Iran Lobby

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

NIAC Tries to Fool the Public on Iran Again

by

NIAC Tries to Fool the Public on Iran Again

NIAC Tries to Fool the Public on Iran Again

The National Iranian American Council is in overdrive using the proverbial firehouse to blanket websites, blogs and comment forums in the hope that the incoming Trump administration doesn’t undo the past three years of achievements on behalf of the Iranian regime.

It’s latest contribution was a piece appearing on CNN authored by Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi who again attempt to portray the choices facing the new administration in regards to the nuclear agreement reached with Iran as an either or proposition of leaving it alone or ripping it up and risking grave consequences.

It’s a Hobson’s choice that the NIAC has become adept at: Follow our suggestion and everything will be fine, but dare threaten Iran and risk cataclysm.

The 800,000 people killed in the Syrian conflict so far at the hands of the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Iranian fighters would be hard pressed to agree with those choices.

The Iranian regime has established itself clearly as uninterested in peaceful conflict resolution and instead has doubled down and gone all in using military force and violence in an effort to impose its religious will on its neighbors in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Parsi and Marashi argue that Trump should take the “political risk necessary to broaden the opening to Iran precisely to avoid replicating recent US policy failures in the Middle East.”

This may be the stupidest statement made yet by Parsi and Marashi.

Why on Earth would Donald Trump want to take a political risk on behalf of Iran, especially as he is already being assailed by the mainstream press and the political elites that turned their noses up at his candidacy (Parsi and Marashi included)?

Parsi and Marashi attempt to force the focus on the survival of the nuclear agreement with Iran when the issue has never been the agreement itself, but rather the behavior of the mullahs in Tehran.

No agreement is worth the paper it’s printed on if one of the participants in the agreement willfully ignores it right from the beginning. The fact that the Obama administration and European Union granted several waivers and exemptions right at the start made the agreement ineffectual and impotent.

During the campaign, Trump correctly focused not on the agreement itself, but the conduct of the mullahs after the agreement was reached. His criticism of the billions of dollars in cash released to Iran and its use in funding conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen demonstrates he looked at the optics correctly, optics that Parsi and Marashi are trying hard to change now with their desperate lobbying campaign.

Parsi and Marashi attempt to frame the discussion around one of Trump’s biggest pledges which was to destroy ISIS and argue that “he cannot walk away or renegotiate the nuclear deal without undermining the coalition against the terror group.”

Unfortunately, Parsi and Marashi never acknowledge that Iranian regime itself is part of the axis of terrorist sponsors with its long-running support for Hezbollah and its sheltering of Al-Qaeda leaders in Iran after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan drove them out.

They also incorrectly state that the Iran nuclear deal cannot be re-negotiated when in fact any agreement can be re-negotiated; a simple fact that the businessman in Trump knows full well. When you have a rotten deal on the table, it’s the idiot that accepts it as gospel. Trump is no idiot, much as Parsi and Marashi have claimed in the past.

Parsi and Marashi are correct when they characterize Iran as having “substantial latent power – population size and potential for wealth generation,” but miss the most crucial aspect of that power, which is “how will Iran’s leaders choose to apply it?”

Will clerical leaders such as Ali Khamenei and Hassan Rouhani seek to use that potential to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians? Of course not.

Iran’s economy has spiraled downward generating massive protests from small businessmen to school teachers, only to engender a broad and punishing crackdown on dissenters that have filled Iran’s prisons to capacity.

Will the Iranian regime seek to stabilize the Middle East and seek to reduce tensions and conflict? Absolutely not.

Iranian regime deepened the Syrian conflict and broadened it, while bringing Russia into the fight and setting the stage for a return to Cold War confrontations between the U.S. and Russian armed forces. Iran mullahs ignited the Yemen civil war with its clandestine military support for Houthi rebels and plunged Iraq back into sectarian conflict by raising Shiite militias in fighting Sunni insurgents tossed out of the power-sharing government of former president Nouri al-Maliki.

What is even more astonishing is Parsi and Marashi’s suggestion that the solution to the Middle East’s problems is to solve the “Saudi-Iran cold war”; an observation that is ludicrous given the fact that any solution to the current crop of problems in the Middle East starts and stops in Tehran.

Until Parsi and Marashi actually admit that Iran needs to curb its military adventures and support for insurgency and terrorism in order to advance the prospects for peace, nothing they say or write should be considered legitimate policy discussions and instead simply be viewed as propaganda for the mullahs in Tehran.

The quest for peace begins only when Tehran stops trying to rule its neighbors.

