Iran Lobby

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

Who is Really in Charge of the Iran Regime?

by

Who is Really in Charge of the Iran Regime?

Who is Really in Charge of the Iran Regime?

The Iranian regime has been busy snatching up citizens of other countries without charge, trial or contact with the outside world. They have been U.S., British, French and Canadian citizens; dual national Iranians. They have been professors, students and aid workers.

None were terrorists, criminals or even political. They all had the misfortune of being in Iran and possessing a passport of a foreign country. It seems that alone was sufficient for the Revolutionary Guards to pick them up, put them in prison and walk away.

The New York Post editorial board blasted the practice and blamed earlier acts of appeasement for sowing the seeds for this behavior.

“Iran is re-stocking its larder of American and other Western hostages, clearly convinced the Obama administration won’t dare make it an issue. Tehran this week arrested yet another US citizen and plans to place him on trial — though on what charges, it won’t say,” the Post said.

“The State Department says it’s ‘looking into’ the latest arrest, which is pretty much all it can do. Iran doesn’t recognize dual citizenship, so won’t even allow consular visits to those being held.

“Some analysts suggest the Revolutionary Guard is insisting on the arrests in order to deter Western businessmen from visiting Iran with investment cash. Funny: Getting such investment was supposedly Tehran’s major motive for accepting the deal’s supposedly tough restrictions on its nuclear-weapons program in the first place,” it added.

The arrests do raise an interesting question: Who is calling the shots in the Iranian regime?

The Iran lobby has long maintained that a rift and power struggle is going on within the regime between the forces of moderates versus hardliners. Loyalists such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council have used that talking point incessantly in pushing for approval of the nuclear deal with Iran last year.

They promised a nuclear deal would usher in a period of moderation and empower these so-called moderates in upcoming elections.

The opposite has happened as the region has literally gone up in flames with wars now raging from Syria to Yemen and terrorist attacks striking the U.S. and Europe with almost daily frequency.

In Iran, parliamentary elections were rigged with the removal of virtually all perceived dissenters or moderates removed from the ballot even before voting began. The only group of “moderates” elected was a small cadre in Tehran only and even they have turned out to be loyal to the regime and ruling mullahs as evidenced by elections to return the hardest core extremists to leadership positions in the parliament and supreme council.

Many media outlets have characterized the hostage taking as evidence of the internal power struggle within the regime.

The Christian Science Monitor described by saying “the targets of the most radical elements of Iran’s competing power blocs are increasingly Iranian-Americans and other dual nationals visiting Iran to see family or pursue academic interests. They are being ensnared in the upheaval and redistribution of power in the wake of last year’s nuclear deal, experts in United States-Iran relations say.”

“Iranian hardliners opposed to President Hassan Rouhani and his diplomatic opening to the US and the West are widely assumed to be behind the detentions – and would not appear to be easily persuaded to permit the detainees’ release. But at the same time, some Iran experts say they see a window of opportunity for some kind of prisoner deal before President Obama leaves office,” it added.

The fact that speculation centers on the Iranian regime snatching up Americans and Brits for the purpose of another round of prisoner swaps in exchange for more economic concessions says volumes about the intentions about the regime, but it says even more about who is calling the shots in the leadership of the regime.

The time-honored tradition of hostage taking by the mullahs in Tehran was even conceded by Iran lobbyists as being unlikely to die off.

“But the prospects for freeing Iran’s imprisoned dual nationals before Mr. Obama leaves office – not to mention ending the practice altogether – are not bright,” says Reza Marashi of the NIAC.

“You have to put the likelihood at 50-50 at best,” he says. “The ability to align timing and interests, that’s completely up in the air.”

The best the Iran lobby can offer these poor, innocent victims of the regime are 50-50 odds they will be joined by more hostages.

All the evidence points to the fact that Hassan Rouhani has never been a moderate and is rock-solid in step with Ali Khamenei and his fellow mullahs on these actions. Has Rouhani called for these prisoners’ release? Has he condemned them? Has he even so much as posted a tweet describing any regret over these actions?

The answer is a resounding no.

The hardline nature of the regime can be seen in the everyday cruelties and injustices visited on ordinary Iranians. Beyond the more gruesome aspects of the regime’s rule, including public executions, amputations and beatings of women on the street, everyday acts that seem perfectly normal to any Western citizen are viewed as subversive and dangerous.

A group of women were reportedly arrested for riding bicycles in Iran and made to sign pledges not to repeat the “violation”.

They were planning to participate in a cycling event in the north-western city of Marivan when police told them a new government directive had barred women riding bicycles in public.

The opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran said officers ordered them to sign written pledges vowing not to repeat the “unlawful violation” and took several women who protested into custody, according to the Independent.

In another incident, up to 150 people were detained by Iran’s morality police at a mixed-gender party in Tehran. In the sweltering heat of summer, as people spend more time outside, the authorities tighten their grip on social norms, cracking down on activities deemed un-Islamic.

Such restrictions have become a regular feature of Iranian life since the current theocracy has come to power after the 1979 revolution, as members of the morality police appear on the streets, or are deployed in vans at public places, to tackle women defying the compulsory hijab, men with non-approved hairstyles, or males and females partying together, according to the Media outlets.

But even with all these acts of suppressing free expression, defiance among the Iranian people still finds a way to surface as many men have posted photos of themselves wearing the hijab to social media, in solidarity with women in the country, who are forced to cover their heads in public, the Independent reported.

Many of the photos show a man wearing the hijab next to his wife or a female relative whose hair is uncovered.

It isn’t much in the way of defying the regime, but in a nation where simply holding a U.S. passport and being an Iranian can land you in prison, even these small acts can grow to become important changes to the regime.

By Laura Carnahan

Clinton and Trump Must Face Dealing with Iran

by

 

Clinton and Trump Must Face Dealing with Iran

Clinton and Trump Must Face Dealing with Iran

The Republican National Convention is going on in Cleveland where Donald Trump will become the nominee for the Republican Party. Hillary Clinton will follow suit in Philadelphia and then another season of American politicking will launch into its usual fall fury.

This election year though is different from any other in that the U.S. and the rest of the world are confronted by a problem it has never seen before and that is the rise and spread of Islamic extremism and the terror being perpetuated by organizations such as Hezbollah and ISIS, but also aided by nation states such as the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

Through the use of the internet and social media, extremist groups are now able to preach their hatred around the world and manipulate individuals to commit heinous acts, as well as coordinate terror cells in a playbook that has already been proven time and again from Sydney and Ottawa to Boston and San Bernardino to Paris and Bangladesh.

