Reza Marashi – Page 4

Iran Election Results Predictably Praised by Iran Lobby

February 29, 2016 by admin

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

Human Rights Remain Under Assault by Iranian Regime

February 22, 2016 by admin

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

Iran Lobby Ignores Upcoming Iran Election Shenanigans

February 18, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Ignores Upcoming Iran Election Shenanigans

On February 26, Iran will hold its parliamentary elections and similar to almost every election held since the Islamic revolution in 1979, the results will be largely a forgone conclusion since the mullahs control who goes on the ballot in the first place and in the case of the top spot – currently occupied by Ali Khamenei – that is a position that doesn’t even get voted on by the public in a process that old-line Soviets would find reminiscent of the Politburo.

Michael J. Totten, writing in World Affairs, took to task some idiotic observations made by Max Fisher in Vox magazine in which Fisher waxes rapturously about how the Iranian election could be historic. It the same kind of nonsense first advocated by the Iran lobby, most notably bloggers Jim Lobe and Ali Gharib, the National Iranian American Council and other regime advocates such as Paul Pillar.

The notion that the nuclear deal has set the stage for a historic election in which moderates and dissidents will finally get a fair shake and opportunity to put their stamp on the Islamic state moving into the 21^st century is about as realistic as Boko Haram suddenly deciding to endorse women’s rights.

The truth of the matter, as Totten rightly points out, “let’s leave aside the blatant vote-stealing in Iran’s 2009 presidential election, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner in districts that opposed him as overwhelmingly as San Francisco opposes Dick Cheney. Nevermind that disgraceful episode.”

“Elections in Iran are rigged even when they aren’t rigged,” Totten said. “Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei hand-picks everybody who runs for president. Moderates are rejected routinely. Only the less-moderate of the moderates—the ones who won’t give Khamenei excessive heartburn if they win—are allowed to run at all. Liberal and leftist candidates are rejected categorically.”

In the case of the position of president of the regime, a position held by Hassan Rouhani, Totten points out that “he’s not quite a figurehead. He can tinker with a few things around the edges. But the country is run by the unelected Supreme Leader, the Guardian Council, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is officially designated as a terrorist organization.”

NIAC hacks such as Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi have argued that “moderates” will be empowered in a resurgent Iran and that will be reflected in more moderates being elected to the upper legislative body, the Assembly of Experts which nominally selects the new Supreme Leader when Khamenei dies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The Guardian Council dumped thousands of potential candidates, the overwhelming majority of them more moderate than the ruling mullahs in a similar political exorcism it conducted during Rouhani’s election when it cleared the field for him to run virtually unopposed.

Let’s also consider that a “moderate” in regime politics is like calling someone a moderate who opposes hanging a political dissident, but doesn’t mind locking up a political dissident; in much the same way as Rouhani was hailed as a moderate, but since his ascension he has presided over more executions in his first term than even Ahmadinejad carried out.

In another sign that the elections are going turn out in favor of Khamenei and his cronies no matter what the actual vote is, Khamenei’s office issued a press release through regime-controlled media warning of “enemy” efforts to undermine the elections.

The statement read in part: “Their plot for the February 26 elections is to undermine the Guardian Council and question its decisions,” Ayatollah Khamenei said, “describing the Council as one of the fundamental institutions of the Islamic Establishment, which the US has been strongly opposed to since the victory of the Islamic Revolution.”

“When the Guardian Council’s decisions are called into question, the elections would be perceived to be illegal, and, consequently, the elected parliament as well as the laws it ratifies would be deemed illegal, the Leader explained.”

The regime learned its lessons from the 2009 election debacles that resulted in violent street demonstrations that had to be put down with bloody consequences and is doing all it can to pre-ordain the results and impose order such that there would be no repeat of civil disobedience.

All of which has not gone unnoticed by an American public who’s opinion of the regime’s leadership has astonishingly remained virtually unchanged since the 1980s according to a new Gallup Poll released this week.

A stunningly low 14 percent of Americans have a favorable viewpoint of the regime in a benchmark for futility that has not budged in spite of all the public relations and social media posturing conducted by the Iran lobby. It’s nice to see that no matter how many tweets Trita Parsi puts out, Americans remain skeptical and wary of a regime that has put to the hangman’s noose over 2,300 people under Rouhani.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Attacks Saudi Arabia to Distract from Worsening Syrian Situation

February 16, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Attacks Saudi Arabia to Distract from Worsening Syrian Situation

There is a certain reliable predictability in what the Iran lobby will write about and advocate. It will always defend the Iranian regime from any potential sanctions no matter how egregious its acts. It will always stay mute on horrific human rights violations or terrorist acts springing from Tehran. It will always find someone else to blame for the region’s troubles that come directly from Iranian actions.

Reza Marashi, the research director for the National Iranian American Council and one of the staunchest defenders of the regime, penned an editorial in The Cairo Review which essentially places blame on Saudi Arabia for the all the ills befalling the Middle East. It is an all-too predictable attempt at shifting blame away from Tehran and dumping it on Riyadh.

