Latest Alireza Jafarzadeh News | Fox News

Iran protests: Here is what the US should do now

Tue, 02 Jan 2018 16:30:00 -0500

Anti-government demonstrations that erupted Thursday and have since spread across Iran represent the most serious challenge to the theocracy that has ruled the nation since seizing power in the 1979 revolution.

The U.S. government needs to support the protests with actions to put pressure on the repressive forces of the Iranian government. Such actions should include:

Most importantly, starting to build a relationship with the organized opposition that is seeking a free, secular, democratic and non-nuclear republic in Iran.

Calling for an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to take steps to protect the protesters. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley announced Tuesday that she would do this in the days ahead. The U.N. has no time to waste to take meaningful steps in favor of the Iranian people who are crying out for freedom.

Ensuring that communications and internet access are available to the Iranian people so that the protesters can communicate among themselves and get their message to the outside world.

Adding top Iranian officials to the list of human rights violators we are sanctioning personally.

Imposing new sanctions on the various entities of the Iranian regime for their increased censorship.

The demonstrators are rejecting the Islamist regime that rules Iran in its entirety, dismissing both the “hard liners” as well as the “reformers.” Iranians are chanting “reformists, hardliners, the game is now over.”

The protests are growing in intensity and size every day and have now expanded to over 80 cities nationwide.

Citizens are venting their anger and resentment toward the mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Both have plundered the wealth of the nation and suppressed basic human rights.

No amount of shear force seems capable of crushing this protest movement, nor will any hollow promises of economic relief beguile the population.

At least 21 people have died during the anti-government protests and over 1,000 have been arrested. In some cases, the Intelligence Ministry and security forces have identified the leaders of the protests, arresting them later to avoid aggravating the situation. Nevertheless, the unrest is only growing.

Compared to the June 2009 uprising, which erupted as a result of fraudulent presidential elections, the current situation is more serious for several reasons.

First, the rapid rise of the cost of living, rampant government corruption, and deteriorating human rights situation have brought things to a head. The protests are no longer limited to the middle class and intellectuals. Unrest has spread to all sectors of society – including the impoverished, workers and those who have nothing left to lose.

Second, the regime is in disarray, as various factions try to put the blame on each other, weakening the government as a whole. The dissatisfaction has even affected some in the ranks of the security forces.

Third, the opposition is well organized, and the nationwide network inside Iran of the main opposition movement – the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) – is very active. The MEK has long called for regime change.

Over 90 percent of all victims of political executions over the past four decades belong to the MEK, as do most current political prisoners. Tehran fears the group’s organizational and leadership capabilities, and its reputation as a determined force.

Seven Friday prayer leaders across Iran attacked the MEK last week, including in Mashhad, where the uprising was sparked.

The opposition leader, Maryam Rajavi, called on the Iranians to continue their struggle to topple the regime. “Regime change is within reach,” she said.

Finally, the political environment has changed internationally since the Obama administration. The Trump administration has publicly said that it stands on the side of the Iranian people as they seek change.

President Trump tweeted Monday: “Iran is failing at every level despite the terrible deal made with them by the Obama Administration. The great Iranian people have been repressed for many years. They are hungry for food & for freedom. Along with human rights, the wealth of Iran is being looted. TIME FOR CHANGE!”

And President Trump said in another tweet Tuesday: “The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime. All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their ‘pockets.’ The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!”

Vice President Pence tweeted: “As long as @RealDonaldTrump is POTUS and I am VP, the United States of America will not repeat the shameful mistake of our past when others stood by and ignored the heroic resistance of the Iranian people as they fought against their brutal regime. The bold and growing resistance of the Iranian people today gives hope and faith to all who struggle for freedom and against tyranny. We must not and we will not let them down.”

The presidential and vice presidential tweets, and the action by Ambassador Haley, are just the first steps America’s leaders need to take to help free Iranians from the tyrannical Islamist government that has deprived them of so many freedoms.

New sanctions on Iran, now it's time for a new US policy too

Sun, 13 Aug 2017 15:30:00 -0400

On the second anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, some argue that the agreement succeeded in slowing Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. However, the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program are only limited, as is the international inspectors’ access to the country’s illicit facilities.

In addition, in areas unrelated to the nuclear agreement, the Iranian regime’s behavior has only gotten worse over the past two years. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has escalated its nefarious activities in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, has deliberately sought out close encounters with American warships, and has boasted of new Iranian military equipment.

The White House’s efforts to enforce a harder line on Iran policy is well justified and the president’s signing into law of H.R. 3364, which included a title, “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017” is a step in the right direction.

In June, the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed details of the escalation of the Iranian missile program, proving the nuclear threat to be real. The opposition coalition identified more than 40 sites for missile development, manufacturing, and testing, all of which were under the control of the IRGC. What’s more, at least one of those sites was known to be collaborating with the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its Farsi acronym SPND, the institution tasked with weaponization activities related to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. SPND activities have continued since the JDPOA.

Such revelations clarified what should already be common knowledge: Iran’s nuclear weapons activities have continued. Even worse, myopic focus on the nuclear issues has distracted attention from the Iranian regime’s terrorism sponsorship, regional intervention, and human rights abuses.

If the IRGC continues to acquire more wealth through its large-scale control of the de-sanctioned Iranian economy, combined with continued lack of access to the nuclear sites of SPND, Iran will undoubtedly deliver a nuclear weapon.

To its credit, the US. has taken steps toward addressing the underlying problem of the IRGC’s expanding control over Iranian affairs. Soon after taking office, Mr. Trump urged the administration to review designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. With the new Iran sanctions bill now signed into law, the administration should expand all anti-terror sanctions to the whole of the IRGC, including its affiliate entities and associated financial and economic arms.

This is a meaningful start to a new Iran policy that is comprehensive in its aims and in its enforcement. Toward that end, the US should work with the UN and EU to evict the IRCG from the combat zones in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. This will help protect the West and its allies, as well as empower the Iranian people, who are seeking regime change and are more than capable of bringing it about on their own.

Without serious sacrifice, Western powers must do their part. The Iranian regime must be more isolated and financially handicapped by the United States. It must also be subject to pressure not just over its nuclear program but also over a range of current and past crimes, including illicit missile testing, escalating regional and sectarian conflicts in the Middle East, and the 1988 massacre of political prisoners. The United States should subject all major human rights violators of the Iranian regime, including dozens involved in the horrific 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Many of the perpetrators of this crime currently hold key positions in the Iranian regime.

These pressures will make a profound difference in the future of Iran, if coupled with reaching out to the people of Iran and their organized opposition. They will succeed in diminishing the power and influence of the IRGC; bolster the Iranian people and the prospect of the emergence of a truly democratic Iranian government.

Trump and Rouhani each highlight the need for change in Iran, in very different ways

Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:47:00 -0400

On September 19 and 20, the United Nations General Assembly hosted two competing speeches, one of which could have a dramatic impact on global policy-making and the future of the Middle East.

President Donald Trump expressed a predictably firm policy in respect to the Iranian regime, especially toward the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the nuclear deal. The following day, Iranian regime President Hassan Rouhani responded by dismissing the White House’s antagonism toward the deal, effectively ignoring the U.S. president’s other criticisms of the theocracy.

Rouhani’s inability to acknowledge the validity of those criticisms is further evidence that the much hoped for “moderation” of the Iranian regime is a fantasy perpetuated by naïve Western policymakers who have been more concerned with prospective business deals then long-term regional stability and the core values of human rights. Trump’s speech, in turn, was indicative of emerging prospects for new policies toward the regime, which may finally address Iran’s malign activities and human rights abuses, and exert pressure for serious, even transformative change.

Although the JCPOA remained a major focus in Iran-related comments in President Trump’s speech at the UN, he also made notable connections between the agreement and such issues as Tehran’s longstanding support of terrorism and its victimization of the Iranian people.

In speaking of these wrongdoings, Trump acknowledged, “rather than use its [Tehran’s] resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.”

Rouhani’s actions throughout his first term and during the very beginning of his second have only fueled activism among the pro-democracy Iranians and the Iranian expatriate community. This crucial trend is one that Mr. Trump discussed during his UN speech, declaring, “the entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change,” and adding “Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most.”

Such fear was evident from what was said – and more to the point, what was left unsaid – in Rouhani’s speech. Citing Trump’s description of Iran’s behavior in matters other than the nuclear agreement, Rouhani simply rejected what he called “baseless allegations” and moved on from the topic, while thousands of Iranians rallied across from the UN in rejection of the entire clerical regime and in favor of a free Iran.

