British firm with links to William Hague sells 'protester-tracking' product to Iran

William Hague


A British technology firm with links to William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, has sold a product to Iran which could be used to track down protesters.

By Holly Watt, Claire Newell and Helia Ebrahimi

The Telegraph - 07 November, 2011 - Creativity Software sold the product to the regime despite concerns that it has been used to round up activists communicating with their mobile phones.

The main bankroller of the company is MMC Ventures, whose chief executive and chairman both funded Mr Hague’s private office until recently.

SHELTON: Ending hypocrisy of terrorist designation

Friends are branded as enemies while real enemies are appeased

As two current high-profile cases demonstrate, the U.S. government's practice of listing "foreign terrorist organizations" (FTOs) has become an increasingly dangerous and hollow political exercise rather than a sober assessment of the real threats to America.
Last month, Afghanistan's ruthless Haqqani Network reportedly staged a brazen attack against the U.S. Embassy in Kabul. The Haqqanis, who conduct grisly terrorist attacks on hotels, embassies and other targets to advance their agenda to become power brokers in a future political settlement, reportedly are responsible for hundreds of American deaths since 2001. Some American military officers apparently are furious that the Obama administration decided not to designate the Haqqani Network as a terrorist organization because it was feared that listing the group would make it harder for the Afghan government to negotiate with the Haqqanis.

Iran hangs a little fish

EDITORIAL: THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A year ago, The Washington Times helped bring the world's attention to the plight of Farzad Kamangar, a Kurdish school- teacher wrongly accused of being a terrorist by the Islamic regime in Tehran. He spent almost four years of physical and mental torture in Iran's prison system. Mr. Kamangar's suffering ceased Sunday at the end of a hangman's noose. He was 34 years old.

Mr. Kamangar was killed along with four other "moharebs" or "enemies of God," whom the regime said were "convicted of carrying out terrorist acts." Three of the cases were still undergoing mandatory review when the executions were rushed through. Phone connections to Tehran's infamous Evin Prison were cut over the weekend while the executions were prepared and carried out. The regime did not notify the families or defense attorneys of the condemned in advance, as required by law - they learned of the execution from a press release. For a regime that claims to be the instrument of God, it behaved more like a criminal cabal with something to hide.

Mr. Kamangar's crime was being a Kurd. He taught at an elementary school in the northwestern Iranian city of Kamyaran, where he was a member of the Kurdistan Teachers Union and wrote for various underground human rights publications. He secretly taught his Kurdish students their banned language and told stories about their culture and history. He was arrested in July 2006 and subjected to beatings, whippings, electric shocks, malnourishment, sleep deprivation, and solitary confinement in cold, squalid cells. His cries of torment were drowned out by loud tapes playing passages from the Koran.

Mr. Kamangar was given a five-minute trial in February 2008. His lawyer, Khalil Bahramian, told The Washington Times by phone from Iran last year that there was "absolutely no evidence against Farzad that connects him to a terrorist group or activity." Farzad, he said, "is a teacher, a poet, a journalist, a human rights activist and a special person." And no such evidence was presented to the court, or was needed for it to make its perfunctory, predetermined ruling.

 In his final letter from prison, Mr. Kamangar related the Iranian story "The Little Black Fish," written in 1967 by the dissident teacher Samad Behrangi, which tells the story of a little fish who defies the rules of his community to embark on a journey to discover the sea. Through many adventures, the little black fish finds freedom, but also an untimely death. "Is it possible to be a teacher and not show the path to the sea to the little fish of the country?" he wrote. "Is it possible to carry the heavy burden of being a teacher and be responsible for spreading the seeds of knowledge and still be silent? Is it possible to see the lumps in the throats of the students and witness their thin and malnourished faces and keep quiet? ... I cannot imagine witnessing the pain and poverty of the people of this land and fail to give our hearts to the river and the sea, to the roar and the flood."

Mr. Kamangar wrote, "The Little Fish calmly swam in the sea and thought: Facing death is not hard for me, nor do I regret it. (Full Story)"

Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/11/iran-hangs-a-little-fish/print/

Iran wins a seat on the U. N. Commission on the Status of Women

Your U.N. at Work!

Last week Iran won a seat at the U.N.'s Commission on the Status of Women, the mission of which is to "set global standards and formulate concrete policies to promote gender equality and advancement of women worldwide." Call it another example of your U.N. at work.

We're told Iran's victory was due to a dearth of competition for the spot. Heaven forfend the commission should let a vacancy go unfilled, rather than elect a regime that recently announced it would arrest suntanned women, and which has blamed provocative female dress for earthquakes.

Those are just the most recent outrages, but far from the most serious. The world—along with, apparently, the U.N.'s "principal global policy-making body" for equal gender rights—has grown used to Tehran denying women's right to choose their own husbands; the right to protection against violence; and the right to seek custody of their children in the event of divorce. Death-by-stoning for "adulterous" women is another of the Islamic Revolution's contributions to the advancement of women. Iran's penal code doesn't recognize rape as a distinct offense, and allows a man to murder his wife and her lover if he catches them in the act, according to Freedom House.

So it's no coincidence that female activists have been at the forefront of Iran's democracy movement. They have the most to gain and the least to lose from liberalization. According to Iran's Feminist School group, 68 female anti-discrimination activists were arrested in Iran between July 2008 and February 2009, well before last June's fraudulent elections swept other groups into the country's democracy movement.

Iranian women, certainly, can smell the fraud. Consider the letter opposing Iran's appointment to the Commission, signed by 214 Iranian women's-rights activists, both inside Iran and in exile, and endorsed by groups such as "Women Living Under Muslim Law." The letter warns that "the Iranian government will certainly use this opportunity to curtail progress and the advancement of women."

Ending the kind of nightmares lived by Iranian women was precisely what Eleanor Roosevelt had in mind in 1946, when she read an open letter to "the women of the world" that would help inspire the U.N.'s women's commission. Its goals were lofty and remain as important. Reality, as practiced by the UN, has been otherwise.

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608104575219663720214920.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines

Reality Check: Understanding the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/ MEK)

By: Ali Safavi

Aside from the clearly false allegations against the MEK, which have been addressed in previous posts, some of the MEK's activities inside Iran prior to 2001 have been cited by the US Department of State and others as providing ostensible justification for the terrorist label against the organization. The MEK's activities have been painted with an unjustified brush of terrorism, thereby conflating instances of otherwise legitimate resistance against a tyrannical system with horrid acts of blind terrorism. Readers are welcomed to comment or ask questions if they so wish.

MEK: Resistance Against Tyranny
"The Islam we profess does not condone bloodshed. We have never sought, nor do we welcome confrontation and violence... We do not fear election results, whatever they may be... If Khomeini had allowed half or even a quarter of the freedoms presently enjoyed in France, we would have certainly achieved a democratic victory." ~ Massoud Rajavi


Immediately after the anti-monarchic revolution in 1979, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) began a nationwide political campaign to promote its belief in the absolute need to respect hard won freedoms and democratic rights. This principled position starkly contrasted with that of the organization's main rival, the clerical regime's founder, Khomeini, who sought to institutionalize his theocratic idea of absolute clerical rule (velayat-e faqih) after hijacking the leadership of the revolution.

The fundamental differences and contrasts between the MEK and Khomeini predated the revolution. In political terms, the MEK had called for the establishment of secular democratic rule while Khomeini had announced his intentions to form an "Islamic" government antagonistic to the modern political notions of popular elections, secularism and the rule of law. Ideologically, while Khomeini's lectures and texts were characterized by a profoundly backward fundamentalist streak, the MEK was committed to a tolerant and modern interpretation of Islam, with a heavy emphasis on freedom.

