones Imposed, Chaos Reigns for Businesses

January 23, 2016 by admin

With Sanctions Lifted and New Ones Imposed, Chaos Reigns for Businesses

In a sign of what could be called political schizophrenia, as sanctions on the Iranian regime were being lifted by the Obama administration amidst a prisoner swap, the U.S. levied a new round of sanctions in response to the testing of illegal ballistic missiles by the regime last October.

The Obama administration had previously announced the imminent imposition of these new sanctions, but the press conference was cancelled at the last minute as the prisoner swap was taking shape the mullahs threatened to pull the plug on the deal.

The new sanctions by the U.S. Treasury Department were levied against “11 entities and individuals involved in the procurement on behalf of Iran’s ballistic missile program.”

“Iran’s ballistic missile program poses a significant threat to regional and global security, and it will continue to be subject to international sanctions,” said Adam J. Szubin, acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. “We have consistently made clear that the United States will vigorously press sanctions against Iranian activities outside of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – including those related to Iran’s support for terrorism, regional destabilization, human rights abuses, and ballistic missile program.”

It’s noteworthy that the companies and individuals named as targets are not significant in size or scope to the extent European, Asian or U.S. businesses interested in doing business with Iran would be deterred, and the sanctions lifted by President Obama were only “secondary sanctions” meaning American citizens are still banned from trading with Iran with some 400 Iranian companies and individuals removed from the blacklist with 200 others remaining on it, but Szubin’s comment does raise an interesting issue.

Since the P5+1 sought to delink nuclear talks with other aspects of the regime’s bad behavior such as terrorism, Syria and human rights abuses, does that portend a more period where piecemeal action against the regime will take place by individual countries and not in concert as in the nuclear agreement?

These new sanctions do very little by themselves, says Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. But there is symbolic value to them, he adds.

“First of all, there’s a naming and shaming element here,” he says. “Second of all, [the 11 Iranian entities and individuals targeted] can’t do business with the United States. But most importantly, the secondary sanctions remain. And that means that foreigners, say European banks, Asian banks, cannot do business with these entities if they want to continue to do business with the Unites States … Even though this is really a unilateral action, it gives it a kind of multilateral or international effect.”

The European Union will consider this week whether or not to follow Washington’s lead in imposing additional sanctions because of the missile violations. Speaking during a visit to Abu Dhabi, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said the EU would consider the matter this week. “We have to compare the American system and European system to see if there are new sanctions to take or not . . . This exercise will be implemented this week.”

If the EU moves forward and its sanctions differ from those imposed by the U.S., companies looking to enter the Iranian marketplace may find themselves caught in a quagmire of independent sanctions levied from here on out and the mullahs would find themselves engaging in issue-by-issue horse trading such as the prisoner swap.

The mullahs made clear what they think of new sanctions, vowing to move forward with its illegal missile program in spite of the sanctions.

The U.S. move was “devoid of any legal or ethical legitimacy,” the Iranian regime Foreign Ministry said in a statement reported by the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency. Iran will pursue its “legal missile program and upgrade its defense capabilities” with “more seriousness,” according to the statement.

The new belligerence from Iran comes on the eve of Hassan Rouhani’s first state trip to Europe since the lifting of sanctions where he plans stops in Italy and France with a meeting with Pope Francis on January 27^th.

This trip takes the place of a prior trip planned to France that was cancelled in the wake of the Paris terror attacks that left 130 people dead and 352 others injured.

Rouhani’s trip is no mere exercise in celebration of the end to economic sanctions. It has the very real and urgent purpose of trying to sell European companies on investing in the regime, especially in state industries owned and controlled by the Revolutionary Guard Corps and other regime leaders such as telecommunications and transportation.

The regime’s top priority is not to infuse the Iranian economy to the benefit of ordinary Iranians, but rather rebuild aging infrastructure and the military’s capabilities, including recent deals to purchase 114 new airplanes from Airbus and German auto manufacturers to re-enter the market.

An analysis by The Guardian newspaper using game theory also reinforced the idea that the regime leadership would not be using its economic windfall to the benefit of the Iranian people.

“The road to economic development remains rocky due to highly inefficient state-controlled enterprises and the lack of transparency resulting in high levels of corruption, as evidenced by Transparency International placing the country as low as 136 out of 175 countries on its Corruption Perceptions Index based on ‘how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be,’ The Guardian writes. “These factors make the business environment unfriendly to foreign investment.”

“The lack of economic reform will continue to place a heavy toll on the middle class and particularly its underemployed youth. Rising expectations will have to be met…” and this is what fears the mullahs most, particularly with a society on the fringe of explosion with so many people living below the poverty line and with such high level of corruption within the mullah’s hierarchy.

