Iran Lobby

Exposing the Activities of the lobbies and appeasers of the Mullah's Dictatorship ruling Iran

The Truth about Iran’s Religious Exceptions on Nuclear Weapons

by

Iran missile program

Iran’s Sejil 2 missile is seen in front of a picture of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei before a test launch.
Photo credit: The Daily Signal

In a recent piece in Truthout, Gareth Porter lays out a historical rationale for Iran not wanting to develop nuclear weapons based on a fatwa, or religious edict, issued by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He goes on to cite a historical precedent with Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran’s first supreme leader in the new Islamic Republic, issuing his own fatwa against chemical weapons after Iraq used them in Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran.

Unfortunately Mr. Porter’s observations and conclusion are fatally flawed for a number of reasons, the biggest being that unlike he has reasoned, the Iranian regime did use chemical weapons against Iraqis, and since the then Supreme Leader lied about it, the present one can certainly lie as well. It is also worth mentioniong that the present Supreme Leader is often  under question as a habitual liar.

It is a given of politics since the dawn of civilization that people in power will do or say most anything that preserves their power or position. Iran and its religious theocracy are not immune to the same temptations. Running a nation state in the service of your religious belief is not much different than serving your political party. In Iran’s case, Khamenei has exemplified the slightly bipolar nature of politics by condemning nuclear weapons, yet ardently defending Iran’s capabilities to develop them.

Mr. Porter fails to note during this summer’s first round of nuclear talks between Iran and the P5+1 group of Western nations, Khamenei delivered his nation’s version of the State of Union where he went into highly technical detail about Iran’s desire to not only preserve its enriching capacity, but indeed significantly expand it almost a hundredfold from where negotiators were at. While negotiators were debating allowing Iran to keep anywhere from 1,900 to 4,000 centrifuges, Khamenei called for 190,000 Separative Work Units (SWU) and the presumption of the rights to build enough centrifuges of the next-generation models (which are the most efficient at refining uranium into highly enriched fuel suitable for nuclear warheads or heavy water reactors which could produce plutonium) as the minimum requirements for their “peaceful nuclear program”.

Since Khamenei represents the final authority in Iran on international treaties, that round of talks was effectively dead on arrival this past July. It is a credit though to the significant international circle of Iranian regime sympathizers and cheerleaders that that collapse was not fatal and in fact another round of talks were scheduled with a November 24th deadline this year.

Mr. Porter bases nearly all his story on the single viewpoint of Mohsen Rafighdoost, who served as minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard during the Iran-Iraq war and is obviously responsible for any chemical attacks carried out during the war, and claims that he had broached the subject of weapons of mass destruction to Khomeini who dissuaded him at the time. However as documented by many media outlets, including an article in New York Times, dated January 31, 2003, the truth is the polar opposite.

We only have the current Supreme Leader’s words to go by and unlike the tea reading that went on at May Day parades in front of Lenin’s Tomb of the Politburo members from the old Soviet Union, we are left to discern the rants and ravings of a theocrat that hasn’t spared anything against his own people, while his men in power are widely known to govern the primary state sponsor of terrorism, and had already run a clandestine nuclear program for 18 years before it was first exposed by its opponents in 2002. And in his most recent comments, he certainly lays open the door for enriching on a massive scale.

Indeed the clear facts, unlike Mr. Porters picture of the situation is totally different. In Iran’s case under the leadership of president Hassan Rouhani, Khamenei’s handpicked moderate face to the world, police crackdowns on dissent have sharply risen as have executions; now in excess of 1,000 according to Amnesty International. Access to the internet and outside communications and social media are sharply curtailed if not blocked completely and Iran has stepped up its military and financial support to terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as become involved in the Syrian civil war and the battle with ISIS in Iraq in an attempt to preserve its control of a Shiite hegemony in the region.

Given those actions, it is hard for anyone to take Iran’s leadership at its word that its only interest is in boosting its economy to give its people more access to iPhones and clothes from Gap Kids.

While Mr. Porter’s hopes for a nuclear-free Iran may be commendable and sincere, he may very well have been taken for a ride by an Iranian flying carpet courtesy of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

By: Michael Tomlinson

Call for Investigation into VOA for Pro-Iran Corruption

by

Iranian Lobby

Archive Photo -Taken from Google for Iran lobbies and appeasers

The Washington Free Beacon, has recently reported that a group of bipartisan congressmen have written to Senator Kerry asking for a probe in to the VOA- Persian program’s pro-Iranian regime policies. The program is viewed by the Iranian diaspora as biased and cozy to the Iranian dictatorship for widely censoring the views and activities of the pro regime-change opposition in Iran, or for always offering a negative and absurd picture perpetuated by Iranian intelligence or Iranian lobbies abroad.

The report written by Adam Kredo, a senior commentator of the website, was published on October 17, 2014 on the website.

Excerpts of the article that show how the media is used in favor of the Iranian regime and its lobbies to advocate favorable reports to the Mullahs in Iran is published here:

“Congress is calling for an investigation into Voice of America’s (VOA) Persian language news service as a result of what they say is the station’s systemic pro-Iran bias and cozy ties to the anti-American ruling regime, according to a letter sent recently to Secretary of State John Kerry”, writes Adam Kredo.

Explaining the background, Washington Free Beacon (WFB) writes: “Lawmakers and Iranian dissidents have long accused VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) of producing sympathetic coverage of the Iranian regime and blacklisting prominent Iranian opposition voices from appearing on the air.”

“The call from Congress for an investigation into these alleged practices comes just a month after the Washington Free Beacon revealed that PNN had banned from the network a prominent Iranian opposition member and placed him on a so-called “black list” after he attacked Iran’s ruling regime for sponsoring terrorism.”

