Iran Lobby

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

News Coming Out of Iran Keeps Getting Worse

by

News Coming Out of Iran Keeps Getting Worse

News Coming Out of Iran Keeps Getting Worse

The Iranian regime has been linked to a cyberattack on a small dam in the state of New York, which Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) plans on publicly linking the regime to, but the regime’s online activities have not been limited to cyber-assaults as revealed by a report by the BBC.

“A group of Twitter accounts seems to be designed to pump out crude Iranian propaganda aimed at an English-speaking audience – but the people behind it and their true motivations are a mystery,” the BBC said.

“Dozens of accounts tweet to thousands of followers in waves every few minutes throughout the day using the hashtag ‘Powerful Iran.’ Their profile pictures are Hollywood celebrities or stock photos, but their tweets almost always include pictures of Iranian military equipment along with random and sometimes seemingly irrelevant hashtags,” the BBC added. “All of the tweeted photos bear a logo showing a dove with a rifle on its back bearing the Iranian flag. They also include a caption using the “Powerful Iran” hashtag in three languages: English, Arabic and Persian.”

The mass automated tweet army, while not very effective, does demonstrate the Iranian regime’s efforts to expand its online activities and specifically target Western audiences; even if the language translations offer some stumbling blocks.

“The campaign attempts to leverage hashtags related to the U.S. government (#FBI, #CIA), Israel, Saudi Arabia, and some conservative U.S. hashtags,” says John Little, a security and intelligence expert who writes at Blogs of War. “It also bizarrely attempts to leverage hashtags from popular culture such as #GreaseLive which appears in several tweets.”

Whatever the intention, Little points out, the campaign itself is far from sophisticated.

“In terms of effectiveness the campaign is a miserable failure. Almost all of the tweets have gone unnoticed and have no retweets or favorites. The few interactions that I can find also appear to be faked by other bots. In fact, a review of the top tweets for the hashtag reveals that a large number of them are my tweets exposing the campaign,” he said.

The ham-handed efforts complemented the ongoing social media efforts of the Iran lobby, including Twitter accounts for regime advocates such as Trita Parsi (@tparsi) of the National Iranian American Council, but the regime’s media efforts don’t end there as an Iranian naval commander said Tuesday that Iran retrieved thousands of pages of information from devices used by U.S. sailors who were briefly detained in January.

The claim, published by Iranian state media, marks the latest example of how the authorities in Tehran has kept an incident considered embarrassing to the United States in the media in the two months since it occurred in what only be considered an ongoing PR war Iran is trying to wage over an incident that virtually all U.S. media have moved on from as the presidential race goes into overdrive.

It probably disheartens the regime to see virtually every leading candidate in the U.S. election denounce the Iranian regime and call for additional sanctions in the wake of recent ballistic missile launches.

Hard on the heels of those provocative missile tests, a U.S. official told CNN Iran could launch an even more advanced 3-stage missile “at any minute.”

CNN compares such a vehicle to the rocket North Korea employed to launch a satellite last month, and notes a successful test “would give Iran further insights into intercontinental ballistic missile technology.”

All of which demonstrates that the mullahs in Tehran show no desire to reduce their missile program and in fact intend to move even more aggressively forward; most likely in recognition that a new incoming U.S. president will have a public mandate to act more forcefully with the regime – unlike the Obama administration’s run of public appeasement.

This may also explain why the regime is so focused on crushing any public dissent at home with ever growing human rights violations that have come to the forefront of human rights officials and organizations as pointed out in a story in the Daily Caller.

Ahmed Shaheed, the special rapporteur for Iran, told the U.N. Human Rights Council Monday “at least 966 persons — the highest rate in over two decades — were executed in [Iran in] 2015.” Last year’s executions represented an increase of 213 from the 753 executed in 2014.

“At least 73 juvenile offenders were reportedly executed between 2005 and 2015,” said Shaheed. “At least 160 others are awaiting the same fate on death row.”

Iran’s harsh crackdowns have not been limited to state executions, according to Shaheed. He said that as of January, at least 47 journalists and activists were imprisoned in the country. As many as 270 internet cafes were also closed for their supposed “threat to societal norms and values.”

Amnesty International’s report on Iran for 2015/2016 details many of the various human rights abuses the country continues to engage in, despite the renewed relationships it has made with the world since the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (known as the Iran nuclear deal) was inked last July. Iran’s violations range from the aforementioned executions to freedom of speech, and everything in between.

“The authorities continued to severely restrict freedoms of expression, association and assembly,” said Amnesty’s report. “They blocked Facebook, Twitter and other social media websites, closed or suspended media outlets including the Zanan monthly women’s magazine, jammed foreign satellite television stations, arrested and imprisoned journalists and online and other critics, and suppressed peaceful protests.”

The report also noted that Iranian police engage in torture of prisoners during interrogations to illicit confessions. Sentences for those found breaking Iran’s strict penal code include a range of public punishments including “flogging, blinding and amputations.”

Religious persecution continued to be a mainstay in the country. Baha’i, Christians and Sunni Muslims continue to be arrested regularly and are hampered when trying to gain employment, education and the ability to practice their respective religions. Ethnic minorities continue to live under similar conditions.

As the bad news continues to flow out of the Iranian regime, it shouldn’t come as a surprise and had been widely anticipated by Iranian dissident groups. We can only hope the rest of the world will pay attention.

By Michael Tomlinson

 

Iran Lobby Pushes Fiction of Moderate Win in Iran

by

Iran Lobby Pushes Fiction of Moderate Win in Iran

Iran Lobby Pushes Fiction of Moderate Win in Iran

That bastion of apologists for the Iranian regime’s abuses and extremists activity – the National Iranian American Council – has pushed vigorously the fiction that the recent parliamentary elections in Iran delivered a resounding win for the forces of moderation; all evidence to the contrary.

It’s a recognition by the NIAC and their fellow travelers that the rhetoric in the American presidential campaign has heated up against the recent actions of the mullahs with all the Republican candidates and now Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton all calling for new sanctions to be imposed in the wake of ballistic missile tests violating United Nations Security Council resolutions banning them.

For the NIAC, it’s a particularly thorny problem since the clock is now running on the end of the Obama presidency and what has been a policy of appeasement of the mullahs in Tehran. Coupled with that is growing public opinion that Iran has not shifted towards moderation in the wake of the nuclear deal, but in fact has grown more aggressive and hostile especially in human rights abuses and proxy wars with its neighbors.

