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.

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.

MARYAM RAJAVI'S SPEECH AT THE CEREMONY FOR THE VICTIMS OF THE 1988 MASSACRE IN IRAN

Published: 21 August 2017

By INU Staff

INU - On the 29th anniversary of the massacre of political prisoners in Iran, and the first anniversary of the Movement Calling for Justice for the Victims of the 1988 Massacre, a ceremony was held at one of the PMOI/MEK headquarters in Tirana, capital of Albania, on Saturday, August 19, 2017.

Many dignitaries and Human Right activists attended and addressed the ceremony. The included, the daughter of the late Senator Robert Kennedy and President of Robert Kennedy Human Rights Foundation, Ms. Kerry Kennedy, along with Mr. Mariano Rabino, member of the Foreign Affairs and Human Rights committees of the Parliament of Italy, and Senator Pietro Liuzzi, member of Cultural and EU Policy committees of the Italian Senate, as well as Ms. Ingrid Betancourt, former Senator from Columbia, and Tahar Boumedra, former director of the Human Rights Office of UNAMI.

The President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, made a speech at this gathering. She laid a flower wreath at the monument commemorating the victims, and paid them respects at the end of the ceremony.

Mrs. Rajavi’s speech before the attendees of the ceremony is reproduced below:

https://youtu.be/TvAH_Mq7na4

Dear sisters and brothers, the honorable friends of the Iranian Resistance,

I salute you all.

The presence of supporters of Iranian Resistance in this gathering, which is calling for justice for the victims of the 1988 massacre in Iran, is heartwarming.

This is an extraordinary gathering. Among you here today, more than 920 have spent many years in prisons of the Shah and Khomeini. Nearly 10 percent were incarcerated under the Shah and about 90 percent under the mullahs’ regime. Some served anywhere from 5 to 10 and 12, 13, 15 and even 17 years.

In 2009, the Iranian Resistance’s Leader Massoud Rajavi said that the names of all of you, who were in Camp Ashraf, Iraq, at the time, had been sent to all relevant international organizations.

The renowned American law professor Alan Dershowitz, once described the residents of Ashraf as “the largest concentration of witnesses” to the crimes of the Iranian regime in the world and urged the international community to protect these witnesses.

Hail to each and every one of you!

Every freedom-loving Iranian pays respects to the martyred heroes of the 1988 massacre and honors their memory. The highest and most precious commemoration, however, is what you did by reaching Ashraf from the regime’s torture chambers amid the many mass killings. You bore the scars and the wounds of torture on your bodies, but could not be stopped. You suffered greatly under the regime’s blockade in Ashraf and Liberty and persevered despite your injured bodies.

You recounted the innocence of the victims, conveyed their defiance of surrender and their message to everyone.

Indeed, what could be a more effective and appropriate commemoration for those martyrs than what you did?

Time and again, I have heard you speak of the valiant Mojahdein prisoners who hailed Massoud Rajavi when facing the torturers and executioners. They called out his name while bidding farewell when taken to the gallows.

By repeating this forbidden name, they wanted to not only express their love and faith in Massoud but to send a message to every one of us.

Their message was to Mojahedin who were continuing their path, to the generation that would follow them and to the youths who would be hearing their unfinished story. And that message was: to follow Massoud Rajavi’s path and ideal, the path of paying the price of freedom, the path of the unrelenting struggle for equality, and the path to fight for a society devoid of oppression, discrimination, ignorance, and duplicity.

Dear brothers and sisters,

Khomeini issued the fatwa for this horrific massacre. In those days, in response to the objections of Hossein Ali Montazeri, his heir apparent at the time, he wrote, "The religious responsibility of this decree lies with me” and stated his wish for the annihilation of the PMOI/MEK.

But now, history has damned Khomeini and the Mojahedin are the flames of hope, inspiring freedom.

September 6 will mark the 52nd anniversary of the founding of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran. Our founders founded this organization to bring freedom and eradicate all forms of oppression. To do so, they sacrificed their lives.

They taught their comrades in arm to be the harbingers of new values and lead the way. They also taught us the secret, which is to be truthful and willing to sacrifice.

The PMOI members massacred in 1988 were faithful to this same teaching. They persevered on their stance in the fight against the ruling religious tyranny. They thus founded a tradition which was later called, “standing by one’s ideal.”

Indeed, our movement has survived and thrived because it has stood by its ideal to liberate the people of Iran.

Iran’s future and the Iranian people’s freedom will be achieved by standing by one’s ideal, namely keeping aloft the flag and paying the price of overthrowing the mullahs’ reactionary Caliphate.

So, in the memory of those massacred heroes, let us recall some of their final words and messages.