The article continues, “Nine House lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are now demanding that the State Department launch a formal investigation into potential mismanagement at PNN, according to a letter sent to Kerry on Wednesday and obtained by the Free Beacon.”

“We request that you [Kerry] look into this matter and investigate any possible mismanagement and slanted coverage of news by VOA-PNN, including the oversight of management, staffing, and content,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Those members concerned about PNN’s coverage include Reps. Steve Cohen (D., Tenn.), Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), Steve Stockman (R., Texas), Trent Franks (R., Ariz.), Howard Coble (R., N.C.), and several others.”

The core of the corruption

In the article, Adam Kredo explains that “The lawmakers say that their Iranian-American constituents have been complaining about PNN’s failure to cover Iran’s human rights abuses and other matters that are potentially embarrassing to the ruling regime.

“We have received complaints from our Iranian-American constituents that VOA-PNN programs have neglected to adequately cover the abysmal situation of human rights violations in Iran, particularly the alarming and dramatic rise in executions,” they write in the letter.

Examples of the misbehavior of VOA-PNN

Giving examples of the misbehavior of the program, WFB reiterates: “During [Iranian] President Hassan Rouhani’s first term in office, nearly 900 hangings have been ordered with very few of these executions receiving VOA-PNN coverage,” they say. “In our efforts to protect and give voice to vulnerable populations, we must ensure that VOA-PNN upholds its mission to provide truthful news and does not suppress the voices of those Iranians seeking human rights protections and Democratic change in their country.”

“In addition to a significant rise in executions, including one scheduled for a female rape victim who spoke out against her attacker, Iran has continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorism in the Middle East.”

“PNN critics, including former staffers and guests, have discussed systematic corruption at the network that includes a policy of censoring those who criticize the regime and those who may reveal information damaging to the network’s senior officials, some of whom have had ties to the Iranian regime,” WFB’s article continues.

“We are concerned that this network, which is meant to promote freedom and democracy through objective news and information, may have harmed instead of helped the plight of Iranians seeking to claim their human rights,” the lawmakers state in their letter.

Iranian-American community leaders welcomed Congress’ call to investigate PNN.

Majid Sadeghpour, political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities-US (OIAC), said that U.S. taxpayers expect better of VOA.

“Regrettably, while VOA-PNN has given voice to the pro-Tehran crowd inside the Beltway, it has censored the views of those who seek a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear republic in Iran,” said Sadeghpour in a statement provided to the Free Beacon.

Regime opponents who have been invited onto PNN say that their comments have been censored, and in some cases have been thrown off the air.

Nikahang Kowsar, an Iranian cartoonist, journalist, and regime critic, told the Free Beacon that he was booted off PNN’s airwaves in March, in the midst of an interview, for discussing corruption in Iran’s oil industry that could be traced back to high-level officials.

Kowsar was being interviewed on VOA Persian’s Last Page program when the host was apparently ordered to stop the interview.

“I was waiting for the second round of questions” when a PNN host claimed that “he was told and ordered not to ask any more questions to me,” recalled Kowsar. “Then a gentleman from the studio came and disconnected my microphone.”

Kowsar said he was shocked by the experience. He later petitioned the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees VOA and PNN, about the incident.

“When I was in Iran I went to prison for drawing a cartoon, I was cut off from national TV … I was censored in Iran, so somebody who has been censored inside the Islamic republic is not news. But being in the VOA studios in the U.S., the land of the free, and then learning that I have to be censored is … news.”

“If VOA is the channel that wants to talk about American values and freedom of speech and is run by people who have the Islamic republic mindset, that’s not nice,” Kowsar said. “In a way you see that the Islamic republic has exported its values to the heart of Washington and I can’t tolerate that.”

In September – a few months after Kowsar was booted off air – Majid Mohammadi, an Iranian-American academic and critic of Tehran’s hardline regime, was purportedly placed on the station’s “black list” for comparing the Islamic Republic to the terror group Islamic State (IS, ISIS, or ISIL).

“After the program, I was called and one of the staff members of PNN (Mr. Homan Bakhtiar) told me that Mr. Mohammad Manzarpour, the editor, has put me in the black list and PNN will no longer contact me for providing my expertise on Middle East issues in VOA Persian programs,” Mohammadi later wrote in a letter to the BBG.

PNN editor Manzarpour has been singled out for particular criticism by several of the station’s critics and even former employees who have worked with him.

Manzarpour, they allege, has had ties to the Iranian regime and uses his platform at PNN to censor information he finds objectionable.

Manzarpour, his critics note, has previously worked for Iran’s Atieh Bahar Consulting company, which helps foreign companies invest in Iran’s oil sector and “acts as intermediary between them and the government,” according to the Iranian American Forum.

Manzarpour’s previous ties to Atieh Bahar could influence his editorial decisions at PNN, Kowsar said.

“There is something wrong over there, a virus,” Kowsar explained. “You feel there is a sort of conflict of interest over there. Why should somebody coming from Atieh Bahar be in charge of the editorial staff over there?”

“When he cuts me off from a program relating somehow to the oil [industry] … you feel something sketchy over there,” he said.

Read the Source article here

 

Getting in Bed with Iran Makes for Uneasy Neighbors

by

The Iranian regime advocates for a policy of appeasement.

The Iranian regime advocates for a policy of appeasement.

Recently The Iran Project, a collection of former U.S. government officials, issued the fourth in its series of papers devoted to the topic of improving relations between the U.S. and Iran. In it, these former government policy wonks detail the state of Iran’s relationships with its neighbors. In earlier papers they had examined diplomatic, economic and military aspects of the nuclear issue involving Iran.

Quaintly, these would be peaceniks append to their paper a quote from William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”:

“Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.”