The world has been subjected to the largest refugee crisis since World War II resulting from the Syrian civil war and has seen the Iranian regime go all in by begging Russia to intervene and target rebels to the regime of Bashar al-Assad and not ISIS as widely touted.

The Iranian elections were also a charade given the mass elimination of over half of the candidates submitted for approval. Even the most supportive news media have grudgingly admitted that the human rights situation in Iran and throughout the Middle East has grown more desperate.

Ahmad Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in Iran, has issued yet another blistering report of human rights conditions within Iran following similar condemnations by Amnesty International and Iranian dissident and watchdog groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), all of whom have painted a bleak picture of the mass arrests, torture, imprisonment and execution of journalists, artists, bloggers, students, ethnic and religious minorities and political opponents and dissidents.

The picture of how bad things are in Iran has become so obvious it’s taken on the near-certainty of gospel. Ask any person on the street if things have improved in Iran, the answer will most likely be “No.”

And yet the NIAC and its allies cannot give up the fight and still try to push the fiction that things are better, even as their own allies such as Iranian-American businessman Siamak Namazi was arrested and tossed into prison without explanation by the same regime he was promoting in the ultimate irony.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

But Jamal Abdi and Ryan Costello of the NIAC continued to push the party line with the publishing of a “policy memo” on the NIAC website cheerfully citing all the good news coming out of the Iranian elections such as:

  • Huge moderate wins in the parliament and Assembly of Experts, even go so far as saying Hassan Rouhani now has a plurality to enact his policies;
  • How Rouhani, newly empowered, will seek out new policies to open up bridges to the rest of the world; and
  • How so many notable hardliners were defeated as evidence of the mandate of the Iranian people for a new moderate future.

Unfortunately, none of that is true.

The dismissal of over 6,000 candidates left open the way for a field of candidates bulging with loyal supporters of the regime. If the Iranian people are only left with choices between bad and worse candidates, it stands to reason they would select the lesser of two evils.

What Abdi and Costello leave out is the simple fact that real power within the regime didn’t change at all. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei still remains in charge, as does the Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) which has been busy shooting missiles as fast as it can. The courts and police remain firmly in control and have been busy executing 2,300 people under Rouhani, as well as rounding up virtually any dissenter and locking them away.

Of course Abdi and Costello neglect to mention any of the extremist policies undertaken by Rouhani such as the level of executions than have surged higher than at any time in the history of the mullahs’ reign since 1989. Nor do they take up the lack of any progress on halting child executions, misogynist laws passed under Rouhani’s term or the continued use of Basiji paramilitaries to beat and arrest women for honor code violations such as driving alone or not wearing traditional hijabs.

Most galling of all are Abdi and Costello’s lack of any comment on the bloodshed caused by Rouhani’s policies in supporting three active wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen and the complete lack of any momentum to halt the killing taking place at the hand of Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters, Iranian-backed Shiite militia and Iranian-backed Houthi rebels.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said in an editorial on Fox News:

“Rouhani has not been the only loyal servant of the theocracy throughout his career. The same can be said of all the well-known candidates from the supposedly moderate and reformist faction in the recent elections. They include men like former Chief Prosecutor of the Revolutionary Court Ali Razini and former Prosecutor General and Intelligence Minister Ghorbanali Dorri Najafabadi, both of whom oversaw the executions of political prisoners, the extrajudicial assassinations of dissidents and undesirables, and issued orders for shockingly inhumane punishments like stoning.

“Meanwhile, standing side-by-side with current president Hassan Rouhani is former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who has somehow come to be regarded as a leading reformist. This is a man for whom Interpol issued an arrest warrant due to his involvement in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people and wounded 300.”

The reality is that things have not changed in Iran and in fact are only getting worse.

By Michael Tomlinson

Holding Iran Accountable Starts by Not Believing Iran Lobby

by

Holding Iran Accountable Starts by Not Believing Iran Lobby

Holding Iran Accountable Starts by Not Believing Iran Lobby

The Iran lobby, consisting of lobbying groups such as the National Iranian American Council and media platforms like Lobelog.com, has long argued that agreement on a nuclear deal would bring about a new period of moderation within Iran and smooth the way for normalized relations.

Since the agreement was completed last summer, the Iranian regime has acted nothing like a moderate government engaging in a wide variety of foreign policy excesses such as going all-in on the Syrian civil war and stepping up support for Houthi rebels in Yemen, to instituting a harsh crackdown at home imprisoning dissidents and journalists and keeping the gallows busy by marching over 2,200 people to their deaths over the past two years.

Throughout it all, the Iran lobby has worked hard to maintain its charade and keep journalists believing in this false narrative no matter how incredible the proof has been otherwise. One example of this is a Q&A in the New York Times by Rick Gladstone in which he regurgitates many of the Iran lobby’s myths. For example, Gladstone asks:

  • Is Iran honoring the nuclear agreement? He writes it is according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, but neglects to mention admissions by the head of that agency that inspection protocols had been comprised at various points and full reporting may never be achievable;
  • Are recent missile tests prohibited under the nuclear agreement? He says no, such launchings are considered a separate issue, but neglects to mention that the regime pushed hard to unlink a host of issues such as ballistic missiles, human rights and support for terrorism from the deal, thereby allowing the regime a free hand to continue its illegal activities;
  • Iran’s parliamentary elections last month were supposed to have strengthened moderate supporters of Hassan Rouhani. So why is Iran provoking its critics by testing missiles? Gladstone explains that the launches are conducted by the Revolutionary Guard Corps which is outside of Rouhani’s control, but neglects to point out that Rouhani has been a willing supporter of these hardline tactics since his government has overseen one of the harshest crackdowns in 20 years against public dissent.

This militancy on the part of the Iranian regime was reinforced by boasts by senior military commanders that the tests would continue even though they are in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions, which are being proven impotent by the lack of any consequences for these violations.

Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a senior commander for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that runs the regime’s missile program, told state television that it has more missiles ready to launch, and they are for defensive purposes.

“Iran’s missile program will not stop under any circumstances,” Hajizadeh said. “We are always ready to defend the country against any aggressor.”

The fact that the argument over the regime’s violations have shifted from calling for swift action to debates over whether or not imposition of sanctions might jeopardize a nuclear agreement that has already proven ineffectual in curbing the regime demonstrates how weak the international response has become.

This broad policy of appeasing the mullahs has already generated severe negative consequences as Iran seeks to aggressive upgrade its military and rearm in the wake of its deep involvement in three ongoing proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as well as a potential new arms race with its chief regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

Hajizadeh also announced that Iran is calling its own version of a spy drone, “Simorgh,” which is Iranian for “Phoenix,” according to the country’s state controlled media.

