Iran Lobby

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

Iran Lobby Still Can’t Do Basic Math

by

1 plus 1A funny thing happened to a letter by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) and (David Price (D-NC) sent to President Obama expressing support for the conclusion of a nuclear agreement with the Iran regime. It was released with much fanfare by the Iran lobby on May 7th and signed by 150 members of the House.

Jamal Abdi, the policy director for the National Iranian American Council, a chief lobbyist for the Iran regime, said “if the President is forced to use his veto to protect an agreement this summer, there are now sufficient lawmakers on the record in support of the envisioned deal to potentially uphold that veto.”

The only problem with that statement was that it was wrong. To override a veto, a supermajority is required in the House or 290 members. The NIAC and Rep. Schakowsky announced a letter signed by only 150 members, but it included members from U.S. territories who are not allowed to vote on matters before the House. This meant the actual voting total was only 144 members, one shy of the number needed to sustain a veto.

But then something happened. The number was updated yesterday to reflect 151 House members had signed. Never the less, the Iran lobby is still counting the six non-voting members as part of the signers even though their participation in a veto override is not in the equation.

Could it be the Iran lobby is worried about the tenuous and nebulous nature of its support? Could it be the Trita Parsi from the National Iranian American Council believes he needs to bolster the support he claims? Could it be they simply can’t do basic math?

Even though we might feel compelled to refer Parsi and his colleagues for some Common Core math lessons, what is clear is that NIAC and other regime supporters such as Lobelog.com are mustering all hands on deck to try and keep House members in line against growing uncertainty building from the increasingly irrational acts by Iran’s mullahs in places such as Yemen, Syria and the Gulf of Aden.

In an editorial in the Huffington Post, Parsi and Abdi write that “this summer, the U.S. Senate will choose between war and peace with Iran.” It is a false choice they present, no more than a straw man, to present choices as war or peace. The actual choices are much more complicated.

Parsi and Abdi maintain that a “good” deal for the West will be too offensive to Iran and be summarily dismissed by the mullahs, plunging the world into a war, but a “bad” deal that rewards Iran with no sanctions and allows them to build nuclear weapons will do the same thing.

But the best course is to hold Iran accountable for its actions, not just in the nuclear arena, but in all its conduct, including pits participation in proxy wars, mistreatment of its citizens and support for terrorism. Iranian regime’s actions within the past three years of talks have clearly shown that its actions at home and abroad are actually getting worse.

News media are beginning to pay more attention and bring these stories to light. The Iranian resistance movement has gained increased stature as its members tell these stories of horror and members of Congress have heard from voters who simply do not trust Iran’s mullahs. That has been reflected in near unanimous votes in Congress to retain the ability to review and approve or disapprove any agreement with Iran.

But for opponents of a bad nuclear deal, Iran mullahs themselves have provided enough reasons for their cause with their provocative actions the past few weeks including the illegal seizure of a commercial cargo vessel on the high seas and their continued meddling in Syria and Iraq, including recent massacre of a Sunnis family in Diyala Iraq.

With friends like these, Parsi and Abdi might be better off representing ISIS from now on.

High Seas Drama Proves Iran Regime Untrustworthy

by

Maersk TigrisWhile the Iran regime has been working hard to portray itself as a peace-loving group of mullahs only interested in the peaceful splitting of the atom, drama was playing out on the high seas as Iran engaged in a high-stakes poker game with the U.S. Navy and commercial fishing vessels much to the consternation of the regime’s lobbying and PR allies who had to answer some uncomfortable questions.

It began last week with the decision by the mullahs to send a nine-ship convoy steaming towards Yemen with what was believed to be a large cache of supplies and weapons for Houthis rebels they had been backing in the overthrow of Yemen’s government.

This was followed by the decision to send in the U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt with escorts into the Gulf of Aden to deter and possibly detain the Iranian flotilla, which eventually turned back to Iranian waters.

Then this week saw an act bordering on piracy when Iranian navy ships fired across the bow of a Marshall Island-flagged container ship steaming through the Straits of Hormuz. After the ship refused to turn towards Iranian waters, it was boarded and the 24-man crew detained and the ship confiscated over a reported legal dispute.

Earlier reports indicated the Iranian navy ships had reportedly been on the lookout for a U.S.-flagged commercial ship and mistakenly stopped the Maersk Tigris. The U.S. and Marshall Islands share a defense treaty and it remains to be seen if the boarding of the vessel would trigger the security agreement.

