Trump plans to declare that Iran nuclear deal is not in the national interest

By Anne Gearan and Karoun Demirjian October 5 at 7:26 PM

President Trump is expected to announce next week that he will “decertify” the international nuclear deal with Iran, saying it is not in the national interest of the United States and kicking the issue to a reluctant Congress, people briefed on the White House strategy said Thursday.

The move would mark the first step in a process that could eventually result in the resumption of U.S. sanctions against Iran, potentially derailing a deal limiting Iran’s nuclear activities reached in 2015 with the United States and five other nations.

But Trump would hold off on recommending that Congress reimpose sanctions, which would constitute a clearer break from the pact, according to four people familiar with aspects of the president’s thinking.

The decision would amount to a middle ground of sorts between Trump, who has long wanted to withdraw from the agreement completely, and many congressional leaders and senior diplomatic, military and national security advisers, who say the deal is worth preserving with changes if possible.

This week, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed qualified support for the deal during congressional testimony. And Mattis suggested he did not believe taking the step to decertify would scuttle the agreement.

Trump is expected to deliver a speech, tentatively scheduled for Oct. 12, laying out a larger strategy for confronting the nation he blames for terrorism and instability throughout the Middle East.

Officials cautioned that plans could still change, and the White House would not confirm plans for a speech or its contents. Trump faces an Oct. 15 deadline to report to Congress on whether Iran is complying with the agreement and whether he judges the deal to be in the U.S. national security interest.

“The administration looks forward to sharing details of our Iran strategy at the appropriate time,” said Michael Anton, spokesman for the White House National Security Council.

The fate of the nuclear pact is only one consideration in that larger strategy, U.S. officials said, although given Trump’s focus on the deal as an “embarrassment,” it is the most high-profile element.

The agreement signed under President Barack Obama was intended to close off the potential for Iran to quickly build a nuclear bomb by curbing nuclear activities the United States and other partners considered most troubling. It allowed some uranium enrichment to continue for what Iran claims is peaceful medical research and energy; the country says it has never sought nuclear weapons. In exchange, world powers lifted crippling U.S. and international economic sanctions.

At issue now is the fate of U.S. sanctions lifted by Obama and, by extension, whether the United States will move to break the deal. That could open an international breach with European partners who have warned they will not follow suit.

Outreach for a “transatlantic understanding” about reopening or supplementing the deal is likely to be part of Trump’s announcement, according to one Iran analyst who has discussed the strategy with administration officials. Several other people familiar with a nine-month review of U.S. military, diplomatic, economic and intelligence policy toward Iran spoke on the condition of anonymity because aspects of the policy are not yet set, and Trump has not announced his decision.

Trump said last month that he had decided what to do on Iran but that he would not divulge the decision at that time.

Welcoming military leaders to a White House dinner Thursday night, Trump said Iran had not lived up to its end of the nuclear bargain.

“The Iranian regime supports terrorism and exports violence, bloodshed and chaos across the Middle East,” he said. “That is why we must put an end to Iran’s continued aggression and nuclear ambitions. They have not lived up to the spirit of their agreement.”

The president’s senior national security advisers agreed within the past several weeks to recommend that Trump “decertify” the agreement at the Oct. 15 deadline, two of those people said.

The administration has begun discussing possible legislation to “strengthen” the agreement, congressional aides and others said — a “fix it or nix it” approach suggested by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.), a leading Republican hawk on Iran.

But the prospects of such an approach are highly uncertain, and many supporters of the deal consider it a dodge.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said last month that he will not reopen the agreement for negotiation. Separately, representatives of Iran, China and Russia told Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the same thing during a meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly session last month, two senior diplomats familiar with that meeting said.

 IRAN’S CHALLENGES IN ROUHANI’S SECOND THRM

Heshmat Alavi
Heshmat Alavi is an activist and writer focusing on the issues of Iran, ranging from human rights violations, social crackdown, the regime’s support for terrorism and meddling in foreign countries, and the controversial nuclear program.

The second term of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has officially begun. His first four years were experienced by the people of Iran, the region and the international community. It is necessary to discuss the challenges his second term will pose.

