Iran Lobby

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

Iran Lobby Working Feverishly to Save Nuclear Deal

by

treasury-logo

Since talks began with the Iranian regime on a potential nuclear agreement, the Obama administration has redefined generously its interpretations of “sanctions” on the regime to the point where billions of dollars have flowed to Tehran in ways unthinkable just a year ago.

The justification for the broad easing of sanctions has been the mantra that the alternative would be worse for the world; that failure to do so would empower “hardline” elements in Iran to seize the opportunity to take control and force out “moderates” and abandon the deal and start a nuclear arms race.

The administration’s position echoes the positions pushed by the Iran lobby, including prominent supporters such as the National Iranian American Council, which repeatedly claimed that the deal was helping cement support for perceived moderates such as Hassan Rouhani.

In response, the Obama administration has ignored, overlooked and even enabled a long string of accommodations for the Iranian regime that has emboldened the mullahs in Tehran. While no one disputes the intentions of the president in wanting to make a world free from nuclear weapons, we respectfully judge his efforts to have been a monumental waste of time.

The misguided belief by the US that Rouhani is a moderate that needs to be supported and whose re-election should be a priority is dumbfounding given the year of bloodshed caused by Rouhani’s policies including the massive escalation in the Syrian war, severe domestic crackdowns on human rights and the unprecedented executions of almost 3,000 Iranians, including women and children ranking Iran second in the world in state-sanctioned killing.

The latest act of appeasing the regime comes in the form of new guidance from the Treasury Department that effectively lifts the last remaining sanctions on the regime’s access to US currency exchanges.

The New York Post editorial board issued a blistering response to the action:

“The latest betrayal: The Treasury Department just lifted key restrictions on Iran’s ability to do business in US dollars and access world financial markets — breaking Team Obama’s explicit vows as it lobbied Congress not to nix the deal.

“Iran’s banks weren’t even cut off from the US financial system over the nuclear issue — but over Tehran’s funding of terrorism, its regional aggression and so on.

“Which makes another Treasury move even more squalid: It will now also let foreign firms and branches of US firms do business with Iranian groups like the Revolutionary Guard.

“The Guard is the chief conduit for Tehran’s support of terrorism, tied to numerous plots, including one in DC aimed at a Saudi envoy. And it’s also a prime force helping Syria’s Bashar al-Assad massacre civilians in his bloody bid to keep power.”

The guidance offered by the Treasury Department was designed to provide reassurance to foreign banks which have been skittish about conducting business in US dollar transactions with Iran.

According to Reuters, the guidance comes after months of complaints from Tehran, which says that remaining US sanctions have frightened away trade partners and robbed Iran of the benefits it was promised under the nuclear deal it concluded with world powers last year.

The guidelines, issued by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control on Friday, clarify that non-U.S. banks can do dollar trades with Iran, provided those transactions don’t pass through financial institutions in the United States.

What is even more incredible was that Michael Mosier, the associate director at the Office of Sanctions Policy & Implementation of Foreign Assets Control, and Christopher Backemeyer, deputy coordinator of Sanctions Policy, both were featured speakers at the NIAC’s Leadership Conference in an appalling act of conflict of interest.

The timing of their appearance before the leading lobbying arm of the Iranian regime shortly before the release of guidelines that effectively encourages and shows foreign banks how to avoid existing US sanctions put in place to stem the flood of cash flowing to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah is mind boggling.

Ironically, in an effort to minimize the impact of the Treasury Department’s guidance, the NIAC quickly issued a press release in an attempt to explain that this was not an evasion of existing sanctions, as well as encouraged the expansion of even more channels to accommodate the regime.

“The administration should take steps consistent with the U.S.’s stated policy that it will not stand in the way of legitimate business involving Iran.  Such measures include licensing U.S. person employees of foreign companies to engage in transactions involving Iran and licensing U.S. persons in general to facilitate transactions between foreign persons and Iran,” read the NIAC’s statement from Tyler Cullis.

Of course, the NIAC neglected to mention that any dual-national Iranian-American that traveled to Iran on business was likely to be arrested and held for ransom or a future prisoner swap.

The guidelines earned a quick rebuke from Congressional critics who warned of dire consequences in allowing the Iranian regime easier access to US dollars.

“The new guidance overturns the long-running understanding that the U.S. dollar cannot be used to facilitate international trade with any Iranian entities, let alone sanctioned entities. And by allowing foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to transact business with Iranian entities, the president is ignoring the clear text of a law passed by Congress,” Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) said on Sunday.

Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who chairs a Senate banking committee with oversight over Iran sanctions law, said the new guidelines amounted to the White House granting Tehran new concessions.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) said Treasury’s changes “green-light business with terrorists. The updated FAQs remove barriers for foreigners to engage with firms the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps controls.”

By Michael Tomlinson

Key to Syrian Solution Lies in Pushing Iran Out

by

 

Key to Syrian Solution Lies in Pushing Iran Out

Key to Syrian Solution Lies in Pushing Iran Out

Sunday night’s presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is sure to be analyzed, dissected and poured over for days, but while both candidates traded accusations on Syria and its effect to refugees, terrorism and geopolitics, neither candidate hit the mark when it came to highlighting the real solution to the Syrian civil war.

The real solution to stopping the bloodshed in Syria lies in getting the Iranian regime out of Syria.

The Syrian civil war has been raging since 2011 and it is easy to forget its beginnings and how it grew into the global conflagration it has become, but what has been indisputable has been the influence of the Iranian regime from the very beginning.

It is useful to recall that the source of the original unrest were protests by ordinary Syrians demanding democratic reforms in March of 2011 and the release of political prisoners. In many respects, the protests taking place on the streets of Damascus were eerily similar to protests on the streets of Tehran by Iranians protesting similar issues in the wake of a presidential election widely recognized as being fraudulent.

Within a month protests had spread throughout Syria and the Assad regime responded just as the mullahs in Tehran did two years earlier; with massive crackdowns by the military that included the indiscriminate shooting of civilians in the streets.