Laura Carnahan

Next President Must Address Iran Regime Comprehensively

by

Next President Must Address Iran Regime Comprehensively

People voting in polling place

One of the great fundamental flaws in the negotiations over the Iran nuclear agreement was the concession to the mullahs in Tehran to unlink non-nuclear activities such as support for terrorism and human rights violations from the deal in an act of appeasement in the vain hope of moderating their behavior.

In the year since the agreement, the Iranian regime’s actions have proven those hopes to be false and the appeasement merely a reward for continued Iranian aggression. While that policy turned out to be a failure, the next president—be it Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump—will need to face the challenge of Iran with a more comprehensive approach.

The challenges facing the new president will be numerous and complicated. The current policies of trying to appease the Iranian regime have only made matters worse not only in the Middle East, but around the world.

It has also fractured what once was a globally united front against the Iranian regime which placed uniform and complete economic sanctions so effective that it threatened the mullahs hold on their regime and drove them finally to the bargaining table for the first time since this regime has been in power.

Unfortunately the nuclear agreement gave them a free hall pass and they have taken it to exploit it. The new president will find on his or her plate an Iran that:

  • Is at the center of the regions three major conflicts by supplying weapons, cash and fighters in Syria, Iraq and Yemen;
  • Those same conflicts have caused the greatest refugee crisis since World War II and radically reshaped the global flow of refugees and migrants and caused internal chaos throughout Europe, Africa and even the Americas;
  • Iranian regime is committed to expanding its extremism and made no attempts to conceal its agenda and willingness to use force to achieve it, including creating a Shia sphere of influence stretching from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean;
  • Is actively arresting and imprisoning dual-national citizens from the US and Europe for no reason other than to acquire new bargaining chips to exchange for even more concessions or ransom payments;
  • Forcing changes in alliances and partnerships that have created deep rifts for the US among traditional partners and allies such as Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf states; and
  • Imposed new and brutal crackdowns on human rights on the Iranian people, leaving a negative sentiment about the West, that continues to ignore that in its dealing with the regime.

The new president will also have to rebuild and forge a new consensus on to effective deal with Iranian extremism in the face of a rush by European, Asian and American firms to try and cash in on the perceived riches available in the Iranian marketplace; a perception that may prove just as illusory as the hopes for moderation.

At least one former hostage is working to remind whoever is elected to take a harder line against the Iranian regime. Barry Rosen, a survivor of the 1979 hostage crisis, serves as an advisory board member for United Against Nuclear Iran and penned an editorial for Time magazine.

“In this unusual presidential campaign cycle, we have seen a lack of substantive discussion about Iran and foreign policy from the candidates. This oversight comes at the most critical time in decades, with the nuclear deal well underway despite continued hostile behavior from the Iranian regime. It is imperative that the Presidential candidates and our policymakers in Congress understand that the Iranian regime that held my colleagues and me hostage has not reformed its ways,” Rosen writes.

“It’s likely that the next U.S. President will not be through the first 100 days of the administration before Iran is once again a problem that cannot be ignored. The nuclear deal has done nothing to bring about crucial change in Iran. And there is no more clear an example of this than Iran’s involvement in the Syrian crisis. The American government is foolish to ignore the growing threat that is Iran,” he added.

“The next President must acknowledge the realities of inner turmoil in Iran, and be prepared to take a hard line against Khamenei and his regime as they push the envelope. Regardless of who wins the Iranian elections in March, we already know the regime holds the power and has no intention of working diplomatically with the West. The fanciful notion that the nuclear deal would bring about better relations between our two countries has been dispelled; a new administration will have the chance to cast a spotlight on Iran for the bad global actor it is,” Rosen said.

Rosen’s admonitions for the next president are prescient and valid. He also raises the uncomfortable truth for many of those that originally supported the Iranian nuclear which is that the deal has become almost toxic to publicly support anymore.

Too many Americans recall the videos and photos showing American sailors forced to kneel at gunpoint from Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps members, while anyone on Google can simply type in “Iran” and “executions” and see the regime’s justice system on gruesome display.

So for a new president the complexities of the Iranian problem will require stern action, as well as a deft hand in reassembling the global consensus that has been damaged over the past year as foreign companies look for dollars instead of relief for the long-suffering Iranian people.

No matter who is elected, we can only hope that dealing with Iran with more than hope and sentiment is on their agenda.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Tries Claiming Victory Where There is None

by

Iran Regime Tries Claiming Victory Where There is None

Iran Regime Tries Claiming Victory Where There is None

It has been interesting watching the reaction of Iranian regime leaders to Michael Aoun’s election to the largely ceremonial post of president of Lebanon. From the statements and self-congratulations coming out of Tehran, you would have thought the head of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah was the one elected.