The most important matter in Iranian politics is the issue of hegemony, authority and power. As long as the regime is formed around the supreme leader, known as the velayet-e faqih, the presidency and his executive branch will literally be functioning to his service and demands. In such a structure, the president in the Iranian regime, now Rouhani, literally enjoys no authority. Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami once described his role as a mere “procurer.”

Considering the fact that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has blessed the nucleardeal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Rouhani’s role is to provide for the establishment’s best interests while dodging and sidestepping international demands.

Khamenei understands very well there is no better option for his regime’s future. Yet he also needs to maintain a straight face before a social base that may even accuse him of giving in to the enemy, being the United States, the “Great Arrogance.”

Following the JCPOA signing Khamenei has to this day ordered the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) to launch 15 ballistic missile tests, all in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 and all supervised by Rouhani as chair of the Supreme National Security Council.

Twelve such tests were carried out during Obama’s tenure, without any punishments imposed. The next three tests, however, saw the new Trump administration taking action each time by slapping new sanctions.

Iran’s measures have not been limited to ballistic missile launches.They include collaborating with North Korea on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile tests, instigating US Navy warships in the Persian Gulf, continuing involvement in Syria and supporting Bashar Assad’s killings of innocent civilians, providing the Lebanese Hezbollah underground missile factories, and arming, equipping and financing the Houthis in Yemen

The message received by the outside world is the JCPOA has emboldened Tehran, its destabilizing measures must be contained and sanctions increased.

The end of the Obama years and Donald Trump taking the helm at the White House, while believing the JCPOA is the worst deal in US history, has made circumstances even more difficult for Tehran. As defined above, obvious is the fact that Iran began violating the JCPOA spirit from the very beginning.

Considering that Tehran has failed to change any approaches in different fields, it is Rouhani’s mission, as the facilitator of Khamenei’s policies, is to portray Iran in compliance with the JCPOA.

Iran’s global correspondents have major demands and expectations from Iran. The Riyadh Summit in May, which the US and 55 other countries attended, ended with a statement placing certain conditions before Rouhani and the regime in its entirety:

• Stop supporting terrorism in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, and rein in all terror cells;
• End ongoing provocations in Gulf waters;
• Order back all IRGC members, Shiite militias and proxy forces from the four Arab capitals of Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus and Sanaa;
• Refrain from attacking embassies and diplomatic missions in Iran;
• End plots to assassinate ambassadors in various cities;
• Halt all ballistic missile test launches;

While these are all under the authority of Khamenei and IRGC, Rouhani has a record of supporting and facilitating such actions.

Therefore, there is no actual expectation that Rouhani will bring any change in his second term as this regime’s president. This was quite obvious from his humiliating inauguration ceremony. Which senior Western or Arab state official from a leading country took part in this event? None.

The most important official to take part was EU foreign policy chief Frederica Mogherini, who merely attended as head of the JCPOA committee. Her entire visit became a complete embarrassment, being seen with a mandatory scarf and taking selfies with members of the parliament of a regime with a terrible human rights record.

European media and officials went as far as using the terms “shameful” and “disgraceful” for Mogherini supporting the president of a regime who has explicitly described this regime’s 38-year rule as riddled with executions and prisons.

During Rouhani’s first tenure the world witnessed this regime send more than 3,000 individuals to the gallows. Amnesty International has issued a comprehensive reportexpressing grave concerns over human rights violations in Iran.

And speaking of prisons, political prisoners across the country are enduring extremely harsh conditions. Dozens have been on hunger strike since July 30th after being transferred to a hall and placed under extreme surveillance. They are also deprived of minimal hygiene products, adequate clothing and even family visits.

The heavy shadow of increasing sanctions pose a very difficult economic hurdle for Rouhani and the clerical regime. The current circumstances have left Iran’s market, domestic and foreign investors in limbo, and literally locked the country’s economy.

Add to this situation Iran’s systematic economic corruption, smuggling and credit institutions associated to the IRGC, the regime’s security organs and Khamenei himself.

Further add the IRGC economic empire, and a conglomerate of foundations and organs supervised by Khamenei. This leaves no breathing room or hope for the average Iranian.