Among the literary ruins of his diatribe lie a few choice nuggets of deception such as:

“The Obama administration rightly recognizes the aggressive regional policies of both Iran and Saudi Arabia. But here’s the catch: Tehran has been willing to negotiate de-escalation for nearly three years. Washington has encouraged it. To date, Riyadh has refused,” Marashi writes.

The remarkable thing about Marashi’s editorial is that you could trade places between Saudi Arabia and Iran and his editorial would make perfect sense. For example, the previous piece would read now as:

“The Obama administration rightly recognizes the aggressive regional policies of both Iran and Saudi Arabia. But here’s the catch: Riyadh has been willing to negotiate de-escalation for nearly three years. Washington has encouraged it. To date, Tehran has refused.”

In this reality, the truth actually comes out correctly! Tehran has been the sole reason why the Syrian civil war escalated into the conflagration it has become. Top mullah Ali Khamenei and his handpicked puppet Hassan Rouhani made the calculation that keeping Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in power was their only hope of maintaining a Shia arc of influence stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean through Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

If Iran’s chief regional ally was allowed to fall, the Iranian regime’s position would become precarious and the very real possibility of regime change would finally be available to the overwhelming numbers of ordinary oppressed Iranians who yearn for freedom from the yoke of theocratic control.

Instead, the mullahs went all in by first pouring billions of dollars into the Assad regime to keep it afloat after most of the world imposed harsh sanctions for the use of barrel bombs and chemical weapons on Syrian and opposition civilians.

Then Tehran directed its terrorist proxy Hezbollah to pour fighters into Syria while at the same time it recruited and coerced Afghan refugees in Iran to enlist and shipped them off to fight. Even with all this support, Assad’s regime was on the verge of crumbling from opposition fighters, forcing Rouhani to beg Russia’s Vladimir Putin to intervene and throw Moscow’s weight into the fray to save the Iranian regime’s proverbial bacon.

Even as Syrian peace talks have taken place in Geneva, Marashi contends that Saudi Arabia has no place at the table which is ironic since Marashi conveniently ignores the fact that all lines of conflict flow back to Tehran and Saudi Arabia is intricately caught up in this web with the Iranian regime’s sponsorship and support of Houthi rebels in Yemen who have brought another war to the Saudi Arabian border; a fact Marashi neglects to mention.

Marashi further contends that the nuclear deal with Iran did not pre-ordain regional conflicts as a result. In fact, that is exactly what it has done. The lifting of economic sanctions and the awarding of over $100 billion in cash to Iran has caused ripples far and wide as Tehran embarked on a mass shopping spree including sophisticated Russian anti-aircraft missiles and now an agreement to buy advanced Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker fighters.

The rapid re-armament of Iran has justifiably spooked its neighbors who plainly see the results of regime aggression and adventurism. Their concerns have sparked talked of a nuclear arms race as Iran’s neighbors seriously weigh their options in pursuing comparable weapons to the Iranian regime, even raising the specter of a new nuclear arms race – a glaring point that Marashi neglects to remark on.

The total commitment of the Iranian regime to support Assad manifested itself with a demand from regime foreign minister Javad Zarif that Iran and its allies in Syria won’t allow a cessation of hostilities in Syria to enable opponents of the Assad regime to “regroup.”

The demand to press the fight against Assad’s opponents by the Iranian regime recognizes that Iran cannot sustain an indefinite war, especially as it drains that $100 billion credit line quickly and global petroleum prices continue to sink, denying the regime the opportunity to cash in immediately on the lifting of embargoes on oil sales.

The clock is definitely running on the mullahs, and they and their allies such as the NIAC know it. This was shown in comments made by the Iranian regime’s air defense chief who vowed that Iran would help Syria further by beefing up its air defense capabilities as the possibility of the establishment of no-fly zones was being raised at the Geneva talks.

One only wonders if that includes transferring some of the new S-300 advanced missile batteries the Iranian regime has just purchased from Russia over to Syria, in what would amount to a dramatic escalation in military support for the Assad regime by Iran.

The reality is that Marashi’s editorial is an indicator of the growing level of concern the mullahs have over the successes Saudi Arabia and neighboring Gulf states have had in stemming Iranian regime advances, especially in intercepting arms being smuggled by Iran into Yemen for Houthi rebels.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Cannot Defend Growing Human Rights Violations

February 16, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Cannot Defend Growing Human Rights Violations

“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.” – Abraham Lincoln

On this President’s Day, it is fitting we look back on past presidents for lessons and observations that hold true in today’s chaotic world and Lincoln’s quote is as powerful and meaningful today as it was in his day, especially as we look at the downward spiral that is the Middle East in general and the Iranian regime specifically.