That makes the problem of dealing with terror not so much a law enforcement exercise of going after specific individuals, but rather a geopolitical strategic exercise in battling an ideology. This makes the problem facing the next president all the more daunting because the battlefront is in trying to kill an idea instead of just using a Predator drone to fire a missile at a terrorist leader.

This also helps frame a better understanding of the role the Iranian regime plays in the spread of global terrorism.

Iran remains on the U.S. State Department list of nations that is a state-sponsor of terror; a list that has ironically shrunk over the years as the Cold War ended much of the friction that occurred between the U.S. versus the old Soviet empire and each respective client states.

Instead, we are left with a world of unaligned rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea, and nations that have fallen apart to such a degree that terrorist organizations operate essentially freely such as Somalia, Syria and to a lesser degree now Libya.

The rise of Al-Qaeda and ISIS into essentially nation-state status illustrates the fundamentally changed nature of the world we live in and it is a world that could not happen unless countries such as Iran under the mullahs have provided support, cash, expertise and political cover for those rogue entities.

When Al-Qaeda was driven from Afghanistan after the U.S. invasion, many of its key leaders were granted refuge in Iran by the mullahs in Tehran. The mullahs also provided support to Shiite militias backed by Iran fighting U.S. troops in Iraq, killing many with Iranian-manufactured explosive devices.

When Syria’s Assad regime was on the brink of collapse, the Iranian regime stepped in with Quds Force fighters, Hezbollah terrorists, Afghan mercenaries recruited from refugees in Iran, billions of dollars in cash support and arms and ammunition.

Staving off Syria’s governmental collapse allowed Islamic extremist groups to flourish in the carnage of that war as Iran targeted Western-backed moderate rebel groups and left terror groups such as ISIS to spring forth and take root.

Iran did as much as anyone to pump ISIS up with the collapse of the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki which drive disaffected Sunni tribes into the arms of ISIS and opened the door for the fall of Mosul and the rich oilfields in the north which have sustained ISIS with millions of dollars in illicit oil revenues a day.

These are all facts that the Iran lobby have mightily sought to deflect and hide from scrutiny. Groups such as the National Iranian American Council have concocted straw man issues out of immigration visas and banking transactions while ignoring the much more significant problems of human rights violations and the incredible suffering being caused by Iranian regime’s policies.

Iranian regime itself has publicly and aggressive announced its intentions for the all the world to see, most notably in flouting a nuclear agreement which was dead on arrival a year ago.

Even the regime’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who pulled this pathetic deal from the arms of a compliant and submissive Obama administration, boasted yesterday of Iran’s ability to bring its nuclear program back on track to producing literally tons of enriched uranium quickly as the deal eases off more quickly than the advertised 15 years promised.

Zarif said a document, submitted by Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency and outlining plans to expand Iran’s uranium enrichment program, is a “matter of pride.”

The absurdity of the contention that Iran is abiding by the nuclear deal was on display when the United Nations issued a 17-page report that pointed out Iran may be abiding by the letter of the agreement, but not the spirit of it.

No greater understatement in diplomacy has been uttered since Neville Chamberlain claimed “peace in our time” after meeting with Adolf Hitler in Munich.

The report did have the common sense to point out the destabilizing nature of Iran’s recent test launches of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and its illicit supplying of arms to Yemen and Iraq in those proxy wars.

Those understated concerns were too little and too late to offset the deaths and violence escalating around the world as Islamic extremist terrorist acts are now becoming the norm rather than the exception.

The fuel for that extremism comes from an Iranian regime that commits such cruel acts of barbarism as to set a bar that ISIS seems compelled to match and exceed with each new act of bloodshed.

Amnesty International took Iran to task with a new report on the denial of medical care to Iran’s numerous political prisoners; a reprehensible situation revealed broadly by Americans taken prisoner by Iran such as Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati.

The report, Health taken hostage: Cruel denial of medical care in Iran’s prisons, provides a grim snapshot of health care in the country’s prisons. It presents strong evidence that the judiciary, in particular the Office of the Prosecutor, and prison administrations deliberately prevent access to adequate medical care, in many cases as an intentional act of cruelty intended to intimidate, punish or humiliate political prisoners, or to extract forced “confessions” or statements of “repentance” from them.

“In Iran a prisoner’s health is routinely taken hostage by the authorities, who recklessly ignore the medical needs of those in custody. Denying medical care to political prisoners is cruel and utterly indefensible,” said Philip Luther, Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Program.

“Prisoners’ access to health care is a right enshrined in both international and Iranian law. When depriving a prisoner of medical care causes severe pain or suffering and it is intentionally done for purposes such as punishment, intimidation or to extract a forced ‘confession’, it constitutes torture.”

Iran sets the template and ISIS follows and unless Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton deal first and foremost with the behavior of the Iranian regime, its actions will never to checked and altered.

By Michael Tomlinson

Different Day Same Outcome as Iran Arrests Another American

by

Different Day Same Outcome as Iran Arrests Another American

Different Day Same Outcome as Iran Arrests Another American

It feels like the summer version of Groundhog Day as the U.S. State Department said it was looking into reports that another American has been detained by the Iranian regime.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, State Department spokesman John Kirby would not comment further Thursday on the detention of Robin Shahini. The girlfriend of the San Diego man said Shahini’s sister told her Iranian authorities took him into custody July 11 while he was visiting family in his native Iran and he has not been heard from since.

The girlfriend asked not to be identified because she has family in Iran and fears for their safety. She said she worries Shahini was detained because of his online comments criticizing Iran’s human rights record.

It’s getting to the point that if you want to get arrested all you have to do is post a tweet criticizing Iran’s human rights record and then wait for the knock on the door by the Revolutionary Guards.

The Chronicle noted that the Revolutionary Guard has increasingly targeted those with Western ties since the nuclear deal in which Iran agreed to limit its uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.

Shahini, 46, graduated in May from San Diego State University with a degree in International Security and Conflict Resolution. He had been accepted to SDSU’s graduate program in Homeland Security.

The Chronicle said His girlfriend said he left for Iran on May 25 to see his mother who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. The girlfriend said she communicated with Shahini on July 10 and was expecting to hear back the next day to help him get his paperwork into the university. She grew concerned after not hearing from him.