There is literally no solution for Rouhani as the regime’s president. He is running a politically, economically and socially-failed administration. And this failure is of fundamental importance.

Considering the absence of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one can reach an absolute conclusion that Iran’s so-called “moderate” and/or “reformist” current has come to a complete end.

This branch of the Iranian regime, which played a very important role in maintaining the entire clerical establishment in power, will no longer be able to function to its intended role.

The JCPOA has failed politically. This pact was hoped to open new relations between the West and Iran, and especially lead to significant and meaningful economic relations. Again, another failure.

The JCPOA only enjoyed any chance of success under the former Obama administration. This window of opportunity for Tehran has obviously been closed.

The fate of presidents in the clerical regime are quite obvious, and concerning for Rouhani. A look back provides a preview of a grim future awaiting Rouhani:

1. Abolhassan Bani Sadr (1980) – sacked and removed from power
2. Mohammad-Ali Rajai (1981) – killed
3. Ali Khamenei (1981-89) – transitioned to the role of Supreme Leader
4. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (1989-97) – died a very suspicious death and diminished profile
5. Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) – dubbed a “seditionist” and dismissed
6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (2005-13) – described as “deviant” and sidelined
7. Hassan Rouhani (2013-…) – To be determined

Despite all the efforts made by the Iranian regime and its lobbies with millions of dollars, there are very few figures left who truly have any hopes of change from within this regime, let alone by Rouhani.

The most important and gravest challenge before him, being part and parcel of the clerical establishment, is the threat of Iran’s powder keg society rendering nationwide protests and uprisings.

The average Iranian is completely opposed to the ruling regime, and those sitting on the throne in Tehran are no longer able to bandage the bleeding wounds of this corrupt system.

Iran is heading for regime change and such a platform is gaining international recognition as we speak.

Regime change in Iran does not equal war in Iran

BY ALI SAFAVI, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 09/11/17 06:40 PM EDT

Amid the White House review of its Iran policy and subsequent to the signing into law of H.R. 6634, which imposes tough sanctions on the Iranian regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), familiar voices in Washington have begun fear mongering that supporting “regime change” leads to war.

Let us be clear: The real issue is not war. There has never been any suggestion of military intervention. Here are the real questions that need to be answered:

Should the Iranian people continue to suffer under a brutal dictatorship, which has denied them their most rudimentary rights, or do they have the right to change this suppressive regime?

Should the world remain silent on the destructive role of the Iranian regime in the region, including its direct participation in the carnage in Syria?

Far from being warmongers, advocates of regime change are calling for a transformation from within, led by indigenous forces, not through foreign military intervention.

The truth is that defenders of engaging with Tehran rely on false arguments. They assert that a policy that does not embrace rapprochement with Tehran will necessarily lead to war, period.

There are three obvious objections: First, why is the range of conceptual options so artificially restricted to war or appeasement? Are there no other plausible options?

Second, engaging with dictatorships does not necessarily avoid war. Conversely, refusing to engage or appease a dictatorship is not a harbinger to military intervention.

Third, consider the catastrophic results of appeasement so far: Emboldened by Washington's conciliatory attitude, Tehran has fanned the flames of multiple regional conflicts. Nearly four decades of engagement with the mullahs has made the situation far worse.

What rational assurances do we have that continuing the same policy for another four decades will lead to different results?

Before the U.S. invaded Iraq, the regime promised Washington in secret negotiations in Geneva that it will not meddle in post-war Iraq if Iranian opposition — the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) who had taken refuge in Iraq — were bombed.

The U.S. held its end of the bargain while Tehran flooded its western neighbor with a sea of militias, cash and weapons, leading to a sectarian rift that ultimately produced ISIS.

The nuclear deal is another example: It was hoped that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) would lead to a different behavior from the mullahs in Iran. Far from it, Tehran has become even more repressive at home and belligerent abroad.

An underpinning premise held by the advocates of engagement is the assumed capability of the regime to reform by itself. The theocratic system in Iran, however, is not only unwilling to change, but by design, it is incapable of reforms.

Multiple presidents, including Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami and now Hassan Rouhani, who just began his second term, have surfaced throughout the regime's history with the promise of “reform” as a bait to gain more concessions from Western interlocutors.