The images of dead and dying civilians in Tehran and Damascus are not the only things that connected the two regimes.

The Iranian regime acted quickly to funnel funds to the cash-strapped Assad regime after a series of punishing international sanctions were imposed for the regime’s use of chemical weapons and mass killing weapons such as barrel bombs on civilians, including hospitals; that support was estimated by the UN to be as high as $6 billion annually, with other human rights groups doubling that amount.

Additionally, the Iranian regime sent senior commanders from its Quds Forces to plan and lead operations involving Hezbollah terrorists to help repel the gains of Syrian rebels. This level of involvement increased with the forced recruitment of thousands of Afghan refugees as mercenaries, along with the shifting of Shiite militias from Iraq to fight in Syria.

The involvement of so much Iranian military capacity led to declarations from Syrian military officials that Syria might as well become a province of Iran.

Even with all of that Iranian regime interferences, the rebels were still making gains leading up to the actual shelling of Assad regime buildings in Damascus, which led to the now not-so-secret trip to Moscow by Quds Force commanders to beg for Russian intervention in Syria.

The increasing tempo of military actions collapsed a proposed cease-fire and led to claims and counter charges between the US and Russia reminiscent of the Cold War. Nothing illustrated that confusion more than the situation in the northern Syrian city of Aleppo.

The New York Times examined the zany alliances at work in Aleppo where there are Iraqi Shiite militiamen cheering for clerics who liken the enemy to foes from seventh-century battles. There are Iranian Revolutionary Guards fighting on behalf of a Shiite theocracy. There are Afghan refugees hoping to gain citizenship in Iran, and Hezbollah militants whose leaders have long vowed to fight “wherever needed.”

The messy mosaic of ground fighters on both sides has challenged Washington’s tangled allegiances. The United States is effectively allied with Iraqi Shiite militias to thwart the Islamic State in Iraq, but in Syria, some of those same militias are fighting on the side of the Assad government, which the United States opposes, and against a mix of rebel groups, some of them backed by the Obama administration.

The Daily Caller discussed the vast increases in Shiite militias in Syria.

“Most estimates of the total number of Shi’a militia fighters in all of Syria now exceed 60,000,” U.S. strategic advisory firm The Soufan Group notes. The Soufan Group highlights that this number may even exceed that of the actual Syrian Arab Army under command of Assad. These Shiite militias take orders only from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Alarmingly, even though the evidence is overwhelming that the only viable solution to Syria’s war lies in containing and ultimately removing Iran’s control of the Assad regime, the Washington Post reported efforts were underway by the Obama administration to actually weaken sanctions imposed on Syria.

According to lawmakers and staffers in both parties, the White House is secretly trying to water down the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act, a bipartisan bill that would sanction the Assad regime for mass torture, mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The bill, guided by House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (N.Y.), would also sanction entities that aid the Syrian government in these atrocities; that includes Russia and Iran.

The bill, named after a Syrian defector who presented the world with 55,000 pictures documenting Assad’s mass torture and murder of more than 11,000 civilians in custody, has 70 co-sponsors, a majority of whom are Democrats.

Now the White House has told members and staffers that the bill’s sanctions on Iran could violate the nuclear agreement the Obama administration struck with Tehran last year and the Russia sanctions could hurt any future efforts to work with Moscow diplomatically on Syria.

It is a stunning position to take and one disturbingly similar to arguments made by Iran lobby members such as the National Iranian American Council.

It seems that the similarities between Syria and Iran be beyond just murdered civilians in the street.

By Michael Tomlinson

How Did the Iran Nuclear Deal Become a Partisan Talking Point?

by

 

How Did the Iran Nuclear Deal Become a Partisan Talking Point?

Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Mike Pence and Democratic vice-presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine stand after the vice-presidential debate at Longwood University in Farmville, Va., Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2016. (Joe Raedle/Pool via AP)

Last night’s vice presidential debate had its usual highs and lows, sprinkled with verbal fisticuffs and even some thoughtful answers, but the most interesting tidbit that came through was the sharp disparity over the Iran nuclear deal in which Democratic running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) all but gushed over the deal’s alleged stoppage of nuclear weapons versus Gov. Mike Pence’s (R-ID) blistering retorts against it.

Putting aside the relative merits of each side’s arguments, the larger question that needs addressing is “how did the nuclear deal ever become a partisan talking point?”

In many ways, it’s lamentable and regrettable that it has gotten to this point. For much of the past three decades both parties have been uniformly united over confronting Iran. That lock-step solidarity is what has driven the vast majority of successes against the Iranian regime such as the imposition of stiff sanctions following the crackdown on demonstrators to the stolen 2009 presidential elections.

Even top mullah Ali Khamenei recognized the terrible blows to the regime’s economy that resulted from those bipartisan sanctions when he summarily decided that the regime needed a new “moderate” face to win back international support after a deplorable eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The regime also recognized that in putting forth a “moderate” face, it had to cobble together a better lobbying effort to drive wedges in the united political front America and its allies had presented for much of the regime’s existence.

Those twin goals led to Hassan Rouhani’s selection and the creation of lobbying groups such as the National Iranian American Council and its offspring, NIAC Action.

Happily for the mullahs, the Obama administration was looking for a foreign policy win to close out its term having been unable to solve the puzzle of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rising tide of Islamic extremism that sprang forth from the Syrian civil war and Iranian regime’s use of terror proxies throughout the region.

It was an unfortunate decision because it enabled the Iran lobby to begin driving that wedge between Democrats and Republicans and shaping a message that if you supported Iran deal you were for peace and if you were against Iran deal you had to be for war.

Most Democrats frankly didn’t buy it as leading members of Congress such as Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) opposed the Iran nuclear deal, but the Iran lobby worked furiously to try and shape the debate as a Democrat vs. Republican one when in fact it wasn’t.

For other Democrats, the choices were simpler in which they chose party loyalty in an election cycle, many privately hoping to impose additional sanctions after the presidential elections.