For the people of Lebanon, the results are more akin to a yawner. For Lebanese, who are used to the historical game of musical chairs, the election of Aoun is not so much ground breaking as much as it simply puts a warm body in the chair of the presidency after a two year vacancy.

Antoun Issa, senior editor at the Middle East Institute and a former Beirut-based journalist, appropriately captured the sentiments of most Lebanese when he coined the phrase “Kullun haramiyyeh” which means “they’re all thieves” in describing the most common sentiment on Lebanon’s streets from its vendors and waiters to students and doctors.

“So when Michel Aoun, the maverick general-turned-politician, achieved his long-held ambition of becoming president on Monday, most ordinary Lebanese reacted with indifference. The new president is just another name, another title, and another episode in the country’s endless — and ultimately meaningless — political drama,” Issa writes in Foreign Policy.

“To become president, Aoun, the country’s main Christian leader, struck a deal with his longtime opponent, Saad Hariri, head of the rival Sunni Future Movement. As part of the deal, Hariri will now become prime minister. But for the deal to work, it also needed (and duly received) the approval of arguably the most powerful man in Lebanon — Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah,” he added.

“For ordinary people, this is all a game of musical chairs. Such is the disconnect between the country’s political class and the people that the average Lebanese can’t tell the difference between having a president and not having one. Prior to Monday, Lebanon had, in fact, been without a president for two years — but this fact could not be discerned on the streets of Beirut. President or no, Lebanon has had no effective governance for decades,” Issa said.

More importantly, the long-term strategy of Hezbollah is to so weaken the Lebanese government that it cannot provide basic government services such as education, food, healthcare and security and thus remain the dominant political and military power by dispensing these services to the country’s large Shiite population.

It’s a recipe that the mullahs in Tehran have practiced well by keeping the Iranian people dependent on the largesse of the Iranian regime and not allowing the full economic benefits of what should be a powerhouse economy trickle down to the people.

This Iranian regime game plan of claiming victory where there is none is a tried and true tactic. Even as the Iranian people march, protest and demonstrate against rigged elections, government corruption or shortages of food and job opportunities, the mullahs continue to flog the idea of victories to keep the perception alive they know what they are doing.

The problem with maintaining control with essentially a lie is that it is a fragile form of control subject to toppling even by small acts of defiance. For the Iranian regime this means it cannot tolerate even the smallest inklings of dissent, which is why the mullahs so ruthlessly pursue members of the Iranian resistance movement and arrest Iranians on the slightest provocations.

It is why even dress code violations such as women failing to wear a hijab or students posting selfies on Instagram are met with beatings and arrests.

This past Friday saw another of these instances when regime authorities arrested organizers of a rally held at the tomb of the ancient Persian King Cyrus the Great in Pasargadae, Iran.

Breitbart News previously reported that protesters chanted slogans like, “Iran is our country, Cyrus is our father,” “clerical rule is synonymous with only tyranny, only war,” and “freedom of thought cannot take place with beards,” a reference to the theocratic leaders currently in power.

According to Reuters, there was no indication as to how many of the event’s organizers had been arrested. However, a judiciary official reportedly said on Monday Iran’s intelligence and security forces have placed the organizers of the event under close surveillance and that they will face prosecution.

Prior to the October 28 protest, members of the regime’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and other Iranian authorities attempted to thwart the impending rallies by spreading rumors that officials had completely shut down the city, canceling tours to the site, sealing roads to Pasargadae, and shutting down the Internet.

Those actions did not deter the protesters, which consisted mostly of youth and individuals under the age of 35, from carrying out their rally.

The mere existence of such protests are dangerous for the regime, but also provide ample evidence for the rest of the world of the fragility of the mullahs’ rule which is why the international community needs to confront their extremism more forcefully.

Alex Carlile, a Liberal Democrat member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords and co-chairman of the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom, challenged the United Nations to hold the regime accountable in an editorial in the Washington Times.

“The Iranian regime has imprisoned a British charity worker and sentenced her to five years’ imprisonment on bogus national security charges,” he writes. “The case of Nazanin Ratcliffe has shocked the British public as it has unfolded over the past six months, since she was arrested by regime officials when she attempted to fly back to England after taking her daughter, Gabriella, to visit her parents.”

“However, this is only the latest in a long line of human rights abuses by Tehran. Earlier this year, a leaked audio file provided further proof of the complicity of top-level regime members in a 1988 massacre, which killed 30,000 political prisoners, including juveniles and pregnant women,” Lord Carlile added.