In his first four years as president, Rouhani executed more people in Iran than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did in his eight years in office and the Iranian regime’s involvement in Syria has dramatically increased.

Against this backdrop, the Iranian people have shown on many occasions that they want regime change. During the 2009 uprising, demonstrators chanted, “Down with the principle of velayat-e faqih” (absolute clerical rule), underscoring that they do not condone any of the factions within the regime, including the ones making empty promises of reforms.

The people of Iran are more than capable of changing the regime themselves, if only the West stops its policy of engaging their oppressors. They have an organized resistance movement with a rich history and an even more inspirational plan for the future of Iran, one that includes the separation of religion and state, gender equality and respect for human rights under international conventions.

Let's wholeheartedly accept that a foreign military intervention is not the answer for Iran. It is the chants inside not the weapons outside that will make change happen.

It is time to make a fundamental distinction between “regime change by war” and “regime change by the people.”

Supporting the Iranian people in their legitimate quest to uproot a warmongering terrorist theocracy is the only option that averts another conflict in the Middle East. Ironically, the alternative, engagement, is a sure recipe for more conflicts and ultimately war.

For Trump, success in the Middle East requires defanging Iran

by Ray Takeyh | Sep 13, 2017, 5:19 PM

The Trump administration has been engaged in recent months in an exhaustive review of its Iran policy. Such an assessment is most needed, as the Islamic Republic gained much during the Obama years, projecting its power in all corners of the Middle East. The challenge that confronts the White House is that in the past few years, Iran has crafted an ingenious grand strategy that cheaply promotes its interests.

The Trump administration now confronts not just a truculent theocracy but one that has honed its own strategy for pushing back on the United States. A combination of terrorism and arms control underpin Iran's clever policy of deterring the U.S.

Terrorism works. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran has steadily inflamed that nation's sectarian cleavages as a means of enhancing its power. It has trained and armed Shia militias responsive to its Revolutionary Guard commanders.

It was those militias and Iranian munitions that lacerated U.S. troops. In the dark days of Iraqi civil war, Iran was responsible for its share of U.S. casualties and deaths. This has scared the U.S. military, which now has approximately 6,000 troops redeployed back in Iraq. This is just enough to be vulnerable to Iranian terror but not enough to disarm its proxies and pacify Iraq of its nefarious influence.

The Islamic Republic's case is simple: Should U.S. hold Iran responsible for terrorism, it will respond with terrorism. Many influential voices in Washington are concerned that U.S. troops in Iraq are hostage to Iranian retribution. America's appetite for negating Iran's malign strategies may yet be diminished by Tehran's terror apparatus. Terrorism was once thought of as the weapon of the weak, but in the hands of the clerical oligarchs it is rapidly becoming a doctrine of considerable deterrence.

Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, the U.S. has sought to temper the Islamist regime's power by imposing economic sanctions. Successive U.S. administrations labored hard to induce Iran's trading partners to lessen their investments and their purchase of Iranian oil. America sought to segregate Iran from the global financial institutions and thus make its commerce more expensive.

The nuclear agreement with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) has largely disabled that tactic. Much of the text of the agreement is devoted to economic penalties that are waived, lifted, or altogether disbanded.

Trade delegations and contract signing ceremonies are now the order of the day in Tehran. It is important to stress that Iran agreed to the nuclear accord not just to gain sanctions relief, but to make it impossible for the U.S. to ever again impose a punitive sanctions regime. Too many deals are being signed and too many companies are moving into Iran for America's partner to once more concede to sanctions regime designed to punish Iran for its imperial rampage across the Middle East.

History has ordained that all arms control accords must generate their own constituents. The most important defenders of the JCPOA are not to be found in European corporate boardrooms but in Washington itself.

Many within the Democratic Party wish to avoid a confrontation with Iran lest it jeopardize the nuclear agreement. In the Democratic Party's catechism, the JCPOA stands as a legacy to preserve as opposed to a deficiency to correct. The Democrats can be counted on to avoid sanctions or water-down sanctions bills coming out of the remaining hawkish sectors of Congress. A combination of market forces unleashed by the JCPOA and arms control compulsions of the Democratic Party militate against truly coercive sanctions as a plausible tool of U.S. statecraft.

