Iran Lobby

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

The Pretzel Logic of the Iranian Lobby on the Nuclear Deal

by

"Dedicated to Improving the Relationship Between the U.S. and Iranian Governments"

“The Pretzel Logic of the Iranian Lobby on the Nuclear Deal”

With the deadline of November 24th fast approaching for the P5+1 negotiators to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, the chorus of the PR machine working on behalf of the regime is reaching a crescendo.

The opening shot came from disclosures in the Washington Free Beacon that the Truman National Security Project issued a call to arms for writers and bloggers to join in the effort to comment, post and tweet U.S. media in favor of a nuclear deal.

This was followed by a virtual avalanche of editorials and commentary that sometimes borders on the ludicrous such Gary Sick’s piece in Politico where he argued that giving Iran a deal that preserves its ability to enrich uranium was preferable to letting Iran walk away. Sick’s piece attempts to make the leap of logic that failure to reach a deal would potentially place Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani at some crucial disadvantage with perceived hardliners in Iran and lead to his ouster.

It’s an argument that reminds me of MIT professor and Obamacare advisor Jonathan Gruber’s recently unearthed comments about the lack of intelligence amongst American voters. Sick must carry a similar opinion of Western negotiators.

This theme that letting Iran walk away from the negotiating table would be disastrous is being echoed on pro-Iranian blogs such as LobeLog.com and lobbyists such as the National Iranian-American Council. All have let loose shrill cries that almost any deal is preferable than letting Iran walk…even if the deal is viewed as an awful one by the West.

What all of these sympathizers ignore though is the biggest obstacle to closing a deal and it is not the West, it is Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei who previously sank negotiations with public comments against reaching a deal that would impede Iran’s ability to develop a weapon. His most recent comments reinforced that view. In fact, the mullah-in-chief  has doubled down with another series of speeches denouncing efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear capacity.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other negotiators were also stunned to hear even more denunciations by Iran’s religious leaders who decried any efforts to cave in to what they considered were excessive demands by the West. Iran has also raised the specter that any deal must first be predicated on the unconditional lifting of economic sanctions without a reciprocal rapid deconstruction of Iran’s nuclear program; a non-starter for almost every nation at the bargaining table.

The pathway now shaping up is a potential for yet another deadline extension without any agreement being reached. The impact of the Iranian lobby and PR machine is being severely undercut by Iran’s own leaders out of their own mouths and it seems the best they can hope for now is not a complete meltdown in talks.

There almost seems a calculation by Iran’s mullahs that President Obama needs a foreign policy triumph more than Iran’s economy needs help. It is a calculation seemingly destined to failure with the midterm election results and American voters expressing great alarm over the disintegrating nature of affairs in the Middle East with ISIS, Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Gaza and Afghanistan.

This is one of those times where pretzel logic doesn’t trump the common sense of American voters.

By Michael Tomlinson

All Hands on Deck for Iran Nuclear Deal

by

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Regime Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during an earlier session in ongoing nuclear talks. Photo Credit: Christian Science Monitor

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Regime Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during an earlier session in ongoing nuclear talks.
Photo Credit: Christian Science Monitor

Adam Kredo reports in a story in the Washington Free Beacon that the Truman National Security Project, a leading think tank aligned with liberal causes, has begun an effort to enlist supporters in what it characterized as a “all hands on deck” campaign to help secure passage of an Iranian nuclear arms agreement by the Obama administration.

One of the more revealing comments in the article was made by a senior foreign policy official at another DC-based organization who called Truman “reckless.”

“The Truman Institute long ago stopped being a real policy shop and instead became a PR machine for the Obama administration’s foreign policy. The White House will take a deal no matter what, so the Truman Institute is pushing a deal no matter what,” said this official.

This goes to the heart of what is the most troubling aspect of the ongoing negotiations; the perception that the Obama administration is so starved for any kind of foreign policy movement it can call a win that it is willing to take a terrible deal in order to trumpet a victory.

The fact that the administration last month signaled a trial balloon to circumvent Congress in agreeing to a de facto deal with Iran is only more proof of what could soon turn into a disastrous decision.

In granting Iran a deal allowing it to keep thousands of centrifuges, its core missile technology and infuse it with billions in new cash as sanctions ease, the Obama administration could very well seal the deal for a nuclear-armed Iran within this decade. But the administration is not comprised of political idiots. They are shrewd, smart and experienced and realize with the midterm election sea change in Congress, they need to act quickly to make such a deal a fait accompli.

Which is why the administration is ginning up Truman and the Iranian regime’s PR machine, including outfits such as the National Iranian American Council are very much using the opportunity in a full court press to build grassroots support and provide political cover for supporting the President in making this deal.

A key facet is to enlist writers to pen editorials and letters to the editor to key newspapers in selected states where it believes they need to shore up support among Congressmen. Among the states listed as targets by Truman are Illinois, New Hampshire, Georgia, Arizona and New York. It’s worth noting that Republicans won key Senate and gubernatorial races in Illinois and Georgia and pushed New Hampshire to the limit.