For myself, I think the more appropriate quote would have been from the comedian Groucho Marx:

“Politics doesn’t make strange bedfellows – marriage does.”

It is an appropriate quote for The Iran Project since one of the great failings in logic in its approach to the question of how to deal with Iran is the assumption that Iran can be steered towards an amicable accommodation with its neighbors and the West. That is based largely on the belief by these former officials that diplomacy is the cornerstone of any agreement and thus “talking” is the process by which to secure a more peaceful future for Iran and its neighbors.

But Groucho had one over these guys when he rightly jokes that the ever fluid nature of politics is built largely on deception and the management of perceptions, both internally and externally. In Iran’s case, its leaders have carefully crafted a script in recognition of their perennial adversary’s weaknesses. Those weaknesses are the current Administration’s deep-seated and vocally stated desire to secure a deal with Iran and an isolationist withdrawal from Middle East affairs after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The paper’s authors make the same fatal mistake that diplomats have made from Chamberlain at Munich to King Priam at ancient Troy which was to underestimate their opponents by thinking they were rational people. To discuss Iran’s relationship with its neighbors and the West as whole must begin and end with one thing: Iran’s status as a theocratic state with meddling in other countries through export of terrorism and fundamentalism as a pillar of survival.

Within the sphere of diplomacy, it is an oft aimed for goal to find common ground and then build a mutually beneficial agreement. Unfortunately, when one of the parties is a religious theocracy that derives the formulation of national policy based on a personal interpretation of a higher authority, and depending on expanding its influence in the region by spreading extremism to compensate and cover up its popular isolation and growing schism within the ruling elite, it leaves little wiggle room for accommodation.

Since the 1979 Revolution, Iran’s government has been co-opted by a cadre of mullahs and clerics who have fallen into the age-old trap of all would-be revolutionaries; the intoxicating effects of power and wealth. The clerical councils grip on power through the military and judicial branches of government have evolved into a death grip that Western diplomats have failed to appreciate fully, especially during nuclear negotiations that began shortly after Hassan Rouhani assumed power.

During these negotiations, Western diplomats and media have also been snookered by a skillful media and PR campaign by Iran branding Rouhani as a moderate and the Islamic nation firmly committed to finding a peaceful solution to the thorny nuclear question. But the past year has demonstrated clearly no dividing line exists between perceived moderates and hardliners in Iran. In fact, Iran’s core political establishment is firmly hardline and hostile to the West and its neighbors and subservient to the religious establishment. This has been put on ample display by the spate of human rights violations designed to stifle public dissent.

These have included:

  • A record pace for executions according to Amnesty International with estimates of between 800 to 1,000 prisoners put to death, most by grisly public hanging since Rouhani took office. Many for political offenses and including women;
  • A crackdown on Internet and satellite access for Iranians, including a banning of social media, the confiscation of dishes, the monitoring of all online traffic and the reporting of IP addresses to police; and
  • Continued diversion of funds to foreign military activities in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Yemen and support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

The centerpieces of Iran’s national policies have been the commitment to its nuclear program and the aggressive support and promotion of its particular brand of radicalized Shia religious sect, both of which have been largely ignored within The Iran Project’s analysis.

Iran’s Neighbors

The analysis prepared in the paper urges the U.S. to mount an aggressive effort to reassure Iran’s neighbors of its commitment to regional security, but it leaves out just how those neighbors can be reassured when Iran makes no effort to give up on its efforts to influence its neighbors directly through military intervention as in Syria or through proxies as through Maliki in Iraq and  more recently in Houthis in Yemen.

This question vexes the Sunni Gulf States and Saudi Arabia the most since Iran’s mullahs have made no suggestions they will abandon their efforts to spread their brand of  fundamentalism across the region. Reiterating time and again that in addition to its repressive theocratic ideology,  the clerical regime in Iran cannot survive without expanding its tentacles in the region is not an overstatement.

An interesting note is the position taken in the paper that Iran should develop its energy and natural resources. It implicitly advocates for the U.S. to take a greater role in developing Iran’s infrastructure for the purpose of offsetting Russia’s influence in Europe; a position that seems naive at best and dangerous at worst. But at no point is there an answer of reconciling Iran’s rigid and strict Islamist rule with pluralistic democracies in the West. Are we to assume that Iran will be the next China and the West should ignore crippling human rights violations in favor of the almighty dollar? Iran is not China,  since it considers normal relations with the West as a cultural onslaught against its rigid and theocratic approach.

The paper also positions Israel and Turkey, the U.S. closest allies in the region, as being willing to accept a reduction in their own security in favor of an Iranian deal. Also assumptions not largely rooted in the practical reality of the world.

The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman recently listed Ronald Reagan as one of the most consequential Presidents of the modern era. What made Reagan effective as a leader was the unwavering nature of his world view, especially towards the old Soviet Union which he openly named the “evil empire” much to the chagrin of the foreign policy establishment. But it was largely through Reagan’s commitment to that vision that the world saw the eventual fall of communism and the radical redrawing of Europe.

What the U.S. and the Middle East, especially Iran’s neighbors, need now is a similar commitment to singular vision. That vision must be aimed with laser-like precision at Iran’s leaders and the eventual solution of regime change. Only in that way could the West be reassured of Iran’s commitment to peace.

Iran’s Nuclear Problem

An essential element missing from the paper’s analysis is the problem of Supreme Leader Khamenei. As Iran’s spiritual and titular head of state, all foreign policy decisions, including approval of all treaties, must pass through him. One would think if Iran was truly committed to a lasting resolution to the nuclear impasse, Khamenei would voice support for a solution and ongoing negotiations. Instead Khamenei went on a much publicized series of public rants where he explicitly and forcefully reiterated Iran’s commitment to its centrifuge capacity to enrich nuclear material and to its missile development program to deliver warheads.

