Featured – Page 45

Looking Back at 2015: Iran Regime at Center of Terror

December 28, 2015 by admin

Looking Back at 2015: Iran Regime at Center of Terror

In many ways, 2015 could be labeled the “Year of the Terrorist” because terrorism was the dominant driving news story throughout the world. It began on January 7 in Paris with the Charlie Hebdo attacks and it ended in November with multiple attacks in Paris again.

In between were attacks around the world ranging from the bloody conflict in Syria to seemingly random shootings inspired by Islamic extremism in places such as Chattanooga, Tennessee and San Bernardino, California. Attacks included almost endless assaults in Nigeria with Boko Haram, Yemen with Houthis, and Iraq with ISIS and Shiite militias.

The rise in terrorism and level of brutal violence was punctuated by mass kidnappings, the sexual enslavement of countless women and girls and videotaped executions reflecting the desire of these terrorist groups to maximize the fear and anguish of the civilized world.

If the world thought 2014 was a year of terror with attacks in Sydney, Ottawa and Belgium, 2015 found terrorists willing to push the proverbial envelope in creating hysteria and shedding blood. ISIS reached new heights in barbarism shared with the world with a video showing the burning to death of Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kassasbeth, who was also a Muslim, in a cage and became enemy number one in the minds of a majority of people around the world.

But February of 2015, a whopping 68 percent of Americans cited ISIS as the number one security threat to America. That number would only grow throughout the year as ISIS executed 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians on the shores of Libya and extremist violence struck in Copenhagen.

But the blueprint for these grotesque public executions did not begin with ISIS, but rather has been a hallmark of the Iranian regime, which relies on public hangings – often with construction cranes substituting for gallows in town squares – and public amputations with power saws to enforce its medieval brand of justice.

Its religiously controlled courts dispense justice at the whims of the mullahs in Tehran and often with no witnesses, no open trials and no evidence. Tens of thousands ordinary Iranians have been sentenced in this manner and over 1,100 have been executed as catalogued by humanitarian and dissident groups such as Amnesty International.

Being a symbol and mass media template for ISIS and other terror groups is not the only contribution of the Iranian regime in 2015. It also provided ample funding of various terrorist and extremist groups including its long-time proxy in Hezbollah and its recent funding of Houthis rebels in Yemen and the virtual takeover of Iraq’s military and the organization of Shiite militias to fight there and in Syria.

It is not an understatement when various analysts, commentators and journalists have all noted how the Iranian regime has become terror central in 2015.

That became more evident in news media investigations in March of a shadowy unit in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Forces known as Unit 190 which has fueled many of the conflicts and civil wars raging across the Middle East and North Africa.

After a lengthy and in-depth investigation, Fox News traced the complex land, sea and air routes used by the Quds Force to move weapons to terror groups like Hezbollah, as well as the Houthis who have recently toppled the government in Yemen which only last year was being held up as an example by the Obama administration in the effective fight against terror.

At the heart of Unit 190 is Behnam Shahriyari, born in northwest Iran, who according to western intelligence sources runs a network of straw companies which skirt sanctions by packing rockets, night-vision equipment and grenades in powdered milk, cement and spare kits.

Fox News went on to show photos revealing a hanger at Tehran’s international airport which serves as warehouse and logistics center for the unit’s shipments of illegal weapons fueling conflicts that have killed thousands of innocent civilians globally.

That commitment to terrorism should be recognized by the world as not an ideological battle between Sunni and Shia as the Iranian regime would have us believe, but rather a straight battle for political power, land and military force between the Iranian regime and the rest of the Islamic world and on a much larger political stage, between what the mullahs in Tehran hope will be a new Shia sphere of influence versus the rest of the world.

Their reliance on proxy terror groups is a well-proven method of exerting influence around the world and not just this past year. One only has to look back at the use of Hezbollah to do the mullahs bidding including:

Bombings of the U.S. Embassy and barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983 killing 241 Americans and another bombing of the embassy annex in 1984;
Hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985;
Systematic kidnapping and hostage taking of Americans and Europeans from 1982 to 1992 in Lebanon;
Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 killing 19 American servicemen; and
Training and arming of insurgents during the Iraq War targeting thousands of innocent Iraqis and also American service personnel.

Now that Hezbollah has provided the bulk of fighters in Syria over the past two years, now aided by mercenary Afghans recruited by the Iranian regime and joined by Quds Force fighters, the regime has made saving Assad in Syria its number one foreign policy initiative next to securing a nuclear deal with the West.

But unlike most other nation states, Iran is not a cult of personality or even a political system. It is a religious theocracy dominated by a select few elite mullahs who work tirelessly to preserve their power and enrich themselves and their families through the skimming off the economy through black market sales of oil otherwise embargoed by international economic sanctions.

It is a regime terrified of the one thing that could bring down its carefully constructed house of cards: ordinary Iranians who have turned their backs on the Islamic state and work towards a democratic, multicultural and pluralistic society.

It is because of the potential for real change in Iran coming from ordinary Iranians that we can only hope 2016 will be much different than 2015.

By Michael Tomlinson

Christmas Hope for a World at Peace

December 25, 2015 by admin

Christmas Hope for a World at Peace

With the world celebrating Christmas and all other assorted holidays this week, it’s worth stepping aside from our normal hustle and bustle and recognize how for one very brief moment, a significant portion of humanity can be joined in peace and harmony.

Even in the worst and darkest times, there can be a glimmer of hope as there was in Christmas of 1914 during World War I when the so-called “Christmas Truce” took place in the trenches of the Western Front.

Even though trench warfare and modern weapons had rendered warfare more akin to industrial slaughter, that particular Christmas found British and German soldiers climbing out of their trenches to exchange seasonal greetings, souvenirs and food and even join in carol-singing. While that truce did not last, throughout history combatants have found small moments to remember the meaning of the holidays.

In today’s world though, we find ourselves living in a time where holiday shoppers have to be on the lookout for unattended bags, passengers on airlines endure enhanced screenings and parents dropping off their children at movie theaters to see the new “Star Wars” movie fret over mass shootings.

The recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino have set Americans on edge to the point that handguns have moved to the top of several wishlists for people wanting to protect themselves, while local law enforcement look for any signs of extremist behavior in social media and in their communities.

The fact that this heightened sense of security is quickly becoming the “new normal” is saddening and a reflection of what our lives may have to be like for the foreseeable future as bad actors around the world continue to focus their terrorist attacks and extremist ideologies at precisely what the holidays have come to represent: peace, joy, love, harmony, tolerance and community.

Nowhere has that been more emblematic than in the wholesale slaughter and expulsion of Christians throughout the Middle East, which reached a crescendo with the plight of the Yazidi sect in Syria and Iraq where 5,000 of them were massacred in 2014 and the sexual enslavement of thousands of women and girls by ISIS.

This was followed by the now infamous videos aired by ISIS killing Egyptian and Ethiopian Christians in mass beheadings and the near eradication of Christian towns, villages and communities in the wake of Islamic extremism’s rapid march.

According to the New York Times, the percentage of the Middle Eastern population that was Christian from 1910 to 2010 was once as high as 14 percent, but has now declined to roughly 4 percent, and all but gone in Iran. Even in Lebanon, once a Christian-dominated country with 78 percent of the population, Christians now account for only 34 percent as Hezbollah and other Islamic extremists groups have taken control over large portions of the country.

The future of Christianity in the region of its birth is now uncertain. ‘‘How much longer can we flee before we and other minorities become a story in a history book?’’ says Nuri Kino, a journalist and founder of the advocacy group Demand for Action.

According to a Pew study, Christians face religious persecution in more countries than any other religious group. ‘‘ISIL has put a spotlight on the issue,’’ says Anna Eshoo, a California Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, whose parents are from the region and who advocates on behalf of Eastern Christians. ‘‘Christianity is under an existential threat.’’

But the plight of Christians is only one part of a much larger puzzle where Islamic extremists and religious theocracies such as the Iranian regime systematically drive out any other religion not theirs in order to create a religiously pure society.

Of the 3.1 million displaced Iraqis, 85 percent are Sunnis. No one has suffered more at the hands of ISIS than fellow Muslims. Other religious minorities have been affected as well and in large numbers: Shia Turkmen; Shabak; Kaka’i; and the Mandeans, who follow John the Baptist.

‘‘Everyone has seen the forced conversions, crucifixions and beheadings,’’ David Saperstein, the United States ambassador at large for religious freedom, said. ‘‘To see these communities, primarily Christians, but also the Yazidis and others, persecuted in such large numbers is deeply alarming.’’

The fact that there are almost no Christians left in Iran speaks volumes to the hospitality they enjoy under the yoke of the mullahs in Tehran. There are currently 91 Christians in Iranian regime prisons, including American pastor Saeed Abedini who will not be celebrating Christmas with their families and loved ones.

Most are imprisoned under the false charges of threatening national security through their ministry of Christianity.

We can only hope that by next Christmas, these families experience the greatest present of them all, the return of their loved ones and the halt of persecuting Christians in Iran and elsewhere.

By Laura Carnahan

Looking Back at 2015: Iran Regime Chaos in Syria

December 24, 2015 by admin

Looking Back at 2015: Iran Regime Chaos in Syria

In December of 2010, the “Arab Spring” revolt swept across North Africa and toppled governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Yemen, while major protests broke out in various countries such as Iraq and Sudan. The wave of civil discontent took on a much different shape as it developed into what we now know as the Syrian Civil War.

The conflict in Syria started innocuously enough with an assault by a police officer on a man which quickly led to a flurry of street demonstrations in February of 2011, which would have withered away if not for the arrest of 15 children in Daraa in southern Syria who were painting anti-government graffiti on walls.

The children were abused while in the custody of security forces of the Assad regime which led to the first full-scale protests against the regime. This escalated rapidly into mass demonstrations in Damascus, Aleppo and other cities that today we know as battlefields and no-man’s lands.

Protests culminated into a mass demonstration of over 100,000 people in the central Square of Homs calling for Assad’s resignation and then things got ugly as Assad used the military crackdown, killing at least 136 people. The severity of reprisals grew as Assad security forces continued shooting protestors, some while in ambulances.

By the fall of 2011, the Syrian opposition organizes and begins to gather arms and fight back as a full-scale civil war erupts. In the spring of 2012, international pressure grows on the Assad regime. It is at this time things go from bad to worse in Syria as extremist Islamist groups filter out of Iraq and Iran and into Syria to join the fighting including fighters from Al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra.

As arms begin to flow from Europe and other Arab states opposed to Assad to rebel forces and the Syrian military suffers a series of setbacks, the Iranian regime makes the decision to commit itself fully to keeping Assad in power since both regimes share the same Shiite ties.

The mullahs in Tehran begin to direct the flow of cash and weapons to their long-time terrorist ally Hezbollah and funnel fighters into Syria from Lebanon in support of Assad.

By August of 2012, President Obama proclaims his now infamous “red line” in the sand position in regards to chemical weapons, which Assad crosses when he uses chemical weapons in September of 2013, killing 300 people outside of Damascus.

In an ironic twist of fate, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s offers a rationale for avoiding direct U.S. military intervention in the wake of the chemical attack when he offers the idea that elimination of all chemical stocks would be a condition to avoid going to war. Russia’s Vladimir Putin seizes on the idea and quickly brokers an agreement to take possession of Syria’s chemical weapons by June of 2014.

All of which takes place while the Iran regime deepens its involvement by scaling up and recruiting Afghan mercenaries living in Iran and mobilizing Shiite militias in Iraq to fight in Syria in an effort to stem a rapidly growing number of military defeats by Assad.

In the meantime, the largest displacement of refugees since World War II takes place as half of Syria’s population is dead or leaves with nearly four million of them trying to get into Europe through Turkey, Greece and the Balkans.

At the same time, ISIS takes control of several key cities in Syria and Iraq and takes advantage of the power vacuum created in Iraq’s government when the Iran regime pushes then Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government to expel Sunni coalition partners who then flee directly into the arms of ISIS in Iraq.

Within two years, Iran’s meddling has prolonged the carnage in Syria, allowed ISIS to double in size almost overnight and reduced Iraq into little more than a fiefdom for ISIS in the north and Iran in the south.

Even as the Iranian regime’s forces suffered setbacks, including the deaths of several top military commanders, it worked hard at the negotiating table to secure a nuclear agreement allowing it to tap into $150 billion in cash and new supply lines in military hardware from Russia to replace its losses.

More importantly, the deal allowed top mullah Ali Khamenei to make a direct appeal to Russia to intervene on Iran’s behalf and save Assad from doom. Iran used the argument that saving Assad would save Russia’s only naval base in the Mediterranean, stationed in Syria.

By the time Russia begins bombing in Syria last September, ISIS-led attacks in Paris and the ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, push the U.S. to focus exclusively on attacking ISIS and raise the very real possibility of keeping Assad in power in order to defeat ISIS.

The past five years have cost the world four million refugees and 150,000 killed and put the Iranian regime back in a position to claim a win after being so close to defeat in Syria so many times.

One only has to ask questions such as “What if Obama acted on his red line?” or “What if the U.S. held tougher in nuclear talks in Iran?” could the world be seeing a much different situation today?

There is no doubt however that the Iranian regime’s intervention in Syria and its mobilization of forces in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan to fight there was the single biggest reason why this civil war did not end in 2011 the war similar governments toppled in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

If any entity deserves the blood on their hands for the carnage, bloodshed and suffering in Syria besides Assad, it is certainly the mullahs in Tehran.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Hack on U.S. Power Grid Underscores Cyberwar

December 22, 2015 by admin

Iran Regime Hack on U.S. Power Grid Underscores Cyberwar

One of the most consistent points offered by the Iran lobby in support of the nuclear agreement with the Iranian regime and the rest of the world was that it would usher in a new era of moderation and stability and open the pathway to a rapprochement. Regime supporters such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council contended that if the U.S. would see fit to delink noxious and troublesome issues such as human rights abuses, support for terrorism and cyberwarfare that things would improve and everyone would join hands in singing a chorus of “We Are the World.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, new disclosures from former and current U.S. officials clearly show the Iranian regime has been behind some of the most disturbing and threatening cyberattacks against the U.S. in recent memory.

According to the Wall Street Journal, Iranian hackers infiltrated the control system of a small dam less than 20 miles from New York City two years ago. The breach came amid attacks by hackers linked to Iran’s government against the websites of U.S. banks.

“These systems control the flow in pipelines, the movements of drawbridges and water releases from dams. A hacker could theoretically cause an explosion, a flood or a traffic jam,” said the Wall Street Journal. “The incident at the New York dam was a wake-up call for U.S. officials, demonstrating that Iran had greater digital-warfare capability than believed and could inflict real-world damage, according to people familiar with the matter.”

U.S. intelligence agencies noticed the intrusion as they monitored computers they believed were linked to Iranian hackers targeting American firms, according to people familiar with the matter. U.S. officials had linked these hackers to repeated disruptions at consumer-banking websites, including those of Capital One Financial Corp., PNC Financial Services Group and SunTrust Banks Inc., the Journal reported at the time.

The escalation in cyberattacks by Iranian-based hackers represents a new phase in aggressive hostilities punctuated by increases in actual armed conflict with the launching of a new offensive in Syria in support of the Assad regime by the mullahs in Tehran.

While the Obama administration has long held to the idea that Assad needed to go in order to bring about an eventual political solution in Syria, the military support coming from Russia has potentially altered the political calculus of the administration to finding a way to keep Assad in power as a bulwark against the perceived greater threat of ISIS.

“The calculation that the White House has made is that working with Assad is less bad than the alternative of going to war with Russia over Assad, or of sending in a large number of American troops to fight the Islamic State on the ground,” says Joshua Landis, who heads the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, to the Washington Times.

The administration’s approach is facing biting criticism from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, several of whom argue that the White House has no clear strategy for defeating the terrorist group also known as ISIS and ISIL and is badly following Russia’s lead on Syria as a whole.

The issue also has become a divisive one on the presidential campaign trail. President Obama’s former top diplomat, Hillary Clinton, is aligned with Republican contenders Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie in asserting that Assad’s ouster should be a top U.S. priority in any serious strategy to defeat the Islamic State.

Tied to that is the prickly question of what to do about the Iranian regime’s total support of Assad in terms of foreign fighters, cash and weapons. It is a question that is increasingly being answered by critics as requiring a strong response from the U.S. and allied countries to back Iran off from supporting Assad and allowing a reduction in fighting for a political solution to take shape.

According to the Michael Singh writing in then Wall Street Journal, Sen. Bob Corker has noted, since the agreement was signed in July, the regime has sentenced Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian–who has been in jail for more than a year–and imprisoned another Iranian-American. It has defied United Nations sanctions by exporting arms to Yemen and Syria; by dispatching Qasem Soleimani, chief of the regime’s Quds Force, and other sanctioned officials to Russia, Iraq, and elsewhere; and by conducting two ballistic missile launches. Iranian hackers have reportedly engaged in cyberattacks on the State Department. Tehran also refused to fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency investigation into its nuclear weapons research.

The Washington Post editorial board took an even tougher stance, writing in Sunday’s edition:

“Iran is following through on the nuclear deal it struck with a U.S.-led coalition in an utterly predictable way: It is racing to fulfill those parts of the accord that will allow it to collect $100 billion in frozen funds and end sanctions on its oil exports and banking system, while expanding its belligerent and illegal activities in other areas — and daring the West to respond.

“Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s response to these provocations has also been familiar. It is doing its best to downplay them — and thereby encouraging Tehran to press for still-greater advantage.”

“By flouting the U.N. resolutions, Iran is clearly testing the will of the United States and its allies to enforce the overall regime limiting its nuclear ambitions. If there is no serious response, it will press the boundaries in other areas — such as the inspection regime. It will take maximum advantage of Mr. Obama’s fear of undoing a legacy achievement, unless and until its bluff is called. That’s why the administration would be wise to take firm action now in response to the missile tests rather than trying to sweep them under the carpet,” warned the Washington Post.

That effort to appease the mullahs at all costs has manifested itself in the manner the Obama administration is literally prostrating itself before the mullahs over the issue of the visa waiver program changes contained in the recently passed omnibus funding bill.

As Eli Lake and Josh Rogin point out in Bloomberg View:

“In the latest example of the U.S. effort to reassure Iran, the State Department is scrambling to confirm to Iran that it won’t enforce new rules that would increase screening of Europeans who have visited Iran and plan to come to America,” they write.

“House staffers who spoke with us say Iran was included for good reason, because it remains on the U.S. list of state of sponsors of terrorism for its open support for Hezbollah and Hamas. The White House did not object until the Iranian government told the administration last week that the bill would violate the nuclear agreement, according to correspondence on these negotiations shared with us,” Lake and Rogin added.

The willingness for the U.S. to not press the Iran regime on these and a wide range of issues, including the most recent cyberattacks, only reinforces the same bad behavior by the mullahs.

But on a more personal level, the plight of individual families was highlighted by an editorial written by Daniel Levinson, son of retired FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007 and has not been produced by regime despite repeated demands.

“Any foreign national considering a trip to Iranian-controlled territory risks arbitrary detention, potentially without access to any basic human rights or their loved ones for years to come. This is what happened to my father,” Levinson writes in the Washington Post. “We were devastated that he was not released in the aftermath of the accord. Now we fear that the United States has squandered its best opportunity for leverage in ensuring my father’s safe return home.”

For the Levinsons and countless other families impacted by the barbaric cruelty of the Iranian regime, the price of not standing up to the mullahs only goes up with each new act of appeasement.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Threats about Visa Waiver Program Hide a Dirty Secret

December 21, 2015 by admin

Iran Regime Threats about Visa Waiver Program Hide a Dirty Secret

Within the omnibus $1.1 trillion spending bill is a provision being hotly debated concerning modifications to the Visa Waiver Program which allows citizens from 38 designated countries the ability to travel freely to the U.S. without a visa and vice versa for Americans traveling to those countries. The provision requires citizens from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria to obtain a visa before being able to visit the U.S.

The change has brought substantial and intense political debate and its eventual outcome will no doubt be determined by diplomacy and even legal action, but what cannot be denied is how the Iranian regime is using the opportunity to leverage itself into another threatening posture over the nuclear deal it agreed to earlier this year.

The mullahs see an opportunity to maximize the controversy in two ways. First, they have proclaimed that the changes to the waiver program might amount to the levying of a new sanction on the regime and thus void the nuclear agreement; freeing the regime to resume its nuclear program.

This position was articulated by regime foreign minister Javad Zarif who claimed in an interview in New York that the change amounted to a new sanction; a position echoed by deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi.

Reneging on the nuclear agreement at this point would allow the regime to reap all of the benefits it has received since July when the agreement was reached and move forward with a restarted nuclear program without much fear of a new round of sanctions being imposed by a United Nations Security Council clearly reluctant to revisit the issue after burying the most recent incomplete assessment of the regime’s past nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The regime is clearly eager to cash in their rewards including an estimated $150 billion in frozen assets, a return to the international financial system, access to global oil markets and freedom to go on a buying binge of new military hardware from Russia.

But the second and more interesting position taken by the regime is the long-held contention by the regime that anyone born in Iran can never shed their citizenship, even if they moved to another country as a child and became a citizen in their new homeland.

It is this twisted logic the mullahs have followed in being able to snatch up Iranian-Americans and hold them and sentence them in sham trials such as in the case of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

By contending that Iranians are never allowed to leave their citizenship, the regime retains the ability to inflict its form of brutal justice on anyone it deems fit for any inconsequential act. In Rezaian’s case, the mere act of reporting on Iranian news events qualified him as being a spy. It is the same perverse logic applied to fellow American hostages, Amir Hekmati and Saeed Abedini.

The fact that the regime is using the controversy over the visa waiver program to advance its political goals is telling, just as the Iran lobby ramps up the decibel level in denouncing the program changes as a means of shifting global attention away from the reverses it is suffering in Syria and in its other provocative actions.

Article in the New York Post, refers to the regime practice of “khalibandi” in using charade as a means of statecraft and deception. It applies the term in looking at the nuclear deal and the regime’s decision to test fire new ballistic missiles violating UN sanctions.

“These tests make sense only if Tehran continues to contemplate a military nuclear dimension to its program. The two new missiles are designed to carry warheads of between 75 to 100 kilograms. It makes no sense to deploy a ballistic missile over a distance of 1,800 to 2,000 kilometers — that is to say, capable of reaching all capitals in the Middle East and parts of Europe — simply to carry a payload of TNT,” the article writes.

All of which is being made possible under the false impressions the Iranian regime and its lobby have worked diligently to project while being duplicitous behind the scenes.

While we won’t debate the merits and shortfalls of the visa waiver program, we cannot argue with the impact it is having in giving the regime a pathway out of having to explain some of the more nefarious aspects of its policies, especially as it relates to its pitiful human rights record.

For example, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a leading dissident group, announced details of the execution of three political prisoners by the regime by hanging. The news garnered almost no notice from global news organizations and marks another entry in the bloody ledger of the regime which has already claimed over 1,100 victims – most being political prisoners.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Promises More Missiles in Spite of UN Ban

December 17, 2015 by admin

Iran Regime Promises More Missiles in Spite of UN Ban

Sounding as defiant as ever, the Iranian regime announced it would not accept any restrictions over its ballistic missile program after the United Nations Security Council’s Panel of Experts concluded in a confidential report that last October’s test firings of a new ballistic missile violated UN restrictions banning development of nuclear-capable missiles by the Islamic state.

“We tested Emad to show the world that the Islamic Republic will only act based on its national interests and no country or power can impose its will on us,” Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan was quoted as saying by the state news agency, IRNA.

Ballistic missile tests by Iran are banned under Security Council resolution 1929, which dates from 2010 and remains valid until the July nuclear deal between Iran and world powers goes into effect, according to Reuters which first broke the news about the confidential UN report.

Once the deal takes effect, Iran will still be “called upon” according to Reuters not to undertake any ballistic missile work designed to deliver nuclear weapons for a period of up to eight years, according to a Security Council resolution adopted in July right after the nuclear deal.

The regime contends that the resolution would only ban missiles “designed” to carry a nuclear warhead, not “capable of”, so it would not affect its military program as Tehran does not pursues nuclear weapons. The distinction is akin to saying a gun that is not designed to kill humans expressly, but is capable of killing humans is somehow different.

It is that kind of linguistic gymnastics which has characterized the regime’s approach to nuclear negotiations and its support of terror groups and the Assad regime in Syria. Regime leaders such as top mullah Ali Khamenei have consistently issued statements inconsistent with public statements made by other regime officials such as Hassan Rouhani and foreign minister Javad Zarif. The contradictions coming out from the regime could give anyone fits trying to detangle the mess.

Therein lay the strategy of the mullahs in that they seek to create this confusion in order to provide the wiggle room necessary to justify any action they see fit. By declaring its missiles not expressly designed for nuclear weapons, they can ignore international bans. By declaring the lifting of any sanction under the nuclear deal tardy or slow, the regime could declare the agreement null and void at any time and build a nuclear weapon at will.

It is the false promises made during the nuclear talks that are now coming to haunt the rest of the world as they see the Iranian regime do whatever it pleases to fit the narrative it chooses to articulate.

Rouhani himself couldn’t stop from making a verbal slam dunk when he went on state television calling the vote by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors to close out its inquiry into the regime’s past military practices in its nuclear program in spite of highly critical findings by inspectors that the regime continued to develop nuclear weapons well into 2009 and still had not fully answered outstanding questions.

The Tehran regime has announced its intentions to bulk up on Russian military hardware in a buying binge that started with completion of the sale of S-300 advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.

On the shopping list by the regime’s military are advanced, fifth-generation Russian T-90 battle tank, along with a range of other major defense items, according to Brig. Gen. Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, the regime’s top ground commander, during a defense conference in the Khorasan region of northern Iran.

With the regime due to receive an estimated $150 billion in frozen assets from the lifting of economic sanctions from the nuclear deal, it is clear now the intention of the regime is to spend heavily on military hardware, not in jumpstarting a moribund economy that is punishing Iran’s citizens contrary to the claims made by Iran lobby members such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council.

Pourdastan also said during the conference that the military needs helicopters, heavy weaponry and advanced combat equipment. While the new requests undermine Iran’s own defense industry, the ground forces commander said that the country’s military industrial complex will continue to develop, according to the International Business Times.

“The Iranian defense industry has strong potential. Nevertheless, we will constantly take care of modernizing it,” he said.

The new moves on the military front have many in Washington calling for new and increased sanctions on the Iranian regime to address all of the issues not addressed by the original nuclear agreement.

Jennifer Rubin writes in the Washington Post suggesting that “new pressure needs to be applied to Iran.”

She also quotes from Eliot A. Cohen, Ray Takeyh and Eric Edelman in a piece in Foreign Policy, suggesting:

“In addition to revising the nuclear agreement, the United States should punish Iran for its regional aggression, sponsorship of terrorism, or human rights abuses. To do so, it should segregate Iran from the global economy by restoring as much of the sanctions architecture as possible. . . . And it should launch a campaign of political warfare to intensify the Iranian public’s disenchantment with the regime and deepen dissension within the ruling circle.”

It would be wise for the world to recognize another race has begun on trying to restrain a newly militant Iranian regime.

By Michael Tomlinson

As IAEA Closes Nuclear Probe UN Finds Iran Regime Cheated

December 16, 2015 by admin

As IAEA Closes Nuclear Probe UN Finds Iran Regime Cheated

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s board of governors, the United Nations nuclear watchdog, met and voted to close out its investigation in the past military dimensions of the Iranian regime’s nuclear program even though the IAEA’s own report faulted the regime for secretly hiding the existence of its program until 2009 and still refused to come clean on a wide range of outstanding issues.

The irony of giving the regime essentially a get out of jail free card was compounded when it was revealed that a UN panel of experts issued a confidential report stating that the Iranian regime violated a Security Council resolution on October 10 when it test fired a new medium-range ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead.

That is what is called a gigantic irony.

The fact that the regime launched a second missile on November 21 only reinforced the mullahs blatant disregard for the UN sanction and demonstrated the contempt they hold for obeying international laws.

Although the U.S. requested the UN Security Council to take action in the wake of the violations (which in of itself is bitterly ironic considering the U.S. has been hell-bent on lifting all sanctions against the regime), the Security Council took no action with most diplomats saying privately punitive measures were unlikely to be taken since Russia and China are now engaged in deep military and trade talks with the regime.

The report on the missile launch, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said the ballistic missile, dubbed Emad, was an improved version of Iran’s previous missiles, with a range of up to 1,300 kilometers (800 miles), a payload of up to 1,400 kilograms (1.5 tons), and better maneuvering capability when descending on a target.

“Iran is continuing to focus on further improvement of the performance of its existing ballistic missile system with a particular focus on accuracy,” said the report.

All of which begs the question, if the regime has foresworn nuclear weapons, why does it need to develop nuclear-capable missiles?

The reaction from members of Congress was swift and bipartisan as Sen. Chris Coons pushed the Obama administration to hold the regime accountable for violating UN sanctions.

“While these ballistic missile tests are outside of the parameters of the [joint comprehensive plan of action], our response has to be strategic and we have to make sure Iran knows that it can’t continue to simply blatantly disregard the international community and the U.N. Security Council,” the Democratic senator said.

Coons, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, added that if the United Nations Security Council doesn’t taken action against Iran over the tests, which he said violated U.N. resolutions, that the administration should be ready to take a “series of unilateral American actions including direct sanctions.”

The fact that a new Gallup poll released Monday showed that terrorism and national security fears has risen to become the number one concern of Americans in the wake of the Paris and San Bernardino attacks and the shutdown of public schools in Los Angeles have sent lawmakers a crystal clear message about new priorities.

This follows polls by Pew Research Center and the Wall Street Journal/NBC News all of which show Americans citing security and terrorism as their top concerns and even persuaded the White House to say if additional sanctions needed to be levied on the Iranian regime, President Obama would not stand in the way.

The Iranian regime remains a concern because it continues to act in provocative ways that do little to diminish Americans’ concerns about the harsh nature of the mullahs’ rule as evidenced by reports that the regime has impounded more than tens of thousands of cars from women who were cited for violating dress codes requiring women to wear hijabs.

Police patrols have kept up campaigns to enforce the law and authorities also use a network of “trustees” who inform on violations according to The National.

In addition, over the past eight months, 609 men and 114 women have been arrested for cybercrimes because of alleged “economic, moral and social” transgressions, official figures show as the regime steps up enforcement of vague morality codes covering use of the internet and banning social media for most Iranians.

All of these actions have gone unmentioned by the Iran lobby even as global media have focused more closely on the recent actions of the regime. Faithful regime supporters such as the National Iranian American Council have been mute in the media and on social media in discussing any of these crackdowns on Iranians.

We can only hope the world’s media continue to hold the regime accountable as we move into the new year.

By Michael Tomlinson

When Past Conduct Means Nothing for Future Actions

December 15, 2015 by admin

When Past Conduct Means Nothing for Future Actions

In all facets of our daily lives, we always take into consideration past conduct. If the plumber you hired did a lousy job fixing a leak, you aren’t going to hire them again. If the chef at a restaurant leaves a fly in your soup, you’re liable to walk out without paying and post a nasty review on Yelp.

But only in the case of the Iranian regime does this rule somehow not apply as evidenced by the turmoil over the recently completed nuclear agreement.

As Judith Miller and Charles Duelfer point out in an editorial for Fox News, “is Iran’s past – its habit of cheating on its international nuclear agreements — prologue? Should the Obama Administration accept Iran’s lies about its earlier efforts to design and develop a bomb in exchange for insisting on its strict compliance with the new deal it has made limiting the size, scale and nature of its nuclear program?”

The question is an important one as the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors meets today to vote on a final report that largely overlooks the Iranian regime’s past history of lying and deceit over its nuclear program and instead rubber stamp approval of closing the file on the regime’s case even though the mullahs have not complied with the original scope of questions the IAEA had about its program.

As Miller and Duelfer explain, the IAEA’s own report damns the mullahs with faint praise:

The IAEA report states that Iran provided only partial or incorrect answers to some questions about efforts to design and test components of a nuclear weapon design (as distinct from the process of enriching the component nuclear material). Specifically, it concludes, Iran’s cover up has “seriously undermined the agency’s ability to conduct effective verification” at Parchin, a military site where Iran is thought to have tested implosion devices in a now-missing chamber. Based partly on a visit there which did not conform to usual Agency inspection procedures, satellite imagery and sampling at the site conducted by Iran but supervised remotely by the IAEA, inspectors dispute Iran’s assertions that only chemical weapons were stored there. The evidence to date, the report declares, “does not support Iran’s statements.”

“Overlooking Iranian stonewalling about aspects of its earlier work,” Miller and Duelfergo on to write. “Only makes it harder to devise an effective monitoring scheme for Iran’s current nuclear program, but also establishes a terrible precedent for arms control accords with other states. Because Washington and its allies are permitting Iran to begin implementing the new deal and get sanctions lifted with a lie, Iran’s past cheating is destined to be prologue.”

The fact that – moving forward – the agreement with the regime is built on a lie only means the mullahs have been given the green light to continue the same behavior in the future. It is a fact already made apparent with Tehran’s recent test firings of two ballistic missiles that violated United Nations sanctions prohibiting the development of nuclear-capable missiles.

Add to that the rest of the world basically did nothing about it except use harsh language.

It is a crucial point that Michael Singh, managing director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Simond de Galbert, a French diplomat and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, elaborate on in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

“Continuing to insist on a complete investigation into Iran’s nuclear weapons activities is the first test of international determination to strictly implement the nuclear deal. Failing this test would signal to Tehran that the West will allow it to dictate the terms under which the agreement is implemented in the coming years. It would also undermine the credibility of international non-proliferation mechanisms, encouraging other would-be nuclear powers that they can escape scrutiny. If these mechanisms are to succeed in deterring Iran and others in the future, their integrity must be zealously guarded,” they write.

James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, was even more blunt in a piece in the Daily Signal.

“In short, Tehran is actively undermining longstanding U.S. nonproliferation goals on two fronts. Yet the Obama administration has done little to push back for fear of jeopardizing its risky nuclear agreement, which it believes will enhance its foreign policy legacy,” Phillips writes. “But the administration’s complacent acquiescence to Tehran’s disturbing actions is likely to result in a dangerous and unwanted legacy: an arsenal of nuclear-tipped missiles in the hands of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”

Even members of President Obama’s own party are expressing alarm at the free pass being given the Iranian regime.

“I understand that most of Congress and the administration are very distracted by the global refugee crisis, by the terrorist attacks in Paris, by our conflicts with ISIS,” said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) “The reality is with this deal, I’m on the administration’s side, but they need to be doing more…. We have to have a menu of responses that we and our allies have agreed on and that we will take. Or the Iranians will pocket it and keep moving.”

“We know even from the IAEA reports that they were engaged in a program — they weren’t truthful about that,” said Rep. Jan Schakowsky adding that “we need to be on top of what Iran is doing and do everything we can to have full compliance”

It is against this potential future where the Iranian regime is not held accountable that holds the greatest threat to global security and peace. It is a future that is zealously protected by the Iran lobby which has ignored the Paris attacks, the San Bernardino murders and the rise of extremist Islam fueled by the mullahs in Tehran who preach far and wide their radical beliefs.

It is also why even as San Bernardino attack victim Bennetta Bet-Badal, an Iranian who fled at age 18 during the Islamic revolution, was laid to rest at her funeral in California, the Iran lobby such as the National Iranian American Council could not even issue a simple tweet commemorating her death or the acknowledge the suffering of her family.

So while TritaParsi or Reza Marashi cannot send their condolences, we do on behalf of everyone around the world who yearns for peace and stands up to the threat of Islamic extremism.

To the family of Bet-Badal, we send our sincerest condolences and hope you will see a day when the world is free of mullahs issuing fatwas and dispensing brutality in the name of a faith of peace and love.

By Michael Tomlinson

Elections in U.S. and Iran Pose Question of What Next?

December 14, 2015 by admin

Elections in U.S. and Iran Pose Question of What Next?

With the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S. and regional “elections” in Iran, the question of who will lead both countries remains a hot topic of discussion. From the perspective of looking at the actions of the Iranian regime since a nuclear deal was concluded by the Obama administration last July, it seems readily apparent that the mullahs in Tehran are eager to get on with the busy of antagonizing the U.S. and spreading their form of extremist Islamic beliefs around the world as quickly as possible.

The mullahs wasted little time in taking provocative acts that the Iran lobby has been hard pressed to explain or cover for. This includes the secret trial and sentencing of Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and continued holding of several Iranian-American hostages, as well as the recent arrest of another who had previously been linked to creating Iran lobby group, the National Iranian American Council.

The mullahs also went all in with a new offensive in Syria and buying spree with the Russians for military hardware to replenish badly outdated stocks and the marshalling of new fighters, Afghan mercenaries and Hezbollah proxies into that war zone.

The mullahs even launched not one, but two banned ballistic missiles in defiance of United Nations Security Council restrictions preventing the development of missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.

Besides the direct actions the regime has taken, social media has been flooded by messages from various regime officials, most notably top mullah Ali Khamenei’s social feeds, denouncing the U.S. and accusing the Western nations of sedition, using “sexual attractions” to distract the regime and even creating ISIS. If it wasn’t for the fact Khamenei is the commander-in-chief of one of the largest militaries in the Middle East, we might be tempted to chalk his rants off to the ravings of a senile old man battling dementia.

Unfortunately, we’re stuck with Khamenei for a little while longer, but his recent prostate cancer surgery and upcoming elections in the Assembly of Experts has led to more open speculation of who will succeed the aging tyrant.

The assembly of 82 elected clerics is charged with electing, supervising and even disqualifying the religious leader for the regime and represents a high stakes game of poker amongst the mullahs as they jockey for power.

Reuters pointed out that over past decade, conservatives have gained more seats both in the assembly and parliament, because all candidates are vetted by the Guardian Council, who’s most influential members are chosen directly and indirectly by the Khamenei to interpret the constitution.

Khamenei is commander-in-chief of the armed forces and appoints the heads of the judiciary. Key ministers are selected with his agreement and he has the ultimate say on Iran’s foreign policy and nuclear program. By comparison, the president has little power, which largely explains why Hassan Rouhani is generally regarded as a figurehead puppet for Khamenei.

All of which raises the question of whether or not real regime change is possible within Iran. Long-time Iranian dissident leaders such as Mrs. Maryam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran have maintained that global support of dissidents within Iran was a pathway to creating a new, more moderate, secular Iran, but if the rest of the world falls into the trap of trying to discern “moderate” versus “hardline” elements within the Iranian regime, real change will not be possible since the mullahs have worked hard to create the fiction that there are clear divisions within the government.

The fact of the matter is that as long as Iran’s foundation for government rests on a religious mandate granting mullahs absolute power over civil, political, economic, judicial and military matters, real change and reform is not possible.

You can already see this fictionalized treatment of Iran’s politics already at play with Gareth Smyth’s piece in the Guardian in which he depicts “broad support for President Hassan Rouhani’s government is not just over its foreign policy but also its desire to revive the economy and private sector. From this follows all the speculation in Tehran that principle-ists like Ali Larijani, the parliamentary speaker, and Ali Akbar Nategh-Nouri, a seasoned strategist, will help organise an electoral list for parliament broadly backing the president.”

Smyth’s observations which are the stereotype justifications for the appeasers of the mullah’s regime are understandable since he focuses only on those regime elements available to his eyes which are not so much factions within the regime government as much as muted shades of the same color. A policy that is actually very much favored by the Iranian regime, as it promotes more collaboration with the mullahs and prolongs its rule. Trying to persuade the concept that any slate of candidates would be allowed on the ballot without the express approval of Khamenei himself is slightly silly since Khamenei is as intent on preserving the extremist rule as his predecessor Ruhollah Khomeini was.

The tea-leaf reading of potential regime candidates such as Mohammad TaqiMesbah-Yazdi and Hassan Khomeini is fairly useless given the central control the mullahs will still exert through the selection process of placing names on the ballot.

What is not in dispute is that regime has taken a newly aggressive posture that the incoming U.S. president, whoever that may be, will have to deal with. It will be an Iran ruled by another mullah and enriched by billions in fresh cash, open trade pouring investment dollars in and a military upgraded with sophisticated new hardware.

He or she will also be faced with an Iranian regime that may very well be cheating on the nuclear deal it agreed to in July, which raises the next logical question: What will the new president do in the face of Iranian regime’s aggression?

By Michael Tomlinson

International Human Rights Day Everywhere Except Iran

December 10, 2015 by admin

International Human Rights Day Everywhere Except Iran

December 10^th marks International Human Rights Day which will be celebrated by the United Nations and nations around the world as recognition of fundamental importance of human rights in free and open societies. The day will be observed with speeches, conferences, panel discussions, protests and solemn observances.

This year’s Human Rights Day will be devoted to a year-long campaign for the 50^th anniversary of the two landmark International Covenants on Human Rights: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 16 December 1966.

According to the UN Human Rights Office, the year-long campaign revolves around the theme of rights and freedoms — freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear — which underpin the International Bill of Human Rights are as relevant today as they were when the Covenants were adopted 50 years ago.

But respect for human rights have been found conspicuously lacking in certain parts of the world; most notably within the Iranian regime where things have gotten so grim the UN High Commissioner appointed Ahmed Shaheed as the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Iran to monitor the dismal state of affairs in the Islamic state.

Over the past year, 2015 has been a dark stain on human rights progress in Iran as chronicled in the steady stream of press releases put out by the UN about abuses there:

January 2015: UN child rights body to investigate 12 countries including Iran for violations involving children;
February 2015: UN experts urge Iran regime to halt immediately the execution of a juvenile sentenced by regime courts;
March 2015: Human Rights Council adopts the Universal Periodic Review of Iran chronicling the litany of human rights lapses in the regime. The Council also discusses the annual report on human rights in Iran and extends mandates for further review of Iran;
May 2015: UN rights experts condemn recent upsurge in executions by the Iran regime, many of them unreported;
June 2015: UN experts warn that silencing journalists and activists weakens protections for human rights in Iran;
August 2015: UN experts call for an immediate moratorium on applying the death penalty after regime hands downs death sentences to a prisoner of conscience and alternative health practitioner;
October 2015: UN rights experts express outrage at the execution of two juvenile offenders; and
November 2015: UN experts call on Iran regime to stop intimidating journalists ahead of parliamentary elections.

The UN announcements only cover a tip of the proverbial iceberg as Iranian dissident groups and international human rights groups such as Amnesty International have chronicled an ever growing list of human rights abuses by the Iran regime.

One observance was held in Paris by the Union of Iranian Associations in Europe and included former U.S. Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran who said at the gathering:

“We honor the International Human Rights Day by paying respect to all brave men and courageous women in Iran and around the world who sacrificed their lives or have risen up to bring human rights and democratic freedoms to oppressed nations,” she said.

“Iran’s clerical regime has been condemned 62 times so far by various United Nations agencies for its gross violation of human rights in Iran. In addition, the regime and Khamenei himself, are directly responsible for the massacre of 300,000 Syrians in the past four years and displacement of more than half of the population; they are also directly responsible for the genocide of Sunnis in Iraq by the Quds Force militias,” she added.

The most recent UN condemnation came after 36 human rights organizations, led by Human Rights Watch, called on the regime to improve its human rights situation and for the international community to work together to promote human rights within Iran.

To say the situation is grim in Iran is an understatement since the regime’s revolutionary courts mete out punishment often in closed, secret sessions and impose often medieval punishments proscribed by religious doctrine which include public hangings and amputations of limbs, while also handing out no punishment to those that engage in acid attacks on women or abuse of children.

In 2014 alone, Shaheed noted a reported 753 executions, the highest rate in over a decade. This year rights groups have tallied over 1,000 executions in a staggering display of merciless regime justice.

The butcher’s bill doesn’t even include the bloodshed caused by the regime’s intervention and support of proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen that have caused the largest refugee crisis since World War II and claimed hundreds of thousands of lives of men, women and children.

But it is in the private agony suffered by individual prisoners in Iran’s notorious prisons where the true evil of the mullahs is laid bare to world scrutiny. One such story comes from Rahim Hamid who as a then 22-year old student in 2008 was taken by regime police and endured torture and abuse as he detailed in an interview with the Telegraph newspaper.

“Day and night I could hear the screaming and weeping of fellow prisoners – men, women and children – who were incarcerated and tortured there. It was the norm for guards to inflict casual cruelty, such as forbidding prisoners access to a toilet so that they were forced to urinate in the cell, which stank to a nausea-inducing extent in the heat,” Hamid said.

“Among other forms of physical torture, I was tied to a metal bed frame by the wrists and ankles and savagely whipped. If I resisted or cursed the guards, they would prolong and intensify the torture. They raped me violently and repeatedly with the large whip handle; so brutally that the rape did permanent injury to my rectum, for which I still need medical treatment,” he added.

Hamid’s tale is only one of many that are repeated every day within Iran, immune to the entreaties and condemnations of the international community by mullahs who care nothing except the maintaining of their absolute status as masters over the Iranian people.

And where does the Iran lobby stand on all this? Does it issue condemnations? Does it commemorate the suffering of Iranians? Does it demand the release of American hostages such as Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini or former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati?

No. The Iran lobby’s silence is deafening.

As the world observes Human Rights Day, Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council, the leading Iran lobby organization, published and editorial in Huffington Post condemning presidential candidate Donald Trump.

That is the Iran lobby’s contribution to observing human rights.

By Michael Tomlinson