This sort of denial and dismissal follows the pattern exhibited by Iran’s ruling clerics, who tried for many years to cover up the largest crime against humanity since World War II. In the summer of 1988, the Iranian regime subjected virtually all of its political prisoners to minutes-long trials intended to determine whether they still harbored opposition to the theocratic system. Those who failed to pass the loyalty test were executed, and most were buried in secret mass graves. In a matter of months, as many as 30,000 people were killed because of their political beliefs, and this incident set the tone for the regime’s handling of dissent through the present day. Even to date, some of the key players in the massacre have been prominent members of Hassan Rouhani’s cabinet.

Noting that “oppressive regimes cannot endure forever,” the American president predicted that the Iranian people would soon face an opportunity to take back their nation from the theocrats.

In a statement following President Trump’s speech, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) President-elect, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, welcomed his remarks as they effectively echoed the desire of the Iranian people for regime change, which the Iranian opposition has been working toward for the past 36 years. She urged a series of practical measures, including unhindered and intrusive inspection of military and non-military sites in Iran and the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the 1988 massacre of political prisoners in Iran.

The need for such change is highlighted by Rouhani’s speech as much as it is by Trump’s, insofar as Rouhani’s position demonstrates once again that the problems of repression and neglect in Iran will not be addressed by the existing regime. They must instead be addressed by the pro-democratic voices inside the country and their allies around the world.

Iranian elections: What you won't hear (but need to know)

Fri, 19 May 2017 10:53:00 -0400

As the Supreme Leader urges the Iranian people to vote in the presidential elections on Friday, May 19th, the loudest voice may well be that of the non-voters. Their volume will likely be heightened by the civilians venting their anger against the entirety of the regime.

The Iranian people have witnessed 11 presidential elections over the past 38 years. They harbor no illusions: under the current tightly controlled theocracy, no strategic change can be expected, regardless of who is declared the winner.

Presidential elections in Iran have less to do with the opinions of the Iranian population, and more to do with the warfare between the various gangs, each with its own political turf, economic conglomerates, and corruption networks that dominate most of the nation’s GDP.

It is no coincidence that when a “moderate” president took over from a “pragmatist,” who then turned it over to a firebrand “radical,” and then back to a “moderate,” we saw only a steady rise in the regime’s domestic suppression, export of terrorism, regional intervention, and continued development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

So sit tight. Friday’s election results will not decrease the threat to the United States and its allies, nor will they signal political reforms for the Iranian people.

In the clerical system, the selection of a president is tightly controlled. Candidates are vetted at four stages to ensure that the president aligns with the Supreme Leader’s wishes and mandates. Advanced permission from the Supreme Leader to even register is a de facto requirement, the Guardian Council officially vets candidates, electoral engineering by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) is sometimes necessary to ensure that the right candidate gets selected without risking public disruption, and a final endorsement of the “elected” president by the Supreme Leader ends the election cycle.

As a result, the president is virtually an appointee, and not an elected official. After all, the president is only tasked with executing the policies, particularly national security and foreign affairs, articulated by the Supreme Leader, according to article 110 of the regime’s Constitution.

What keeps Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei awake at night is not whether the current president, Hassan Rouhani - dubbed by the Iranian people the “deceiver,” or Khamenei’s close ally Ebrahim Raisi – the “executioner,” comes out on top. Although at this particular juncture, the Supreme Leader may feel more comfortable with Raisi, his primary concern is the possibility of a repeat of the 2009 nationwide uprising. Months of post-election protests shook the very foundation of the Tehran regime, propelling the mullahs to the brink of collapse. Over the past two weeks, Khamenei has repeatedly warned that the most important factor is “security,” and that anyone who dares to disturb public order during the election process will get a “slap in the face,” often a euphemism for murder.

As the United States reviews its policy on Iran, it is important to realize that any shift in U.S. policy should be planned without regard for who is declared as the regime’s new president. The most important factor in the Iranian equation is the Iranian people and the organized opposition, who have called for a boycott of the elections and the establishment of a secular, democratic, non-nuclear and non-belligerent republic in Iran.

The Iranian opposition is very active in the political protests in Iran. It has played a key role in exposing the regime’s major nuclear sites and preventing the ayatollahs from obtaining the Bomb, has exposed Tehran’s international terror network, and is the main victim of the human rights violations in Iranian prisons and streets. If Washington is looking for a different result than 38 years of violence and threats by the Iranian regime, this movement needs to be a central element of any U.S. policy.

Iran, terrorism and the rise of the revolutionary guards' financial empire

Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 -0500

Over the past decade, a significant portion of Iran’s economic institutions have been handed off to the office of the Supreme Leader under the guise of “privatization.”

The driving force behind this stunning power grab is the expanding sphere of influence of Khamenei's office and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) over Iran’s economic resources.

This so-called privatization campaign is a decisive turning point beginning in 2005, when Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the IRGC stacked the executive with people who completely – at least initially – shared Khamenei’s strategic vision for the regime. At this point, Khamenei began to implement a profound restructuring of Iran's economy, including the ownership of a wide range of industries and institutions.

This first took the form of an official directive issued in May 2005. The government was instructed to transfer 80 percent of its economic enterprises to "non-government public, private and cooperative sectors" by the end of 2009. Among these were large mines, primary industries (including downstream oil and gas), foreign commerce, banks, insurance, power generation, post, roads, railroads, airlines, and shipping companies. By some estimates, close to $12B in shares were transferred over just three years, from 2005 to 2008.

The beneficiaries of the bulk of these transfers were the Supreme Leader’s office and its various tentacles, including the dominant Setad, the armed services, and the infamous bonyads or foundations. The implications are better grasped in light of the fact that these institutions exercise virtually absolute control over all decision-making, legislative mechanisms, intelligence gathering, and access to significant budgetary commitments. The resulting powerhouses that have arisen act as the main players and the gatekeepers for western companies into the Iranian economy.

The newly published Rise of the Revolutionary Guards' Financial Empire: How the Supreme Leader and the IRGC Rob the People to Fund International Terror released by the U.S. office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran highlights 14 economic powerhouses directly or indirectly controlled by Khamenei, the IRGC, or their affiliates. Setad's holdings alone total about $95 billion, according to a recent Reuters calculation. All these entities are tax-exempt while some also receive annual government funding.

The Supreme Leader and the IRGC control at least 50 percent of Iran’s GDP.

But where do the profits go? They end up funding the conflict in Syria, terrorism and sectarianism in Iraq, the war in Yemen, the nuclear and missile programs, the security apparatus in Iran, and fundamentalist operations around the world. In the end, Iran’s national economy has been made to serve the domestic suppression, warmongering, export of fundamentalism, and terrorism.

Tehran is spending between $15-20 billion annually to fund the war in Syria, including at least $1B in salaries to its proxies. IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani spends billions of dollars in Iraq to fund the Shiite militias and instigate sectarian violence. At least one billion dollars is provided to Hezbollah in Lebanon annually, and Tehran has poured at least 1.3 billion dollars into the coffers of Hamas.

Western companies would like the deals they make with Iran to be seen as transactions with the “private sector.” However, behind the official banks and companies lies a web of institutions controlled by the IRGC.

Western companies, governments, and the citizens they represent cannot avoid the reality that today those running Iran’s economy are those who suppress the Iranian population and export the terrorism and fundamentalist ideology that threaten the West.

To do business with Iran is to do business with Khamenei and the IRGC.

The Trump administration now has a unique opportunity to help cut off resources to the IRGC and impose limitations on its profit-making, terror-funding operation, by designating the IRGC for what it is: a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Congress would certainly agree with this bipartisan issue.

Why Rafsanjani's death offers the US a unique opportunity to reshape its Iran policy

Fri, 13 Jan 2017 07:00:00 -0500

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the founding fathers of the Iranian regime, died last week on January 8. He served as President, Speaker of Parliament, Deputy Commander of the Armed Forces, head of the Assembly of Experts--the 88-member body of clerics tasked with nominating the Supreme Leader, and head of the Expediency Council, a body adjudicating disputes over legislation between the parliament and the Guardian Council.

A defining chapter for the regime has now come to an end and a new uncertain chapter has opened.

Rafsanjani, one of the two pillars of the ruling theocracy, had always been the regime's number two, acted as its balancing factor and played a decisive role in its preservation.

“Now, the regime will lose its internal and external equilibrium,” opposition leader Maryam Rajavi said, suggesting the clerical regime is “approaching overthrow.”

Rafsanjani’s death presents a historic moment for the incoming U.S. administration to adopt a more effective policy that strategically curbs Iran’s multi-faceted terrorist and nuclear threats and the suppression of its own citizens.