She eventually reached his family who told him Iranian intelligence officials came to their home in Gordon, Iran, and took him away. Authorities searched the home and took his personal belongings, she said. The family has not talked or seen him since. He had a plane ticket to return to San Diego on July 25 and had planned to start classes on Aug. 22, the girlfriend said.

The day Shahini’s family says he was detained on July 11, Iran announced the indictments of a Lebanese man and three dual nationals. The four were arrested in connection with separate cases over the past year. Family members and representatives of the four say they did nothing wrong. All four have ties to Britain, Canada and the United States. The charges they face remain unclear.

The recipe for getting these prisoners of other nations released from Iranian prison often relies more on public pressure than diplomacy according to human rights groups.

“Fortunately, all the cases of Americans we’ve worked on were eventually resolved, but only after a great deal of public pressure was put on Iranian authorities,” said Elise Auerbach, Amnesty International USA’s Iran specialist.  “Very often the authorities will tell prisoners and their families to just be quiet and not go public and all will go well, but the opposite is true.”

The much-ballyhooed prisoner swap of five Americans in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal set the stage for the mullahs in Tehran to believe they can snatch up innocent citizens and hold them as bargaining chips later.

That policy of appeasing the regime has led to a veritable avalanche of arrests of foreigners who hold dual citizenship, which the regime has proclaimed not to recognize. Once a regime subject, always a regime subject no matter what passport you hold it seems the mullahs are saying.

The practice is getting so out of hand that the British Foreign Office issued a travel advisory for Iran warning its citizens, especially any with dual Iranian nationality, of the risk of being scooped up and arrested.

According to the Guardian, the British government relaxed its advice against all but essential travel to Iran in July 2015 after the landmark nuclear agreement. But a stalemate over the fate of at least two British-Iranians currently detained in Tehran appears to have led the FCO to amend its instructions, although it has not raised concerns to the same level as before the nuclear deal.

“British nationals – including dual British/Iranian nationals – face greater risks than nationals of many other countries,” reads the new advice, which was updated on Friday. “The security forces may be suspicious of people with British connections. The risks are likely to be higher for independent travellers or students than for people travelling as part of an organised tour or business people invited by the Iranian authorities or companies.”

The warning will be bad news for Iran as it struggles to strengthen economic ties with the UK and attract more foreign tourists. The ongoing detentions of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman held since April, and 76-year-old businessman Kamal Foroughi, a dual national in prison since May 2011, have undermined efforts by London and Tehran to improve relations.

In Why Does Iran Keep Taking American Hostages?, published in the September 2015 issue of The Tower Magazine, Iran expert Ali Alfoneh described the regime’s detainment of foreign and dual-nationals as “a perfectly normal procedure and political practice in the Islamic Republic. That has been the case since the first day of the revolution and continues until today.”

The public outcry over the regime’s hostage taking erupted into Canada as Lawyers Without Borders Canada and Quebec’s Bar association called on Iran’s government to make public its case against Homa Hoodfar, the Iranian-Canadian academic currently imprisoned in Tehran’s notorious Evin Prison on unknown charges.

Hoodfar was first arrested in March by the counter-intelligence unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They told her she could not leave Iran to return to Canada.

Over the next two months, relatives say she was interrogated without a lawyer and then summoned to the prosecutor’s office at Evin prison where she was allowed to post bond and was released on bail.

She was then re-arrested on June 6 and charges against her have now been filed, but Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi has not detailed the charges she faces.

“The failure to reveal the charges against professor Hoodfar, the limits and constraints that seem to be imposed on her attorney, the lack of clarity surrounding the case, and the treatment professor Hoodfar has received to date bring back dark memories for Canadians and raise serious questions regarding compliance with Iranian law and international law applicable to Iran,” Pascal Paradis, executive director of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, said in a statement.

“Like any other Iranian citizen, professor Hoodfar has the right to full answer and defense under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran has been a party since 1975”, he added.

Predictably, the Iran lobby, most notably the National Iranian American Council and other regime apologists, were silent on this latest round of hostage taking.

Hopefully public pressure and growing awareness that the Iranian regime hasn’t changed one bit since the nuclear deal agreement will prevent this Groundhog Day from repeating itself anymore.

By Michael Tomlinson

World Will be Paying for Flawed Iran Nuclear Deal for Years

by

 

World Will be Paying for Flawed Iran Nuclear Deal for Years

World Will be Paying for Flawed Iran Nuclear Deal for Years

The Iran nuclear deal has moved front and center in the attention of the media and among policymakers since it has been a year now since the agreement was hailed as a ground breaking exercise in diplomacy.

The Iran lobby has predictably cheered its perceived successes in keeping the Iranian regime in check, with regime apologists such as the National Iranian American Council in the vanguard of that cheerleading squad.

For the mullahs in Tehran, the past year has yielded some fruit as a result of the deal; namely the release of badly needed cash reserves they have been able to tap for a massive shopping expedition to Russia to replenish arms used up in fighting three proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

The deal has also helped the regime upgrade the technical sophistication of its military with the purchase of state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missile batteries from Russia, alongside new fighter jets, battle tanks and anti-ship missiles.

Most importantly for the regime is the political cover the deal has provided in allowing Iran to continue its brutal crackdown on human rights at home while receiving a free pass from the U.S. and other nations since linking the deal to improvements in human rights was left out.

The most recent revelation of the deal in hindsight has been the disclosure by the Associated Press of a secret side deal that grants Iran an accelerated pathway to enriching uranium back to full capacity well before the 15-year time frame outlined in the deal.

The damning disclosure has wrecked the Iran lobby’s carefully laid arguments and brought on a wave of negative media coverage pointing out the irregularity in the promise of nuclear containment. The disclosure also undercuts the central conceit of the nuclear deal, which was that it could buy time to push Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon back over a decade and half.

The reality is that Iranian regime has been freed of adequate international inspection and monitoring and can legally accelerate its enrichment program to produce enough nuclear material to produce several warheads in short order.

When you tie in that fact with the accelerated development of Iran’s ballistic missile program, you can see the blueprint laid out by North Korea a decade earlier that enabled it to join the ranks of nuclear weaponized nations.

James Phillips, a senior research fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, outlined this key failing in the nuclear deal in a piece in the Daily Signal.

“The published text of the nuclear agreement was vague on the exact timing of what happens to Iran’s uranium enrichment program after ten years,” he writes. ““But the new document indicates that after ten years, Iran plans to start replacing its current centrifuges with thousands of more advanced models that would be up to five times more efficient than the 5,060 centrifuges that it is allowed to operate currently under the agreement.”

