Iran Lobby

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

The Iranian Resistance Movement is Stronger than Ever

by

The Iranian Resistance Movement is Stronger than Ever

The Iranian Resistance Movement is Stronger than Ever

In a crowded hotel ballroom near Charles de Gaulle airport in France, speakers on three separate panels discussed the conundrum of Iran and the problems the regime poses for the region and the world.

While speakers came from different countries, from political and academic backgrounds, the message was the same: the Iranian regime was the key source of the region’s problems and that the Iranian resistance movement was the most viable pathway for regime change within Iran to a secular, democratic and pluralistic society.

The panel discussion, entitled: “Where is Iran Heading? Tehran’s Domestic and Regional Politics” was sponsored by The Foundation for Middle Eastern Studies (La Fondation d’Etudes pour le Moyen- Orient FEMO), an independent organization providing analysis on the Middle East to European institutions, international organizations and individuals, and the Alliance for Public Awareness, Iranian Communities in Europe (APA), comprised of various associations and individual expatriate Iranians living in Europe including a large number of second generation of Iranian expatriates.

The line up was a who’s-who is policy wonks, politicians and global influencers who weighed in on Iran’s influence in the Middle East and the role of the Iranian opposition (MEK) movement, especially the best pathway to regime change.

Regime change in Iran no longer seems to be a taboo word as U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson cited it in recent testimony; a verbal leap forward from the reluctance of the Obama administration to utter anything that might offend Tehran.

Panelists all cited that the environment has shifted so dramatically over the last few months that the prospect no longer seems a fantasy, but now part of concrete policy discussions in capitals around the world.

Linda Chavez, founder and chairwoman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and a former White House staffer, cited a need for a “critical mass” of support for a burgeoning resistance movement being led by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an umbrella group of several Iranian dissident and human rights groups.

It was a sentiment echoed by former Democratic Sen. Robert Torricelli who discussed his own experience in seeing the evolution of Iranian resistance groups such as the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) from being ostracized unjustly as part of the appeasement policy towards Iran’s mullahs, to now being welcomed by world leaders seeking a strong partner in dealing with Iran.

The speakers reminded audience members that meaningful change was only going to happen from within Iran itself and not through any external manipulation which would only serve the interests of the mullahs in deflecting any efforts from outside as being meddling by foreign governments.

Former vice presidential candidate and Sen. Joe Lieberman expounded on the need for the Trump administration to hold the Iranian regime accountable for its actions and end the free hall pass the Obama administration gave in order to facilitate the nuclear agreement.

That realization lent a sense of focus and urgency on the day’s discussions on galvanizing the energy created by protests in the recent presidential election in Iran in which outsized banners and posters of NCRI leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi where seen hanging from freeway overpasses in Tehran; an almost unthinkable act just a few months ago that would have earned any perpetrator a quick sentence to the gallows.

Struan Stevenson, president of the European Iraqi Freedom Association and former president of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations with Iraq, hit a key note when he called Iran the “godfather” of Islamic extremist groups likened Tehran’s influence among them.

With the rise of ISIS enabled by Tehran’s interference in the Syrian civil war and political meddling in Iraq, coupled with the use of terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Iranian regime manipulated the global stage to create a map for itself of Shiite control ranging from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean.

Michael Pregent, a fellow at the Hudson Institute and foreign policy analyst and former intelligence officer, described how the Iranian regime’s goals were to hold a navy base along Yemen’s coastline to control the flow of international commerce through the Suez Canal, and the creation of a land bridge running from Tehran, Baghdad and Damascus to move troops, goods, arms and supplies effortlessly.

The military muscle flexing by Iran was cited also by former Gen. Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, who discussed how President Donald Trump’s election has set the stage for regime change with a halt to the concessions granted the mullahs by the Obama administration and an increased willingness to confront Tehran in Syria, Yemen and other fronts.

The panel discussion came in advance of a massive annual gathering held on July 1st by the NCRI and other groups to demonstrate the breadth and depth of the opposition movement and the broad international coalition supporting democratic change in Iran.

Part of the current policy discussion in Trump’s administration will have to take into account that there is no single, simple solution to the Iran problem as pointed out by the panelists, but instead would take a comprehensive approach including:

  • Re-imposing economic sanctions tying the regime’s support for terrorism and its ballistic missile program to improved relations;
  • Designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and put the supply of easy cash for the regime’s activities at risk; and
  • Opening up greater support and recognition of the Iranian opposition movement to spur its growth within Iran similar to U.S. support of key dissidents such as Lech Walesa in Poland and Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma.

The NCRI has listed a more complete 10-point plan for a peaceful democratic future in Iran and with the changing political landscape around the world, we may be as close to seeing it happen as ever before.

Michael Tomlinson

Why Regime Change in Iran is Gaining Momentum

by

Why Regime Change in Iran is Gaining Momentum

Why Regime Change in Iran is Gaining Momentum

Regime change is a phrase that sends the Iranian regime’s mullahs into an apoplectic rage. One can imagine spittle flying and foaming mouths as they chew on the idea of their regime ending and being replaced by a secular democratic government.

At most points during the mullah’s regime’s history, the idea of regime change might very well seem like a distant idea or even outright fantasy except to ardent Iranian dissidents who have fought an often-lonely battle for freedom, but slowly and inexorably under the Trump administration the idea of regime change is gaining power and currency.