Though portrayed by some in the West as a “pragmatist” or “moderate,” during his long career of nearly 40 years, Rafsanjani was responsible for suppression at home, terrorism abroad, and the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The Iranian clandestine nuclear weapons program jump-started and moved forward under Rafsanjani and he intensified cooperation with countries like North Korea.

In an interview published by the regime's official state news agency IRNA on October 27, 2015, Rafsanjani acknowledged that during his time as Parliament Speaker and President, both he and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei sought ways to obtain a nuclear bomb.

"Our basic doctrine was always a peaceful nuclear application, but it never left our mind that if one day we should be threatened and it was imperative, we should be able to go down the other path," Rafsanjani said.

Rafsanjani was an ardent supporter of the theocracy’s most fundamental principles and strategic policies. In that respect, he embodied no worthy divergences with the supreme leader Ali Khamenei.

A quarter century ago, Rafsanjani exclaimed with unfailing conviction at every turn that “in all affairs, the pivotal role of the velayat-e faqih (supreme leader) must be accepted as fundamental.”

He even coined phrases like “the pole holding up the regime’s tent” to explain the pivotal role of Khamenei. Without it, everything would crumble, which means that the velayat-e faqih must be preserved at any cost.

He was not a reformer, just as his protégée, current president Hassan Rouhani is not.

During his presidency, tens of thousands of political prisoners were massacred in summer 1988. In 1994, the Jewish community center building in Buenos Aires was bombed, resulting in 85 deaths. Argentina then issued an arrest warrant for Rafsanjani, accusing him of personally ordering the attack.

The FBI concluded that Tehran masterminded the bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, resulting in the deaths of 19 American servicemen.

In 1997, a Berlin court ruled that a secret committee, made up of Khamenei, Rafsanjani, and several of his ministers, had ordered the 1992 assassinations of Kurdish dissidents at a Berlin restaurant.

During Rafsanjani’s tenure as president, more dissidents were assassinated abroad than any other time in the life of the Islamic Republic, including the April 1990 assassination near Geneva of Prof. Kazem Rajavi, the representative of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Switzerland, the 1993 assassination in Rome of NCRI’s representative Mohammad Hossein Naghdi, and the 1996 assassination in Istanbul of Ms. Zahra Rajabi, NCRI’s representative on refugee affairs.

In a sharp departure from the previous administrations’ search for the unicorn of “moderates” in Iran, the incoming Trump administration must lead an international effort to further contain, isolate and pressure the world’s largest state-sponsor of terror by adopting a principled and firm policy towards the murderous rulers of Tehran, while reaching out to the Iranian people and their organized opposition who seek a secular, democratic and non-nuclear republic in Iran.

Did things change after Iran's elections? Not really. The mullahs are still in charge

Wed, 09 Mar 2016 11:46:00 -0500

On February 26th, elections were held for Iran’s parliament and Assembly of Experts. In the aftermath, we are witnessing some of the same rationalizations and tortured logic that allowed certain Western policymakers to convince themselves three years ago that the Iranian regime was entering a period of moderation and reform. Then as now, the election of Hassan Rouhani as president was seen as a serious moment of moderation in the history of the theocratic, terrorist-supporting state.

It is true that Iran has now entered into an agreement with a handful of Western powers, exchanging modest concessions on the Iranian nuclear program for a lifting of punishing economic sanctions. But this is not sufficient to demonstrate a serious change in the behavior of the Iranian regime. Quite the contrary, it is indicative of the ends to which that regime will go to preserve the existing power structure.

Although the allies of the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, still hold the largest share of the parliament and although the Guardian Council purged rival factions commonly referred to as “reformists” in the West, much of the international media has declared the elections a victory for “moderates.”

Iranian regime officials went to great lengths to inflate the voter turnout as a sign of the public’s endorsing the current system while defying “Western infiltration.” But the Iranian people never had a choice that would have truly reflected their educated, pro-democratic, secular, and non-belligerent perspective on domestic and world affairs. In reality, the election was a sham, which served to preserve the same theocratic system and the same key players that have ruled Iran for nearly four decades.

This is well illustrated by even a cursory look at some of the key “reformist” victors in the February elections.

Leading Western officials have overlooked the fact that three years into Rouhani’s presidency, the Iranian people experience more suppression, more executions and more arrests. The danger of execution for non-violent offenses, and for participating in anti-government demonstrations, which is considered a political crime labeled as “enmity against God,” is more prevalent now than in over 20 years.

Over 2,300 people have been executed since Rouhani took office, and hundreds of others have been arrested or harassed by Iranian authorities for engaging in supposedly undesirable cultural expressions, or speaking out on behalf of political prisoners, or simply having connections with the genuine democratic opposition.

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

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

Despite the efforts of some in the West to find them, there are no real signs of reform or changes in behavior over the past three decades. The Iranian people and their organized opposition, who have long rejected the ruling theocracy and called for a secular, democratic and non-nuclear republic in Iran, hold the key to real reform and change, not the regime that suppresses them.

To defeat ISIS we must target the godfather of modern terror -- Iran

Tue, 01 Dec 2015 14:09:00 -0500

The November terrorist attacks in Paris left 130 innocent people killed and many more injured. As law enforcement agencies continue their manhunt for the perpetrators’ network, France has stepped up attacks on ISIS in Syria, and every effort is being made to crush the Islamic extremists potentially plotting future deadly attacks.

Syria has been the hub for ISIS growth, which benefitted from the sectarian violence in Iraq to expand its breeding grounds. From a geopolitical perspective, however, a key player-- keeping Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in power, thereby exacerbating the crisis in Syria, and fueling the sectarian violence in Iraq-- is undisputedly the theocracy ruling Iran.

At least 5,000 Iranian revolutionary guards are currently active in Syria. Thousands more from Hezbollah, Iraqi militias, as well as Afghan and Pakistani mercenaries have joined them.

The IRGC is mostly fighting the Free Syrian Army and Jaish al-Fatah and its associate forces; it is not even present in regions where they could come into contact with ISIS.

The infamous Quds Force Commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani has dispatched his top lieutenants to Syria, including his deputy, Brig. General Esmail Qa’ani, who recently commanded the IRGC forces in a battle in Aleppo. He replaced General Hossein Hamedani, who was killed there in October. In addition, other senior commanders in Syria include Brig. Gen. Qassem Rostami, former commander of IRGC’s Khatam Base and Oil Minister under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, now the commander of logistics of the war in Syria; Brig. General Ahmad Madani, the commander of IRGC in the northern front in Syria and currently stationed in the Aleppo region. A total of 16 IRGC Brigadiers General have been killed in Syria so far.

Therefore, the solution to ISIS does not lie solely in increased security measures, enhanced manpower and resources, and better intelligence. Rather, it requires, a fundamental policy shift aimed at drying up the Islamic fundamentalists’ resources and recruiting grounds.

Let’s remember that this new brand of extremism, which merged backward ideas with terrorism, emerged when the mullahs seized power in Iran in 1979. Ever since, Iran’s clerics have institutionalized this sinister phenomenon, which has evolved into a pillar of their rule. The first macro hostage-takings, suicide operations, and street bombings in the west under the cloak of Islam, occurred subsequent to the ayatollahs’ rise to power. Utilizing the power of a state, Iran’s clerics lent Islamic fundamentalism an unprecedented scope, legitimizing their vicious conduct under the banner of Islam while mentoring and inspiring other like-minded extremists.

Simply put, the regime ruling Iran is the Shia version of this menace, and ISIS is the Sunni version. Tehran is the godfather, with a much longer record and, as a state, with deeper pockets, both in terms of resources and political leverage.

As Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the Iranian opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran, underscored after the Paris attack, fundamentalism in the name of Islam - whether under the banner of Shia and velayat-e faqih or under the banner of Sunni and ISIS – has nothing to do with Islam. This ominous phenomenon, wherever it might be, is the enemy of peace and humanity.

Prior to the Paris attacks, French President Francois Hollande, during a visit to Athens on October 23, 2015, said, “Bashar al-Assad is not the solution, he is the problem.” After 300,000 killings and the displacement of millions of people, Assad must go. An end to Assad would also significantly diminish Tehran’s ability to support Hezbollah in Lebanon, and another major blow to the Iranian regime’s regional influence.

Iran: Lessons learned from thirteen years of Iran's nuclear deceptions

Fri, 14 Aug 2015 10:00:00 -0400

Thirteen years ago on August 14th I walked into the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington, D.C. to reveal the existence of Natanz and Arak nuclear sites in Iran for the first time. Little I knew that the revelation would trigger an international response that has continued to this day.