In fact, in the year since the Iran deal was approved, and the mullahs have showed their true nature with the widening of the wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, as well as the renewed crackdowns and human rights violations at home and escalation of its ballistic missile program, many of these same Democrats have offered up new proposals to impose new watchdogs or sanctions on Iranian regime.

Coupled with the fact that the mullahs have obliged by going on a binge of militant and aggressive acts including threatening US warships in the Persian Gulf and snatching up even more dual nationals for future hostage swapping, it is almost certain that after the November elections, the US will once again present a united front in confronting Iranian regime’s extremism.

But that prospect hasn’t stopped the Iran lobby from desperately trying to make Iran a partisan issue as NIAC head, Trita Parsi was busy tweeting out his enthusiastic support for Kaine’s comments in support of the nuclear deal, probably had to make many Clinton supporters cringe slightly.

In regards to the actual facts surrounding the nuclear deal, the media fact checkers waded through the statements and found some by Kaine to be slightly wanting of clarity.

From the Washington Post: “The deal, which has been sharply criticized by Republicans, did increase the amount of time that Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon by reducing its centrifuges for uranium enrichment and its stockpile of enriched uranium. But the deal expires in 15 years, and Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remains in place.

“While Iran has insisted it has no interest in building nuclear weapons, the deal does not eliminate the risk that it will obtain nuclear bombs.”

The New York Times called the claim that the Iran nuclear deal eliminated Iran’s nuclear weapons program an “exaggeration.”

A report released this September by the Institute for Science and International Security found that the deal will also allow, through an exemption, Iran to keep 50 tons of heavy water and “continue operating 19 ‘hot cell’ radiation containment chambers.”

Possessing materials such as enriched uranium and heavy water does not necessarily mean Iran will have the capacity to restore its nuclear program. The deal will not allow nuclear inspectors to confirm, however, whether or not Iran is complying with the deal. Iran got negotiators to agree that no U.S. nuclear inspectors will be allowed on Iranian soil, according to Breitbart News.

Ultimately, the issue of containing and confronting the Iranian regime has historically been a bipartisan effort. We hope that after November, it once again becomes bipartisan.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Killing Environment Like Its People

by

 

Iran Regime Killing Environment Like Its People

Iran Regime Killing Environment Like Its People

The Los Angeles Times ran a story examining the deteriorating plight of Iran’s agricultural industry and state of its environment in general; both of which are spiraling downward as dismally as human rights for the Iranian people.

The Islamic paradise promised by the mullahs when they hijacked the Iranian revolution three decades ago, has not come to pass and in its place is a land that has grown parched, where crops have died and entire communities are on the brink of collapse.

Iran’s worsening water crisis has spread desperation across this parched farm belt. Families watch sons leave the villages to hunt for scarce work in the cities. Crops are abandoned. The elderly and infirm forego medical care because they barely have enough money to survive, the Times said.

Iran’s farmers have struggled with several successive years of drought. But environmental mismanagement, water overuse, the pressures of population growth and a government more concerned with security and economic challenges have exacerbated Iran’s agricultural problems, the Times added.

In June, Iran’s Meteorological Organization said 72% the country’s 80 million people were living in “prolonged drought” conditions. Lakes are drying up and cities like Tehran have considered rationing water.

All of which points a devastating picture of how poorly the mullahs have managed the precious natural resources of the country for its people, but that insensitivity to the environment goes all the way back the founding of the Islamic Republic.

The late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic Republic, once told an aide who worried about inflation that Iran’s 1979 revolution “was not about the price of watermelons” — meaning it stood for loftier goals such as economic equality and redistribution, said the Times.

Khomeini’s successors, today’s leaders such as Hassan Rouhani and Ali Khamenei, have even less regard for the environment as they pour billions of dollars into three wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and steer the billions in unlocked assets resulting from the nuclear deal to go on a military shopping spree to buy fighters, missiles, ammunition and bombs.

The situation is so dire in many of Iran’s heartlands that many Iranians don’t know what to do next and the regime has been unresponsive to all of their entreaties for help.

In Qiyasabad, residents now must dig as deep as 500 feet to find water. The Hablehrood river, which flows down dun-colored hills to the north, is too salty to use for irrigation, they say. Most farmers still flood their fields to irrigate crops, which is terribly wasteful.

“Ten years ago, I swear, our water was fresh and plenty,” said Karim Baluchi, 54. “Ten years ago I had a decent life.”

He and half a dozen co-owners asked the government this year for a $6,000 loan for a new well and water pump. No one has responded, he said.

According to the Times article, last June, a senior cleric raised eyebrows when he said the drought was caused by women failing to wear appropriate Islamic dress; a clear example of how backwards the mullahs view their nation’s problems.

That lack of concern over Iran’s crumbling environment extends to some of its greatest treasures, including the Asiatic cheetah, otherwise known as the Iranian cheetah, a subspecies of the world’s fastest mammal that exists only within Iran and is on the verge of extinction.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Bahman Jokar, head of the cheetah desk at Iran’s environmental agency, said about 50 cheetahs are believed to remain in Iran’s central deserts – a population so small that to save it requires emergency measures.

“Unfortunately our government and parliament have other top priorities and saving the Asiatic cheetah is not the top one,” Jokar said in a rare bit of candor from an Iranian official over how dire the situation is for the big cats which are deeply rooted in Persian culture and the history of the country going back more than ten centuries.

It’s worth noting that the Caspian tiger and Persian lion, two other species of big cats native to Iran have already gone extinct under the Iranian regime.

The gross mismanagement and disregard for Iran’s environment by the ruling mullahs extends to the perilous condition of Lake Urmia, the largest lake in the Middle East and sixth-largest saltwater lake in the world which has shrunk to 10 percent of its former size due to damning and overpumping of groundwater.

Even though Rouhani has made continued promises to save Lake Urmia for the cities in Iran that depend on its water, but little has been done and the damage may be irreversible according to environmentalists.

In an article in The Guardian, researcher Shirin Hakim and water management expert Kaveh Madani at the Centre for Environmental Policy of Imperial College, London, described Urmia’s surface as “an area facing a high risk of salt storms.”