Iran’s version of the drone “was manufactured through reverse engineering of the U.S. drone, which was tracked and hunted down in Iran late in 2011, and has been equipped by the IRGC with bombing capability,” according to Fars News Agency.

This comes on the heels of an $8 billion shopping spree in Moscow by the Iranian regime and the imminent delivery of an advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile system.

Most disturbing of all was the announcement by Ahmed Shaheed, U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, that there had been a “staggering surge in the execution of at least 966 prisoners last year – the highest rate in over two decades,” Shaheed told a news briefing.

The number of executions are roughly double the number executed in 2010 and 10 times as many as were executed in 2005 and demonstrate how Rouhani’s promises of a more moderate government when he was elected were merely political window dressing.

“A large percentage of those executions are for drug offences and under Iran’s current drug laws, possession of 30 grams of heroin or cocaine would qualify for the death penalty. So there’s a number of draconian laws,” he said.

“Fundamental problems also exist with regard to the due process and fair trial rights of the accused,” Shaheed said.

“I continue to receive frequent and alarming reports about the use of prolonged solitary and incommunicado confinement, torture and ill-treatment, lack of access to lawyers and the use of confessions solicited under torture as evidence in trials – practices that clearly violate Iran’s own laws,” he said.

Hundreds of journalists, bloggers, activists and opposition figures “currently languish in Iran’s prisons and detention facilities,” he said.

None of which has stopped the Iran lobby from trying to divert attention to anything else as evidenced by an appearance by Jamal Abdi, of the NIAC, at a summit in Washington, DC aimed at criticizing the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia.

He spoke of how the Saudi regime tried to jeopardize the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran and criticized the visa restrictions the U.S. imposed on Iranians and Iranian dual nationals. He also spoke of how the U.S. is essentially “renting” the Saudi army to carry out the war in Yemen, and potentially even Syria, which is ironic considering that it was the Iranian regime’s support of the Assad regime in Syria and Houthi rebels in Yemen that started both conflicts in the first place.

All of which demonstrates how the Iran lobby will address any issue other than the current activities of the regime.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iranian Regime “Moderates” Get More Ballistic Missile Launches

by

Iranian Regime “Moderates” Get More Ballistic Missile Launches

Iranian Regime “Moderates” Get More Ballistic Missile Launches

Fulfilling vows the mullahs made to continue developing its ballistic missile program despite threats of new sanctions, the Iranian regime test-fired several ballistic missiles on Tuesday aimed at showing the regime’s “deterrent power” and “all-out readiness to counter any threat,” according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency.

The launches were carried out by the Revolutionary Guard Corps with surface-to-surface missiles fired from silos in central Iran and hit targets 435 miles away, according to the semiofficial Fars news agency.

These were the first tests since the U.S. Treasury Department imposed sanctions in January on 11 Iranian entities with alleged links to Tehran’s ballistic missile program, citing the “significant threat” the weapons posed to regional and global security. Iran last tested its missiles in October and November, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The Obama administration was understandably low-key in its response, taking pains to reiterate how it did not see that the test launches violated the recently approved nuclear agreement, but might be in violation of existing United Nations Security Council resolutions banning the development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles.

“To be very clear, such tests are not a violation of the JCPOA,” a senior Obama administration official said. “That said, there are strong indications that the test is inconsistent with U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231. If confirmed, we intend to raise the matter in the U.N. Security Council. We will also encourage a serious review of the incident and press for an appropriate response.”

Iranian regime officials have said its recent tests don’t violate international accords, and that the weapons are merely for defense. Hassan Rouhani ordered the missiles’ development to be expedited in December, amid the prospect of new U.S. sanctions and in clear defiance of existing prohibitions.

The absurdity of the nuclear deal into stark relief when we now see the folly of unlinking various issues such as ballistic missile development, proxy wars and human rights violations from the principle agreement, in which the regime is now freed of any potential leverage that could be used against it.

In a move that eerily imitates how North Korea ignored international agreements and sanctions, the Iranian regime threatened its willingness to walk away from the nuclear deal it so desperately sought now that is has secured a lifting of economic and gained access to $150 billion in frozen assets around the world.

“If our interests are not met under the nuclear deal, there will be no reason for us to continue,” Abbas Araqchi, Iran’s deputy foreign minister, warned during remarks delivered to a group of Iranian officials in Tehran.

“If other parties decide, they could easily violate the deal,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled media. “However, they know this will come with costs.”

Araqchi appeared to allude to the United States possibly leveling new economic sanctions as a result of the missile test, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

The reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and urgent.

“The administration’s response to Iran’s new salvo of threatening missile tests in violation of international law cannot once again be, it’s ‘not supposed to be doing that,’” Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said in a statement. “Now is the time for new crippling sanctions against Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Defense, Aerospace Industries Organization, and other related entities driving the Iranian ballistic missile program.”

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) warned that the nuclear agreement has done little to moderate the regime’s rogue behavior.

“Far from pushing Iran to a more moderate engagement with its neighbors, this nuclear deal is enabling Iran’s aggression and terrorist activities,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Sanctions relief is fueling Iran’s proxies from Yemen to Iraq to Syria to Lebanon. Meanwhile, Khamenei and the Iranian regime are acting with impunity because they know President Obama will not hold them accountable and risk the public destruction of his nuclear deal, the cornerstone of the president’s foreign policy legacy.”

McCarthy went on to demand that the Obama administration step forward with new sanctions as punishment for the missile test.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said on Tuesday that lawmakers would continue to press for new sanctions against Tehran “until the regime ends its violent, provocative behavior against the U.S. and our allies.”

In another sign that the regime has no interest in real moderation in the government, in spite of how the Iran lobby characterized the election results, top mullah Ali Khamenei appointed close ally Ebrahim Raeisi, the 55-year-old national prosecutor-general, as the new chairman of Astan Quds Razavi, the foundation that manages the shrine of Imam Reza in Mashhad.

Raeisi is a close ally of Khamenei, and his appointment will strengthen links between the leader’s office and the shrine, whose annual turnover – based on endowments, property and companies – is many billions of dollars slated for Khamenei’s private coffers.

Raeisi, who holds the clerical rank of hojjatoleslam, is a different character, according to a story by The Guardian. At last year’s 36th anniversary of the taking of the embassy hostages, which featured criticism of the Rouhani administration as well as denunciations of the United States as the “Great Satan”, Raeisi announced that the intelligence and security forces had “identified and cracked down on a network of penetration in media and cyberspace, and detained spies and writers hired by Americans.”