If it weren’t for the diligent and continuing efforts of the main Iran opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to unmask Tehran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, the mullahs would have had the bomb by now.

In his memoirs, Iranian regime’s president, Hassan Rouhani acknowledged the role of the Iranian opposition, saying, “The story behind the discovery of the Natanz site is that the Monafeqin [MEK] contributed to its discovery. They had different sources of information…. They found out about some of the comings and goings in the Natanz area… They had even gotten very close, photographed the site and collected information."

A flurry of additional revelations came afterwards, catching the regime entirely off guard and leaving it scrambling to obstruct and circumvent further international scrutiny.

In February 2003, the MEK exposed the Kala Electric Company as a front for uranium enrichment. It also unmasked laser enrichment activities at Lashkar-Abad and Lavizan-Shian sites where it later became evident that Iran had carried out nuclear weaponization work.

After reluctant cooperation initially, Tehran's approach was to cheat, deny access, remove evidence, and stonewall inquiries by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Tehran has continually denied access to Parchin military base, a site used for a range of activities, including the testing of explosives associated with nuclear detonations.

The MEK originally revealed the heavily-fortified Fordow enrichment site under construction in 2005, but it was not until 2009 that Tehran finally provided access. Nearly a dozen other nuclear sites, as well as scientists, experts, and key documents have remained off limits to the IAEA.

Against this backdrop, there is little reason to believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) will lead to a substantive positive outcome.

The agreement allows Tehran at least 24 days advance notice of inspections, giving it the opportunity to tamper with evidence, decontaminate locations, raze buildings, remove equipment, and evade meaningful scrutiny in ways it has done many times before.

Now, satellite images recently obtained by US intelligence agencies show that Iran has been cleaning up the Parchin site despite IAEA demands for access. Tehran’s ludicrous post-JCPOA explanation about Parchin cleanup provides a glimpse into its modus operandi in the future.

Thirteen years after Natanz, I fear that the JCPOA has only served to enable more of the same. The assumption that the cunning mullahs have had a sudden change of heart is wrong.

Far from a change of heart, Iran's Supreme Leader feared the translation of sanctions into political unrest, similar to the 2009 uprisings. Iran had only one objective regarding the negotiations: get sanctions relief while preserving the entire nuclear infrastructure.

A proper policy on Iran recognizes Tehran's history and true intentions. This means that Washington needs to keep up the pressure until the regime opens up its nuclear and military sites.

Granted, the JCPOA may keep nuclear weapons out of the mullahs’ hands in the short term. But over the long term, the ultimate solution to the nuclear crisis is tied to the death of the theocratic regime. Anything short of this is fantasy.

The Iranian people understand this. After the deal was announced, streets of Tehran were filled with chants of freedom. The Iranian people don’t trust this regime. Nor should the U.S.

Iran deal: Don't be fooled by Tehran’s calculated negotiating tactics

Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:10:00 -0400

As the intense negotiations in Vienna inch closer to the new July 7th deadline, Tehran’s elusive tactics were put on display with Tehran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif releasing a Youtube video in which he claimed the regime had made enough compromises. To his credit, however, Secretary of State John Kerry was not impressed, insisting that the Iranian regime had to make “hard choices” in the next couple of days, and “quickly,” otherwise, “we’ll be prepared to walk away.”

A recent report released by the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), provides insights into how to read Tehran’s ongoing negotiating tactics, including the latest theatrics by Zarif. The 28-page analysis, relying on public and classified sources within Iran, reviews Iran’s behavior during two periods of talks (2003-2004 and 2013-2015) and discerns the principles of Tehran’s approach and tactics during negotiations to reach its objectives.

The Iranian regime has deliberately used the illusion of “trust building” to neutralize necessary and indispensable “transparency” measures that are critical components of any successful nuclear agreement, according to the report.

NCRI’s analysis notes that Khamenei has personally outlined the framework for the regime’s negotiating teams, consistently reiterating three red lines over the past two years: No access to military sites, no access to nuclear scientists, and no end to nuclear research and development.

To evade intrusive inspections, Iran has dangled an alleged 2003 “fatwa” (religious decree) associated with the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which purports to reject the pursuit of nuclear weapons. The regime’s president Hassan Rouhani, cited the fatwa as proof for the peaceful nature of the mullahs’ nuclear program during his 2013 UN General Assembly speech.

No document against nuclear arms exists in Khamenei’s handwriting and carrying his stamp--a standard practice for fatwas. And even if it had ever been issued, the edict would have little value since Khamenei is not considered a jurisprudent in Iranian and Shiite religious centers, not to mention that he can overturn his own alleged stance if deemed expedient for the regime’s survival. Within the regime, a fatwa is only binding for the followers of the religious scholar who issues it, not binding on the government.

The study has identified seven principles governing Tehran’s negotiations: Final decisions are to be made by Khamenei; The military dimensions of the program should remain unaddressed; Only disclosed sites should be dealt with; The IAEA should remain preoccupied with unresolved matters; The entire nuclear infrastructure should remain intact; promises should be made only verbally; and the talks should be kept alive.

According to the study, the regime has used eight tactics to achieve these objectives, all of which have been in play in Vienna. They include prolonging the negotiations, distracting attention from the possible military dimensions of the program, insisting on no access to sensitive sites, hiding everything until exposed, deferring response to specific questions to future reports, building optimism to extract more concessions, removing the issue of research and development from all discussions, and using fringe talks to create discord among interlocutors.

Against this backdrop, P5+1 negotiators would be wise to insist on their own principles: anytime, anyplace snap inspections of all sites, unhindered access to all individuals and documents associated with the nuclear program, satisfactory resolution of IAEA’s outstanding questions, no research and development on advanced centrifuges, full disclosure of foreign assistance including from North Korea, shipping all enriched uranium abroad (except 300 kg), no sanctions relief until Tehran’s full compliance, and automatic snap-back sanctions if Iran cheats.

Without a firm stance against the regime’s calculated tactics, Tehran will continue to deceive, distract, and distort, on its way to build the Bomb.

Iran’s continued nuclear cooperation with North Korea extends far beyond missiles

Fri, 29 May 2015 15:29:00 -0400

The Tehran regime and the North Korean government have been engaged in extensive exchange of information and visits by experts on nuclear weapons and nuclear warhead design as recently as April 2015, reliable and detailed information obtained by network of the Iranian opposition movement, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) inside Iran say.

The MEK also provided a detailed account of a visit to North Korea in 2013 of Tehran’s top nuclear weapons experts headed by elusive Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was present during the last nuclear test conducted by North Korea.

Also a seven-member North Korean delegation, comprised of experts in nuclear warhead design and various parts of ballistic missiles including guidance systems, spent the last week of April in Iran. This was the third such nuclear and missile team to visit Iran in 2015. The next delegation is scheduled to secretly arrive in Iran in June and will be comprised of nine experts, according to the same MEK sources.

These experts have also provided assistance and consultation in the areas of aerodynamics, missile body design, and electronic components of warheads.

They stayed in the secret guesthouse, a cornered-off eight-story building, near a Hemmat Industrial Group site in the Khojir area, northeast of Tehran. Named “Imam Khomeini Complex,” and also known as 2000 units, the site is controlled by the Ministry of Defense (MoD)

While Fakhrizadeh’s presence during the North Korean’s 2013 nuclear test was first reported by the Sunday Times of London at the time, after a two-year investigation, the Iranian opposition has been able to confirm that Fakhrizadeh had gone to North Korea for the nuclear test through China under the alias of Dr. Hassan Mohseni.

The head of the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND) and the key figure in activities concerning the military dimensions of the regime's nuclear program, Fakhrizadeh is a Brigadier General of the IRGC, with whom the IAEA has requested interviews.

The MEK first exposed the formation of SPND in July 2011 and the State Department placed SPND on its sanctions list in August 2014 as an “entity that is primarily responsible for research in the field of nuclear weapons development.”

According to the Iranian opposition reports, during the North Korea visit, Fakhrizadeh, accompanied by two other SPND nuclear experts, stayed in Hotel Koryo in Pyongyang. . To keep his visit secret, Mansour Chavoshi, Tehran’s Ambassador to Pyongyang, personally welcomed Fakhrizadeh and facilitated his communications and exchanges with North Korean officials. Fakhrizadeh spent only two hours in the Iranian regime’s embassy in Pyongyang and made no other visits to the embassy during this trip.