The article pointed out that the shrinking of the lake has diminished a fragile ecosystem, with the gradual disappearance of native wildlife including the brine shrimp Artemia and migratory birds like flamingos and pelicans. Such degradation threatens dire economic consequences.

One of the main factors contributing to the state of Lake Urmia is the interference in the natural flow of water into the lake by over 50 dams. The damage has been compounded by unregulated withdrawal of water, water-intensive irrigation and the unsustainable use of fertilizers.

Even as Iran’s environment is destroyed and slowly turned into a wasteland, the mullahs and Rouhani are desperately working on an oil agreement with OPEC to allow it to pump even more oil to sell on the market in order to make up the enormous costs of fighting the Syrian war and keep the Assad regime afloat.

The irony is inescapable and so is the responsibility for this environmental catastrophe which rests on the mullahs in Tehran.

By Laura Carnahan

US Presidential Election Concerns Iran Regime

by

US Presidential Election Concerns Iran Regime

US Presidential Election Concerns Iran Regime

The sunset is fast approaching on the Obama administration, and with it will come significant changes in the US foreign policy approach to the Middle East and Iran in particular. The mullahs learned their lesson from the two disastrous terms of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who made it easy to caricature the regime as slightly crazy and evil.

Their manipulation of the election ballot in 2013 assured Hassan Rouhani’s election and helped assist the Iran lobby in trying to project an image of moderation to the West; even though Rouhani’s first term has actually been bloodier than Ahmadinejad’s ever was.

Rouhani has outpaced Ahmadinejad with an unprecedented wave of executions and mass hangings that is approaching 3,000, including women and children according to Amnesty International. His crackdown on religious minorities, journalists, dissidents, artists and students has rivaled the abuses of the infamous 2009 protests.

With the upcoming election of a new US administration, the mullahs are intensely interested in the election outcome, as well as preparing the ground to keep the policies of appeasement rolling in exchange for the false hope that Iran will curb its nuclear ambitions.

The deployment of the Iran lobby has been largely aimed at helping Senators and candidates deemed favorable and supportive towards the nuclear deal, as well as continue coaxing journalists to view the Iranian regime with less than suspicion.

Meanwhile in Iran itself, regime news outlets have been giving considerable space and airtime to the presidential campaign, especially with the rhetoric rising sharply about the effects of the nuclear deal and the best approach needed by a new president to restrain and control the Islamic state.

There is no doubt that Americans and Europeans are anxious about the state of the Middle East, especially the three wars being waged with deep support from the Iranian regime in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which have contributed to an unprecedented wave of refugees flooding into Europe and the US.

Javan Online, the daily newspaper close to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, ran an article Sept. 27 titled “The Iranophobia race.”

Kayhan daily, whose editor is appointed by the country’s supreme leader, called the debate “a contest in Iranophobia” in which “Trump threatened to attack Iran and Clinton continued to stress the political and economic pressures against Iran.” Though it didn’t mention Mrs. Clinton’s defense of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action’s diplomatic approach.

Hamid Reza Assefi, a former spokesman for the regime’s Foreign Ministry, commented in an op-ed for the Shargh Daily on the likely effect of the US election on Iran. He concluded, “Because of the special rules and the internal sensitivities surrounding the election in Iran … external issues will have no effect.”

He also wrote, “The truth is, both parties in the Unites States share the same opinion on the general aspects of the conflict with Iran.”

On that point he is correct. In spite of the round the clock efforts by the Iran lobby at trying to drive a wedge in the US electorate and attempting to peel off Democratic support, the truth is the vast majority of American voters remain deeply suspicious of the Iranian regime and both Democrats and Republicans are less inclined to accommodate Iran’s agenda after the bloody year since the nuclear deal was reached.

A senior international policy analyst for the RAND Corp., wrote in Fox News that with “the continuing climate of repression, the next Iranian presidential election, and (Ali) Khamenei’s eventual demise may provide some important opportunities for America’s next president.”

“The next U.S. president is likely to be met with multiple international crises after assuming office, and Iran may be one of the most challenging of them,” he writes. “In theory, Rouhani, often portrayed as a ‘moderate’ by the Western media, would have been strengthened by the agreement and able to pursue his agenda of liberalizing Iran both economically and politically. In reality, Rouhani’s presidency has failed to deliver on most of his promises.”

The laundry list of provocative actions by the Iranian regime over the past year has clouded any real building of support for the mullahs by the Iran lobby. The recent spate of arrests of dual national citizens and Rouhani’s reaffirmation that Iran does not recognize dual citizenship on NBC News only provides more fodder for critics of the regime.

The significance of Iran to US policy is becoming more apparent as more analysts and policymakers weigh Iran’s influence and threat level even above that of ISIS. In an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, writes that:

“US political leaders of both parties argue that destroying Islamic State is America’s top priority in the Middle East. In reality, that’s not nearly as important as confronting the challenge posed by Iran. The nuclear deal that went into effect a year ago may have postponed the danger of an Iranian nuclear bomb, but the multifaceted threat of a militaristic, messianic Iran — 80-million strong — is much more menacing to Western interests than the Sunni thugs and murderers of Raqqah and Mosul.”

“From Tehran’s perspective, it gained much more than it gave up. In exchange for postponing its military nuclear project, it achieved the lifting of many economic sanctions, an end to its political isolation and the loosening of restrictions on its ballistic missile program,” he added.

Truthfully, time is running out for the mullahs. We can only expect that the next president and administration will have a more skeptical eye towards the Iranian regime with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

Iran Regime Escalates War on Human Rights

by

Iran Regime Escalates War on Human Rights

Iran Regime Escalates War on Human Rights

There has been no doubt that the Iranian regime is one of the worst abusers of human rights in the world today. Its record of abuse has been well documented by human rights groups and Iranian dissident organizations.

Anyone sitting in front of a computer or using a smartphone can simply Google “Iran” and “executions” to get a taste of how badly the regime treats its own people. The regime tries mightily to hide its abuses from the world through its control of the Internet, prohibiting the use of social media and employing an army of cyberhackers to monitor communications, as well as attempt to crack the encryption on messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram.