Lord Carlile writes the main targets of these murders were members of the opposition movement People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI, or MEK), although the regime also executed relatives of members or casual supporters as well as other dissidents.

Nothing so incenses the regime than the continued efforts of the Iranian resistance to educate the world about these massacres and other human rights violations because they ultimately point out the hollow and empty “victories” the regime trumpets.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Roadmap in Syria Includes Highway to Mediterranean

by

shiite-militiasSince the US-led invasion of Iraq, the Iranian regime has ratcheted up its military involvement in its neighbors. At first, the regime used the tried and true tactics of using terrorist groups and proxies to strike at coalition forces during the insurgency in Iraq, killing and wounding thousands of troops primarily through explosive devices its Quds Forces made and delivered to Shiite militias.

It’s a model Iranian regime used to great effect through two decades of civil war in Lebanon through its Hezbollah terror partners, which it then expanded to use in the Syrian civil war in support of the Assad regime.

Similarly, the Iranian regime used the Houthis to launch another civil war in Yemen, aimed at destabilizing Saudi Arabia, a major coalition partner opposed to the Assad regime.

But what is the master plan for the mullahs in Tehran? What are they trying to gain from all of the machinations and manipulations?

Leaders of the Iranian regime in the face of opposition among their own loyal forces due to the heavy loses they have had particularly in the Syrian invasion, have numerously said that Syria and Iraq are their battle field to keep the enemy from fighting at home. i.e. using the same tactic they have been using since the beginning of the 1979 revolution, to create and export crisis in the region in order to cover up the internal crisis and the lack of capabilities to resolve such crisis. Hence one way to legitimize repression inside Iran has always been to point to the external crisis and the outside enemy.

While some try to project the Iranian regime’s meddling in Syria, Iraq and Yemen as a sign of strength, it is in fact the same crippling situation that forced regime’s top leader, Ali Khamenei, cornered by the sanctions to put a more friendly face out to the world and as such, manipulated the next election ballot to clear the field for Hassan Rouhani, a long-time loyal servant of the regime and a genial actor. In him, Khamenei saw his opportunity to fool the West, hoping for a change in the equation with Iran.

The creation of the Iran lobby, including US-based groups such as the National Iranian American Council, helped pushed that narrative during the run up for nuclear negotiations. For the mullahs, the completion of a nuclear deal was the linchpin to their plans since it set into motion the lifting of economic sanctions and the flooding of fresh cash back into coffers depleted by war.

While the infusion of cash and lifting of sanctions has opened the door to foreign investment for the first time in decades, the support for three wars is aimed at a more practical consideration: the creation of a Shiite-sphere of influence that buffers Iran from its neighbors and allows it access vital trade routes, economic markets and the ability to move assets freely without observation or restriction, however the main issue for the regime is its fear of uprisings at home and therefore its need for continuing with its meddling in the region.

For the mullahs, they have created a house of cards, each balancing on the other precariously and should one fall, the whole house collapses. Such is the flimsy nature of the mullahs hold and yet the West fails to fully grasp the leverage it has over the regime; leverage it abdicated when it chose to approve a nuclear agreement without linking Iran’s support for terrorism or improvements in human rights to it.

Nothing illustrates the complex interconnections the Iranian regime is striving for than the battle for Mosul in Iraq and for Aleppo in Syria. In both cases, the lack of a clear and decisive US policy has allowed the mullahs to manipulate the situations where Iranian-backed Shiite militias that used to attack US forces in Iraq are now attacking Sunni insurgents under US air cover.

The manipulation of this chessboard has many layers. For example, the lifting of economic sanctions was important in order for the regime to enter into deals with Boeing and Airbus to acquire new passenger airliners to replace a decrepit fleet which has seen hard use ferrying troops and weapons via an air bridge from Iran and Lebanon into Iraq and Syria.

Of paramount importance though to the long-range plans of the Iranian regime is the consolidation of friendly territory. For Khamenei and Rouhani, they envision an unbroken land stretching from the Mediterranean with Lebanon and Syria, through Afghanistan and Iraq to Yemen and even the Gulf states on the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean.

It is a grand vision, but one that can only come to fruition through war, terror, bloodshed and violence. After all this is perhaps the only way they know to come out of the deepening crisis back at home.

The Iranian resistance movement has fought this complicated game plan for decades, but the West has largely not caught on and similarly combatted it; seeing it more in terms of short term agreements. The fact that the nuclear agreement only buys less than a decade of nuclear-free time is incredibly short-sighted and indicative of why the mullahs think they can win this game by being patient.