Unlike the Obama administration which viewed appeasing the mullahs as a viable foreign policy position, the Trump administration is skeptical of the mullahs and tempered by seeing what Iran has accomplished over the past eight years under that appeasement policy.

Some supporters of the president are now openly floating the idea of toppling the Iranian regime’s leadership as a policy initiative.

Supporters of dislodging Iran’s iron-fisted clerical leadership say it’s the only way to halt Tehran’s dangerous behavior, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons to its sponsorship of terrorism, according to Politico.

“The policy of the United States should be regime change in Iran,” said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who speaks regularly with White House officials about foreign policy. “I don’t see how anyone can say America can be safe as long as you have in power a theocratic despotism,” he added.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to endorse subverting the Iranian regime during recent testimony about the State Department’s budget when Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) asked the diplomat whether the Trump administration supports “a philosophy of regime change” in Iran.

Noting that Trump’s Iran policy is still under review, Tillerson said the U.S. would work with Iranian opposition groups toward the “peaceful transition of that government.”

The case for political subversion in Iran has also been pressed to the White House by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank strenuously opposed to Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran.

Soon after Trump’s inauguration, FDD’s CEO, Mark Dubowitz, submitted a seven-page Iran policy memo to Trump’s National Security Council. The memo — which was circulated inside the Trump White House and recently obtained by POLITICO — included a discussion of ways to foment popular unrest with the goal of establishing a “free and democratic” Iran.

“Iran is susceptible to a strategy of coerced democratization because it lacks popular support and relies on fear to sustain its power,” the memo argued. “The very structure of the regime invites instability, crisis and possibly collapse.”

Another administration voice forcefully speaking out against Iran is CIA Director Mike Pompeo who said on Saturday that Iran is not only the world’s top terrorism sponsor, but it’s support has also grown over the last several years, according to the Daily Caller.

The Islamic state’s influence across the Middle East “has expanded considerably ” in the last six or seven years, said Pompeo during an interview with MSNBC. This influence and support of terrorism makes Iran a threat to national security, he added.

“Whether it’s the influence they have over the government in Baghdad, whether it’s the increasing strength of Hezbollah and Lebanon, their work alongside the Houthis in Iran, the Iraqi Shias that are fighting along now the border in Syria — certainly the Shia forces that are engaged in Syria. Iran is everywhere throughout the Middle East,” said Pompeo.

Because of this malign influence, Iran is playing an increasingly “destructive role” in the region, according to the director.

Also, recent revelations by leading Iranian dissident group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, revealed 12 previously undisclosed missile production sites across Iran.

The NCRI identified 42 independent missile centers involved in the production, testing and launching of missiles, in a report published on June 20. Some of these bear the hallmarks of Iran’s nuclear comrade, North Korea.

The report identifies 15 sites related to missile manufacturing. Many of these sites have several factories churning out weapons components.

Combined, the other 27 sites house 25 storage facilities, 13 launch pads, and eight sites for training and deployment brigades.

The effort to expand its missile capabilities are just part and parcel of the Iranian regime’s efforts to push its influence across the region in an effort to stave off growing discontent at home.

Laura Carnahan

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

by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Tomlinson

Iranian Drones and Missiles Increase Tensions and Risk of US Conflict

by

Iranian Drones and Missiles Increase Tensions and Risk of US Conflict

Iranian Drones and Missiles Increase Tensions and Risk of US Conflict

The Iranian regime continues to invent innovative ways to destabilize the Middle East. First it relied on supporting terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and proxies such as Shiite militias in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Then it turned to technology to build a nuclear program in secret, then construct ballistic missiles using North Korean designs initially, but then adapted updated designs to increase their range, payload capacity and targeting.

Now the Iranian regime has turned to drones to widen the scope of its military and strike capabilities. In Syria, U.S. forces have already shot down Iranian drones being used in attacks against U.S.-backed forces.

In Pakistan, the Pakistan Air Force shot down an Iranian spy drone in its airspace. The incident is first of its kind in the history of two Islamic countries, which share a porous border.

Wajahat Khan, a journalist and security expert, tweeted: “Confirmed: Iranian spy drone shot down by PAF JF-17 over Panjgur, Balochistan, 45Km inside Pak territory. Unprecedented. New front opening?”

The drone’s downing was reported amid an emergency flag meeting between Pakistani and Iranian officials following the unprovoked firing of several mortar shells into Pakistani territory over the weekend.

On Sunday, Iranian border forces fired several shells near Prom, an area of Panjgur. No casualty was reported though. On May 27, a mortar shell fired from Iranian side in Panjgur district had killed one person. On May 21, at least five mortar shells were fired into Taftan from across the border.

Pakistan has accused Iranians of violating its territorial integrity and lodged protests several times in the last few years.

The increase in incidents ranging from Pakistan to Syria to the Persian Gulf to Yemen paints a disturbing picture of Iranian regime’s aggression on a wide front and threatens to trigger conflicts with and between the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan and Iraq.

That heightened struggle was highlighted in a piece in USA Today as the Trump administration showed a willingness to confront Iranian regime’s aggression rather than the policies of appeasement by the previous Obama administration.

