Opinion: Couple US sanctions with Middle East expulsion of Iran

Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), welcomed the adoption of a bill by both chambers of the US Congress which imposes new sanctions on the Iranian regime for violating human rights and pursuing ballistic missiles.

  By: Shahriar Kia  2017-08-01 

  

The Iranian regime is attempting to secure a corridor through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, providing a supply route for its numerous terrorist proxies in the region.

Iran’s clandestine nuclear and ballistic missile drive, support for terrorism and domestic crackdown are all aimed at maintaining the Tehran’s fascist mullahs in power and pursue their regional policies.

This notorious objective, in direct conflict with those of the regional and global coalitions to fight terrorism and extremism, can be stopped. Eviction of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and all its proxy forces from the Middle East must complete the new US Congress sanctions. With President Donald Trump signaling his approval, this first and foremost step should be taken with hesitation following the sanctions.

The US House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to rally major new sanctions on Iran, parallel to measures on North Korea and Russia. To impose additional sanctions on Iran’s defense sector, the House voted 419-3. Coming after three weeks of negotiations, this bill “tightens the screws on our most dangerous adversaries,” explained House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), welcomed the adoption of a bill by both chambers of the US Congress which imposes new sanctions on the Iranian regime for violating human rights and pursuing ballistic missiles.

“Since several years ago, the Iranian Resistance had urged the terrorist designation of the IRGC, as it preserves the entirety of the clerical regime and acts as its main apparatus for domestic suppression and export of terrorism and fundamentalism,” she stressed. “However, the policy of appeasing the mullahs’ religious dictatorship paved the way for the IRGC and its proxies’ rampage in the entire region.”

A look back at the pivotal role Iran played in the rise and flourishing of ISIS, parallel to sectarian conflicts in the region, will help find the right tracks for security in the region.

In 2008, a joint campaign led by the U.S. military and Iraqi Sunnis rooted al-Qaeda in Iraq, the precursor to ISIS. However, the Obama administration’s decision to pull back and deliver the country to former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, a close ally of the Iranian regime, eventually led to the unraveling of all previous achievements.

Maliki dismantled the Iraqi “Awakening Council” and gave Iran free pass to exert its full influence on Iraq’s political and military apparatus.

In tandem, the destruction and crimes committed by the IRGC and Bashar al-Assad regime against the Syrian people provided the prefect breeding ground for sectarian strife and allowed ISIS to occupy a wide swath of land straddling both countries.

The Iranian regime became the main beneficiary of the rampage caused by ISIS and subsequently used it as an excuse to expand its clout by forming and later legalizing the IRGC-equivalent Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). This entity has become notoriously renowned for its crimes against humanity, no less horrendous than those committed by ISIS.

Iran’s highest officials have time and again acknowledged funding and supporting the criminal militia forces in Iraq and Syria, expressing their vested interest in occupying neighboring countries through whatever means.

The Obama administration’s hands-off approach vis-à-vis Iran’s regional ambitions provided Tehran a far better opportunity to pursue its nefarious agendas under the pretext of fighting ISIS. Speculations raised U.S. officials on possible cooperation with Iran in the fight against terrorism only made matters worse.

Now, as ISIS is losing influence and ground, Iran is attempting to fill the gap. Letting it have its way would be a recipe for disaster, as proven in the past eight years.

Despite the threats and taunts broadcasted regularly Iran’s state media, the regime is far from capable or inclined to enter open warfare with any other state in the region or across the globe.

Tehran’s proxies are only as good as the funding and supplies the regime provides. Without IRGC support Iran’s proxies will be hard-pressed to spread their mayhem in the region.

Sanctions alone, however, will not be enough. Tehran has found ways to continue causing mischief under the toughest sanctions regime.

The threats rendered by Tehran will only end with regime change in Iran. This will initially benefit the people of Iran, being the first victims of this regime’s criminal ideology, and categorically reject its destructive foreign policy, both inside the country and abroad.

