Trump and Rouhani each highlight the need for change in Iran, in very different ways

Trump and Rouhani each highlight the need for change in Iran, in very different ways

President Donald Trump addresses the 72nd United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S., September 19, 2017

By Alireza Jafarzadeh 

Fox News, SEP. 21, 2017--  On September 19 and 20, the United Nations General Assembly hosted two competing speeches, one of which could have a dramatic impact on global policy-making and the future of the Middle East.

President Donald Trump expressed a predictably firm policy in respect to the Iranian regime, especially toward the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the nuclear deal. The following day, Iranian regime President Hassan Rouhani responded by dismissing the White House’s antagonism toward the deal, effectively ignoring the U.S. president’s other criticisms of the theocracy.

   Protestors outside the UN oppose the Iranian regime's role in the bitter Syrian war and support of dictatorial President Bashar al-Assad.

Rouhani’s inability to acknowledge the validity of those criticisms is further evidence that the much hoped for “moderation” of the Iranian regime is a fantasy perpetuated by naïve Western policymakers who have been more concerned with prospective business deals then long-term regional stability and the core values of human rights. Trump’s speech, in turn, was indicative of emerging prospects for new policies toward the regime, which may finally address Iran’s malign activities and human rights abuses, and exert pressure for serious, even transformative change.

Although the JCPOA remained a major focus in Iran-related comments in President Trump’s speech at the UN, he also made notable connections between the agreement and such issues as Tehran’s longstanding support of terrorism and its victimization of the Iranian people.

In speaking of these wrongdoings, Trump acknowledged, “rather than use its [Tehran’s] resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.”

 

   President Donald Trump addresses the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017

Rouhani’s actions throughout his first term and during the very beginning of his second have only fueled activism among the pro-democracy Iranians and the Iranian expatriate community. This crucial trend is one that Mr. Trump discussed during his UN speech, declaring, “the entire world understands that the good people of Iran want Change,” and adding “Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most.”

Such fear was evident from what was said – and more to the point, what was left unsaid – in Rouhani’s speech. Citing Trump’s description of Iran’s behavior in matters other than the nuclear agreement, Rouhani simply rejected what he called “baseless allegations” and moved on from the topic, while thousands of Iranians rallied across from the UN in rejection of the entire clerical regime and in favor of a free Iran.

This sort of denial and dismissal follows the pattern exhibited by Iran’s ruling clerics, who tried for many years to cover up the largest crime against humanity since World War II. In the summer of 1988, the Iranian regime subjected virtually all of its political prisoners to minutes-long trials intended to determine whether they still harbored opposition to the theocratic system. Those who failed to pass the loyalty test were executed, and most were buried in secret mass graves. In a matter of months, as many as 30,000 people were killed because of their political beliefs, and this incident set the tone for the regime’s handling of dissent through the present day. Even to date, some of the key players in the massacre have been prominent members of Hassan Rouhani’s cabinet.

 

   President Donald Trump speaks during the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017

Noting that “oppressive regimes cannot endure forever,” the American president predicted that the Iranian people would soon face an opportunity to take back their nation from the theocrats.

In a statement following President Trump’s speech, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) President-elect, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, welcomed his remarks as they effectively echoed the desire of the Iranian people for regime change, which the Iranian opposition has been working toward for the past 36 years. She urged a series of practical measures, including unhindered and intrusive inspection of military and non-military sites in Iran and the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the 1988 massacre of political prisoners in Iran.

The need for such change is highlighted by Rouhani’s speech as much as it is by Trump’s, insofar as Rouhani’s position demonstrates once again that the problems of repression and neglect in Iran will not be addressed by the existing regime. They must instead be addressed by the pro-democratic voices inside the country and their allies around the world.

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'

IRAN RESISTANCE SHOWS REGIME HOW TO HOLD A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION

By INU Staff

INU - The democratic elections held by the Iranian Resistance show that there is indeed an alternative to the repressive, totally rule of the mullahs, according to one political scientist.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh wrote an op-ed for Arab News, entitled Iran’s opposition shows how to run an election, in which he dismissed claims by the Iranian Regime and their apologists that the mullahs are the only option for governing Iran.

He wrote: “Proponents of the Iranian government argue that there exist no better alternatives to the political establishment of the ruling clerics. The reality is, though, that there are indeed alternative establishments — ones that are organized and democratic. As Iran finds itself engulfed in domestic and external turmoil, the opposition-in-exile has shown that it enjoys a tremendous amount of prowess and cohesion, and upholds democracy and democratic values.”