In a speech in 1980 on Tehran University campus, the MEK's historical leader, Massoud Rajavi, said, "No progress and mobilization for the revolution would be conceivable without guaranteeing freedom for all parties, opinions and writings. If by freedom we specifically have in mind free and just relationships domestically, independence speaks to the same meaning in our foreign and international relations. We do not accept anything less in the name of Islam."[1]

On the other hand, Khomeini unambiguously and consistently rejected all talk of freedoms and fundamental human rights, instead justifying his newly established dictatorship under the cloak of Islam: "Even if they give all freedoms and complete independence to us, but take away the Quran, we would still reject it."[2] On May 23, 1978, he also said, "Freedom may be provided to you, and so may independence ... But did the nation want freedom without the Quran? ... Did it sacrifice its blood for freedom or for God? It wanted Islam."[3]

For the MEK, however, the antimonarchic revolution and sacrifices made by the Iranian people had only one objective: democracy. US historian, and a present-day detractor of the MEK, Ervand Abrahamian, wrote in this respect, "In criticizing the regime's political record, the Mujahedin moved the issue of democracy to center stage. They argued that the regime had broken all the democratic promises made during the revolution; that an attack on any group was an attack on all groups; that the issue of democracy was of 'fundamental importance...'"[4]

In order to fully consolidate his regime's undemocratic rule and his own position as the "Supreme Leader" in the months after the 1979 revolution, Khomeini gradually eliminated all semblances of peaceful political activity, ordering his extremist and fundamentalist followers (known as "hezbollahis") to attack and disrupt rallies by opposition groups, ranging from liberals to leftists. Thousands were arrested and imprisoned between 1979 and 1981.[5] While, in response, several political groups chose to engage in a premature armed resistance against the Khomeini regime, the MEK, as Iran's largest political opposition at the time, did its utmost to prevent the window for peaceful political activity from closing.

More than a quarter century ago, even the Department of State acknowledged these facts. A 1984 unclassified report on the MEK submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives by the Department of State, said in part: "When Khomeini took power, the Mujahedin called for continued revolution, but said they would work for change within the legal framework of the new regime [...] The Mujahedin unsuccessfully sought a freely elected constituent assembly to draft a constitution. [...] The Mujahedin similarly made an attempt at political participation when Mujahedin leader Masud [Massoud] Rajavi ran for the presidency in January 1980. Rajavi was forced to withdraw when Ayatollah Khomeini ruled that only candidates who had supported the constitution in the December referendum - which the Mujahedin had boycotted - were eligible."[6]

The report went on to say, "Rajavi's withdrawal statement emphasized the group's efforts to conform to election regulations and reiterated the Mujahedin's intention to advance its political aims within the new legal system. Between the two election rounds, the Mujahedin announced that its members would disarm to prove that they were not initiating the clashes with the fundamentalists that had become endemic during the campaign. The fundamentalists responded by once again banning Mujahedin representatives from the university campuses. [...] In the early summer of 1980 the Mujahedin staged several rallies in Tehran drawing up to 150,000 people to hear Rajavi promise to carry on the opposition to fundamentalist domination. On June 25 Khomeini responded by a major statement against the Mujahedin, claiming their activities would derail the revolution and bring back 'US dominance.'"[7]

An Iran expert, Shaul Bakhash, recounts some of the suppressive measures against the MEK as such: "In February 1980, 60,000 copies of Mojahed [the MEK's weekly] were seized and burned. In Mashad, Shiraz, Qa'emshahr, Sari, and dozens of small towns, club wielders attacked and looted Mojahedin headquarters, student societies, and meetings. ... Some 700 were injured in the attack on the Mojahedin headquarters at Qa'emshahr in April, 400 in Mashad. Ten members of the organization lost their lives in clashes between February and June 1980."[8]

Even after Khomeini's public threats, Bakhash writes, "The Mojahedin responded by quietly closing all their branch offices."[9] Indeed, the MEK refrained from any confrontation and "participated eagerly in the parliamentary elections."[10]

Similarly, Abrahamian notes that Khomeini's attacks against the MEK "caused three deaths and over 1000 casualties. The attack on the Tehran rally, which drew 200,000 participants, left twenty-three Mojahedin sympathizers seriously injured."[11]

In that rally held on June 12, 1980, in Tehran's Amjadieh soccer stadium, Rajavi had exhorted the crowd to "defend freedoms... freedom of speech, association and gatherings."[12] Two weeks later, Khomeini drew the line. "Our enemy," he said, "is neither in the United States, nor the Soviet Union, nor Kurdistan, but right here, under our nose, in Tehran."[13]

"By early June 1981, the prisons - especially in Tehran, the central cities, and the Caspian towns - contained more than 1,180 Mojaheds."[14]. Furthermore, "the hezbollahis ... began a reign of terror. They shot news stand owners selling Mojahedin publications; beat up suspected sympathizers; bombed homes (including that of the Rezai family); broke into the offices of the Muslim Student Association; disrupted conferences, especially the Congress of Trade Unions; and physically attacked meetings."[15] Abrahamian adds that "by 20 June 1981" these attacks "had left seventy-one mojaheds dead."[16].

Despite tolerating these incredible hardships, which had no justification whatsoever, the MEK did not retaliate for two and a half grueling years. As such, the MEK continued to gain the support of a vast majority of Iranians nationwide, which Khomeini could in no way tolerate. Former President and head of the State Exigency Council, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, acknowledged that the MEK had more than half-a-million full-time and part-time activists around the country.[17] Many experts believed that they would have finished first if free elections were to be held.

The MEK refrained from violent retaliation against Khomeini and his forces because it believed that to prolong the political process is in the interest of the organization and the Iranian people, while violence would serve the interests of Khomeini. It sought to use every tangible and intangible legal and peaceful option, no matter how negligible or insignificant, to reform Khomeini's policies and guarantee the desired freedoms and human rights for the Iranian people without resorting to confrontation.

In the context of the post-revolutionary developments, June 20, 1981 was a historic showdown. The MEK secretly organized a peaceful demonstration that caught the regime completely off guard. Throngs began to march from different parts of Tehran, and converged on Enghelab (Revolution) Street. The crowd was half-a-million strong when it reached Ferdowsi Square in the center of Tehran. They continued to march toward the Majlis (Parliament), and if allowed to continue, the crowd would have swelled to one million and Khomeini would have lost control. So, he personally ordered the Revolutionary Guards to open fire. Hundreds were killed and thousands were arrested.[18]

In this way, Khomeini closed the final chapter on peaceful activities, unleashing a bloody reign of terror, in which tens of thousands were slaughtered and tens of thousands more imprisoned and tortured.[19] The MEK, and indeed every patriotic Iranian, was left with only two choices: either surrender to Khomeini's tyrannical rule, thereby betraying commitments to fundamental freedoms and human rights, or wage a legitimate resistance against Khomeini's tyranny. Only after exhausting all possible peaceful options, the MEK chose the latter.

The MEK's resistance against the onslaught by the reactionary clerics was an understandable defensive posture. Simply stated, were it not for the MEK's resistance against the mullahs, the millions of Iranians who fled the mullahs' reign of terror could not have found the opportunity to do so. Some 80 percent of four million Iranian refugees left Iran from 1981 to 1984.

Importantly, there has not been a single credible and independently verifiable finding that the MEK ever targeted any civilians or non-combatants. This is why the Iranian mullahs have been at pains to fabricate plausible cases against the MEK. The US State Department's 1997 assertion, therefore, that the MEK is essentially a violent organization belies obvious historical facts and its own public records and acknowledgments to the US Congress.

