echo-chamber – Iran Lobby

Iran Lobby Echo Chamber Banging Loudly for Iran Regime

It seems that the “echo chamber” created by members of the Obama administration and the Iran lobby is still alive and kicking and trying desperately to keep support flowing to the Iranian regime in light of increasing calls to get tough on Iranian regime because of its continued support for terrorism, brutal human rights abuses and flagrant violations of international sanctions with ballistic missile launches.

The Iran lobby, especially the National Iranian American Council, has been especially busy making excuses every time Iran hangs a dissident, puts down a protest or sentences a dual national to prison.

Many of those “experts” sympathetic to the regime and preserving the nuclear deal at all costs continue to push false narratives like a used car salesman pushing a clunker with a rolled back odometer.

One example is a piece authored by Jeffrey A. Sinclair in Foreign Affairs in which he argues that President Trump needs to strengthen Iran’s “moderates.”

“The goal should be to guard against any further escalation of hostilities. After all, unless the administration is willing to wage war with Iran, this confrontation won’t achieve anything useful for the United States. What it will do is further strengthen the hardliners in Tehran, a process that is already underway, and undermine moderates such as President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif less than three months before Iran’s presidential election,” Sinclair writes.

Rarely has a paragraph been loaded with more inaccuracies than that one.

First of all, Trump has made it clear with his criticisms of the war in Iraq during the campaign that he is not in favor of nation-building by military force, but he has also made clear he was not going to offer a blank check to regimes such as Iran and Syria to do whatever they wanted since the end result of those kinds of actions has brought chaos to the Middle East.

Trump has laid out a belief that ignoring Iranian regimes’s militant actions does little to ensure regional stability and peace. Confronting the regime on issues such as human rights, proxy wars or provocative military acts are the right policy if Trump’s administration takes up that road, but saying that such a path only leads to war is one of the boldest falsehoods of the echo chamber.

Trump has at his disposal of plethora of tools, many used successfully by previous administrations, to force Iran to the bargaining table which is exactly what happened recently. The only problem was that the Obama administration fumbled the ball by caving in to every demand the Iranian mullahs had and getting little in return.

Contrary to Sinclair’s missives, confronting Iranian regime is exactly the right course of action since to do nothing except issue paper condemnations does nothing to rectify the situation. Using harsh language as Iran’s Quds Forces supply Houthi rebels in Yemen with arms so they can destabilize the country and risk a regional war between Saudi Arabia and Iran breaking out is not only bad foreign policy, it’s stupid.

Also, when Sinclair calls Rouhani and Zarif “moderates” the only polite thing to do is to keep from laughing hysterically out loud.

The only real moderates in Iran sit in Iranian prisons or have been driving out of the country as political refugees. As a religious theocracy, Iran’s mullahs maintain an iron grip on power. Rouhani did not become president to push a liberalizing agenda for reform. He was hand selected by Ali Khamenei to present the West with a more benign face in order to trigger negotiations to ease crippling sanctions.

The world is not going to see any competition during these upcoming presidential elections in Iran. Nothing is left to chance by the mullahs, which is why the vast majority of political dissidents, journalists, artists, filmmakers, students and anyone else stepping out of line has already been rounded up in advance of the elections.

“Because other U.S. and Western sanctions relating to Iran’s alleged terrorist activities remained in place, and because international banks remained highly skittish when it came to dealing with Iran, economic relief did not come quickly enough,” Sinclair said. “Overall, the administration made too few efforts to help Iran economically, as other terrorism-related sanctions were kept in place. The Obama team, it seemed, had taken its eye off the ball. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and others knew that Iranian moderates needed a post-deal economic boost to secure their position.”

This is another fallacious argument being made that the U.S. somehow was responsible for jumpstarting an Iranian economy that ranks almost dead last in the world in transparency and corruption. Also, since sanctions related to terrorism were not part of the nuclear deal, the U.S. and Trump are under no obligation to lift them, especially since Iranian regime regularly supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and Shiite militias responsible for wholesale slaughter of Sunni villages in Iraq.

Sinclair also criticizes discussions to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist organization and contends such a move would “escalate tensions.”

It’s hard to imagine how much worse tensions can get when Iranian regime’s navy detains American sailors, American citizens are being held in Iranian prisons and Iran’s proxies are causing the biggest refugee crisis since World War II.

Sinclair—and the rest of the Iran lobby—seems to place its collective hopes on the few wispy strands of less intensive anti-American actions than in the past as positive signs for change.

“For now, signs from Iran are somewhat positive. The yearly celebration of the founding of the Islamic Republic (expected to be a bonanza for the hardliners) turned out to be muted—excessively so, which was a clear sign of at least momentary moderation from the top leadership,” he writes. “In addition, a series of prominent hardliner clerics—including some of the leading clerics in Qom—have in recent days publicly expressed their support for keeping the nuclear deal in place.”

The claimed positive step is at a time that the Iranian regime test fired another Ballistic missile during this period and of course the mullahs are going to express support for the nuclear deal since its amounts to a giant ATM card the regime has been using to buy billions of dollars in new weapons from Russia.