“This concession could allow Tehran to enrich at more than twice the rate that it is now doing, even if the total number of operating centrifuges are reduced. This is a major concern because if the enrichment rate doubles, the time Tehran would need to stage a nuclear breakout would be reduced from the 12 months promised by the Obama administration to six months or less, much earlier than the administration had advertised when it was trying to sell the nuclear deal,” he added.

The fact that the side deal was part of an add-on document prepared and submitted by the Iranian regime to the United Nations as part of its report on Iran’s compliance essentially codifies the regime’s ability to accelerate its enrichment program.

This poses a monumental problem for the future of the world in any new nuclear negotiations—not just with Iran, but any rogue nation—since a country such as Saudi Arabia or even Egypt might be tempted to develop a nuclear capability in response to the Iranian regime and point out, correctly, it is deserving of the same concessions.

A Non-Resident Iran Research Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, pointed out this dangerous pathway for the future of nuclear agreements in a piece in the National Interest.

FDD report points out that by appeasing the Iranian regime, the U.S. has set the precedents that “intransigence can lead the international community to accept domestic enrichment” and “that being a Western ally does not guarantee more flexible treatment when accessing nuclear technology.”

“Key American allies that have previously limited their nuclear activities—like South Korea or the United Arab Emirates—have already noted that Iran, which has been repeatedly sanctioned for its nuclear noncompliance, has been permitted to sign a deal allowing it to develop industrial-scale nuclear capacity,” he writes.

The report also correctly points that creating an artificial divide between fissile material and development of warhead delivery systems is useless since Iran has already moved quickly to possess the ability to lob a nuclear warhead across continents. This “de-linking” process sets the precedent for any other nation to demand similar concessions.

The final lesson he writes about is that just because an agreement is lengthy (159 pages) does not mean it is always specific. The JCPOA contains a vague condition called “significant non-performance” under which parties can walk away from the deal. Such legalese incentivizes a devious negotiator like the Islamic State to define violations on its own terms.

Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration and a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research, also noted in a piece in the Washington Times how the nuclear deal has actually prevented international monitoring of Iran’s nuclear activities.

“Parts of the side deals evidently bar Americans from participating in the inspection of Iranian nuclear sites. The side deals also allow Iran to inspect some of its own sites, preventing U.N. inspectors any access. To no one’s surprise, the Iranians have reported they are complying with the deal even in the uninspected sites,” he said.

“In 2003 Iraq, mistaken intelligence led to war. In 2016 Iran, the lack of intelligence is leading to a false peace” he adds.

The warning is explicit here. Because of the failures of the Iran nuclear deal, the world will have to suffer the consequences of a militant, extremist Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons in the very near future and that prospect is one that the next incoming U.S. president must prevent.

By Michael Tomlinson

Resistance to the Iran Regime is Not Futile

by

Resistance to the Iran Regime is Not Futile

Resistance to the Iran Regime is Not Futile

For any Star Trek fan, one of the more infamous villains on the Next Generation series was the Borg; collective evil that utters the hostile demand “Resistance is futile.”

Of course the courageous crew of the starship Enterprise successfully resists the Borg and keeps humanity face from a perilous future of being absorbed by the Borg and losing all free will.

In the real world of today, the Iranian regime is strangely like the Borg. The mullahs in Tehran act as a collective mind, all lockstep in sync with their vision of creating a Shia sphere of influence and bringing all of their neighbors under the sway of their particular ideology.

And like the Borg, the Iranian regime has no humanity, is only concerned with achieving its objectives and sees the use of others—such as Afghan refugees enlisted to serve as cannon fodder in the Syrian civil war—as simply a means to an end; mere tools of statecraft.

The Guardian took a closer look at how Iran recruits these Afghans, often taking advantage of them as they face poverty or the threat of being denied entry into Iran from war-torn Afghanistan.

The newspaper found Iran is covertly recruiting hundreds of Afghan Shias in Afghanistan to fight for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, drawing them out of their own conflict-ridden country and into another war in which Afghanistan plays no official part.

The Afghan fighters are often impoverished, religiously devout or ostracized from society, looking for money, social acceptance and a sense of purpose that they are unable to find at home, the newspaper said.

In return for fighting, Afghans are offered a residence permit in Iran and about $500 monthly salary. With no available official figures, estimates of how many Afghans are fighting in Syria vary wildly. Iranian state media, while not acknowledging direct Iranian involvement, say 20,000 Afghans are fighting in Syria.

For the Iranian regime, having a loyal Afghan militia may serve a longer-term purpose beyond Syria. “It clearly serves the interests of the IRGC to train Shia Afghans who later can fight the Taliban or other Sunni groups on Afghan soil after United States military withdrawal from that country,” said Ali Alfoneh, an independent Iran analyst based in Washington, DC.

This is part of the mullahs’ long-term plan; to develop assets that can be used to deepen and strengthen its power outside its borders.

Protecting the regime’s plans is the Iran lobby which serves as dutiful drones spouting the same messages over and over again and nauseum portraying the regime as a bunch of moderates struggling against the anti-Muslim rhetoric coming from regime opponents.

The Iran lobby, such as the National Iranian American Council, labels opponents as racists, war mongers, neocons, rebels and just about any other term you can come up with; all designed to cast doubts and aspersions on anyone daring to oppose the regime.

But the remarkable truth is the opposition to the Iranian regime is wider, more diverse, more inclusive and stronger than it has ever been since the Islamic revolution in 1979.

The broad coalition opposing the Iranian regime ranges from Iranian dissident groups such as the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI) and the umbrella National Council of Resistance of Iran, to human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to government agencies and organizations such as the Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran for the United Nations and members of the European Parliament, U.S. Congress and other elected officials.

The opposition is also made up of ordinary Iranian citizens who protest and demonstrate in their own ways and pay a high price for those acts, including the imprisonment, torture and the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom.

These include Iranian students, teachers, artists, journalists, musicians, bloggers, businessmen, women, writers and filmmakers. They represent the entire width and breadth of Iran and while their actions are often covered up and obscured by a regime intent on not letting the outside world know of their discontent, social media channels have helped get the word out on their suffering and defiance.

The symbol of that resistance projected itself on July 9th just outside of Paris in a cavernous convention hall filled with tens of thousands of people from around the world who convened as part of the annual gathering of resistance groups to the Iranian regime.

While this annual event has faithfully documented the injustices and abuses meted out by the regime during the year, this year’s event was significant and special because of the sharp and dramatic rise in terrorist acts committed by Islamic extremists around the world including most notably Paris, Brussels and Istanbul.