The MEK does not believe in violence as a matter of philosophy. More than 26 years ago, Massoud Rajavi said the following on the subject: "The Islam we profess does not condone bloodshed. We have never sought, nor do we welcome confrontation and violence. To explain, allow me to send a message to Khomeini through you... My message is this: If Khomeini is prepared to hold truly free elections, I will return to my homeland immediately. The Mujahedin will lay down their arms to participate in such elections. We do not fear election results, whatever they may be... If Khomeini had allowed half or even a quarter of the freedoms presently enjoyed in France, we would have certainly achieved a democratic victory."[20]

But, Khomeini clearly rejected any ideas calling for democracy and freedoms. "If instead of him," Khomeini once said referring to the deposed Shah, "a regime were to be established like those in Europe or France, which have no relation to Islam, a free government which is also independent and guarantees freedoms, we have never wanted and will never condone such a thing because its freedoms are not in tune with Islam."[21]

To be sure, there is nothing illegitimate about using all options to resist against tyranny when all avenues for peaceful (legal) political activity are, in practice, eliminated. This is supported by the collective historical knowledge of cases where nations were in fact built or liberated by the force of arms. America's War of Independence was violent in nature. Charles de Gaulle and the French partisans used every means available to them to defeat the Nazi occupation of France. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg and his colleagues tried to bring down the Third Reich by eliminating Hitler and his generals, for which they were honored posthumously years later.[22] In Norway, a museum pays tribute those who fought and died in the resistance against the puppet Vidkun Quisling government. In South Africa, Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) resorted to bombings, sabotage and armed attacks against the white minority during the fight against Apartheid. Interestingly, in a sign of how out of synch the US terrorist list is with political realities, Mandela remained on the US terror list 15 years after receiving the Novel Peace Prize.[23]

It is an indisputable fact that every citizen has the undeniable right to the basic freedoms recognized by the international community. In view of that, limits placed on attempts to endeavor for liberty and to resist dictatorship are morally and legally inexcusable. There can be no double standards. America's Founding Fathers, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and distinguished Western statesmen have underscored this fact:

   1. Thomas Jefferson said in his "Declaration on Taking up Arms" in 1775, "Against violence actually offered, in defense of that freedom which is our birthright, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities have ceased on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed have been removed, and not before."[24]
   2. In his inaugural address in 1861, the 16th US President Abraham Lincoln said, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."[25]
   3. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right "to have recourse as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, and take up arms."[26]
   4. The International Committee of the Red Cross's commentary on Article 3 of the First Geneva Convention refers to discussions at the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva to ratify the Conventions in 1949: "It sometimes happens in a civil war that those who are regarded as rebels are in actual fact patriots struggling for the independence and dignity of their country... It was not possible to talk of 'terrorism', 'anarchy', or 'disorders' in the case of rebels who complied with humanitarian principles."[27]
   5. The late U.S. President John F. Kennedy said: "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."[28]
   6. The Catholic Church, which in general opposes the use of violence, has also recognized this right. A document "Christian Liberty and Liberation," made public by the Vatican in 1986, states: "Armed struggle is the last resort to end blatant and prolonged oppression which has seriously violated the fundamental rights of individuals and has dangerously damaged the general interest of a country."[29]
   7. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, President Obama talked about the concept of a "juts war," suggesting that it was justified "if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense...," adding, "... make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason."[30]

Therefore, armed resistance against the clerical regime, and especially its specific application by the MEK (carried out prior to 2001), was completely justifiable and legitimate, at least according to the universally-established international democratic norms and legal criteria.

Aside from all this, although the end does not always justify the means, in this particular case, too much focus and emphasis on the methods of resistance obscures the noble end and takes the spotlight off the regime's inhumane crimes. The main issue and the reason for the MEK's activities revolve around democracy and popular sovereignty in their home country since day one. That is why, even prior to voluntarily handing over all its weapons in 2003 to Coalition Forces in Iraq,[31] and in fact since the early 1980s, the MEK has repeatedly declared its readiness to take park in a free and fair election under the auspices of the United Nations and fully accept the results of a genuinely democratic plebiscite in Iran.[32]

This explains why before 2001, when the MEK ceased its military actions in Iran, a majority in the US House of Representatives and 32 Senators as well as majorities in the UK House of Commons and in several European parliaments, including Italy, Luxembourg, Belgium and Norway, voiced support for the MEK as a "legitimate opposition [movement]," that is "working to establish a democratic and pluralistic system in the country,"[33].

Endnotes
[1] Massoud Rajavi, "Future of the Revolution," speech in Tehran University, January 10, 1980, text published in Mojahed, Vol. 2, no. 19. January 15, 1980.
[2] Sahifey-e Noor [Essays of Light], (A compilation of Khomeini's lectures, speeches and letters), a publication of the Ministry of Islamic Guidance, Tehran: 1983, Vol. 7, p. 486.
[3] Ibid., p. 461.
[4] Ervand Abrahamian, Radical Islam: The Iranian Mujahedeen, (New Haven: Yale University, Press, 1989), p. 215.
[5] Ibid., pp. 211-213; 216-217. See also Eric Rouleau, "A report from Tehran", Le Monde, March 29 and June 14, 1980.
[6] The unclassified background report on the MEK accompanied a letter by Tapely Bennet, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, to Representative Lee H. Hamilton, December 14, 1984.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Shaul Bakhash, The Reign of the Ayatollahs (New York: Basic Books, 1984), p. 123.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Abrahamian, op. cit., pp. 195-196.
[12] Mojahed, MEK's official organ, no. 87, June 14, 1980.
[13] Khomeini's speech, Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), June 25, 1980.
[14] Abrahamian, op. cit., p. 211.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] See also, Ali Agha Mohammadi, then-Khamenei's advisor on Iraq: "In the early years of the revolution, the Mojahedin had organized about 500,000 activists across the country," State-controlled daily, Asr-e Azadegan, January 4, 2000.
[18] Abrahamian, op. cit., pp. 218-219. Abrahamian described June 20, thus:"On 20 June, vast crowds appeared in many cities, especially in Tehran, Tabriz, Rasht, Amol, Qiyamshahr, Gorgan, Babolsar, Zanjan, Karaj, Arak, Isfahan, Birjand, Ahwaz and Kerman. The Tehran demonstration, drew as many as 500,000 determined participants. Warnings against demonstrations were constantly broadcast over the radio-television network. Government supporters advised the public to stay at home: for example, Nabavi's Organization of the Mojaheds of the Islamic Revolution20 beseeched the youth of Iran not to waste their lives for the sake of "liberalism and capitalism." Prominent clerics declared that demonstrators, irrespective of their age, would be treated as "enemies of God" and as such would be executed on the spot. Hezbollahis were armed and trucked in to block off the major streets. Pasdars were ordered to shoot. Fifty were killed, 200 injured, and 1,000 arrested in the vicinity of Tehran University alone. This surpassed most of the street clashes of the Islamic Revolution. The warden of Evin Prison announced with much fanfare that firing squads had executed twenty-three demonstrators, including a number of teenage girls. The reign of terror had begun."[18]
[19] Ibid.
[20] Massoud Rajavi, interview in L'Unité, Paris, January 1, 1984.
[21] Sahifey-e Noor, op. cit., v. 8, p. 42.
[22] "Hitler plot 'heroes' commemorated", BBC News, July 20, 2004. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3908431.stm
[23] Bernd Debusmann, "America, Terrorists and Nelson Mandela," Reuters, January 15, 2010. http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/01/15/america-terrorists-and-nelson-mandela
[24] Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Taking Up Arms: Resolutions of The Second Continental Congress, July 24, 1775, Available at: http://www.constitution.org/bcp/takuparm.htm. See also, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, collected and edited by Paul L. Ford (New York), 1892-1899, Vol. I, p. 475.
[25] Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, delivered on March 4, 1861. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/inaug/lincoln1.htm
[26] Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the General Assembly, December 10, 1948.
[27] International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents, Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, [p.32] 2, International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Available at: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/466097d7a301f8c4c12563cd00424e2b!OpenDocument
[28] Historical Quotes. Available at: http://www.muckraker-report.org/id88.html
[29] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, L'Osservatore Romano, The Vatican, April 5, 1986.
[30] Remarks by President Obama at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo City Hall, White House Press Release, December 10, 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-acceptance-nobel-peace-prize
[31] "Update on the Consolidation of the Mujahedin-E Khalq (MEK)," News Release, Headquarters United States Central Command, May 17, 2003. Available at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/05/iraq-030517-centcom03.htm
[32] In a statement addressed to 2,000 members of parliaments around the world who had signed a joint declaration in support of the MEK in November 1997, Massoud Rajavi stressed: "This Resistance has repeatedly declared its readiness to take part in free and fair presidential elections under the auspices of the United Nations..." Lion and Sun, a publication of the Iranian Resistance, vol. 3, July 1998, p. 34.
[33] The House Magazine, The Parliamentary Weekly, No. 1031, Vol. 28, March 31, 2003.