“The underlying problem is Iranian expansionism,” said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq with extensive experience in the region. The Iranians are worried about who will fill the power vacuum after the defeat of the Islamic State, which is steadily losing territory, he said.

Jeffrey said the Trump administration is now grappling with developing a new strategy that takes into account efforts to blunt Iran’s actions to expand its influence at the same time the U.S. military is focused on defeating the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

“They believe Iran must be contained, but what they haven’t worked out is the implications of that,” Jeffrey said.

Iranian-backed forces likely will continue to challenge the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an alliance of about 50,000 local troops that the U.S.-led coalition has trained and equipped to combat ISIS.

The Iranians want to hold “an arc of influence” that runs from Iran through Iraq and Syria into Lebanon, said Jack Keane, a retired four-star Army general. “If that ground ends up held by U.S.-backed forces, that interferes with their strategic plans.”

In recent weeks, the United States shot down two Iranian-built armed drones and a Syrian aircraft over Syria. U.S. aircraft have also attacked ground forces around a coalition outpost in southeastern Syria.

Analysts say Iranian mullahs are directly challenging U.S. forces because controlling territory between Iran and Lebanon is critical to their strategic objectives.

That prize of controlling Syrian territory liberated from ISIS is also driving Iranian regime supporters to attack U.S. policy in order to build political pressure on the Trump administration to cave in to Iranian moves.

An editorial in MarketWatch by Faysal Itani, a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and Ali Marhoon, a policy intern there, warns of the potential for confusion as all of these elements converge and collide and Iran’s willingness to test U.S. resolve in Syria.

“The (Assad) regime itself seems too weak and preoccupied to threaten the U.S.-led coalition in al-Tanf. However, Iran is far more capable, with large reserves of (proxy) manpower and little tolerance for a U.S.-backed de facto statelet in its Syrian client’s territory. It is more likely that Iran, acting through its local proxies, would test the coalition’s resolve through increasing provocations. If so, it would calculate that the United States would back down to avoid serious escalation, thereby curtailing its territorial advances,” they write.

They warn that U.S. policy remains muddled other than eliminating ISIS, which leaves open the potential for the mullahs in Tehran to test the limits of U.S. policy and essentially see what they can get away with.

This testing can be seen in Iraq as forces move to retake Mosul from ISIS, but at the same time Iranian-backed Shiite militias have begun moving into liberated territory to stake their claim to the villages and towns under their banner instead of ISIS.

“It is not clear what the Baghdad government can do about this territorial grab for power in Ba’aj. It has not had the military or security reach to enforce its authority in this region of Nineveh province for many years, and has relied on the goodwill of local tribal forces. It was those forces that were persuaded to take part in former United States president George W. Bush’s famous ‘Awakening’ that defeated the insurgency during the American occupation, but it was also those forces that were eventually betrayed by the sectarian policies of the Nouri Al Maliki government, which led them to acquiesce in (if not actively support) the Daesh takeover in 2014,” writes Francis Matthew in GulfNews.

As Iranian regimes’ drones continue to fly and be shot down, the question inevitably arises as to whether or not the mullahs will back down.

Laura Carnahan

Iranian Ballistic Missiles Take Center Stage in Global Debate

by

Iranian Ballistic Missiles Take Center Stage in Global Debate

Iranian Ballistic Missiles Take Center Stage in Global Debate

Iranian regime ballistic missiles have moved to the forefront of discussions and military action around the world as events shifted rapidly putting a spotlight on the mullahs’ use of the weapons for the first time on the battlefield.

All of the debate and editorials produced by the Iran lobby has always consistently tried defusing Iran’s escalating supply of longer range ballistic missiles as nothing more than a defensive armament, but the recent launching of these missiles at targets in Syria moved them from the theoretical to the practical.

There can be no argument now that Iran possesses and has shown the willingness to use weapons that can prove just as destabilizing to the region as nuclear weapons. In fact, the mullahs’ willingness to continue investing heavily in the development of longer-range missiles with heavier lift capabilities and more sophisticated targeting systems makes Iran the pre-eminent threat in the Middle East.

The fact that the Iranian regime fought hard to exclude ballistic missile development from the nuclear talks two years ago demonstrates the value the mullahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps places on these weapon systems.

In a practical sense, ballistic missiles provide a longer reach for the IRGC to attack targets far from Iran’s borders and gives the mullahs the political leverage to blackmail neighboring Gulf states for example into compliant behavior.

Previous sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program from the United Nations Security Council have been largely ignored by the mullahs and the sheer size and scope of its program has been largely unknown to the rest of the world.

But Iranian opposition groups did hold a press conference the other day in Washington, DC to disclose additional missile sites previously unknown to the rest of the world.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), an umbrella group for Iranian opposition groups, citing sources of coalition member the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) network inside Iran, in this case in Iran’s Defense Ministry & the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), has a history of blowing the whistle on Tehran’s ballistic missile program, nuclear weapons drive, terrorism and meddling across the Middle East and beyond, and human rights violations, according to Heshmat Alavi in Forbes.

Various aspects of the dozen hitherto-unknown sites involved in ballistic missile production, testing and launches, all controlled by the IRGC, were also unveiled.

