|
Formed in 1965, the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the largest and best-organized Iranian opposition movement, is the main component of the coalition, National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), which acts as the parliament-in-exile.
The NCRI and MEK, have been committed to a secular, democratic, non-nuclear republic; gender equality; freedom of religion, thought, press, and association; support for peace in the Middle East; and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. |
Myth 1: The State Department designated the MEK as a Foreign Terrorist Organization because MEK engaged in terrorism.
Fact: On October 9, 1997, a day after the MEK’s designation, the Los Angeles Times quoted a “senior Clinton Administration official” that the designation of the MEK “was intended as a goodwill gesture to Tehran and its newly elected moderate president, Mohammad Khatami.” |
House Resolution to Bring to Justice Perpetrators of the 1988 Massacre of MEK Political Prisoners in Iran
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The bi-partisan support is growing for a House resolution introduced by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), the Homeland Security Committee Chair, Eliot Engel (D-NY), House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) ranking member and Ed Royce (R-CA), the HFAC chairman. The resolution condemns the deteriorating situation of human rights in Iran and the Iranian regime “for the 1988 massacre, and for denying the evidence of this manifest set of crimes against humanity.”
H.Con.Res.159, co-sponsored by some 50 House members, urges the United Nations “to create a Commission of Inquiry to fully investigate the massacre and to gather evidence and identify the names and roles of specific perpetrators with a view towards bringing them to justice.” The measure notes that “the massacre was carried out pursuant to a fatwa, or religious decree, issued by then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, that targeted…the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK),” quoting Amnesty International, “between 27 July 1988 and the end of that year, thousands of political prisoners [in Iran], including prisoners of conscience, were executed in prisons nationwide.” While stressing, “the majority of those killed were supporters of the PMOI [MEK],” the resolution emphasizes that “in a recently disclosed audiotape, the late Hussein Ali Montazeri, a grand ayatollah who served as Khomeini’s chief deputy, noted the regime’s efforts to target the MEK and said that the 1988 mass killings were ‘the greatest crime committed during the Islamic Republic, for which history will condemn us.’” On November 27, 2016, an Iranian regime court sentenced Ahmad Montazeri, the 60-year-old cleric son of Ayatollah Montazeri to 21 years in prison for releasing the tapes. Representatives from both sides of the aisle equally cosponsored the resolution, which states, “those personally responsible for these mass executions include senior officials serving in the current Government of Iran.” Hassan Rouhani’s Justice Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi who had earlier denied the massacre ever took place, boasted that he was “proud” of having carried out “God’s commandment” to execute MEK members. “This is an important legislation which needs to be followed up with policy steps by the U.S. Administration in standing with the victims of repression and with those who want to establish democracy in Iran,” said Soona Samsami, the U.S. Representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran. The resolution urges “the Administration and United States allies to publicly condemn the massacre, and pressure the Government of Iran to provide detailed information to the families of the victims about their loved ones and their final resting places.” Panel Highlights Iranian Regime's
| ||||||
| Special Report on Paris Rally-9July2016 |
Iranian Resistance strongly condemns terrorist attack in Orlando and declares solidarity with survivors
June 13, 2016--The Iranian Resistance strongly condemns the criminal terrorist attack in Orlando, Florida which left more than 100 people killed or injured and declares its solidarity with the survivors and the families of the victims. It hopes for a speedy recovery for the injured. This sickening act of blind killings in Orlando is in blatant contradiction to the message of Islam and the culture, civilization and nature of Muslims.
Weak US response to missile testing allows Iran to continue nefarious conduct
By: Alireza Jafarzadeh
June 8--It was revealed that the Iranian regime tested another ballistic missile in April. A military official, Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi, publicly boasted about the supposed success of this test, which he said involved a weapon that could strike targets over 1,200 miles away.
This test-launch flies in the face of the widespread outcry that had been directed against Tehran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the wake of several previous tests. Two of them took place in October and November, after nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 had been completed but before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was actually implemented.
June 8--It was revealed that the Iranian regime tested another ballistic missile in April. A military official, Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi, publicly boasted about the supposed success of this test, which he said involved a weapon that could strike targets over 1,200 miles away.