The new information is further indication that the drive to acquire nuclear weapons remains at the core of the Iranian regime’s program as the nuclear negotiations continue in Vienna and Geneva.

This conduct is in keeping with the positions of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior officials, who reject IAEA inspections of military sites and interviews with nuclear scientists. Tehran’s objective is to continue its policy of concealment and duplicity in a bid to complete and advance its nuclear projects.

After three decades of concealment and deception, adding six or nine months to the breakout time will not lead to a solution.

That Tehran continues to closely engage with North Korea, a country that cheated its way into making a nuclear weapon, all the while pledging that it would not do so, should be an additional cause for alarm and a red flag for the international community about the ruling theocracy’s real intentions with its nuclear program.

US, allies' decision to extend Iran nuclear talks by 7 months paves path to nukes

Tue, 25 Nov 2014 12:17:56 -0500

A 12-year-long outreach program to secure an accord with Tehran to effectively dismantle its nuclear infrastructure failed on Monday, when the United States and its allies announced a seven-month extension to negotiations.

Neither Secretary of State John Kerry, nor any other Obama administration official indicated how they plan to bridge the “significant gaps” between the two sides as mentioned by President Obama a day earlier.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his president Hassan Rouhani should be pleased, since the extension will pour an additional $5 billion dollars into the regime's coffers. Meanwhile, there will be no intrusive inspections of Parchin, SPND, and other key sites, and no access to experts and documents for at least seven more months.

[pullquote]

The extension will allow Iran to continue research and development for its advanced centrifuges and leave the world still wondering about answers to a long list of outstanding questions about possible military dimensions (PMD) related to suspected nuclear weaponization activities.

But, if the two sides were unable to bridge these gaps in 12 years, how are they going to do so in a mere seven months?

The underlying problem is that Tehran wants to maintain or even enhance its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure while winning the complete lifting of the international sanctions to ease their economic and political implications.

Tehran insists that these negotiations are not about dismantling any part of its nuclear infrastructure; rather about Tehran’s right to have far more advanced and efficient centrifuges that could give them enriched uranium faster and in larger quantities. In addition, it seeks to maintain all its research and development activities, some of which include possible high explosive tests, whose only application is to make a nuclear bomb.

The regime will continue to deceive, deny and divert the world community. This is a source of major concern, particularly in light of the fact that in early November, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which was instrumental in exposing many of the key nuclear sites in Iran, released information that Tehran had built two explosive chambers-- not one as was previously thought--usable for high explosive impact tests.

The Defense Ministry installed at least one of these explosive chambers at Parchin and a key scientist Saeed Borji, whom the NCRI identified, was involved in the design and installation of the chamber in Parchin. Borji reports directly to the head of the nuclear weaponization organization formed by the regime in 2011, known as SPND.

Similarly, SPND has been engaged in at least 11 various research and development projects relevant to building the nuclear bomb; the site and its top experts have been so far kept away from the IAEA, and will remain so for the duration of the extension and most likely beyond.
In reality, Tehran has been rewarded with much-needed sanctions relief for failing to come clean on outstanding IAEA questions on nuclear weaponization, for keeping inspectors away from key sites, and for keeping its entire nuclear infrastructure intact.

Experience has shown that in dealing with the Iranian regime only firmness works. To the contrary, additional concessions and extensions will only serve the interests of Tehran, and will further embolden them in their march to building the nuclear bomb, which will put regional as well as global peace and security in peril.

No More Rope-a-Dope With Iran

Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:40:30 -0500

By Alireza JafarzadehForeign Affairs Analyst

Iran's nuclear chief, Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said on Wednesday February 25 that the country has increased the number of centrifuges at Natanz uranium enrichment facility to 6,000, the latest show of defiance to U.N. demands it halt the enrichment program. He added, "It is time that western countries and especially the new American administration face the facts and acknowledge a nuclear Iran."

In late February, the quarterly report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's nuclear program was a damning dossier of Tehran's defiance. The international will to stop Tehran's uranium enrichment is manifested in five UN Security Council resolutions.

The IAEA findings clearly point to the existence of secret enrichment facilities in addition to the Natanz nuclear site disclosed by Iran's main opposition group, the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI), (which I am affiliated with) in 2002.

More ominous, the 5-page report indicates that the ayatollahs' regime now has nearly 2,230 pounds of low-enriched uranium, more than enough to produce the high-enriched uranium needed to make a bomb. This finding alone -- which comes on the heels of Iran's satellite launch in February using long-range missile capabilities -- has critical ramifications for President Obama's Iran policy review. Iran's nuclear clock is ticking -- a lot faster than previously believed -- and its leadership, perceiving Washington's "positive signals" as a sign of weakness, is hell-bent on pressing ahead.

Sir John Sawers, Britain's current ambassador to the United Nations, revealed something of the strategic importance Tehran attaches to its nuclear weapons program. "The Iranians wanted to be able to strike a deal whereby they stopped killing our forces in Iraq in return for them being allowed to carry on with their nuclear program," Ambassador Sawers recalled in his interview with BBC. Iranian officials proposed: "We stop killing you in Iraq, stop undermining the political process there and you allow us to carry on with our nuclear program without let or hindrance."

Few in foreign policy circles are optimistic that President Obama's direct engagement diplomacy can resolve the nuclear challenge posed by Tehran. How can engagement possibly succeed when the interlocutor is a religious tyranny, has no respect for the fundamentals of international relations or human rights, and has been appropriately designated the most active state sponsor of terrorism? Iran's leadership is well aware of the power that a nuclear weapons capability -- much less an actual bomb -- would bring. Their nuclear program is not about fulfilling Iranian national pride -- it is about becoming a regional power and creating an Islamic empire. In August 2003, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei said, "Any weakness or surrender on our part [over the nuclear issue] would be the greatest strategic error."

The IAEA report, particularly its finding that Tehran has passed the enrichment threshold, underscores the failure of efforts to negotiate a resolution with Tehran. Waiting for the outcome of a sham presidential election in June in hopes that a "moderate" will emerge is folly. Supreme Leader Khamenei determines nuclear policy, and while Iran's various factions may differ over details of the nuclear weapons issue, they do not disagree about the substance or imperative of this goal.

Former "pragmatist" president Hashemi Rafsanjani revived Iran's dormant nuclear program during his tenure. Former "reformist" president Mohammad Khatami oversaw the unprecedented expansion of the nuclear facilities, among them Natanz and Arak, as European capitals rolled out the red carpet for him. And "radical" current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has taken Tehran to the jumping off point for making an actual atomic bomb.

The bottom line: no more nuclear "rope-a-dope." A nuclear-armed Iran is "unacceptable" as President Obama declared many times during the 2008 campaign. The administration must actively and expeditiously formulate a viable strategy to stop Tehran from buying time. Washington must think outside the box and focus instead on the only option Tehran's rulers consider as real leverage: Iran's democratic resistance. Any strategy by the Obama administration must have the Iranian opposition factor at its core --empowering it by lifting its ban against it--to have a chance for success.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of The Iran Threat, President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis (Palgrave: February 2008).

Jafarzadeh has revealed Iran's terrorist network in Iraq and its terror training camps since 2003. He first disclosed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water facility in August 2002.

Until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesman for the U.S. representative office of Iran's parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, of which People's Mojahedin of Iran is the largest member organization.

The European Union Does the Right Thing. -- Will the U.S. Follow Suit and Take the People's Mojahedin Off the Terror Blacklist?

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:32:58 -0500

By Alireza JafarzadehForeign Affairs Analyst

Bowing to the definitive rulings of seven European high courts and finally adhering to Europe's long-held claim to the rule of law, on Monday January 26, 2009, the 27-member European Union removed Iran's main opposition, the People's Mojahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK), from its terror blacklist. The EU decision sent shockwaves through Tehran's leadership, which had invested much of its diplomatic and economic leverage over the past seven years in preventing the de-listing of the PMOI. It marked a timely and significant EU policy-correction toward the ayatollahs' regime. And most importantly, it can serve as an impetus for the ongoing Iran policy review within President Obama's administration.

Agence France Presse reported in October 2004 that the EU's so-called big three, France, Britain, and Germany, had promised Tehran that they would continue to regard the PMOI "as a terrorist organization" if Tehran agreed to continue its nuclear talks with the EU-3. Well, the EU continued blacklisting the PMOI, while Tehran pushed forward its nuclear drive at full speed, using the talks as diplomatic cover. According to The Wall Street Journal of May 8, 2008:

"Iranian officials have urged suppression of the MEK [PMOI] in negotiations with Western governments over Tehran's nuclear program and other issues."