Coupled with a pivotal American presidential election and the recent Brexit vote, the political landscape will change dramatically over the next year, which is why the Iranian regime and its lobby allies have sought to influence the politics of these elections to safeguard a badly flawed nuclear deal that is delivering vast sums of cash to the mullahs.

The regime’s top mullah Ali Khamenei has repeatedly stated that the policies of Democrats and Republicans regarding Iran are not different, because the United States is opposed to the very existence of the Islamic Republic, which will not change through diplomatic negotiations.

Hence, in Khamenei’s view, the United States is pursuing no goal other than regime change in Iran and in this respect he is not incorrect because regime change is truly the only legitimate pathway to restoring democracy and freedom to the Iranian people.

This is why these opposition groups pledged for “Regime Change” when they convened on July 9th in La Bourget- Paris.

By Laura Carnahan

 

Why Oppression Leads to Terrorism by Iranian Regime

by

Why Oppression Leads to Terrorism by Iranian Regime

Why Oppression Leads to Terrorism by Iranian Regime

The saying goes there is a thin line between love and hate. The same could be said for the space dividing oppression and terrorism. One usually begets the other. In the case of the Iranian regime, the widespread oppression of the Iranian people is treated in an almost cavalier manner by the mullahs and sets the stage for even worse atrocities to be committed.

Psychologists call escalating behavior patterns “gateways” that enable someone to move from one point of view to another and see them in the same light. Just as a drug abuser might start off with alcohol before moving onto prescription drugs and eventually heroin addiction, the mullahs operate in the same pattern.

When the regime deems it “morally” necessary to beat a woman in the street for violating dress codes, it is not a stretch to imprison that same woman for spreading sedition by posting selfies on Instagram. From that point, it’s a pretty simple leap to executing her for high treason for liking a post by a protestor on Twitter.

This goes a long way to explaining why the mullahs see any opposition to their rule as a catastrophic threat to their power. The mullahs—backed by the muscle of the Revolutionary Guard Corps—operate essentially on a fear basis.

The existence of any organized opposition that survives outside of the mullahs’ control is dangerous to them because it plants the seeds in the minds of Iranians that they can pursue a life outside of fear, in peace, democracy and freedom.

The creative freedom artists express or the veracity that journalists employ are just examples of the threats posed to the mullahs’ rule, which explains why they are often the most heavily targeted individuals for oppression. The mullahs often make no distinction either if you are even a citizen of Iran, arresting and imprisoning notable foreign journalists such as Jason Rezaian of the Washington Post to silence what they perceive as negative opinion.

The core of the Iranian resistance movement resides in long time dissident groups such as the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran and its umbrella group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

For the mullahs, the mere existence of these groups is a bitter pill and they have worked to dismiss, discount and even eradicate their existence.

The regime’s intelligence services engage in a cyber war that includes the creation of outlandish fake websites branding opponents as evil doers. They regularly flood the news media and social media channels with disparaging commentary. They supply and direct the Iran lobby and affiliated groups to attack and demean opposition groups.

And in the case of Camp Liberty in Iraq which houses thousands of these dissidents, the Iranian regime regularly directs Shiite militias to attack it with rockets, mortars and gun battles as recently as this week.

Here is where the regime makes the transition to terrorism when it sees violence as its only means of statecraft and diplomacy. The maximum example of that is the Syrian civil war in which over 600,000 Syrians have been killed and half of the nation’s population has been displaced and become refugees.

The use of outright warfare in supplying Quds Force fighters, IRGC soldiers, regular Iranian army, recruited Afghan mercenaries and Hezbollah terrorists showcases the mullahs complete disregard for peace and negotiation.

As Shahriar Kia, a press spokesman for residents of Camp Liberty, put it in The Hill:

“Iraq is yet another canvas where Iran’s fingerprints are witnessed ever more as the international community continues to unfortunately neglect this very dangerous flashpoint corner of the globe. Iran-crafted and sponsored Shiite militia groups are once again accused by international human rights organizations of pursuing systematic and sectarian killings and human rights violations targeting the minority Sunni community in the recent campaign to retake the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, from Daesh (the Arabic acronym for the self-proclaimed Islamic State, ISIS or ISIL),” he said. “This ultimately further marginalizes and alienates the Sunnis, and further pushes them into adopting extremist methods and welcoming radical groups.”

The weekend, the NCRI held its annual gathering outside of Paris and made the case for a peaceful, democratic transition in Iran away from the rule of the mullahs.

The NCRI and opposition groups such as the PMOI offer a viable alternative for the Iranian people to make a choice. Unfortunately the mullahs have consistently rigged the elections to never even allow a true opposition candidate to appear on the ballot for fear if they let one in, it will become a flood demanding change.

Sir David Arness, a member of the British Parliament, said in a recent edition of Forbes:

“The NCRI had advocated for real-world solutions in order for the international community to help the Iranian people achieve this goal, solutions that include heightened economic sanctions on the theocratic leaders and those responsible for human rights abuses in Iran, a recognition of Iran’s human rights record and violent foreign policy, along with approaches vis-à-vis the nuclear program that are more well adapted to an Iran that has time and again deceived the international community,” he said.

It is high time the international community recognize the link between oppression and terrorism and hold Iran accountable for both.

Michael Tomlinson

Why the Boeing Sale Matters to Iran Regime

by

Why the Boeing Sale Matters to Iran Regime

Why the Boeing Sale Matters to Iran Regime

The Iranian regime trumpeted with much fanfare an agreement to buy 80 commercial airliners from Boeing, as well as lease another 29 airliners for a total value estimated upwards of a whopping $25 billion for Iran Air. Far from being a simple transaction for new aircraft any national airline might make, this deal represents far more for both the Iranian regime and the hopes of the mullahs in Tehran to gaining unrestricted access to currency exchanges.

The deal is the linchpin to a larger effort by the regime to lift restrictions put in place limiting the regime’s access to U.S. currency exchanges, as well as access to sensitive technology that could be used by Iran for illegal or military purposes.

While the nuclear deal reached with Iran last year lifted a number of economic sanctions, it did not lift sanctions still in place related to Iran’s abysmal human rights record, support of terrorism and the illegal test launches of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, but that has not stopped some in the U.S. administration from trying an end-run in supporting the Boeing deal and using loopholes such as the creation of a new Iranian bank located literally offshore its coast on an island to get around currency restrictions.