The rapid escalation in provocative moves by the regime in international waters has posed a sticky problem for regime supporters, even Congressional supporters of a nuclear agreement with Iran were at a loss of explanation for the actions.

“We have to assure the sea lanes are open. I think it’s important to find out exactly what happened,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the Armed Services Committee’s ranking Democratic member.

“But we can’t tolerate interference with vessels moving up and down in international waters. It’s very serious when ships are intercepted like that,” he said.

In response, the U.S. Navy instituted a new policy of escorting commercial ships through the Persian Gulf and monitor for any distress signals sent out from vessels traversing the Straits of Hormuz in clear warning to the mullah’s regime in Iran.

Reza Marashi, who has entitled himself as “research director” of the regime’s chief lobbying group the National Iranian American Council, offered the ludicrous notion that Iran may have boarded the ship because of suspicions it was from rival Saudi Arabia and heading to the United Arab Emirates.

“If that’s true, it could be part of an escalation in the conflict between Tehran and Riyadh,” Marashi said. One theory he offered was that the Iranians could be retaliating for the Saudi bombing of a landing strip in Yemen where Iran was said to be planning to land a plane.

Marashi probably would have also offered as explanation that Mercury was in retrograde or aliens had seized control of the Iranian navy commander’s brain since those excuses made as much sense for the regime’s blatant disregard for international maritime law.

All of which poses a pickle for supporters such as the NIAC who have long argued that the Iran regime could be a trustworthy and believable partner in an international nuclear agreement, but is now faced with yet another inconvenient example of Iran’s mullahs flouting the law.

The near constant displays of disregard for agreements, treaties and law by Iran’s mullahs should not catch anyone unawares and only reinforces the growing perception in America that any agreement Iran signs will not be worth the paper it’s printed on.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby-Attempts To Seal A Deal

by

Iran Lobby trying to seal a deal

Iran Lobby trying to seal a deal

The phrase “cause and effect” can be applied to virtually every facet of life; from history, physics, marketing, politics and even the dinosaurs. Such a small phrase embodies so many connections in today’s world between actions and the aftermath of those actions.

In the context of today’s volatile Middle East, the Iran regime’s top lobbyist, the National Iranian American Council has argued its own cause and effect strenuously saying that failure to seal a deal on nuclear weapons development would inevitably lead to war, regardless of the facts failing to indicate any path to war.

But on the flip side, the NIAC has just as vigorously opposed any causal connection between the actions of the regime’s mullahs in directing a slew of proxy wars and human rights abuses and their ability to abide by any international agreement they sign.

Any objective observer can draw a straight line from point A to point B when looking at the cause and effects of Iran’s actions. For example:

  • The regime’s crackdown on opponents and protests through arrests, torture, imprisonment and public executions have effectively muzzled dissent at home;
  • The regime’s violation of international inspection agreements over the past decade have allowed it to quadruple the number of centrifuges it added to enrich uranium for its nuclear program; and
  • The regime’s support of proxies and terror groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen have allowed it to build a buffer of extremist Shiite support surrounding it, displacing hundreds of thousands of refugees and killing tens of thousands of men, women and children.

The fact that Iran has engaged in nuclear talks over the past three years while it has engaged in a slew of blatantly arrogant moves in violation of the spirit of those talks has laid bare the hypocrisy of the regime and its supporters.

Even today, cybersecurity firm Norse and the American Enterprise Institute released a new study chronicling the regime’s dramatic increase in cyberattacks on thousands of American targets. According to The New York Times, “the report, and a similar one from Cylance, another cybersecurity firm, make clear that Iranian hackers are moving from ostentatious cyberattacks in which they deface websites or simply knock them offline to much quieter reconnaissance. In some cases, they appear to be probing for critical infrastructure systems that could provide opportunities for more dangerous and destructive attacks.”

Norse’s study shows the Iran regime’s attacks have shown no signs of letting up, even during critical nuclear talks. Between January 2014 and just last month, Norse’s sensors picked up a whopping 115 percent increase in attacks launched from Iranian controlled Internet protocol, or I.P. addresses, with more than 900 attacks daily in the first half of March alone.