The Iranian regime is unique in one other regard which is that it pretty much doesn’t seem to care what the rest of the world thinks about its human rights record.

One example of that callous disregard for international condemnation was the regime’s decision to uphold a 16-year prison sentence against a prominent human rights advocate in Narges Mohammadi, which was widely protested by groups such as Amnesty International.

Mohammadi, who is critically ill, had been sentenced in May on charges of violating national security and acting against the Islamic regime through her support of an anti-death penalty campaign.

As vice president of the Defenders of Human Rights Center in Iran, Mohammadi gained attention in 2014 for defending women who had acid thrown on them in the city of Esfahan, purportedly for dressing immodestly.

While jailed this summer at Tehran’s Evin Prison, she staged a 20-day hunger strike in protest of authorities who barred her from speaking by phone with her family.

Mohammadi is mother to 9-year-old twins, who live in France with their father. Friends say she suffers from a chronic illness that causes partial paralysis, which has worsened due to her imprisonment, according to the Los Angeles Times.

“This verdict is yet another cruel and devastating blow to human rights in Iran, which demonstrates the authorities’ utter contempt for justice. Narges Mohammadi is a prominent advocate of human rights and a prisoner of conscience. She should be lauded for her courage not locked in a prison cell for 16 years,” said Philip Luther, Amnesty International’s Research and Advocacy Director for the Middle East and North Africa.

“By insisting that this harsh and appalling sentence is imposed for her peaceful human rights work, the authorities have laid bare their intent to silence human rights defenders at all costs,” he added.

Human rights activists and dual nationals continue to be imprisoned during the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, whose 2013 election had raised hopes of an easing of Iran’s harsh security laws, but has since come to be regarded as an instrument of the regime’s security apparatus.

Mohammadi is a supporter of the Campaign for Step by Step Abolition of the Death Penalty, known by its Persian acronym, Legam. Iran is one of the world’s leading practitioners of capital punishment, putting to death an estimated 1,000 people last year alone.

Last month, Iran put to death a teenager who was convicted of a crime when he was 17. Approximately 160 minors are on death row in Iran, according to Amnesty International.

“It is particularly shocking that this sentence comes as Iran’s authorities are preparing for renewed bilateral dialogue with the EU, given that Narges Mohammadi was convicted for her work campaigning against the death penalty and meeting with the former EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs. This casts serious doubts over Iran’s commitment to engage meaningfully with the EU on human rights issues,” Luther added.

And therein lay the quandary the world faces: Even as it seeks to open up trade relationships with Iran following the nuclear deal, the world turns a blind eye to the continuing, blatant abuses being committed by the regime.

The harsh sentence of Mohammadi for essentially representing women who had been brutalized by regime paramilitaries and police is an especially visible demonstration of how much the mullahs in Tehran simply don’t care what the world thinks.

Part of their disregard stems from their efforts to perpetuate the myth that the nuclear deal is so valuable to the world in keeping Iran from arming itself with nuclear weapons that the world is willing to look the other way on virtually any other issue in order to preserve the deal.

Forget the fact that the deal itself is a wreck and unenforceable and the regime already has taken advantage of it, but this attitude by the world’s leaders has enabled the regime to commit more atrocities, expand its military presence and rapidly rebuild its military without fear of punishment or reprisal.

Nothing epitomizes that more than the rapid development, testing and deployment of the Iranian regime’s ballistic missile program which has progressed from short-range conventional weapons, to now deploying intercontinental missiles capable of carrying nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, wrote in US News and World Report, explaining the regime’s use of nuclear agreement to advance its own agenda.

“Tehran insists that foreign (implicitly, U.S.) machinations have undermined the sanctions relief that the deal should have brought. Iranian officials have claimed they have ‘no fear’ of the deal falling apart, and openly discuss how to snap back their remaining nuclear infrastructure if they believe the deal has been transgressed. These critiques form the core of Iran’s snapback-centric strategy, one aimed at upping the ante to pocket additional concessions,” they write.

The “snapback” mechanism included in the deal allows the countries involved to restore sanctions in the event of Iranian “significant non-performance.” But Iran retains a separate snapback capability that can nullify both nuclear and non-nuclear sanctions: the threat of ramping up its nuclear infrastructure. The fact that the Islamic Republic is able to credibly threaten such snapback means Western audiences will have to reckon with Tehran’s complaints,” they added.

By Laura Carnahan

There is More Than One Presidential Election to Keep an Eye on

by

There is More Than One Presidential Election to Keep an Eye on

There is More Than One Presidential Election to Keep an Eye on

While the US watches a slugfest of a presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, another presidential election scheduled to take place next year on the other side of the world bears watching because of how it potentially impacts not only every American, but also the entire Middle East and Europe.

The “election” will be in Iran for the next president, however unlike the US election, there is likely to be no doubt, no drama, no recounting of ballots or examination of hanging chads. There probably won’t even be very many people on the ballot as well because in the Iranian regime, elections are inconveniences that have to be tolerated for the international community.

They are by no means, free, fair, open or even compelling. The last time there was even any controversy was in 2009 when the election was widely seen as rigged and in the heat of the Arab Spring movement, ordinary Iranians decided to do something they had not done since the downfall of the Shah of Iran; they protested—massively.

In response, top mullah Ali Khamenei and his fellow clerics did what they normally do, they ordered a crushing suppression of protests that results in deaths, mass imprisonment and harsh crackdowns on news media, technology and foreign journalists.

After figuring out the regime couldn’t stomach another debacle like that, Khamenei and his fellow conspirators cooked up a scheme to wipe names off future ballots and allow a handpicked successor to be elected without any protest and be seen as a “moderate.”

That man was Hassan Rouhani in 2013 who cruised to victory against a field of straw men and was widely praised as a “fresh” face by the Iran lobby; an odd phrase since Rouhani has been at the heart of the regime’s military and intelligence services for the past three decades.

Calling Rouhani a moderate is like calling a neo-Nazi “open minded.”