While President Obama closing his Asia tour, it is becoming increasingly clear that the leverage in current talks lies almost exclusively with the Iranian mullahs. The President’s missive to Supreme Leader Khamenei (his sixth so far) had a plaintive quality as he almost begged for Iranian help in stopping ISIS.

Based on these services, the mullahs have calculated, that they can live with no deal and continue on their clandestine weapons development program and still maintain the momentum in Iraq and Syria. They also reason that the U.S. is willing to come way over to their side in order to secure a deal. The only question for Khamenei and his lobbies and advocates is how much can they wring out of Obama. If Truman’s proposed PR push is successful, the answer is “a lot.”

By: Michael Tomlinson

What the Change in the Senate Means for Iran

by

ElectionWith last night’s historic changes in the U.S. midterm elections, control of the Senate has shifted to Republicans and their control over the House has strengthened in what is being called a tsunami election that washed away incumbent Democrats across the country. While Republican control of the Senate will not be filibuster or veto proof, this new majority puts further obstacles to President Obama’s earlier hinted at plan to reach a compromise agreement with Iran on nuclear weapons and skirt Congressional approval in implementing it.

Supporters of Iran such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council have already begun laying the groundwork for framing the chances of a nuclear agreement with the new Congress by reiterating the canard that so-called “neo-cons” would seize the opportunity to sink a deal in order to keep alive the possibility of a return to war in the Middle East by the U.S.

The reality is starkly different than what Mr. Parsi and his cohorts would have Americans believe.

First of all, opposition to a nuclear deal that grants Iran the ability to maintain its nuclear enrichment infrastructure is bipartisan with both Democrats and Republicans having signed on to consecutive bills toughening economic sanctions on Iranian regime. In a bitterly divided government that could not agree on budgets, healthcare, the economy or even food stamps, could quickly and almost eagerly come to agreement on pressuring Iran into not keeping nuclear weapons.

In fact, in 2013, over 400 members of Congress from both parties signed on to HR 850 to toughen sanctions on Iran. It is a convenient fiction to portray Republican control as an impediment to negotiations when in fact prominent Democrats such as former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman have staunchly warned against a nuclear-capable Iran.

Secondly, Mr. Parsi et al have sounded shrill warnings on Twitter that President Obama’s hand has been weakened by last night’s results. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything, the President’s hand has been strengthened by conveying to the ruling mullahs in Iran that the U.S. will harden its position in terms of verification, inspections and open access; offering no loopholes for them to slip a deal through. More incredibly, in an editorial in Foreign Affairs, Mr. Parsi attempts to lay blame on the Senate defeat for Democrats and the change in political winds for a deal on Israel; an absurd notion, even for him.

Supreme Leader Khamenei may have already had an inkling of this sea change in the American political landscape when he opted to deliver several lengthy and highly technical speeches over the summer denouncing the talks and the West and openly reaffirming Iran’s need for a massive expansion in centrifuges used for enriching nuclear fuel. These statements effectively sank the first round of talks and he and Iran’s ruling clerical councils have taken no actions to convince us otherwise.

The situation with Iran has become so adversarial that the International Atomic Energy Agency, the watchdog group tasked to inspect and monitor Iran’s nuclear program, issued last week a scathing update on Iran detailing how it continues to be stonewalled and how it has been denied even initial inspections of disputed sites.

Coupled with this has been the unusual absence of any mention by Mr. Parsi and Iran’s lobbying and PR machine of Iran’s horrific human rights record. The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mr. Ahmed Shaheed, just released his annual update on Iran’s dismal human rights record, taking special notice of the deteriorating plight of women, religious minorities and political dissidents.

 

One would think if you are attempting to negotiate an agreement with a state, it would make sense to test that government’s ability to live up to a deal by gauging the treatment of its own people and the opening up of the nation to foreign media and international inspection; all things that Iran’s mullahs have so far refused to do.

What the change in the Senate does promise however is a reset for the President of sorts. By closing the door firmly on any idea to circumvent Congress and seek out an inferior deal, President Obama should take the opportunity to hold Iran truly accountable and test how serious the mullahs really are about reaching an accord.

The suspicion among many international observers is that Khamenei and others in the decision making level in Iran actually have very little desire to reach an accord with the West and prefer the constant state of enmity and a so-called “war economy” focusing limited resources on its nuclear program and its broad slate of foreign adventures in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Afghanistan and Yemen.

Pressing Iran to commit to a lower threshold on centrifuges and slowdowns in missile development by the November 24th deadline, tied alongside improvements in its human rights record would be the magic elixir necessary for a deal palatable to this new Congress.

 

While Iranian regime’s supporters will attempt to portray the new Senate as a haven of “neo-cons” the truth is far different. This is merely an effort to lay the groundwork for a failed deal in favor of the mullahs, since it is becoming clearer that Khamenei and his handpicked president, Hassan Rouhani, are only stalling in order to keep their enrichment program untouched. Some suggest that the most likely scenario would be a quick agreement by November 24th and an effort to get something through the lame duck session of Congress before the new members are sworn in January 2015, however given the internal crisis the mullahs are facing and particularly their recent loss of their puppet Prime Minister Maliki in Iraq, they seem more flimsy than ever to be able to accept any deal that would contain their nuclear ambitions.