At a time when the leverage the West has over the regime through these talks is significant because of the economic mess the mullahs have created, it is a lost opportunity not to force changes upon the conduct of the regime.

The old proverb, “Turnabout is fair play” certainly applies here and especially with the NIAC who have made a living on accusing the West of double standards in its actions towards Iran, but yet do not hold Iran’s mullahs to the same standards.

It makes sense and is imperative that we understand the true nature of the effects the regime’s actions and lay the blame squarely at the feet of the mullahs ruling Iran.

 

Trita Parsi and The Big Lie

by

Court GavelYesterday the District of Columbia Court of Appeals issued an order in regards to damages and compensation awarded by the District Court to Seid Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian American who investigated the National Iranian American Council’s ties to the Iranian regime, as a result of a defamation suit brought by NIAC and its president, Trita Parsi.

The order by the Court only dealt with the issue of reimbursements owed by NIAC to Mr. Daioeslam as a result of the costs he incurred in responding to and researching of NIAC’s claims against him.

It is worth noting the Court upheld the factual elements of the case, which included a litany of bad-faith actions by Parsi and NIAC to avoid, evade, hide and in some cases destroy evidence linking both to key members of the Iranian regime. The core elements of the case against Mr. Daioleslam were thrown out and instead valuable information was unearthed during the course of discovery that proved highly problematic for Parsi and NIAC.

A good roundup of the case merits appeared on Breitbart.com (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2013/05/26/distorting-niac-s-court-defeat/) so I will save readers from the blow-by-blow descriptions of the case facts.

The Court of Appeal’s order also does a fine job in reiterating the central facts of the case and the lengths to which the NIAC and Parsi attempted to hide their ties to the mullahs in Iran. It is a case of missing computer hard drives, servers and software worthy of Lois Lerner and the IRS fiasco.

The full order is available for reading at http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/95D577149121951685257DE80053C062/$file/12-7111-1536782.pdf

The relevant portion of the order comes last in which the appellate panel writes:

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part the District Court’s award of sanctions, and reverse the award of Mr. Daioleslam’s expenses in preparing the portions of his sanctions motion related to NIAC’s alteration of a document and Parsi’s interrogatory responses, as well as the award of post-judgment interest to run from September 13, 2012. We remand to the District Court for reconsideration of those aspects of its judgment under the proper standard. So ordered.”

What is remarkable is the NIAC’s response in which it issued a statement implying a colossal win over Mr. Daisoleslam. At no point did the Court order dispute the facts of the case.

  • The NIAC willfully over 4,000 entries in electronic calendars detailing who Parsi and other NIAC officers had met with over the years, including representatives of the Iranian regime;
  • The NIAC willfully withheld 5,500 emails of conversations and correspondence between Parsi and other NIAC officers with Iranian officials and supporters;
  • The NIAC never proved any of Mr. Daisoleslam’s conclusions or results from his investigations were in fact defamatory. The first defense from defamation is truth;
  • The NIAC’s failure to produce computers and servers whose existence was only discovered through a forensic sweep of hard drives.

A full listing of all of the charges made against NIAC can be found here at The Legal Project: http://www.legal-project.org/4024/predatory-lawsuit-rebounds-back-on-iranian-front

In short, the Court of Appeals asked the District Court to recalculate the compensation owed to Mr. Daisoleslam by NIAC, taking into account a change in which interest had to be calculated and the costs for preparing a motion related to Parsi’s interrogatory and NIAC’s changing of documents.

The Court never said that any of the facts of the case regarding NIAC and Parsi’s conduct and evasions were in error. It simply required a slight accounting change from the $183,000 award originally given. Once the lower court recalculates the award, NIAC will have no choice but to finally pay up.

Interestingly, NIAC’s statement attempts to reposition the accounting change as a vindication over the facts of the case, which is absurd since they lost of a summary judgment which found all claims made by NIAC to be false.

But trying to make gold out of manure is nothing new for Parsi and NIAC as evidenced by the most recent debacle where they pushed for a delay for a framework nuclear deal and instead of securing the June 30th deadline, they ineptly pushed a new deadline up by two months to March 24th.

Any rational person reading the first two pages of the appellate ruling will quickly come to the conclusion that NIAC and Parsi in particular are accomplished practitioners of the Big Lie for Iran mullahs.