Now his re-election is coming up next year and already the field is being cleared to allow him an uncontested run and eliminate any choice for the Iranian people who would dearly love to dump him into the unemployment line after debilitating economic news continued to pour out of Iran even after a nuclear deal that Rouhani and the mullahs promised would open the flood gates to an improved quality of life.

Things are so bad for Rouhani at home that even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man Rouhani succeeded, has considered another run for the presidency until he was slapped down by Khamenei. The prospect of another term by Ahmadinejad has the mullahs scared out of their turbans since he is widely reviled in the West and at home.

His run would be akin to having Richard Nixon take a stab against Jimmy Carter in 1980 fresh off his resignation and threatened impeachment from the Watergate scandal.

“In carrying out the intentions of the leader of the revolution, I have no plans to take part in the elections next year,” Ahmadinejad said in a letter to Khamenei, published on his website dolatebahar.com.

You could almost hear the sigh of relief coming from Khamenei and Rouhani.

Besides Rouhani’s re-election, the looming prospect of who replaces an aging and ill Khamenei should have the US and its allies even more worried. Far from the prospect of getting a more moderate replacement, the name most often heard being bandied about as the next top mullah is Ibrahim Raisi.

As Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, put it succinctly in an editorial in the Washington Post, Raisi “could be the only person in the Islamic Republic who could cause people to miss Khamenei.”

“Raisi is 56 years old and, like Khamenei, hails from the city of Mashhad. After a stint in the seminary, he has spent his entire career in the Islamic Republic’s enforcement arm, serving as prosecutor general, head of the General Inspection Office and lead prosecutor of the Special Court of the Clergy, which is responsible for disciplining mullahs who stray from the official line. In one of his most notorious acts, he served as a member of the ‘Death Commission’ that, in the summer of 1988, oversaw the massacre of thousands of political prisoners on trumped-up charges,” Takeyh writes.

“Raisi’s background fits nicely with the Revolutionary Guards’ mission of crushing dissent. In a recent interview, Revolutionary Guards commander Muhammad Jaffari conceded that since 2005, the regime has come to see domestic insurrection as an even greater challenge to its existence than external pressures. The ideal successor to Khamenei would have to not only share the Guards’ perspective but also have close ties to the security organs and the judiciary. The Guards seem to have found their man. Raisi is being increasingly touted by them as a vanguard of the regime and an enforcer of its will,” he added.

Khamenei’s clear preference for Raisi can be seen in his appointment of him to head one of the regime’s largest charitable foundations, Astan Quds Razavi, which gives Raisi access and control to vast land holdings and many other enterprises that funnel money to him, the IRGC and his allies.

With the endowment’s estimated value at $15 billion, Raisi is in prime position to buy votes and assemble his own network of loyal supporters and operatives.

All of which reinforces the central conceit of Khamenei, Rouhani and their ilk, which is to maintain the purity of the Islamic revolution and the ideological basis for it. Even with the opening of trade with the nuclear agreement, the mullahs have no intention of using these new funds to help the economy or Iranian people. Instead, they view these proceeds as necessary to continue the funding and expansion of the Islamic revolution.

Ultimately, while everyone is focused on if Rouhani will be re-elected, the more important question is whether or not Raisi will even allow Rouhani to speak without a script.

By Michael Tomlinson

Why Does the Iran Lobby Want to Make Iran a Partisan Issue?

by

Why Does the Iran Lobby Want to Make Iran a Partisan Issue?

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, left, stands with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton before the first presidential debate at Hofstra University, Monday, Sept. 26, 2016, in Hempstead, N.Y. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)

The first debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was billed as literally the fight of the century; bigger than Ali vs. Frazier, bigger than Coke vs. Pepsi. While an innumerable number of columnists, analysts, lobbyists and anyone else with “-sts” at the end of their job description will critique this debate to death, we should be asking a question that didn’t come up in the debate.

Why does the Iran lobby want to make the issue of Iran a partisan political issue?

From the moment the Iran lobby was created, especially the launch of its principal leader—the National Iranian American Council—it has sought to wedge itself into the partisan political environment by trying to align itself with Democrats and attacking Republicans for the past several years.

At first it may have been because Republicans were the most visibly opposed to accommodating the mullahs in Tehran, but the NIAC even held its fire when it came to criticizing prominent Democrats opposed to Iran accommodation such as Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), a prominent critic of the Iranian regime.

It was also no coincidence that many of NIAC’s staffers formerly worked for Democratic office holders and organizations, but that is a superficial reason for its efforts to politicize Iran issues.

The blueprint for this tactic comes from the mullahs themselves as displayed in their energetic efforts to tar and feather Saudi Arabia and portray its chief regional rival as the source of all terrorism and evil in the world. It’s a blatant effort at diverting attention away from Iran’s own failings and blunt criticism for its long support for terrorism and brutal human rights record.

If you treat any criticism of the Iranian regime as merely political point scoring, the NIAC and other supporters are hoping it diminishes the power and effectiveness of the criticism. The only problem with that argument is when both Democrats and Republicans both take aim at the regime anyway.

In stark contrast to that cynical tactic, Iranian dissident and opposition groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran have worked diligently to build bridges on both sides of the political aisle and worked on unifying themes such as human rights, support for women and opposition to sponsorship of terrorism.

Those efforts have won over many on both sides of the aisle with members such as Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), former Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ed Royce (R-CA), and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani just to name a few.

Ultimately the Iran lobby must pursue this diversion strategy since its typical message points about Iranian cooperation and moderation have dissolved in a flurry of aggressive, militant and shocking moves by the mullahs since the nuclear deal was sealed and the “echo chamber” of support was revealed by the news media.

With the news coming out of Iran since the passage of the nuclear deal being mostly bad and only getting worse, the Iran lobby finds itself in a pickle with the upcoming presidential election promising a new president who plans to hold the Iranian regime much more accountable whoever wins.