Lincoln, faced with a great split down the middle of his country, believed deeply in uniting a nation under the principles of freedom and equality for all. He saw slavery as a morally corrupt practice that – if allowed to continue – would darken and sicken the heart of his nation to its core. His quote hearkens to the need to stand firm in the face of great adversity and make the hard decisions today because any delay would force ever harder decisions tomorrow.

The same sentiment applies to the world’s approach to the mullahs in Tehran. The rush to appease the Iranian regime with a dubious nuclear agreement and the move to delink from it a wide range of regime abuses such as support for terror, development of ballistic missiles, holding of hostages and crackdowns on human rights, have proven to be problematic in its aftermath.

Lincoln’s words are also a necessary reminder that we cannot bargain away important moral points today in the hopes for political expediency and we certainly cannot be lured by the siren song of false promises that emanate from the Iran lobby which fought hard to position the regime as a moderate-seeking group of bureaucrats and not a bunch of thuggish theocrats which they really are.

When regime advocates such as Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council argue for an almost obsequious approach to dealing with the mullahs in the hopes of gaining favor, they in fact are arguing the world give away all of its leverage in the hope of gaining some whiff of cooperation when none will be forthcoming.

Even now, Parsi and Marashi and others in the Iran lobby have consistently ignored the broader implications of aggressive regime behavior since the nuclear deal and instead focused on non-issues such as visa waivers and holding the line against any possible future sanctions.

They have ignored the widespread imprisonment of journalists, Iranian dissidents, artists, students and bloggers throughout Iran.

They have ignored the dramatic escalation in the Syrian war as the mullahs begged Russia to enter on behalf of saving the Assad regime.

They have ignored the blatant acts of aggression committed by the regime in detaining ten U.S. sailors and then using them in a constant stream of propaganda exercises; releasing video of them kneeling underneath guns, even one sailor crying and now revelations they were subjected to constant and intense questioning by regime officials.

The Iran lobby has consistently ignored the repeated reports and demands of international human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for human rights in Iran, all of whom have revealed evidence of mounting regime abuses of increasing size and barbarity.

An Iranian who fled the bloodshed of the regime wrote in the American Thinker his own story of the atrocities committed by the regime and sad state of affairs for ordinary Iranians.

“In the last 37 years, the Iranian nation has lived under the reign of the most backward regime. The truth is that the clergymen who rule Iran do not belong in this age and cannot deal with the realities of the modern world. At best, the Islamic revolution of 1979 was the revolution of century against century. They believe that after 37 years of mismanagement and brutality, the only way they can extend their rule is by increasingly terrorizing their critics. The Islamic regime has taken this noble Iranian nation into the Middle Ages, creating some of the most medieval laws and implementing them against its citizens in the most vicious manner,” he writes.

“The regime’s atrocities include stoning men and women, cutting off their fingers, torturing innocent people for their opinion, incarcerating religious minorities on fabricated charges, imprisoning Iranian youths for upholding their very basic human rights, and organizing vigilantes to murder political opponents. They have created an atmosphere of fear and intimidation, where Iranians cannot trust one another. In brief, in the name of religion, the clergymen have created a society where sadness and despair have replaced hope and optimism,” he added.

This testimony is only one of many that pour out of Iran demanding to be addressed by the world’s governments and news media. Iranian dissident groups such as the National Council of Resistance of Iran have provided much of the proof of the atrocities being committed through smuggled video of public executions, sworn testimony from victims of the regime and tracking of prisoners who all too often disappear in the labyrinth of infamous black holes such as Evin Prison.

Ultimately, Lincoln’s message may prove prophetic as the price to be paid in confronting Iranian regime aggression will only rise in the next president’s term. We can only hope that price will not be too high to pay in light of recent appeasement of the mullahs.

By Laura Carnahan

Iran Lobby Cannot Hide Growing Discontent Within Iran Regime

February 5, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Cannot Hide Growing Discontent Within Iran Regime

The Iran lobby, led by the squawking voices of luminaries such as Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council and so-called journalists Jim Lobe and Ali Gharib, promised a new moderate Iran after the nuclear deal was announced, which was met with loud demonstrations and honking car horns on the streets of Tehran by Iranians hoping for a new shift in the regime’s policies moving forward.

That hope has slowly been strangled and has led to widespread disillusionment among ordinary Iranians, especially Iranian youth who face appalling high unemployment rates, are subjected to internet cyberwalls and live in constant fear of arrest and torture for engaging in counter-revolutionary acts such as posting photos on Instagram.

Their hopes had been bolstered by the false promise offered by the election of Hassan Rouhani, who has become the false face of a regime which has no intention of changing course. Reuters took a deeper look at the dissatisfaction running through Iranian society and the lack of progress towards the moderate promises made by Rouhani’s ascension.

Rouhani won the presidency in 2013, bolstered by the support of many women and young people who were encouraged by his comments that Iranians deserved to live in free country and have the rights enjoyed by other people around the world, said Reuters.

“I am not going to make the same mistake twice. I have decided not to vote,” said Setareh, a university graduate in the northern city of Rasht. “I voted for Rouhani – was he able to improve my situation? No.”

