Iran on the path of North Korea

By Keyvan Salami

Iran can enrich uranium within five days if the U.S. imposes more sanctions on Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's atomic agency head, warned this week. He claimed that Iran could achieve 20% enriched uranium in five days – a level at which it could then quickly be processed further into weapons-grade nuclear material.

Last week, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani announced that Iran could abandon its nuclear agreement with world powers "within hours" if the United States imposes any more new sanctions.

"If America wants to go back to the experience of imposing sanctions, Iran would certainly return in a short time – not a week or a month, but within hours - to conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations," Rouhani told a session of parliament broadcast live on state television.

In response, U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley said Iran should not be allowed "to use the nuclear deal to hold the world hostage."

The Obama administration argued that there was no better alternative to its controversial nuclear agreement with Iran.  The argument was that the deal is good, as it potentially delays Iran's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons for at least ten years; it requires Tehran to reduce its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent, disables the Arak facility from producing weapons-grade plutonium, reduces the number of centrifuges by two thirds, converts the Fordow facility into a research center, and allows for unprecedented intrusive inspections.

In addition, the deal would lengthen, from a few months to a year, the time frame in which Iran could reach the breakout point, providing the U.S. more time to act, even militarily.  Finally, the Obama administration suggested that a more prosperous and secure Iran might give up its drive to obtain nuclear weapons and may even become a constructive player in the community of nations.

Two years after the deal, the question is, will those claims still hold?  Did the deal "potentially" delay Iran's ambition to acquire nuclear weapons for at least ten years?  And did it make Iran "more prosperous and secure to give up its drive to obtain nuclear weapons and may even become a constructive player in the community of nations"?

The reality is that the deal not only has not curbed Iran's ability to obtain nuclear weapons, but also granted billions of dollars to Iran's malicious activities.  Two years after the deal, it is Rouhani who is confessing to this fact and saying Iran is capable of reaching the same point and even "conditions more advanced than before the start of negotiations" in a matter of few days.

"In an hour and a day, Iran could return to a more advanced [nuclear] level than at the beginning of the negotiations," Rouhani told a parliamentary session.

At the same session, a new bill was passed, a testament to the hollow claims of Iran's change of behavior as "a constructive player in the community of nations." 

In retaliation to new U.S. sanctions, with lawmakers chanting "Death to America," the state's military budget will be increased by almost $500 million, and $260 million will be pumped into the missile program alone.

A further $300 million will be added to the Quds Force's budget.  The bill charges the government to confront "threats, malicious, hegemonic and divisive activities of America in the region."

One might argue that their action is in reaction to new U.S. sanctions.  This might be true, yet it doesn't change the fact that Iran has maintained its capability of advancing its nuclear program, as Rouhani acknowledged.

The Iran apologists' take from Rouhani's threat is more concessions and to stop placing pressure on Iran.  A realistic approach, however, would be to take Rouhani's words seriously and put more pressure on Iran to halt its nuclear program once and for all.

Iran is following the same path as North Korea, and the nuclear deal with Iran must not fool us into imagining that the Iranians have stopped their ambition of becoming a nuclear power.

For the mullahs in Iran, the atomic bomb is the only guarantor of survival.  That is why they will never relinquish their ambition of becoming a nuclear power.

The only means to stop Iran is to support the Iranian people and their organized opposition for a regime change

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/iran_on_the_path_of_north_korea_.html#ixzz4qebQflxM
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

IRAN REGIME CHANGE: A NEW WAR OR PREVENTING ONE

by Keyvan Salami

The bipartisan passage of the sanctions bill H.R. 3364 by both houses of Congress, and the Trump administration’s approach to Iran have raised questions over the right policy toward Iran.Meanwhile, a grand gathering of Iranians in Paris suburb on July 1st with 100,000 participants, recited the desire of millions of Iranians: regime change.Accordingly, Iran apologists, concerned that the appeasement policy is coming to an end and

the new administration may adopt a policy of regime change, have become active to portray this bloody picture that such a policy will drag America to another Middle East war.