It is now clear, the EU had pursued a counter-productive policy by losing the only leverage it had over Tehran by blacklisting Iran's main opposition, and as a result, restrained much of the opposition's potential--to the benefit of the Iranian regime. Therefore it was the ruling clerics in Tehran that obtained leverage over the EU by getting their main opposition blacklisted by the Europeans. In the absence of any leverage over Tehran, with very concession provided by the EU, Tehran got greedier and accelerated its nuclear weapons program.

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that European courts could not find any evidence implicating the PMOI in terrorism. It was never about terrorism. On December 4, 2008, the European Court of First Instance annulled for the third time the EU's decision to blacklist the group. The decision was annulled both on procedural grounds and on the basis of the EU's failure to substantiate its allegations of terrorism against Iran's largest and most organized opposition.

Fast forward to January 26, 2009: the foreign ministers of the EU member states gathering in Brussels finally removed the PMOI from their terror list. When news of the decision to unshackle its arch-enemy in Europe leaked the week before, Tehran pulled out all diplomatic, political and economic stops, trying to avoid the inevitable.

A senior national security figure in Iran's Parliament had warned about the domino effect when the UK ended its blacklisting of the group in 2008. Now Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) ordered its Foreign Ministry and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) to do whatever they could to block the move and force the EU to defy the high court.,

When enticement failed, Tehran officials threatened their interlocutors in diplomatic encounters in Tehran and European capitals with serious economic and political consequences. Tehran also exerted maximum pressure on European companies involved in lucrative contracts with Iran, to in turn press their capitals "to be cautious in removing the PMOI from the terrorist list."

Reporting back to SNSC in mid-January (according to the information obtained by the sources of the opposition's Parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran), Iran's Foreign Ministry revealed its tactics. The report reads in part, "To prevent removal of the group from the EU terrorist list, all representative offices of the Islamic Republic in European countries are currently active, providing documents to the EU countries to prove that the PMOI is terrorist. France has pledged to avert removal of the PMOI from the terror list."

The report adds, "Reports prepared by the intelligence services in some European countries which indicate that the PMOI is a terrorist organization are based on information we have put together in Tehran and supplied to those countries."

The ayatollahs' regime is caught up in political and economic turmoil which, in anticipation of its upcoming presidential elections, will only get worse. The latest domestic crackdown, widespread student protests, and escalating executions--many in public--all point to a regime in a downward spiral. In these circumstances, lifting the terrorist designation from a movement with proven organizational prowess and a vast support network inside the country poses an existential threat to the regime. Hence their frantic reaction to the EU's decision.

And here lies what could be the key component of a new Iran policy. Now that it has become common knowledge that the PMOI's terror designation, both in Europe and the U.S., was but a failed political ploy to cajole the ayatollahs into "good behavior," it is time for Washington to also lift this unjust designation. Nothing would more signify genuine change in the U.S.-Iran policy.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave: February 2008).

Thirty Years Later, We Still Can't Engage With Iran's Regime

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:18:16 -0500

By Alireza JafarzadehForeign Affairs Analyst

Thirty years after the Iranian people toppled the Shah in search of democracy, the country's citizens and its repressive regime are at war. It is the people of Iran and their struggle for freedom who should be respected and recognized, not their fundamentalist rulers. As the Obama administration reportedly continues to review its Iran policy, it would be wise to take stock of this reality.

The theocracy Khomeini established is based on his theory of government called the Velayat-e faqih, or absolute clerical rule, according to which immense religious and political authority rests with the Vali-e faqih (or the Supreme Leader, currently Ali Khamene'i). Khomeini's doctrine is the bedrock of a uniquely ruthless and radical regime cloaked in religion.

Lacking the ideological and political will to lead post-revolution Iran toward democracy and development, the Khomeini theocracy began almost immediately to attack secular and pluralist political groups. It used the bully pulpit of the Friday prayer sermons to spew venom against any voice calling for democracy. Opposition groups were branded as "hypocrites", "anti-Islam", and "pro-American." By early 1981, the "republic" in "Islamic Republic" had become meaningless -- theocratic dictatorship was in full swing. The stage was set for the reign of terror to come.

In the name of God, tens of thousands of political activists were executed or imprisoned, among them children. The persecution of political groups, women, and ethnic and religious minorities was institutionalized. In summer of 1988 alone, nearly 30,000 political prisoners were sentenced to death by religious courts for waging war against the "government of God."

In tandem with the internal terror, Tehran pursued an expansionist foreign policy of "exporting revolution," with unbridled terrorism as its main enabler. Early on, the clerics vowed to "liberate Jerusalem via Karbala" -- a goal they are still striving to achieve.

State-sponsored terrorism found new meaning in the 1980s. Tehran instigated a series of suicide bombings, and initiated several hijackings of passenger planes. Foreign nationals were taken hostage in the Middle East and elsewhere. Diplomatic blackmail and intimidation applied through terrorism -- or the threat of it -- became an essential component of Tehran's foreign policy.

No threat in the Middle East region is more ominous or destructive than this menace. The ayatollahs' regime kills, tortures, maims, bombs, hijacks, and kidnaps in the name of God, and thrives on fear and deception. Muslims make up the vast majority of the victims of this so-called "Islamic" regime. Tens of thousands of Iranians, most of them Shiite Muslim, are buried in Iran's cemeteries and secret mass graves for advocating democracy. Hundreds of thousands more lost their lives in the war with Iraq, which Khomeini despicably called a "divine blessing."

Thirty years later, the Mullahs' theocracy has finally ground to a halt. Mired in economic crisis and enfeebled by international isolation, the ruling establishment is weakening from within. Just beneath the surface, unrest is bubbling. Ever more internal suppression and outward belligerence are the only means of survival.

Rival camps are airing the ruling faction's dirty laundry in public, as part of the political wrangling in advance of the June presidential elections. Each new disclosure gives the average citizen another glimpse of the astronomical plunder of the country. As the revelations accelerate, so, too, does the risk of violence. Kayhan Daily, the mouthpiece of the Supreme Leader, recently ran an editorial threatening the rival camp with a Benazir Bhutto-like assassination.

The euphoria over a possible thaw between Washington and Tehran overlooks the hard lessons of the past. The conduct of the Mullahs' regime towards Iran's own people is the best indicator of Tehran's readiness to change its ways. By all indications, the ayatollahs are not at all interested in behaving in a civilized, responsible manner.

Amnesty International said in a statement:

"The past 30 years has been characterized by persistent human rights violations... Impunity, arbitrary arrest, torture and other ill-treatment, as well as the use of the death penalty remain prevalent. Some sectors of society - including ethnic minorities - continue to face widespread discrimination, while the situation for other groups -- notably some religious minorities -- has significantly worsened. Those seen as dissenting from stated or unstated official policies face severe restrictions on their rights to freedom of belief, expression, association and assembly. Women continue to face discrimination -- both in law and practice. Impunity for human rights abuses is widespread."

Despite the abuses, and the realities of rampant unemployment, political suppression and social restrictions, Iran's secular democracy movement has endured and expanded. The 1999 student uprisings in Tehran and major cities gave the world a glimpse of its potential. Many experts believe that the brave young people and women who comprise the core of this movement should, by rights, be the primary interlocutors of President Obama's policy of engagement. Indeed, Iran's organized, anti-fundamentalist and democratic opposition is the only genuine leverage over the ruthless clerics.

At this defining moment, the notion that we can dissuade the Mullahs from developing nuclear weapons or sponsoring terrorism through a grand bargain or concessions, is a strategic blunder, and dangerously counterproductive. Too much time and effort has already been frittered away on the notion of bringing the ayatollahs into the international fold. Lessons of the past three decades must be learned. Engagement bestows the most precious thing Tehran needs to acquire nuclear weapons capability...time.

Here in the U.S., the media were pouring over the speech on February 10 by the ayatollahs' president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, searching for any sign of "opening." Meanwhile, back in Tehran, the regime reiterated Khomeini's death fatwah against the British author, Salman Rushdie for blasphemy and stepped up rights violations against its citizens.

A large bi-partisan group in Congress believes that the Obama administration would be wise to go along with its European allies and remove Iran's main opposition, the MEK, from the blacklist the same way the group was de-listed in Europe. In dealing with the ruthless ayatollahs, reaching out to the Iranian opposition would have a better chance to "unclench" the fists of the ruling clerics than by giving them concessions.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave: February 2008).