An effort was mounted in Congress to block the sale with the House approving two amendments by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) to block sales by Boeing and Airbus aircraft to Iran to the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act 239-185.

The amendments both passed by voice vote, which a statement from Roskam’s office said indicates “overwhelming, bipartisan support.”

One amendment prohibits the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) from using funds to authorize a license necessary to allow aircraft to be sold to Iran.

The other amendment ensures Iran will not receive loans from U.S. financial institutions to purchase militarily-fungible aircraft, by prohibiting OFAC from using funds to authorize the financing of such transactions.

Democratic Representative Denny Heck of Washington state, where Boeing has major operations, said that if proposed bills to restrict the deal became law they would also affect other companies’ sales to Iran. Because virtually all modern jets have more than 10 percent U.S. content, including those Airbus plans to sell, they already require export licenses from the U.S.

This is precisely the reason why the Boeing deal needs to be blocked because its passage would open the proverbial floodgates for the Iranian regime to pursue unrestricted deals with virtually any business without fear of sanctions or consequences. The deal would also essentially make null and void all sanctions in place for human rights and terrorism violations.

It would be hard to contemplate a more universal dismissal of the importance of human rights than the explicit approval to resume business with the regime and ignore all of the vile acts it commits against its own people and the rest of Middle East.

Can we imagine past “business as usual” deals with the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia during the killing fields or with Serbia or Rwanda as genocides were being committed? When does conscience give way to financial gain?

Republican and Democratic critics of the deal expressed concern that the aircraft would be used by Iran for illicit activities, such as ferrying weapons to Syria in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) wrote a letter to the Obama administration in June saying it is “virtually certain” the aircraft would be used for nefarious purposes, since Iran Air is aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which remains under sanction.

Iran Air was removed from a sanctions list as part of the nuclear deal with Iran, which rolled back sanctions in exchange for limits to Iran’s nuclear program.

“Iran Air’s aircraft will undoubtedly be used in the future to continue to funnel lethal assistance to Assad, to Hezbollah, and to other terrorist entities,” Sherman wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker on June 30.

Opponents of the Boeing deal pointed out that the Treasury imposed sanctions on Iran Air in 2011 for using passenger and cargo planes to transport rockets and missiles to places such as Syria, sometimes disguised as medicine or spare parts. At other times, members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards took control of flights carrying sensitive cargo. Those sanctions were lifted in July 2015 after the nuclear deal was signed.

“Boeing is signing a deal with an Iranian aviation company and an industry complicit in the regime’s weapons proliferation and destabilizing adventurism,” Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington-based public policy group, testified at the hearing.

Dubowitz said that Iran Air made three trips to Syria just last month carrying weapons and supplies for Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria that’s opposed by the U.S.

“The deal between Boeing and Iran risks implicating major U.S. companies in the Islamic Republic’s support for terrorism and regional adventurism,” said Dubowitz, who has advocated tough sanctions against Iran and helped lawmakers craft them.

Predictably, the Iran lobby voiced its displeasure over the efforts to kill the deal.

“By attempting to block Boeing’s pending sale of commercial passenger aircraft to Iran, opponents of the Iran nuclear accord are also seeking to undermine significant U.S. commercial interests and to impose humanitarian suffering on the Iranian people by denying them access to safe air travel,” said Tyler Cullis of the National Iranian American Council in a press release.

It’s a noteworthy sentiment since not many ordinary Iranians are likely to be flying Iran Air flights loaded with military hardware and ammunition bound for Syria, Iraq or Yemen, but naturally Cullis and the rest of the Iran lobby ignore the illicit uses the Iranian regime has used commercial aircraft for previously.

It’s also important to remember that Cullis and the NIAC make no promises or guarantees that the aircraft would not be used for military purposes, which lies at the heart of why this deal frankly stinks. Without any reasonable guarantees or enforcement or monitoring mechanism, the U.S. and Europe through Boeing and Airbus would essentially be providing the Iranian government and military with a massive upgrade in its airlift and cargo capabilities at a time when its’ military is deeply involved in three proxy wars straining the regime’s ability to move supplies, hardware and troops.

While the first step was taken by the House to stop this bad deal, the Senate needs to take the matter up quickly and pass similar legislation.

By Michael Tomlinson

When Will Iran Regime Be Held Accountable for Terrorism?

by

When Will Iran Regime Be Held Accountable for Terrorism?

When Will Iran Regime Be Held Accountable for Terrorism?

One of the earliest lessons any child learns from a parent is that their actions have consequences. You scream, you’re told to be quiet. You hit your sibling; you get a time out in the corner.

These life lessons form the foundation of our behavior into adult life and help us conform to the restrictions and expectations of living in a civilized world. Even as an adult, we are constantly told our actions have consequences.

You show up drunk at work, you get fired. You rob a bank, you go to jail. You murder a person; you get sentenced to life in prison.

These are not hard lessons to follow and we all take to them fairly naturally.

Only in the arena of foreign affairs and politics do things tend to get more muddled and deviate from what we consider to be acceptable norms. In the case of the Iranian regime, those deviations tend to take on galactic-sized proportions.

Take for example Iran’s involvement in the Syrian civil war. It utilizes a proxy in the form of the terror group Hezbollah to fight on the side of the Assad regime. It uses its own Revolutionary Guard and Quds Forces to attack and target Syrian civilians. It recruited Russia to enter the war and used its fighters to target facilities such as Doctors Without Borders hospitals.

Throughout this bloody conflict, Iran has been selling the war to its own people like a variety show of television, using celebrities, actors and rich kids to justify its involvement.

As Varujean Avanessian writes in the National Interest, “Iranian officials rarely mention bolstering Syria’s Bashar al-Assad or maintaining access to Hezbollah in Lebanon as reasons for Iran’s intervention in Syria. Instead, defending the Shiite shrines and keeping ISIS away from Iran’s borders are the official theme vindicating Iran’s presence in Syria.”

“And a rather peculiar method is employed to peddle Iran’s message: formerly or currently banned celebrities now receive coverage from Iran’s conservative outlets, in exchange for offering favorable views on Iranian policies in Syria,” he writes.

Formerly banned TV host Reza Rashidpour—well known for his tough interviews with Iranian politicians and entertainers—was also enthusiastically covered by conservative outlets for trying to dampen the perception in the society that financial incentives are the main motive for Iranian fighters to go to Syria.