Khamenei’s statements were the primary reason why nuclear talks in July failed and the new deadline for another round set for November. Given the vigorous support within Iran’s clerical circles for a nuclear capability to offset the perceived strategic advantages that Israel and Saudi Arabia possess militarily, it is hard to imagine Iran willingly giving up its capability, let alone actual weapons.

The US misguided policy gave Iraq to Iran in a silver platter, to detriment of not only the Iraqi people but the whole region. As a matter of fact the trend in the past few months have been very much moving to the Ayatollahs’ detriment.  As the time Tehran’s strategic deadlock on two key issues is becoming more evident. It suffered a strategic blow in Iraq. It is desperately trying to regain its foothold in Iraq. On the nuclear front, the snooze is tightening up on Tehran’s neck. Now it is time to turn the heat on the regime. Allowing the Ayatollahs off the hook and providing concessions is a grave mistake of mammoth proportions.

Iran has very little incentive to cut a deal when it is already getting pretty much what it wants while still developing its nuclear program. Iran’s mullahs have also judged that the U.S. and West are much more in need to winning political points than they do at home and as such can hold out far longer. While the reality is that the regime in Tehran is much more vulnerable. The mullahs and their lobbies in the West work hard to portray the opposite.

Another aspect is that the regime’s PR machine in the West has made a concerted effort to propel the myth of a divided Iran with a populace eager to support Western engagement. The truth has been the complete opposite and while the bubble of Rouhani being a moderate has burst, it is becoming a harder sell for Tehran lobbyists and apologists.

Ultimately the only real solution for Iran’s nuclear challenge is to follow the example laid down by President Reagan in his dealings with the Soviets which is to deal from a position of strength bolstered by a firm commitment in a singular vision. That vision should be a nuclear-free Iran and negotiations should accept nothing less than the complete dismantlement of its entire nuclear infrastructure, including centrifuges.

Coupled with that must be a political liberalization that finally forces its mullahs to relinquish power in favor of a pluralistic, democratic government. Without it, no agreement reached with Iran can stand the test of time.

By: Michael J. Tomlinson

Explosion in Parchin Nuclear Site – Is Iran Pursuing development of Warheads?

by

Satellite photo of the Parchin military complex in Iran where an explosion killed two workers (The photo credit to digitalglobe

Satellite photo of the Parchin military complex in Iran where an explosion killed two workers (The photo credit to digitalglobe

Iran’s official news agency reported an explosion and fire on Monday, 6th of October at its Parchin military facility in which at least two workers were reported killed. Iran’s Defense Industries Organization said the fire broke out on Sunday evening, IRNA said, giving no further detail.

Reuters reports that the site has been a contentious issue for the International Atomic Energy Agency and Western nations opposed to Iran’s nuclear arms program for some time now since it has long been rumored to be a site for testing of components for its nuclear weapons development program including missile technology development. In fact the IAEA suspected that Iran conducted high explosives testing a decade ago that would be integral in the development of a nuclear warhead. The IAEA has long wanted to inspect the facility, but Iran has steadfastly refused all international access.

According to Reuters, only three years ago, Iran said a massive explosion at a military base 45 km (28 miles) west of Tehran killed 17 Revolutionary Guards, including the head of the elite force’s missile program. It said the blast was caused by an accident while weapons were being moved.

The explosion, raises serious suspicions about the regime’s firm rejection of any visits to the site, by the IAEA inspectors. One can conclude that perhaps significant munitions activity related to its nuclear program is underway at Parchin and out of the sight of international inspectors lays bare the falsehood that Iran and its lobbyist allies in the US have been spreading for a decade now that it is committed to a peaceful nuclear program.

Iran’s allies will make every effort to ignore today’s latest development, but they can no longer hide the fact that even while it bargains at the negotiating table with the P5+1, Iran still actively seeks to refine its explosives program for nuclear warheads.

Former Defense Secretary: U.S. in Syria too late, left Iraq too soon

by

Former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA Director

Former U.S. Defense Secretary and CIA Director

Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal

Soure: CBS News October 2, 2014.

In a new book, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta suggests that President Obama failed to heed his advisers who wanted to leave troops in Iraq past December 2011, which may have contributed to the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
“It was clear to me–and many others–that withdrawing all our forces would endanger the fragile stability then barely holding Iraq together,” Panetta writes in the book, an excerpt of which was published on Time.com this week.
Panetta acknowledged the difficulties of putting together the agreement that would have allowed U.S. forces to stay in the country – it had the support of various leaders in Iraq, but none who were willing to back it publicly – but also said the U.S. could have used its leverage, such as reconstruction aid money, to convince then-President Nouri al-Maliki to support a continued U.S. presence.
• Is the violence in Iraq Obama’s fault?
• Former Defense Secretary: U.S. in Syria too late, left Iraq too soon
“My fear, as I voiced to the President and others, was that if the country split apart or slid back into the violence that we’d seen in the years immediately following the U.S. invasion, it could become a new haven for terrorists to plot attacks against the U.S. Iraq’s stability was not only in Iraq’s interest but also in ours,” Panetta writes. “I privately and publicly advocated for a residual force that could provide training and security for Iraq’s military.”