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Lobby Worries Gains Will Be Lost With New President

January 21, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Worries Gains Will Be Lost With New President

The Iran lobby continues to exhibit the delusional nature that has marked much of its public lobbying efforts on behalf of the Iranian regime. The newest effort was put on display in an editorial posted to the Huffington Post by Trita Parsi and Tyler Cullis of the National Iranian American Council.

The piece offered up helpful suggestions for the next U.S. president to maintain the same policy of appeasing the mullahs in Tehran that the Obama administration has followed the past three years leading up to the fateful decision to lift economic sanctions as part of a deeply flawed nuclear agreement.

Parsi and Cullis offer the suggestions because they realize the clock is ticking down with the incoming presidential election, and the new president, be it either a Republican or Democrat, is likely to forge their own path in dealing with Iran, especially considering much of the Obama administration’s legacy towards the regime has been built largely around executive orders and not full-fledged treaties.

They do ask an important question though which is “Since this new budding relationship with Iran has not been institutionalized, what will be left of it when the Obama administration leaves office?”

Unfortunately, Parsi and Cullis seem to think that international relations is more akin to developing a teenage crush and keeping the love notes going through Snapchats and emojis.

They offer up three steps in their recipe for true love between the U.S. and a theocratic Iranian regime controlled by mullahs who fully support the use of terror as a tool of statecraft, including:

The need for the U.S. and Iran to establish a strategic dialogue thought regular meetings;
Establishing a dialogue between both countries legislatures; and
The need for increased contact and communications between the two societies.

On the surface these seem like worthy, even laudable goals, but like all the bright ideas and sunny promises made by the NIAC, they are not rooted in the reality of the here and now.

Take for example the first idea they offer which is to build a dialogue through regular meetings. It is worth noting that the U.S., even when it did not have formal diplomatic relations, never stopped meeting with Iranian representatives on a whole host of issues, most notably negotiations on the regime’s burgeoning nuclear program through both the Bush and Obama presidencies.

Parsi and Cullis neglect to mention that dialogue between the two countries has always been present, the difference though has been in the general unwillingness to give the mullahs a blank check until the last year in which the Obama administration essentially caved in nuclear talks – first by delinking support for terrorism and human rights abuses from talks – then allowing the Iranian regime to support the Assad regime in Syria even after the use of chemical weapons without repercussions.

The notion that the Middle East would be a remarkably different place if the Bush administration had capitulated earlier is ridiculous when you consider such an act would not have deterred mullahs in Iran from supporting terror groups, would not have deterred them from doing what it could to keep Assad in power and would certainly not have deterred them from continuing the practice of public hangings and mass crackdowns on journalists, dissidents, women and religious minorities.

Most important, the idea that ISIS could have been stymied is absurd since it was Iranian regime’s support of Assad in the first place that spawned ISIS, as well as offering safe haven for Al-Qaeda leaders driven out of Afghanistan by the U.S. invasion who later left to build ISIS out of the carnage of Syria.

The second idea that Parsi and Cullis offer about a dialogue between legislative bodies is even – to borrow a phrase from the Trump lexicon – more stupid than the first idea since the Iranian regime has a long practice of winnowing the field of candidates eligible to run for parliamentary seats, especially in the Assembly of Experts in order to ensure an ironclad control over the government.

Take for example parliamentary elections next month in which out of a field of 12,000 candidates who applied to run, almost two-thirds were disqualified by the Guardian Council. The 12-member council vets political candidates and all legislation passed by parliament. It is made up of six judges elected by parliament and six clerics appointed by top mullah Ali Khamenei, who has the final word on virtually all important state matters.

So-called reformists—those favoring more political and economic freedom and improved relations with the outside world, who have been involved in all previous terrorist activities and domestic repression—say their camp was overwhelmingly targeted, with one saying barely 1% had been approved in a sign that the practical political realities of how the regime is run are completely at odds with the rosy picture painted by Parsi and Cullis.

Considering how the two houses of parliament in the regime are under the thumb of a single man in Khamenei, the notion of a dialogue developing between them and the U.S. Congress is a silly one and unlikely to ever develop.

This brings us to the last ridiculous idea Parsi and Cullis hoist up which is the idea of communications and contact between the Iranian and American people. Again, a nice notion if it was true, but almost impossible to succeed considering how the mullahs have imposed a cyberwall blocking internet access and use of social media platforms for the Iranian people to communicate with the outside world.