 

It’s About the Humanity Stupid

by

HumanityDuring President Bill Clinton’s campaign, his manager James Carville coined the now famous phrase “It’s the economy stupid” when deciding on the campaign’s key themes. It proved to be simple, powerful and ultimately successful.

Today we are faced with a variation of that theme with the fast-moving developments occurring on two fronts: the rapid growth of ISIS and the ongoing talks with Iran on nuclear weapons.

In both cases, the nature of the public debate and discussion about each has moved to almost polar opposites for these two issues. On the one hand, ISIS is generating a visceral, deep emotional horror as the world watches video after video revealing beheadings and now burnings. ISIS is attempting and succeeding in forcing an almost gag-like reflex at the barbarity and cruelty it is displaying. ISIS has few if any supporters outside of the few radicalized state sponsors of terror and rival terror groups.

In contrast, the ongoing negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program have begun to take on a more technical, dry and almost boring aura. Discussions over centrifuges, enrichment capability, stockpiles of fuel and their purity are topics sometimes more avidly discussed in college physics courses than on late night talk shows. Iran also employs a vast and well-funded lobbying and PR machine that encompasses public interest groups, public relations firms, high-priced lobbyists, columnists and journalists and the occasional ex-public official.

But in weighing the importance of the two issues, there is no greater threat to the stability and peace on a global stage than mullah’s regime in Iran and its quest for a nuclear weapon; which brings me back to Carville’s turn of phrase.

The debate and discussion about Iran’s nuclear weapons program needs a literary jump start and the lexicon of humanity needs to be re-injected back into the issue. Iran has worked mightily to keep any link to its dismal human rights record or sponsorship of terrorist groups from being attached to ongoing nuclear talks. Iran’s mullahs have sought and succeeded to some degree in keeping the discussion as dry as the desert sands.

But these talks do need the context of the impacts Iran is having on the rest of the world in order for the P5+1 group of nations to gain a greater understanding of exactly who sits across the table from them. The difficulty is that after two previous failed rounds of talks and almost three years of unrelenting compromise from the Iranian side, any sane and normal person might be feeling a bit exhausted by this exercise.

The political pressure the Obama administration is under to deliver a foreign policy win of any kind has pushed the talks forward into giving Iran access to over $11 billion in frozen assets for few if any meaningful concessions. The West, in large part, has lost the language battle by no longer including terms such as “human rights,” “political dissidents,” “public executions” or “terror sponsorship” as part of the discussions.

Secretary of State John Kerry briefly introduced a fig leaf when he brought up the plight of imprisoned Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, but that brought little result and still leaves unmentioned the plight of literally thousands that are imprisoned by Iran, including other American citizens.

What has also been notable is the lack of vocabulary amongst Iran’s supporters over the increasing levels of barbarity and violence coming from ISIS. Aside from a statement from the Iranian government, there has been no similar reaction from Iran loyalists such as the National Iranian American Council or their affiliates.

The very absence of any humane commentary illuminates what is missing from any dialogue concerning Iran. It is also the key issue that leaves many Senators on both sides of the political aisle uneasy about any deal negotiated with Iran. Can the U.S. trust a regime whose concepts of human rights and fair and equal treatment of its own people are as foreign to us and ISIS seems to be from the rest of humanity?

Ultimately Congress has marked a red line in the sand in which any deal reached by the P5+1 must be reviewed by Congress and meet with its approval. Senators recognize giving mullahs in Iran a deal providing even the smallest wiggle room to push a nuclear warhead through would forever change the outlook not only for the region, but the rest of the world. Iran is no North Korea. It has proven oil reserves giving it access to all the military technology capability it needs to build and deliver a nuclear weapon.

When negotiators next sit down with their Iranian counterparts, they should be telling themselves “It’s about the humanity stupid.”

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Nuclear Talk ABCs

by

ABCs (1)With the eve of the third round of talks with Iran on its nuclear weapons program about to begin, some of the most loyal supporters of the Iranian regime have sounded a clarion call to arms in order to frame what they believe are the salient facts prior to the start of these talks. Chief amongst them is the National Iranian American Council and in an editorial written by Ryan Costello, the NIAC has sought to inoculate the newly sworn in 114th Congress against any negative perceptions of Iran.