To prove their point, they refer to the US-led invasion of Iraq or the Libya regime change campaign. Due to catastrophic consequences of Iraq’s invasion for the US and the region, this reasoning could convince many Americans that regime change policy is not the right policy.

Nonetheless, this comparison is merely aimed at exploiting a wrong policy to adopt yet another wrong policy. Sending troops and invading Iraq by the US was a wrong policy, but worse is naively comparing that failed policy to the current situation in Iran, and denying the right of Iranian people to change the tyrannical regime.

U.S. Military Action Not Needed

Contrary to what Iran apologists portray, the regime change policy means neither military invasion nor military intervention by US in Iran.

It simply means stopping the appeasement policy and recognizing the right of the Iranian people for regime change. The Iranian people and their resistance movement can and will change the regime in Iran, and ask for the US to stop standing alongside this regime.

“We reiterate and emphasize that regime change and establishment of freedom and people’s sovereignty, is solely the task and within the powers of the Iranian people and Resistance and no one else. Having relied on the suffering, struggle and endurance of this movement and this alternative, today we are most confident in the victory and liberation of our homeland” said Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of Iranian Resistance in her opening statement at a recent Interim Session of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

Obama Supported The Mullahs

For years, Iran apologists, by adopting the appeasement policy, have denied such a right for the Iranian people. In the 2009 uprising while millions of Iranians were in the streets demanding regime change, the Obama administration was busy exchanging letters with senior regime officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

Iranians in their street demonstrations were shouting, “Obama! Are you with us or with them?”

Obama’s response was clear. Through the appeasement policy he sided with the regime and allowed the mullahs cheat their downfall.

Now that the new administration’s policy is shifting in the right direction, the same apologists continue their support for the Iranian regime by claiming any regime change policy will lead us to another war in the Middle East.

The Evil Mullahs Rule By Terror

During their rule, the mullahs have executed more than 120,000 people for political reasons. Hundreds of thousands more have been imprisoned and tortured.

Corruption is raging throughout the ruling system while poverty has increased and reached an unprecedented level in Iran’s history. The regime has also destroyed this nation’s culture.

Due to this regime’s terrorism Iran has lost the respect it deserves in the international community.

The people of Iran have the right to change such a regime. Denying them is tantamount to suggest the Iranian people should continue suffering torture and execution under the mullahs’ regime.

“We say that the struggle of the people of Iran for regime change is legitimate, righteous and imperative. We urge you to recognize this ‘resistance against oppression.’ The same notion that is stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in France’s Declaration of Human Rights and Citizens’ Rights. This has also been stated in the American Declaration of Independence where it says, ‘whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of’ the people’s rights, ‘it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government’ of their liking.” Said Maryam Rajavi in her speech at Paris gathering.

Iran Is Unlike Iraq and Libya

Contrary to Iraq, Libya and other countries, Iran has a democratic, powerful and organized opposition with the capacity of mobilizing and organizing the people of Iran for another uprising.

The NCRI and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI-MEK) enjoy widespread popular support inside Iran and abroad.

The NCRI has a clear democratic platform, calling for a secular republic, gender equality, no capital punishment, rights of religious and ethnic minorities and a non-nuclear Iran.

The right Iran policy is to support the NCRI. This is the only way to prevent another war in the Middle East.

How Iran views the new US sanctions

by:Heshmat Alavi

The recent Iran sanctions ratified by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump specifically target the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and have caused very interesting reactions from Tehran.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has remained silent, signaling his state of shock. His regime’s president, Hassan Rouhani, also indicated the toll of these new measures.

“…first, the Majlis (parliament) will take steps in this regard. If they have the Congress, we have the Majlis,” he said in a weak reaction. This is a president whose executive branch is in charge of the Iran nuclear deal, passing on the official response to the legislative branch.

Aside from legal and technical aspects of these sanctions, Tehran is currently facing regime change policy and support for the Iranian opposition, represented in the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

Ahmad Khatami, a member of Iran’s Assembly of Experts, said Iran’s enemies are seeking to topple the establishment. This has left the entire Iranian regime deeply concerned, rendering it unable to establish a strong position in the face of the status quo.

Prior to this Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi also expressed weak remarks in response to the new U.S. sanctions.

Members of Khamenei’s camp have used their platform in Friday prayers to call on Rouhani’s cabinet to take a strong stance. There are voices also saying that Iran’s Central Bank and the entire government will eventually be sanctioned.

Iran’s reactions are of political importance as they indicate how this crisis is resulting in major internal tension.

“This is the mother of all sanctions,” said Foad Izadi, a Tehran University assistant professor, in a recent interview with state TV. “Based on the text, for example, the IRGC will be linked to the government as the government approves the defense budget. Thus, as this military entity is considered a terrorist organization, the government will suffer the same consequences.”

Elements of Khamenei’s camp, known as the conservatives/hardliners/principalists, are demanding Iran exit the nuclear deal altogether, while Rouhani’s camp is arguing the IRGC was under such sanctions in the past.

The entire regime in Iran, however, is forced to follow in line with the nuclear deal and lacks the will to do otherwise. There are concerns inside Iran that the nuclear deal will lead to similar pacts demanded by the international community, such as Tehran’s ballistic missile drive, meddling in other countries, and support for terrorism abroad, and most importantly, the mullahs’ grave human rights violations dossier.

Khamenei, who has the last word in all national security and foreign affairs, had launched the nuclear negotiations even prior to Rouhani’s first term.

Iran’s regime is currently facing two paths of death or suicide. Khamenei himself has been heard saying any change in behavior will result in regime change. Therefore, his entire apparatus lacks any capacity for meaningful change.

To this end, it appears Iran is seeking to maintain the nuclear deal intact with support from the Europeans. However, even such a policy has its own problems for a ruling system of this nature. Khamenei knows the Europeans will also demand changes, especially in Iran’s human rights dossier. This means another dead end for the mullahs.

Even those who naively dubbed Rouhani a “reformist” have questions to answer after he recently met with several senior IRGC commanders. This is yet another sign that Rouhani is calibrating his ties with the belligerent IRGC. Under Rouhani’s watch the defense budget has risen and the IRGC’s ballistic missile production has advanced dramatically.

All the while, Tehran is facing even larger challenges of regime change. Iran’s powder-keg society continues to gain momentum with daily protests and the organized NCRI opposition is enjoying increasing support.

For over 35 years this organization has emphasized the fact that Iran only understands strong language and must be sanctioned meaningfully. The world is only now beginning to comprehend.

Even during the Bush administration, NCRI President Maryam Rajavi reiterated the fact that while her coalition had blown the whistle on Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program, the main threat emanating from Tehran was its meddling in Iraq and export of terrorism and fundamentalism. This phenomenon is far more dangerous than Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Rajavi emphasized.

The recent sanctions imposed on Iran by the U.S. Congress is in line with this argument. They first target the Iranian regime and seek to tackle the mullahs’ destructive policies that have plunged the Middle East into flames and threaten the entire globe.

The world is beginning to understand how peace and stability in the Middle East hinges on reining in Iran’s utterly dangerous bellicosity.

As the Trump administration continues to weigh its Iran policy with a possibility of regime change on the table, there are voices heard arguing such a move, citing the failures witnessed in the past two decades.

The very reason regime change campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have failed is the lack of an organized opposition movement ready to provide the alternative afterwards.

Iran enjoys such an alternative, symbolized in the NCRI, its President Maryam Rajavi and her ten-point-plan delivering a free and democratic Iran.

Heshmat Alavi is a political and rights activist. His writing focuses on Iran, ranging from human rights violations, social crackdown, the regime’s support for terrorism and meddling in foreign countries, and the controversial nuclear program.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/08/how_iran_views_the_new_us_sanctions.html#ixzz4pL4gcVzQ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

ANALYSIS: How to tackle Iran’s Middle East bellicosity

By Heshmat Alavi

Special to Al Arabiya EnglishMonday, 7 August 2017

Thanks to years of Western appeasement in the face of Iran’s belligerence across the Middle East, evidence of Tehran’s dangerous footprints are now visible in several countries across the region, including even Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province.

The Trump administration, however, has made it quite vivid its adoption of a firm approach. This stance, signaled in the historic May conference in Riyadh, is long overdue and should be enhanced by Washington supporting the Iranian people’s desire for regime change.

A history of devastation

Iran has a long record of hostility against neighboring countries and US interests in the Middle East. The 1983 bombings targeting the US Embassy and barracks in Beirut, the Khobar Towers attack in 1996, all climaxed in the support Iran provided for Shiite proxies and the Sunni Taliban in their campaign against US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In parallel form, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas, two known terrorist groups, have for over 30 years enjoyed contributions from Tehran to fuel sectarianism throughout the Middle East and carry out terrorist attacks.

The Obama administration handed Iraq over to Iran in a silver plate through a strategic mistake of prematurely pulling out all US troops. This paved the path for Iran to further export its “revolution” through a convenient medium of extremist proxies.

The West can literally be accused of standing aside and watching Iran’s aggressive policy. This has rendered a slate of countries, including Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen feel threatened and/or left utterly devastated from Iran’s meddling on their soil.

Troubling activities

Of late, Iran has been reported to send further weapons and narcotics to Yemen’s Houthis. These drugs are sold to provide income for Iran’s supported militias on the ground in the flashpoint country south of Saudi Arabia, Tehran’s archenemy in the region.

Members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) are present in Yemen also to instruct and guide the Houthis in assembling weapons smuggled into the country by Tehran.

“For the last six months the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has begun using waters further up the Gulf between Kuwait and Iran as it looks for new ways to beat an embargo on arms shipments to fellow Shi'ites in the Houthi movement,” Reuters cited Western and Iranian sources.

“Using this new route, Iranian ships transfer equipment to smaller vessels at the top of the Gulf, where they face less scrutiny. The transshipments take place in Kuwaiti waters and in nearby international shipping lanes, the sources said.”

The Iranians are also taking provocative measures against the US Navy in the same region recently, viewed by analysts as actions to learn the limits of US President Donald Trump. On July 26th an armed Iranian patrol boat closed within less than 150 meters of the USS Thunderbolt, yielding back only in response to warning shots fired by a US Navy ship.

Such developments are reasons why Trump contacted his French counterpart Emmanuel Macron “to explore how to increase cooperation in addressing the ongoing crises in Syria and Iraq and countering Iranian malign influence,” according to a White House readout.

Positive steps forward

Despite the utterly wrong decision of EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini visiting Tehran for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s inauguration, the Trump administration is sending push-back signals and making Iran learn its aggressions will not go without cost.

This is a necessary and welcomed shift in Washington’s foreign policy.

President Trump has signed into law a strong bipartisan Congressional initiative imposing strict sanctions on Iran, Russia and North Korea. The IRGC is now considered a Specially Designated Global Terrorist group. Considering the Guards’ control over at least 40 percent of Iran’s entire economy, this raises the stakes for companies considering doing business with Tehran.

It would be wise to reconsider investing in Iran’s $400 billion economy and ponder placing one’s bets in other regional countries, or say, the United States’ $19 trillion establishment.

And in news that most certainly raised eyebrows in Tehran, Iraqi Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr visited Saudi Arabia recently and called for the controversial Iran-backed Popular Mobilization Units in his country to be dissolved now that the Islamic State has been defeated.

The nuclear deal

High hopes were placed in the nuclear deal sealed between the P5+1 and Iran, which Obama hoped to leave behind as his foreign policy legacy.

Two years down this road it has become vivid that Iran’s behavior has not changed, to say the least. In fact, Tehran’s support for Hezbollah and other extremist entities have escalated. Iran’s role in the Middle East, namely Syria, Iraq and Yemen have been horrifically destructive.

The Trump administration can lead the international community in instituting the first real and effective initiative against the Iranian regime.

Any trade with Tehran should hinge on:

- the regime halting all executions and human rights violations,
- withdrawing their forces from Syria and Iraq, and severing any ties and support for terrorist groups,
- completely stopping missile activities, especially ballistic missile production and tests,
- ending all nuclear initiatives and providing true “anytime, anywhere” access to all suspected sites, including military facilities.

Moreover and parallel to recent sanctions, which must be executed immediately and without any loopholes, the Iranian people’s organized opposition, resembled in the National Council of Resistance of Iran, should be recognized. This will pave the path for regime change by this coalition without war or military intervention.

Failure in this regard is tantamount to aiding Tehran’s regime.

Rouhani’s Reelection Solves Nothing

Ayatollah Khamenei's theocratic regime is crumbling, and the recent reelection of Hassan Rouhani serves only to hasten its decline, argues Ali Safavi.

JUNE 21, 2017

Usually, the hope is that after an election a country can move forward, the new leader’s agenda bolstered by a popular mandate. That is not the case with Iran. Hassan Rouhani’s second term as president was far from a win for Iran’s economy, Iran’s international standing, and certainly not for Iran’s people.

In the words of the only opposition posing an existential threat to the regime, the strong-arm tactics demonstrated by the regime during the election process further divided a regime already gravely weakened by an internal power struggle. Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, foresees Rouhani’s second term as serving only to aggravate that power struggle, bringing about a crisis at the leadership level of the ruling theocracy.

In Rajavi’s view, given the current circumstances at home and abroad, it is crucial for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to consolidate if he is to maintain his regime’s balance and weather out the near-daily crises that Iran faces. Khameni’s failure to manipulate the election so as to make usher Ebrahimi Raisi, his chosen candidate, into the presidential palace was a major defeat which does not bode well for his regime’s longevity.

Many believe Raisi’s “coronation” was a non-starter because his candidacy trained a spotlight on the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Raisi sat on the “Death Commission” that administrated the executions. That horrific national wound never healed — instead, it erupted into public outrage, and regime insiders’ fear of the mounting demand for justice caused many clerics, even powerful figures within Khamenei’s faction, to distance themselves from Raisi.

ROUHANI’S EMPTY PROMISES WILL ONLY EXACERBATE THE INFIGHTING WITHIN THE REGIME — ALREADY AGGRAVATED BY THE CAMPAIGN — AND FALL FLAT IN THE FACE OF IRANIANS’ EXPECTATIONS AND DEMANDS

Despite their best efforts to maintain a modicum of discipline, a constant undercurrent of backbiting and badmouthing served only to highlight the role of both factions of the regime in the 1988 executions and other atrocities. In one swipe at his opponent during the election race, Rouhani declared that the only thing the ruling faction had known how to do for the past 38 years was “how to execute and imprison people.” Less than a month after the election 18 people were hanged in various cities in Iran.

The internal strife reflects failure of velayat-e faqih (absolute rule of the clergy) in resolving the most pressing social problems and growing discontent. Based on the admissions of the hand-picked candidates, the clerical regime has the support of only four percent of the population. Factions within the regime, including the one affiliated with Rouhani, are all competing against each other to gain the upper hand — not just in ruling but in embezzlement and plunder.

The slogan, “No to the charlatan, no to the executioner; my vote is [for] regime change” was heard across the country.  That prompted Khamenei’s decision to wrap up the whole election process in the first round, and Raisi was pushed to the sidelines. However incensed at being thwarted he might have been, Khamenei was not willing to risk widespread unrest during a second round, potentially sparking an uprising of disaffected youths like that which threatened to topple the ruling regime in 2009.

So Iran got Rouhani for a second term. For critics of Iran, there will be more of the same: human rights abuses, regional meddling, and export of terrorism — and expect euphoria among diehard Iran apologists inside the Beltway, who have set the bar very low when it comes to the expectations of the Iranian people.

Rouhani is a known commodity. In his first term, the Iranian people endured a harsh crackdown marked by a spike in executions unprecedented in a quarter century, and economic misery; the region saw increasing interference, violence and conflict. Rouhani promised that the sanctions relief and infusion of cash from the nuclear deal would bring economic relief for ordinary citizens; it hasn’t yet, and Trump’s harsh stance threatens to set Washington’s relationship with Tehran back decades. Sanctions were never the real cause of Iran’s economic collapse, though, and sanctions relief did not relieve Iran’s economy. As for the cash, it was spent to fuel wars in the region and increase the budget of the military/security apparatus.

Rouhani’s empty promises will only exacerbate the infighting within the regime — already aggravated by the campaign — and fall flat in the face of Iranians’ expectations and demands. Mandate or no, he will fall short of altering the foundations, structure and behavior of the regime.

For the past 38 years, Rouhani has proven his allegiance to the Supreme Leader while serving at the highest levels of the regime’s security and military apparatuses.  Portraying him as a moderate who will set Iran on a new path is futile. As Rajavi pointed out, Iran’s problems will not be solved unless and until their root cause — the theocratic regime — is ousted by the Iranian people.

Middle East peace hinges on regime change in Iran

Middle East peace hinges on regime change in Iran

 Shahriar Kia

As the Trump administration continues to overhaul and codify a  comprehensive new Iran strategy, the opposition coalition to the mullahs in Tehran held a massive rally on Saturday in the French capital calling for regime change.

An enormous crowd of participants joined hundreds of prominent dignitaries from the United States, Europe, and the Middle East. The entire convention voiced exuberant support for the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and its President Maryam Rajavi as the sole viable alternative for the Iranian regime.

Rajavi emphasized how her movement welcomed statements made during a recent U.S.-Arab-Islamic summit in Riyadh.

“The ultimate solutions to the crisis in the region is the overthrow of the Iranian regime by the Iranian people,” she explained. “With [the recent presidential] election, the mullahs had intended to improve the regime’s situation. But they divided and destabilized the regime. Now, they are planning and threatening to oust Rouhani,” she added.

The NCRI President then emphasized on how her people continue to suffer from the mullahs’ regime, highlighting their main demand for an end to the mullahs’ rule. “Regime change is possible and within reach,” Rajavi said. “The Iranian society is simmering.”

The Iranian opposition leader’s call for the international to once and for all designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist entity received echoes by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and even elevated by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich

Iran’s Impasse and the “Sanctions Black Hole”

 

The current plan for sanctions against Iran leaves the regime between a proverbial rock and hard place, since its choices are comply or die.

The adoption of “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017” by the United States Senate has rendered a variety of reactions from Iran resembling the terrified status of the regime’s senior ranks. Iranian media have widely referred to this new bill and the resulting authorizations as the “mother of all sanctions” and the “sanctions black hole.”

In Discussing Middle East Policy, US Should Acknowledge the Goal of Regime Change

In Discussing Middle East Policy, US Should Acknowledge the Goal of Regime Change

The election of Donald Trump last year set the stage for major changes in U.S. foreign policy and particularly American policy toward the Islamic Republic of Iran. It was clear on the campaign trail that Trump’s views on Iran could hardly be more different than those of his predecessor, Barack Obama. Almost six months into his first term the administration is now well positioned to lay the foundation for a lasting Middle East legacy by boldly embracing the goal of regime change in Tehran.