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.

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.