What goes unsaid is the regime’s use of financial inducements and pressure to recruit tens of thousands of Afghan refugees to fight in Syria. For the regime, the perception that paying fighters to go to Syria is the only effective tool it has to get the soldiers it needs is troublesome and worrisome to the mullahs in Tehran. It also underscores the inherent weakness of their position as the conflict drags on for years with no appreciable end in sight.

And yet the Iranian regime pays no penalty or suffers any harsh consequences from the international community for its actions in Syria.

The same can also be said with its almost daily threats to tear up an already broken nuclear agreement and restart its nuclear program—a program it historically denied ever existed.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chair of the Iranian regime parliament’s national security and foreign policy commission, warned that the Islamic Republic would “resume large-scale uranium enrichment” if leaders feel the international community is not doing enough for Iran under the nuclear deal.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran’s response to the other side’s non-compliance with the implementation of the nuclear deal will be uranium enrichment,” Boroujerdi was quoted as saying in Iran’s state-controlled press.

His bluster follows similar statements made by top mullah Ali Khamenei last month and have come to take on a certain “boy who cried wolf” tenor as regime leaders start focusing their ire on Western nations for the inept handling of their own economy and the rampant corruption running through regime-controlled industries.

Even more alarming were statements made by Hezbollah’s leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah were he openly thanked the Iranian regime for its financial and material support over the years to his terror group.

The admission comes on the heels of Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the intergovernmental organization that sets global standards to combat money laundering and finance for terrorism and proliferation, once again placing Iran on its blacklist for supporting terrorism, yet granting the regime a reprieve from any additional sanctions in the hopes the nuclear deal might eventually pan out.

On what planet do you need to be from to connect the dots of Hezbollah’s own admission of support from Iran for terrorist activities and yet no consequences come from it?

Mark Dubowitz and Toby Dershowitz noted in a Forbes editorial that Tehran’s efforts to pass laws that purport to address international counter-terrorism financing standards are hollow and don’t conform to FATF standards. Iran’s definition of terrorism, for example, excludes groups “attempting to end foreign occupation, colonialism and racism,” and has other language used to justify terrorism against America and its allies. Iran’s leaders are telling the world “we will arm and bankroll whomever we want but won’t call them terrorists.”

The White House itself urged Iran on Monday to stop giving financial support to Hezbollah, warning of such continued backing won’t seep into “its interest.”

“We know that Iranian regime supports terrorism,” the White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One. “And we know that Iran supports Hezbollah. And that is why we’ve issued the most serious and most severe sanctions ever on Iran for doing so. So it’s important for them to recognize their own behavior in enabling this.”

Yet, the same administration is trying to convince foreign banks to bankroll the Iranian regime and ignore the inconvenient truth of its support for terrorism.

It is arguably the most obtuse argument ever made in foreign policy since Neville Chamberlain came back from Munich claiming “peace in our time” from Adolf Hitler.

All of which goes to show that unless the Iranian regime finally understands the consequences of its actions, nothing will ever change there.

By Michael Tomlinson

Terrorism Strikes in Turkey and Iran Regime Runs Away

by

Terrorism Strikes in Turkey and Iran Regime Runs Away

Terrorism Strikes in Turkey and Iran Regime Runs Away

Terror struck another airport again, this time in Turkey, with devastating loss of life. The world was quick to label it terrorism and it brought back fresh memories of similar attacks in Paris and Brussels as suicide bombers fired assault rifles at passengers and then exploded vests.

While no terror group has claimed responsibility so far, suspicion by Turkish officials naturally fell on ISIS which operates extensively along the border with Syria and Iraq. If this attack was perpetrated by the Islamic State, it opens up a widening front in its efforts to destabilize Turkey, which has already suffered steep drops in tourism; a vital component of its economy.

What is worrisome is the larger global trend towards rising violence from radicalized Islamists, either operating directly under the control of terrorist leadership as in Paris, or being self-radicalized as in San Bernardino and Orlando.

The response from many countries to these escalating attacks has been to call for stepped up attacks on ISIS in Syria and Iraq, as witnessed by Wednesday’s attack of an ISIS column leaving Falluja in Iraq by U.S.-led aircraft, or call for a hardening of potential soft targets at home.

What none of these suggestions deal with is the source of this rise in terror from extremist Islamic groups, which is the Iranian regime. Iran and its mullahs sit at the center of the sectarian violence wracking the region.

It was Iranian regime’s intervention in Syria to save the Assad regime that helped to spawn ISIS in the first place. It was Iran that provided safe haven for many of the leaders of Al-Qaeda forced out of Iraq and Afghanistan by the U.S.-led invasions, only to see them go back to fight in Iraq and Syria.

It was Iran that forced the government of former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to force his Sunni coalition partners out of the government, leading to the schism that resulted in the quick fall of Mosul and most of northeastern Iraq to ISIS, giving the terror group its big boost in territory, cash and oil wells.

Predictably, while the rest of the world expressed shock, outrage and sympathy over the attacks in Istanbul, the response by the Iranian regime was understandably muted.

Bahram Ghasemi, newly-appointed spokesperson for the regime’s foreign ministry, officially reacted to the blast when he offered condolences and sympathy to the bereaved families of the victims and Turkish government in state-run media.

“As Foreign Minister Zarif had frequently stated, there is a systematic lack of international resolve to address the vicious phenomenon; extremism and terrorism would not be limited to political and geographical borders,” he said.

There were no similar sentiments expressed by regime leaders such as Ali Khamenei or Hassan Rouhani.

The two-faced nature of the Iranian regime when it comes to condemning acts of terror was highlighted in an editorial by Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security, in the Washington Times, in which he took the regime to task for its expressions of sympathy following the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.

“It’s hard to imagine an expression of sympathy more disingenuous. Tehran’s comments must be viewed against a backdrop of its status as the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism, its steady propaganda against the United States, and its own brand of homophobia that has its origins in Islamic extremism,” he said.

“Iran is not all talk. The rhetoric about Western ‘arrogance’ and ‘hostility’ has been backed up by the arrests of numerous people who hold both Iranian and Western citizenships. The same goes for journalists, artists and professionals who have any meaningful connections with the West, and for activists the regime deems pro-Western,” he added.

This disconnect between the lip service Iran pays to acts of terror, while fully committing itself to supporting and funding it lies at the heart of the problem with the approach the U.S. and European Union have taken to Iran since the nuclear agreement was reached last year.

You cannot hold a state sponsor of terror such as Iran accountable when you are rushing to do business deals to enrich it. It is dangerous and will eventually lead to only more acts of terror and more chaos across the world.