Defeating ISIS: CIA insider on what the intelligence community knew

He said that Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy advocated that position – which was shared by military commanders in the region and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Panetta writes – but found that Mr. Obama’s team at the White House “pushed back, and the differences occasionally became heated.”
“Those on our side viewed the White House as so eager to rid itself of Iraq that it was willing to withdraw rather than lock in arrangements that would preserve our influence and interests,” he said.
Panetta writes of his frustration at the White House, which he says coordinated negotiations but never really led them. And without Mr. Obama’s “personal advocacy,” a deal with Maliki was allowed “to slip away.”
Critics of the administration have suggested that a residual U.S. troop presence would have at least mitigated Maliki’s sectarian leadership that weakened the army to the point that it was incapable of stopping ISIS’ advance.
Mr. Obama rejected that analysis as “bogus and wrong” when he spoke to reporters in August.
“Let’s just be clear: The reason that we did not have a follow-on force in Iraq was because the Iraqis were — a majority of Iraqis did not want U.S. troops there, and politically they could not pass the kind of laws that would be required to protect our troops in Iraq,” he said.

Former Defense chief on why ISIS flourished

Even if the U.S. had troops in the country the last several years, he said, “the country wouldn’t be holding together either. The only difference would be we’d have a bunch of troops on the ground that would be vulnerable.”
The views Panetta expresses in the book echo what he told CBS News’ Scott Pelley on “60 Minutes” in September, when he said he “wasn’t” comfortable with pulling out of Iraq in 2011.
“I really thought that it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq,” he said.

Iran Nuclear-Brokering a deal at no cost to the Iranian regime

by

admin-ajaxWith the nuclear talks at a critical stage, a typical position by the Iranian lobby these days focuses on brokering a deal at no cost to the Iranian regime and also fulfilling the mullahs lying tactics. By labeling Mullah Rouhani a moderate with over a 1,000 executions in his first year in office is obviously wrong; and by scaring the west and the US with the threat of ‘hard-liners’ replacing Rouhani, the Iranian lobby is actually advising P5+1 to not only accept the uranium enrichment capability, but also the opportunity to keep enough centrifuges running to allow the regime to advance

its nuclear ambitions.

A good example of such efforts is NIAC’s Trita Parsi’s article on Foreign Policy website on September 18th, 2014, which read: “…Iran’s nuclear negotiators have public opinion on their side for now. But if that disintegrates, so could any hope for a deal with the West.

“…Nuclear talks with Washington are not just about whether Tehran can continue enriching uranium; they are about which domestic political faction will be at the helm of Iranian decision-making. Will it be the moderates like President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who reject a zero-sum rivalry between Iran and the West? Or will the conservative establishment whose comfort zone is hostility toward the United States come out on top?”

Trita Parsi, who is known to lobby for the Iranian dictatorship and for his close relationship with the regime’s foreign minister Zarif, refers to ‘a recent poll’ to justify why the P5+1 must accept Rouhani’s conditions in the upcoming negotiations in New York.

He writes: “While all indications show that the public supports a deal, a new poll by the University of Maryland may shed light on the thinking behind Iran’s negotiating position, but also explain why the Rouhani government may think it can live with a no-deal scenario.”

He is suggesting the new poll will confirm his conclusion.  The study by the University of Tehran Center for Public Opinion Research on Iranian Public Opinion, which given the suppression and lack of any democracy in Iran, is only what the religious dictatorship would approve.  Therefore the entire article is relying on nothing but false information to derive a false conclusion and misinform public opinion, and perhaps the persuade politicians and those of influence in Washington DC to do what NIAC is suggesting, that is to say, to act with leniency in negotiations with the regime delegation.

This is while the EU ‘is disappointed with the very limited progress on PMD (possible military dimensions)’ regarding the regime’s nuclear activities, the EU statement said on the 18th of September, 2014.

Trita Parsi also refers to the ISIS issue and suggests “…Washington cannot afford to be at war with the Islamic State, where Tehran’s help is needed (if covertly), while also being at war with Iran.”

In other words, the Iranian Lobby is trying to play with the rifts within the mullahs regime to justify the continuation of the appeasement policy towards Iran. This is while the Iranian people do not distinguish between Rouhani and his predecessors as nothing has changed when it comes to repression and violation of human rights in Iran.

Nuclear weapons is part of this regime’s strategy for survival; firmness, comprehensive sanctions aimed at implementation of the Security Council resolutions, a complete halt to all enrichment, and acceptance of the Additional Protocol is the only way to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Anyone asking for less under any justification is either unaware of the Iranian regime’s history of lying or is intentionally misinforming the public in favor of the Iranian dictatorship.

Turn up Heat on the Iranian Regime

by

Prof. Sascha Sheehan-University of Baltimore

Prof. Sascha Sheehan-University of Baltimore

University of Baltimore’s Ivan Sascha Sheehan: Turn up Heat on the Iranian Regime

By Julian Pecquet – 11/15/13 07:00 AM EST

Guest Commentary

Last week, the world tuned in for the latest in a series of failed negotiations designed to curtail Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

This week, many in the U.S. are asking whether President Obama is up to the task of meeting his repeated pledges to put an end to the regime’s nuclear ambitions.

Red lines, after all, are only useful when they are enforced.

The many impasses the White House has encountered at the bargaining table are part of a strategic effort on the part of the Iranian regime to buy time to achieve nuclear know-how.

By this metric, Tehran has been wildly successful.

The French government should be applauded for standing in the way of an agreement in Geneva last week that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called a “very bad deal” and The Wall Street Journal deemed an “historic security blunder.”

The deal reportedly traded significant relief from sanctions and embargoes in return for Iranian promises that involved neither mechanisms for ensuring compliance, nor permanent dismantling of nuclear infrastructure.

That even the Iranian negotiating team, led by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, refused it is a sign that the regime’s supreme leader believes he can run out the clock by dragging world powers even deeper into a game of diplomacy that is the ultimate fools errand.

If ever there was a sign the administration is seen as feckless, this is it.

As the White House prepares for the next round of P5+1 talks in Geneva on Nov. 20, here’s what they need to know:

·      The sanctions that drove Tehran to the bargaining table are necessary to avoid the need for military action.