Ali Safavi - Member of Iran's Parliament in Exile; President of Near East Policy Research

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-safavi/reality-check-understandi_b_548491.html?view=print

EDITORIAL: Taking down Tehran

THE WASHINGTON TIMES - A counterrevolution in Iran may be the last, best chance for peace in the region, but it can only happen with American help.

J. Michael Waller of the Institute of World Politics argues that the best way for the United States to promote change in Iran is not via sanctions or military action but by helping the Iranian people overthrow the Islamic regime. After the proper preparation, "revolution could happen in a matter of days," he said at a briefing yesterday at the institute's Washington headquarters.

Iran is poised for radical change. The ruling mullahs are widely viewed as illegitimate and corrupt. The people are disaffected and increasingly willing to stand up to the government. The student movement has shown a degree of fearlessness in confronting the regime. And, perhaps sensing change in the air, the Revolutionary Guard Corps has begun to show cracks in its once-fierce loyalty to the Islamic state.

Mr. Waller says he thinks the United States could facilitate an uprising in Tehran with comparatively little effort. Washington could help the opposition communicate with inexpensive prepaid cell phones and proxy Internet servers and supply Flip video cameras and other means of recording and publicizing the course of the rebellion. Voice of America's Persian News Network could focus reports on regime misdeeds and spread inspirational accounts of insiders turning against the power structure in hopes that others might join them. Tehran's state-controlled media regularly ignore such stories, so VOA would report, and the Iranian people would decide.

Most important, the United States could supply strong moral support. A critical factor keeping Iranians from making a decisive move against the theocracy's religious leadership is a sense of doubt that America would back their play. A clear signal to Iranian dissidents that Washington would support a revolt would go a long way toward making it happen.

Mr. Waller contends, however, that the U.S. government is stymied by "a lack of imagination." The checkered history of American-backed coups, such as the one that brought the shah of Iran to power in 1953, have placed any discussion of destabilization off limits. But the type of political warfare Mr. Waller recommends is akin to what American politicians do on a routine basis. "Would [Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton dig up dirt on a political opponent to destroy them?" Mr. Waller asked rhetorically. "Well, if so, she could also do it to the Supreme Leader of Iran."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is very sensitive to charges of corruption, yet he reportedly is worth $30 billion, a handsome sum for a humble cleric that must have been amassed through illicit means. The Supreme Leader also reportedly suffers from crippling bouts of depression that could be exploited to paralyze his ability to make decisions during a crisis. "Mrs. Clinton should [apply] the government-wrecking talents she picked up during the Watergate hearings to the Iran issue," Mr. Waller quipped.

Helping overthrow the Islamic regime in Tehran would significantly advance U.S. interests in the Middle East. Iran is actively promoting violence in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. Iran supplies anti-American insurgents with arms, materiel and intelligence support. The Islamic republic is directly and indirectly responsible for more American military deaths than any country since the Vietnam War and has yet to be called to accounts for it. The price of a destabilization operation is minuscule compared to the costs of American vehicles destroyed by Iranian improvised explosive devices and the rehabilitation of warriors wounded in those attacks. Unlike the sanctions President Obama is pursuing, this plan will get results.

Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/16/taking-down-tehran/

Iran's Ticking Bomb

Solana, Straw, Fischer, and de Villepin have a lot to answer for since their policy bought Tehran crucial time.

By ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS

Wall Street Journal Europe - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad boasted last week that the regime would install 60,000 new, "third-generation" centrifuges to enrich uranium. As world leaders met in Washington this week to discuss how to prevent nuclear terrorism, there was little doubt that time is running out to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons threat.

It is now eight years since the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran blew the lid on the mullahs' secret atom program and disclosed the existence of a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz and a heavy water plant for the production of plutonium in Arak. The NCRI also blew the whistle on the secret enrichment site in Qom back in 2005, a fact that was confirmed by world powers only last September. And yet, during all that time, Tehran has been allowed to make steady progress toward developing nuclear weapons.

Iran has had a lot of help along the way from what can only be described as appeasing policymakers who offered concessions and incentives, while telling the world that they could get the regime to change its behavior. And the regime did change its behavior: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei replaced the supposedly moderate President Mohammad Khatami with the fanatical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad while Iranian officials continuously vowed not to back down one "iota" from their nuclear projects.

Regrettably, the European Union was one of the main culprits in facilitating Iran's nuclear progress. Particularly the EU's former high representative for foreign policy, Javier Solana, as well as the former British, French and German foreign ministers—Jack Straw, Dominique de Villepin and Joschka Fischer—have a lot to answer for. It was they who devised this policy of "constructive engagement" and thus bought the regime many of the eight years they have had to advance their nuclear program.

The most popular excuse for the failure of their Iran policy was that U.S. reluctance to negotiate directly with Iran supposedly prevented a breakthrough with the mullahs. When President Obama took office, there was much hope in Europe. Last year, he extended his hand to the Iranian leadership and set a number of deadlines for a negotiated settlement of the dispute. Iran, though, quickly repelled Mr. Obama's hand. The President's deadlines came and went without any Iranian "engagement."

Now it was Washington that bought the regime additional time. The White House failed to quickly gather a coalition of the willing to implement the "biting" sanctions it had threatened. Instead, more than three months after the end of the last deadline the U.S. administration had set, "biting" sanctions are not even on the horizon. At best we can expect that after weeks of haggling in the United Nations Security Council, there will eventually be much watered-down sanctions that won't be able to stop Tehran.

Engagement with Iran has been based on the false premise that the mullahs would respond to carrots and somehow act in Iran's national interest. In diplomacy, there is only one thing more dangerous than failing to respond firmly to threats to international security, and that is threatening to respond firmly, but failing to follow through. The Iranian regime knows now, if it had any doubts before, that the international community lacks the courage or conviction to confront its nuclear program.

One reason why our leaders pursued a policy of appeasement toward Iran over the past decade was that they argued, falsely, that the only alternative was a military attack on Iran. Biting sanctions, though, could have and still could work. Of course, a military confrontation with Iran would be devastating for its 70 million people. But allowing the regime to gain weapons of mass destruction could in the end be even more devastating for Iran and the entire region if it triggered a wider war. Engaging the mullahs only had the effect of legitimizing them and extending their brutal reign.

It is time for Europe and the United States to redouble their efforts for winning as broad a coalition as possible for biting sanctions that stand a chance of changing the regime's behavior. Equally important will be to politically support the opposition and the millions of brave Iranians marching on the streets and demanding change and democracy. Summits in Washington are fine, but Iran is moving much faster than that. So we'd better catch up.

Mr. Vidal-Quadras, a professor of nuclear physics, is vice president of the European Parliament.

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303828304575179683031919088.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Iran's Uprising Prospects After February 11: Escalation or Decline?

The Hoffington Post - March 15- On the eve of Chaharchanbeh Souri (Festival of Fire), on the last Tuesday of the Iranian year, which is another occasion for the Iranian people to vent their anger at the regime and express the yearning for change, a review of what happened on the anniversary of the anti-Monarchic revolution on February 11 might offer some insights as to what to expect next as far as the post-June uprisings in Iran is concerned.

This is important because in the aftermath of February 11, a day widely expected to witness the continuation of massive opposition protests in Iran, some in the U.S. media lamented "the relative silence of the opposition"[1] and its "... fail[ure] to mount a presence."[2] At times, this typical perplexity, which gripped the minds of many Iran observers and reporters, even came to the conclusion that, "activists in Iran's political opposition have been left demoralized."[3]

But, such a focus on the perceived "Day of final action" and short-term material gains or losses for the opposition emanates from a lack of understanding of the considerable struggle and sacrifices required to bring another revolution in Iran. It also runs the risk of glossing over the important, perhaps vital, lessons that should be learned from the February 11 experience.