One of the greatest manifestations of the Iranian people’s desire for change was expressed at the July 1st Free Iran gathering in paris. Tens of thousands of Iranian expats as well as politicians, activists and religious figures from across the world attended the rally to express their solidarity and support for the cause of freedom and democracy in Iran.

The event had a clear message: regime change in Iran is the only viable solution for both the people of Iran and the region’s nations. There’s no need for another foreign conflict. The people of Iran and their organized resistance have the will, power and means necessary to realize this change.

Saudi Prince Turki Al Faisal also addressed the massive gathering.

“So, you have coming together now a mighty coalition of forces, joining with the Resistance, and that should give us hope that we can make that [regime] change,” he stressed.

*Shahriar Kia is an Iranian dissident and a political analyst on Iran and the Middle East. He is a member of the Iranian opposition and a graduate of North Texas University.

Source:Opinion: Couple US sanctions with Middle East expulsion of Iran

The Right Solution For Iran Is Not War

This is an excellent article. Must  read.

We are at a critical juncture in our time in history. The Iran nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has entered now its third year.

As the Trump White House is pending its Iran policy there is increasing support for regime change. All the while the Iran appeasement camp are boosting their efforts of claiming any firm policy on Tehran will lead to war. The question is do the measures professed by this party truly prevent war?

When Iranian opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) recently held its annual convention in Paris, with Trump “emissaries” such as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaking powerfully of regime change in Iran. Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton went as far as declaring the Iranian regime will not witness its 40^th anniversary in February 2019.

In response, Iran and its lobbies in the West, terrified of such a surge behind the NCRI as the sole alternative able to bring about true change in Iran, have not remained silent. Iran apologists are yet again seen resorting to the old tactic of warning about a new war in the Middle East.

For decades now pro-Iranian regime writers have cautioned against adopting a firm policy on Tehran, allowing the mullahs’ regime to plunge the entire Middle East into havoc.

As we speak Iraq, Syria and Yemen are in ruins thanks to Iran’s support of proxy elements fueling sectarian conflicts and deadly civil wars.

The war in Afghanistan has yet to finalize after 16 years, and reports continue of Iran supporting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in this country.

Lebanon has yet to witness political stability in decades as Iran continues to funnel millions of dollars and arms to its offspring, the Hezbollah, brought to life by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) back in 1982.

Many other Arab countries can follow suit after Kuwait expelled Iran’s ambassador and more than a dozen other “diplomats” from its soil based on espionage charges.

But of course, the Iran apologists conveniently consider such matters as irrelevant or at best second hand. These very Iran lobbyists are the actual warmongers as their efforts have provided Tehran the opportunity to bring upon utter devastation to all Middle East nations.

Pat Buchanan in a Townhall piece argues, “After Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, would America and the world be well-served by a war with Iran that could explode into a Sunni-Shiite religious war across the Middle East?”

Neglected here is the passivity encouraged by such Iran-apologists has actually empowered Tehran. The end result has been Iran engulfing Iraq and Syria into a horrific abyss of Shiite militias massacring innocent Sunni civilians.

Former MEP Struan Stevenson sheds light on such an unfortunate phenomenon.

“800,000 people have been rendered homeless from Mosul alone, millions when you count the refugees who fled from Ramadi and Fallujah. Thousands of innocent Sunni civilians have been killed, and tens of thousands among them were injured,” he wrote in a recent Al Arabiya article.

There is no question that the 2003 Iraq war was a strategic mistake. Yet why do Iran-apologists, again conveniently, neglect another drastic error of Obama prematurely pulling all US troops out of Iraq in 2011? This left the fledgling state of Iraq at the hands of wolves, being Iran, its puppet, former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and Shiite proxies and death squads.

We simply cannot deny the fact that al-Maliki in Iraq, Bashar al-Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, all supported financially and logistically by Iran, paved the path for the rise of ISIS. They massacred Syria’s Sunnis, parallel to Maliki’s crackdown of the Iraq’s Sunni minority. This allowed ISIS to spread, and first in Iraq and Syria, and thus throughout the Middle East, Europe and beyond.