On Wednesday September 6, the principal Iranian opposition movement, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), held its 52nd-anniversary congress and elected Zahra Merrikhi as the new secretary general.

This election took place across six countries due to the displacement of its supporters, including Albania, where many MEK members are living, having escaped exile in Iraq. It involved three separate elections; one which whittled down the candidates from 12 to four, one which whittled down the candidates from four to just Merrikhi, and one final election in which everyone was given the choice to vote yes or no on Merrikhi. She was unanimously elected.

Rafizadeh wrote: “The democratic approach adopted by the opposition in this election process is in stark contrast to the one imposed on its compatriots by the regime ruling Iran for the past four decades. It also undercuts the oft-repeated, regime inspired characterization that the opposition has an authoritarian structure.”

He continued: “If we were to take the Iranian regime’s presidential [so-called] election into consideration, we would view a selection by an unelected few, far from anything resembling an election in the 21st century. Iran’s so-called presidential elections, which [bans] all women, is a procedure in which all candidates are vetted by 12 ultraconservative clerics and so-called legal experts, named the Guardian Council, who are directly and indirectly appointed by the Supreme Leader. All candidates are evaluated for their utter devotion and obedience to the clerical regime and Supreme Leader.”

Merrikhi’s election has added fuel to fire of regime change in Iran, with the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) Maryam Rajavi saying that this signals that change in Iran will come soon and Merrikhi saying that the MEK is prepared to overthrow the mullahs’ Regime with the help of the Iranian people.

The Iranian Regime, in direct contrast to the Resistance, is unpopular amongst its own people, fighting amongst themselves for the last remaining scraps of power, and will soon be condemned to the trash heap of history.

Rafizadeh wrote: “The critical time has come to robustly support other Iranian democratic establishments, which oppose Iran’s ruling clerics, the IRGC, its sectarian agenda and Tehran’s hegemonic ambitions. Standing with Iran’s opposition would be a strong blow to Iran’s leaders, who fear the soft power of the opposition more than the hard power of foreign nations.”

House votes to block aircraft sales to Iran

The House adopted measures on Wednesday to prevent sales of commercial aircraft to Iran, despite warnings from some Democrats that it would undermine the international accord to curtail the country’s nuclear weapons program.

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) offered two amendments to a 2018 government spending package that would specifically prohibit the use of funds to authorize financial transactions for the sales and prevent the Office of Foreign Assets Control from clearing licenses to allow aircraft sales.

Roskam said that the U.S. should refrain from selling the aircraft to Iran given the country’s history of using commercial aircraft to transport resources, like weapons and troops, to support President Bashar Assad in Syria.

“Until Iran ceases using commercial aircraft to support terrorists and war criminals, western companies ought not be allowed to sell Iranian airliners more aircraft that they can use to fuel Assad’s brutal war,” Roskam said during House floor debate.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) warned that blocking the sales would result in “penalizing American companies for no good purpose” and threaten the nuclear deal with Iran.

“I think being able to maintain our commitments under the agreement with the [Iran nuclear deal] is important. That Iranian nuclear agreement has held and is one of the few bright spots in that region,” Blumenauer said.

Both of Roskam’s amendments were adopted by voice votes. Similar amendments offered by Roskam were also adopted as part of a spending bill last year but did not become law.

The House additionally passed separate legislation last November to block the licenses to finance aircraft sales with Iran, but it never got a vote in the Senate.

Iran Air has ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which remains sanctioned by the U.S. But Iran Air was granted sanctions relief as part of the 2015 nuclear accord, which relaxed sanctions in exchange for limits to Iran’s nuclear program.

Airbus, a European aircraft manufacturer, and Boeing, an American company, have struck multibillion-dollar deals with Iran in the last year to sell planes.

President Trump has railed against the Iran deal, but his administration has not taken steps to block the aircraft sales. Forcing a stop to the transactions could be at odds with Trump’s promotion of manufacturing jobs in the U.S., despite his vow to be tougher on Iran.

Roskam and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) urged President Trump in April to suspend aircraft sales to Iran.

“The possibility that U.S.-manufactured aircraft could be used as tools of terror is absolutely unacceptable and should not be condoned by the U.S. government,” they wrote in a letter to Trump.