Costello regurgitates the typical spin NIAC and other Iranian regime lobbyists and flaks have uttered since the first round of nuclear talks collapsed in failure two years ago. Costello emphasizes that the interim deal agreed upon by Iran and the P5+1 negotiating team are working. He is correct, but not in the way he would have Congress think.

The interim nuclear deal is indeed working…for Iran only.

In the interim deal, which Iran readily agreed to while opposing more substantial and difficult concessions, essentially awarded Iran billions of dollars in frozen currency in exchange for a minor reduction in the stockpiles of enriched uranium fuel. The agreement did not reduce or eliminate Iran’s centrifuge capacity to make more fuel. It did not make Iran’s military research and testing facilities available for nuclear inspection. And it made no efforts to tie improvements in Iran’s dismal human rights record or support for terror groups in Iraq and Syria.

Costello also makes mention of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s efforts to verify Iran’s compliance of the interim deal, but neglects to mention a forceful condemnation from the IAEA of Iran’s unwillingness to make available restricted nuclear sites that have been prior points of contention.

Costello then raises specter of how any new sanctions from Congress would jeopardize the “hard won” gains in the interim deal. He neglects to mention that after two failed rounds of talks and no movement from Iran on the key issues of refining capacity and weapons payload delivery systems, Iranian regime remains as obstinate as the day talks started.

Congress has given President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry ample and abundant opportunity to close a credible, verifiable and strong deal and so far has received nothing for its patience.

With the recent rise of growing violence from radicalized Islamists who adhere to the teachings and principles espoused by Iran’s ruling mullahs in places such as Sydney, Ottawa and now Paris, the new incoming Congress is filled with members who were elected overwhelmingly by constituents rightly concerned about this growth in terror and violence striking far outside of the Middle East region.

While Iranian regime stands at the center of most of the strife and conflict throughout the region, Costello continues to take the position that Iran is simply some innocent bystander pushing for peace and is simply misunderstood.

Costello is correct when he writes that inspections and verifications are key components to any final deal. He unfortunately neglects to mention that Iranian regime has steadfastly refused to agree to comprehensive inspection and verification regimens that pass muster with the P5+1 nations. In fact, it’s never been properly explained by Costello or Iran why simply purchasing fuel rods from Russia, China, France or Japan is an unacceptable compromise. The insistence on creating and maintaining an extensive refining capacity that has the dual-use purpose of creating weapons-grade fuel is a non-starter and is the key stumbling block to any successful deal.

The last point Costello raises is the idea that Iran is battling ISIS. On the surface it seems like a positive development, but it again obscures the deeper truth of Iran’s relationship with the rise of extremist violence and ideology as embodied by ISIS.

While Costello writes about Iran’s support of Iraq’s former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, he neglects to mention that Iran’s manipulation of Maliki in forging a Shiite-only government sympathetic and responsive to Iran without any participation from Sunni tribes and leaders was the key element in igniting the sectarian bloodbath that has engulfed Iraq. He also neglects to mention that Iran’s all-in approach to support embattled Syrian President Basher Assad directly lead to the civil war that spawned ISIS in the first place.

The travesty of Costello’s position is that the perceived threats he illustrates such as Iran’s creation of an atomic bomb and work on its Arak heavy water reactor would only continue if a deal is not reached is simply false since Iran is already actively pursuing those goals even while talks continue.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his handpicked puppet in President Hassan Rouhani are simply content to allow talks to stagger on as a delaying tactic while Iran continues to aggressively pursue its agenda of regional domination and the continued suppression of its own people.

Far from simply sitting back, the 114th Congress should reject Costello’s assertions for the spin doctoring they really are and prepare to hold Iran accountable for additional sanctions and take advantage of the pressure being afforded by the global petroleum glut which is putting the only meaningful pressure on Iran’s leadership.

To do otherwise would be to waste a golden opportunity to change Iran and steer it back towards a civil society founded on multiculturalism, plurality and democracy.

By Michael Tomlinson

Whitewashing Iran’s human right’s records to lobby softer position on nuclear talks

by

Photo credit: The gulf and Middle East Association for civil society-August 2014

Photo credit: The gulf and Middle East Association for civil society-August 2014

The Ministry of Intelligence and Security of Iran had instructed its agents to try to advocate themselves as opposition by writing 80% against the regime and the violation of human rights in Iran, but they have to dedicate 20% to denying the opposition, namely the MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq), by spreading rumors discredit them. This seems to be the copy framework agreement with the Iranian regime’s lobby and appeasers with respect to the failed Iran talks in Vienna.