Daryoush Rezaii, born in Mahidasht in Kermanshah, wrote in a poem for freedom:

“O’ freedom! Neither you thirst for blood, nor do we want to shed our own blood. How unfortunate that the evil executioners have drenched the path between us in blood.”

And these are the words of a brave PMOI woman, Zahra Bijanyar, who had been imprisoned for years in Ghezel Hessar Prison, to her relatives:

“I have realized that even if the oppressors mutilate our bodies they cannot take our lives so long as we remain steadfast in our beliefs. They can take our lives only when we sell out our faith and hearts. This is the secret to resistance and sacrifice in the history of mankind. Pray to God to bestow me faith and belief so that I would never put that which I desire before His.”

And Ahmad Ra’ouf, from Rasht, said, “They kept beating me all the time and asking me my name. I knew that they knew my name, but I did not tell them anything. I wanted to test myself and see how steel become stained steel.”

Now, let us flash back 29 years, to a scene in the city of Gatchsaran in southern Iran. The body of a young girl was hanging in the city’s main square. It was Massoumeh Barzandeh who was only 20 at the time of her execution. A sign on her clothes said: “She had been a PMOI recruiter.”

Massoumeh rose to the Heavens, but she continues to recruit young people for the PMOI. And today, 29 years on, Amnesty International writes in its report that “younger human rights defenders born after the 1979 Revolution” are targeted for “seeking the truth and justice” for the victims of the massacres in the 1980s.

And finally, I want to pay homage to Monireh Rajavi.

Throughout her detention, she cared for all her cellmates. She was a selfless and emancipated woman. Let us not forget the words she said to her cellmates in prison: “They want to kill our humanity and this is what we must fight against. We must show our affection toward each other more than ever.”

Let us applaud for one minute for all these heroes and heroines.

Dear sisters and brothers, honorable friends,

The Campaign Calling for Justice for the Victims of the 1988 Massacre has expanded over the past year both in Iran and abroad. In response, the clerical regime undertook enormous effort to neutralize this movement. But it has failed miserably.

The mullahs were forced to retreat from their policy of hiding the 1988 massacre. The conspiracy of silence was shattered. The regime’s officials tried to justify this horrendous crime but they could not convince even many of their own clerics to defend the fatwa issued by Khomeini.

Indeed, the prospect of the regime’s overthrow stymied the regime’s supporters and allies. In contrast, many spoke out in defense of the PMOI/MEK. Many opened their eyes and saw the righteousness of the PMOI’s path and ideal such that throughout the past year, the mullahs repeatedly said and wrote that the PMOI/MEK had been vindicated in society.

This was yet another major defeat for the mullahs’ theocratic regime.

After the sham presidential election, when offering an assessment of the state of the regime, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s said the place of victims and executioners had been switched.

Yes, we managed to overcome the regime’s official propaganda.

Everyone saw that Khamenei had made a major political investment in Ebrahim Raisi, a member of the Death Commission in the 1988 massacre, to become president. But he was defeated by the Call for Justice movement.

The 1988 massacre is the hallmark of the mullahs’ religious dictatorship. In his first term, Hassan Rouhani appointed Mostafa Pour Mohammadi, a member of the Death Commission, as his Justice Minister. Now, in his second term, he has nominated as Minister of Justice another perpetrator of the massacre in Khuzistan Province. The European Union has already designated and sanctioned this man, Alireza Avayi, for being directly involved in violations of human rights. In reality, none of the regime’s factions can or want to distance themselves from this crime.

For this reason, in the past year, a number of the regime’s most disgraced murderers tried to justify the massacre in the face of the Call for Justice movement. These admissions are among the most important documents incriminating the regime’s leaders. They once again proved that it is the Iranian people’s inalienable right to overthrow the regime.

That you have compelled them to make such admissions represents one of the achievements of the Call for Justice movement over the past year. These confessions are particularly important because they have been made recently and can therefore provide a solid basis for an international commission of inquiry into the 1988 massacre.

At the same time, it is essential that the UN Security Council refer this case to the International Criminal Court to arrange for the prosecution of the regime’s leaders and those responsible for the massacre.

How the international community approaches this genocide and this crime against humanity is a litmus test of its adherence to the principles of human rights. As Massoud Rajavi said years ago, the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds of the 1988 massacre are the inalienable rights of human society, the people of Iran, and the PMOI/MEK.

Owing to the valuable year-round activities of the Resistance’s network inside Iran, today, we have ample evidence and documents. They include many names of the victims, the names of 112members of the Death Commission in Tehran and other provinces, nearly all of whom hold key positions in the regime. We also have the names and particulars of 213 criminals who carried out the death decrees in 35 cities as well as the information about the locations of several mass graves that had been previously hidden.