From a practical standpoint, the regime’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which owns the virtually all of the major telecommunications companies, monitors the nation’s communications and often uses those channels to identify dissidents and suppress contrary political activities.

Considering how American culture is largely built around mass media entertainment and consumer marketing, it is highly unlikely that any of that will ever find unrestricted audiences in Iran, where mullahs already impose strict censorship rules on all foreign media content and ban many iconic American brands for fear of cultural “contamination.”

Indeed, what Parsi and Cullis are really worried about is that the broad public perception in America that Iran’s mullah leadership is focused on terror and military expansion at the cost of domestic oppression of its people is true and will become the focus on a new president’s foreign policy. For the Iranian people and the rest of the world, the best hope for a truly new relationship with the regime lies not in following the plan laid out by Parsi and Cullis, but in fact doing the exact opposite.

By Michael Tomlinson

End of Iran Regime Sanctions Brings Uncertain Future

January 19, 2016 by admin

On the same line, it has been trying to put the blame on other factions or "hardliners" within the mullahs for the surge in executions and oppressive measures taking place during "moderate" president of the mullahs, Rouhani's tenure.

An unidentified man leaves a Dassault Falcon jet of Swiss army at the airport in Geneva, Switzerland, Sunday, Jan 17, 2016. A US government plane waited nearby to bring back to the US the men who were left from imprisonment in Iran the day before. (AP Photo/Laurent Cipriani)

This weekend brought an almost frantic rush of events as the Obama administration and international community lifted economic sanctions against the Iranian regime, while also facilitating a prisoner swap of four Americans being held in Iran with seven Iranian-Americans being held in U.S. prison for trafficking in illegal weapons and nuclear materials.

Three of Americans fly out of Iran and onto Germany to be reunited with loved ones, including Christian pastor Saeed Abedini, former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati and Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. A fourth American, Nosratollah Khosravi whose imprisonment had not been previously reported, opted to stay in Tehran where he has a residence.

The lifting of nuclear sanctions on Saturday allowed Iran to re-enter the world’s oil markets; according to some estimates, by the end of the year its exports may increase by a million barrels a day, yielding about $30 million a day in revenue at current prices. Its ships will be able to enter and leave foreign ports, and its citizens will have access to global financial markets. On top of which the regime is scheduled to being receiving cash transfer of frozen assets that could total as much as a staggering $150 billion.

The Obama administration also took to clearing up several old accounting issues, including a payment of $1.7 billion representing a $400 million refund in payments made for military equipment sold to the government under the former shah, but never delivered because of the revolution along with interest accumulated over 37 years.

With all of this cash now flooding into the Iranian regime’s coffers, the single biggest question hanging over the Middle East is “What will the mullahs do with all that money?”

Considering the nuclear agreement made no attempt to link any restrictions on how the money was to be used, the mullahs are essentially free to do whatever they like with it, which has caused Iran’s neighbors to become very worried.

In Saudi Arabia, there was concern that the lifting of sanctions would bolster Iran and its allies. A statement by 140 Sunni Muslim clerics urged Muslims to unite against the threat of Shiite Iran. It criticized actions by some minority groups in Muslim countries and accused them of “serving foreign agendas,” a veiled reference to what they view as the loyalty of Shiites in Sunni-majority Arab countries to Iran.

Iran’s rivals are also worried that Tehran will spend some of the billions of dollars of oil revenue unfrozen by the lifting of sanctions on aiding regional allies that include Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the Shiite group Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shiite-linked Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The prisoner swap and lifting of sanctions was predictably hailed by the Iran lobby, but even the regime’s staunchest supporters recognized the current ambivalent mood of American and European voters who have been unnerved by a rash of terror attacks inspired by Islamic extremism.

“While this diplomatic victory should be celebrated, it is impossible to ignore the ongoing systemic human rights violations in Iran. Recent arrests of activists and artists appear aimed at intimidating reformists and moderates ahead of key elections to Iran’s parliament and Assembly of Experts. Further, an ongoing rise in executions – often for nonviolent drug-related offenses – must be halted without delay. We hope that the moderation that has dramatically impacted Iran’s external relations can now shift inward to produce lasting change,” said the National Iranian American Council, the regime’s leading lobbyist, in a press release. On the same line, it has been trying to put the blame on other factions or “hardliners” within the mullahs regime for the surge in executions and oppressive measures taking place during Rouhani’s tenure, the “moderate” president of the mullahs.

This also represents the double-edged sword the Iran lobby now has to traverse since it has bet everything that the regime will act like a normal civil nation from now on. If the Iranian regime continues to escalate its conflict with Saudi Arabia, continues to fund terror groups or continues to apprehend American sailors at will on the high seas, then public opinion will be turned quickly against the lobby.