The regime in Iran actually benefited extremely from the rise of ISIS to claim legitimate its involvement in Iraq and Syria through Shiite proxy groups.

Again, as Iran-apologists across the board in the US and Europe encouraged engagement and rapprochement with Tehran, climaxing unprecedentedly during Obama’s tenure, Iran’s mullahs continued their killing spree across the region.

Looking back at the past several years, one can dare to accuse these Iran-apologists of paving the path for Tehran to legitimize its horrific killing sprees, and causing a horrible number of deaths. Can we not accuse them of warmongering?

These Iranian lobbyists, including Trita Parsi, head of the so-called “National Iranian American Council”, raise the flag of war being bad for business, and thus cheering diplomacy to encourage business. Yet he neglects Iran’s own warmongering in the Middle East.

All said and done, with the Trump administration seriously weighing regime change as policy vis-à-vis Iran, the international community sees before it the opportunity to finally adopt the right policy on Iran.

Engagement has failed. Wars in the Middle East have been disastrous. We do not want to go down that road in regards to Iran. And there is no need.

The Iranian people and their organized opposition, the NCRI, are more than capable of toppling the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. This organization has everything in place and seek only the international community to recognize their struggle and end the disastrous Iran appeasement approach. A course correction vis-a-vis Iran policy regarding is needed, too, in order for the people of Iran and their opposition to take on the rest.

Source:The Right Solution For Iran Is Not War

Certifiably wrong about Iran’s compliance

It’s hard to believe, and much less to ‘certify’ that Iran is living up to its sworn obligations

You can look at these fotos and then judge

Via:The Iranian Express

Or to these fotos

Via:Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. ‘Handed the Country Over’

During President Trump’s campaign he said that Mr. Obama’s 2015 nuclear weapons deal with Iran was the “worst deal ever.” Although there are many diplomatic deals vying for that title, the deal engineered by Mr. Obama is at least one of the worst ever for two reasons.

First, it essentially guarantees that the world’s principal terrorist nation will obtain nuclear weapons either during the fifteen-year term of the deal (stealthily) or openly soon after it ends. Second, because it does precisely nothing to limit Iran’s development and production of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

The Trump administration has certified to Congress that Iran is in compliance with the deal (the “Joint Cooperative Plan of Action”) twice, first in April and again last week. Those certifications are required every 90 days by the “Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act” (INARA), the anti-constitutional law that permitted Mr. Obama the ability to claim Senate approval of the deal without senate ratification.

Mr. Trump reportedly considered telling Secretary of State Tillerson to not make the July certification but decided not to. It would have been far better if the president had blocked both certifications.

The problems that should have blocked the certifications are found within INARA’s terms or are directly derivative of them.

INARA required that within five days of reaching an agreement with Iran, the president shall send Congress, “the full details of the agreement, including all supporting materials and any classified annexes to the agreement.”

That was never done. The Senate’s duty to object to that failure, thereby killing the deal, was ignored.

Because of the Senate’s failure we don’t know what the so-called agreement actually provides. For almost two years it has been entirely clear that secret side agreements were made with Iran that the U.S. wasn’t allowed to see. At least one of them provides that Iran can self-inspect the Parchin nuclear site which is believed to be the center of the Iranian nuclear weapons program. (Unsurprisingly, the self-inspections tell the IAEA that all is just peachy at Parchin.)

In August 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry said that he hadn’t seen the side deal. His “negotiating deputy,” Wendy Sherman, said she’d seen a few pieces of paper but wasn’t allowed to keep them.

The most conclusive evidence of our ignorance was also published in 2015. Mr. Yukiya Amano, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s purblind nuclear “watchdog,” told members of congress that he was bound by secrecy and couldn’t divulge the agreement (agreements?) to them. We don’t even know what other side deals are being concealed from us.