The rise is terror is only matched by the abhorrent level of human rights abuses being committed by the Iranian regime as well.

Perviz Khazaii, former Ambassador of Iran in Sweden and Norway and the representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Nordic countries, penned an editorial in The Diplomat highlighting these abuses.

“Violent punishments are not confined to Iran’s prisons, either. For instance, in October 2014, gangs affiliated with the regime carried out acid attacks on at least 25 Iranian women and girls who were regarded as being improperly veiled or otherwise in violation of religious norms,” he said.

“This sort of enforcement of the regime’s ruling ideology has also motivated a massive, ongoing crackdown on activists, writers, bloggers, and artists. This has helped Iran to secure its title as the largest jailer of journalists in the Middle East,” he added. “In short, the human rights situation is deteriorating at a fast pace.”

  1. Matthew McInnis, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, also examined how Iran’s involvement in these conflicts has fueled the rise in sectarian violence as the mullahs seek to solidify a Shia sphere of influence for themselves in Syria and Iraq in an editorial in the National Interest.

“Tehran’s most frequent foreign-policy blind spot remains underestimating the degree to which its aggressive regional activities spur sectarian and ethnic backlash. If it can avoid triggering further Sunni radicalization, an internal Shia civil war, and the potential breakup of the country, however, the Islamic Republic is likely in good shape to continue its ‘Iranianization’ of Iraqi security and political structures,” McInnis writes.

The world should stop enabling the regime and hold it accountable for the spread of  terrors motivated by Islamic extremism.

By Michael Tomlinson

Behind the Deals and Photos Lies a Troubled Iranian Economy

by

Behind the Deals and Photos Lies a Troubled Iranian Economy

Behind the Deals and Photos Lies a Troubled Iranian Economy

Ever since the Iranian nuclear deal was agreed to last year, the Iranian regime has been busy staging elaborate photo opportunities announcing business deals and hosting trade delegations from a wide range of European, Asian and African nations looking to re-enter the Iranian marketplace.

For the regime, it has been a vital source of propaganda to show the world that Iran was indeed flourishing under the nuclear deal, which helped to reinforce the false messages and perception that the deal was helping to bring economic benefits to the Iranian people.

Of course, many trade delegations were faced with the inconvenient truth of the regime continuing its bloody policies of executing large numbers of Iranians during these visits, including juveniles that were publicly hanged during visits by European Union officials.

The reality though is much more dismal than the mullahs would like the world to know, although news media reports have begun to focus more closely and with greater scrutiny on the economic woes and mismanagement besetting Iran.

Chief among the many benefits the Iran lobby crowed about was the ability for Iranian oil to enter the open market with the lifting of economic sanctions. Regime advocates such as Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council contended that lifting these sanctions would bring Iran into the global marketplace, thereby moderating its behavior and bringing economic relief to hard-pressed Iranians.

The opposite has happened instead.

Bloomberg’s Julian Lee discussed the slide in Iran’s oil fortunes, noting that five months after sanctions on Iran were eased, the rapid rise in the country’s oil production and exports appears to be ending as quickly as it began.

Iran’s observed crude oil exports, which exceeded 2 million barrels a day in both April and May, slipped by almost 20 percent in the first three weeks of June, said Lee.

One of the country’s primary aims after restrictions on oil sales were eased was to regain its markets in Europe. Before the latest sanctions were imposed in 2012, Iran was exporting about 600,000 barrels a day of crude to countries in the European Union, with Italy, Spain and Greece its biggest buyers.

But more worrying for Iran is the difficulty that it seems to have had in persuading its biggest pre-sanctions buyers to resume purchases. Italy, previously Iran’s best customer in Europe, loaded its first cargo in mid-June, five months after the restrictions were lifted. Purchases by Spain and Greece are also well below pre-sanctions levels.

Outside Europe, Iran has also struggled to regain customers it lost to sanctions. A delivery to the Tanzanian port of Dar Es Salaam in March remains its only post-sanctions sale to Africa, while purchases by U.S. companies are still banned.

The steep decline in oil sales spells trouble for the regime, which counted on the influx of cash to help bolster a treasury wrung dry from the financing of three separate proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

Adding to the bad financial news for Hassan Rouhani and the mullahs in Tehran is word that the ballyhooed announcement of sales of Airbus commercial airliners to Iran was also in trouble with Iran thinking of cancelling some of the planes in the order, including the flagship mammoth A380 super jumbo jets.

Part of the difficulty, which the recently announced Boeing deal is facing, is the restrictions in place keeping most banks from financing the deals because of sanctions still in place against Iran for human rights violations and sponsorship of terrorism.

It certainly did not help the regime to have an international watchdog agency vote to keep Iran on its blacklist of nations still supporting money laundering and terrorism.

The economic difficulties Iran is experiencing underscore the inherent weakness of the religious leadership of the regime, especially in running an efficient economy. Virtually all of Iran’s major industries are run by or controlled by shell companies under the thumb of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the various power factions of mullahs all enriching themselves at the expense of the Iranian people.

The level of corruption has erupted into protests and demonstrations that have rocked the regime for the better part of three years and have ranged from schoolteachers protesting low wages to small business owners demanding reforms to halt graft to mass demonstrations over sky high salaries paid to regime executives and state-controlled businesses.

In a sign of the growing desperation being felt by the regime, deputy chief of staff of the armed forces Brig. Gen. Masoud Jazayeri was the first Iranian official to offer a comment on the Brexit results in trying to tie the “Leave” to a rejection of American policies.

“The desire by the people of England to leave the EU is in reality a ‘No’ by the majority of the people for the continuation of the compliance of the British government with respect the imposition of America’s will on this country,” Jazayeri said.

It’s a ridiculous comment since virtually every exit poll showed Britons were alarmed at the sharp rise in Islamic extremist attacks and the mass influx of refugees fleeing the Syrian conflict aggravated by Iran’s support of the Assad regime there.

More importantly Brexit poses a significant threat to the mullahs since the United Kingdom is now free to pursue a foreign policy independent of the European Union which has sought to normalize relations with Iran since the nuclear deal.

What doesn’t help improve British perceptions of the Iranian regime is the recent illegal arrest of a British woman on charges she fomented insurrection by helping design a charity website years ago.

The reality is that the chaos created by Iranian regime in Syria is now coming back to haunt the mullahs and underscore how incompetent they are not only in managing the economy, but in foreign affairs.

By Michael Tomlinson