According to the Reuters reporting, Rouhani’s supporters hoped that his election victory would lead to social change in country where women have lesser rights than men in areas including inheritance, divorce and child custody and are subject to travel and dress restrictions, and strict Islamic law is enforced by a “morality police.”

But rights campaigners say there have been little, if any, moves to bring about greater political and cultural freedoms as the president has focused on striking the nuclear accord with world powers to end the international sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy with no guarantees the financial windfalls would benefit the consumer economy.

Reuters found significant irony among young Iranians that Rouhani’s promises to loosen Internet restrictions have not been met. Access to social media remains officially blocked, though Rouhani and Khamenei have their own Twitter accounts.

This has been a particular grievance among those under 30, who represent more than two-thirds of the 78 million people living in Iran and were born after the 1979 Islamic revolution.

“I am not going to vote. What is the use of voting? My hopes are shattered,” said a 27-year-old engineer in Tehran, who refused to give his name.

The situation for Iranian women remains abysmal and shows no signs of improvement after parliamentary elections. Under regime law, men can divorce their spouses far more easily than women, while custody of children over seven automatically goes to the father.

Women have to get permission from their husbands to travel abroad. They are obliged to cover their hair and the shape of their bodies, their testimony as a legal witness is worth half that of a man’s and daughters inherit half of what sons do.

“What will change if I vote?” said Miriam, 26, who could not win custody of her eight-year-old son after getting divorced in the central city of Isfahan. “Can reformist candidates give me equal rights?”

A report by the U.N. special rapporteur on Iran last year said human rights in the country “remained dire” under Rouhani, while separately a U.N. child rights watchdog said this month that girls faced discriminatory treatment “in family relations, criminal justice system, property rights”.

Support for that nuclear deal may also appear to be cracking based on a new poll conducted by the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies in January. Another question asked whether the deal was a victory for Iran or a defeat for Iran. In August, 36.6 percent of Iranians said it was a victory, but that number has now dropped to 27.4 percent. Interestingly, the numbers of Iranians who felt it was a defeat also dropped. Instead, a third answer – that the deal is beneficial for both Iran and the world powers that agreed to it – gained adherents, rising 43 percent of Iranians to 54 percent between August and January.

Both are significant erosions of confidence by the Iranian people in what they believe from the Mullah’s regime and the fact they do not see any of the alleged benefits touted by the mullahs flowing to them and are unlikely to see any as the regime focuses on business deals benefitting industries controlled by the Revolutionary Guards Corps.

That focus on benefits for the ruling elites was highlighted by criticisms voiced by regime publications affiliated with the IRGC which criticized a number of the contracts signed by Rouhani on his recent European tour in an effort to justify the removal of almost 90 percent of candidates from election ballots who might be viewed as moderates or even outright dissenters from being able to run for office.

That militant and aggressive behavior was reinforced by comments made by the head of the regime army in the Fars news agency in he promised the regime would continue development of its ballistic missile program even though the international community has widely condemned it as a violation of existing sanctions, according to Reuters.

In October, Iran violated a United Nations ban by testing a precision-guided ballistic missile, prompting a U.S. threat to impose more sanctions. In December, Rouhani ordered Iran’s missile program to be expanded.

“Iran’s missile capability and its missile program will become stronger. We do not pay attention and do not implement resolutions against Iran, and this is not a violation of the nuclear deal,” Fars quoted commander-in-chief Ataollah Salehi as saying.

He was referring to Iran’s deal with world powers last year to curb a nuclear program that the West feared, despite Tehran’s denials, was aimed at acquiring atomic weapons.

But even as the Iranian regime was making these threatening statements, its foreign minister Javad Zarif was demanding that the U.S. make clear a public pledge not to penalize any European banks engaging in trade with the regime, according to Reuters.

Many foreign banks are cautious about resuming trade with Iran following January’s nuclear deal because they fear being caught up in ongoing U.S. sanctions.

Although world powers lifted many crippling sanctions against Iran in return for the country complying with a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions, some restrictions remain in place

Washington still prevents U.S. nationals, banks and insurers from trading with Iran and also prohibits any trades with Iran in U.S. dollars from being processed via the U.S. financial system.

This is a significant complication given the dollar’s role as the world’s main business currency.

European banks are also cautious – with some, including Deutsche Bank, remembering past fines from U.S. regulators for breaking sanctions, Reuters said.

European businesses should be wary of jumping too quickly back in bed with the regime given its aggressive actions and engagement in escalating conflicts in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, especially since the upcoming parliamentary elections will be just another act of political theater with no real benefit or relief for the Iranian people.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Continues to Ignore Human Rights Violations

February 2, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Continues to Ignore Human Rights Violations

The Iran lobby’s leading cheerleaders seem to have a problem with selective memory recall as evidenced by the latest editorial by Reza Marashi from the National Iranian American Council in the National Interest in which he praised Hassan Rouhani’s European tour and boasted of the Iranian regime’s plans for its newfound wealth as a result of the nuclear deal.