This test-launch flies in the face of the widespread outcry that had been directed against Tehran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the wake of several previous tests. Two of them took place in October and November, after nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 had been completed but before the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was actually implemented.
Alireza Jafarzadeh Iran Interview on Blaze Radio
May 12, 2016
Sorry Mr. President, But Your Nuclear Deal Has Not Changed Iran
By: Ali Safavi, May 11, 2016
Since the conclusion of nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers last summer, the Iranian regime has carried out at least five provocative ballistic missile tests in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
Each test has been followed by boastful comments from top officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the ultimate authority in all matters of Iran’s foreign and domestic policy. In a recent speech, Khamenei declared, “Those who say the future is in negotiations, not missiles, are either ignorant or traitors.”
Since the conclusion of nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers last summer, the Iranian regime has carried out at least five provocative ballistic missile tests in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
Each test has been followed by boastful comments from top officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the ultimate authority in all matters of Iran’s foreign and domestic policy. In a recent speech, Khamenei declared, “Those who say the future is in negotiations, not missiles, are either ignorant or traitors.”
ISIS, Tehran Regime, Two Sides of the Same Coin
Soona Samsami | Apr 07, 2016
The barbaric terrorist attacks in Brussels were a clear reminder of the growing threat of Islamic extremism. This vicious ideology continues to take new forms - once al-Qaeda, now ISIS, both with the shared goal of creating an “Islamic state" capable of enforcing Sharia law and undermining the achievements of the civilized world.
While the Sunni version of fundamentalism desperately seeks to achieve this objective, the Shiite version in Tehran has been in place for nearly four decades. It should be confronted, not appeased.
The barbaric terrorist attacks in Brussels were a clear reminder of the growing threat of Islamic extremism. This vicious ideology continues to take new forms - once al-Qaeda, now ISIS, both with the shared goal of creating an “Islamic state" capable of enforcing Sharia law and undermining the achievements of the civilized world.
While the Sunni version of fundamentalism desperately seeks to achieve this objective, the Shiite version in Tehran has been in place for nearly four decades. It should be confronted, not appeased.
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi described Brussels terrorist attacks as crime against humanity, strongly condemned them
Mrs. Maryam Rajavi, strongly condemned the terrorist attacks at Brussels’ airport and subway station as crime against humanity. While offering her condolences to the Belgian people and government, she expressed her sincere sympathies to the families of the victims of this terrorist crime and wished for the recovery of the injured.
American National Security Experts Join Iranian Opposition to Celebrate Nowruz
Washington, DC- March 18, 2016, On the occasion of the Iranian New Year, Nowruz, the U.S. representative office of Iran’s parliament-in-exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI-US) held a reception celebrating this ancient Iranian tradition.
Among the speakers were Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Philip J. Crowley, former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, Ambassador Adam Ereli, former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain, and Bruce McColm, former Executive Director of the Freedom House.
Among the speakers were Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, former U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Philip J. Crowley, former Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs, Ambassador Lincoln Bloomfield, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of State for Political Military Affairs, Ambassador Adam Ereli, former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain, and Bruce McColm, former Executive Director of the Freedom House.
The Iranian regime's ludicrous claim about 60 percent turnout in sham elections
Maryam Rajavi: Impact of the retreat in nuclear program reflected in the disturbance of the ruling theocracy’s internal balance
The entire regime was the loser of the elections; as internal crises aggravate and the population’s rage escalates, the mullahs inch closer to their downfall
Following a farce, predicated on the “heart-felt and practical allegiance” to the velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule), and merely a choice between the regime’s repressive and corrupt factions that amounted to depriving the Iranian people of their sovereignty, the clerical regime claimed in a ridiculous and astronomical lie that more than 60 percent of the eligible voters (33 million according to official figures) had cast their ballots.
The entire regime was the loser of the elections; as internal crises aggravate and the population’s rage escalates, the mullahs inch closer to their downfall
Following a farce, predicated on the “heart-felt and practical allegiance” to the velayat-e faqih (absolute clerical rule), and merely a choice between the regime’s repressive and corrupt factions that amounted to depriving the Iranian people of their sovereignty, the clerical regime claimed in a ridiculous and astronomical lie that more than 60 percent of the eligible voters (33 million according to official figures) had cast their ballots.