What is handicapping Tehran though is the inability to generate much economic improvement in the lives of ordinary Iranians who chafe under the yoke of oppression. This is the area of greatest risk to the Iranian regime where the people themselves are capable of changing the regime.

If the West ever realized the true potential it holds to advance change in Iran, then the future of the Iranian people could be helped immensely.

Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long to figure out that holding Iran accountable instead of rushing forward with trade deals is the better way to block Iranian regime’s roadmap.

Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Executions During Dignitary Visits Become Routine

by

 

Iran Regime Executions During Dignitary Visits Become Routine

Iran Regime Executions During Dignitary Visits Become Routine

One of the more peculiar actions taken by the Iranian regime is the unusual habit of executing people during visits by foreign dignitaries. Typically, countries wrestling with intense international scrutiny due to perceived human rights violations have normally been more circumspect when hosting a visiting leader.

The accompanying media attention of a state visit usually has forced countries to hold off on high profile actions such as a crackdown or round up of dissidents or staying the executions of political prisoners.

The one glaring exception to that rule has been the Iranian regime, which seems to perversely revel in executing prisoners whenever someone comes calling.

The most recent example was the execution of three Turkish nationals accused of drug trafficking last year on the heels of a high-profile visit to Tehran by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Iranian regime – which executed nearly 1,000 people alone last year, more than any other country apart from China – usually refrains from sending foreign nationals to the gallows, especially in cases involving countries with which Tehran has maintained friendly relations, according to the Guardian.

The family of a 46-year-old man, Faruk Güner, a father of nine children, confirmed to the Guardian that he was executed. He was a lorry driver working between Afghanistan and Turkey who passed through Iran. “We tried for four years to save him. They didn’t tell us that he was going to be executed. They hanged him in the morning; we got the news in the afternoon,” Güner’s brother said.

The information about the executions was published by several human rights organizations. One of these organizations based in Norway, said two other Turkish nationals, identified as Mehmet Yilmaz and Matin, whose surname is not known, were executed at the same time.

The organization that monitors the human rights situation in Iran, said more than 450 people have been put to death in the country this year. It said at least 264 of them were executed for drug offences. Iran has also executed at least seven people who committed their crimes while they were under the age of 18.The execution of juveniles is prohibited under international law.

The regime has also taken the opportunity to commit executions during other high profile visits in a perverse move that defies logic, such as:

  • Matteo Renzi, Prime Minister of Italy, during April 12, 2016 visit, eight prisoners hanged;
  • Federica Mogherini, European Union foreign policy chief, during April 16-17, 2016 visit, three women executed by regime;
  • Christine Defraigne, president of the Senate of Belgium, during April 27, 2016 visit, 17 executions including three juveniles; and
  • Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic, president of Croatia, during May 17, 2016 visit, 21 hangings in a stunning 48 hour window.

The willingness of the regime to execute people relentlessly during these high profiles—even when a dignitary pleads with the regime not to commit any executions—demonstrates the true nature of the mullahs in Tehran which is to signal to the world loudly and clearly that Iran will do as it sees fit regardless of what the world thinks.

What is even more disturbing is how the mullahs are working hard to indoctrinate Iran’s children into the same perverted mindset where violence and executions are a normal part of Iranian society.

Deutsche Welle looked at this trend and what it portends as a new generation of Iranians are taught at an early age that violence as a state tool is welcome.

Books in Iran, in general, are subjected to a strenuous approval process. But, the glorification of violence, even in children’s books, does not appear to be a problem.

“Children’s books have become much more religious. More stories involve mosques or religious ceremonies,” Iranian mother, Shohreh, (name changed) said. She isn’t surprised that books including hanged animals sell well. “People attend public executions and even bring their kids.”

“Society is being intentionally desensitized,” told DW, a human rights lawyer and children’s rights activist that specializes in cases regarding the execution of minors, which is allowed in Iran once they reach 18.

“Statistics show that violence particularly within families has strongly increased,” he said. “There are many causes for this. Violence in public is certainly one of them. People exposed to so much violence don’t shy away from using violence themselves. This must be countered, not celebrated everywhere.”

It is a deeply disturbing trend that harkens to similar indoctrination undertaken by totalitarian regimes such as the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia which employed children to select people for instant executions as part of the notorious killing fields.

Even Hitler’s Nazi Germany relied on the Hitler Youth to serve as a fanatical conduit for its armies; the Iranian regime is no less dedicated to the same tactics.

Ultimately, the fight for human rights in Iran is not just to preserve the people of Iran, but their future through their children.