Wendy Sherman, the administration’s trusted hand on Iran, appears intent on reaching an agreement at all costs. Her recent efforts to convince the U.S. Congress to back off the sanctions that forced Iran to the negotiating table in the first place were as naïve as they were ill-conceived. Sanctions imposed under a provision of the 2011 Defense Authorization Act known as the Kirk-Menendez Amendment crippled Iran’s economy and facilitated the regime’s current crisis. Far from being paused, eased or lifted, the penalties should be increased, extended and enhanced to further ensure Iranian compliance. Congress should ignore White House requests to delay further sanctions and turn up the heat on the regime by slashing oil exports and targeting the Iranian currency.

·      Never before has it been more important to protect Iran’s primary opposition to clerical rule.

Tehran’s most worrisome and best organized political opposition, the People’s Mujahedeen of Iran — under detention in Iraq and recognized as “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention — have been repeatedly exposed to massacres, incursions and hostage takings, at the hands of assailants, including the Iraqi Government, acting on behalf of the Iranian regime. That the group has been a valuable and steadfast source of intelligence on Iranian nuclear activities should be acknowledged through actions to honor commitments to protect them from violence that has become all too common. As a preliminary measure, the U.S. can extract and settle without precondition the political refugees detained at Camp Liberty in northeast Iraq.

·      Treating the regime as a fixture of the Middle Eastern landscape weakens the U.S. hand at the bargaining table.

Washington policymakers have grown accustomed to the false dichotomy of prolonged negotiations and tactical military strikes. Such framing treats the Iranian regime as a fixture of the Middle Eastern landscape and forecloses any potential for democratic change from within. Sanctions imposed by both the U.S. and EU have driven up unemployment, set off inflation, sent the rial tumbling, and ratcheted up pressure on the Iranian regime. Signaling to ordinary Iranians that the U.S. will stand with the regime’s democratic heirs — the de facto Parliament in Exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran — would signal those that feel that their voices have been silenced — women, youth, minorities — and channel the discontent in the Iranian streets.

·      World powers could simultaneously clinch an agreement and lose the peace.

Compromise with Tehran would breed regional instability, escalate the violence directed at the regime’s primary opposition and further embolden Tehran’s clerical rulers. Any settlement that does not insist on an immediate halt of uranium enrichment would lead to Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons. Any arrangements agreed to must also include an end to the production and installation of centrifuges; the immediate closure of all facilities involved in nuclear activities, including the Arak heavy water site, and unfettered access by the International Atomic Energy Agency to all sites and individuals involved in the regime’s nuclear activities. Obtaining the bomb is the key to the regime’s survival. As a result, deception is the name of the game.

Just as President Reagan adopted and applied a Russian proverb: “Trust, but verify” to interactions with leaders of the Soviet Union, Obama would be wise to note an applicable Persian proverb: “He who makes the same mistake twice deserves disillusion.”

The U.S. decisions to promote a policy of engagement with the Iranian regime at the expense of concerns raised by crucial allies has chilled U.S. relations with important global partners.

But turning up the heat on the Iranian regime by abandoning the policy of appeasement is the surest path to a sustainable peace.

Dr. Ivan Sascha Sheehan is director of the graduate programs in Negotiation and Conflict Management and Global Affairs and Human Security in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore

US can’t trust Iran as partner in battling ISIS

by

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001

Part of President Obama’s solution to the Islamic State should be to “evict”

Tehran and its militias from Iraq

 By Hugh Shelton-published at Boston Globe-September 11, 2014

This week, President Obama announced his strategy for countering the threat of the Islamic State to the stability of the Middle East and, increasingly, to the US homeland. He offered a combination of tactics, including going on the offense to hunt down Islamic State members and assets, as well as building international coalitions to provide military and humanitarian support and to counter the nihilistic propaganda of the jihadist group.

According to the administration, many regional actors will play a part, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Secretary of State John Kerry had even hinted that Iran should be enlisted. That would be a dangerously naive mistake. Draining the swamp in which the Islamic State grows and thrives — radicalized sectarian conflict — requires the United States to challenge, not embrace, Tehran.

To defeat the Islamic State, or ISIS, we must understand it. To understand it, we must assess the situation on the ground in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. In the post-Saddam vacuum, sectarian forces were unleashed and sowed the kind of violence and chaos that presaged the Islamic State. While the discord in Iraq was quelled by the US-led surge, the sectarian fissures were exploited at every turn by Iran to ensure that its historic enemy now became its quiescent client state. This objective was achieved spectacularly under the disastrous, pro-Tehran Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In the absence of the US deterrent, violent sectarianism is resurgent, with the Islamic State the worst of the lot.

While the Islamic State has only recently swept into the headlines due to its organizational strength and its barbarity, Iran has been and remains the key threat to the region and to the United States due to its nuclear ambitions, its ongoing sponsorship of international terrorism, and its quest for regional hegemony. Dealing with Iran can help choke off the Islamic State, and the ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the six major powers are the right place to apply the pressure.

The negotiations are stuck. Nothing thus far has pointed to a reversal of Iran’s nuclear intent or capability. Indeed, Iran has made its red lines for a final agreement absolutely clear. It will not under any circumstances reduce its uranium enrichment capability or even commit to keeping it at current levels. It will not consider any suggestion that it limit its ballistic missile stockpiles. The head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran has even warned that Iran may walk away from its negotiations with the IAEA if the UN doesn’t agree with its assessment of when it has provided enough information about the nuclear program.

So why then has Tehran offered its assistance to the United States in tackling the Islamic State? A change of heart is unlikely. Tehran is a rational player that acts out of self-interest. In my view, the Iranian regime is seeking to lure Washington into cooperation in Iraq, with the pretense of fighting terrorism, in order to win more concessions during nuclear negotiations. By doing so, it will recoup its recent losses in Iraq while preserving its nuclear program. Washington must not fall into that trap.