Recently, some advocates of Iranian origin who claim to be human rights activists are expressing concerns over the recent resolution of the House of Representatives against the human rights violation in Iran.

One of these “human rights activists” has written an article in The Hill today, expressing concerns that “seeking ways to achieve tangible human rights improvements inside Iran is also closely related to the outcome of the nuclear negotiations” and that including “separate issues – such as Iran’s rights record, or its support for terrorism – will make it more difficult to reach a nuclear deal”.

The author who by the way is a well-known advocate and affiliate of “NIAC” claims that “the Iranian human rights community strongly supports a successful diplomatic resolution of the nuclear crisis, particularly because many believe that without a deal, the human rights crisis in Iran will worsen”. He goes further in whitewashing the regime’s president Rouhani who is just another mullah within the hierarchy of the theocracy ruling Iran, saying: “the perpetuation of tensions over the nuclear file is likely to result in continued and even increased gross human rights violations. For example, throughout the past decade, Iranian hardliners, opposed to a deal, have thrived by capitalizing on the nuclear confrontation and using it to justify their repressive measures. Failure of the negotiations would embolden them. They would seek to weaken the government of relative moderate President Hassan Rouhani.”

This is while in Iran under the so called “moderate” Rouhani, over 1,100 people have been executed and thousands are on death row. Based on the number of executions that mainly appear on state newspapers in Iran, on average every 8 hours one person is being executed. Women are disgracefully attacked by regime-related thugs, either by acid or being stabbed under the pretext of disobeying the dress code. There is no free access to information, Iran is the biggest prison for journalists and the situation of religious minorities is outrageous, to name a few.

Last November, the United Nations General Assembly’s third committee adopted the UN’s 61st resolution condemning human rights abuses in Iran and urged the regime to stop the executions, in such conditions, overlooking the human rights in Iran and ignoring the fact that people and particularly women in Iran are living under despicable conditions is nothing but cruel, shameful and immoral. Asking the US politicians to be softer on the regime with such inhumane records of human rights, is even worse.

The author is also quoting some activists to strengthen his proposition and represent it as a request by the Iranian human rights community. He writes: “As Nasrin Sotoudeh , the prominent human rights lawyer and former political prisoner put it: ‘It is obvious that we welcome peaceful relations with all countries and as such support the negotiations’.”  This is while reading Nasrin Sotoudeh’s entire quote, you can see that she is actually demanding the human rights issues to be discussed during negotiations and not to be ignored, exactly the opposite of what the Iranian lobby is criticizing the congress for in the Hill article. Here is her quote from the same source:

“if the Iranian state wants to rehabilitate its relations with the international community, it must certainly address fundamental human rights concerns on issues such as juvenile executions and freedom of expression. The Iranian government should clearly state its position on these issues during the nuclear negotiations. In my opinion, keeping silent on such issues until the end of negotiations will make it more difficult. My understanding is the European countries say we cannot easily bring up human rights issues because it will potentially threaten the negotiations. We say at a minimum ask the Iranian negotiators to express their position on fundamental human rights concerns such as juvenile executions which are banned by all international conventions.”

The truth of the matter is that the Iranian regime has strategically invested in its nuclear program. It is doing everything to get more time to complete the program and will not shift from this unless faced with more pressure and more sanctions. After all it was the sanctions that finally forced the mullahs to go to the negotiation table and accept the Geneva accord, not the appeasement policy that has unfortunately been the dominant policy of the West towards Iran in the past two decades.

“The Iran Project”-Enemies of Democracy

by

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

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

The Iran Project, a pro-Iranian regime organization in the US comprised mainly of former government officials and academics, released a report in August 2014 that offers potential foreign policy consequences if the US concludes a nuclear agreement with Iran.

That a viable agreement can be reached is far from certain and releasing the report beforehand would appear to be propaganda ploy to promote an agreement rather than a serious examination of foreign policy issues.

The original deadline to conclude a comprehensive nuclear agreement was July 20, 2014.  It was extended four months due to “substantial differences” and there is already discussion to further stretch out the timetable.

Other than a small spattering of negative comments, the report presents a benign view of the Iran regime.  The authors acknowledge Iran is an “international pariah” and has “ties with at least seven terrorist groups.”  They raise the issue of Iran’s miserable human rights record but then decline to address these issues in the report.