Iranian dissident groups that know the regime’s leadership best had the best perspective on this weekend’s events.

“The major part of Iran’s economy (more than 50% of its GDP) is controlled by 14 large entities, all of which are affiliated with the military and security apparatus and controlled by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Much of the released funds will end up in the coffers of these 14 economic entities. A good portion of IRGC expenditures and the monthly financial assistance to the Syrian dictator is paid up by the profits of these institutions. The bulk of the released funds will flow to these economic hubs and will thus serve Khamenei and the IRGC,” said the National Council of Resistance of Iran, one of the leading dissident groups, in a prepared statement.

The NCRI points out, correctly, that the Iranian regime is lurching towards parliamentary elections with a flurry of political arrests and a rapid escalation in public executions – 53 in the first two weeks of January alone – in order to maintain control of the Iranian people, especially if they are anticipating a windfall from the release of funds which they are not likely to receive.

As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in an editorial, this weekend’s events cemented the perception that the Iranian regime essentially swapped four Americans for over $100 billion in cash, access to the international banking system and a re-entry into the global oil markets.

“The timing of Iran’s Saturday release of the Americans is no accident. This was also implementation day for the nuclear deal, when United Nations sanctions on Tehran were lifted, which means that more than $100 billion in frozen assets will soon flow to Iran and the regime will get a lift from new investment and oil sales. The mullahs were taking no chances and held the hostages until President Obama’s diplomatic checks cleared,” the Journal declared.

“But the Iranians negotiated a steep price for their freedom. The White House agreed to pardon or drop charges against seven Iranian nationals charged with or convicted of crimes in the U.S., mostly for violating sanctions designed to retard Iran’s military or nuclear programs. Iran gets back men who were assisting its military ambitions while we get innocents. This is similar to the lopsided prisoner swaps that Mr. Obama previously made with Cuba for Alan Gross and the Taliban for alleged deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl,” the Journal added.

All of this shows that the mullahs tried and true policy of taking hostages will only embolden them to do more. The right policy though seems to be a firm policy much similar to the Sanctions that forced them to come to the nuclear negotiation table.

By Michael Tomlinson

Will the World be Financing More Iranian Aggression?

January 15, 2016 by admin

FILE -In this Jan. 7, 2016, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif. speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington. Less than 24 hours after Iran’s detention and release of U.S. sailors, the House approved GOP-backed legislation that amplifies Republican distrust of Tehran and would give Congress greater oversight of the landmark nuclear agreement. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File)

The USA Today editorial board ran an interesting opinion about the swift release of the ten U.S. Navy sailors captured and detained by the Iranian regime in the Persian Gulf, noting the release of videos and photos depicting the sailors in humiliating poses of surrender follow a similar pattern of aggression by the regime over the past few weeks.

“The seizure and the gratuitous humiliation of the Americans, seen in photographs kneeling with their hands behind their heads, carried at least a whiff of the provocations Iranian military hard-liners have been carrying out lately — such as firing rockets near a U.S. aircraft carrier last month, training a ship-borne heavy machine gun on a U.S. helicopter last summer, and carrying out ballistic missile tests in defiance of a United Nations resolution,” USA Today wrote.

“The quick release undoubtedly had less to do with goodwill than with the fact that Iran stands to get up to $100 billion of its frozen assets back in just days if it has met the conditions of the nuclear deal, which required it to get rid of most of its potentially bomb-making uranium and shut down a plutonium reactor that could also make bomb fuel. A hostage crisis could have stalled the payday,” the board added.

The lure of a huge payday for the mullahs explains the rapid release, but it does not explain the initial detention of the sailors and the need for the regime to publish videos and photos with no other purpose than to score propaganda points against the “Great Satan.”

While the Iran lobby is attempting to portray the release as a positive sign of improved relations, it absurdly excuses the detention in the first place and the videotaped “apology” from one of the sailors in more video as nothing more than a misunderstanding, but the incident provides important lessons for the rest of the world.

Reuters reported that the ultimate decision to release the Americans rested solely with top mullah Ali Khamenei according to regime officials, which is telling since Hassan Rouhani only participated in one meeting on the subject and did not have a voice in the decision. It is a reflection of how internal regime politics work and how Rouhani – while touted by the Iran lobby as a standard bearer for moderation – is in fact nothing more than a puppet for Khamenei.

The value of the videos cannot be underestimated for the regime since symbolism in the Middle East is of paramount importance in countries where strongman politics are the coin of the realm.