Michael Tomlinson

Hassan Rouhani Comments on US Election Despite Troubles Ahead

by

Hassan Rouhani Comments on US Election Despite Troubles Ahead

Hassan Rouhani Comments on US Election Despite Troubles Ahead

Hassan Rouhani addressed a crowd in the Iranian city of Arak and deplored what he called a “lack of morality” in the US presidential campaign and mocked the recent presidential debates in the his first public comments on a race to elect the next president who will have to decide to confront growing Iranian extremism.

“We have seen the way the (US presidential) candidates speak, accuse and mock (one another); and this is the American democracy and election,” Rouhani said.

Rouhani’s comments followed similar critical remarks made by top mullah Ali Khamenei who also lashed out at both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

“The (ongoing) election campaigns in America and issues raised by the two candidates constitute a clear and evident example of the consequences of lack of spirituality and faith among those in power,” Khamenei said this weekend.

“During the coming weeks, one of these two candidates of America’s (presidential) election, whose remarks and condition you observe, will become the president of a country which has power and wealth and the biggest amount of nuclear weapons as well as the biggest media in the world,” he added in regime-controlled media.

The ramp up in comments by Khamenei and Rouhani indicate a new level of interest and worry by the Iranian regime as the sun sets on the Obama administration which has pursued a policy of appeasing the regime through the nuclear deal, lifting of economic sanctions and payment of ransom to gain the release of American hostages.

For the mullahs in Tehran the upcoming election is worrisome since both candidates have been especially harsh in condemning actions of the Iranian regime such as its long-running support for the Assad regime in Syria and the continued arrests of Iranian-American dual nationals.

The fact that Rouhani and Khamenei are wrestling with a stagnant economy, restless population, skyrocketing youth unemployment and the drain of maintaining three separate proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, has threatened their hold over power, which has forced them to pursue an even harsher crackdown on human rights at home to prevent dissent.

The uncertainty of what a new US president will do in regards to Iranian policy has also trickled down to foreign banks and potential investor putting a hold on future investments until next year.

One can almost feel the sweat bead up on Rouhani’s forehead again.

It is ironic though to see Rouhani and Khamenei weigh in on the US election given the handling of their elections.  The Iranian regime historically has rigged its own elections as to make any outcome other than the one desired by the mullahs as moot.

The “stolen” election of 2009 that saw unpopular Mahmoud Ahmadinejad re-elected in a contest widely viewed as fraudulent is just one example. Another was the election of Rouhani himself in which all potential opponents were cleared off the ballot by a committee hand-picked by Khamenei.

The creation of the Iran lobby through organizations such as the National Iranian American Council helped facilitate the false perception that Rouhani was a “moderate.” Fortunately the world has had the benefit of seeing Rouhani in action—especially the year following the nuclear agreement—and has come to the realization that the Iranian regime is not interested in truly becoming a moderate nation.

Rouhani’s comments are even more ridiculous when you consider statements made by Ali Akbar Velayati, a key foreign policy advisor to Khamenei with Iran’s al-Alam television network, in which he claimed the regime opposed interference in the internal affairs of other countries.

“Iran opposes interference by any country, including Turkey or others, in the internal affairs of another country,” he said, adding that the domestic affairs of any country are its own concern.

The regime official rejected claims that Iran is interfering in the affairs of Iraq and said Tehran only provides Baghdad with military consultation at the request of the Arab country’s legitimate government, according to the regime’s PressTV.

The audacity for the regime to peddle such an obvious lie is amazing since the Iranian regime has almost gleefully inserted itself into the internal affairs of its neighbors in Syria and Iraq to a point where Syrians and Iraqis have openly complained of an Iranian takeover of their governments.

The regime’s use of terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah to carry out attacks and bombings in places such as Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Afghanistan and even Argentina point out how far the mullahs are willing to go to meddle in other countries’ affairs.

Even the use of cyberhackers within the Revolutionary Guard Corps to attack US and European computer systems demonstrates the level of willingness to interfere in virtually all aspects of other nations’ affairs.

It’s now clear that the policy of appeasement of the mullahs to help “moderates” in Iran has failed, and the next president must define a firm policy towards the mullahs in Iran, if it wants to prevent the spread of terror and extremism in the region.

Michael Taylor

Why Hassan Rouhani’s Calls for Co-Existence Are Meaningless

by

Why Hassan Rouhani’s Calls for Co-Existence Are Meaningless

Why Hassan Rouhani’s Calls for Co-Existence Are Meaningless

Iranian regime controlled media loudly broadcast remarks made by Hassan Rouhani at a ceremony marking National Exports Day in Tehran in which he called for peaceful co-existence with the rest of the world and Iran’s neighbors.