Iran-deal backers finally start to admit its gaping flaws

By Eli Lake

September 15, 2017 | 5:01am | Updated

Modal Trigger

EPA

The public line from the supporters of the Iran nuclear deal in the last two years has been clear. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the core agreement is known, is wonderful. As President Barack Obama said after its negotiations were completed in 2015: “There’s a reason why 99 percent of the world thinks that this is a good deal: It’s because it’s a good deal.”

And you’ll encounter this kind of thing on social media today.

It’s reminiscent of what journalist David Samuels described in 2015 as an echo chamber of prominent arms-control experts, sympathetic journalists and Obama administration staffers deployed to sell the nuclear bargain to the public and Congress. Their party line is that the deal is the best possible way to limit Iran’s nuclear rise.

–– ADVERTISEMENT ––

Nonetheless, many of these experts and former officials are also beginning to acknowledge that the nuclear deal they sold in 2015 is flawed. Next month, the Brookings Institution will host an off-the-record meeting of policy experts — some who favor the deal, some who oppose it — to discuss how to address the nuclear agreement’s flaws.

The State Department’s former special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control, Bob Einhorn, invited these nonproliferation experts to “one or more workshops to address the nuclear deal’s ‘sunset’ problem,” which he said was the risk that, “when key nuclear restrictions of the JCPOA expire, Iran will be free to build up its nuclear capabilities, especially its enrichment capacity, and drastically reduce the time it would need to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon.”

This was a key objection voiced by Israel in 2015 when it publicly opposed Obama’s deal with Iran. Between 2025 and 2030, the agreement to limit Iran’s stocks of low-enriched uranium and the number of centrifuge cascades it can operate will expire, allowing Iran to erect an industrial-scale nuclear program if it chooses.

At the time, Israel’s objections were dismissed and derided by the White House. Obama called the deal’s critics warmongers.

Today, former Obama officials are singing a different song. Einhorn, who served from 2009 to 2013 in the Obama administration, told me: “Everyone recognizes that the deal is not ideal. I think President Obama would say the deal is not ideal.”

He added: “There have been all kinds of ideas for how it can be strengthened. Strong supporters of the deal would acknowledge that. Let’s think of a strategy for how some of its shortcomings can be remedied.”

Iran has continued to test ballistic missiles and has warned it won’t allow inspections of military sites — highlighting ambiguities in the agreement. Einhorn’s quiet effort coincides with a new Trump administration strategy that looks to use the president’s decertification of Iranian compliance with the deal as leverage to negotiate additional restrictions that address the sunset provisions.

So far, the echo chamber has opposed this strategy. The fear is that Trump’s decertification, which would not automatically reinstate the crippling sanctions that were lifted as a condition of the deal, would potentially unravel the nuclear agreement and leave the international community with even less transparency about Iran’s nuclear program. Congress would have 60 days to debate whether to reimpose those sanctions.

Colin Kahl, who served as Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser in Obama’s second term, told me in an e-mail this week that it was worthwhile to begin looking at the flaws of the agreement, but he opposed any strategy in which Trump would decertify Iran’s compliance.

“There is no need to force a crisis over it at this very moment — as Trump and some deal opponents seem inclined to do — given that elements of the JCPOA don’t begin to sunset until 2026-2031,” he wrote. He added that any negotiations to further restrict Iran ought to include “possible positive inducements” for Iran.

Perhaps. But Iran negotiated the current deal only after the US imposed and enforced sanctions that cut its banking system off from the international economy and cut off its ability to export oil. Those so-called secondary sanctions crippled Iran’s economy, because they applied not only to Iran but also to any foreign entities that did business with it.

What’s to say the threat of bringing back those sanctions won’t persuade America’s European allies to try to fix the nuclear deal’s flaws? It worked before.

European Lawmakers Call on the United Nations to Investigate the Massacre of 1988 in Iran and to Prosecute the Perpetrators

European Lawmakers Call on the United Nations to Investigate the Massacre of 1988 in Iran and to Prosecute the Perpetrators

 Thursday, 14 September 2017 13:21

•  Print
•  Email

They urge European governments and the EU, to condition relations with Islamic Republic of Iran, to a suspension of executions and a clear progress on human rights

On Wednesday, 13 September 2017, the Friends of a Free Iran in the European Parliament (FOFI), held a conference at the headquarters of the European Parliament in Strasbourg with the participation of dozens of MEPs. They called on the Council of the European Union, the member states and the High Representative of the European Union, Mrs. Federica Mogherini, to end silence and inaction with respect to the brutal violation of human rights in Iran. In particular, they called for an independent investigation by the United Nations into the massacre of 30,000 political prisoners in Iran in 1988 and the preparation of the trial for those responsible for this crime.