All this is not to suggest the U.S. is inherently at a disadvantage in confronting Iran. A bold policy of pressuring Iran must puncture these formidable obstacles and accept a measure of risk.

There will be a possibility of a confrontation with Iran in the contested lands of Iraq and Syria should Washington prove serious about limiting Tehran's pernicious influence in the region. This requires enhancement of American capabilities in terms of troops deployed in the region. A policy of imposing economic penalties on Iran for its regional aggression and domestic human rights abuses may in fact cause a degree of consternation among allies which has to be managed with diplomatic care.

The notion that the U.S. should be restrained by the JCPOA ignores the fact that the accord is a deficient agreement whose permissive technical provisions have to be revisited. The notion of rigorously enforcing the agreement only means upholding an accord that puts Iran on a steady and legal path to the bomb.

In the end, Iran today enjoys deterrence on the cheap. Terrorism and the JCPOA have shielded it from real costs. A wise policy should start with the obvious: the confrontation between Iran and the U.S. is a conflict between a superpower with global reach and a local regime detested by its public and distrusted by its neighbors.

The Islamic Republic retreats only when confronted with resolution and strength. For the Trump administration to succeed in the Middle East, it has to not just destroy the Islamic State. but defang the Islamic Republic.

IRAN IS SENDING A DANGEROUS MESSAGE TO THE WORLD

BY  Dr. Majid Rafizadeh 

Created: 08 September 2017

Iran has shifted policy from covertly advancing its military programs to publicly announcing progress on that front. This week, Iran’s state-owned newspapers praised its “remarkable” military advancements. Keyhan’s front page boasted about the country’s unveiling of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) base, saying it is a warning to “enemies.”Quoting air defense chief Farzad Esmaili, Press TV reported that “Iran’s UAV

program has expanded in recent years with more than a dozen models,” with “functions ranging from surveillance to intelligence gathering, carrying bombs and Kamikaze operations.”
Tehran also unveiled a new surface-to-air missile, Talash-3, and two radar systems. This despite UN Security Council resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear deal, calling on Iran not to “undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”
Tehran is sending a message that if any Western nation, regional power or non-state actor stands in the way of its revolutionary principles and foreign policy objectives, there will be serious military repercussions.
This is not the language of diplomacy and dialogue that the government claims to champion. It is the language of hard power, which Tehran is familiar with and heavily relies on. This language leads to further regional destabilization, insecurity and tensions.
The government is appeasing the hardcore base of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). By showing off the country’s military power, Tehran is also trying to foment nationalist sentiment, specifically sections of society that are disaffected and disenchanted with the government.
Furthermore, by exploiting and exaggerating the notion that Iran has enemies, the ruling establishment is justifying its military budget increase. Recently, despite high unemployment and poverty, Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favor of increasing the military budget by more than $500 million.

The bill focuses on spending in two particular categories: Advancing ballistic missile capabilities, and investing in other programs that play a role in conducting foreign operations. One of the major organizations involved in such operations is the Quds Force, the elite branch of the IRGC, which is led by Qasem Soleimani.
The tactical shift occurred after the nuclear deal was reached. From Tehran’s perspective, the West has lost any significant leverage because the four rounds of UN economic sanctions have been lifted. Every round required years of hard work, negotiations, and the consent of the Security Council’s five permanent members. As such, Tehran is confident that reinstating sanctions would be almost impossible.
Indeed, it would be extremely difficult for the US to get the approval of Russia, China, or even the UK and France, to pass a new round of international sanctions. With that in mind, Tehran has shown its true face. From its perspective, the geopolitical landscapes of the region and the world are changing in its favor.
Russia, Turkey and Qatar are leaning further toward Iran. Moscow has intensified its intervention in Syria. Regional conflicts have helped Tehran create proxies and Shiite militias in several Arab countries. Europe appears more focused on striking business deals with Iran than on its militaristic policies and human rights violations. All these factors have empowered and emboldened Tehran.