For the Iranian regime, the pressure is on to grab as much as it can before that happens so the news coming out of Tehran is fast and furious. In the last day alone, we have seen:

  • The proposed cease-fire in Syria collapse as Russian and Syria aircraft have resumed massive bombing of primarily civilians in rebel-controlled areas, such as Aleppo as a major ground has been observed moving into the area with as many as 3,000 Iranian-backed fighters hoping to crush the rebellion against the Assad regime;
  • Iran will continue to test and improve the range and accuracy of its ballistic missiles to deter or coerce potential adversaries — the United States operating in the region, Gulf Arab states, Turkey and Israel – four Middle East experts said in a meeting of the Atlantic Council;
  • Hassan Rouhani and other regime leaders are under intense pressure back home from dissatisfied Iranians upset with the lack of benefits trickling down to them from the nuclear agreement and the perception that rampant corruption is siphoning off any economic improvement;
  • The head of Iran’s atomic energy agency warned that the landmark nuclear deal could be jeopardized by perceived foot-dragging on sanctions relief, promised in exchange for Tehran’s commitment to curb key atomic activities, even though US officials said those commitments were fulfilled but uncertainty over investing in Iran has been responsible for the delays; and
  • The regime’s top mullah, Ali Khamenei, tried to snuff out an insurgent return to the political stage by widely reviled past president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who has hinted at a challenge to Khamenei’s handpicked minion, Rouhani.

The turmoil the Iranian regime is facing highlights the schisms that are running through Iranian society and the deepening split between the mullahs and the Iranian people. It also explains why the Iran lobby is so intent on trying to portray Iran policy issues as partisan political ones and not worthy of the attention of media.

Unfortunately for the Iran lobby, the American people, who have been subjected to near constant attacks inspired by extremist Islamists and worry about the growing carnage around the Middle East caused by Iranian regime’s active support of three proxy wars, have begun to suspect any supporter of the mullahs.

This may explain why the only people in America openly supporting the Iranian regime are those directly connected to the Iran lobby such as the NIAC, Ploughshares Fund and their cohorts.

By Michael Tomlinson

“NIAC Leadership” Conference Showcases Influence Pedaling

by

“NIAC Leadership” Conference Showcases Influence Pedaling

“NIAC Leadership” Conference Showcases Influence Pedaling

How much does it cost to meet your lawmakers in a venue where you can exert the influence of the mullahs in Tehran? Apparently only $349 and that also gets you three lunches and two breakfasts!

What a deal.

But if you’re strapped for cash, maybe because you have to pitch in for your family to hire a lawyer in an effort to reach your dual-nationality relative who is sitting in Evin prison in Iran, for only $175 you can still get access to lawmakers, but you miss out on a “Gala Reception” and hors d’oeuvres.

So less pizazz, but still you can buy access and who is selling this access at such bargain rate prices? The National Iranian American Council which held its “Leadership Conference” this weekend in Washington, DC.

The conference was a veritable who’s who of Iranian regime activists and lobbyists, all previously dedicated foot soldiers in the fight for securing a nuclear deal with Iran, as well as the fight to buy reprieves for the regime from ongoing sanctions for violations of human rights and sponsorship of terrorism.

Some of the more notable speakers included Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund,which received and distributed cash to various members of the Iran lobby including NIAC according to investigative media reports, Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor to President Obama and architect of the now-infamous “echo chamber” of supporters used to deceive media and the American people as to the inherent flaws of the nuclear agreement.

Other key participants curiously included Christopher Backemeyer, deputy coordinator of sanctions policy in the State Department, and Michael Mosier, associate director at the Office of Sanctions Policy & Implementation in the Office of Foreign Assets Control. These two men hold considerable power over the question of whether or not Iran is complying with the nuclear agreement and whether or not certain sanctions should be enforced such as bans against the regime accessing US currency exchanges.

The fact that such key regulatory officials are participating in a conference sponsored by an organization identified as having strong links to high ranking Iranian officials should prove troubling. It is similar to having members of the Treasury Department’s securities enforcement division having drinks with executives from Enron or Lehman Brothers prior to the mortgage meltdown.

What is always fascinating about the NIAC’s annual confab is the packing of the speakers list with its own staffers, in this case Trita Parsi, Reza Marashi and Tyler Cullis, each of whom have worked diligently to carry Iran’s water and make excuses for the worst excesses of the regime. Watching these three “stooges” try to divert attention away from ballistic missile launches, mass arrests of journalists, public hangings of Iranians or arrests of Americans, Brits and other citizens is like watching a bad sketch comedy troupe.

Considering that one of the self-proclaimed mandates of the NIAC is “to ensure that human rights are upheld in Iran and that civil rights are protected in the US. NIAC believes that the principles of universal rights – Freedom of assembly, religion, and speech, as well as dignity, due process and freedom from violence – are the cornerstones of a civil society” one might ask why NIAC never invites any of the Iranian-Americans who can tell their story first hand of what Iranian justice is like.

Why is it that NIAC never has people such as Saeed Abedini, the Christian pastor held and tortured in Iran, or Amir Hekmati, the former US Marine brutalized in prison, or Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter, to attend a conference and tell their story in furthering an understanding of the terrible forces at work within Iran’s religious leadership?

Of course the NIAC would never showcase any of these Americans since their presence would be a terrible embarrassment and highlight the true nature of the Iranian regime which is cruelty, punishment, abuse and control. Even though these Americans were released in exchange for $1.7 billion in cash, more Americans have been taken this year and the NIAC holds no fundraiser for them; launches no grassroots campaign for their release and holds no protest in their honor.

Even after the regime’s president, Hassan Rouhani, appeared on NBC prior to his speech before the United Nations General Assembly, he confidently admitted to Chuck Todd that Iran did not recognize dual nationalities.

“Therefore those who have dual citizenship, from the interpretation of the Iranian laws, are Iranian citizens solely and only,” Rouhani said. “And any legal prosecution is carried out on the foundation that they are Iranian citizens subject to Iranian law.”

And yet the NIAC issued no condemnation, no rebuke, not even a single tweet objecting to the extralegal procedures against Iranian-Americans, which the NIAC was ostensibly working on behalf of.