The meeting was moderated by Gérard Deprez MEP (ALDE Group), chair of FOFI, which has the support of around 300 parliamentarians from various political groups and countries. In this meeting, Mohammad Mohaddessin, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the political coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran was the guest speaker and several members of the European Parliament took part in the discussions.

Referring to the recent report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran, in which Article 7 refers to the 1988 massacre, speakers called on the UN General Assembly meeting, to be held next week in New York, to form an investigation committee into the massacre, and called on the UN Security Council to refer this case to the International Criminal Court so that perpetrators of this crime would be brought to justice.

MEPs emphasized that indifference to this great crime that was unprecedented after the Second World War has made the Iranian regime more emboldened to continue mass executions and violations of international standards. Silence against these crimes if it is for the sake of business is shameful and if it is for the nuclear deal, would be quite naive. The regime gets the message of weakness from silence against this barbarism.

In July for example, 101 prisoners were executed. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said during his opening remarks in the UN Human Rights Council on 11 September 2017: “Since the beginning of the year at least four children have been put to death, and at least 89 other children remain on death row.”

Parliamentarians endorsed the 10-point platform of opposition leader Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, that calls for democracy, secularism, respect for human rights, abolition of the death penalty in Iran, and peace and tranquility in the region. They emphasized that, based on 38 years of experience with this regime, as long as the religious dictatorship rules, oppression in Iran, and terrorism and fundamentalism in the region will remain.

The so-called presidential election in May was quite undemocratic as there were no opposition candidates. During the first four years of the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, more than 3,000 people were executed, making Iran the number state-executioner in the world per capita. He has described executions as rule of law and divine laws.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Iran wrote in her recent report: "Between July and August 1988, thousands of political prisoners, men, women and teen-agers, were reportedly executed pursuant to a fatwa issued by the then Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khomeini…

The report points to evidence that reveals “the names of the officials who had carried out and defended the executions, including the current Minister of Justice, a current high court judge, and the head of one of the largest religious foundations in the country and candidate in the May presidential elections.”

It adds: “Recently, these killings have been acknowledged by some at the highest levels of the State. The families of the victims have a right to know the truth about these events and the fate of their loved ones without risking reprisal. They have the right to a remedy, which includes the right to an effective investigation of the facts and public disclosure of the truth; and the right to reparation. The Special Rapporteur therefore calls on the Government to ensure that a thorough and independent investigation into these events is carried out.”

The MEPs regretted Mrs Mogherini’s silence about the 1988 massacre and generally for her silence about repression of women and human rights violations in Iran. “This silence by our EU High Representative only encourages the mullahs to continue their crimes in Iran. This is very bad for the reputation of Europe.

“We in the European Parliament, who are elected representatives of the people of Europe, we must defend European values which are democracy, human rights, women rights, separation of religion and state”.

MEPs urged European governments and the EU, to condition relations with Islamic Republic of Iran, to a suspension of executions and a clear progress on human rights.


Office of Gérard Deprez MEP
Chair, Friends of a Free Iran
European Parliament
Strasbourg

Friends of a Free Iran (FoFI) is an informal group in the European Parliament which was formed in 2003 and enjoys the active support of many MEPs from various political groups

Hardliner Hassan Rouhani: Profile of an astute deceiver

Hassan Rouhani attends a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in New York, on September 21, 2016. (Reuters)

By Tony DuheaumeSpecial to Al Arabiya EnglishFriday, 15 September 2017

Text size A A A

When it comes to Iranian presidents, Hassan Rouhani is shrewder than those who preceded him, as being a well-practiced schemer, he knows how to play the West. With his thoughts centred solely on regime survival, Rouhani is a close confidante of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose orders he follows diligently.

In a well-choreographed program of deception, carefully designed to create a moderate in the eyes of the West, Rouhani has deceived Western leaders for a second time in a deal on Iran’s nuclear program.

While President Barack Obama was US president, he had an obsessive fear of taking military action, especially in the Middle East, and through doing his utmost to avoid the issue of attacking Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons, he sought a conciliatory course with which to deal with this extremist regime, rather than confront it head on.

Also read: How Mogherini stole the show on Rouhani’s inauguration day

With Iran having spotted a weakness in Obama, in a bid to convince him that Iran’s nuclear program was for “peaceful purposes”, Khamenei brought onto the diplomatic stage, Hassan Rouhani, a so-called moderate. Convinced the West would be taken in by this amiable, smiling figure, and that Obama could easily be coerced into entering negotiations over its nuclear program, Iran’s leadership placed on the table a one-sided deal that benefitted only them.

At a time when Rouhani was making promises about better relations with the outside world, oppression within Iran accelerated, as no sooner had he entered office, there was a sudden surge in executions. Besides thousands of prisoners that have already been hung, the families of many others being held, have been contacted by the Iranian authorities, informed that their loved ones will soon be executed.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani with Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi in Tehran on June 20 2017. (AFP)

Political prisoners

It is the belief of political groups that oppose the Iranian regime, Rouhani is operating an all-out program to slaughter as many political prisoners as possible, and it has also been noted in the United States Department of State, 2016 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, how the already dismal state of human rights in Iran, has drastically increased under the “moderate stance” of Hassan Rouhani.

Through the election of Rouhani, if any in the West was expecting an era of restraint, they have been in for a massive shock. As far as freedom of speech, arbitrary arrests, executions without any form of fair trial, and all forms of politically motivated killings are concerned, such oppression has vastly increased.

Also read: An Iran deal could have broader implications

Despite Rouhani’s claims of moderation, with his promises of reaching out to the West with a more conciliatory approach over Iran’s nuclear program, there has been no sign of a change within Iran over human rights, and as far as Iran’s intentions toward peace is concerned, its military spending has increased dramatically.

Iran has always been adept when it comes to games of manipulation at the negotiation table; once it has sought out weaknesses in leadership, it plays on it. With Obama’s main weakness being his desperation to keep out of foreign conflicts, the Iranians knew that he would never have been confident enough to bomb its nuclear facilities, and that he would go to any lengths to reach a deal over Iran’s nuclear program, rather than resort to the shock and awe President George W. Bush loosed upon Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein.

Rising prominence

Rouhani first came to prominence in the 1960s, as a follower of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who was at the time the outspoken leader of a Shiite Islamic movement. But with the then leader of Iran, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, becoming increasingly concerned over the rise of Shiite militants, who were causing much disruption in the country, Rouhani came to the authority’s attention after publicly declaring Khomeini an “imam”, and he was forced to flee the country.

Then after the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, Rouhani returned to Iran, and became an integral part of constructing the fledgling Islamic Republic. Rouhani soon became a well-established Iranian politician, whose positions within the government included Secretary and Representative of the Supreme National Security Council, member of the Assembly of Experts, member of the Expediency Discernment Council, President of the Centre for Strategic Research.

He also served as a member of the Supreme Defence Council, and a member of Central Council of War Logistics. Many of these posts making him at the least, guilty by association to the slaughter carried out by the regime, including the 1988 massacre of 30,000 dissidents.

As far as Rouhani’s true nature is concerned, it was the nuclear negotiations of 2003/2005, which proved him to be a man not to be trusted. During this period, he became the Iranian representative in talks with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, and it was during these talks that he agreed to freeze Iranian enrichment of uranium.

Also read: Saudi prince: Iran deal could prompt nuclear fuel race

Throughout this period, he became known to the West as a very shrewd negotiator, whom they felt was relatively moderate compared to other mullahs in the Iranian administration; but this was a ruse.

Rouhani turned out to be an astute deceiver, who with careful prevarication, exploited divisions between Europe and the United States, to keep Iran’s nuclear program on track. During that period, the Americans were wary of Rouhani, warning European negotiators he wasn’t to be trusted. But desperate to bring about a deal with the Iranians, talks continued, and right the way through, Iran’s nuclear program advanced rapidly.

Diplomatic progress eventually broke down on August 1, 2005, when Iran notified the IAEA that it would be resuming uranium conversion activities, as Tehran felt that the deal proposed by the EU-3 group (France, Germany and the United Kingdom), was an offer too heavy in demands.

Then in October 2005, while addressing Iran’s Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, Rouhani boasted of how he kept Iran’s nuclear program on track throughout the negotiations. He was quite blunt: “We need some time to implement our capabilities… if we could complete the fuel cycle and make it a fait accompli for the world, then the whole situation would be different.”