United Nations express 'deep alarm' over Iranian hunger strike

Greg Russell

Journalist

A UNITED Nations expert has expressed her concern about the treatment of prisoners who have been on hunger strike for more than a month after being transferred to a high-security section of Rajai-Shahr prison in Karaj, west of the Iranian capital Tehran.

Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran, said: “I am deeply alarmed by reports about the deteriorating medical conditions of the prisoners on hunger strike, and that their torture and ill-treatment have continued since their transfer.”

More than 50 prisoners have been transferred over the past few weeks without notice and with no reason given. None was allowed to take their personal belongings, including medicines.

They are also reported to have been deprived of hygiene products, adequate clothing, medical care and food they bought with their own money.

Iran’s opposition in exile in Paris, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, has repeatedly called for UN intervention. Demonstrations have been planned for today in London and The Hague.

Jahangir, who is also president of the Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan and chairperson of the country’s Human Rights Commission, added: “Depriving prisoners of having family contact, lawyers and adequate medical care is contrary to international law.

“I urge the government of Iran to look for a prompt solution to the extreme situation created by the hunger strike through good faith dialogue about the grievances and underlying human rights violations, ensuring full respect for their dignity and autonomy.”

Earlier this week, the inmates called for the international community to support their calls for justice.

The physical condition of many has worsened since they embarked on the hunger strike and some can barely walk.

They have called on their fellow citizens to stand up against alleged abuses in the “religious despotism ruling Iran”.

Senators’ meeting with opposition leader sends the right message to Iran

By Kasra Nejat

Posted at 1:01 AM

Iran, the country I come from, has been at the at the center of the crises riddling the Middle East for the past four decades. The reason is the rule of a clerical regime that is geared toward causing instability in the region in order to secure its hold on power and prevent its overthrow by the Iranian people.

Unfortunately, in the past, the dominant policy in dealing with the multitudes of threats stemming from Iran was to appease the ruling mullahs in hopes of encouraging them to avoid engaging in nefarious activities.

The result, as has become evident in recent years, is a regime that has become more aggressive in its human rights abuses at home and in its meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. Iran continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism and the record holder for number of executions per capita.

It is past time that a change of policy toward Iran is adopted, one that takes firm action against Iran’s evil endeavors and endorses the Iranian people’s aspiration for democratic regime change in their country.

A good step toward this shift in policy is the August 12 trip of a delegation of U.S. Senators led by our senior Senator, Roy Blunt, to Tirana, Albania, where they met with Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, the president of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and members of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the main opposition group to the Iranian regime. Sen. Blunt was joined by senators John Cornyn, the Majority Whip and Thom Tillis, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Of course, this was not the first time that Sen. Blunt has taken the initiative. Since he was a Member of Congress, the Senator lent his support for the cause of democracy and human rights in Iran. And in the Senate, he was one of the most outspoken advocates of the rights of thousands of MEK members in camps Ashraf and Liberty, not only writing letters to senior U.S. officials, but also authoring legislation, urging the administration to uphold the commitments it made for the protection of Iranian dissidents in Iraq. And he has also spoken in hearings dealing with the issue of Camp Liberty residents and spoken on the floor of the Senate on the need for the U.S. to protect the Iranian dissidents and ensure their safety and security.

The NCRI and MEK have been representing everything that the Iranian people desire and deserve: a free and democratic state, where the government obtains its legitimacy and power from the ballot box and not from God, a country that peacefully coexists with its neighbors and is a productive member of the international community and is not a rogue state that defies all international norms and values.

In past years, Tehran has resorted to propaganda to convince the international community that the only way regime change will be achieved in Iran is through a foreign military invasion, a strategy that has failed utterly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, there’s no need for foreign intervention. There’s already ample potential for change in Iran, coming from a population that is fed up with the ruling class, and an organized opposition that can establish the roots of democracy in the country. In fact, the only thing that has prevented this potential from manifesting itself until now is the very appeasement policy that was aimed at containing the threats of Iranian regime. By siding with the Iranian regime, western governments have allowed the mullahs to extend their rule by violently suppressing the people and the opposition.