The most significant protest before February 11 erupted nearly a month and a half prior on December 27 (the religious day of Ashura), which rattled the regime's foundations. That is why the regime pushed full-throttle to curb further protests, with various officials joining a chorus of intimidating threats and "ultimatums" against protesters. Consider a small sample of publicly broadcast statements:

Commander of the State Security Forces (SSF), Ismaeel Ahmadi Moghaddam: "There will be absolutely no tolerance ... This time around the police action and the judicial response will be more severe."[4]

Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, Interior Minister: "[Protestors] are moharebs [enemies of God]. And the fate of a mohareb today is absolutely clear [death sentence]. We are issuing this ultimatum."[5]

State-run TV: "Two of the culprits of recent riots were hanged today on charges of moharebeh."[6]

Abol-Ghassem Salavati, judge of Tehran's 15th Branch of the Revolutionary Court, speaking to defendants: "You are charged with moharebeh through conscious, deliberate, and effective support, contact, and cooperation with the terrorist grouplet MEK [The Mujahedin-e Khalq]."[7]

Ministry of Intelligence: "More than 10 people, known members of the anti-revolutionary camp, have been arrested."[8]

These threats complemented the widespread arrests of activists and key protest organizers[9] in order to shut off the engine of the uprising.

In his message to the people of Iran following the February 11 anniversary, Massoud Rajavi, the leader of the exiled Iranian Resistance*[10], elaborated on the regime's suppressive campaign, which culminated in an unprecedentedly dense militarism.[11]

More than 70,000 armed forces, under the command of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the mullahs' loyal protectors, transformed Tehran into a war zone. Specifically, these included six combat brigades and several back-up battalions (numbering 15,000 in total), 200 paramilitary Bassij battalions (40,000 strong), four SSF brigades from special anti-riot units (totaling 6,000 forces), 5,000 forces from 92 police and SSF bases, and 4,000 armed intelligence agents.

Several layers of forces, backed by the Bassij, prevented protesters from reaching Azadi (Freedom) Square. According to TIME magazine, "On Revolution Street, which stretches from Azadi Square eastward, tens of thousands of police forces as well as paramilitary Bassij were standing guard."[12]

Despite these measures, however, thousands took to the streets. Once again, pictures of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his predecessor, Khomeini, were taken down and burnt, while the chants of freedom and "death to dictator" rang louder. In Tehran's northwestern district of Sadeqiya, angry protesters were in virtual control, forcing the police and the Bassij to flee the area and setting government buses on fire.

As if that headache was not enough, the regime encountered another disgraceful defeat. Despite thousands of buses brought to Tehran,[13] the number of people taking part in the government-organized rally was far fewer than in previous years. And, contrary to every other year, there were no marches on Azadi Street. Empty parts of Azadi Square were clearly noticeable by pictures even published by state-run news agencies like Mehr.[14]

The Essential Question of Leadership
There is no question that the February 11 uprising could have reached a higher apex. The most obvious and basic constraining factor in this regard was the dense militarism led by the IRGC. Although the most essential motivating ideological force for the IRGC is the export of Islamic fundamentalism through the use of terrorism, starting two-and-a-half years ago, as crises piled up, the IRGC started to play a more predominant role in domestic crackdown. In September 2007, Mohammad Ali Jafari, then-new commander of the IRGC, declared "confronting domestic threats" to be the IRGC's new strategy "enabling it to act appropriately in the face of the enemy's political, social and security threats."[15]

Some pundits argued that in the face of the IRGC's growing role in domestic crackdown, the uprising was in decline after the protests on February 11 did not meet expectations. This conclusion ignores two important realities on the ground.

First, aside from the fact that it would be impossible to sustain such a show of force for a prolonged period of time, the indisputable fact is that the perceived aura and real hegemony of the regime's cornerstone (supreme leader) has been shattered irrevocably in the course of the post-June 2009 protests.

Second, contrary to what some Iran analysts have suggested, the forces calling for overthrow of the regime have not become aloof, pessimistic and demoralized. They seek more not less; they demonstrated this by rising up once again on February 11 while exhibiting as much courage as they possibly could under the circumstances.

Despite defying the regime's unprecedented show of force, however, demonstrators are looking for genuine leadership and organization.[16] Indeed, in a situation where society has reached an explosive state and the regime is on the brink, the primary issue revolves around what the alternative force and who the leadership are. These determine the strategic path the uprising will ultimately take. In the present circumstances, on the whole, there are only two general paths available. One is to preserve and reform the current regime from within; the other is to overthrow the regime in its totality in favor of democratic change.

If history is any guide, the Tehran regime has proven itself to be incapable of reform. Indeed, four years ago, Khamenei explicitly warned, "Any retreat ... would generate an endless chain of pressures and further retreats."[17] So, central to the debate is who can walk the path of democratic change most proficiently?

Obviously, Mir Hossein Mousavi and other leaders of the defeated faction did not rise to the occasion. As the uprising escalated, prompting greater trepidation within the ruling faction, Mousavi quickly distanced himself from the millions in the streets, saying in a statement, "With regards to the Ashura ceremonies, despite countless requests, neither Mehdi Karroubi, nor Mohammad Khatami nor I or my friends issued a statement."[18]

Moreover, Mousavi kowtowed to Khamenei's main demand by lashing out against the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK),[19] and once again affirming loyalty to the regime's constitution. "I deem it necessary to affirm the identity of ourselves and the Green Movement as Islamic, nationalistic, opposed to foreign domination and loyal to the constitution,"[20] he emphasized. He even withdrew his earlier challenge to the illegitimacy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency. Instead, he demanded "direct declaration of accountability by the [current] government before the people, the Majlis and the Judiciary."[21]

On February 9, a set of 23 guidelines about the February 11 rally was published by the "collective wisdom of the Green Movement."[22] The authors pleaded against chanting "uncharacteristic" slogans such as "death to dictator," recommending instead "dignified and respectful slogans."

Such a retreat did not impress Khamenei, who was obviously not content with anything less than complete surrender. One of his allies, the Qom Friday prayer leader, said, "Some people who were deceived during these incidents stubbornly struck the same tune as the US. In addition to expressing remorse and asking for forgiveness, these people must prepare themselves for divine punishment."[23]

Mousavi's de facto capitulation raised questions as to whether he truly posses the capability to be the leader who can change and overthrow the regime or at least reform it. If he and likeminded politicians could exhibit that capacity or willpower, which is contingent upon rejecting the velayat-e faqih [absolute clerical rule], then, as Mr. Rajavi emphasized, other political forces, including the MEK, should accept their hegemony while maintaining their own independent viewpoints. However, sadly, the events of the past months, especially after Ashura, have proven the exact opposite.

In the face of Mousavi's repeated retreats, the regime has placed growing attention on the MEK as its main target and chief existential threat in the midst of popular protests. A forum affiliated with Khamenei wrote, "Today, Mr. Mousavi is facing a terrible dilemma ... Only a few rioters remain who do not even take orders from him, but rather comply with the commands sent from London, Washington, Haifa, and Camp Ashraf."[24]

Home to more than 3,400 MEK members, who are considered protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, Camp Ashraf (Iraq) acts as an inspiration to protesters in Iran, especially women and young people, who seek democratic change. For this reason, it is a major thorn in the regime's eye.

Two days after the Ashura uprising, in a government-staged rally in Tehran, Ahmad Alam-ol-hoda, Friday prayer leader of Mashhad, acknowledged, "The Monafeqin [Mujahedin] commanded the actions carried out on Ashura. The rioters chanted the same slogans that had been published on [MEK's] website since December 7 [Student Day]. So, the unrest on Ashura was directed by the [MEK]."[25] On February 2, the ruling faction even attributed the slogans chanted by Mousavi's supporters to the MEK, warning, "The placards, chants and shouts are written with the MEK's green pen."[26]

Khamenei's goal is clear: Force Mousavi into retreat in Tehran and suppress the MEK in Camp Ashraf. For the regime, the MEK poses the most serious threat capable of leading the popular protests towards democratic change, because of its presence in Ashraf along the Iranian border and vast organizational capabilities inside Iran.[27]

Following the 2003 Iraq War, the regime's allies in Baghdad exerted enormous pressure on MEK members in Ashraf at the behest of the regime. But, since the start of the uprisings, those measures have been immeasurably intensified after repeated requests by the regime and its Supreme Leader.[28]

Conclusion
So, in addition to the dense militarism and the role of the IRGC acting as the "basis," it is evident that the leadership factor was the defining "condition" which could have completely changed the outcome of the February 11 uprising.