As Jennifer Rubin writes in the Washington Post’s Right Turn blog:

“This is a propaganda bonanza for Tehran, one that it will exploit to the hilt to make clear to its allies and those it seeks to intimidate that the United States is weak, unreliable and useless. It furthers their ambitions in the region and demoralizes those resisting Iranian aggression. For countries and individuals on the fence (e.g. the Sunni tribes), the message is clear: You really want to stick your neck out for the Americans?”

There are many in Congress increasingly uneasy in the face of rapidly escalating Iranian aggressions. Less than 24 hours after Iran’s detention and release of U.S. sailors, the House approved GOP-backed legislation that amplifies Republican distrust of Tehran and would give Congress greater oversight of the landmark nuclear agreement.

Lawmakers voted 191-106 Wednesday to approve the Iran Terror Finance Transparency Act, spurning a veto threat from President Barack Obama, but vacated the vote until Jan. 26^th in order to gain veto-proof majority in a revote.

The House bill would bar the removal of certain individuals and foreign financial institutions on a restricted list kept by the Treasury Department until the president certifies to Congress that they weren’t involved in Iran’s ballistic missiles program or in terrorist activities, but the delay may not halt the Obama administration’s rush to lift sanctions, nor forestall an anticipated lifting of sanctions by the European Union and United Nations which could come as early as next week.

House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Ed Royce, speaking at a GOP policy retreat, said the recent actions by the Iranian regime were “very destabilizing in the region.”

“Iran is on a roll, and the perception is that the… administration is getting rolled at this moment,” he added. “We need to see more backbone, not backing down.”

What is clear is that the regime is going to receive an influx of cash without any strong attached and given its most recent acts, we can only assume those funds will flow to support its continued aggression against the world and its neighbors.

The short-term illusion of security with the nuclear agreement will quickly evaporate as the regime bolsters its military, resupply its proxy allies and increase the pace and tempo of its terror activities.

The world will soon discover that the threat posed by ISIS pales in comparison to the threat posed by the Iranian regime.

By Michael Tomlinson

What the Detention of 10 US Navy Sailors Tells Us About Iran Regime

January 15, 2016 by admin

What the Detention of 10 US Navy Sailors Tells Us About Iran Regime

The arrest and detention of 10 U.S. Navy sailors by the Iranian regime and their release after 24 hours is being hailed by some regime supporters as proof of how a new cooperative relationship exists between the U.S. and Iran and how a similar situation might have led to armed conflict before the nuclear deal was agreed to last July.

Regime supporters and members of the Obama administration have even attempted to characterize the Iranian detention as a helpful assist to sailors lost in the waters of the Persian Gulf after allegedly suffering mechanical difficulties, but the images released by the regime are anything but designed to reassure Americans.

The detention was a political act and one designed to convey a specific message considering its timing just before President Obama’s State of the Union speech. It has been a hallmark of the mullahs in Tehran to invest heavily in message, meaning and symbolism. They do not do things haphazardly or without purpose.

The founding of the revolutionary Islamic state even had symbolic meaning with the release of 52 American hostages during the swearing in ceremony for President Ronald Reagan and the continued holding of Iranian-American hostages today also has meaning and symbolism for the regime.

When the regime paints an American flag on the streets of Tehran to be marched over, or builds a model of a U.S. aircraft carrier so it can be sunk on live television, or holds weekly prayer meetings to shout “Death to America,” they are all important symbolic acts for a regime controlled by mullahs deeply concerned over appearances and perception.

The mistake made by those who otherwise support the regime in its efforts to re-enter the international community is that they de-link all of the regime’s actions and treat them as specific, individual events with no relationship to one another.

The test firing of illegal ballistic missiles followed by the launching of rockets near U.S. Navy warships followed by the interception and detention of U.S. Navy sailors are not related according to these supporters of the regime.

They could not be more wrong.

Take for example the election of Hassan Rouhani as president of Iranian regime. Even though he served extensively in intelligence and national security capacities within the regime and was regarded as a trusted ally of top mullah Ali Khamenei, his election was portrayed as a win for moderates by the Iran lobby, led by the National Iranian American Council; forgetting that the previous slate of candidates, was wiped off the ballot by the Guardian Council, allowing Rouhani to win with virtually no opposition.

The mullahs learned their lesson from the disputed election of 2009 where street battles throughout Tehran showed the true nature of the regime to the world. Being mindful of appearances, the mullahs simply took everyone off the ballot that could be a problem.

Which is why the response by the Iran lobby has been interesting, as Shireen Hunter, a professor at Georgetown University, writes in the regime supporting Lobelog.com, that “both the tone and the behavior of the IRGC was quite mild, at least according to the institution’s usual standards. It insisted on treating the US personnel with respect and housing them in a comfortable and safe place.”