 

Instead, the United States must deny further concessions (billions of dollars have already been “unfrozen” by the West and poured into the regime’s coffers) and use the negotiations and all other leverage to keep Iran out of Iraq (and Syria’s) affairs, so that those countries can have a chance to stabilize and chart new national destinies.

 

The Iranian opposition leader Maryam Rajavi was correct in saying, “While confronting [the Islamic State] is absolutely necessary, attempting to thwart it would ultimately prove fruitless unless it is accompanied by evicting the Iranian regime and its affiliated terrorist groupings from Iraq.”

 

Part of President Obama’s solution to the Islamic State should be to “evict” Tehran and its militias from Iraq. That would give the new leadership in Baghdad a real and tangible opportunity to form an inclusive government. In fact, the litmus test for Iraq’s new leaders is their ability to distance themselves from the regime in Tehran and treat the Iranian dissidents in Iraq humanely. Failure to do so would have long-term consequences that would prove to be much more catastrophic.

 

General Hugh Shelton was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1997 to 2001.

Duping Anti-War Groups

by

NIAC, CASMII, AIC and other pro-Iranian regime organizations have built close relations with radical leftist and anti-war groups and use them to promote their political agenda.

NIAC, CASMII, AIC and other pro-Iranian regime organizations have built close relations with radical leftist and anti-war groups and use them to promote their political agenda.

Most anti-war groups in 2006 were mainly concerned with the conflict in Iraq.  This began to change after pro-Iran lobbyists and activists targeted the anti-war groups and convinced them to support a pro-Iran agenda.

The initial foray into the anti-war network occurred at the London International Peace Conference on December 13, 2005.[1]  A participant was the newly formed Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII), which had been established two weeks earlier with the assistance of NIAC.

At the conference, CASMII distributed its first propaganda document, “Stop the War Against Iran Before it Starts.”  It declared CASMII’s opposition to: 1) “Iran’s referral to the UN Security Council”; 2) “any attack on Iran and Syria,” or; 3) “a new war in the Middle East.”[2]

Abbas Edalat, the head of CASMII, discussed its strategy in an interview with ZNet, a pro-communist website founded in 1995. Edalat said CASMII aimed to “mobilize opposition in the Iraq anti-war movement against any attack on Iran.”[3]  In January 2006, Edalat traveled to San Francisco and Boston to promote the new organization and its agenda.  Step-by-step CASMII inserted itself into the anti-war network and began to use the groups to promote the mullahs’  agenda.

The anti-war organizations gradually jumped aboard the pro Iran lobby.  On April 29, 2006, United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ), one of the largest anti-war groups in the US, held a rally in New York City to demand the withdrawal of military troops from Iraq.  At the event, Leslie Cagan, the group’s national coordinator, said the rally, in part, had been organized to protest planning by the US government for a possible military strike in Iran.[4]

A year after CASMII was created, its website displayed links to some two dozen anti-war bloggers and organizations, including Code Pink: Iran, Canadians Against War, Enough Fear, Common Dreams, Miles for Peace, Peace-Action, and Stop the War Coalition.

To attract the support of the anti-war groups, CASMII framed the debate on Iran as one of only two options, either war with the mullahs or direct negotiations.  Not mentioned was a third possibility – regime change – which was supported by President George Bush.

In his State of the Union address on February 1, 2006, Bush urged the Iranian public to “win your own freedom,” a veiled call to the Iranian public to rise against the regime and replace it with a pro-democratic government.  To assist Iranians achieve this goal, the US steered tens of millions of dollars to Iran-related pro-democracy groups.

Not surprisingly, NIAC, CASMII, and other organizations in tow with the regime announced their opposition to the funding.  Their efforts to halt the pro-democratic funds proved unsuccessful the first year.  But when the issue came up for debate the next year, the political landscape had changed.

NIAC distributed a letter in October 2007 to members of Congress expressing the opposition of 25 organizations, most of them anti-war groups, against the funding.[5]

Weeks earlier, NIAC had organized the anti-war groups to block a Senate resolution sponsored by Senators Kyl and Lieberman that condemned Iran’s violent activities in Iraq and urged the State Department to list Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organization.

NIAC’s letter falsely labeled the resolution as a “War Amendment” and claimed it would “bring the US one decisive step closer to war with Iran.”[6]  Stopping the killing of Americans and its allies in Iraq was deemed a “provocative measure” by NIAC.  Among the anti-war groups signing the letter were: Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, US Labor Against the War, Council for a Livable World, Maryknoll Global Concerns, 3D Security Initiative, Peace Action, CodePink: Women for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, and United Methodist Church.

In September 2008, then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad met with 50 anti-war groups when he traveled to New York City to speak at the United Nations. The list of attendees included:

  • Troops Out Now Coalition/Stop War On Iran Campaign
  • United for Peace and Justice
  • ANSWER Coalition
  • Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
  • Pax Christi International
  • Greater New York Labor-Religion Coalition
  • Friends Committee on National Legislation
  • Presbyterian Peace Fellowship
  • Campaign Against Sanctions & Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII)
  • CodePink
  • Enough Fear
  • Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality
  • Just Foreign Policy
  • Global Security Institute
  • Americans for Informed Democracy
  • Search for Common Ground
  • American-Iranian Council
  • American-Iranian Friendship Committee
  • Nonviolence International
  • September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
  • Women Against War
  • Physicians for Social Responsibility
  • Union of Concerned Scientists
  • Defenders for Freedom, Justice & Equality

NIAC, CASMII, AIC and other pro-Iran organizations have continued to expand their ties to radical leftist organizations.  In January 2014, NIAC sent a letter to members of the US Senate opposing legislation to add new sanctions on Iran that was signed by 72 organizations, most of them anti-war groups.  Predictably, NIAC framed the legislation in terms war with Iran.  “By foreclosing diplomatic prospects,” NIAC warned, “new sanctions would set us on a path to war.”[7]

Today, when NIAC wants to advocate a position on a Washington policy, it no longer presents the views of Iranian Americans.  Instead, often enlists the support of a wide range of political and religious anti-war groups.  NIAC, CASMII and other pro-Iran organizations have successfully infused their agenda into these groups and use them to support of the Iranian regime.