That being said, the nine-month long uprising has ascended and, regardless of crackdown, it will not decline. Rather, it will escalate further and guide future developments along the lines of toppling the clerical regime and establishing democracy in Iran. The most essential factor in this equation is leadership and organization, which can lead to an enduring alternative for democratic change after unseating the ruling theocracy.

Endnotes:
[1] "Iran's Anniversary: Where Was the Opposition?" TIME, February 11, 2010
[2] Ibid.
[3] "Iranian opposition demoralized after failed protests at revolution's anniversary," by Thomas Erdbrink, Washington Post, February 20, 2010

[4] Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, IRIB, December 30, 2009.
[5] Ibid, January 3, 2010.
[6] Ibid, December 29, 2009.
[7] Ibid, January 18, 2010.
[8] Ibid, December 29, 2009.
[9] For example, the names and particulars of more than 5,000 active opponents from various parts of Tehran were entered by the regime's agents into electronic databases.
*[10] Iranian Resistance generally refers to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a 530-member Parliament-in-exile, which also includes five different Iranian opposition organizations. It was formed in 1981 and seeks the establishment of a pluralist, secular republic. The Mujahedin-e Khalq is the largest member organization in the NCRI.
[11] Massoud Rajavi, "Lessons from February 11th," broadcast on Simay-e Azadi, Iran National Television, February12, 2010. http://mojahedin.com/pages/detailsNews.aspx?newsid=53750.
[12] "Iran's Anniversary: Where Was the Opposition?" TIME, February 11, 2010
[13] "From early morning [the regime] bussed in tens of thousands of supporters to fill Azadi Square for the official celebrations. Opposition websites said that they were lured by free food and drinks. Other sources said that government employees were compelled to attend." See "Iranian regime ships in support for anniversary celebrations," The Times, February 12, 2010.
[14] http://www.mehrnews.com/mehr_media/image/2010/02/514341_orig.jpg
[15] BBC, September 29, 2007.
[16] One routinely comes across statements like these: "We have lost our fear but we need to know where to go with our new-found courage" (See "Iranian regime ships in support for anniversary celebrations," The Times, February 12, 2010 ). Or: "Our movement needs new tactics, but I have no idea what we should do," Thomas Erdbrink, "Iranian opposition demoralized after failed protests at revolution's anniversary," Washington Post, February 20, 2010 ).
[17] Khamenei's speech, State radio, March 14, 2006.
[18] Kalame website, January 1, 2010: http://www.kaleme.org/1388/10/11/klm-7047.
[19] "As a loyalist, I say that the MEK have died in virtue of their own treachery and crimes. You should not resurrect them for the sake of scoring factional points or taking revenge."
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Irani Sezavar-e Irani ("An Iran deserving of Iranians") website, February 9, 2010, http://greenmovement.blogsky.com/1388/11/20/post-52/
[23] Talay-e Daaran (Vanguards) website, February 19, 2010, http://talaieh-daran.blogspot.com/
[24] Tribun-e Azad (Free Podium), February 9, 2010. http://www.tanews.ir/details.php?cat=latestnews&id=1547
[25] IRIB, op. cit.
[26] Raja News, February 2, 2010.
[27] "Five Iranians Facing Trial Belong To Exile Group," Reuters News Agency, January 8, 2010, IRNAhttp://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6071LE
[28] Document - Iraq: Human rights briefing, Amnesty International, March 1, 2010. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE14/004/2010/en/20f0c384-7dc6-409d-a0fb-767c349ef41c/mde140042010en.html

Source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-safavi/irans-uprising-prospects_b_498789.html

Euro MEP accuses Iran of rigging Iraqi vote

BRUSSELS, March 11, 2010 (AFP) - The point-man for European Parliament relations with Iraq accused on Thursday top Iraqi electoral commission figures of rigging the election at Iran's behest.

"I understand that very high officials from the Iraqi Electoral Commission have been caught cheating by entering false data on the election computer," said British conservative MEP Struan Stevenson in a statement.

He said they had been "caught red-handed attempting to manipulate the election results in favour of the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki," in "blatant attempts" to "defraud the Iraqi people".
President of the EU parliament's delegation for relations with Iraq, Stevenson claimed the actions he was referring to were "clearly indicative" of an election campaign that "has included murder, intimidation, blackmail and fraud."

That campaign bore "all the hallmarks of being inspired, financed and managed by Tehran," he underlined, referring to neighbouring Iran.

Stevenson added that he had contacted the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Iraq in Baghdad, warning that "every hour that passes simply provides more opportunities for fraud."
Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in a tight contest to keep his job as he vied with ex-premier Iyad Allawi, initial election results from four of the country's 18 provinces showed Thursday.

The preliminary figures, which were announced once 30 percent of votes had been counted in the southern provinces of Najaf and Babil, put Maliki's State of Law Alliance first and the Iraqi National Alliance (INA), a coalition led by Shiite religious groups, in second place.

The INA said in a statement that it was concerned over "signs of intentions to change the election results."

Stevenson's statement was issued to AFP by his personal representatives and not by his political grouping at the parliament, but he added that his claims had "caused great consternation in Strasbourg," France, where the parliament is in session.

Complete results are expected to be announced on March 18 and the final ones -- after any appeals are dealt with -- will come at the end of the month.
rt/rl

© 1994-2010 Agence France-Presse

Support Iran's opposition movement

By Roger Gale, MP

LONDON, March 2 (UPI) -- The United States is pursuing a "pressure track" to halt Iran's nuclear program given its continued rejection of a U.N. proposal on its disputed uranium enrichment activities, top U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said last week.

A new report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog says Iran may be working to develop a nuclear-armed missile and has begun enriching uranium to 20 percent purity, producing the nuclear fuel needed for an atomic bomb. Iran announced last week that it would build two new uranium enrichment sites hidden in the mountains later this year.

Yet, a new U.N. Security Council resolution imposing biting sanctions looks a long way off.

China is stalling on its promise to support a new set of Security Council sanctions now that Iran has formally rejected the United Nations-brokered deal to ship its enriched uranium abroad for processing, which would have eased concerns that it could use it to build a bomb.

Though China might still be persuaded to change track, the West now has very limited options to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear-armed.

One that has not been tried is to support Iran's internal opposition movement, which is targeting the regime, in tandem with efforts to win over China and other nations to back tougher Security Council sanctions.

The opposition movement may prove to be an indispensable lever against the mullahs.

Iran is currently facing its greatest domestic crisis in 30 years and young Iranians are openly calling for regime change in major anti-government rallies, the most recent on the anniversary of the Islamic revolution on Feb. 11. Critically, Iran has an organized resistance movement that is not an enemy of the West.

In a strange twist, the United States has blacklisted the main Iranian opposition group People's Mujahedin (MeK), which was the first to expose Iran's clandestine uranium enrichment sites.

The MeK was designated a foreign terrorist organization in 1997 by the Clinton administration in a bid to establish friendly ties with the Iranian government of the time, which the United States thought was more "moderate." But the mullahs have used the ban to execute political opponents, including those arrested in recent months, under the guise of combating terrorism.

With Iran shunning the Obama administration's efforts to reach out to it, and time increasingly running short, the United States needs to lift the MeK's designation and allow it to operate freely.

This would signal to ordinary Iranians that the United States is on their side. It would also sow further disunity among the regime's leaders, many of whom are already questioning Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's ability to successfully repress the wave of popular protests and fend off international action against his regime.