Anyone who has watched the video released by the Revolutionary Guard Corps can plainly see the U.S. sailors on their knees, being held at gunpoint with their hands clasped above their heads. They can also see video of a Navy Lieutenant apologizing on camera and saying how all of them have been treated well by their captors.

Oddly, the logic of the Iran lobby is that we should be thankful the regime treated their captives well instead of being upset they captured them in the first place. It’s the same bizarre logic applied to most of the regime’s actions where the Iran lobby has argued that the regime’s involvement in Syria has stemmed the tide of ISIS while neglecting to mention Iran’s intervention in Syria gave birth to ISIS in the first place.

You don’t thank a burglar for being neat after he’s robbed your home.

For the Iranian regime, the videos are powerful symbolism depicting the regime’s ability to confront and embarrass the U.S. military.

It also adds to the growing perception by the mullahs that the U.S. will do nothing in response to any provocation they choose to engage in. The litany of aggressive acts by the regime since the nuclear deal was signed leading up to the capture of the U.S. sailors has merited almost no consequences for the regime.

Ironically enough, even though the regime’s own officials deny the filling in of the Arak heavy-water nuclear reactor’s core with concrete, the U.S. is due to release up to $150 billion in cash before Iran’s parliamentary elections in February.

Common sense would dictate you don’t release the money until you know the election results to see who are you dealing with, even though we can already guess since the slates of candidates in the Assembly of Experts have to be approved by the Guardian Council and most dissidents that could have won seats in the lower house have already been rounded up and arrested at Khamenei’s orders.

As Sean Davis writes in The Federalist, “our military personnel were captured, forced to surrender on their knees, blindfolded, and photographed. Their images were then broadcast to the world on Wednesday morning by the Iranian regime, a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. The American woman who was captured was forced to submit to Islamic law and don a hijab. State-run Iranian media announced that the whole affair was meant to be a “lesson” to “troublemakers” in the U.S. Congress.”

One would think if the Iranian regime really wanted to be helpful, why not just give the Americans a tow out of the area?

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Deserves No Leeway after Holding Sailors

January 15, 2016 by admin

Iran Regime Deserves No Leeway after Holding Sailors

Ten U.S. Navy sailors were detained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps after their patrol boats lost contact with U.S. commanders and may have lost power and drifted into waters claimed by the Iranian regime.

The two small boats were traveling between Kuwait and Bahrain when contact was lost according to the Defense Department. Regime officials have assured U.S. officials that the sailors would be released shortly…at least that’s the hope.

The regime accused the sailors of “snooping” according to regime-controlled FARS state media.

Recent history would give most people pause though considering that since the Iranian regime negotiated a nuclear agreement with the P5+1 group of nations, it has acted aggressively in both domestic and foreign policy affairs to such an extent, many analysts have noted a new level of tension in the region exceeding recent memory.

Since July of last year, the Iranian regime has:

Begun the mass arrest of dissidents, journalists, artists, students, opposition political leaders and social media professionals in a broad effort to tamp down any dissent in advance of parliamentary elections next February;
Convicted Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian of espionage in a secret revolutionary court, while continuing to hold four other Iranian-Americans on trumped up charges and arresting another who has been identified as being supportive of the Iran lobby in the U.S.;
Test fired two new ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions prohibiting such launches;
Fired rockets in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz near U.S. warships, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, and commercial vessels;
Threatened to walk away from the nuclear deal should the U.S. impose new sanctions over the test firing of ballistic missiles;
Recruited Russia to enter into the Syrian conflict in an effort to target anti-Assad rebel forces in a bid to keep the regime in place instead of targeting ISIS;
Stepped up supply of Houthi rebel forces in Yemen and supporting new offensives near the Saudi Arabian border forcing a response from Saudi Arabia; and
Allowing Saudi embassies to be attacked and burned in Iran while state police stood idly by in a repeat of similar attacks on British and U.S. embassies.

These provocations follow a series of diplomatic breaks between the Iranian regime and most of its Arab neighbors including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Sudan and United Arab Emirates.

Unlike the promises made by Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council, one of the leading lobbyists for the Iranian regime, the nuclear deal did not produce any turn to moderation by the mullahs in Tehran. If anything, the past six months have provided ample proof that the Iranian regime has no intention of altering its course, but instead is intent on flexing its muscle in taking advantage of this period of appeasement.

At the heart of that appeasement lies the proverbial pot of gold at the end of the rainbow in the form of $150 billion in frozen assets the mullahs are due to receive as early as next week as part of the nuclear agreement.