These are not encouraging signs no matter what the echo chamber says and it’s about time we ignore it.

Michael Tomlinson

A Year of Proof the Iran Nuclear Deal Failed

Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal wrote an engrossing look back at the Iran nuclear deal after one year and why the Iranian regime’s mullahs, especially its top leader, Ali Khamenei, believe they were the true winners following the deal.

The proof of that belief is in tallying the butcher’s bill of death, misery and military expenditure the regime has dispensed over the last 12 months.

It is a record that cannot be hidden by the Iran lobby. It cannot be explained away by the Obama administration’s “echo chamber” of regime supporters. It will not be ignored by news media intent on trying to resuscitate the quaint notion that somewhere within the Iranian regime is some cadre of “moderates.”

What Solomon notes, is that while the Iranian regime, especially Khamenei, has engaged in almost virulent anti-Western rhetoric since the deal was passed, he and his fellow mullahs are unlikely to willfully walk away from the nuclear deal since it was heavily weighted in the favor of their regime—not the Iranian people mind you, but to the mullahs and their military forces.

As Solomon writes, “for all his complaints about American treachery, Mr. Khamenei and his allies recognize that the nuclear deal has produced significant benefits for their hobbled theocracy.”

“Since the accord was announced last summer, Mr. Khamenei and his elite military unit, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, have moved to solidify their hold. As international sanctions against Iran have slackened, the ayatollah and his core allies have expanded the Iranian military and pursued new business opportunities for the companies and foundations that finance the regime’s key ideological cadres. Iran has continued to fund and arm its major regional allies, including the Assad regime in Syria, the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and Houthi rebels in Yemen—all of which are at war with America’s regional partners—and the regime has continued to test and develop ballistic missiles. The government has also stepped up arrests of opposition leaders and political activists,” he added.

What brought Khamenei and the mullahs to the bargaining table in the first place was the effect tough sanctions were having on the regime’s finances and their shaky hold over the Iranian people. Coupled with plunging oil prices, the squeeze on the mullahs was considerable.

The mandate Khamenei gave to Iranian negotiators was explicit: preserve the regime’s military and nuclear infrastructure, delink any changes to the regime’s human rights policies or domestic political agenda and ensure financial benefits flowed to refill their depleted coffers immediately.

The nuclear deal agreed to by the U.S. and the other P5+1 nation’s did all that and recouped nothing in terms of moving Iran closer towards a true democracy. As Solomon describes, if anything, the deal has helped control of the nation and its people firmly in the hands of the religious leadership and Revolutionary Guards.

The most overused rationale for the deal by the Obama administration and Iran lobby was that the agreement severely constrained the regime from a pathway to a nuclear weapon, but Khamenei himself espoused the greatest omission in the deal which is the exemption of Iran’s civilian nuclear program.

While the Iran lobby, especially the Ploughshares Fund and National Iranian American Council, have loudly boasted the deal brings Iran’s centrifuge capacity to 5,000 machines, Khamenei has openly called for a “civilian” centrifuge capacity of a whopping 100,000 machines.

“After a decade, the international community would go along with Mr. Khamenei’s vision of an Iran that could develop an industrial-scale, civilian nuclear program without checks on the number or capacity of the centrifuges spinning. The U.S. had won only a short-term pause in the expansion of the Iranian program, and the supreme leader had gained international approval for his longer-term plan,” Solomon writes.

“Indeed, in recent weeks, Iranian officials have talked of their preparations to build 10 new nuclear reactors with Russian help. This will require a steady supply of nuclear fuel from centrifuges that will be allowed to go online in a decade,” he adds.

That close cooperation with Russia has become a major foreign policy headache for U.S. as Russia has sold Iran billions in new sophisticated military hardware and intervened in the Syrian conflict at Iran’s urging and has now begun flying bombers from Iranian airfields.

Most importantly of all for the regime and its mullahs has been the lifting of sanctions to finally sell oil and gas products on the open market and the allowance for foreign investment back into Iran, especially its heavy industries such as agriculture, chemicals and manufacturing which had all but fallen apart.

That influx of investment, as well as the reportedly $400 million in cash the U.S. paid in exchange for the release of American hostages, has essentially saved the regime from collapse with its military commitments in three full-scale wars draining their treasury.

With the financial gain, the mullahs have moved aggressively to secure their prospects domestically with the rigging of parliamentary elections by the removal of almost two-thirds of candidates from the ballot, instituting a harsh crackdown on dissent including mass arrests of journalists, bloggers, dissidents and artists, mass execution of Sunni political prisoners, along with a steep increase in the arrest of dual national citizens that can be used for more ransom payments or hostage exchanges since it worked so well already.

Tied together with the advances made in driving anti-Assad rebels back in Syria, solidifying control over Iraq through Shiite militias now comprising the bulk of Iraqi military activity and now with the backing of the Houthis in Yemen, the Middle East can safely be called the most instable it’s been in the last four decades.

All of this poses a significant challenge for the next American president.

By Michael Tomlinson