As Mrs. Rajavi said in her meeting with U.S. senators, the ruling theocracy is rotten to the core and very fragile. Without foreign support, especially the policy of appeasement pursued in the U.S. and Europe, it would not have survived so long.

By standing with the Iranian people and supporting the opposition, the international community can guarantee a democratic transition in Iran that will not entail another conflagration in the region and across the world.

WHILE THE WEST SLEEPS, IRAN CONTINUES ON ITS DEADLY PATH

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Created: 25 August 2017

 When the nuclear agreement was reached in 2015 between the six world powers and Iran, I pointed out that the major mistake of Western governments was to believe that Tehran viewed the deal in the same way that they did.For the West, the deal was going to be transformational — moderating the Iranian government’s foreign policy and halting its nuclear ambitions. But from the viewpoint of Iranian leaders, the nuclear accord was a transitory and fleeting deal.

It was a means to an end.
There are increasing signs that Iran’s leaders never intended to abandon their nuclear proliferation. Recently, in a surprise move, the so-called “diplomat” of Iran, President Hassan Rouhani, as well as several other high level officials, warned that the Islamic Republic now has the capability to advance its nuclear activities much more quickly than before the nuclear agreement. Rouhani cautioned: “If Americans want to return to those experiences, Iran certainly in a short time – not weeks and months, but hours and days — will return to a more advanced situation than at the start of negotiations.” In addition, Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, pointed out: “We have created a lot of bridges to return to the previous conditions, quicker and better. Nuclear activity is going on better than in the past in the area of enrichment and heavy water production, and with the new design of the Arak plant in cooperation with the Chinese, and the extraction of uranium.”
These remarks indicate that, when it comes to their nuclear program, Iran’s leaders have not been sitting idly by since the nuclear deal was reached. Instead, they suggest that Tehran has conducted nuclear research in violation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). That is why Iran can boast that it has the capability to resume its nuclear proliferation at a much faster pace.
This argument is supported by new revelations from the organization that was the first to reveal Iran’s clandestine nuclear sites at Arak and Natanz. The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) recently disclosed that the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), which is thought to be the main player behind attempts to weaponize Iran’s nuclear program, has continued its research after implementation of the nuclear deal. The NCRI revealed the existence of a previously unknown site in Parchin called Pajouhesh Kadeh, or Research Institute, which is being operated by the Center for Explosives, Blast Research and Technologies, a sub group of SPND, in order to research the weaponization of the nuclear program. 

It has been crystal clear from the outset that Iran viewed the nuclear deal as a transitory accord in the sense that, by agreeing to it, Tehran would first gain its objectives, including gaining economic concessions and global legitimacy, ensuring its hold on power and pursuing its hegemonic ambitions. Later, the Islamic Republic would revert to pursuing its nuclear ambitions from a much powerful stance.
In other words, for Iran, the nuclear agreement is merely a tactical policy shift, not a fundamental change in the core pillars of its foreign policy.
Unlike in Western governance, where policies are often based on short-term goals because administrations change every few years, the autocratic regime of Iran holds a long-term perspective and agenda. Iran is at an advantage because it can plan and pursue its policies and objectives for decades, while occasionally making some tactical shifts toward those ends. That is why the core pillars of Iran’s foreign policy have remained the same for almost four decades.
From the Iranian leaders’ perspective, they killed two birds with one stone; on the one hand the Iranian government continues to receive concessions for the nuclear agreement, on the other hand, it has not abandoned its nuclear research and ambitions.

 How the tide is turning against Iran

By Heshmat Alavi

Monday, 28 August 2017

As ISIS is losing ground in its two last enclaves of Raqqa and Deir el-Zor, there are many rightfully concerning reports of Iran seeking to chip further control in Syria.

All the while, there are also signs of contradictory remarks heard from senior Iranian officials, parallel to indications on the ground of how international counterparts are seeking their own interests that fall completely against those of Tehran’s.

Such incoherency signals nothing but troubling times ahead for Iran in losing its grasp of strategic interests across the Middle East, including Syria.

‘Not tantamount to meddling’

Similar sentiments were heard recently from Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) Quds Force commander Qassem Suleimani. Zarif exerted himself to defend Tehran’s carnage in other countries under the pretext of a mandate to defend human rights.