Raeisi, reportedly defended the amputation of the hands of thieves, also at the time of the 1988 executions of 3,000-5,000 political prisoners and dissidents ordered by then leader Khomenei, Raeisi was deputy prosecutor in Tehran, a role he had held since 1984-5 where he played a key role in the massacre.

These are the faces controlling Iran and it does not bode well for future prospects for peace.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Priorities Do Not Include Human Rights Reforms

by

Iran Lobby Priorities Do Not Include Human Rights Reforms

Iran Lobby Priorities Do Not Include Human Rights Reforms

If there has been one consistent aspect to the Iran lobby’s efforts to humanize and moderate the perception of the mullahs in Tehran, it has been the complete lack of criticism over the perennially awful human rights violations committed by the Iranian regime, especially under the first term of Hassan Rouhani’s “moderate” government.

The Iran lobby’s marching orders since the creation of advocacy groups such as the National Iranian American Council, has been to blunt the forceful voices of long-time critics of the Iranian regime such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and key members of Congress and the media and spin a counter-narrative of an Iran yearning to be moderate if only given the chance with a nuclear deal that freed it from crippling sanctions.

It’s a playbook that borrows heavily from how North Korea was able to develop nuclear weapons and advanced missile systems even after agreeing to restrict both under international agreements that it consistently violated. The mullahs calculated that the rest of the world, especially an incoming President Barack Obama, had little stomach for direct confrontation with the regime and took a gamble that it could muzzle dissent enough to reshape its image.

The NIAC, led by Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi, took on the challenge of spinning this new vision after the “election” of Hassan Rouhani and new warm and fuzzy kind of mullah who tweets and posts Instagram shots of him watching the World Cup sans clerical robes and turban.

While the Iranian regime was able to secure a nuclear deal and a lifting of sanctions, the “win” may prove illusory as the situation in the Middle East continues to deteriorate with a worsening situation in Syria, a full-blown proxy war is building with Saudi Arabia and an American presidential election that offers the remaining candidates with public policy positions that take a much harder line against Iran than the Obama administration.

To that end, the Iran lobby has begun to focus on two central goals in its PR push of late. One is to attack vocal opponents of the regime among the presidential candidates, especially candidates such as Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, as well as take jabs at Hillary Clinton’s recent statements warning Iran to refrain from continued aggression against its neighbors.

Long-time regime supporter, Ali Gharib, has been especially prolific in hurling invective against the Trump campaign, his latest salvos coming on noted Iran lobby blog, Lobelog.com, as well as a sarcastic diatribe against Carson in The Guardian.

In both cases, Gharib does what he does best, use snark and sarcasm to deflect from any serious discussion of the shortcomings of the Iranian regime, specifically the horrific abuses meted out against journalists, women, ethnic minorities, dissidents and Christians. Gharib cannot be bothered with these facts since he’s having too much fun mocking candidates.

But his attacks and those of Parsi and Marashi hide the genuine concern and fear Iran lobby supporters have which is a new incoming president would not be beholden to the agreements made by the Obama administration and would be have a free hand to chart their own foreign policy which addresses the key problem in the Middle East today, which is that Iran is at the heart of three proxy wars and supporter of three terrorist organizations and a dictatorial regime that has caused the largest refugee crisis since World War II.

Parsi, Gharib and other Iran lobbyists refuse to discuss the impending mass execution of 100 prisoners, nor the inexcusable mass killings of every adult male from a village in southern Iran.

The Norway-based Iran Human Rights group revealed on Friday that sources inside and outside Ghezel Hessar prison, including a prosecutor attached to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Court, confirmed that the inmates were told that the country’s Supreme Court had upheld their sentences, and that they should prepare to be put to death.

The prospect of this mass execution for drug crimes comes just months after the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) inked a new $20 million deal with Iran to assist in its counter-narcotic efforts. Advocates against the excesses of the drug war have pilloried the UN for its dealings with Iran, which kills hundreds of people every year, including foreign nationals, over drug-related charges. Iran Human Rights estimates that more than 1,800 people were executed for drug crimes in Iran between 2010 and 2014, most without due process or access to proper legal representation.

The sheer barbarism of the Iranian regime is appalling and yet, the Iran lobby never speaks of these issues. Its silence is damning.

The lobby also never mentions alarming new incidents of militant acts by the Iranian regime every day. Just this weekend, they included:

  • An Australian naval ship seized a large arms cache that may have come from Iran and headed to Yemen by way of Somalia for Iranian-backed Houthi rebels. On board was more than 2,000 pieces of weaponry — including 1,989 AK-47 assault rifles and 100 rocket-propelled grenades;
  • The U.S. Commerce Department announced export restrictions on Chinese telecoms equipment maker ZTE Corp for alleged violations of U.S. export controls on Iranian which the Chinese company sold U.S. made telecommunications products to Iran, which is banned;
  • Yukiya Amano, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization, disclosed that certain agreements reached under the Iran nuclear deal limit inspectors from publicly reporting on potential violations by the regime. Amano’s remarks come on the heels of a February IAEA oversight report that omitted many details and figures related to Iran’s nuclear program. The report sparked questions from outside nuclear experts and accusations from critics that the IAEA was not being transparent with its findings; and
  • The FBI arrested the American head of a metallurgy company on charges of illegally exporting to Iran a half-ton of special powder that could, in theory, be used in the production of nuclear-tipped rockets. Agents nabbed 44-year-old Erdal Kuyumcu of Woodside, New York—the CEO of Global Metallurgy, a self-described “provider of specialty metal products, services and supply chain solutions” that lists phone numbers in New York City and Turkey. That Iranian government agencies or companies were allegedly trying to get their hands on cobalt-nickel powder might seem to indicate that Tehran, despite having agreed to suspend its nuclear program, is still trying to develop ballistic missiles optimized for carrying an atomic warhead.

Of course, the Iran lobby has chosen not to defend any of these actions, nor make mention of the continued aggressive moves by the regime, which makes it all too clear what their real motives are: protecting the new “moderate” image of the mullahs.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Working Hard to Spin Iran Elections

by

Iran Lobby Working Hard to Spin Iran Elections

Iran Lobby Working Hard to Spin Iran Elections

With the recent parliamentary elections in Iran, the regime and its allies are working hard to project the image of a moderate landslide setting the stage for a new era of peace, prosperity and happiness. Somewhere in there are probably also promises that eating ice cream doesn’t make you fat and pots of gold lie at the end of rainbows.

At the center of that spin control exercise stands the National Iranian American Council, the chief lobbyist and public advocate for the mullahs in Tehran, which sent its leaders out to talk to virtually any journalist that would listen to them about how great things turned out in Iran.

“The stunning setback of the hardliners in the elections is precisely why they opposed the Iran nuclear deal,” said Trita Parsi, president of the NIAC. “They knew that if successful, the Rouhani faction would benefit electorally from the significant achievement of resolving the nuclear issue and reducing tensions with United States.”

Parsi’s comments are the key message for regime supporters: that approval of the nuclear deal was the key for the moderate wins. It makes for a nice fiction, but it is also as blatantly wrong.

First, Parsi’s contention of a moderate win is beguilingly false since he ignores the months-long vetting process in which the handpicked members of the Guardian Council bounced over half of the 12,000 candidates that submitted for approval to appear on the ballot. Those that survived were largely approved based on their allegiance to the Supreme leader of the mullahs and adherence to the supporting the policies of the ruling mullahs, backed by the Revolutionary Guard.

Anyone who deviated from those goals was arrested and thrown in jail during a massive crackdown across Iran that saw journalists, dissidents and potential opposition politicians rounded up. Of course, Parsi and his colleagues did not utter a word of protest during these arrests.

In another quote given in an editorial in the Washington Post, Parsi added that hardliners “knew that if successful, the Rouhani faction would benefit electorally from the significant achievement of resolving the nuclear issue and reducing tensions with United States. These benefits would not just be limited to the parliamentary elections, but could establish a new balance of power in Iran’s internal politics with significant long-term repercussions.”

It’s the second falsehood Parsi preaches in claiming there are indeed factions splitting the Iranian regime, including a bloc of moderates aligned with Hassan Rouhani.

Where Parsi is wrong is his claim that the differences separating these so-called “faction” are political, when they are in fact more about power and greed.

The Iranian regime ranks as one of the most corrupt economies in the world with the Revolutionary Guard and the families of the mullahs running the regime deeply involved and controlling of virtually all the major industries in Iran, including petroleum, aviation, telecommunications, mining, shipping and manufacturing.

With the cash infusion of $100 billion in hard currency being made available, the mullahs and military are loathe to give up control of those assets, or the billions in foreign investment that will flow as a result of the nuclear deal. The fight over parliamentary seats is less about opening up Iranian society and broadening human rights and more about securing enough seats to control how that spoils of the nuclear deal get divided up.

The mullahs have long made clear their political strategy in crafting a regime modeled after China in which the economy is liberalized while maintaining tight political control over the people. In that manner, the parliamentary elections and claims of moderation by the Iran lobby make perfect sense. As Parsi and others proclaim moderation, the government is still left firmly in the hands of those intent on enriching themselves and not improving the lot of the Iranian people.

The deception by Parsi does go to some absurd lengths as he claims in an interview on The Real News that Ali Larijani, the current head of the parliament and overseer of the judiciary, is actually in favor of moderate policies.

“Ali Larijani, who is the current head of the parliament, is a conservative. And he’s been a conservative for a very long time, belongs to a very conservative and well-established family. But he has aligned himself with Rouhani most of the time on most issues. And he’s not considered right now to be in the anti-Rouhani camp,” Parsi claims.

It’s a silly claim when you consider that the regime’s judicial and police functions are firmly in control of hardliners that enforced the vetting process in the first place and removed all the opponents to Rouhani’s slate of “moderate” allies. This is also the same judiciary that has consistently imprisoned Americans, Christians and sentences children to death, and most recently snatched up Parsi’s friend and ally, Siamak Namazi, and threw him in prison without legal representation or charge.

The fact that Parsi called these “the most consequential non-presidential elections in Iran at least for the last two decades” in an interview with the Cato Institute, is even more absurd given that many would claim that the disputed 2009 presidential elections that were stolen and protested with mass demonstrations that were brutally put down violently by the mullahs were the most consequential elections in Iran since that was the last time the Iranian people actually took a stab at real regime change.

The last false argument being put forth by the Iran lobby is the contention that real change is possible down the road with the possibility of a new supreme leader being elected following the inevitable death of the 76-year old Ali Khamenei.

“In the short term the parliamentary elections will impact Iran’s economic policies. But for the long term, this assembly could elect the next supreme leader, which has greater long-term implications for Iran and its people,” said Reza Marashi, also of the NIAC.

It is laughable to think there will be any real possibility of installing a new top mullah that would deviate from the path the Islamic revolution has taken, or loosen the control the mullahs and Revolutionary Guard have over the country. For Marashi to think there would be any change over a long, incremental pathway ignores the abject suffering and brutality being meted out against the Iranian people every day.

When the Rouhani regime has overseen a record number of executions, far exceeding the high water mark set by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the idea of a loosening of the regime is merely a smokescreen.

Already Rouhani has seen fit to keep the vast majority of the billions in released funds in overseas accounts to help pay for the new military hardware Iran is busy buying from Russia and soon China. The Iranian people are unlikely to see any of it and ultimately their hopes for an improving economy will remain only an unfilled dream so long as the mullahs are in Power.

By Michael Tomlinson

Who Are These So-Called “Moderates” in Iran Elections?

by

Who Are These So-Called “Moderates” in Iran Elections?

Who Are These So-Called “Moderates” in Iran Elections?

The New York Times, among other news outlets, trumpeted the election results from Iran with great fanfare announcing “strong” gains by moderates and reformists in this weekend’s parliamentary elections. Predictably, the spin revolved around the notion that this was a step in the right direction towards a more moderate future in Iran.

“Though hard-liners still control the most powerful positions and institutions of the state, two national elections last week appeared to build on the slow but unmistakable evolution toward a more moderate political landscape — now and into the future,” wrote Thomas Erdbrink in the Times. “While the hard-liners still remain firmly in control of the judiciary, the security forces and much of the economy, the success of the moderate, pragmatic and pro-government forces seemed to give Mr. Rouhani political currency to push a course of greater liberalization of the economy at home and accommodation abroad.”

What Erdbrink and most other Western journalists miss is the simple fact that the mullahs in control of the regime – virtually all of the important sectors of power as Erdbrink notes – have allowed a smattering of candidates to run that can appear “moderate” when compared to the more vocal conservatives in power, but in fact all share the same loyalty to the aims of the Islamic state.