Over 1000 people executed During Rouhani's first year in office.

Over 1000 people executed During Rouhani’s first year in office.

The authors fail to mention anything about the regime’s repressive government, public hangings, crackdown on free speech, and political persecutions.

The report falsely asserts that Iran has “largely abandoned attempts in the 1990s to export its revolution to the Gulf.”  This is surely seen different by the international community, among which the Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who recently demanded Iran’s mullahs withdraw their “occupying forces” from Syria, Iraq and Yemen.   He said Iran was not part of a solution in these areas, but the problem.

The report calls attention to “Afghanistan’s “nascent democracy” and claims Iran “was helpful to the United states in inserting provisions for democracy, elections, and anti-terrorism into the Afghan Constitution.”  Not discussed is the regime’s assistance to al Qaeda, helping them escape from Afghanistan and letting them set up a “management council” on their territory.

The report is also silent when it comes to the Iranian public’s yearning for democracy and the regime’s brutal attacks on political dissidents.  The mullahs view democracy as an “usurpation of God’s authority to rule” and refuse to allow the open selection of candidates in elections.  They also manipulate voting tallies and then claim to be legitimate rulers.

The authors of the report declare they oppose Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon, but then shut their eyes to overwhelming evidence the regime is doing just this.  The authors believe the mullahs have not made a decision to build a nuclear weapon.  They cite one reference to a US intelligence assessment and reiterate Ayatollah Khamenei’s public declaration in a fatwa that the development and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden. While an article in Townhall, by a high rank Ayatollah who lives in exile describes Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa, an Irrefutable Lie, absent in the report is the fact that Khamenei has never written any document against nuclear weapons that carries his stamp, a standard practice for all fatwas.  Also, the fact that fatwas aren’t necessarily binding for the government and officials, and there is no punishment for failing to abide by a fatwa.

The authors conveniently neglect to quote from the same intelligence assessment that Iran has “pursued the capabilities … to give it the ability to build missile-deliverable nuclear weapons.”  In other words, the regime is developing the wherewithal to build a nuclear bomb, but hasn’t completed the process.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believes the regime recently tested nuclear detonators at the Prachin military site in Iran.  But the mullahs refuse to give inspectors access to the facility.

This isn’t the first time the regime has tried to hide its nuclear weapon development program.  In March 2003, IAEA inspectors were initially denied access to Kalaye Electric, which Iranian officials falsely described as a watch manufacturing company.   After months of delay, the inspectors were finally allowed to examine the site.  They discovered walls had recently been removed, floors were covered with new concrete, and a significant part of the plant was repainted.  Despite these efforts, the inspectors found trace amounts of uranium that had been enriched to a level needed to build a nuclear weapon.  Given the evidence, the regime confessed it had secretly conducted enrichment tests at the Kalaye Electric site.

This is just one of many instances of deception and subterfuge by the mullahs.  Economic sanctions were imposed on Iranian regime by the UN Security Council because of the regime’s ongoing failure to provide transparency in its nuclear program and repeated violations of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The Iran Project authors sweep all of these inconvenient issues under the rug and suggest the US should become a partner with the mullahs to deal with various problems in the Middle East.  This includes joining forces to combat the Islamic State or ISIS in Iraq and working with the regime “as a full partner” to assist Afghanistan after US troops are withdrawn.

The report correctly blames former Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki for many of the problems today in Iraq.  He refused to share power with the Sunni Arabs and other rivals, corrupted the election process, and sought to monopolize power.  Not surprisingly, the authors of the report make no reference to Iran’s behind-the-scenes influence over al-Maliki, who was their puppet, implementing their policies.  The mullahs tried desperately to keep al-Maliki in power, using their considerable political influence in Iraq, without success.

At the heart of the Iran Project report is an effort by the authors to persuade readers to accept the Iranian regime as a legitimate authority.  Providing readers an accurate description of the regime would have undermined their political objective, hence their whitewash of the regime.

The authors portray a positive future if a nuclear agreement is reached with Iran.  The United States, they posit, “stands to reap more benefit than any other outside power from new patterns of cooperation [with Iran].”   Concluding a nuclear agreement, they claim, “will unlock the door to new options.”  It might integrate Iran into the world community and would encourage the regime “to pursue its interests through legitimate means rather than covert or illegal means.”