Israel Isn't the Palestinians' Only Enemy -- The Iranian Beast Is Another

Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:59:02 -0500

By Alireza JafarzadehForeign Affairs Analyst

The loss of innocent lives in Gaza is deplorable. Behind the horrific scenes, a culprit of the current crisis crouches unscathed---the ruling regime in Iran. This beast, which seeks to establish an "Islamic" empire by exporting its brand of Islamic fundamentalism throughout the region, has in many ways been nurtured and emboldened by the appeasement policies of the past three decades. And for those wrong-headed policies toward the ayatollahs' regime, the West shares in the responsibility for the bloodshed and carnage inflicted on the Middle East.

It's no surprise that Tehran's strategy for hijacking the Middle East peace process has long focused on dividing and disintegrating the body politic in Palestine and isolating Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The Palestinian Authority's envoy in Cairo, Nabil Amr, told Al Arabia TV that in recent years Tehran had invested much to foment schism by dispatching support of all kinds for Hamas.

The New York Times reports that since taking control of Gaza eighteen months ago, Hamas has gained access to longer range rockets. The Times reports that much of these new capabilities have been provided by Iran and that "there was evidence that at least some Hamas fighters might also have been schooled in urban assault tactics at Iranian camps run by the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guards."

In a commentary in the state-run Kayhan newspaper, Hussein Shariatmadari, the representative of the supreme leader Ali Khamene'i, called for the expansion of Tehran's terrorism beyond the region. He wrote "The time has arrived for revenge." Instead of a ceasefire, he asked, "couldn't some of the Arab leaders be attacked easily? The interests of America, England, Germany, and other supporters of Israel are within easy range."

Security Council

Meanwhile, recent setbacks in Iraq -- including the failure to prevent the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement between Washington and Baghdad -- have further reinforced Tehran leaders' view that their significant gains in Iraq could soon be reversed in the upcoming Iraqi provincial elections.

These setbacks may explain why the ayatollahs are already using the bloodshed in Gaza to suppress pro-democracy dissident in Iranian university campuses. The mouthpiece of the supreme leader, Ali Khamene'i, has called for crackdown on student groups, and has even taken aim at other state-controlled media that did not mimic the "official" position on Gaza. According to the New York Times, Kayhan Daily endorsed shutting down another newspaper, named Kargozaran, and called for coercion of non-conformist students.

Through their rhetoric and their actions, Iran leaders have demonstrated that their role in the current conflict is more about weakening the peace process and projecting Tehran's regional reach. Last week, state-organized mobs in Tehran and Mashhad launched attacks against the diplomatic facilities of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. In a similar state-sponsored event, the mob called for a million dollar reward for the assassination of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Supreme Leader Khamene'i has decreed anyone dying fighting in Gaza as a "martyr" and according to state-run media and blogs, some 70 thousands individuals are claimed to have registered to be dispatched to Gaze to fight and take part in "martyrdom operations."

Even more menacing is Tehran's recent deployment of rockets abroad. According to information revealed by the democratic opposition coalition, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the African Affairs branch of the Qods Force, the terrorist arm of the regime, has recently installed long-range and anti-aircraft missiles, and has deployed a number of members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the outskirts of Eritrea's Port of Assab near the Red Sea. With this deployment, Tehran aims to gain strategic control over the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, which connects the Suez Canal and the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean.

The NCRI web site reports that "These forces and equipment have been transferred to the region using the regime's submarines... The agreement and the deployment of forces and long-range missiles in the Port of Assab have been carried out under the guise of renovating the port's oil refinery."

Clearly, as long as the ayatollahs are able to derail peace through their proxies, a just, sustainable solution is unattainable. Much like Iraq, where there cannot and will not be a meaningful solution of democracy, stability and national reconciliation until Tehran's influence is contained.

We know, too little too late, that turning a blind eye to Tehran's terrorist spectacles in 1983 in Lebanon and in 1996 in Saudi Arabia -- just to name a few -- emboldened the mullahs and their terrorist proxies across the region. Not only was Tehran not punished for its deliberate actions resulting in great loss of life, it was rewarded with lucrative trade deals.

The mullahs' brand of Islamic fundamentalism cannot be defeated by conventional diplomacy or military force. Its perceived strength will fade away when Iran's internal, anti-fundamentalist, democratic, moderate forces are unshackled and the beast is brought down from within by Iranians.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the author of "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis" (Palgrave: February 2008).

Iran Sanctions Fight: Three myths no lawmaker should believe

Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:12:51 -0500

The expected congressional vote on a new sanctions bill against the Iranian regime has rekindled debate over Tehran's nuclear defiance and the best way to confront it. Congress has misgivings about a rogue regime intent on obtaining nuclear capability, and understandably wants to ensure that Washington does not strike a bad deal.

Some argue that a decisive approach toward Tehran will be counterproductive. But their position ignores historical lessons and stands on a number of myths that need to be debunked.

Myth #1: More sanctions on Iran will prompt the regime to unilaterally walk away from the talks.

Iran cannot afford to walk away because it is desperate and vulnerable. It has a genuine interest to secure the lifting of existing sanctions, which provided the initial impetus for the regime to talk. Then, too, cynics argued that sanctions would prompt Tehran to accelerate its nuclear activities.

The regime is playing a game of attrition, aiming to weaken U.S. resolve, win more concessions, and maintain its nuclear infrastructure. The bipartisan sanctions bill will force Tehran to consider speedy compliance.

This month, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani reiterated, "Breaking the anti-Iran sanctions is the only way to achieve national progress," acknowledging that Iran's devastated economy cannot endure the weight of further sanctions, especially after the recent decline in oil prices.

The mullahs are paranoid of a disenchanted population already on edge. With rampant unemployment, inflation, and loss of oil revenues, walking away from the talks is not an option, especially if a sanctions-in-waiting bill is hovering over their head.

Myth #2: With more sanctions, Tehran will blame Washington for sabotaging diplomacy, and start on the path towards war.

Even with slumping oil revenues - slashed by at least 45% - the official defense budget has jumped 30%, mostly allocated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). And, more money is being funneled into Syria and Iraq to execute Tehran's designs - a budget that is twice that of all the country's publically funded universities combined.

If sanctions fail to force Tehran to abandon key parts of its nuclear program after over a year of negotiations, then continued talks with no additional leverage will fail as well.

The IAEA still has no access to suspect nuclear sites and its questions remain unanswered. IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in November 2014, “Iran has not provided any explanations that enable the Agency to clarify the outstanding practical measures, nor has it proposed any new practical measures in the next step of the Framework for Cooperation, despite several requests from the Agency.”

Senior U.S. officials have repeatedly stated that even without additional sanctions the chances for reaching an agreement with Iran is less that 50 percent. So, as Iran tries to wear out western negotiators, clearly, additional leverage from Congress is necessary, not counterproductive.

Myth #3: New sanctions will strengthen "hardliners" in Iran who want to sabotage a prospective deal.

This is perhaps the most enduring myth in Washington that has dangerously infected Iran policy. The idea that there are moderate elements in Iran's body politic, and the U.S. needs to reach out to them by making more concessions is ludicrous.

The oft-cited dichotomy between "hardliners" and "moderates" in Iran badly misrepresents a system whose elements are united in their strategic objectives.

Rouhani, himself a longtime confidant of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, was instructed by the latter to sign onto the Joint Plan of Action in November 2013. Foreign Minister Zarif told the Iranian Parliament earlier this month that he has the full trust of Khamenei to continue the negotiations.

Experience has shown that diplomacy without leverage has never worked with dictators, especially in Tehran.

This puts Congress on the right path. The sanctions bill can be a game-changer. It will strengthen Washington's hand while helping to peacefully arrest Tehran's advance towards the bomb. One thing is for certain: Tehran's nuclear objective is anything but a myth.

Iran's Supreme Leader scoffs at nuclear framework: Time for Congress to act

Mon, 13 Apr 2015 12:42:21 -0400

On Thursday, April 9, the Iranian regime’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, scoffed at the ‘framework of understanding’ reached in Lausanne, describing it as “nothing” worth taking a position about. He rejected two pillars upon which the framework of understanding hinges: gradual sanctions relief and intrusive inspections.

Sanctions “should be lifted all together on the same day of the agreement, not six months or one year later,” Khamenei said.

The Supreme Leader repeated the regime’s long-standing position that military sites were off limits to inspectors. “[The] country's military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country's defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection," he insisted.

His remarks were in sharp contrast to what President Obama declared a week earlier at the Rose Garden about “the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history,” and contradicted the U.S. version of the framework agreement, which said “Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of a covert enrichment facility, conversion facility, centrifuge production facility, or yellowcake production facility anywhere in the country.”