NIAC has become a political puppeteer, manipulating far-lef anti-war groups, getting them to endorse the Iranian regime’s agenda.

[1] “The Future Is in our Hands,” Morning Star, December 10, 2005.

[2] “Stop the War Against Iran Before it Starts,” CASMII, December 13, 2005.

[3] “Iran, War, and Sanctions: Abbas Edalat Interviewed by ZNet,” ZNet, January 23, 2006.

[4] “Thousands March in Mass Anti-War Rally in New York,” Agence France Presse, April 29, 2006.

[5] Signatories included United for Peace and Justice, Maryknoll Global Concerns, Peace Action, Vietnam Veterans Against War, Council for a Livable World, Mennonite Central Committee, United Methodist Church, Green Party of Utah, and Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

[6] “Coalition of 25 Organizations Lead Effort to Defeat Kyl-Liberman War Amendment,” NIAC press release, September 26, 2007.

[7] “72 Organizations Warn Senate Against New Iran Sanctions,” Press Release, NIAC, January 14, 2014.

Baroness Nicholson

by

Baroness Emma Nicholson appears to have lost all objectivity in her views toward Iran and has been used by the regime to disseminate propaganda in the West.

Baroness Emma Nicholson appears to have lost all objectivity in her views toward Iran and has been used by the regime to disseminate propaganda in the West.

Emma [Baroness] Nicholson

Baroness Emma Nicholson, a former UK Member of Parliament, deserves praise for her efforts to provide assistance to the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq.  But while helping them, she appears to have lost all objectivity toward the Iranian regime and has been used to disseminate disinformation in the West.

Nicholson first traveled to Iraq in 1991 to assess Saddam Hussein’s brutal suppression of the Shiite uprising in the southern region.  She returned to London with a young boy, named Amar, who had been severely injured, and later he set up a charity, Amar Appeal, to provide assistance to the Marsh Arabs.

Through the years, the Iranian regime has provided “considerable help” to her charity.   Nicholson repeatedly condemned Saddam Hussein for the torture and persecution of Iraqi Shiites “on the scale of what Hitler did to the Jews.”[1]  But about the Iranian regime’s similar torture and persecution of its citizens, she has remained silent, often going out of her way to appease the regime’s actions.

  • In 2002, Nicholson sided with the Iranian regime regarding the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa, offering $2 million to anyone who killed author Salman Rushdie for publishing his novel, The Satan Verses. Rather than defend Rushdie, a British citizen, and free speech, she termed his novel “blasphemy” and “intolerable.”[2]  The Saturday Post said Nicholson announced “at the height of the fatwa that she had grown to ‘respect and like’ Iran’s authoritarian regime.”[3]

In February 2003, Nicholson claimed she had “evidence from others that the MKO [PMOI] has actively hidden weapons of mass destruction from the earlier inspectors…I have clear evidence of the ways in which the MKO shifted around weapons of mass destruction. Their commanders pushed them away, hid them, and boasted afterwards of having been successful in fooling the inspectors.”[4]  The disinformation was refuted when US authorities confirmed Saddam never had amassed a stockpile of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.  The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) conducted numerous ground and aerial inspections of PMOI camps and never found anything suspicious.  In fact, the inspectors were welcomed by the PMOI to dispel the disinformation distributed the Iranian regime.

  • In 2003, Nicholson urged allied forces to destroy the PMOI/MEK, an Iranian opposition group that seeks to restore freedom and democracy in Iran. The mullahs fear the PMOI because of its broad support in Iran.  Nicholson, echoing the views of the corrupt mullahs, said “I welcome the destruction of the PMOI camps.  I strongly warn the world that this group must be destroyed.”

In 2004, Nicholson held a meeting in her parliamentary office with

In 2005, she help a meeting in her parliamentary office with members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), which included Anne Singleton, a British citizen and agent of Iran.

Also in 2005, he reportedly met with Ali Younesi, then Iran’s head of the MOIS.  According to an article in Kayhan, an Iranian newspaper, the MOIS was using Ms. Nicholson to distribute propaganda to the West.

In 2005, she said “The Iranian government may not be popular globally, but it is highly organized and democratically elected within the Islamic code of understanding….Iran has the most advanced women’s rights in the region.”

About Ms. Nicholson, MEP Ulla Sandbaek said:  “It is well known that Baroness Nicholson strongly supports the regime in Iran to the extent that she totally disregards the fact that all international human rights organizations have expressed their concern and indeed outrage at the gender apartheid against Iranian women.”

In 2003, Nicholson’s charity, AMAR Foundation, organized a three day conference on Iran.  MEP Nelly Maes described the conference as a “forum that serves the propaganda purposes of the despotic regime which rules Iran.”

[1] “Shiites Napalm-Bombed, Tortured in Iraq, Says British MP,”Agence France Presse, October 11, 1991.

[2] “Chewing the Fatwa,” Evening Standard, April 14, 1993.

[3] “Rushdie on Gandhi, the Fatwa and the Stones,” Saturday Post, September 28, 2002.

[4] Statement by Win Griffiths, former Labour MP for Bridgend, November 9, 2005.