NCRI U.S. Office Deputy Director Alireza Jafarzadeh presented satellite imagery on the sites and details of North Korean experts who took part in the construction of such highly essential centers.

The scope of Iran’s IRGC-pursued missile program is far more extensive than previously perceived. In this press conference the NCRI identified the locations of 42 IRGC sites, of which 15 are involved in missile manufacturing and containing several factories linked to a missile industry group.

Four of Iran’s most important missile sites are located in the cities of Semnan (east of Tehran), Lar (southcentral Iran), Khorramabad (western Iran) and near Karaj (west of Tehran), according to the PMOI/MEK sources. Iran has only acknowledged the existence of two of these sites to this day, Alavi said.

The Semnan site has been actively associated to SPND, Iran’s organization in charge of building a nuclear weapon, PMOI/MEK sources revealed. SPND has carried out many of its tests at this site.

SPND is the Persian acronym for the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, including Iran’s nuclear weapons program engineering unit. The NCRI first unveiled the existence of SPND in July 2011, leading to its sanctioning three years later.

IRGC missile sites have all been constructed based on North Korean blueprints, according to PMOI/MEK sources, adding Pyongyang’s experts have also been present at sites assisting their Iranian counterparts.

The existence of the Iranian missile program and North Korean cooperation is not news, but the ramp up in size of the missile fleet and Iran’s willingness to use it now are deeply disturbing to policymakers from Washington to Riyadh.

U.S. senators who passed tough new legislation imposing sanctions for Iran’s missile program stated flatly that the Iranian regime now poses the greatest security threat to the U.S. as U.S. warplanes shot down yet another Iranian drone over Syria.

“The Iranians never like sanctions, but if they don’t like them, then they should stop testing ballistic missiles in violation of U.N. resolutions,” said Connecticut senator Chris Murphy.

Texas senator Ted Cruz warned Tuesday that Iran and the potential for a nuclear Iran are “the single greatest national security threat facing America.”

The discussion over Iranian missiles didn’t stop the regime’s ardent supporters from weighing in and coming to the mullahs’ defense, as well as opponents in verbal fireworks rivaling what is happening on the battlefield.

Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Mideast negotiator and author, laid out the unpleasant choices left on the table as Iran steps up its military involvement in Syria, Iraq and now the Gulf region.

“Amid this confusion, Iran is pressing ahead to strengthen its grip on Syria, even as Trump goes after ISIS. Iran’s intervention to save President Bashar al-Assad’s regime has involved sending not just elite Iranian military advisers but also bringing in Lebanese Hezbollah and other Shia militias from as far away as Afghanistan. While estimates vary on the size of these forces, the numbers are in the tens of thousands. Iran’s sectarian shock troops are being used to extend the regime’s writ, especially as the Syrian regime’s deployable military manpower has shrunk to about 20,000 forces,” he writes in Politico.

“Iran is actively trying to create a land corridor through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. To that end, Iran is pushing from within Iraq and Syria, using its Shia militia proxies on both sides of the border. On the Iraqi side, the Shia militias have now largely cleared ISIS from border crossings. Within Syria, Iran has sent significant Hezbollah forces eastward to Deir ez-Zour, a major Syrian city along the Euphrates River. With the U.S.-supported effort to liberate Raqqa under way, Iran wants to prevent any U.S.-backed groups from establishing themselves in eastern Syria—something that could preclude the Iranian aim of controlling Syria’s borders with Iraq and Jordan. (With Hezbollah also now active in the area of Deraa, a southern Syrian city close to the Golan Heights, the Iranians have their eye on the Syrian-Israeli border as well,)” Ross adds.

The implications are clear. The price of not confronting Iranian aggression will soon become very expensive, which is what the mullahs are hoping for; a victory without cost is their mantra.

The world should make the mullahs have to pay a very heavy price.

Laura Carnahan

 

Confrontations with Iran Escalate Throughout Middle East

by

Confrontations with Iran Escalate Throughout Middle East

Confrontations with Iran Escalate Throughout Middle East

Incidents involving confrontations with the Iranian regime and its proxies are beginning to sharply escalate around the Middle East as tensions are ratcheted up by the mullahs in Tehran. It is almost like a high stakes poker game with Iran upping its bets because it’s too far in with a weak hand to fold.

Most worrisome has been the rise in direct incidents with Iran and its chief rival, Saudi Arabia, as illustrated in the latest incident.

Saudi Arabia says that it captured three members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps aboard a boat approaching the kingdom’s offshore Marjan oil field.

The three “are now being questioned by Saudi authorities,” the Information and Culture Ministry said in a statement.

The vessel, seized by the Saudi Navy on June 16, was carrying explosives and intended to conduct a “terrorist act” in Saudi territorial waters, the statement said.

Saudi media earlier said that the navy had fired warning shots when three small boats entered Saudi territorial waters and headed at high speed toward the platforms.

Relations between the two countries are at their worst in years, as they support opposite sides in conflicts in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and each accuses the other of destabilizing regional security.

The incident comes on the heels of the Iranian regime launching missiles purportedly at ISIS positions in Syria in retaliation for terror attacks in Tehran. Iran blamed Saudi Arabia for those attacks which makes this incident in Saudi waters suspicious as to whether or not Iran’s Quds Forces might have been mounting an attack against Saudi installations in response to the ISIS attack.

Meanwhile in Syria itself, open warfare seems to be breaking out as a U.S. fighter jet shot down a Syrian air force jet after it had bombed positions occupied by U.S.-backed rebel groups. This was followed by a declaration from Russian forces that U.S. warplanes would be potential targets if they attacked Russian elements.

It’s worth noting that Iran brought Russia into the Syrian conflict on behalf of the Assad regime when it was facing imminent defeat on the battlefield. That escalation has now proven to be potentially disastrous as Russian and U.S. units increasingly come close to shooting at each other.

All of this was preceded when U.S. forces opened fire on Syrian militias backed by Tehran three times in the past month. All of the incidents took place at al-Tanf, a remote desert outpost near the border with Iraq and Jordan, where U.S. and British special operations forces have been training Syrian rebel fighters.

Earlier in May, U.S. warplanes attacked a Syrian Army motorcade moving to al-Tanf. As a result of the strike, two servicemen were killed and 15 were injured. A similar incident also took place on May 18, killing six.

The series of clashes has demonstrated how the eastern Syrian desert is becoming an arena for confrontation between the U.S. and Iran, a potential flashpoint alongside Yemen. Following the attacks on Damascus positions, an operational headquarters of the allied forces of the Syrian government army threatened the U.S.-led coalition with a retaliatory strike.

The fight in Syria is becoming even more high stakes as it becomes clear that the Iranian regime has shown no intention of giving up any territory it wins from ISIS; intending to become a permanent presence there in a similar manner to how it exercises control in Iraq through Shiite militias it backs.

Fox analyst and author Charles Krauthammer called the Iranian land grab a mirror image of the fight for territory following the collapse of Nazi Germany at the end of World War II.

“This is like the last year of World War II. We’re all fighting the Nazis but we know they’re finished,” he said.

Krauthammer said that like the 1940s, the Americans and the Soviets know the Germans will soon be defeated, but are battling for who takes what when the war ends.

While Iran maneuvers to preserve its gains, the Iran lobby has also stepped up its rhetoric in shifting from defending the Iran nuclear deal to now defending Iran’s ballistic missile program as outlined in an editorial by Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council in HuffingtonPost.

“Much to the chagrin of leaders in Washington, Tel Aviv and Riyadh, Iran launched ballistic missiles into Syria on Sunday, targeting ISIS in retaliation for its terror attacks in Tehran two weeks ago. These strikes are the first time that Iran has launched missiles since its 1980-1988 war with Iraq, which begs the question: Why has Tehran shifted its three decades-long policy of testing, but not using missiles? The answer should now be clear: It’s a reaction to Trump’s escalation in the Middle East,” Marashi said.

Marashi claims that Trump’s stepped-up military activity in Syria while simultaneously criticizing Iran has only created a “recipe for war.” A silly assertion since it was Iran’s intervention in Syria in the first place that started the entire Syrian conflagration.

Marashi is correct in his assertion that Iran’s missile strike was intended to communication a wider message that the mullahs are willing to fight to preserve their gains in Syria and not allow it to slip away from them. They understand that a defeat in Syria will likely lead to regime change at home.

Understandably Marashi tries to also tie Saudi Arabia to the ISIS attacks in Tehran and by extension tries to lay blame on regional instability on U.S. allies and deflect any responsibility away from Tehran.

Shockingly Marashi even mentions the direct possibility of Iran attacking “exposed American troops operating in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen” directly in response to American attacks on Iranian interests.

Marashi delivers the final justification for Iranian bloodletting when he says the U.S. support for regime change in Iran eliminates the possibility of any further U.S.-Iran cooperation in the future.

Only the Iran lobby would make the argument that seeking democratic change in Iran is a pathway that inevitably leads to war.

This certainly demonstrates how much the NIAC values freedom for the Iranian people.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Takes Fake Action Against ISIS

by

Iran Takes Fake Action Against ISIS

Iran Takes Fake Action Against ISIS

The Iranian regime publicized a missile strike against purported ISIS targets in eastern Syria over the weekend. It proclaimed the attack was in response to the terror attacks in Tehran at the mullah’s regime’s Parliament building and the shrine of the founder of the mullah’s regime in Iran, which left 18 dead.

Reuters reported that Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps units launched mid-range ground-to-ground missiles from western Iran into the Deir al Zour region of eastern Syria, killing a “large number” of terrorists and destroying their equipment and weapons, it said.

The missiles targeted the “headquarters and gathering centers of Takfiri terrorists supporting and building car bombs”, it said.

Reuters could not independently verify the report.

The attack, if true, would be one of the few times the Iranian regime has publicized a direct action against ISIS military units in the Syrian conflict. In past military actions, Iran had deliberately targeted non-ISIS targets such as Syrian rebel units backed by the U.S. or civilian targets in rebel-controlled areas.

Many analysts and news organizations have noted how Iranian regime forces and Shiite militias backed by mullahs in Iran have often fought rebel forces trying to overthrow the Assad regime and not specifically gone after ISIS groups.

A recent National Geographic documentary examined how ISIS rose to power and it noted Iranian regime’s deliberate efforts to avoid fighting ISIS early on in favor of preserving Assad’s grip on power.

