US Alliance for Democratic Iran

Commentary

WikiLeaks boosts Iran influence in Iraq
U.N. requires U.S. protection for Camp Ashraf refugees

Friday, November 5, 2010
By Lord David Alton

Four days before WikiLeaks revealed 400,000 documents of war crimes and egregious human rights abuses in Iraq, the country's power-hungry Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made a one-day trip to Tehran to meet with another power-hungry leader, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - fitting bedfellows. Both are deeply loathed at home, with little or no support; both are leaders of regimes that preside over killing, torture and rape of their fellow citizens. One day, those responsible for these crimes deserve to be arraigned before the International Criminal Court.

This sinister meeting of minds had one objective: bolstering the ebbing status of Mr. al-Maliki in Iraq and his unlawful power grab of the premiership. Such an outcome would, of course, benefit Ayatollah Khamenei and his ruling clique because the continued reign of Mr. al-Maliki ensures Tehran's continuing domination of Iraq.

On his return to Baghdad, however, Mr. al-Maliki unexpectedly found himself faced with the leaked reports, which detailed his abuse of power as well as Iran's direct assistance to his death squads in Iraq. The documents have disclosed the type of crimes that could not have been committed without the full knowledge of the highest authorities in Iraq. They refer to special forces in the prime minister's office, which acted and perpetrated atrocities under the direct orders of the prime minister. No wonder that Mr. al-Maliki called WikiLeaks' revelations a plot to undermine his bid to stay in power.

For their part, these revelations and the prime minister's role came as no great surprise. The real surprise was the United States' knowledge of these events and its lack of action to stop them. The sentiment was shared by the international community. Amnesty International expressed concern that the U.S. authorities committed a serious breach of international law when they summarily handed over thousands of detainees to Iraqi security forces who, they knew, were continuing to torture and abuse detainees on a truly shocking scale... Read More

Commentary

Leaked Reports Detail Iran’s Aid for Iraqi Militias
The New York Times
October 23, 2010

On Dec. 22, 2006, American military officials in Baghdad issued a secret warning: The Shiite militia commander who had orchestrated the kidnapping of officials from Iraq’s Ministry of Higher Education was now hatching plans to take American soldiers hostage.

What made the warning especially worrying were intelligence reports saying that the Iraqi militant, Azhar al-Dulaimi, had been trained by the Middle East’s masters of the dark arts of paramilitary operations: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanese ally.

“Dulaymi reportedly obtained his training from Hizballah operatives near Qum, Iran, who were under the supervision of Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force (IRGC-QF) officers in July 2006,” the report noted, using alternative spellings of the principals involved. Read the Document »

Five months later, Mr. Dulaimi was tracked down and killed in an American raid in the sprawling Shiite enclave of Sadr City in Baghdad — but not before four American soldiers had been abducted from an Iraqi headquarters in Karbala and executed in an operation that American military officials say literally bore Mr. Dulaimi’s fingerprints.

Scores of documents made public by WikiLeaks, which has disclosed classified information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, provide a ground-level look — at least as seen by American units in the field and the United States’ military intelligence — at the shadow war between the United States and Iraqi militias backed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, critics charged that the White House had exaggerated Iran’s role to deflect criticism of its handling of the war and build support for a tough policy toward Iran, including the possibility of military action.

But the field reports disclosed by WikiLeaks, which were never intended to be made public, underscore the seriousness with which Iran’s role has been seen by the American military. The political struggle between the United States and Iran to influence events in Iraq still continues as Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has sought to assemble a coalition — that would include the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr — that will allow him to remain in power. But much of the American’s military concern has revolved around Iran’s role in arming and assisting Shiite militias.

Citing the testimony of detainees, a captured militant’s diary and numerous uncovered weapons caches, among other intelligence, the field reports recount Iran’s role in providing Iraqi militia fighters with rockets, magnetic bombs that can be attached to the underside of cars, “explosively formed penetrators,” or E.F.P.’s, which are the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq, and other weapons. Those include powerful .50-caliber rifles and the Misagh-1, an Iranian replica of a portable Chinese surface-to-air missile, which, according to the reports, was fired at American helicopters and downed one in east Baghdad in July 2007.

Iraqi militants went to Iran to be trained as snipers and in the use of explosives, the field reports assert, and Iran’s Quds Force collaborated with Iraqi extremists to encourage the assassination of Iraqi officials.

The reports make it clear that the lethal contest between Iranian-backed militias and American forces continued after President Obama sought to open a diplomatic dialogue with Iran’s leaders and reaffirmed the agreement between the United States and Iraq to withdraw American troops from Iraq by the end of 2011... More

Commentary

After currency crash, more worries for Iranian economy
The Washington Post
October 6, 2010

TEHRAN - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's government, already faced with growing opposition from competing political forces within Iran, is confronting new pressure brought on by severe economic problems, including some triggered by international sanctions.

The sanctions, intended to push the country to abandon its nuclear program, are not yet crippling the Islamic Republic, economists and analysts say. But they are causing prices to rise and making it increasingly difficult for Iranian companies to work internationally.

U.S. officials have noted recently that the sanctions are having an impact, and also acknowledged the confluence of challenges. "This all comes at a time when Iran is especially vulnerable because of its government's economic mismanagement and narrowed political flexibility," Stuart Levey, a senior U.S. Treasury official, said in a Sept. 20 speech.

"We are already receiving reports that the regime is quite worried about the impact of these measures, especially on their banking system and on the prospects for economic growth," Levey said. "And, as pressure increases, so has internal criticism of Ahmadinejad and others for failing to prepare adequately for international sanctions and for underestimating their effect."

The sanctions are taking hold as Iran prepares to implement a major overhaul of how its state subsidies are distributed, giving direct payments to the poor while allowing prices of basic commodities such a bread, electricity and gasoline to rise by large percentages.

The confluence of the sanctions, concerns over the subsidy redistribution and possible budgetary problems have made the Iranian economy extremely fragile, as was apparent Sept. 25, when Iran's currency, the rial, took a deep dive.

Following fresh financial sanctions from the United Arab Emirates, the Islamic Republic's Central Bank did not intervene as the rial - stable for over a decade - plummeted by 15 percent, leaving traders and importers with evaporating bank accounts... More

Commentary

An Iranian Ransom
Tehran uses hostages as bargaining chips in its diplomacy
The Wall Street Journal (Editorial)
September 20, 2010

For most Americans, the Iranian hostage crisis that began in 1979 and carried on for 444 days ended the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated. For the families of Shane Bauer, Josh Fattal and even Sarah Shourd, who on Tuesday was released from Iran on a $500,000 bail, that nightmare is far from over.

The three young Americans were taken prisoner by Iran more than a year ago when they apparently strayed over the Iranian border while backpacking in Iraqi Kurdistan. As with other foreigners who have come into the clutches of Iran's security ministries—American reporter Roxana Saberi or French academic Clotilde Reiss—the three were charged with espionage, which potentially carries a death sentence.

Iran uses hostages as bargaining chips in its diplomacy, either to humiliate its enemies—as it did with the British sailors it captured in 2007—or to extract concessions from them. The regime reportedly has demanded the release of 11 Iranians it claims are being held in the West, including a former general in the Revolutionary Guards who is believed to have defected in 2006.

For Mr. Fattal and Mr. Bauer, that means their ordeal is likely far from over. Ms. Shourd may also remain on the hook, too, as the regime could require that she return to "testify" should her two friends be put on trial. This may seem a relatively small cruelty, given the way the regime treats its own people. But it's another reminder of the menace it poses to any person, or nation, that wanders into its traps.

Commentary

Obama's briefing on Iran: It's about pressure, not diplomacy
By Robert Kagan
The Washington Post

Friday, August 6, 2010

The White House called in a small group of journalists this week to listen to President Obama and his top advisers give a briefing on the state of the sanctions regime against Iran. Others at the meeting have described it as "unusual," but I don't know why. Its purpose couldn't have been clearer: The president and his team wanted to take some credit for all the difficult months of diplomacy that led to the passage of the U.N. sanctions resolution in June, especially the persistent cajoling of Russia and China. They also wanted to show just how tough the new sanctions are, especially with the European Union piling on in unprecedented fashion after the resolution passed. Without making any absurd predictions about the likelihood that the regime would now be persuaded to give up its quest for a nuclear bomb, they argued that the new sanctions would at least cause the regime significant pain.

What was striking was the president's sobriety about the issue, his evident pride in the global diplomatic efforts that produced the latest resolution and his determination to pressure the Tehran regime as much as possible. It was clear that he had no illusions about Iran. When he talked about his "engagement" strategy of the first year, it was not with wistful laments of what might have been or hope about future Iranian willingness to take up the offer to talk seriously about its nuclear program. Rather, Obama described it as a successful tactic in the effort to isolate and put pressure on the regime. By revealing to the world just how unserious the rulers in Tehran were about talks, by proving beyond a doubt that if there was an impasse in the U.S.-Iran relationship, the problem was not in Washington, he had set the stage for Iran's international isolation.

The president also expressed his belief that the sanctions are already starting to pinch the regime. What was interesting, however, was that he did not take this as a sign that there might now be a new opportunity for diplomacy. He and his advisers disparaged recent Iranian mumblings about resuming talks with the "P5-plus-1" (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany) as nothing new. And they displayed no eagerness to press for renewed talks or to make new dramatic gestures. The president went out of his way to note that the Iranians are masters of delay and deception. He explained in some detail why the deal Turkey and Brazil struck with Tehran was a nonstarter. He repeatedly acknowledged that the regime may be so "ideologically" committed to getting a bomb that no amount of pain would make a difference. He did make clear that the door was, of course, open to the Iranians to change their minds, that sanctions did not preclude diplomacy and engagement, and that if the Iranians ever decide they wanted to "behave responsibly" by complying with the demands of the international community, then the United States was prepared to welcome them.

It is here that this very straightforward briefing took a bizarre and amusing turn. Some of the journalists present, upon hearing the president's last point about the door still being open to Iran, decided that he was signaling a brand-new diplomatic initiative. They started peppering Obama with questions to ferret out exactly what "new" diplomatic actions he was talking about and, after the president left, they continued probing the senior officials. This put the officials in an awkward position: They didn't want to say flat out that the administration was not pursuing a new diplomatic initiative because this might suggest that the administration was not interested in diplomacy at all. But they made perfectly clear -- in a half-dozen artful formulations -- that, no, there was no new diplomatic initiative in the offing. As one bemused senior official later remarked to me, if the point of the briefing had been diplomacy, then the administration would have brought its top negotiators to the meeting, instead of all the people in charge of putting the squeeze on Iran. Some journalists nevertheless left with the impression that the big "news" out of their meeting with the president was a possible new round of diplomacy.

I left feeling sympathy for this and every administration. Apparently, even spoon-feeding doesn't work. The "news" out of this briefing was that the administration wanted everyone to know how tough it was being on Iran. I was especially struck by the remarks of a senior official, who pointed out that one effect of Iran's growing economic difficulties has been strikes in the bazaars. The student and opposition demonstrations of the past year have been political, but these protests are about economics. If the two ever join, this official suggested, that would pose a real threat to the regime. An interesting point -- though not to the assembled journalists.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post.

Commentary

PMOI vs. US Secretary of State: A Victory for Civil Rights
By Allan Gerson, Lawyer and former Counsel to the US Delegation to the United Nations
The Huffington Post
July 19, 2010

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington ruled that the U.S. State Department cannot arbitrarily designate the People's Mujahadin Organization of Iran (PMOI) as a foreign terrorist organization, thus imposing criminal penalties on any American citizen who offers so much as a nickel to the group.

The State Department had since 1997 -- with little or no explanation- repeatedly re-designated the PMOI as a foreign terrorist organization. In doing so, it ignored the organization's assertions that it had long since abandoned any commitment to violence, and -- as it had made clear -- that its militant actions of the past had been directed against the mullahs of Iran, not American citizens.

The court found the State Department could not arbitrarily invoke the need for diplomatic flexibility to deny the PMOI, or any similarly charged group, with the basic due process protection of ensuring that the findings against it were based on a principled and reasoned assessment of evidence.

The decision represents a victory for all Americans opposed to the perversion of legitimate national security interests by giving the State Department unfettered discretion to determine who deserves to be labeled as a terrorist entity... Read More

Commentary

Iran: Dialogue, Divest, Delist
By David Johnson of the US Alliance for Democratic Iran
The Global Politician
July 18, 2010

Earlier this month, Iran was slapped with a new round of United Nations Security Council sanctions for its nuclear noncompliance. Offers of meaningful dialogue and sanctions by the United States have slowed Iran’s sprint toward nuclear weapons capability. Unfortunately, sanctions have not been effective compelling Iranian nuclear compliance. Still, sanctions are an effective approach to coordinate the international community to achieve consensus and act effectively, at some point in the future. It is becoming increasingly evident that offers of dialogue should be directed toward Iran’s democratic opposition.

In addition to sanctions, the international community would be wise to accelerate voluntary divestment from Iranian business ventures. It is equally prudent for the Obama Administration to remove Iran’s principle democratic opposition from the Department of State’s list of foreign terrorist organizations (FTO). Western financial investment and suppressing opponents, both used invariably as incentives to encourage Iranian compliance, have instead encouraged Tehran’s nuclear noncompliance... Read More

Commentary

Iran's Medieval Justice System
By ILAN BERMAN

The Wall Street Journal

July 16, 2010

For years now, Sakineh Ashtiani has been incarcerated in an Iranian prison, sentenced to death by stoning for the "crime" of adultery. Until earlier this month, the case of the 43-year-old mother of two was known only to the select few who have been following her sad fate at the hands of the Islamic Republic. Today, however, her name has become a rallying cry to end the mullahs' suppression of human—and particularly women's—rights.

A widow living in the northern Iranian city of Tabriz, Mrs. Ashtiani was jailed in 2005 for adultery. She was convicted the following year of having "illicit relationships" with two men following the death of her husband, and received 100 lashes, the punishment Islam stipulates for sexual relations outside of marriage. Mrs. Ashtiani's ordeal did not end there. Her case was reopened in 2007, and new, graver charges of adultery while in wedlock were added. She was convicted once again, and this time sentenced to death by public stoning.

Instituted in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic revolution, the medieval practice entails the partial burial of offenders and their subsequent death at the hands of bystanders hurling rocks. Accurate statistics are nearly impossible to come by, but human rights activists estimate that between 1979 and 1997 an average of 10 people were killed annually in this way by the regime. In 2002, the Iranian judiciary proposed a formal moratorium on the punishment, but it continues to be meted out at the discretion of individual judges. Currently, eight men and three women—including Mrs. Ashtiani—are said to be awaiting the gruesome penalty.

Only a growing outcry from international human rights groups and foreign leaders prompted the Iranian government over the weekend to stay Mrs. Ashtiani's execution, which was scheduled for later this month. At least for the moment, her case has been placed "under review" on humanitarian grounds.... Read More

Commentary

Brazil's outreach to Iran ignores brutal repression
The Washington Post (Editorial)

Saturday, May 15, 2010

LAST SUNDAY, Iran hanged five Kurdish dissidents, including a 28-year-old woman, who said they had been tortured into confessing to charges of terrorism. On Monday it announced that the Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, who covered last year's fraudulent presidential election for Newsweek, had been sentenced in absentia to 74 lashes and 13 years in prison. This is probably just the beginning of a brutal wave of repression aimed at preventing the opposition Green Movement from rallying as next month's anniversary of the election approaches.

But on Saturday, Brazilian President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva will arrive in Tehran in yet another effort to "engage" the extremist clique of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Lula and Turkish President Abdullah Gul claim to be making a last effort to broker a deal with the regime that will avert another round of U.N. sanctions over its nuclear program. No one outside their own governments thinks they will succeed. And will Mr. Lula even bother to mention the blood spilled by his hosts this week? Don't hold your breath... Read More

Commentary

Iran hangs a little fish

The Washington Times (Editorial)

May 11, 2010

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... Read More

USADI Commentary

Tehran’s Interference with Iraq’s Elections
Commentary by the US Alliance for Democratic Iran

March 2, 2010

This Sunday when general elections are held in Iraq, we will witness if Tehran has been successful to turn years of its covert and overt political, security, and financial meddling into political gains for its Iraqi surrogates.

We will also see how successful the Iraqis of Shiite and Sunni backgrounds will be in thwarting Tehran’s plan by electing non-sectarian and independent Iraqis to the Parliament to form the next government.

Iran rulers have tremendous amount of experience in exploiting democratic processes such as elections to advance their anti-democratic agenda. After all, this is what they have practiced for three decades in Iran. In Iraq, they are putting their know-how in practice so that the next Iraqi government would be even more Tehran-leaning than what it is now. They channel Iran’s oil money – at the expense of further economic hardship for Iranians – through the Quds Force into Iraq to buy candidates and votes.

When this ploy meets the innate Iraqis’ proud sense of nationalism, the clerical regime puts the Quds Forces and its Iraqi operatives to work to bomb, assassinate, and fuel the sectarian strife.

The admirable tenacity and resilience of Iraqi people and their deep sense of nationalism is indeed the most vital element in blocking Iran’s westwards destabilizing advance. This explains why, immediately after the 2003 war, Tehran began targeting Iraqi nationalism and assassinating Iraqi nationalist in the military, security, and political spheres by its proxies.

The secular and nationalist Iraqis must be helped and empowered in their defining struggle to save Iraq from the expansionist and domineering designs of Iran rulers. The post-election period - and until the governing coalition is formed - would expectedly be turbulent and unstable. During this period and in the remaining days until the Sunday elections, Washington needs to be fully prepared to frustrate Iran’s political and intelligence blitz and covert actions.

An Iraqi tribal leader recently told the TIME magazine that once the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, “Iran will take us.” Countless Iraqi and American lives have been sacrificed for a professed democratic and independent Iraq. It would be a travesty to let Tehran hijack Iraq and turn the whole region upside down. (USADI)

USADI Commentary

Tough Sanctions Would Help Democracy Movement in Iran

Commentary by the US Alliance for Democratic Iran

February 9, 2010

As talks of imposing new international sanctions on Iran’s regime continue in Washington, there are critics who contend sanctions would have no decisive impact on Tehran’s behavior and, even worse, they would cause the anti-government opposition to rally around the leadership.

These critics – many of whom ardent advocates of diplomatic and economic engagement with Iran’s rulers - also maintain that sanctions would hurt the citizens more than the government and consequently would shift people’s resentment toward the west.

Ironically, for years the critics of Iran sanctions had argued that: the regime is popular and well-entrenched and sanctions would only further provoke the already belligerent rulers. Therefore there should be no sanctions. Since beginning of the anti-regime uprisings last June and with appearance of deep fissures within the apex of the leadership in Tehran, some of these critics have changed their mind. Still others have remained opposed to sanctions. They have done so by adjusting their justification according to the post-election headlines from Iran. They mind-bogglingly maintain that: imposing sanctions would be tantamount to throwing a life line to the weakened ayatollahs.

It seems that regardless of the political balance of power in Iran, the sanction critics always concoct a superficially plausible storyline to debunk it. Should it come as a surprise that many of these critics have ties with certain financial interests seeking or already having a foothold in Iran?

Notwithstanding the murky motives of some critics, and from a political standpoint alone, their fairytale-like rational flies in the face of realities in Iran's streets and roof tops. After three decades of mullahs' reign of terror and plunder, and eight months of cold-blooded murder, torture, whole scale arrest, and gang-raping of male and female protesters, the divide between people and the clerical regime is far too wide and irreparable for the movement’s U-turn. The courageous determination of people to continue with their uprising in the face of officially sanctioned savagery clearly demonstrate they are done with this regime and seek its fall.

Under this circumstance, crippling sanctions, particularly those targeting the ayatollahs’ system of suppression and those aimed at isolating it diplomatically and politically, will be indeed welcomed by the democratic opposition. There won’t be any rallying around the regime. There would be only praise for policy of siding with the Iranians.

As for the possible hardships caused by the sanctions, one should keep in mind that already the Iranian people are dealing with very sever economic hardships thanks to the corrupt rule of ayatollahs. Since 1979, they have used Iran's national wealth to create a horrific security and intelligence system used to suppress Iranians, to sponsor terrorism in its neighborhood and across the Middle east, and to develop weapons of mass destruction and nuclear bombs.

Under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency, these policies and their subsequent financial impact on the ordinary citizens have only intensified. Therefore, it would be quite illogical to contend that any perceived hardship resulting from sanctions would qualitatively change the existing political alignments in Iran to the benefit of the regime. Besides, the historical facts from the 1906 Constitutional Movement, the 1953 nationalization movement, and the 1979 anti-monarchic revolution clearly indicate that Iranians have been willing to endure various kinds of hardship when it was viewed as a necessary price for securing their freedom and independence.

Let’s make no mistake: Sanctions by themselves, even the toughest ones, will not be enough to dissuade Tehran from it rogue behavior and nuclear weapons development. They would, however, go a long way to economically and politically undermine a murderous regime which is now faced with its arch nemesis at home: a national pro-democracy opposition movement which seeks regime change. This is why an effective economic, diplomatic, and political sanction regime, far from being a life line for the ayatollahs, is a strategic enabler for the democratic movement. (USADI)