No, this was not an April’s Fool joke come early, nor was it an attempt at early Halloween gallows humor.

Rouhani was making his appeal because the world has not reacted well to the regime’s militant and aggressive moves since a nuclear agreement was reach over 18 months ago. There has arisen significant uncertainty among foreign companies, institutional investors and many governments over entering into business agreements at a time when new sanctions may be coming.

Rouhani was making his appeal on a strictly commercial basis in which he hoped to see Iran enter the global marketplace as a significant consumer market, as well as an eventual exporter of goods.

According to Trend News Agency, “Iran has no choice other than forming a constructive interaction with the world in order to boost its export,” he said.

He further said that constructive interaction with the world means establishing suitable ties with global community for exports, and import of capital goods and raw materials as well as employment of youth.

There is good reason for Rouhani and his fellow mullahs to be worried. Iran’s economy remains stagnant, with little benefits trickling down to ordinary Iranians as promised by Rouhani. Youth unemployment remains staggeringly high and wages have not risen significantly in over a decade leading to widespread discontent and protests throughout Iran.

Scandals involving excessive compensation for high-placed executives at regime-controlled industries have rocked Rouhani’s term, as does a high-profile crackdown against journalists, students, artists, bloggers, dissidents, and religious and ethnic minorities.

The mullahs’ “morals” police squads are working overtime arresting and abusing everyone from Iranian women riding bicycles to Iranian youth congregating in coffee shops.

But what has most foreign companies and investors worried is the regime’s rapid escalation in its involvement in three widening proxy wars in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, in which US armed forces are increasingly being drawn into direct conflict with Iranian and Iranian-backed forces.

In Yemen, Iranian regime-backed Houthi rebels reportedly fired cruise missiles at US warships three times in one week; resulting a response from the US of three cruise missiles hitting radar installations in Yemen.

US Army Gen. Joseph Votel, commander of US forces in the Middle East, said on Wednesday that he believes Iran was behind the missile strikes on US Navy ships in Yemen.

“I do think that Iran is playing a role in some of this. They have a relationship with the Houthis, so I do suspect there is a role in that,” said Votel at the Center for American Progress, The Hill’s Kristina Wong reports.

Now news reports have surfaced detailing how the Iranian regime has stepped up weapons transfers to the Houthis threatening to widen and prolong the now 19-month-old war.

Much of the recent smuggling activity has been through Oman, which neighbors Yemen, including via overland routes that take advantage of porous borders between the two countries, the officials said.

U.S. and Western officials who spoke to Reuters about the recent trend in arms transfers said it was based on intelligence they had seen but did not elaborate on its nature. They said the frequency of transfers on known overland smuggling routes had increased notably, though the scale of the shipments was unclear.

A senior Iranian diplomat confirmed a “sharp surge in Iran’s help to the Houthis in Yemen” since May, referring to weapons, training and money.

“The nuclear deal gave Iran an upper hand in its rivalry with Saudi Arabia, but it needs to be preserved,” the diplomat said.

Ironically, the timing of the increased flow of cash and arms to the Houthis coincides with the ransom payments of $1.7 billion made to the Iranian regime by the US to free four American hostages.

Meanwhile in Syria, the growing failure of repeated cease-fires have placed US personnel dangerously close to being targeted by Russian and Syrian airstrikes, as well as facing Shiite militias imported from Iraq by Iranian airliners to fight alongside Syrian forces against US-backed rebels.

It is against this backdrop of global uncertainty that Rouhani is making one of the most absurd sales pitches anyone can recall since it is exactly because of the Iranian regime’s acts that have made many companies and investors skittish at risking billions of dollars.

That idea of co-existence draws little weight as Rouhani himself has admitted that the regime does not recognize dual national citizens and is in the midst of an unprecedented binge of hostage-taking of US, British, Canadian and other citizens.

Even more disturbing has been taunting statements made on regime-controlled websites demanding “billions in cash” as ransom payments for these new hostages.

Even Rouhani has taken a personal hand in tightening the figurative noose among his fellow Iranians by firing Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance Ali Jannati, Education Minister Ali Asghar Fani and Minister of Youth Affairs and Sports Mahmoud Goudarzi all on the same day.

It’s interesting to note that all three ministers oversaw parts of Iranian society which enjoyed a bit more creative freedom during the run-up of the nuclear negotiations in an effort to present a more “open” society to the world. With the nuclear deal accomplished, their dismissals and subsequent crackdown on freedoms should not be a surprise.