Only after ISIS served its larger purpose in diverting the attention of the rest of the world from the bloody Syrian conflict was Iran prepared to engage ISIS on a broader scale; namely to gain territory to secure its foothold in Syria and Iraq.

As Shiite militias, working in concert with Iranian troops, begin to take over key border crossings between Iraq, Syria and Iran, the Iranian regime’s long-range plans of building a Shiite-controlled sphere of influence around it are beginning to take shape.

The growing influence of these Shiite militias aiming to stay permanently in Syria are increasingly being scrutinized by news media and what their impact may mean for future instability in the region.

The Guardian’s Martin Chulov looked at the Syrian town of Ba’aj which was formerly held by ISIS, but was recently liberated by Iranian-backed Shiite militias that now appear to be bunkering down for good.

Ba’aj is now a foundation point of an Iranian plan to secure ground routes across Iraq and Syria and into Lebanon, cementing its influence over lands its proxies have conquered, Chulov wrote.

“From Mosul to Ba’aj, thank you Suleimani,” read one message painted on the town roundabout in tribute to the Iranian general Qassem Suleimani, who helped lead units of the Popular Mobilization Front (PMF) as they swept through Ba’aj toward the Syrian border. Flags of various Shia units were planted like poppies.

“We are not leaving Ba’aj,” said one senior PMF member. “This will be our main base in the area.”

That afternoon, semi-trailers carrying blast walls trundled through the town toward a government building in the center.

The transformation of Ba’aj, from an out-of-bounds haven for Isis leaders to a focal point for Iranian regime’s efforts to change the regional dynamic, is taking place rapidly, even before hundreds of booby-trapped homes have been cleared.

Since then, Iranian backed forces, led by Suleimani, have massed on both sides of the border near the Damascus-Baghdad highway, leading to at least three clashes with US forces and their Syrian opposition proxies near the town of Tanf.

The overarching plans of the mullahs remains consolidating its hold throughout the Middle East and that means keeping crucial allies such as Assad in place and maintaining control over friendly governments such as Iraq and Lebanon.

It also means continuing to deflect attention away from its regional ambitions by pointing the finger at the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and even ISIS to blame them for regional instability instead of focusing on the Iranian regime.

Top mullah Ali Khamenei in an act to try to cover up its regime’s fear of recent economic sanctions, kept up the verbal barrage aiming his ire at the Trump administration as the U.S. Senate passed legislation implementing new economic sanctions on the Iranian regime for its support of terrorism and its ballistic missile program.

Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials have ramped up their criticism of the United States in recent weeks after Trump went on an official visit last month to Saudi Arabia, Iran’s main regional rival, according to Reuters.

During that visit, Trump singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups. He has also criticized the nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers, including the United States, that led to the lifting of most sanctions against Iran, in return for curbs on its nuclear program. Trump has said Washington would review the deal but stopped short of pledging to scrap it.

Khamenei in an attempt to give morals to its forces, said in his speech on Sunday that any efforts to destabilize the Islamic Republic would not succeed.

“In the past 38 years, when has there been a time when you haven’t wanted to change the Islamic system?” Khamenei said, according to Fars News. “Your head has hit the rock each time and always will.”

Khamenei’s attacks also hint at renewed efforts by the mullahs regime to target and go after Iranian dissidents using the excuse of the ISIS attacks as cover; claiming that suspected militants being arrested or killed as being part of ISIS may in fact just be part of long-standing Iranian opposition groups the regime has tried to diminish.

The largest gathering of Iranian dissident groups is scheduled to hold its annual meeting in Paris later this month and should prove to be a powerful show of support for the ongoing dissident movement.

Laura Carnahan

Iran Lobby Attacks Trump Administration for Favoring Regime Change

by

Iran Lobby Attacks Trump Administration for Favoring Regime Change

Iran Lobby Attacks Trump Administration for Favoring Regime Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

As Iran Warns Against US Aggression Its Navy Targets US Vessels

by

As Iran Warns Against US Aggression Its Navy Targets US Vessels

As Iran Warns Against US Aggression Its Navy Targets US Vessels

The Iranian regime’s leadership kept up its steady drumbeat of issuing warnings against any U.S. military action against the mullah’s regime. Those warnings have come to encompass not only direct U.S. action, but also any potential for action through American allies such as Saudi Arabia.

Iran’s mullahs regard President Donald Trump’s recent sale of $110 billion in new arms to the kingdom as an existential threat no different than if the U.S. decided to launch airstrikes at Tehran.

Describing the U.S. arms agreement with Saudi Arabia as “unprecedented,” Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, a senior adviser to top mullah Ali Khamenei, warned the Arab states not to forget the fate of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and former Shah of Iran Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was toppled in 1979, in a not-too-subtle jab at its neighbors.

“The volume of weapons purchased by the Arab countries — and especially Saudi Arabia — is unusual, and the signing of a $110 billion arms package between the US and Saudi Arabia and the arms sale will not contribute to the security of southwest Asia, and it will also be used to make the region unsafe and create tension in an area that is the heart of the world’s [source of] energy,” Safavi said.

The irony in the Iranian regime warning of causing regional instability is laughable if it wasn’t so tragically true. Iran’s use of its own military in Syria and Iraq, along with proxies in both countries as well as Yemen has turned the Middle East into an abattoir.