Isolating Ayatollah Khamenei would encourage Iranians to call with greater force for an end to clerical rule. The Iranian Resistance would be able to dedicate its full potential and resources to campaigning for a democratic government instead of having to take part in legal battles in the West to have its designation removed.

At the very least, lifting the ban on the MeK would allow the United States and its partners to negotiate with the regime from a position of strength if ever an opportunity did arise. And it would be a cost-free opportunity for the Obama administration to show some teeth to a pariah regime that understands only the language of force.

--

(Roger Gale is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom and a former vice chairman of the Conservative Party.)

Source: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/2010/03/02/Outside-View-Support-Irans-opposition-movement/UPI-89361267532100/

Tehran's vote-buying in Iraq

By David Ignatius

The Washington Post - Iran is conducting what U.S. officials say is a broad covert-action campaign to influence Iraq's elections next month, pumping money and other assistance to its allies. The best way to counter this assault, American officials have decided, is by exposing it publicly.

The most direct criticism of Iran's meddling has come from Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. In meetings with reporters during a visit to Washington last week, he focused on the role played by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi who lobbied the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 and is now alleged to be working closely with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Odierno has also briefed top Iraqi leaders in Baghdad on U.S. intelligence reports about the Iranian campaign. A source provided me with an unclassified summary of Odierno's briefing, which included the following allegations:

-- "Iran provides money, campaign materials, and political training to various individual candidates and political parties [in Iraq].

-- "Iran interferes in Iraq's political process, urging alliances that not all Iraqi politicians favor, in an effort to consolidate power among parties supported by Iran. For example . . . Ahmed Chalabi met with IRGC Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani and Iranian Foreign Minister [Manouchehr] Mottaki in late November to discuss" the merger of two slates of Shiite candidates backed by Iran.

-- "Iran supports de-Baathification efforts engineered by Ahmed Chalabi for the purpose of eliminating potential obstacles to Iranian influence. Chalabi is also interested in Iran's assistance in securing the office of Prime Minister.

-- "According to all-source intelligence, Ahmed Chalabi visited Iran at least three times since last year. Additionally, he met with key Iranian leaders in Iraq on at least five occasions."

The decision to release this sort of intelligence information is unusual, and it reflects concern across the U.S. government about Iran's push to shape the March 7 Iraqi balloting. The United States has "information operations" and other activities in Iraq to counter the Iranians, but apparently it has not mounted a full-scale covert-action campaign of its own, in part because of a desire not to manipulate a democracy that America helped create.

"To covertly go after Iran, we're too late," says a top U.S. official. "What we can do is expose."

Chalabi, reached by e-mail, denied Odierno's allegations that he was acting as an Iranian agent: "These accusations resurface every time we take a course of action that is contrary to the political agenda of the U.S. . . . However, we forgive General Odierno because he captured Saddam [Hussein]."

Iran's operations in Iraq are directed by Soleimani, who is described by people who have met him as a brilliant, soft-spoken Persian version of John le Carre's master spy, Karla. He is backed by his deputy for Iraq, known as Abu Mahdi Mohandes, who U.S. officials say was involved in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait in 1983.

The Iranians allegedly are pumping $9 million a month in covert aid to the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite party that has the most seats in the Iraqi parliament and $8 million a month to the militant Shiite movement headed by Moqtada al-Sadr.

The current Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is said to play a delicate balancing game with Iran, opposing some of its moves and acceding to others. According to U.S. intelligence reports, a member of Maliki's staff hand-delivers sensitive documents from Tehran, thereby avoiding electronic communications that might be intercepted.

For the Iranians, maintaining a compliant government in Baghdad is a crucial matter of national security, especially for the generation that survived the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. Tehran is still settling scores for that conflict. According to U.S. intelligence reports, the Iranians two months ago circulated a list of 600 Iraqi officers who are targeted for assassination because of their role in the Iraq-Iran war. Asked what the United States was doing to counter these killings, a commander responded: "We notify people who are on the list."

"The Iranians are everywhere, all over the place -- overtly, covertly, you name it," says a White House official who closely monitors Iraq. "They're putting chips on red and black and whatever is in between."

The best check against these Iranian machinations, U.S. officials believe, is the simple patriotism of the Iraqi people. Opinion polls show that Iran is even more mistrusted by Iraqis than is America. Iranian meddling has backfired in the past, officials say, and they are hoping that will happen again when Iraqis go to the polls.

SAFAVI: Unwitting accomplice to turbaned tyrants

By: Ali Safavi

It was a cold autumn day in 1978 in Los Angeles when I saw on the evening news that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had gone to the Paris suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau from exile in Iraq. To a young student activist in the anti-shah movement, it seemed like the opportunity of a lifetime. Having studied theories of social change as a sociology student at UCLA, I really wanted to be part of the revolution that was about to sweep my country.

I took the next available flight to Paris, where I stayed for two months at Khomeini's makeshift "headquarters," helping out as an interpreter. I saw firsthand how the mullahs close to Khomeini continuously connived to monopolize power and how young people, especially the college-educated, were being marginalized. Any discussion of the most prominent opposition groups in Iran at that time also was banned.

The experience was enough for me to grow completely disillusioned about Khomeini and his retinue. My older brother Hossein, a prolific writer and an anti-shah activist in Los Angeles before he returned to Iran in January 1979, was executed two year later by his former U.S. colleagues, who by then had assumed key posts in the new theocratic state. He was 29.

The conventional wisdom of social change is that a generation cannot make two revolutions. If the past eight months are any indication, it seems my generation is going to be an exception - and a new opportunity for freedom looms on the horizon in Iran.

Three decades after the ayatollahs set up a theocracy under the guise of Islam, they seem to have reached the end of the line, as widespread demands for democratic change permeate the gamut of society.

Several indications are not in dispute:

• The regime clearly has grown weaker. Supreme Leader Ayatolla Ali Khamenei has failed to mend widening rifts within his regime because they are too deep and he is too weak to make concessions. This explains why President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while boasting Thursday that Iran was now "a nuclear state," ordered the resumption of uranium enrichment.

• The protesters' demands no longer are about electoral fraud. As evidenced in the protests Thursday and on Dec. 27 (Ashura), the underlying demand of 31 years ago has resurfaced: insistence on a democratic and secular republic and the rejection of theocracy. The slogan "Down with the principle of the velayat-e faqih" (absolute clerical rule) captures that.

• Mr. Ahmadinejad's rivals have lost crucial ground. On Jan. 1, Mir Hossein Mousavi offered a five-point reconciliation plan but was quickly rebuffed, demonstrating both Ayatollah Khamenei's stubbornness as well as Mr. Mous avi's diminishing political influence. Two days later, reformist Mehdi Karroubi announced that he recognized Mr. Ahmadinejad's presidency.

• And Thursday, on the Revolution's anniversary - despite the fact that the regime undertook extraordinary measures, mustered all of its repressive forces and resorted to widespread beatings and citizen arrests - fearless and resolute Iranians defied the brutal crackdown. The regime's total illegitimacy as well as the opposition's determination to continue - as leading Iranian opposition figure Maryam Rajavi put it - "will lead to the realization of freedom and democracy in Iran."

The big question now is: Can the people finally overcome the what President Obama called the regime's "iron fist of brutality"? A lot rides on the West's attitude toward the organized opposition.

In 1997, as a "goodwill gesture" to Tehran's tyrants, the Clinton administration blacklisted the main Iranian opposition group, People's Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI). That decision only emboldened the mullahs in their repressive and terrorist ways. Even the offering of a package of enticements during President George W. Bush's second term did nothing to bring around the turbaned tyrants of Iran.

President Obama's remarks in his State of the Union address revealed that this administration's approach is weighed down by unpromising rhetoric, discernible indecisiveness and inattention toward Iran's growing opposition, ostensibly because anything to the contrary may appear to be interfering in Iran's internal affairs.