Three conclusions can be drawn out of Khamenei’s remarks, which were in large part echoed by President Hassan Rouhani.

First, the sanctions have crippled the regime; the Supreme Leader is far more desperate to get the sanctions lifted than when the talks started. The Supreme Leader feels threatened by his own population. As such, under no circumstances should the United States give up the sanctions, its only leverage in dealing with Tehran.

Second, the Supreme Leader has no intention of abandoning the nuclear weapons program. He remains intent to buy time, seek more concessions, and keep the pathway to the bomb open.

His comment that “if the sanctions removal depends on other processes, then why did we start the negotiations?" means that he wants to get the sanctions lifted without complying with the terms put forth by the international community.

A bipartisan role by Congress is critical for providing the additional leverage the president lacks now.

Third, the only way for the United States and its international partners to block Iran’s pathway to a nuclear bomb is to force it to comply with all UN Security Council resolutions. If the P 5+1 choses to pursue the talks, it should insist on the following in the final comprehensive agreement:

- Given Tehran’s three-decade history of denial, deception and duplicity, it should be made clear that the cost for smallest incremental violations will be heavy and quickly enforceable. Otherwise, the mere signing of the agreement, if it ever happens, will only ensure that Tehran will play another round of nuclear shell game. The standard for inspections should be snap-inspections, without the ability for Iran to veto or drag on the process. It must provide immediate and full access, to Parchin, SPND headquarters, and Lavizan-3 sites, to name a few. Also, the IAEA should be given access to much sought-after documents as well as nuclear scientists, including Mohsen Fakhrizadeh..

- Tehran should provide satisfactory response to a dozen outstanding questions related to Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) in a short period of time. This should be a central element of any compliance regime. Failure to do so should trigger additional punitive measurements.

- The stockpile of enriched uranium can be significantly reduced if shipped out of the country. Other options would leave the path open for cheating and denying the intended outcome.

- No research and development on advanced centrifuges should be allowed as it would enable Tehran to quickly race to the bomb at the time of its choosing.

The hidden truth about Iran’s nuclear program

Sun, 29 Mar 2015 16:07:51 -0400

Last month, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) exposed a secret Iranian facility used to conduct research and enrichment with advanced centrifuge machines for the nuclear weapons program. The revelation of this secret site, named Lavizan-3 in northeast Tehran, was met with panic and hysteria by the Mullahs in Iran, and was taken seriously by Members of Congress. But what have the nuclear negotiators done?

Following the NCRI’s revelation, the Iranian regime attempted to sidestep addressing the merits of the claim by demonizing the Iranian opposition instead of offering to make the site available for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), showing that the Iranian regime remains as cynical as ever in its nuclear ambitions.

A day after the revelation of Lavizan-3, Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and said that the P5+1 intended to close off Iran’s four pathways to the nuclear bomb, i.e., any weapons development activity at Iran’s Natanz, Arak and Fordow nuclear facilities, plus Iran’s covert activities. “Covert, of course, is the hardest,” Mr. Kerry said. “You need to have verification and intrusive inspection to be able to find covert facilities”, he emphasized.

Needless to say, the first three pathways mentioned by Mr. Kerry were exposed by the NCRI: the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in August 2002, and the underground facility in Fordow, near Qom, in December 2005. And now the hardest pathway, the covert activities of the Iranian regime in Lavizan-3 is to be dealt with.

Four bipartisan members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., the Middle East subcommittee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., ranking member of the terrorism, non-proliferation, and trade subcommittee Brad Sherman, D-Calif., and subcommittee chair Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. asked for explanation about Lavizan-3 and what the administrations has done to address it when Secretary of State John Kerry appeared before a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. “These things are obviously going to have to be resolved as we go forward,” Mr. Kerry said. “I’m not going to go into greater detail,” he added.

But instead of calling on the IAEA to immediately inspect the site before Iran is able to clean up and modify the place, as has been the case in several occasions since 2003, there are disturbing indications that the U.S. negotiating team may have already given up key concessions.

Reports based on leaks by administration officials indicate that U.S. may have yielded on several fronts including the demands for Iran to clarify the outstanding questions raised by the IAEA related to weaponization, “intrusive” inspections, the demand from Iran to provide access to key nuclear sites and research and development activities including the military sites, and closing the underground uranium enrichment facility in Fordo, to name a few.

Senator Robert Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the recent concessions leaping “with both feet” toward Iranian regime’s demands.

The NCRI’s continuous revelations shows that there are many Iranians who do not wish to live under a regime which leads the world in per capita executions.

As the Iranian regime gets increasingly defiant, it is time that the Iranian people are viewed as stakeholders in these nuclear negotiations. This includes considering new policy options, which would take into account the aspirations of the Iranian people, as was evident in summer 2009 uprising, who wish to see nothing less than a democratic, secular, and non-nuclear Iran.

Congress has an important role to play to prevent a bad deal with the regime, which could make an undesirable military conflict more likely. The Iranian regime must not be allowed to maintain an enrichment program, much less an underground one; it must not be afforded a pathway to plutonium. And finally, snap inspections at any time, any place are a must.

The bottom line is this: There can be no long-term peace with Iran so long as an elite that thrives on terror, violence and export of Islamic fundamentalism rules it.

Iran's nukes: After one year in office, 'moderate' Rouhani proves Tehran cannot be trusted

Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:34:12 -0400

A year after taking office, Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s so-called “moderate” president, has succeeded in bringing his country closer to the development of nuclear weapons.

Iran has also carried out nefarious activities in Syria. It has supported the country’s ruthless ruler, Bashir al-Assad and fanned the flames of sectarian violence in Iraq, where the regime’s rogue behavior created a breeding ground for the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

At home, Rouhani's brutal presidency has led to the execution of over 1,000 people – a record not even matched by his immoderate predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

[pullquote]

Yet, despite this dismal record Secretary of State John Kerry recently admitted that as part of nuclear talks with the regime, the U.S. discussed the possibility of Iran joining the fight against ISIS.

Iran’s agenda for the nuclear talks, as well as its seeming willingness to fight ISIS is, despite Rouhani’s claims to the contrary, diametrically opposite to the United States.

What brought Iran to the negotiating table in the past year was economics more than a change of heart. The financially squeezed regime needed to take some steps to mollify a disenchanted population veering towards regime change. Rouhani’s assignment, given to him by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is to get the sanctions against his country lifted and preserve Tehran's influence in the region, while keeping its entire nuclear weapons infrastructure intact.

Tehran shrewdly appears willing to fight ISIS. But it is a ruse. It would only do so to reclaim the influence it lost in Iraq following Nuri al-Maliki’s disgraceful departure, and to maintain the pro-Tehran Shiite militias in that country.

In Iraq, an alliance with Iran would undermine Washington's stated objective to form an all-inclusive, non-sectarian, independent state that would not be the breeding place for either the Shiite militias or ISIS. In addition to airstrikes against the group this would require the significant participation of the Sunni tribes who were the key factor for success against Al Qaeda during the surge, as well as the dismantlement of Shiite militias that have acted as Tehran’s proxies in Iraq.

If the United States were to include Iran in the fight against ISIS in Syria, it would shrink the Sunni support it needs to eliminate it.

Here’s what the U.S. should do instead: Take a firm stance against both Assad and ISIS to deprive the Iranian regime of potential gains at a moment of desperation.

On the nuclear side, the United States, in August, sanctioned the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND). The organization was formed in 2011 and run by the Defense Ministry, tasked with taking over and coordinating all research and development activities to build a nuclear weapon. SPND was first exposed in July 2011 by the main Iranian opposition, the MEK, which had accurately exposed the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002.

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, considered “the father” of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, runs SPND. Tehran has been gradually moving the suspected activities of SPND to a new location to escape scrutiny, and Rouhani has used his skills to keep IAEA inspectors away from both locations.

Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon will remain intact unless and until the country’s covert activities are brought under the supervision of the international community and included in the ultimate interim agreement between Iran and the P5+1. Its weapons infrastructure must be permanently dismantled.

To make sure Iran does not get the bomb, Western powers should ensure that Iran agrees to fully implement UN Security Council resolutions, particularly a complete halt to uranium enrichment, to shut down and dismantle its heavy water production facility, and to accept the Additional Protocol to secure free IAEA access to suspicious nuclear installations, documents, and experts.

Tehran should not be allowed to use the nuclear negotiations to buy time and exploit regional developments in its favor.

It the West fails to act, the world will be forced to watch in despair as Iran’s ruling religious fundamentalists are rewarded with a nuclear weapon for their nefarious activities.