“Iran is pursuing this agenda in an effort to increase government legitimacy and security among Iranian society through improved economic conditions,” Marashi says in of the more inane comments he makes.

“Alliances and enmities shift regularly in Iranian politics, but survival of the system is the shared goal of all stakeholders. Thus far, Rouhani’s political coalition has won Iran’s internal political debate by arguing that survival is better guaranteed through flexibility than intransigence,” he adds in typical think tank-speak.

What Marashi is missing from his less than eloquent dissertation is the reality that is going on within Iran now which is the swift action by the Guardian Council to remove from parliamentary election ballots upwards of 90 percent of all candidates perceived to be moderate or opposed to the current mullah leadership. Even the grandson of the regime’s founder, Ruhollah Khomeini, was tossed off the ballot for being too moderate!

Marashi’s piece is titled “Can Iran Get Out of Its Own Way?” That much he got right, since it is clear the mullahs in Tehran have absolutely no desire to halt their steady stream of militant and aggressive actions in solidifying their hold on power, continue their crackdown on human rights and internal dissent and utilize its newfound wealth to rebuild its infrastructure and enrich themselves at the same time.

The upcoming parliamentary elections are now set to deliver a hand-picked slate of loyalists beholden to the mullahs and Ali Khamenei and Rouhani – far from being the moderate struggling to preserve the future of democracy in Iran – has ably served in his capacity as the puppet face for Khamenei.

It’s also worth noting that Marashi’s claim of the regime realigning to provide an economic boon to ordinary Iranians is also a farce since the deals being signed are lined up to funnel billions back into the coffers of the Revolutionary Guard which controls the heavy industries such as petroleum, aviation and manufacturing.

Marashi also doesn’t address the unseen corruption so deeply rooted in the regime economy that any foreign investor is likely to face barriers. He also does not dare mention the sophisticated cyberwall cutting Iran off from the rest of the world and the high degree of surveillance conducted by the regime’s intelligence agencies that monitor virtually all traffic in and out of the country and often leads them to dissidents and other activists.

Despite the deals and the desire of European governments to begin trading with Iran, financing remains a big issue as major European banks remain reluctant to handle Iranian payments, deterred by previous huge fines from the US treasury. Nuclear-related sanctions have been lifted but other US measures relating to terrorism and human rights are still in place, according to The Guardian.

In typical regime fashion indicative of the corruption within it, far from being a political fight between “hard line” and “moderate” factions, the fight within the regime can be viewed as a fight over the spoils of getting the nuclear deal since the vast majorities of Iranian industries are controlled in whole or part through shell companies belonging to the Revolutionary Guard, which in turn has provided a steady source of illicit income to regime officials for the past two decades.

Even as Khamenei has still called for a “resistance economy,” his intent and those of the mullahs is not to resist any American threat, but instead keep the Iranian people under the boot of oppression and not allow the full benefits of a reopened economy to flow to them.

Evidence of this schism was shown as the regime cancelled plans for a conference set for London where new contracts for foreign oil companies to drill in Iran. Regime officials ostensibly claimed the cancellation was due to British visa requirements, but in fact political turmoil domestically was to blame as various regime groups jockeyed for their share of the corrupt spoils.

Some oil officials are worried the contracts won’t be attractive enough to offset the majors’ reluctance to invest globally due to low oil prices. Others fear mounting criticism by hard-liners who say the deals would give too much away of the country’s natural wealth, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The new deals have been criticized by the Basij, the paramilitary oppressive forces, formed to uphold the principles of the mullah’s rule. On Saturday, members of Basij’s student wing were arrested after protesting against the contracts, the semiofficial Tasnim news agency reported.

Political crackdowns in Iran are so commonplace and for so many trivial acts, that some Iranians who have been repeatedly arrested have developed handbook to help those who might face arrest in the regime.

One of the student activists jailed three times and tortured, believes there are steps activists in Iran can take to better protect themselves, both inside and outside prison walls. He belongs to a group of over a dozen activists who used their hard-earned personal experiences to create a 19-chapter booklet in Farsi and English titled “Safe Activism: Reducing the Risks and Impact of Arrest,” according to the Guardian.

Designed to teach activists and journalists how to avoid careless behaviors that could endanger them and those around them, the booklet, now online, also offers guidelines on what to do in case of arrest and how to mitigate the consequences of incarceration,” the Guardian added.

Basic safety measures are highlighted in the first chapters of the ‘Safe Activism’ booklet. Readers are reminded to take precautions before meeting with other activists and not communicate important information over the phone. They are advised to keep sensitive documents as well as identification papers and travel documents at a safe place outside their residence, and to clear their homes of illegal items like drugs, alcohol and banned media.

The fact that ordinary Iranians would need a handbook like these speaks volumes about conditions in Iran and is damning proof that Marashi’s optimistic views are really flights of fantasy.