 

Thus the Iranian lobby’s maneuver would be ill-advised and unlikely to prevail after last night.

 

Current Islamic extremism took root in Iran, and must be uprooted in Iran

by

It's a mistake to think Iran will be an ally in the fight against the Islamic State group.

Photo credit to: U.S.News and World Reports

Recent article published in US News and World report, opinion page, challenges the views offered by some pro-Iran advocates who are suggesting to collaborate with Iran in fighting against ISIS.

The article offers a very informative background to the roots of the problem in Middle East and offers a more effective solution.

You can read the entire article below:

By  

As the gathering whirlwind of religious extremism masquerading as Islam leaves a trail of devastation in the Middle East and threatens large parts of the globe, a key question lingers about the role of Iran. Some observers – following the tired maxim that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – argue that the threat of the Islamic State group transcends policy differences between Tehran and the West and should allow for collaboration against a common enemy. This view is naive and dangerous. In truth, Tehran and the Islamic State group complement and strengthen each other – ideologically as well as tactically on the field of battle.

The Islamic State group is not the only organization that insults the name of our great faith. Since Islamic fundamentalism emerged as an international political force with the establishment of the clerical regime in Iran in 1979, the world has witnessed barbaric acts like stoning, limb amputations, eye-gouging and the massacre of political prisoners in the name of the so-called Islamic Republic. Export of violent fundamentalism has since become the regime’s distinctive feature, earning it the U.S. State Department’s designation as the world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism.

Iraq has always been the mullahs’ gateway to regional domination. That is why they perpetuated a disastrous eight-year war with Iraq, proclaiming that the road to liberating Jerusalem passed through Karbala.

Tehran got a historic opportunity to realize its ambitions after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq opened the gates of Baghdad. In subsequent years, the United States committed a strategic blunder by keeping then-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in power in Iraq, beginning a pro-Tehran tilt that culminated with the wholesale abdication of the country’s politics and security to Iran especially when American forces withdrew in 2011.

A case in point is America’s silence in the face of recurring massacres against members of the Iranian opposition, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, in the Ashraf and Liberty camps in Iraq. These men and women were given written commitments by Washington assuring their safety. The survivors still languish in inhumane conditions, while Tehran is still intent on wiping them out.

The mullahs have also flooded Syria with Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps commanders and financial support, playing an indispensable part in ensuring Syrian President Bashar Assad’s survival. Absent Tehran’s role, Damascus would have fallen long ago, saving 200,000 lives and denying the Islamic State group the opportunity to fester and grow.

Western – and particularly U.S. – inaction against Assad’s atrocities and the eight-year-long backing of al-Maliki significantly aided the rise of extremism. And now after wreaking havoc in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, Tehran has targeted Yemen, inundating it with mullahs and Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps forces, effectively occupying large swaths of the country. It is no small irony that this expansion of the regime’s destructive presence in the region comes at a time when the mullahs are more cornered and vulnerable than ever before.

In the nuclear arena, Tehran’s rulers are at an impasse as the Nov. 24 deadline for a deal draws near. If they abandon their dream of obtaining a nuclear weapon, their regime will implode. And if they choose defiance, they cannot escape confrontation with the international community.

Al-Maliki’s ouster from power undercut Tehran’s eight years of investment in Iraq; its crucial fulcrum in the region thus disintegrated, curbing its plans for regional domination.

A year into Hassan Rouhani’s presidency, internal rifts have deepened. It is increasingly apparent that the Iranian regime’s only path to survival is to terrorize an embittered population. According to the latest report on the human rights situation in Iran by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, “the application of the death penalty, including in relation to political prisoners and juvenile offenders, has increased.”

To overcome the current crisis and to rescue the region from more bloodshed and devastation by Islamic fundamentalists, a fresh approach is imperative:

First, defeating terrorism and extremism in the region requires, in addition to taking the fight to the Islamic State group, the eviction of the Iranian regime and its militias from Iraq. Tehran is the main source of the problem and cannot be part of any solution. Engaging Tehran would inexcusably throw a lifeline to an otherwise sinking regime.

Second, Tehran should not be allowed to exploit the Iraqi crisis either to delay a final nuclear deal or to impose its own conditions. Any agreement lacking the implementation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, a halt in uranium enrichment and snap inspections would effectively permit the regime to develop a nuclear weapon.

Third, Islamic fundamentalism in our time took root in Iran, and it must be uprooted in Iran. Standing with the Iranian people’s struggle against religious dictatorship and with the anti-fundamentalist dissidents inside Iran and abroad, as well as ensuring the safety and security of the residents of Camp Liberty in Iraq, are prerequisites for combating religious fundamentalism throughout the region.

Islamic fundamentalism can be defeated only by genuine Islam, a religion that promotes tolerance, advocates gender equality, upholds democracy, human rights and social justice and embraces the separation of religion and state. The experience and courage of those who espouse these ideals and are willing to stand up to extremists – be they in Iran, Iraq or Syria – should serve as our guide.

Maryam Rajavi is the president-elect of the Paris-based National Council of Resistance of Iran, which is seeking the establishment of a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic in 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

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.

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.