An old photo shows Iranian ex-president Khatami (R) sharing a laugh with Rouhani, who was a former deputy parliament speaker and member of Iran's Council of Experts at the time, in August, 2000 (AFP)

Rattled Rouhani

Then on May 27, 2013, while appearing on Iran’s state-run IRIB TV, Rouhani found himself being goaded for bowing to the West during the EU-3 talks by a hard-line interviewer, and clearly rattled, Rouhani fervently defended his actions. “Do you know when we developed yellowcake? Winter, 2004,’ he threw back. “Do you know when the number of centrifuges reached 3,000? Winter 2004.”

As the interview continued, Rouhani became even more rattled by the interviewers disparaging remarks. “We halted the nuclear program?” he snapped rhetorically. “We were the ones to complete it. We completed the technology.”

During the negotiations, Rouhani had promised to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities, when in fact, boffins had forged ahead installing centrifuges, and he had used the talks to finish the installation. Then in 2006, Rouhani explained why Iran had entered the 2003 to 2005 round of talks: “by creating a calm environment, he boasted. “We were able to complete the work on Isfahan.”

Rouhani is certainly no moderate because what moderate would pick as his minister of justice, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, who was dubbed by Human Rights Watch as “minister of murder”. Pourmohammadi was implicated in crimes against humanity, including being involved in the deaths of thousands of political dissidents in 1988. And then there was Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi, a one-time agent in the Ministry of Intelligence, known for his violent interrogations and methods of torture.

Also read: Is balance of power changing in Iraq to Iran’s detriment?

There are also Hezbollah’s terrorist activities, which Hassan Rouhani cannot claim exemption from as far as their terror operations are concerned. Rouhani was tainted by the deaths of dozens of people, as during the 1990s, when he was national security advisor to the then President of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, two very devastating terrorist attacks took place, instigated by the Qods Force, both of which he was certain to have known about.

With the Iran Deal, the West walked blindly into yet another carefully setup ruse designed by Iran to give it a breathing space with which to push forward its quest to build a nuclear weapon, as well as build up the strength of its armed forces. But still ignoring the lessons of previous deals, with all the warnings of past deceit staring them right in the face, the West continued with this charade.

False affable demeanour

With the West confronted by this “amiable” Iranian leader, who offered to reconcile his country with the West, they were soon taken in by his false affable demeanour. So as far as Khamenei was concerned, Rouhani turned out to be the perfect candidate, not only to offer a fresh round of nuclear negotiations to Western leaders, but also to persuade them to have sanctions against Iran dropped, all for a few paltry offers put forward by Iranian negotiators, in which they offered to curb the country’s nuclear program.

But not only that, Rouhani would also make the perfect candidate to bring into fruition, deals in the oil sector with Western countries, to aid in the rebuilding of Iran’s failing economy.

From the very start of negotiations, Rouhani began to seek out large Western corporations to invest in Iran, offering lucrative contracts to various oil companies, in a bid to revive its rundown oil industry, crippled by stringent sanctions.

To blind the West of its real intentions, Rouhani knew that an offer of vast amounts of lucrative oil deals to greedy Western corporations, always seals the deal, as it is the big money men who have the final say in moulding the West’s foreign policies.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the viewpoint of Al Arabiya English

Iran: Hollow threats of ditching the nuclear deal

By: Shahriar Kia (Political analyst) 

Iran: Hollow threats of ditching the nuclear deal

While US President Donald Trump is weighing a new strategy capable of delivering a more aggressive reaction to Iran, and the visit by US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley to Vienna and Washington’s demand seeking the inspections of Iran’s military sites aimed at verifying Tehran’s loyalty to its obligations under the nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), has left the ruling regime extremely concerned.

In response, Tehran has resorted to hollow threats of exiting the JCPOA, launching uranium enrichment “within days” and describing military sites inspections as a red line. Iran is attempting to take the international community hostage to bypass its domestic and foreign dilemmas that are currently targeting the very existence of this religious dictatorship ruling Iran.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran considers its military complexes as red lines and will never allow any foreigner to set foot on such sites,” said MP Mohammad Ismaeel Saeedi in an interview with the semi-official Tasnim news agency.

Ambassador Haley described the importance of what is at stake here.

“If inspections of Iranian military sites are ‘merely a dream,’ as Iran says, then Iranian compliance with the JCPOA is also a dream,” she explained.