In a 2015 interview Mr. Trump made clear that he wanted to renegotiate the deal, not cancel it. He said, “We have a horrible contract, but we do have a contract.” He added that he “loves” to buy bad contracts and make them good. Attorney General Sessions should tell the president that because we’ve never seen the secret side deal there is no “contract” between us and Iran. We’re not bound to any contract parts of which we’ve never seen.

Mr. Trump can’t renegotiate the deal because Iran — and the deal’s other signatories, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany — refuse to do so. Because there are no inspections of Parchin, any certification that Iran is complying with its obligations under the agreement is purely fictitious. We cannot believe, far less can certify, that Iran is living up to its obligations under Mr. Obama’s deal.

Mr. Trump’s choices are limited to either revoking the deal or living with it. So far, he has chosen the latter course. He must know that is as untenable a choice as living under the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

Our national security requires the president to establish policy goals for Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and for whichever other conflicts — cold or hot — threaten our nation’s vital interests. At this point, no such policies have been forthcoming from the president.

Mr. Trump has never established a goal for Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Mattis, who is drafting the Afghanistan strategy, said earlier that it would be ready in mid-July and more recently that it isn’t yet. Is the policy for Iran to live with its nascent nuclear threat? What does the end of “strategic patience” mean for our policy toward North Korea?

The president has made it clear that he won’t telegraph our strategies or tactics to the enemy, which is entirely correct. But the American people, and our allies, need to know enough about our policy goals to make the political decision to support them.

The longer the president waits, and the more political defeats he suffers, the more difficult it will be to convince them.

Mr. Obama was severely criticized, and rightly so, for his six-month delay in deciding a mini-surge of troops for Afghanistan. His belated announcement, which included a date-certain on which the troops would be withdrawn, was self-defeating.

The lesson for Mr. Trump is this. Making clear decisions, conveying them to Americans and our allies and acting upon them, is the only substitute for Mr. Obama’s dithering. And only revoking his “agreement” with Iran can lead to a solution to a highly dangerous problem.

• Jed Babbin served as a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a senior fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and the author of five books including “In the Words of Our Enemies.”

Source:Certifiably wrong about Iran’s compliance

OPINION: A call for working with the opposition in Iran

OPINION: A call for working  with the opposition in Iran 

Maryam Rajavi
http://bit.ly/2j0HcBm
By Dr. Majid RafizadehFriday, 20 January 2017

In an unprecedented move, a 23 member bi-partisan group of senior former US officials signed a critical letter and delivered it to President-elect Donald Trump. The letter suggested new policy options regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran and the need for the United States to open up a meaningful channel of communication with the Iranian opposition, namely the coalition, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which is led by Maryam Rajavi.

Maryam Rajavi is the president-elect of the NCRI and Congressman, Brad Sherman previously commended Rajavi, for her “advocacy of democracy, human and women’s rights in Iran.” In the letter dated Jan. 9, the former officials call for the US government “to establish a dialogue with Iran’s exiled resistance, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.” A copy of the letter dated January 9 can be found here.

This is something that has never been done under any other administration. The letter is signed by senior former US officials including Rudy Giuliani, Joseph Lieberman, General James Jones, Michael Mukasey, Patrick Kennedy, General Hugh Shelton (Hugh Shelton, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bill Clinton), Tom Ridge, Louis Freeh, and Ed Rendell to name a few.

NCRI and preserving US national interests                               

The letter explains that well-informed and revised policies toward Iran are needed due to the fact that the Islamic Republic has used every opportunity since its establishment to scuttle US foreign policy objectives and damage US national, geopolitical, economic and strategic interests with the assistance of its proxies.

“Iran’s rulers have directly targeted US strategic interests, policies and principles, and those of our allies and friends in the Middle East,” the letter reads, and it adds “To restore American influence and credibility in the world, the United States needs a revised policy.”

The letter addressed the need for President Trump to address the deficiencies of the nuclear agreement as well as to focus on Iran’s human rights violations. These objectives can be more easily achieved if the US cooperates with Iran’s largest opposition group in exile.