“I hope that the weapons that were sold to these Arab countries will fall into the hands of the Arab nations of the region, like the weapons that were sold to Iran under the shah, and will be used against the Americans..” Safavi warned. “If America wants to start a war against Iran, all of its military bases in the region will be put in [danger of] insecurity.”

His remarks underscored a steady ramp up in potentially dangerous encounters between Iranian and U.S. military forces in the Syrian conflict, in Iraq and in the Persian Gulf.

Another such incident took place in the international waters of the Strait of Hormuz, a common hot spot for Iranian aggressiveness.

An Iranian Navy vessel has prompted ire from the U.S. military after an “unsafe and unprofessional” test of its capabilities on a U.S. helicopter.

According to a U.S. military statement, the vessel used an on-board laser against a U.S. Marine Corps CH-53E helicopter, moving above a trio of U.S. naval ships, transiting the strait.

The group was crossing the strait when an Iranian military vessel approached one of the three—the amphibious assault ship U.S.S. Bataan. The two came within 800 yards of each other, with the guided-missile destroyer U.S.S. Cole and dry cargo ship U.S.N.S. Washington Chambers not far away, Bill Urban, a spokesman for the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet said.

“The amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), guided-missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) and dry cargo ship USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE-11) were transiting the strait when the Iranian vessel paralleled the U.S. formation, shining a spotlight on Cole. Shortly thereafter, the Iranian vessel trained a laser on a CH-53E helicopter that accompanied the formation. The Iranian vessel then proceeded to turn its spotlight on Bataan, scanning the ship from bow to stern and stern to bow before heading outbound from the formation,” Urban said in a statement.

The aircraft’s presence prompted the Iranian boat—a missile boat according to one defense official speaking to CNN on the condition of anonymity—to point its targeting laser toward it. The same official said that not only does this fly in the face of safety protocols, but it also set off the CH-53E’s automatic defense system, firing flare signals.

“Illuminating helicopters with lasers at night is dangerous as it creates a navigational hazard that can impair vision and can be disorienting to pilots using night vision goggles,” Urban said.

According to U.S. Navy records, 2016 yielded 35 incidents of unsafe or unprofessional behavior by Iran’s navy alone—although the “vast majority” took place in the first half of the year.

There have been incidents this year too, including in January when the guided-missile destroyer USS Mahan fired three warning shots at four Iranian fast attack boats in the Strait of Hormuz. Another “unprofessional but also provocative” maneuver by the Iranians happened in April, the U.S. said according to CNN.

Incidents on the high seas were not limited to U.S. warships as Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen claimed to have attacked a Saudi-led coalition warship near a strategic Red Sea waterway, China’s state-owned Xinhua News Agency reported Wednesday.

The reported attack took place off the coast of the Yemeni city of Mocha, about 60 miles north of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. An estimated 4.7 million barrels of oil pass daily through the strait, which links the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.

“The navy of the army and popular forces on Wednesday targeted a warship belonging to a Saudi-led coalition while it was carrying out hostile acts off Mokha coast of Taiz province,” a Houthi military official was quoted as saying by the Houthi-affiliated Saba news agency.

Al Massira TV, which is also linked to the Houthis, reported that “the navy forces of the national army fired a missile targeting the enemy coalition warship at the Red Sea early morning of Wednesday.”

Iranian shipments of weapons to the Houthis have been repeatedly intercepted by U.S. naval forces. The shipments included thousands of rifles, RPGs, anti-tank missiles, and other light and medium arms. Iran has openly acknowledged its support for the Houthis, and in early March 2015, Lebanon’s NOW Media reported that Houthi fighters were receiving training in Syria on behalf of Iran.

The increasing tempo of Iranian aggression prompted the U.S. military to deploy a truck-mounted missile system into Syria, an official said Wednesday, to a forward operating group of rebels and US military advisers that have repeatedly clashed with government forces.

The deployment raises the stakes in eastern Syria, where Iranian-sponsored pro-government forces have outflanked US advisers and rebels holding the Tanf border crossing to establish their own link to Iraq for the first time in years.

Shifting the HIMARS missile system into eastern Syria from Jordan will give the US a precise, long-range weapon to protect its advisers and allies in Tanf, and to attack ISIS militants further downfield. It has a range of 186 miles.

With the recent provocative activities in the region, it is now clearer that there will not be any change in the behavior of the Iranian regime’s aggression in the region, after Rouhani has been “elected” for the second term.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Desperation Shows as It Blames US for ISIS

by

Iran Regime Desperation Shows as It Blames US for ISIS

Members of Iranian forces take cover during an attack on the Iranian parliament in central Tehran, Iran, June 7, 2017. Tasnim News Agency/Handout via REUTERS

The Iranian regime pushed out an absurd theory over the weekend blaming the U.S. for the birth and growth of ISIS and continues to push the inane message even though virtually every intelligence and news report refutes the notion.

Of course, the reason the mullahs are pursuing this silly argument is simple: They must blame the recent ISIS attacks in Tehran on someone else otherwise they will face the uncomfortable truth that the terror they have wrought on the rest of the world is finally coming home.

Armstrong Williams, an advisor and spokesman for the presidential campaign of Dr. Ben Carson and a radio host, took that notion to task in a piece in the Hill.