That cash has no restrictions on it, so the regime can use it to purchase military equipment, send it to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah or benefit companies controlled by the Revolutionary Guard Corps such as petroleum and telecommunications shell companies. The ordinary Iranian citizen will most likely see no improvement in their economic status as a result of the windfall much to chagrin of those who believed in the propaganda being spouted by the Iran lobby.

Even as news media report that the regime is complying with provisions of the nuclear deal including the closing of its Arak nuclear reactor, regime officials themselves disputed that compliance.

Iran’s deputy nuclear chief denied yesterday a report that technicians had dismantled the core of the country’s nearly finished heavy water reactor and filled it with concrete as part of Tehran’s obligations under the nuclear deal with the West.

Ali Asghar Zarean, in remarks to state TV Tuesday, dismissed the report by the Fars news agency from the previous day. He said the regime would sign an agreement with China to modify the Arak reactor, a deal that is expected next week.

The fact that the regime can’t seem to get its own story straight about the condition of its heavy-water reactor ably describes the inability of the rest of world to properly monitor exactly what the regime is doing with its nuclear facilities.

By Michael Tomlinson

Calls Increase for New Sanctions Against Iran Regime

January 13, 2016 by admin

Calls Increase for New Sanctions Against Iran Regime

Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has stepped up his calls – alongside a growing number of Democrats – for the Obama administration to move forward on implementing new sanctions against the Iranian regime for the apparent violation of bans against development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

“I don’t know why the administration has hesitated, but I am urging them publicly and privately to move ahead with those designations,” he told reporters. “I am concerned with the hesitation to move forward with the ballistic missile related designations.”

Coons is among a growing number of Democrats, including some who supported the Iran nuclear deal, who have called on the president to take a firm response to two missile tests late last year. They argue that the administration’s response should show Iran that it will not be able to cheat on the nuclear agreement.

Coons, who supported the Iran nuclear deal, said it was “very clearly communicated and it played a role in my decision” to support the nuclear agreement that the United States was still able to sanction Iran on non-nuclear issues including its missile program or support for terrorist groups.

Unfortunately, Coons and other supporters of the nuclear deal were largely led astray by the Iran lobby which argued long and hard for a separation of nuclear issues from other issues such as missile development, human rights abuses and sponsorship of terrorism.

We are seeing the butcher’s bill come due now as the Iranian regime begins to push the envelope in all those areas now that it has its nuclear agreement.

Unsurprisingly, the mullahs in Tehran have called any proposed new sanctions a violation of the agreement and “illegal.” Such new sanctions as Coons has called for would be viewed as a breach of the agreement by the mullahs and allow them to resume their nuclear program.

Some, such as the New York Times editorial board, still cling to the hope that these issues could still remain separate in what can only be described as delusional thinking. In an editorial yesterday, the Times continued to make the argument that the nuclear deal was the more important goal:

“Critics of Iran and the nuclear deal say the missile tests are proof that the agreement failed. But ending Iran’s production of ballistic missiles was not the focus of the agreement. The greater threat by far has always been Iran’s nuclear program, which was coming closer to producing a bomb until the agreement halted the process.”

The Times does acknowledge the worrisome threat posed by the missile launches in light of the close collaboration between the Iranian regime and North Korea which supplied Iran’s first missiles and still supplies key components, but it still adheres to the laughable idea that there is a real difference and separation between regime president Hassan Rouhani and top mullah Ali Khamenei in terms of “moderates” versus “hardliners” when it comes to the strategic interests of the mullahs in Iran.

Furthermore, Ahmed Shaheed, the UN human rights advocate to Iran, said in a discussion with “Rooz”, Iranian website, that human rights in Iran have not witnessed a significant change since Rouhani’s reign, given that Iran has been refusing, for six years now, the UN rapporteur on human rights.

Amnesty International also issued a statement, last July, warning of the subject of the accumulating executions during the first half of 2015, after recording figures as high as 700 executions, at a time when Iranian statistics showed only 246 Iranians executed. Since Rouhani’s start of his term, over 2,000 people have been executed in Iran, placing Iran at the top of the world list for executions on a per capita basis.

Clearly change needs to come to Iran, but it won’t be coming from the mullahs.

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Regime Pushes Confrontations as Iran Lobby Covers

January 13, 2016 by admin

Iran Regime Pushes Confrontations as Iran Lobby Covers

Noun: con·fron·ta·tion

Definition: A hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

The Iran regime has decided to live up to the meaning of the word “confrontation” in all its forms as it rapidly escalates a series of crises on several fronts.