Soona Samsami, Representative in Washington for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said: “The letter by 23 former senior US officials is an appropriate and timely initiative. Its recommendations fill a void that has disabled US policy on Iran for over three decades. Experience has shown that no amount of political or economic concessions to the medieval and totalitarian regime ruling Iran will bring about any change in its behavior.

Standing firm against the epicenter of terrorism and instability in the region and siding with the Iranian people, the organized opposition and their aspirations for a free and democratic Iran are key to regional and global peace and security

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Attempts to capitalize on moderation within this regime, under whatever pretext or circumstance, are investments in a mirage. The initiative correctly highlights the critical shortcoming in US Iran policy, which has been the reluctance to reach out to the Iranian people and Resistance, who reject the regime in its entirety and call for the establishment of democracy, pluralism, separation of religion and state and a non-nuclear republic in Iran.

More than ever before, the Iranian people are ready for democratic change. The time has come for a new approach by the incoming US administration; to take a new, fresh look at the situation in Iran and consider the realities, long obscured by the Iranian regime’s counterintelligence apparatus and the policy of appeasement pursued by past US administrations.

Standing firm against the epicenter of terrorism and instability in the region and siding with the Iranian people, the organized opposition and their aspirations for a free and democratic Iran are key to regional and global peace and security. Anything less will be a repeat of the failed policies of the past.”

Largest opposition group in exile

The NCRI calls for a democratic system of governance in Iran, freedom of religion, social justice, rule of law and respecting human rights. The NCRI characterizes the political establishment of the current ruling cleric as authoritarianism and a “religious dictatorship”.

It is believed that the NCRI is currently the largest Iranian oppositional group in exile, and has connections with Iranians on the ground in Iran. Many believe that these give the NCRI the crucial resources to play a very significant role in counterbalancing the power of the ruling ayatollahs, pushing for a democratic system of governance in Iran, and preserving the United States’s national and economic interests. The NCRI has previously revealed Iran’s clandestine uranium enrichment sites.

Every year, the NCRI holds largest gathering of those who advocate for freedom and democracy in Iran. The NCRI’s headquarter is in Paris, but it also has offices in Washington DC and several other major European countries.

For Iranian leaders, the NCRI is a serious threat to their hold on power. They fear foreign governments’ cooperation with the NCRI because it would put significant pressure on the ruling clerics and tip the balance of power against them. Iranian leaders fear that Iranian opposition might inspire the disaffected youth in Iran to protest against the government. Khamenei has repeatedly shown that his main concern is such infiltrations.

Finally, the officials urge Trump to cooperate with Iran’s opposition, as other countries are doing the same – “History aside, no one disputes that the resistance effort since 2001 has been entirely political in nature, including discovering and revealing Iran’s secret nuclear weapons program in 2002 – an act for which President George W. Bush publicly credited the resistance.

It is time to end the fundamentalist regime’s undue influence over US policy and establish a channel of dialogue with the NCRI, as many other governments have done, consistent with the longstanding US diplomatic practice of dialogue with political opposition groups worldwide.”

Iranian leaders fear the soft power of oppositional groups more than the military and hard power of foreign governments.
______________________________________

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, an Iranian-American political scientist, is president of the International American Council. Harvard-educated, Dr. Rafizadeh serves on the board of Harvard International Review at Harvard University. He is also a member of the Gulf project at Columbia University. Rafizadeh served as a senior fellow at Nonviolence International Organization based in Washington DC. He has been a recipient of several scholarships and fellowship including from Oxford University, Annenberg University, University of California Santa Barbara, and Fulbright Teaching program. He served as ambassador for the National Iranian-American Council based in Washington DC, conducted research at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and taught at University of California Santa Barbara through Fulbright Teaching Scholarship. He can be reached at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu, @Dr_Rafizadeh. 

http://bit.ly/2j0HcBm