Revolution and regime change are not coming anytime soon to Iran under these mullahs no matter what rosy picture some media wish to paint.

What is even more amusing is that all the celebration is focused on the election of a small minority dubbed “moderates” in the lower house parliament, but in the 88-member Assembly of Experts, over three-quarters of the original candidates seeking to run were swept off the ballot before voting even began, leaving only hardcore supporters of top mullah Ali Khamenei to win seats.

As to whom actually won, the Wall Street Journal editorial board took a closer look at the winners and found them less than “moderate” and downright unsavory.

  • Mostafa Kavakebian. The General Secretary of Iran’s Democratic Party, Mr. Kavakebian is projected to enter the Majlis as a member for Tehran. In a 2008 speech he said: “The people who currently reside in Israel aren’t humans, and this region is comprised of a group of soldiers and occupiers who openly wage war on the people.”
  • Another moderate is Kazem Jalali, who previously served as the spokesman for the National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Majlis and is projected to have won a seat. In 2011 Mr. Jalali said his committee “demands the harshest punishment”—meaning the death penalty—for Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, the two leaders of the Green Movement that was bloodily suppressed after stolen elections in 2009. Those two leaders are still under house arrest.

According to the Journal, as for new Assembly of Experts, many of the “moderates” projected to have won seats were also listed on the hard-liners’ lists, since the ratio of candidates to seats was well below two, including:

  • Mohammad Reyshahry, a former Intelligence Minister believed to have helped spearhead the 1988 summary execution of thousands of leftists;
  • Ghorbanali Dorri-Najafabadi, another former Intelligence Minister believed to have directed the “chain murders” of the late 1990s; and
  • Ayatollah Yousef Tabatabainejad, a fierce opponent of women’s rights who has called Israel “a cancerous tumor.”

That seems like quite a slate of “moderate” new faces that got elected. Maybe Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi from the National Iranian American Council, can fly over and have lunch with these moderates, unless they are worried they might be arrested like their fellow Iran lobby supporter Siamak Namazi who now languishes in an regime prison.

“The political reality in Iran is that the Ayatollahs, backed by the Revolutionary Guards, remain firmly in control,” the Journal correctly points out.

The funny thing about the parade of optimistic and sunny news headlines is how they eerily echo the same notes of hope that came in the wake of the nuclear agreement only to be followed by grimmer headlines of illegal ballistic missile tests, detaining of American sailors, rocket launches at U.S. and French navy warships, recruiting Russia to fight in Syria and the largest refugee crisis since World War II.

Even as regime supporters laud these “moderate” wins, shocking news came of a village in southern Iran of a heinous incident announced by Shahindokht Molaverdi, the ironically named vice president for women and family affairs.

“We have a village in Sistan and Baluchestan province where every single man has been executed,” she said, without naming the place or clarifying whether the executions took place at the same time or over a longer period. “Their children are potential drug traffickers as they would want to seek revenge and provide money for their families. There is no support for these people.”

Maya Foa, from the anti-death penalty campaigning group Reprieve, said: “The apparent hanging of every man in one Iranian village demonstrates the astonishing scale of Iran’s execution spree. These executions — often based on juvenile arrests, torture, and unfair or nonexistent trials — show total contempt for the rule of law, and it is shameful that the UN and its funders are supporting the police forces responsible.”

Amnesty is particularly concerned about Iran’s execution of juveniles. In a report published in January, the group said Iran had carried out 73 executions of juvenile offenders between 2005 and 2015.

Sistan and Baluchestan, where the unnamed village is situated, “is arguably the most underdeveloped region in Iran, with the highest poverty, infant and child mortality rates, and lowest life expectancy and literacy rates in the country,” according to Ahmed Shaheed, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran. “The province … experiences a high rate of executions for drug-related offences or crimes deemed to constitute ‘enmity against God’ in the absence of fair trials.”

Even as the Iran lobby celebrates these wins, an Iranian village has seen all the men in it killed indiscriminately by these same “moderates.”

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Election Results Predictably Praised by Iran Lobby

by

http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2016/feb/28/five-lessons-from-irans-2016-elections-tehranbureau

http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2016/feb/28/five-lessons-from-irans-2016-elections-tehranbureau

As the Iranian regime counts the ballots from this weekend’s parliamentary elections, the Iran lobby is already hailing it as a momentous victory for “moderate” forces in Iran in what may be one of the most blatant obfuscations since Adolf Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria based on the pretext of being invited in to restore order.

“The stunning setback of the hardliners in the elections is precisely why they opposed the Iran nuclear deal. They knew that if successful, the Rouhani faction would benefit electorally from the significant achievement of resolving the nuclear issue and reducing tensions with United States. These benefits would not just be limited to the parliamentary elections, but could establish a new balance of power in Iran’s internal politics with significant long-term repercussions,” said Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council and lead cheerleader for the Iranian regime.

His absurd comment came in a piece in Huffington Post in which he failed to acknowledge the most glaring problem with his effusive praise: the handpicked Guardian Council of Ali Khamenei removed almost 90 percent of the “moderates” from the ballot during the months-long vetting process.

The only candidates left on the ballot, especially outside of Tehran, were devoted and dedicated candidates solidly aligned with Khamenei, the ruling mullahs and Revolutionary Guards’ leadership.

Taking a few scattered wins in and around Tehran and calling it a “moderate” win is akin to Parsi’s previous arguments about the nuclear deal being a moderating force for Iran and the West, but in its aftermath the regime has conducted illegal missile tests, arrested scores of dissidents and journalists and stepped up its war in Syria.

The money line from Parsi is when he says “In order to avoid a hardline backlash, the moderation of Iranian policies need to happen at a moderate pace.” We can only assume Parsi thinks reform in Iran happens at a snail’s pace. For him and the rest of the Iran lobby, electing one moderate out of 12,000 thrown off the ballot would be considered “progress,” which is why his proclamation of moderates is so silly, especially when we consider that candidates backing Hassan Rouhani are dubbed “reformists” in a stretch of logic that hurts the brain when thinking about it.

Rouhani has turned into anything but a moderate. Rouhani’s sole purpose in being hand selected by Khamenei and all other candidates cleared from the field beforehand was to convince the West of a moderate image and secure a deal lifting crippling sanctions. In his tenure, he has instead presided over the highest increase in executions ever in Iran, cracked down hard on journalists and presided over three proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen in a show of extremist Islamic expansion that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his much-reviled predecessor, could only dream about.

The fact that Rouhani supporters could only win 30 seats in heavily populated Tehran and lose across the rest of the country indicates the usual pattern of deceit coming from the mullahs: Let the “moderates” claim a victory for global media consumption in Tehran, but dominate and assure control everywhere else in Iran.

The recipe for electoral success has worked since decades ago and has allowed the mullahs to play with the world, around their internal fighting. While the infighting is only about their share of power and both “moderates” and “Hardliners” are the same when it comes to executions, domestic repression, and their support for terrorism abroad. Take for instance the so called moderate Rouhani, the reign of executions under his watch has been much larger than his “hardliner” Ahmadinejad, and he and his Foreign Minister Zarif (Another person that is referred to as “moderate” within the mullah’s regime) have continuously expressed their support for the Syrian dictatorship, the Hezbollah and most extremist movements in Iraq and Yemen. Under Rouhani and his predecessors, virtually all legitimate dissident groups and political parties have long been outlawed and even the nascent Green Movement which was crushed in 2009 and was led by leaders arguably still cozy with the regime leadership has no recognition or legitimacy within Iran.

Add to that the contention by the Iranian regime that democracy was served by the participation of an estimated 33 million of Iran’s 55 million eligible voters and you find remarkable similarities with claims by other totalitarian regimes such as the old Soviet Union, North Korea and Nazi Germany in which near universal participation by the electorate was often forced and compulsory as was who to vote for. The Iranian regime is no different.

“Iranian voters delivered a strong message to the elite that political and social aspirations that have long been unmet need to be addressed more robustly,” said Reza Marashi, also of NIAC who claimed voters wanted change, even if it was exchanging one regime diehard for another.

Aaron David Miller, a vice president at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, noted in an editorial in the Los Angeles Times that “none of this favors Iran’s pragmatists and centrists, let alone its reformers. In fact, as the International Crisis Group notes, in Iran historically ‘external loosening’ is balanced with ‘internal stiffening.’

“That is what happened after the 1988 cease-fire in the war with Iraq, and after the 2003 nuclear agreement with Britain, France and Germany, when the powerful Guardian Council disqualified reformist candidates in the next elections and conservatives regained their parliamentary majority. A step forward in a highly authoritarian and ideological system can easily produce a few steps back, or at least to the side,” Miller notes.

The Guardian, had similar takeaways in looking at the elections, including that there are no simple divisions of “moderates” and “reformists” since candidates were disqualified less on political views and more on devotion to the ruling mullahs.

In describing Rouhani, Gareth said “Iran’s president has proved himself an astute, hard-headed operator,” adding that “politically, Rouhani will need to maintain public support with an eye to being re-elected as president next year. Anecdotal reports of a lower turn-out in poorer parts of Tehran may reflect most strongly a wider sense among Iranians they are not benefiting from the easing of sanctions.”

While the Iran lobby may be praising this weekend’s election results, the reality of a rigged election means nothing really changed as most Americans tuned into the Oscars instead.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Elections Results Are In a Day Early: The Mullahs Won

by

Iran Elections Results Are In a Day Early: The Mullahs Won

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati (R), a candidate for the upcoming vote on the Assembly of Experts, and Iran’s former chief negotiator Saeed Jalili attend a conservatives election campaign gathering in Tehran February 24, 2016. REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi/TIMA

The headlines screamed out from various news publications around the world on the day before parliamentary elections were to be held in Iran:

“Moderates Test Hardliners’ Grip on Power in Iran Vote” – Reuters

“Iran’s Moderates Face a Major Challenge in First Elections Since the Nuclear Deal” – TIME

“Iran Reformists Hoping for Boost in Parliament Election” – New York Times

“Why Iran’s Parliamentary Elections This Friday Are So Crucial” – The Nation

Most of the international media seem to be suffering from the same form of mass amnesia in that they have conveniently forgotten the fact that the elections were rigged months ago when the Guardian Council, whose members are handpicked by top mullah Ali Khamenei, kicked off virtually all candidates from ballots with even a hint of moderation or lack of ideological purity.

Just as it has done in every election since the mullahs seized the revolution in 1979 and turned Iran into an theocratic dictatorship, there is no doubt to the outcome. There was no doubt when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected in a blatant steal of the ballot box and there was no doubt when Hassan Rouhani was elected after virtually all potential challengers were rejected by the same Guardian Council that mowed down this election.

So as Iranians go to the polls, they are going to find themselves confronted with few choices and fewer options if they truly want regime change. Not only have any potential “moderates” been knocked off the ballot, but true opposition parties and dissident groups are outlawed and membership in any is grounds for arrest and even execution.

While the U.S. is engaged in a presidential race marked by hyperbole, multiple debates, flooding of social media and a months-long process of examination, questioning and arguing with candidates, the mullahs in Iran spent months dumping candidates and allowing only one week of actual campaigning.

But some media have tried prying the lid the mullahs have placed on these elections and are running stories that look more critically at how these elections are a sham and already decided.

David Blair, writing for the Telegraph, visited Qom, one of Iran’s holiest cities, and found residents there with little to no choices available to them.

“If any of the inhabitants of Iran’s second-holiest city wish to vote for reformists in Friday’s election, they will be disappointed,” he writes. “Every moderate candidate who tried to stand in Qom has already been disqualified, leaving the 1.1 million people of this desert city – known as the Shia Vatican – to choose between different brands of hardliners.”

“The voting that will take place in Qom sums up everything important about Iran’s election. On the face of it, people will have the freedom to choose both a new Majles, or parliament, and a new Assembly of Experts, the body which appoints and supervises the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,” Blair correctly points out. “In reality, another committee in Iran’s labyrinthine power structure, the Guardian Council, has already vetted every candidate for both elections, banning almost half of the 12,000 hopefuls from standing and weeding out most of the reformers.”

Outside of Tehran, Blair and other journalists have cities and communities in more rural areas with virtually no moderates on any ballot and limited campaigning with most Iranians resigned to picking from lists of hardliners vs. more hardliners.

A senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, writing in the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged the same situation playing out.

“The upcoming vote will largely mirror past elections in Iran, being neither free nor fair. The candidates have been closely screened and the outcome is expected to uphold the largely conservative makeup in parliament and the Assembly of Experts. In addition, the victors will remain largely dependent on military institutions, namely the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Moderates will stay marginalized in this arrangement and face intensified pressure from hard-line colleagues,” Khalaji said.

He goes on to point out that Rouhani’s election was devoted to getting a nuclear deal done to relieve the regime of crippling economic sanctions.

“Mr. Rouhani has focused most of his energy on the nuclear deal. He has not improved the dismal human rights situation in Iran”… During his tenure, military and intelligence suppression of political activists has remained robust and effective,” he writes.

“Presidential candidates in 2017 will need to establish strong relations with the supreme leader and his apparatus, especially the Revolutionary Guards, and are likely to succeed by reassuring these entities that their political and economic interests will not be undermined,” he added.

The fact of the matter elections in Iran are already pre-determined. The Revolutionary Guards and religious clergy exert overwhelming control of the country’s economy and industries and quickly stifle any dissent by tossing dissidents in prison and hanging them publicly to deter any future opponents.

That control will almost certainly continue to flow through regime leaders such as Ahmad Jannati who will be a shoo-in for re-election to the 88-member Assembly of Experts and will also shepherd the process to ensure the replacement for Khamenei is just as ideologically pure and committed to the Velayat-e-Faqih and more important keep the mullahs hold on power intact.

In remarks echoed by Khamenei, Jannati this week accused the United States and Britain of trying to influence Friday’s votes.

“The United States and the United Kingdom were trying to take advantage of the Iranian elections and send their agents and infiltrators into the Assembly of Experts, but God helped us and we managed to identify and block them all,” he was quoted as saying by the Fars news agency on Wednesday.

Jannati is a clear example of the type of extremist Iran will be electing and it was already decided long ago. Today’s vote is just a formality.

By Michael Tomlinson

Human Rights Remain Under Assault by Iranian Regime

by

Human Rights Remain Under Assault by Iranian Regime

Human Rights Remain Under Assault by Iranian Regime

Next week the Iranian regime will conduct parliamentary elections that most news media and analysts have already called rigged because of the customary elimination of over two-thirds of the candidates seeking seats in the lower parliament and the more powerful Assembly of Experts.

The regime’s Guardian Council, with its handpicked members by top mullah Ali Khamenei, exercised their usual due diligence in removing any candidate that even had a hint of moderation or deviation from the Islamic revolutionary principles that guide the regime.

What is left are only those candidates that pledge religious, ideological and political fealty to the mullahs that run the regime and hold sway over virtually all facets of life in Iran.

This winnowing process empowers the mullahs and allows them the freedom and discretion to continue the unabated crackdown on human rights in advance of the elections with no cause for worry or recrimination from the international community, but there are news accounts that leak out depicting the brutality being visited on ordinary Iranians – often smuggled out by members of the dissident community at great personal risk.

One of those moving accounts was published in Quartz online in a photo essay by a photographer who spent four years researching women and girls being held in Iranian prisons, many awaiting death sentences.

“My main goal in this project was to understand how young girls could end up in jail in the first place,” the prizewinning photographer tells Quartz. “I spent time talking to them, they were nice and kind.”

In Iran, the death penalty can be applied to minors, and in 2014, a United Nations report estimated that at least 160 juvenile offenders were on death row in the country.

While according to a Jan. 25 report by Amnesty International, 73 juvenile offenders were executed in Iran between 2005 and 2015.

The compelling photos paint a grim portrait of a regime willing to kill young girls, often for crimes committed by male acquaintances who escape punishment, leaving it to the girls to pay the ultimate price in their stead.

It’s a situation that the Iran lobby has been virtually silent on. A careful perusal of the websites, blogs and social media feeds for regime supporters such as Trita Parsi, Reza Marashi and Tyler Cullis of the National Iranian American Council or Ali Gharib or Lobelog.com reveal hardly a word of criticism or protest over the heinous violations. What they have protested though has been the incarceration of Siamak Namazi, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen who was detained by regime authorities and not part of the prisoner swap that occurred as part of the nuclear agreement.

It is ironic that Namazi’s case is the one that earns the attention of the Iran lobby because of the close relationship he has with Parsi and his role in helping launch the NIAC and as an outspoken advocate of the nuclear deal with the regime.

Now Namazi is experiencing the same denial of legal representation that was forced on other American hostages such as Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. We can only hope now that the shoe is on the other foot, these supporters of the regime would be more vocal in their criticisms, but we doubt it.

These elections though will provide a glimpse though of the lie that is Iranian regime democracy, which was discussed in an editorial in the New York Post who took to task the policy of appeasement exercised by the Obama administration:

“When it runs out of plausible excuses for its appeasement-plus policy on Iran, the Obama administration advances one argument as final line of defense: showing goodwill toward the Islamic Republic would help ‘moderates’ secure a greater share of power in Tehran with the hope of an eventual change of behavior by the ruling mullahs.”

“But who are the ‘moderates’ that Obama hopes to promote Tehran? A trio of mullahs consisting of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Security Minister Dorri Najafabadi and current President Hassan Rouhani forms the core of the faction that Obama hopes would sail to victory next week,” the article writes. “The triumvirate has a history of masquerading as moderates.”

He recounts how these supposed moderates have often espoused political reforms, but never offered or implemented any political reforms while holding office.

“Rafsanjani and his hand-picked successor Khatami governed for 16 years, but never offered a single political reform let alone implementing any. Their successor Rouhani has had more than two years to show that he follows the same path. During his presidency Iran has become world leader in the number of executions and political prisoners,” he adds.

Rouhani is exercising the playbook that Rafsanjani and Khatami exercised in portraying himself as a moderate when he has no intention of supporting reforms and has openly talked about his admiration for the so-called “Chinese Model” which emphasizes economic development with control of the government firmly in the Communist Party’s hands. Rouhani envisions a similar situation with the lifting of economic sanctions bolstering the flow of money to regime coffers, but no loosening of political restrictions.

The Financial Times took note of the Iranian public’s distinct lack of enthusiasm for upcoming elections against the backdrop of a sputtering economy still stifled by mass corruption and a focus on diverting funds to supporting the proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq.

“The subdued seasonal shopping just one month before Norouz, the Iranian new year holiday, is adding to widespread gloom about a prolonged economic stagnation that has also dimmed public enthusiasm for the crucial upcoming elections,” the Financial Times writes. “Hassan Rouhani, the country’s centrist president, is now blamed by many for failing to deliver on his election campaign promises to help improve the economy with the nuclear agreement. Although inflation has shrunk — from a peak of about 40 per cent in 2013, when Mr. Rouhani took the reins, to about 13 per cent today, according to central bank figures — economic growth is next to zero and people are unwilling to purchase goods.”

While the election results may be a forgone conclusion, the hope remains that an oppressed Iranian people will someday soon see true regime change.

By Michael Tomlinson