While he correctly sympathizes with the victims killed and wounded in the ISIS attacks, Williams points out that the attacks were less about raining death and destruction on the Iranian regime, as much as making a propaganda point against the mullahs.

“It is also important to recognize the significant role that symbolism plays in both Iranian and Middle Eastern cultures. Which is why the second terrorist attack targeting Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s tomb complex, the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution, was a veritable attack at Iran’s core,” he writes.

“These twin terror attacks, striking the mullahs’ parliament and shrine to the Khomeini, represent a very painful bitter pill for the Iranian regime to swallow.”

It’s a harsh wake-up call to the mullahs who have consistently used terror and proxies such as Hezbollah and Shiite militias to wage war on their enemies to see the same thing happen right in their backyard.

“ISIS, the Taliban and al Qaeda have also received support from the extremist Iranian mullahs, which is ironic since each of these terrorist groups’ ideologies are determined to eradicate Shi’ism, which just happens to be the religious backbone of the Iranian regime,” Williams said.

“And the reason for this twisted terrorist support is sickening: Tehran sees benefit in forming tactical alliances with these terrorist entities because they too loath America, and are motivated by a virulent anti-West agenda.”

Many news media and even the Iran lobby often try to portray the combatants in Syria as split on sectarian lines; Sunni vs. Shia with Iran firmly and bravely fighting ISIS, but in truth, Iran sees and has used ISIS as an effective foil for the West, diverting attention from its own actions in Yemen, Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

In fact, the Iranian regime could not have it both ways anymore. It could not—on the one hand—sponsor and export terror and not expect to that to rebound on them down the road. It’s the ultimate act of hubris on the scale of a Greek tragedy.

Amir Basiri, a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway column, explained how the Iranian regime and ISIS both benefitted from each other.

“The Islamic State clearly owes its rise to Tehran. The violence caused by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and its affiliates in Iraq and Syria created the perfect breeding ground for the emergence of the Islamic State and allowed it to occupy large swathes of land in both countries,” he writes.

“Reciprocally, the Islamic State returned the favor, causing rampage that provided Iran with the perfect excuse to increase its meddling in neighboring countries. Under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State, Tehran founded and legalized the Popular Mobilization Forces, an umbrella for extremist Shiite groups backed by Iran. The Islamic State also became Iran’s excuse to openly intervene in the Syrian conflict and shore up the Assad regime against opposition forces,” he added.

That recognition by both sides is what has allowed both to flourish as Iran expanded its control over Syria, Iraq and Yemen, while ISIS grew from a small collection of jihadi fighters to a vast terror-nation state with access to cash reserves, oil exports and a tax system.

Only when ISIS began to suffer losses on the battlefield and engaged in inspiring terror attacks worldwide over the past two years have nations finally coalesced in trying to exterminate the group.

The problem for the mullahs in Tehran is what happens if ISIS is eventually eradicated? The excuse they have used for so long in justifying their presence in Syria and Iraq will evaporate, which is why they are now trying to tie ISIS to the U.S. and long-time foe Saudi Arabia.

Only by framing the two as ISIS god parents can Iran hope to legitimize its continued occupation of its holdings.

“This is a reminder that Iran is not part of the solution in fighting the Islamic State or other extremist groups. Islamic fundamentalism can only be eradicated if it is fought in its entirety. This will require the eviction of the Iranian regime and the Revolutionary Guards from the region and the total dismantling of its terrorist proxies,” Basiri adds.

The Iranian regime is already working hard to beat the clock and solidify its foothold with the announcement of the appointment of a new Iranian ambassador to Iraq, not from the diplomatic corps, but from its Quds Forces.

Iran’s most prominent economic daily describes the arrival of Iraj Masjedi in Baghdad to take over Iran’s embassy there. Masjedi is a brigadier-general in the Quds Force who served in several leadership roles in forward operating bases during the Iran-Iraq War.

In recent years, the Iranian press has described him as a senior advisor to Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani. His promotion to be Iranian ambassador to Iraq suggests that Tehran’s focus in Iraq in the coming years will be military.

That suspicion was amplified with news reports that a blast that killed three people and injured 15 others on Friday in the Iraqi city of Karbala had an Iranian link.

“After the explosion and during the investigation and inspection on Friday night, the Iraqi intelligence forces arrested five Iranians who had explosives and remote control devices at the area near the blast site, in the eastern Abbasid,” an official said on condition of anonymity.

“The security forces transferred the Iranian detainees to the Karbala intelligence headquarters for interrogation,” the source said. “But minutes later dozens of Brigade Ali Akbar and Badr Organization militias supported by Iran surrounded the headquarters of the intelligence of Karbala.”

The source said the militias demanded the release of the five Iranian detainees but their request was rejected by the head of intelligence, who emphasized that he will hand them back only to authorities in Baghdad.

The refusal led the armed militias to break into the intelligence headquarters, where they took the five detainees and the head of the intelligence department.

The strong-arm tactics are nothing new to Iranian-backed militias and heralds a disturbing new chapter in Iran’s involvement in Iraq.

We can only hope that the Quds Forces do not turn Iraq into another Syria in order to find a new distraction for the world.

Michael Tomlinson