The height of absurdity was reached and exceeded by several speakers at this weekend’s proceedings, including this juicy quote from Rhodes.

“Acceleration of tensions between Gulf partners and Iran is a serious problem across the region,” said Rhodes as quoted by NIAC.

You think? It might be one of the better understatements, ranking up there with “peace in our time” by Neville Chamberlain.

The Iranian regime has pushed the possibility of all-out conflict with regional rival Saudi Arabia, while at the time supporting three proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen that have claimed the lives of almost 750,000 people. NIAC’s promises that Iran would be a partner for peace and moderation following the nuclear deal have turned out to be false and alarmingly so.

What was promising was the position taken by Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy advisor to Hillary Clinton and senior fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations, who reiterated the presidential candidates public statements of skepticism about Iran’s conduct and the need to “distrust and verify” when it comes to enforcing the nuclear deal, much to the chagrin of Parsi who tried everything short of begging to get Gordon to make positive statements about the regime.

Gordon’s reticence provides hope that the next president will approach Iran with a clean slate and not be motivated to the falsehoods and “echo chamber” of the NIAC.

By Laura Carnahan

Hassan Rouhani Peddling Fantasies in New York

by

Hassan Rouhani Peddling Fantasies in New York

Hassan Rouhani Peddling Fantasies in New York

The Iranian regime’s front man, Hassan Rouhani, was in New York for his annual propaganda address to the United Nations General Assembly session last week. During his New York stop, Rouhani availed himself of the usual media opportunities to pedal some pretty farfetched fantasies about the state of the Middle East and Iranian regime’s role in it.

One of his media stops was on NBC News in which he spun the story to Chuck Todd that the Syrian conflict must be solved politically.

Politically.

Let’s let that word sink in for a minute. The leader of the Iranian regime, which spent billions of dollars to prop up the brutal Assad regime at the brink of its collapse under protests by the Syrian people, was telling the American people that Syria required a political solution.

This is the same Iranian regime that sent thousands of Hezbollah fighters, led by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps commanders to fight alongside Syrian troops targeting rebel forces.

This is the same Iranian regime that gang pressed thousands of Afghan refugees into becoming mercenaries and sent them to fight in Syria.

This is the same Iranian regime that begged Russia to enter the war and save Assad from toppling as Iran’s forces were being exhausted by the years-long conflict. Russia’s entry included targeting and attacking of civilian locations and rebel military units not affiliated with ISIS or other radicalized Islamic militants.

Let’s also not forget that this is the same Iranian regime that supported Assad after he used chemical weapons to mass kill his own people.

The death toll in Syria is over 500,000 according to human rights groups with more than 11 million people displaced and becoming refugees.

“The rule of the ballot box and the rule of the Syrian people and the will of the Syrian people should be the sole determinant of the future of the country,” Rouhani said.

Rouhani also dismissed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s demand Wednesday that Syria and Russia ground all aircraft in the northern part of the country after the bombing of a humanitarian convoy threatened a precarious ceasefire. The Pentagon has blamed Russia for the attack.

It is an absurd contention by Rouhani since Syrian elections are as about as free as the ones engineered in Iran. Assad has never held a truly free and open election subject to international monitoring, much as Rouhani was elected in similar fashion as thousands of moderate candidates were kicked off election ballots in Iran.

Beyond Rouhani’s fanciful ideas of Syrian democracy, his real goal on this tour was to loosen the purse strings and gain access to US currency exchanges for Iran. These sanctions were put in place as part of the punishments for Iran’s dismal human rights record and sponsorship of terrorism and were not part of the nuclear agreement reached last year.

Rouhani and his boss, top mullah Ali Khamenei, have banged the drum loudly warning of dire consequences if the sanctions are not lifted and are pushing to get relief before the US presidential election takes place and the Obama administration, which has followed a policy of appeasing the regime, leaves office.

Even the New York Times, which has been a sympathetic supporter of the nuclear agreement, recognizes the difficulty Rouhani faces and the consequences the regime faces if these sanctions are not lifted.

“Scared off by penalties imposed by the United States Treasury Department, European banks have not provided credit for large-scale projects in Iran. In fact, because of the American regulations, it remains nearly impossible for ordinary businesses to transfer money to and from Iran — a problem that has been enormously frustrating to Mr. Rouhani, who promoted the nuclear agreement by promising a new economic era,” writes Thomas Erdbrink in the Times.

“Mr. Rouhani faces an election in five months, and his hard-line opponents are sharpening their knives. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran, has been hinting in speeches that he considers the nuclear deal to be a failure,” he adds.

That threat to walk away from what has proven to be an ineffective agreement anyway has been the pressure point on the Obama administration as it seeks to preserve its landmark foreign policy achievement at all costs; a pressure point that was again pushed by Tehran in getting the administration to approve licenses for the sale of new aircraft to Iran.

The U.S. government has given plane makers Boeing Co. and Airbus Group SE the all-clear to deliver jetliners to Iran Air. Iran Air announced in January it planned to buy Airbus planes, but the transaction stalled amid a lack of approvals from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control rules. OFAC had to approve the license because a portion of Airbus planes are made in the U.S.

Iran’s plan to buy western planes has run into opposition in its own country and the U.S. Some U.S. lawmakers are trying to bar the sale of Boeing planes to Iran.

Rep. Peter J. Roskam (R., Ill.), a critic of Iran plane deals, said, “There is a still a long way to go and many more hurdles to overcome before Iran can actually take delivery of these planes—and thankfully Congress is committed to making the process as difficult and expensive as possible.”

The concern over the sale lies in the fact that the Iranian regime has often used its civilian airliners for military purposes in ferrying men, weapons, cash and supplies to it many proxies such as Hezbollah in Syria, Shiite militias in Iraq and Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Treasury Department has previously sanctioned IranAir in recent years for helping Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps “transport military related equipment.”

With this action and others, we can only hope the US and Europe will not be able to finish caving in to the Iranian regime before it’s too late.

By Michael Tomlinson