“The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic, based on the constitution, is a policy that is naturally founded on human rights. What is the meaning of human rights? It means defending the rights of innocent against oppressors… We have this definition in our constitution. This is not tantamount to meddling,” he claimed.

Zarif’s remarks were followed by Suleimani’s insight. “There were friends in high places, in our country’s domestic and foreign hierarchy, who argued not to get involved in Syria and Iraq, and sit back and respectfully defend the revolution. One individual asked you mean we go and defend dictators? The leader (referring to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) provided a clear response in saying when you look at the countries we have relations with, who is a dictator and who is not? We simply look at our interests,” he explained.

A troubling slate

The relations Khamenei refers to promote an image into the very nature of his establishment. Bashar Al-Assad’s dictatorship in Syria can be read as a reign of death and destruction. With Iran’s support and in the absence of a coordinated global response over 500,000 have been killed, scores more injured, over 12 million are internally displaced or forced to seek refuge abroad, and swathes of the country is left in ruins.

Iraq’s former prime minister Nouri Al-Maliki, another figure described as Tehran’s puppet, has a similar report card unfortunately gone neglected. The Sunni community was the main target of Al-Maliki’s Iran-backed wrath, fueling the rise of ISIS.

In Yemen the Houthis and ousted dictator Ali Abdullah Salah have also been at the receiving end of Iran’s support. As the Saudi-led coalition advances against Iran’s disastrous efforts, signs of major rifts, and even reports of clashes between the two forces, constitute a major quagmire for Tehran.

The Lebanese Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy offspring brought to life by the IRGC back in the early 1980s, are known to instigate the Syrian war by supporting Al-Assad, and pursuing Tehran’s interest wherever needed across the Middle East.

Looking abroad, Iran has established cozy relations with North Korea and Venezuela, both dictators whose people are starving. The Pyongyang-Tehran axis is especially raising concerns considering their close nuclear and ballistic missile collaboration.

Iran’s own dictatorship

This is a regime provoking a variety of bellicosities. Recent threats by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi of relaunching certain nuclear activities are reminders of the dangers of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Extending equally to such concerns, and not receiving adequate consideration, is Iran’s ongoing human rights violations. Over 100 executions were reported in the month of July alone. This comes after more than 3,000 were sent to the gallows during Rouhani’s first term.

More recent cases include the ongoing hunger strike of dozens of political prisoners in a jail west of Tehran going on for nearly four weeks now. These inmates are protesting prison guards resorting to violence and other repressive measures used to impose further pressures.

Concerned of this and the overall situation in Iran, Amnesty International in a statement demanded Iranian authorities “allow international monitors, including the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran, to conduct independent, unannounced inspections of Raja’i Shahr Prison and other prisons across the country.”

While this and many other such cases deserve an international inquiry, they do signal a significant change in tone of courage in Iran’s powder keg society against the ruling regime.

From others’ perspectives

Fortunately, there is an end to be seen in the Syrian war. However, six years after the spark of that revolution, the Syrian people have suffered tremendously mainly due to Obama’s compelling kowtowing to Iran.

The war has been draining Iran, forcing it to seek the support of other parties, including Russia. The more parties with stakes in Syria, and with the US taking a far more active stance, the more Iran sees its future in the country threatened.

As the Levant’s forthcoming is being blueprinted, high on the agenda must be thwarting Iran’s interests. With ISIS defeated in Iraq, there will be no legitimacy for Iran’s presence in Iraq in any shape or form. The same argument goes for Syria.

The international community, coming to realize Iran’s destructive nature, should take the initiative and demand the eviction of all Iranian elements from Syria, including IRGC members and foreign proxy members transferred from abroad.

Peace is the end

All said and done, comprehending Iran’s regime thrives on the mentality of spreading crises across the region is vital. Ceasefire and reconciliation are not in this regime’s nature, knowing increasing public demands will follow.

This regime has failed to provide in elementary needs inside Iran for the past four decades. Thus, satellite states abroad will be no exception. Peace and tranquility in the Middle East hinges on containing Iran’s influence from all its neighboring countries and a complete end to its lethal meddling.