The truth is Iran has no intention of ditching the JCPOA, knowing full well it will be the first loser. Despite all the emphasis of red lines and national security, other senior Iranian officials shed more important light on this matter.

“Inspection of military sites hinges on a decision by the Supreme National Security Council,” according to Alaedin Borujerdi, chair of Iran’s parliamentary Security Commission.

In his recent meeting with the envoy of the Japanese Prime Minister, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani made it clear Tehran will never violate the JCPOA.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry also issued a report to the Parliament on the JCPOA implementation, indicating how “one of the most important obstacles to taking full advantage of the JCPOA are initial US sanctions imposed back in the 1980s and 90s against the Islamic Republic’s human rights, terrorism, and money laundering.”

Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, claimed Tehran is capable of enriching uranium up to 20% at the controversial undergrown site in Fordo, central Iran. Causing a preliminary brouhaha in Iran, his words later are surprising, to say the least.

“Now assume as an official I placed something before the enemy as a political pretext. Should you be supportive and confirm their words? Or strengthen the remarks made by our own officials?” he asked.

RajaNews, an outlet known for its loyalty to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, ridiculed Salehi’s remarks and demanded his resignation.

“Russia’s response to the possible US departure of the nuclear deal was far more firm than those of our current government officials and those of Salehi… Our officials lack the necessary will to even preserve the JCPOA as is,” the piece reads.

It is quite obvious that Tehran desperately needs to maintain the JCPOA intact to enjoy the resulting sanctions relief.

All of Tehran’s efforts are focused on sending this message to the international community that not only it has never violated JCPOA, it has gone far beyond its obligations to convince the West, and especially the US, to not tear up the nuclear deal. However, considering Iran’s deceptions during the past two decades, the world over remains suspicious of Tehran’s claims of transparency.

“For decades, the Iranian military conducted a covert nuclear weapons program, undeclared and hidden from international inspectors. In 2002, Iranian dissidents revealed the existence of a uranium enrichment plant and heavy water reactor – both violations of Iran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA,” Ambassador Haley said in a recent landmark speech at the American Enterprise Institute think tank.

“We were promised anytime, anywhere inspections of sites in Iran. The final agreement delivered much less. The promised 24/7 inspections apply only to Iran’s “declared” nuclear sites. For any undeclared but suspected sites, the regime can deny access for up to 24 days. Then there’s the deal’s expiration dates.” Haley said, adding yet there exists hundreds of unrevealed and uninspected sites involved in suspicious activities.

IAEA chief Yukiya Amano in his recent report said his agency will continue verifying Iran’s obligations to the JCPOA, emphasizing his evaluations of Tehran’s unannounced nuclear activities and materials continue. When it comes to inspections, there are no differences between military and non-military sites, Amano emphasized.

With eyebrows raised amongst Iran’s ruling elite over such remarks, the Kayhan daily, known to be Khamenei’s mouthpiece, reflected on this matter.

“Amano’s recent remarks have sounded the alarm bell not only for JCPOA advocates but the entire country [read regime],” the piece explains.

Iran’s interests in the JCPOA

The Iran nuclear deal has enabled Tehran to firstly, continue its nuclear research and thus maintain its efforts on the track aimed at obtaining nuclear weapons.

Secondly, relieve Iran of crippling sanctions.

Thirdly, taking advantage of the West neglecting its domestic human rights violations and meddling in regional countries, Iran is fast-forwarding its expansionist policy and spread of terrorism.

The Lebanese Hezbollah and other Tehran-associated terrorist groups, including the Kataeb Hezbollah in Iraq, have threatened Washington to attack US forces in Iraq following the complete annihilation of ISIS.

Furthermore, the close military and atomic cooperation between Tehran – being the main international sponsor of terrorism – and North Korea significantly threatens world peace and security.

To this end, continuing the policy of appeasement and providing further concessions to Tehran to maintain the JCPOA intact has no meaning other than having the international community taken hostage by Iran, and plunging the Middle East into yet another inevitable bloody war.

As Ambassador Haley underscored if the time has come when “blinders may finally be off on US-Iran policy,” one can remain hopeful of measures aimed at preventing another war and further terrorist attacks.

Comprehensive sanctions against the Iranian regime, inspections of all military sites across this country, and expelling the Revolutionary Guards from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen are effective preliminary steps aimed at uprooting terrorism and ending the possibility of another Middle East war.