Laura Caranahan

Iran Regime Pushes Oil Contracts to Raise Cash for Wars

by

Iran Regime Pushes Oil Contracts to Raise Cash for Wars

Iran Regime Pushes Oil Contracts to Raise Cash for Wars

The Iranian regime’s Hassan Rouhani put out the invitation to a select group of high-powered investors to come visit the regime in the hopes of garnering new investments to help jump-start a stagnant economy that has only gotten worse after promises for improvements by Rouhani proved false after the nuclear agreement. Rouhani did not mention anything about the dual citizens who will end up in prison for a cash ransom.

Rouhani’s invite went to the 20-20 Investment Association, a group of influential investors overseeing $7 trillion of assets, much of it though is held within government-run pension funds which are prohibited by many state laws from investing in Iran because of its support of terrorism. This includes some of the biggest pension funds run by California, New York and Texas.

James Donald, head of emerging markets at Lazard Asset Management, the US fund company that oversees $174 billion of assets, and a board member of the 20-20 association, said the invitation reflected the Iranian regime’s desire to attract more foreign investors.

Donald said: “The group at this stage has not accepted the invitation. An awful lot of large government pension plans have restrictions on Iranian investments and [on] any company that does business in Iran. There is talk of [the remaining sanctions being removed]. I think there would have to be a federal law change [for banks and asset managers to move en masse into the Iranian market].”

In addition Rouhani’s pleas, the regime-controlled National Iranian Oil Co. issued a request for bidders to invest in Iran’s slumping oil industry which powers much of the regime’s overseas and military activities.

The Iranian regime wants to attract more than $100 billion in investment to increase its oil production by 1 million barrels a day by the start of the next decade and raise its current oil output of 3.63 million barrels a day under a compromise agreement reached with other oil producing countries.

The mullahs in Tehran are anxious to try and diversify its investors because in the prior decade of sanctions imposed stemming from its illicit nuclear weapons program, the only dominant investor willing to ignore Western sanctions was China. In many cases, Iran’s oil, telecommunications, manufacturing and other heavy industries are run almost entirely by Chinese workers and managers.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Western investors have been slow to arrive. That’s especially true in the energy sector, where pressure to increase production is intense. Elsewhere, Western clearing banks still refuse to do business with Iran for fear of falling foul of non-nuclear U.S. sanctions that remain in effect, meaning Western companies can’t raise project finance.

This has created intense pressure on the mullahs to find some way to bring in foreign dollars to modernize its antiquated oil industry in order to get more oil out of the ground and sold to bring in hard dollars to fund three widespread wars Iran is now fighting in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

The regrettable end game for the mullahs is to rip off Iran’s natural resources not for the benefit of the Iranian people, but rather fund the Islamic revolutionary expansion they are pushing abroad.

Recognizing the limitations of sanctions still in place, in spite of recent moves by the Obama administration to further accommodate a regime threatening to walk away from the nuclear deal in order to extort more concessions, the Central Bank of Iran announced it had informed banks throughout Iran that any failure by non-American banks to provide dollar-related services to Iranians would be “unacceptable” according to regime-controlled media.

“Providing dollar-related services [to Iranians] will no longer expose non-American banks to the risks of sanctions provided that they stay clear of US financial system,” the CBI said in its statement.

“Therefore, non-American banks cannot use US sanctions against Iran as an excuse for refusing to provide dollar-related services to Iranian individuals and entities.”

It is a desperate statement to make since Iran is not the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed under existing sanctions still in place, but the regime is so desperate for cash it is bullying financial institutions into handling US currency in order to get the flow of cash moving through Iran again.

It’s an explicit warning aimed especially at European and Asian banks who have been reluctant to engage in US currency exchanges with Iran for fear of running afoul of US officials, especially since there is significant uncertainty with the upcoming presidential election virtually guaranteeing a change in policy towards Iran come next January.

All of which highlights the futility of the promises and claims made by the Iran lobby following the nuclear deal in which leading supporters of the regime such as the National Iranian American Council promised a more moderate Iran willing to work to end the series of conflicts in the Middle East.

Instead, the world has amply seen the exact opposite with the breaking out of a shooting war between the US Navy and Iranian-backed Houthi forces in Yemen, the ferrying of thousands of Iranian-backed Shiite militias from Iraq into Syria via Iranian airlines to fight for the Assad regime.

The rapid escalation in fighting in these countries is draining the regime’s treasury in spite of the billions of dollars it received as part of the hostage exchange of Americans and the release of frozen assets back to the Iranian regime.

The mullahs squandered those funds and it seems that they are now rapidly trying to squander billions more in foreign investment.

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