The PMOI Investigative Unit has recently acquired the names of hundreds of victims of the massacre in 1988 from inside the country. Each of these names has been thoroughly examined and verified, and their files have been completed. Accordingly, today, we announce the names of 426 members of the PMOI massacred in 1988, but whose names had not been announced previously.

Also, the new edition of the book titled, Crime Against Humanity, has been published in English. It contains the names and particulars of more than 5,000 PMOI martyrs as well as the pictures of hundreds of victims and their graves.

This book is presented to the people of Iran on the eve of the 52nd anniversary of the foundation of the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

The work by the PMOI Investigative Unit is continuing and the names and particulars of many other martyrs are being investigated. Once completed they will be made public.

Here, I would like to call on my fellow compatriots help us in finding new names, pictures and particulars of the martyrs.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my countrymen and women, particularly the supporters of the PMOI/MEK inside Iran, for their endeavors in the collection of the new names.

Indeed, this tremendous dossier must be made public line by line. It must be made clear what happened in the prisons of Ahwaz, Mashhad, Tabriz, Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Qom, and other cities.

Since the first days of this massacre, the regime started to arrest and subsequently execute many supporters of the PMOI/MEK and former political prisoners who were not in prison. It must be determined who were the ones arrested and executed and what happened in the summary trials in western Iran?

At the time, the courts dealing with crimes committed at the war fronts were given a different mission and placed at the service of the regime’s killing machine. Ali Razini, presently a Supreme Court official, and Salimi, a former member of the Guardian Council, are among those who held the summary trials and ordered the execution of several groups of residents in cities in western Iran. They executed youngsters who had assisted the National Liberation Army of Iran. The ruling mullahs, however, have not published any information on those murders and the so-called trials.

Over the past 29 years, we have repeatedly insisted that information on these incidents must be made public.

In 1995, the regime had to agree to a visit by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran, Professor Maurice Capithorne.

In a telegram on February 9, 1996, on the eve of Capithorne’s visit, Massoud Rajavi raised 15 important questions:

How many prisoners has the clerical regime executed so far and how many of them lost their lives under torture?
How many were executed during the massacre of political prisoners in summer and fall 1988, to which even Mr. Hossein-Ali Montazeri, then-Khomeini’s designated successor protested?

Where were the bodies of those executed buried? Are their families and relatives still not informed of their places of burial and are they not authorized to visit the graves of their loved ones?

And where are the mass graves? How many victims are buried there and what are their names?

Yes, we will not relent until each and every one of these cases are opened and until everyone involved in this crime against humanity is put on trial before the people of Iran.

Dear sisters and brothers,

The regime that shed the blood of Iran’s most valiant children, subsequently sanctioned every other crime by violating all ethical and humanitarian principles.
Today, the Call for Justice Movement has shaken the clerical regime to its foundations and is focusing on all of the mullahs’ crimes and treacheries, including:

The mass executions of the 1980s;

The massacres in the Kurdistan of Iran;

The forced dispatch of thousands of teenagers to the minefields during the war with Iraq and other war crimes;

The chain murders of dissident intellectuals;

The assassinations of hundreds of opponents abroad;

The bloody crackdown on the uprising in Qazvin;

The crackdown on the 2009 uprising and the atrocities which took place in Kahrizak Prison;

The systematic assaults on women in prisons;

The mutilation of Christian priests;

The repeated slaughter of our Arab compatriots in Khuzistan;

The bombing of the Holy Shrine of Imam Reza;

The terrorist operations against other countries, including in Mecca, Saudi Arabia;

And the dossiers of seven bloodbaths at camps Ashraf and Liberty in Iraq, especially the massacre of 52 PMOI members on September 1, 2013.

These 13 dossiers, are some of the most important crimes that the regime has perpetrated.

The more the Call for Justice Movement advances, the more these dossiers are brought out of darkness.

The Call for Justice for the victims of the 1988 massacre is a national issue and an indispensable part of the Iranian people’s noble campaign to overthrow the clerical regime.

This campaign seeks to expand the resistance and the battle to bring down the religious tyrannical regime in Iran and establish freedom, democracy, and equality for all citizens.

We salute all those who have risen against the clerical regime. From here, we send our greetings to the political prisoners in Iran, especially those who are presently on hunger strike in Gohardasht Prison. We hail all of them for their determination and resistance.

I am confident that the religious dictatorship ruling Iran will be overthrown by the Iranian people’s uprising and resistance, and with their Army of Freedom and 1,000 bastions of rebellion.

The sacrifices made by our martyrs continue to open the way and guarantee our people’s victory.

God bless you all.