It would be more of a service if the NIAC published the handbook on its website so future Iranian-Americans visiting Iran are not imprisoned like so many others have been.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Regime Pushes Confrontations as Iran Lobby Covers

January 13, 2016 by admin

Iran Regime Pushes Confrontations as Iran Lobby Covers

Noun: con·fron·ta·tion

Definition: A hostile or argumentative meeting or situation between opposing parties.

The Iran regime has decided to live up to the meaning of the word “confrontation” in all its forms as it rapidly escalates a series of crises on several fronts.

The U.S. Navy released video this weekend taken by an American helicopter showing an Iranian Revolutionary Guards vessel firing unguided rockets last December near warships, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman in the Strait of Hormuz as proof rebutting denials by the Iranian regime that it had launched the rockets.

A regime spokesman claimed the accusations by the U.S. were “false” and “akin to psychological warfare,” but had no rebuttal to the video evidence that was released clearly showing the regime had lied about the provocation.

The Navy said the rockets were fired “within an internationally recognized maritime traffic lane” as the Truman and the other ships, including commercial craft, were passing through the Strait of Hormuz into the Persian Gulf.

A U.S. Central Command spokesman at the time called the Iranian actions “highly provocative, unsafe and unprofessional” and said they called into question Iran’s commitment to the security of a waterway vital to international commerce.

But the firing of rockets near U.S. Navy warships was only one part of a much larger tapestry the regime is weaving of acts fueling violence across the Middle East at the direction and behest of the mullahs controlling Iran.

Jay Solomon reported in the Wall Street Journal of the growing fears in Washington and Europe that the nuclear deal reached last July with the Iranian regime has not brought the much-promised moderate turn from Iran, but rather has only emboldened and hardened its leadership.

“Since completion of the agreement in July, Tehran security forces, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have stepped up arrests of political opponents in the arts, media and the business community, part of a crackdown aimed at ensuring Mr. Khamenei’s political allies dominate national elections scheduled for Feb. 26, according to Iranian politicians and analysts,” Solomon writes.

“Americans have set their eyes covetously on elections, but the great and vigilant nation of Iran will act contrary to the enemies’ will, whether it be in elections or on other issues, and as before will punch them in the mouth,” Khamenei told a meeting of prayer leaders this week.

“As much as $100 billion in frozen revenues are expected to return to Iran after sanctions are lifted, which U.S. officials said could happen in coming weeks,” Solomon notes. “Many of the companies about to be removed from international blacklists are part of military and religious foundations, including some that report directly to Mr. Khamenei. Those firms could be the first to benefit from the rush of international businesses looking to profit from the lifting of sanctions.”

The same month, two Iranian poets, each received decade-long sentences and 99 lashes for kissing members of the opposite sex and shaking their hands, Iranian state media reported. They have denied the charges.

In November, an Iran court convicted the Washington Post’s Tehran bureau chief, Jason Rezaian, of espionage and sentenced him to prison. The Post and Mr. Rezaian have denied the charges.

Things are getting so bad Congressional Democrats are intensifying pressure on the Obama administration to hold Iran accountable for its testing of ballistic missiles.

Both supporters and opponents of the multinational nuclear accord with the Iranian regime say that to maintain U.S. credibility in enforcing the deal, the White House must move forward with sanctions on Iran after two missile tests in the fall.

“They ought to impose sanctions because we have to show we take this seriously,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.), who backed the nuclear deal, said Friday. “Iran is very destabilizing, very aggressive and very badly behaved and we have to do what we can to stop that.”

But even with the renewed calls for action against the Iranian regime, there seems to be little appetite in the White House to engage in new confrontations with the mullahs during the last year of President Obama’s term in office, which has led to traditional U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia to strike out and form their own coalitions in an effort to stymie Iranian regime’s aggressions.

The Arab League in a statement condemned the attacks on two Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran and accused the Iranian government of failing to protect the buildings, Reuters reported. The statement also condemned a militant group found in Bahrain reportedly backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. All Arab League nations voted in support of the statement except Lebanon, where the Iranian-backed Hezbollah terror group holds serious sway.

Saudi Arabia Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir, speaking at an emergency Arab League session called in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to discuss Tehran’s “terrorist acts” after attacks on the Saudi Embassy in Iran, said Arab nations must ensure that Iran is stopped from “meddling in the affairs of Arab nations.”

The actions by Arab League nations comes as the Iran lobby ramps up its verbal and PR attacks on Saudi Arabia in an effort to deflect attention on the Iranian regime’s new provocations. In fact, the regime’s chief lobbyist – the National Iranian American Council – has issued a flurry of editorials condemning Saudi Arabia, but not criticizing the regime’s recent acts including the crackdown against dissidents, the ballistic missile launches and firing of rockets at the U.S. Navy.