Ironically, keeping the PMOI on the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list is a clear example of interference that serves the interests of the clerical regime, even if unwittingly. The mullahs consider the PMOI their archnemesis, which explains why they continue to point their sword toward it. The most senior regime officials now say, for example, that the PMOI "commanded the Ashura uprising" or "Slogans posted on the [PMOI] Web site were chanted by the protesters."

On Jan. 18, during a kangaroo trial, a prosecutor in Tehran demanded the death penalty for five protesters charged with "colluding with the 'terrorist' [PMOI]." There is hardly any doubt that both the diverse opposition and unorganized masses rely on the PMOI's capabilities and experience to thrust the movement to a higher phase. With the largest organized social network inside Iran, PMOI activists and supporters, who have lost 120,000 of their loved ones to the regime's onslaught in years past, are instrumental in strengthening and steering the protests.

In their struggle "to exercise their universal rights," as President Obama put it, Iranians have asked Washington for nothing but to stop any interference that has been working in favor of the mullahs and impairs the opposition. That obviously would serve the interests of the uprising and the opposition inside Iran, but it also can benefit America's long-term goals for a more stable and democratic order in the Middle East.

Ali Safavi is a member of Iran's parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance.

Source:
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/11/unwitting-accomplice-to-turbaned-tyrants//print/

Obama's Iran test

By Lord David Alton

The Hill - As US President Barack Obama used his first State of the Union Address to lash out at Iran over its continuing nuclear defiance, it was clear that 2010 will see a new approach in dealing with Tehran.

How things have changed since, one year ago in January 2009, in his first sit-down interview, President Obama symbolically used an exchange on Al- Arabiya TV to offer a conciliatory approach in his conduct of American-Iranian relations. President Obama then told the news channel, that "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Well, Tehran's fist has remained well and truly clenched not least over its nuclear intentions.

Tehran sees its sole method of survival through its success over its nuclear weapons programme; of that, there is little doubt. This is even more so now as the regime, weakened at home by the mass protests of the last six months, looks to its nuclear programme as a safety net for survival.

The time has come for the international community to pull this safety net from under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Tehran's leadership, allowing the Iranian regime to fall at the hands of the Iranian people. The removal of that safety net can only be achieved with the imposition of targeted sanctions against Tehran's leadership.

As the Iranian opposition movement gears up for further mass protests on the 31st anniversary of the people's revolution on 11 February, the message from the President and his European counterparts must be one of support. The Iranian leadership has long been isolated from its people and now there can be no doubt as to the Iranian people's demands for regime change.

Yes sanctions must be targeted at Tehran's leadership and yes they must be put together in such a manner as to have the least effect on the Iranian people. The Iranian people are well aware that their leaders live like kings as they suffer economic hardship.

We have all watched the recent protests in which Iranians have lined the streets knowing full well that by protesting they could face death or torture. Those same people will be supportive of any economic and diplomatic sanctions which bring an early end to the more than thirty years of ruthless tyrannical rule by Iran's theocratic masters.

In a clear warning to the Iranian population ready to line the streets in the coming weeks, Tehran's leadership recently executed two dissidents accused of plotting to overthrow the regime. At least nine others face execution, accused of having links to the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). The PMOI is Iran's largest opposition group and analysts believe it has played an integral role in recent unrest throughout Tehran.

One thing should now be clear to President Obama and his allies, Tehran will not unclench its fist when it comes to its nuclear programme, and the Iranian people will not yield in their desire for regime change.

The two now go hand in hand and support for the Iranian people's opposition movement must include the removal of the nuclear safety net which is integral to this regime's survival. As in all such scenarios the leadership must be isolated, and sanctions can achieve this aim. UN Security Council sanctions are critical, but if China continues to play hard ball and to use its veto, the West must forge ahead and impose its own comprehensive sanctions and not adopt a set of watered down sanctions which are symbolic rather than successful, simply to please China.

We can remove Tehran's nuclear safety net and we must do so in order to support the Iranian people's democratic ambitions.
 
Lord Alton of Liverpool is a cross-bench Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/79843-obamas-iran-test

Seven Myths About Iran

How long will it take for the lesson to stick?

By BRET STEPHENS

The Wall Street Journal -  'We have been trying to negotiate [with the Iranians] for five, six years. We've tried everything. We have met every Iranian. We have tried to open every possible channel. We've had new ideas and the result is this: nothing."


Thus did a senior Western diplomat recently describe to me his country's efforts to reach a negotiated settlement with Tehran over its nuclear programs. In doing so, he also finally disposed of the myth, nearly a decade in the making, that Iran was ready to abandon those programs in exchange for a "grand bargain" with the West.

Let's dispose of a few other myths—and hope it doesn't take years for the lesson to stick:

(1) Military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would accomplish nothing.
That's the argument made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who last year told a Senate Committee that "a military attack will only buy us time and send the program deeper and more covert."

Maybe so, but what's wrong with buying time? Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor also bought time while driving Saddam's nuclear programs underground. But it ensured that it was a non-nuclear Iraq that invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia nine years later, a point recognized by then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney when he thanked the Israeli commander of the Osirak operation for making "our job much easier in Desert Storm."

(2) A strike would rally Iranians to the side of the regime.
The case would be more persuasive if the regime had any remaining claims on Iranian patriotism. It no longer does, if it ever did. It also would be more persuasive if the nuclear program were as broadly popular as some of the regime's apologists claim. On the contrary, one of the more popular chants of the demonstrators goes, "Iran is green and fertile, it doesn't need nukes."

Yet even if the nuclear program enjoyed widespread support, it isn't clear how Iranians would react in the event of military strikes. Argentine dictator Leopoldo Galtieri whooped up a nationalist fervor when he invaded the Falklands in 1982, but was ousted from office just a week after Port Stanley fell to the British. When a regime gambles its prestige on a single controversial enterprise, it cannot afford to lose it.

(3) Sanctions don't work, and usually wind up strengthening the regime at the expense of its own people.
That's only true when the sanctioned regimes have strong internal controls, relatively pliant populations, and zero interest in international respectability. It's also true that sanctions alone are never a silver bullet. But as Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, they can be "silver shrapnel," particularly when the target country is as politically vulnerable as Iran is now, and when it is also critically reliant on the consumption of imported gasoline.

That's why the House was right when it overwhelmingly approved the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act in December, and when the Senate unanimously passed a similar bill (against the administration's objections) last Thursday. Over time, the regime will surely find ways to skirt the sanctions, which prohibit companies that do business in Iran's energy sector from also doing business in the U.S. But in the critical short term, these sanctions might provoke the kind of mass unrest that could tip the scales against the regime.

(4) The world can live with a nuclear Iran, just as we live with other nasty nuclear powers.
Assume that's true. (I don't.) Can we also live with nuclear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey? The problem with the "realist" view is that it fails to take account of the fears a nuclear Iran inspires among the status quo regimes in its neighborhood. Containment was complicated enough during the Cold War. Now imagine a four- or five-way standoff among Arabs, Persians, Turks and Israelis, some religiously fanatic, in the world's most volatile neighborhood.

(5) The Iranian regime is headed for the ash heap of history. The best policy is to do as little as possible until it crumbles from within.
Communist regimes were also destined for the ash heap. Unfortunately, it took them decades to get there, during which they murdered tens of millions of people. It matters a great deal to Iran's people, and its neighbors, that the regime go quietly. But it also matters that it go quickly, and waiting on events is not a policy.

(6) The more support we show Iran's demonstrators, the more we hurt their cause.
This was the administration's view after the June 12 election, as it walked on tiptoes to avoid the perception of "meddling." The regime accused the U.S. of meddling all the same.

But protest movements like Iran's (or Poland's, or South Africa's) are sustained by a sense of moral legitimacy that global support uniquely conveys. When will American liberals get behind Iranian rights, as they have, say, Tibetan ones? Maybe when President Obama tells them to.

(7) Israel will ultimately dispose of Iran's nuclear facilities.
The more policy makers fall for the first six myths, the less mythical the seventh one becomes.

Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204575038971915808294.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular