IRAN RESISTANCE GROUP MEK CALLS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT PROTESTERS

By INU Staff

INU - The Iranian Regime is involved in “warmongering and belligerence” in order to fuel crises in the Middle East, according to Iran’s organised democratic forces, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The Iranian Regime’s regional aggression has also been criticised by the Iranian people during their ongoing nationwide anti-regime protests, and the MEK are advising that the international community back the protesters’ calls for regime change in order to avoid Iran starting another war in the Middle East.

MEK representative Shahin Gobadi said: “The regime’s warmongering and belligerence is a major source of concern and tension in the region that can lead to a major war. But it can be averted. Years of policy of appeasement by Western governments emboldened the Iranian regime. The overthrow of the Iranian regime and establishment of peace and democracy in Iran would have a lasting impact in establishment of peace and tranquillity in the region.”

The area is on the edge of all-out war, as tension rise between Iran and its neighbours over Iran’s support for terrorism and proxy militias.

Indeed, Iran has tens of thousands of fighters in Syria, where they have spent $100 billion propping up the Assad Regime since 2011, is in direct conflict with Saudi Arabia over Iran-backed terrorist groups in Lebanon and Yemen, and is at odds with Israel after the downing of an Israeli fighter jet.

Gobadi said: “Export of terrorism and Islamic extremism, including warmongering and meddling in the region, has been a strategic pillar of survival of the regime and a cover for its domestic repression. Syria has been the lynchpin of this policy.”

Protests

The popular people’s protest has featured slogans such as “no to Syria” and “think about us” as the Iranian people call on the mullahs to end their foreign wars and return the money to the public purse.

The protests, which began over a draft budget that slashed subsidies for the poor in favour of additional military spending, have spread to 142 cities and morphed into a protest against everything wrong with the Regime.

The protesters, recognising that the Iranian Regime isn’t listening to their cries, have gone so far as to call for the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, an offence punishable by death in Iran.

So far, at least 50 protesters have been killed in the streets, 8,000 arrested, and 12 have died under torture.

The Iranian Regime, desperate to portray itself as stable and popular, has organised pro-regime demonstrations to retaliate against the people’s protest and in honour of the 39th anniversary of the Iranian Regime, in which paid actors will burn the US flag.

This is nothing new. Iran has been doing this for years in order to make it seem as if the Iranian people are in favour of the Regime and deter the international community from acting. Still, revolution is in the air.

Gobadi made this call for the West to support to the protesters ahead of a meeting in Paris on Friday, in which representatives from 11 European countries will back the protesters.
Gobadi said: “The wall of fear has been cracked, and nothing including arrests, killings and torture can prevent the advancement of the protests to overthrow the regime. The regime’s own officials repeatedly talk about super challenges facing their regime and precarious prospects that loom on the horizon. After 39 years of rule, the clerical regime has never closer than being overthrown by the people than today.”

IRAN RESISTANCE GROUP MEK CALLS ON INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO SUPPORT PROTESTERS

By INU Staff

INU - The Iranian Regime is involved in “warmongering and belligerence” in order to fuel crises in the Middle East, according to Iran’s organised democratic forces, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

The Iranian Regime’s regional aggression has also been criticised by the Iranian people during their ongoing nationwide anti-regime protests, and the MEK are advising that the international community back the protesters’ calls for regime change in order to avoid Iran starting another war in the Middle East.

MEK representative Shahin Gobadi said: “The regime’s warmongering and belligerence is a major source of concern and tension in the region that can lead to a major war. But it can be averted. Years of policy of appeasement by Western governments emboldened the Iranian regime. The overthrow of the Iranian regime and establishment of peace and democracy in Iran would have a lasting impact in establishment of peace and tranquillity in the region.”

The area is on the edge of all-out war, as tension rise between Iran and its neighbours over Iran’s support for terrorism and proxy militias.

Indeed, Iran has tens of thousands of fighters in Syria, where they have spent $100 billion propping up the Assad Regime since 2011, is in direct conflict with Saudi Arabia over Iran-backed terrorist groups in Lebanon and Yemen, and is at odds with Israel after the downing of an Israeli fighter jet.

Gobadi said: “Export of terrorism and Islamic extremism, including warmongering and meddling in the region, has been a strategic pillar of survival of the regime and a cover for its domestic repression. Syria has been the lynchpin of this policy.”

Protests

The popular people’s protest has featured slogans such as “no to Syria” and “think about us” as the Iranian people call on the mullahs to end their foreign wars and return the money to the public purse.

The protests, which began over a draft budget that slashed subsidies for the poor in favour of additional military spending, have spread to 142 cities and morphed into a protest against everything wrong with the Regime.

The protesters, recognising that the Iranian Regime isn’t listening to their cries, have gone so far as to call for the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, an offence punishable by death in Iran.

So far, at least 50 protesters have been killed in the streets, 8,000 arrested, and 12 have died under torture.

The Iranian Regime, desperate to portray itself as stable and popular, has organised pro-regime demonstrations to retaliate against the people’s protest and in honour of the 39th anniversary of the Iranian Regime, in which paid actors will burn the US flag.

This is nothing new. Iran has been doing this for years in order to make it seem as if the Iranian people are in favour of the Regime and deter the international community from acting. Still, revolution is in the air.

Gobadi made this call for the West to support to the protesters ahead of a meeting in Paris on Friday, in which representatives from 11 European countries will back the protesters.
Gobadi said: “The wall of fear has been cracked, and nothing including arrests, killings and torture can prevent the advancement of the protests to overthrow the regime. The regime’s own officials repeatedly talk about super challenges facing their regime and precarious prospects that loom on the horizon. After 39 years of rule, the clerical regime has never closer than being overthrown by the people than today.”

By Zohair Ahmad

In these days, evidence has surfaced that the Iranian regime is using commercial air flights to transport soldiers from Iran to Syria. This is a breach of the nuclear agreement that Iran signed with US officials, an agreement that gave US aircraft producers license to sell aircraft and spear parts to the Iranian regime but was restricted to apply to commercial traffic only.

Read more ...

Iraq’s Maliki welcomes Hezbollah-negotiated deal with ISIS

Iraqi Vice President and leader of the State of Law coalition Nouri al-Maliki welcomed the recent Hezbollah-negotiated deal with ISIS and said the decision to transfer hundreds of ISIS fighters from Lebanese borders to the Syrian city of Deir az-Zour was the right decision.

The deal has sparked outrage in Iraq with many politicians, including Prime Minister Haidar Abadi, condemning the deal.

Maliki said the deal was part of the battle’s strategy against terrorism, noting that what happens in Deir az-Zour and Abu Kamal are Syrian matters while overlooking that these two areas are adjacent to the Iraqi borders where Iraqi troops are combating terrorism.

Among those slamming the deal is Iraqi Al-Ahrar parliamentary bloc Member of Parliament Awad al-Awadi who said the Syrian government “can go to hell” if Iraqi blood will be shed for its sake.

Awadi, who represents the Sadrist movement, added that no Iraqi will accept to compromise at the expense of the Iraqi people’s blood. In another interview with Al-Hadath television station, Awadi called on the Iraqi government to take stronger stances towards the deal.

Meanwhile, the spokesperson for the alliance of Arab tribes in Ninevah Sheikh Muzahim al-Hawyeet told Al-Hadath that tribes reject the deal, adding that transferring ISIS fighters to areas adjacent to the Iraqi border is a new threat against Sunni governorates.

Hawyeet also said that the alliance between ISIS and Iranian-backed militias has been exposed and called on the international coalition to shell any convoy that attempts to come near Iraqi borders.

Hezbollah militias have allowed ISIS elements to ride buses to get out of Lebanon’s Jroud and go to Deir al-Zour under an agreement involving the Syrian regime amid controversial accusations that Hezbollah is making deals at the expense of the Lebanese army.

In response, Abadi rejected the deal while Parliament Speaker Salim al-Jabouri warned of going back to square one and rejected any deal that may bring ISIS back into Iraq or close to its borders.

In response to the official Iraqi stance, Hezbollah justified the agreement by saying that it stipulates transferring ISIS fighters and their families from Syrian territories to other Syrian territories.

Iraqi media websites warned of the agreement’s repercussions and reported that Iranian intelligence members, upon coordination with Maliki and their envoy Iraj Masjedi, agreed to supply ISIS members with dangerous weapons.

The reports added that Tehran decided to avenge from Sadr after he visited a number of Arab countries.

NEW SANCTIONS ON IRAN, NOW IT'S TIME FOR A NEW US POLICY TOO

By Alireza Jafarzadeh

On the second anniversary of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal, some argue that the agreement succeeded in slowing Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. However, the restrictions on the Iranian nuclear program are only limited, as is the international inspectors’ access to the country’s illicit facilities.In addition, in areas unrelated to the nuclear agreement,

the Iranian regime’s behavior has only gotten worse over the past two years. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has escalated its nefarious activities in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, has deliberately sought out close encounters with American warships, and has boasted of new Iranian military equipment.

Three ways to find the real deals on Amazon

Here’s some trivia for you: Amazon, the largest and most versatile…

 The White House’s efforts to enforce a harder line on Iran policy is well justified and the president’s signing into law of H.R. 3364, which included a title, “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017” is a step in the right direction.

In June, the National Council of Resistance of Iran revealed details of the escalation of the Iranian missile program, proving the nuclear threat to be real. The opposition coalition identified more than 40 sites for missile development, manufacturing, and testing, all of which were under the control of the IRGC. What’s more, at least one of those sites was known to be collaborating with the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its Farsi acronym SPND, the institution tasked with weaponization activities related to the Iranian nuclear weapons program. SPND activities have continued since the JDPOA.

Such revelations clarified what should already be common knowledge: Iran’s nuclear weapons activities have continued. Even worse, myopic focus on the nuclear issues has distracted attention from the Iranian regime’s terrorism sponsorship, regional intervention, and human rights abuses.

If the IRGC continues to acquire more wealth through its large-scale control of the de-sanctioned Iranian economy, combined with continued lack of access to the nuclear sites of SPND, Iran will undoubtedly deliver a nuclear weapon.

To its credit, the US. has taken steps toward addressing the underlying problem of the IRGC’s expanding control over Iranian affairs. Soon after taking office, Mr. Trump urged the administration to review designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. With the new Iran sanctions bill now signed into law, the administration should expand all anti-terror sanctions to the whole of the IRGC, including its affiliate entities and associated financial and economic arms.

This is a meaningful start to a new Iran policy that is comprehensive in its aims and in its enforcement. Toward that end, the US should work with the UN and EU to evict the IRCG from the combat zones in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen. This will help protect the West and its allies, as well as empower the Iranian people, who are seeking regime change and are more than capable of bringing it about on their own.

Without serious sacrifice, Western powers must do their part. The Iranian regime must be more isolated and financially handicapped by the United States. It must also be subject to pressure not just over its nuclear program but also over a range of current and past crimes, including illicit missile testing, escalating regional and sectarian conflicts in the Middle East, and the 1988 massacre of political prisoners. The United States should subject all major human rights violators of the Iranian regime, including dozens involved in the horrific 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners. Many of the perpetrators of this crime currently hold key positions in the Iranian regime.

These pressures will make a profound difference in the future of Iran, if coupled with reaching out to the people of Iran and their organized opposition. They will succeed in diminishing the power and influence of the IRGC; bolster the Iranian people and the prospect of the emergence of a truly democratic Iranian government. 

Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy director of the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is credited with exposing Iranian nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002, triggering International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. He is the author of "The Iran Threat" (Palgrave MacMillan: 2008). His email is Jafarzadeh@ncrius.org , and is on twitter @A_Jafarzadeh.

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.

ANALYSIS: Are sanctions on Iran a sign of shifting US policy?

F. Mahmoudi,

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Al Arabiya English's point-of-view.

The enactment of a comprehensive sanction bill and designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by US lawmakers targeting Tehran’s military and terrorist arm, is a significant signal of shifting US policy in reaction to Iran’s destabilizing role in region. The regime is beginning to realize that the Obama era is over.

This alteration in US policy acts as a catalyst and facilitator of change inside of Iran. However, the main factor and grass roots of change are inside Iran.

This pivot point for a policy change has an accelerating role and is influenced by the ineradicable behavior of the Islamic Republic and on the other hand the will of people’s resistance to achieve in such policy.

Now, the question remains on the Iranian regime’s reaction and choice of direction to the new sanction bill. In such crises, the Iranian regime has a track record of buying time (delaying tactic) and taking one step forward and one step backward, as witnessed in previous nuclear negotiations.

If Obama’s policy of appeasement and concessions was decisive, Tehran would have been forced to step further back from their evil approach. But this did not happen, and the regime was constantly revived through newly provided funds and sanction relief. Instead, Tehran expanded its destabilizing role and terrorist activities in the region.

The adoption of new sanctions so far has put Iran in a shocking stage. If these sanctions are seriously applied and extensively implemented, Tehran will be pinned to make an ultimate decision.

Retreating or challenging

Iran faces widespread and profound social dissatisfaction, parallel to economic insolvency and serious crises. It understands the language of force and lacks the ability to challenge. The most likely option for Tehran is to kill time and continue delaying.

To prevent the regime’s highly cheating skills, the best policy is to enforce and maximize pressure. Tehran is a fundamentalist and rebellious regime without any legitimacy. It is incapable in changing its behavior. According to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, changing the regime’s behavior will ultimately bring the regime down.

Therefore, there will be no transformation or reform from such a regime. The Iranian people are keen towards overthrowing this regime and the comprehensive and extensive sanctions on IRGC is aligned and in support of their will for regime change.

The social conditions in Iran have come to a boiling point and the opposition movement has the potential and an upper hand. The path forward is social rebellions to overthrow this regime.

During the 2009 uprisings Iranians were chanting: “Obama, Obama are you with us or the mullahs?,” as they called in vain for international support.

The policy shift

The Iran policy shift has its effect inside the regime and they have been vocal about it. In this regard the “Resalat daily”, regime’s controlled paper, in its July 31, 2017 issue, pointing to the change in the international affairs towards the Iranian regime states: “Behind the sanctions belies a boycott campaign. There will be an overthrowing in a soft, sophisticated and silent way,” a recent piece in the state outlet Resalat daily reads.

Ahmad Jannati, Chairman of the Guardian Council, also raised deep concerns. “[Khamenei’s] most important concern is the fear of overthrow,” and “the enemy is seeking regime change from within,” he said.

Iran won’t have the same fate as Iraq and Syria since there is an organized democratic and powerful opposition. This alternative is the National Council of Resistance of Iran, a democratic platform which the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) is the main force. On July 1st the NCRI demonstrated its strength and abilities by gathering hundreds of thousand supporters in Paris, all seeking regime change in Iran.

The NCRI demands a boycott in international diplomatic and economic relations and expelling Iranian regime representatives from international assemblies. The IRGC and affiliated proxies must also be evicted from the region.

The appeasement policy

On a side-note, the Iranian regime feeds off its lobbies’ propaganda and advocates promoting yet again the appeasement policy, aimed at justifying and legitimizing beneficial relations with Iran. The regime’s lobby argues the international community should cooperate with Tehran as there is no alternative other than war. This absurd propaganda is promoted while the IRGC has been in war in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.

In same regards, US Secretory of States Rex Tillerson recently insisted on cooperation with Russia to tackle terrorism and end the Syria war.

“Iran’s military influence, the direct presence of Iranian military forces inside of Syria, they must leave and go home, whether those are Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces or whether those are paid militias, foreign fighters that Iran has brought into Syria” he said.

All evidence shows the only path to peace and stability in Iran and the Middle East is to support the NCRI and pressure Tehran through extensive sanctions.

The NCRI issued a statement welcoming the new law imposing sanctions against Iran and the Revolutionary Guards, emphasizing its immediate implementation meticulously without exception.

Furthermore, NCRI President-elect Mrs. Maryam Rajavi underscored these sanctions must be implemented immediately against all individuals and entities involved in executing and torturing the Iranian people, especially those directly involved in the 1988 massacre of over 30,000 political prisoners.

Rajavi also emphasized that the people’s right of resistance for regime change must be recognized. She also views these collective ultimately resulting in stability and peace in the region.

New sanctions show US sides with Iranian people, not the regime

Last week, the “Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act of 2017" received a rare and near unanimous bipartisan vote in Congress. The legislation placed more sanctions on the Iranian regime. It called for extending terrorism-related sanctions on the notorious Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), Iran’s violators of human rights and its missile program, which is increasingly threatening world peace. It was signed into law earlier Wednesday.

This coincided with the second anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal. President Donald Trump has appointed a team in the White House to figure out how to deal with the agreement, but his administration has also correctly pointed out that the broader implications of that deal have by no means been positive.

Critics of the Obama administration’s conciliatory Iran policy understood that when sanctions relief was narrowly focused on the nuclear issue, Iran would be emboldened in other areas. They were right. Today, the regime is escalating its nefarious activities in the region, even carrying out several illicit ballistic missile tests in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In contrast to the dictatorship, the Iranian people are overwhelmingly educated, pro-democracy and seek to live in coexistence with the outside world. Understandably, they have a keen awareness when it comes to the threats presented by the regime.

The opening to the regime by the West was illusory, as President Hassan Rouhani will not oversee a period of "moderation" in Tehran. Western policymakers should take into account the Iranian people when designing Iran policy and look at the organized opposition, which is ready and capable to change the regime from within.

Had any Western executive body wanted the input of progressively-minded Iranians, they could have visited Paris on July 1 to hear from what a speaker described as approximately 100,000 of them at the international gathering for Free Iran.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) President-elect Maryam Rajavi applauded the international community in her speech for beginning to turn away from the conciliatory policies that had been adopted in the run-up to the nuclear agreement. Rajavi urged the U.S. and the rest of the world to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, ousting it from regional conflicts and pursuing human rights charges against Iranian officials who participated in a massacre of 30,000 political prisoners, mainly the activists of the main opposition Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) in 1988.

The recent congressional consensus on Iran addresses many of such demands, i.e., subjecting the IRGC to terrorism-related sanctions, imposing additional missile sanctions and subjecting human rights violators to sanctions. The congressional language needs to be followed up by the administrations to do the following:

First, all the key entities and commanders of the IRGC and its affiliated groups need to be identified and subject to the sanctions under executive order 13224. Second, the IRGC and its affiliates must be expelled from the region, particularly Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Third, the list of rights violators must include all the key elements who ordered, facilitated and carried out the massacre of 1988. Finally, the organized opposition, which has been the main victims of repression, as well as the best hope for change, should be heard and their rights recognized to make a free Iran a reality.

If similar measures had been undertaken when the 2009 uprisings occurred, the show of international support very likely would have bolstered efforts to oust the clerical regime and establish a democracy in line with the secular and democratic principles long advocated by the NCRI.

The Free Iran rally exuded the promise that change in Iran is within reach. Several thousand protest actions have been recorded throughout Iran over the past year, even as the regime’s domestic crackdowns have escalated. The simmering resentment toward the regime is growing ever closer to spilling over into another mass uprising.

When the Trump administration is finished evaluating its post-nuclear deal policy on Iran, it would be a sharp departure from the past if these new realities on the ground are taken into consideration. It is time to recognize the right of the people for a free, non-nuclear and secular republic in Iran. 

Soona Samsami is the representative in the United States for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which seeks the establishment of a democratic, secular and non-nuclear republic in Iran.

Understanding IRGC’s long-term goals in Iraq

ir

By:Hamid Bahrami

“I announce from here the end and failur

e and the collapse of the terrorist state of falsehood and terrorism which the terrorist Da’esh (ISIS) announced from Mosul,” the Iraqi Prime Minister declared on state television recently.

Following a three-year long blitz, Iraqi forces with the support of the international coalition, have now defeated ISIS in Mosul, despite all challenges and sectarian disputes.

But the defeat of ISIS has created a vacuum and there are some hard questions about Shi’ite militias such as the People Mobilization Units (PMU) that must be answered. This is particularly important because the PMU was established because of the sectarian divisions in Iraq.

But what role will the PMU play in the future of Iraq? Who will control and command the PMU? It is a known fact that some Shi’ite militant groups in Iraq – such as the Kata’ib Hezbollah, Badr Organization and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq – are supported by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Thus, it is not surprising that these militias pursue IRGC’s goals and depend on Tehran for their financial and military supplies. It is worth pointing out that a few days ago, the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani, said that the IRGC “had been working around the clock to arm the PMU” after its establishment.

This makes them under command of the IRGC’s Quds Force. Apart from financial affiliation and weapons, these groups have indicated that they believe in and are loyal to the Iranian regime’s ideology of Khomeinism who was the flagbearer of “the path to Quds(Jerusalem) goes through Karbala”.

In 2014, a Reuters report said that “Asaib and Kata’ib Hezbollah, who have sent fighters to Syria to defend Shii’te shrines ... recognize Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei as their spiritual leader.”

Based on the realities on the ground, it is no exaggeration that the regime in Tehran has the last word in Iraq and the IRGC controls some part of the current Iraqi government

Hamid Bahrami

Direct dependence on Tehran

Despite this direct dependence on Tehran, the PMU has been incorporated in Iraq’s armed forces. Muqtada al-Sadr, an influential Shii’te cleric who Lead one of the PMU's groups, expressed his concern with this development in Iraq in an interview and said, “I can see that Iraq will be under the control of militia groups.”

He then demanded that security should be exclusively under the control of Iraqi army. The Iranian regime has long sought to create a safe corridor from Iran to Lebanon. Consequently, the existence of a domestic paramilitary force parallel to the traditional army in Iraq is crucial for the IRGC and Tehran’s plan for future of that country.

Due to the growing demand in the US Congress and the White House contemplating to designate the entire IRGC as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, the Iranian authorities, need a heavily-armed paramilitary force, such as the PMU, to keep the corridor safe and to achieve their goals in Iraq.

This is because the successful terror designation of the IRGC will limit the Iraqi government’s ability to cooperate and provide facilities to the Iranian regime. Hence at this stage after the defeat of ISIS, it is only the regime in Tehran who will profit and rip the benefits of the PMU’s existence.

In addition, the existence of a parallel paramilitary force with an extreme Shi’ite ideology will undermine the country’s constitution, as this militia will follow the politicians who support it rather than the country’s constitution or the government.

Replicating Hezbollah

In this case, the Iranian regime is trying to replicate its creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon and strives to establish a similarly trustworthy paramilitary force in Iraq in order to take control and dominate the Iraqi politics in favor of its agenda.

It is true that there are disagreements among the militia groups, which form the PMU about the destructive and destabilizing actions of the IRGC. But the Iranian regime will try to bribe or eliminate any influential clerics or opposition, if this proves to be necessary.

Another reason for the Iranian regime increasing its intervention in Iraq today is the upcoming Iraqi elections. If the Islamic Dawa Party with the former Iranian-backed PM, Nouri al-Maliki, loses that elections to some other politicians like the progressive Shi’ite voice Ayad Allawi, the IRGC’s corridor will be threatened.

Unchallenged, the commander of IRGC’s Quds Force, Qasem Soleimani will use the PMU to tilt the upcoming elections in Iraq to Tehran’s favor and secure the outcome that the regime in Iran prefers.

The solution

So, what is the solution to prevent a new sectarian war in Iraq? As long as the Iranian regime and its proxies are allowed to continue their destructive role in Iraq, Iraqi people will never see peace.

Based on the realities on the ground, it is no exaggeration that the regime in Tehran has the last word in Iraq and the IRGC controls some part of the current Iraqi government.

However, the Iraqi government must now dissolve and dismantle the PMU, effectively, cutting off IRGC’s hand in Iraq. This is particularly important following the defeat of ISIS in Iraq.

It also needs to reconstruct the Iraqi army based on national interests and to run an independent foreign policy. The West and the Arab countries should push the Iraqi government towards this direction otherwise Iraq will be offered to the regime in Tehran in a silver plate.
______________________
Freelance journalist Hamid Bahrami has served as political prisoner in Iran. He is a human rights and political activist living in Glasgow, Scotland. His works covers Iran’s destructive actions in the Middle East and social crackdown in Iran. He tweets at @HaBahrami & blogs at analyzecom.

Iran ripe for regime change two years after nuclear deal

BY:IVAN SASCHA SHEEHAN

The Iran nuclear agreement — officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — has been in effect for a year and a half, during which time the world has been able to assess the impact of its formal implementation. But it has now had two full years to consider the effects of its negotiation, which concluded on July 14, 2015.

The negotiations themselves were promoted by then-U.S. President Barack Obama and his surrogates as a means of creating a new diplomatic status quo between Iran and the West. It was hoped that following the 2013 election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Tehran would moderate its behavior by demonstrating cooperation with former adversaries.

But internal moderation of the Iranian regime has proven elusive, and Tehran has shown no aptitude to reform from within.

The result? Western powers have learned the same lesson from the Rouhani administration that they learned from Mohammad Khatami, Ali Akbar Rafsanjani, and other Iranian officials similarly labeled as reformers worthy of outreach. Moderation is a mirage Tehran uses to seduce their prey.

Executions have skyrocketed under Rouhani's watch, with his administration overseeing an alarming 3,000 hangings during its first four-year term. Analysts expect the human rights violations to continue as the president commences a second term next month.

Rouhani's tenure is also distinguished by a dangerous continuation of ballistic missile research, development and testing (including evidence of cooperation with North Korea) and a repressive crackdown by the country’s security forces on activists, artists, academics, journalists and anyone accused of having ties to the West. These unfortunate trends have shown no signs of abatement on the second anniversary of the landmark agreement that granted far-reaching concessions in return for constructive engagement.

Neither has Tehran’s regional behavior demonstrated signs of improvement with the regime serving as a driving force behind sectarian conflict and an active participant in the Syrian and Yemeni civil wars.

As Western powers commemorate the two-year anniversary of the nuclear negotiations, a comprehensive Iran policy that addresses the joint plan’s shortcomings is needed. The U.S. must take the lead — as it did when nuclear negotiations began — but this time it must lead the world in confronting Iran over the nature of its repressive, fundamentalist regime by building a global coalition that supports regime change from within.

To its credit, the Trump administration has taken steps in this direction by increasing sanctions on the country’s ballistic missile program and pursuing the blacklisting of Iran’s hardline paramilitary organization, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But the Trump administration's willingness to confront Tehran would benefit from clear, overarching policy that more fully embraces the regime’s collapse and replacement.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s strong statement before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was a first step in this direction: “Our policy towards Iran is to push back on (its regional) hegemony, contain their ability to develop, obviously, nuclear weapons and to work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government.”

Now Tillerson's rhetoric needs to be backed with clear statements by U.S. officials — including the President himself — that the false narrative of internal moderation has expired and the aspirations of the Iranian people for regime change are within reach.

It is widely believed that the sanctions and diplomatic pressure employed by the White House and Congress are intended to serve the goal of regime change. If so, this needs to be made clear so that interested parties can coordinate their strategies and address questions about the availability of the “elements inside of Iran” that Tillerson referred to.

The regime’s lobby in Washington would have U.S. officials believe no such elements exist, at least none with adequate organization and resources to oust the clerical regime and replace it with a democratic system of government. Such mischaracterizations are as inaccurate as they are well funded.

The accusations were addressed earlier this month when Tehran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, along with the main Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran, held its annual international gathering for democratic change in Paris. The gathering included tens of thousands of Iranian expatriates and hundreds of politicians and foreign policy experts from around the world who embraced regime change by the Iranian resistance.

In her speech at the event, NCRI President Maryam Rajavi praised the international community for rejecting the failed strategy of “appeasement” that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action represents and affirmed her movement’s commitment to the replacement of Iran's religious dictatorship, characterizing it as an absolute imperative and “the ultimate solution to the crises in the region.”

Rajavi noted what Iran scholars have long known: 1) Tehran’s vulnerability, domestic unpopularity and international isolation puts its overthrow within reach; 2) this can be achieved by the organized, democratic resistance that exists in the country and is led on the world stage by the NCRI.

The White House can mark the second anniversary of the negotiations that resulted in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by turning the page on the failed Obama policy of capitulation in the interest of concessions and supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people for democratic change. By working with the Iranian opposition to realize regime change in Tehran, U.S. officials send a signal that they are preparing for the regime’s collapse and democratic transition and put Iran on notice that a new Iran policy has been embraced.

Sheehan is director of the graduate programs in Global Affairs & Human Security and Negotiations & Conflict Management in the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Baltimore. Follow him on Twitter @ProfSheehan.

ANALYSIS: Is it time for the US and Saudi Arabia to combine efforts on Iran?

By Heshmat Alavi, Special to Al Arabiya EnglishMonday, 10 July 2017

Text size A A A

The new administration in Washington has chosen to stand alongside its Arab allies to voice a clear message. This is how this message reads: The regime in Iran is domestically repressive and resorts to flagrant human rights violations, and expansionist outside of its borders, wreaking havoc across the Middle East and beyond.

To take the next needed step, an all-out strategy is necessary to rein in Tehran and confront its belligerence inside the country and beyond.

Far too long the international community has failed to recognize the fact that the regime in Iran is controlled by aggressive fanatics that will literally stop at nothing to seek their interests, while knowing their internal status is extremely fragile.

Important lessons

While it is high time for the United States to lead the West and Saudi Arabia to lead the Arab world in this initiative, there is no need to launch yet another devastating war in the Middle East. The past 16 years have taught us many important lessons:

- The war in Afghanistan toppled the rule of Taliban and the al-Qaeda safe haven, and yet the lack of a legitimate post-war strategy allowed Iran take complete advantage of this void.

- The invasion of Iraq was unnecessary and again played into the hands of Tehran’s regime, providing it the opportunity to spread its devious mentality of fundamentalism, sectarian extremism and terrorism.

- The Arab Spring has reiterated to us that without an alternative opposition, no regime change will render any positive outcome. The current state of Libya is an unfortunate reminder.

- Most important of all, the international community is coming to understand that a policy of engagement and appeasement vis-à-vis the regime in Iran will only further fuel instability. Take the cases of Syria and Yemen, for example, where Iran has allocated enormous manpower and financial/logistical resources to create the mayhem it thrives on.