“If it seems like the Iranian government’s behavior is schizophrenic, that’s because it is. A small but powerful group of hardliners is trying to derail Rouhani’s foreign policy initiatives in an effort to weaken his domestic political power,” said Reza Marashi of NIAC in a piece for Vice News in which he attempted to blame the regime’s latest nefarious acts on a small group of hardliners.

He of course does not mention the political realities that the regime as a theocratic state is solely and particularly in making decisions regarding its strategic issues, is run at the whim of its Khamenei and the small, hand-picked group of mullahs in its Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts.

As the situation worsens, we should see even more hysterical editorials coming from NIAC and other lobby allies such as Lobelog and the Ploughshares Fund.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Attacks Saudi Arabia to Aid Iran Regime

January 8, 2016 by admin

Iran Lobby Attacks Saudi Arabia to Aid Iran Regime

The Iran lobby, led by the National Iranian American Council, has ratcheted up the propaganda machine to take direct aim at Saudi Arabia in the growing escalation in tensions between it and the Iranian regime.

This was highlighted in back-to-back editorials by Trita Parsi and Reza Marashi of NIAC as well as a steady parade of attack pieces by Eli Clifton and Paul Pillar on Lobelog.com, all attempting to portray the Iran regime as the picked on softie and Saudi Arabia as the menacing bully.

It’s a curious, but not unsurprising, direction for the Iran lobby since the rise in tensions with Saudi Arabia and other neighboring Arab states have brought to the forefront one unmistakable point the rest of the world cannot ignore; the Iranian regime is always at the center of the world’s most dangerous conflicts.

Be it in Syria by its support of the Assad regime, or in Yemen through its support of Houthis rebels or in Iraq through Shiite militias, the mullahs in Tehran have manipulated events to create disorder in order to gain footholds in neighboring nations to establish the Shiite version of the Warsaw Pact as a buffer from its adversaries.

But the delusional arguments being pedaled by the Iran lobby to cover for Iran’s aggressive expansions have ranged all over the map as it has tried anything to explain away the sectarian violence and bloodshed coming at the behest of the Iranian regime.

Take for example Parsi’s editorial appearing in Al Jazeera in which he attempts to portray Saudi Arabia as a “declining state” and Iran as a “rising state” by way of explaining why Saudi Arabia is resisting Iran so strenuously.

It’s the kind of argument a high school student reading Cliff Note’s versions of history might make. Parsi says that “history teaches us that it is not rising states that tend to be reckless, but declining powers.”

Most historians would disagree with Parsi and most political and military analysts would find his comment nonsensical since the defining parameters for nations to act “recklessly” often form around issues of resources, economy, wealth and even faith. The “decline” of a nation can be defined in a similarly wide variety of methods, none of which would apply to Parsi’s reasoning.

Empires and nations can decline through environmental degradation such as the Harappan Civilization in the 22^nd century BC in what is now called Pakistan or the Minoans centered on the island of Crete which met its demise in 1450 BC when a volcano erupted.

They can also decline through war such as the ancient Roman Empire or the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. In all these cases, nations and empires in decline were not cited for “reckless” action as a reason for their declines. If anything, history teaches us that declining empires are often the victims of aggressive neighbors who sense weakness and an opportunity to acquire more territory, more wealth or more slaves.

Modern history has taught us that lesson especially well as in the growth of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or now the Iranian regime in which aggression is more often the hallmark of these nations’ leadership. Accommodation is viewed as weakness, negotiation is a tactic to hold off retaliation and military action is a tool of statecraft.

Parsi typically confuses political weakness with practical weakness. It’s a viewpoint common among dictatorships which only see the world through the lens of strength and domination. Parsi’s conceit and obsession with the strongman view of the world is illustrated when he writes:

“Their prospects of success in any confrontation will diminish the longer they wait, and second, because of the illusion that a crisis may be their last chance to change the trajectory of their regional influence and their prospects vis-à-vis rivals. When their rivals — who have the opposite relationship with time — seek to deescalate and avoid any confrontation, declining states feel they are left with no choice but to instigate a crisis.”

Parsi believes then that in the modern world the only options open for nations that feel threatened is to seek out confrontation and create crisis.

Going by that standard, the nations in the greatest decline would seem to be China, North Korea, Russia and Iran given the recent track records of confrontation in the South China Sea, Ukraine, nuclear bomb tests and – in the case of the Iranian regime – aggressive actions in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. On that basis alone, Iran would seem to be the nation in steepest decline using Parsi’s logic.

Parsi neglects to also mention the near Hail Mary-like request of the mullahs in Tehran to bring in Russian intervention in Syria to save the Assad regime.

If anything, the recent actions by the Saudis and other nations to sever relations with Iran including Bahrain, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, all reflect a newfound strength and resolve from nations that have typically come to rely on U.S. power to protect them. If anything, these nations have opted to poke the Iranian beast in the eye and finally stand up to the largest supplier of terrorist groups in the world.

These nations have sought to halt the flow of arms into their nations with crackdowns on Islamic extremists receiving weapons and explosives from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps and even acted militarily to in Syria and Yemen and break from the historical patterns of only supplying cash to U.S. or European allies.

The recent acts by the Iranian regime to violate UN sanctions with ballistic missile launches and threaten to walk away from the nuclear deal it agreed to last July smack more of the desperation Parsi writes about than anything Saudi Arabia has done.

Parsi largely blames these acts and the recent burning of the Saudi embassy in Tehran as the result of a small “hardliner” segment at odds with the “moderate” leadership of Hassan Rouhani. It’s a common canard offered by the Iran lobby and one that fails to seriously discuss the true nature of the regime, which is as a theocracy, Iran is firmly and fully in the control of Ali Khamenei and the other mullahs. Any other interpretation is either naïve or deliberately obtuse.

It’s worth noting that the mullahs have a penchant for burning down foreign embassies having done so to the Americans in 1979, the British in 2011 and now the Saudis in 2016. One might wonder who’s next for an encore.

By Michael Tomlinson

Iran Lobby Puts Saudi Arabia in its Sights

January 7, 2016 by admin

That stalwart of Iranian regime apologists, the National Iranian American Council, put out a whopper of an editorial in Foreign Policy written by Reza Marashi that attempts to portray Saudi Arabia as the new “George W. Bush” of the Middle East and as a provocateur of the rising tensions there.

It’s a funny piece, worthy of reading on TMZ, Buzzfeed or a reddit blog, but it misses the mark in its facts.

First off, it’s important to acknowledge one fact we do agree on and that is Saudi Arabia went ahead with the execution of a Shiite cleric who had previously led an attempted revolt in the country and was connected with the mullahs in Tehran knowing that it would cause a furious reaction from the Iranian regime.

It’s also important to acknowledge that this blog has widely condemned the use of capital punishment no matter where it is applied, but especially in regimes such as Iran where due process is an iffy proposition. Consequently, for outside observers like us, the executions in Saudi Arabia similarly fall into that category of opposing using capital punishment.

Where we differ from NIAC, is in the silly proposition that Saudi Arabia has been the military aggressor in the region, citing its war in Yemen and support for the Syrian opposition as clear signs of its willingness to fight.

What’s remarkable is that you could swap out the words “Saudi Arabia” from Marashi’s editorial and substitute “Iranian regime” instead and without changing a word, the editorial would be a perfect retort to the aggressive policies of Iran.

Take for example this passage from his editorial and if we simply do the swap, it now reads:

“What’s worse is that the Iran regime chooses to address its geopolitical fears by promoting anti-Sunni and anti-Saudi sectarianism. The Iranian government’s analyses of the situations in Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen have been identical and disturbingly unsophisticated: Sunni Muslims are the bad guys, and Sunni Saudi Arabia is interfering in Shiite affairs. This message empowers the Middle East’s worst ideologues — the kind who think the Islamic State is admirable and the 9/11 attacks might not have been such a bad thing.”

It’s really remarkable how correct and accurate Marashi’s own words become if we simply substitute Iran for Saudi Arabia.

Marashi also calls wars in Syria and Yemen “self-inflicted wounds” but he neglects to mention that it was the Iranian regime that kept the Assad regime alive in the first place with fighters, weapons and cash and it was Iran that initially stirred the Houthis to rebel in Yemen and supplied them with rockets, ammunition and cash in an attempt to overthrow a government of a nation sharing a border with Saudi Arabia.

In a similar vein, it is akin to the Taliban helping Al-Qaeda launch an attack against the U.S., in which case Marashi’s George W. Bush comparison is wholly appropriate.

But where Marashi fails in his analysis is in turning a blind eye to the Iranian role in all of this. One cannot accuse Saudi Arabia of being provocative when you are busy fomenting a rebellion on its border. One cannot condemn executions, when you are busy hanging people in public squares by the score each day.

It is the height of hypocrisy for Marashi to attack Saudi Arabia’s policies, while failing to admit the blame in actions and policies the Iranian regime undertakes. That makes Marashi’s argument intellectually dishonest and more akin to propaganda than serious analysis.

Of course, it’s already been well documented that the NIAC serves primarily as the lobbying advocate and voice for the Iranian regime so his piece is not surprising. It’s only surprising he had the temerity to actually submit with a straight face.

It’s even more interesting that Marashi cites the Saudi “spin machine” in Washington in a similar fashion to his portrayal of the Israeli spin machine during the nuclear debate. It’s probably one of the few times that Saudi Arabia and Israel have both been portrayed in the same manner.

While Saudi Arabia and Israel are certainly not BFFs, it is telling how the NIAC has similarly attacked both nations as opponents to the Iranian regime.

And if indeed Saudi Arabia is the George W. Bush of the Middle East, it’s also true that Iran has now become the new Afghanistan in this metaphor providing safe haven and support to those who would attack Saudi Arabia.

At the end of the day, Marashi’s editorial may end up be prophetic, but just not in the way he hoped for.

By Michael Tomlinson