The U.S. Navy released video this weekend taken by an American helicopter showing an Iranian Revolutionary Guards vessel firing unguided rockets last December near warships, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz as proof rebutting denials by the Iranian regime that it had launched the rockets.

A regime spokesman claimed the accusations by the U.S. were “false” and “akin to psychological warfare,” but had no rebuttal to the video evidence that was released clearly showing the regime had lied about the provocation.

The Navy said the rockets were fired “within an internationally recognized maritime traffic lane” as the Truman and the other ships, including commercial craft, were passing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.

A U.S. Central Command spokesman at the time called the Iranian actions “highly provocative, unsafe and unprofessional” and said they called into question Iran’s commitment to the security of a waterway vital to international commerce.

But the firing of rockets near U.S. Navy warships was only one part of a much larger tapestry the regime is weaving of acts fueling violence across the Middle East at the direction and behest of the mullahs controlling Iran.

Jay Solomon reported in the Wall Street Journal of the growing fears in Washington and Europe that the nuclear deal reached last July with the Iranian regime has not brought the much-promised moderate turn from Iran, but rather has only emboldened and hardened its leadership.

“Since completion of the agreement in July, Tehran security forces, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have stepped up arrests of political opponents in the arts, media and the business community, part of a crackdown aimed at ensuring Mr. Khamenei’s political allies dominate national elections scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Iranian politicians and analysts,” Solomon writes.

“Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the enemies’ will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and as before will punch them in the mouth,” Khamenei told a meeting of prayer leaders this week.

“As much as $100 billion in frozen revenues are expected to return to Iran after sanctions are lifted, which U.S. officials said could happen in coming weeks,” Solomon notes. “Many of the companies about to be removed from international blacklists are part of military and religious foundations, including some that report directly to Mr. Khamenei. Those firms could be the first to benefit from the rush of international businesses looking to profit from the lifting of sanctions.”

The same month, two Iranian poets, each received decade-long sentences and 99 lashes for kissing members of the opposite sex and shaking their hands, Iranian state media reported. They have denied the charges.

In November, an Iran court convicted the Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief, Jason Rezaian, of espionage and sentenced him to prison. The Post and Mr. Rezaian have denied the charges.

Things are getting so bad Congressional Democrats are intensifying pressure on the Obama administration to hold Iran accountable for its testing of ballistic missiles.

Both supporters and opponents of the multinational nuclear accord with the Iranian regime say that to maintain U.S. credibility in enforcing the deal, the White House must move forward with sanctions on Iran after two missile tests in the fall.

“They ought to impose sanctions because we have to show we take this seriously,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), who backed the nuclear deal, said Friday. “Iran is very destabilizing, very aggressive and very badly behaved and we have to do what we can to stop that.”

But even with the renewed calls for action against the Iranian regime, there seems to be little appetite in the White House to engage in new confrontations with the mullahs during the last year of President Obama’s term in office, which has led to traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia to strike out and form their own coalitions in an effort to stymie Iranian regime’s aggressions.

The Arab League in a statement condemned the attacks on two Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran and accused the Iranian government of failing to protect the buildings, Reuters reported. The statement also condemned a militant group found in Bahrain reportedly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. All Arab League nations voted in support of the statement except Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terror group holds serious sway.

Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, speaking at an emergency Arab League session called in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss Tehran’s “terrorist acts” after attacks on the Saudi Embassy in Iran, said Arab nations must ensure that Iran is stopped from “meddling in the affairs of Arab nations.”

The actions by Arab League nations comes as the Iran lobby ramps up its verbal and PR attacks on Saudi Arabia in an effort to deflect attention on the Iranian regime’s new provocations. In fact, the regime’s chief lobbyist – the National Iranian American Council – has issued a flurry of editorials condemning Saudi Arabia, but not criticizing the regime’s recent acts including the crackdown against dissidents, the ballistic missile launches and firing of rockets at the U.S. Navy.

“If it seems like the Iranian government’s behavior is schizophrenic, that’s because it is. A small but powerful group of hardliners is trying to derail Rouhani’s foreign policy initiatives in an effort to weaken his domestic political power,” said Reza Marashi of NIAC in a piece for Vice News in which he attempted to blame the regime’s latest nefarious acts on a small group of hardliners.

He of course does not mention the political realities that the regime as a theocratic state is solely and particularly in making decisions regarding its strategic issues, is run at the whim of its Khamenei and the small, hand-picked group of mullahs in its Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts.

As the situation worsens, we should see even more hysterical editorials coming from NIAC and other lobby allies such as Lobelog and the Ploughshares Fund.

By Michael Tomlinson