If the US fails to reach a nuclear accord with Iran, the authors predict dire consequences.   If there is no agreement, the US should be prepared for a “sustained confrontation with Iran.”   It would trigger a loss of support for economic sanctions and the mullahs would most likely refuse to collaborate with the US on other issues.

Furthermore, if the Rouhani government failed to reach a nuclear agreement and relieve the sanctions, “then the conservatives in Tehran would return to dominate the thinking and actions of the Supreme Leader.”

The mullahs would “build its nuclear program with renewed conviction…and might make a decision to build a nuclear weapon.”  And America would renew its interest in regime change, creating an environment that “could lead the United States and Israel to threaten military strikes, with the probability of war, either deliberate or inadvertent.”

The authors offer only two roads ahead.  One is based on negotiating a nuclear agreement that, in turn, might defang the Iranian pariah and open the door to partnering with the US to resolve foreign policy difficulties.  The other road leads to Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb and the probability of war. The very familiar tactic repeatedly used over the years to justify the failed policy of appeasement towards the mullahs in Iran, which has not only been unable to contain their progress on the nuclear front but has actually embolden the mullahs to meddle in the region and to create more crisis everywhere including Syria, Iraq and lately in Yemen.

The report, which claims to be a “tough-minded assessment” and “balanced,” is, in fact, fear-mongering propaganda.

Iranian regime is now the biggest sponsor of estate terrorism and is therefore the largest threat to the global peace. It is absurd to think America would collaborate with them to solve regional conflicts.  And only the most gullible and naive would have suggested diplomacy could tame the mullahs.

Yet now the authors of the Iran Project report recommend this same pathway in the hope the Iranian regime may become more peaceful and shed its extremist Islamic zeal.

The Iranian mullahs view the West’s appeasement as weakness.  They are hoping to buy enough time to complete work on a missile-deliverable nuclear weapon. 

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s smiling president, is no moderate.  Rouhani has held many of the top national defense positions and was appointed in 1991 by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), the country’s highest national security organization, comprised by the head of the Armed Forces, Chief of the Army, Minister of Intelligence and Security, Chief of the IRGC, and others.

The SNSC has a parallel organization (Omure Vijeh Committee) that oversees extralegal actions.  Rouhani was a member of the panel when it approved the bombing of the Israel Embassy in 1992 in Buenos Aires, which killed 29 people and wounded 242 others.  He also was a member when it authorized the 1994 suicide bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires and the 1996 Khobar Towers truck bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 American servicemen and wounded more than 500 other people.

Rouhani is no moderate as the authors of the report claim.  They falsely predict the conservatives in Tehran will return to dominate the “thinking and actions of the Supreme Leader” if a nuclear agreement is not reached.   Rouhani is a protégé of Khamenei and they both share responsibility for many terrorist attacks and assassinations of pro-democracy patriots seeking to overthrow the despotic regime.  Rouhani is a conservative, just as every other president of Iran has been a conservative in the past 35 years. 

Victim of acid attacks on girls and women in Iran for disobeying regime's dress code.

Victim of acid attacks on girls and women in Iran for disobeying regime’s dress code.

The recent Acid attacks on women and girls in Iran, and the unprecedented repression of religious minorities in Iran under Rouhani’s watch, only have one message, the Rouhani’s regime is no different than its predecessors and certainly not a moderate. In fact there is no evidence to suggest the Iranian regime can be rehabilitated.  The mullahs are driven by an extremist Islamic ideology. Even without nuclear weapon, they have been supporting the use of terror and have dispatched armed forces to disrupt neighboring governments with the goal of installing Islamic Republics. 

The authors of the report offer only two options for dealing with the Iranian regime.  But there is a third option – regime change.  The West should announce its support for regime change in Iran.  It should not align with its tyrannical rulers, but with pro-democracy organizations that  seek to restore freedom in Iran.

The authors of the Iran Project refuse to adopt any measures that might undermine the mullahs’ authority, including regime change.  Instead, they seek policies that will enhance their legitimacy and appease their hegemonic ambitions.  As such they are enemies of democracy and their report should be discarded as a propaganda ploy designed to legitimatize the despotic Iranian regime.

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.

 

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

by

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

its nuclear ambitions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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