Iran regime’s secret committee to deceive IAEA on PMD probe revealed
In a press conference in the Washington office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, new information on Iranian regime's secret committee to deceive IAEA on PMD probe was revealed.
The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) network inside Iran has obtained reliable information that a top-secret committee is in charge of drafting the answers to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Tehran’s nuclear program.
Top officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) comprise the committee’s key members, said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the U.S. representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
According to the revelations, the officials have been tasked with drafting the responses to IAEA’s PMD inquiries working to cover up the military dimensions, thus resolving and terminating the PMD dispute by forging suitable scenarios for non-military usage of the program, which would seem plausible to the IAEA, and to falsely convince the international community that Iran has never been after the nuclear bomb.
This committee prepared the PMD answers delivered to the IAEA on August 15, 2015.
Among the foremost issues related to the PMD question are the explosive detonators called EBW (Exploding Bridge Wire) detonator, which is an integral part of a program to develop an implosion type nuclear device.
In its September 2014 report, IAEA stated that Iran has offered “information and explanations to the Agency on Iran’s work after 2007 related to the application of EBW detonators in the oil and gas industry which was not inconsistent with specialized industry practices.”
Tehran forged documents and exchanged communication between the Oil Ministry and the Defense Ministry to prove that the EBWs were produced and used by the oil industry.
But according to an exhaustive investigation by the Iranian Resistance involving dozens of sources, the National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC), which is responsible for all oil and gas drilling, has not received even one of EBW detonators that had been produced by the Ministry of Defense. This renders the regime’s claims utterly false.
The Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) network inside Iran has obtained reliable information that a top-secret committee is in charge of drafting the answers to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding the Possible Military Dimensions (PMD) of Tehran’s nuclear program.
Top officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Ministry of Defense Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) comprise the committee’s key members, said Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the U.S. representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
According to the revelations, the officials have been tasked with drafting the responses to IAEA’s PMD inquiries working to cover up the military dimensions, thus resolving and terminating the PMD dispute by forging suitable scenarios for non-military usage of the program, which would seem plausible to the IAEA, and to falsely convince the international community that Iran has never been after the nuclear bomb.
This committee prepared the PMD answers delivered to the IAEA on August 15, 2015.
Among the foremost issues related to the PMD question are the explosive detonators called EBW (Exploding Bridge Wire) detonator, which is an integral part of a program to develop an implosion type nuclear device.
In its September 2014 report, IAEA stated that Iran has offered “information and explanations to the Agency on Iran’s work after 2007 related to the application of EBW detonators in the oil and gas industry which was not inconsistent with specialized industry practices.”
Tehran forged documents and exchanged communication between the Oil Ministry and the Defense Ministry to prove that the EBWs were produced and used by the oil industry.
But according to an exhaustive investigation by the Iranian Resistance involving dozens of sources, the National Iranian Drilling Company (NIDC), which is responsible for all oil and gas drilling, has not received even one of EBW detonators that had been produced by the Ministry of Defense. This renders the regime’s claims utterly false.
Iran’s Shia Militias in Iraq May Be a Graver Threat Than the Islamic State
By Brian Brinker
Dec 8, 2016
With the Iraqi national army and Shia militias now pushing into Mosul, and Kurdish forces providing support on the outskirts, the downfall of the Islamic State in Iraq seems imminent. While most observers expect the fighting to be fierce, conventional wisdom suggests that the Islamic State will eventually lose out.
Still, even as the hard-lined Sunni group is being pushed out of Iraq, the real battle for control of the country has yet to even begin. In spite of whatever cataclysmic aspirations the Islamic State might have, the group was always destined to be an aberration. The Shia militias controlled by Iran, however, will likely prove to have far more staying power and influence within Iraq. These Shia militias now supposedly fighting to “liberate” Iraq from the Islamic State may, in fact, deliver the country right into the hands of the Iranian regime....
...
Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s Washington branch has stated:
“While the United States has been paying the cost, and expending the effort to liberate Mosul, the misguided policies pursued so far have regrettably enabled the Iraqi militias affiliated with the terrorist Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to gain the upper hand. The Iraqi Shiite militia groups have been the brainchild of the ruling mullahs in Iran and financed, trained, and armed by Tehran since the 1980s. Their allegiance is not to the government or to the people of Iraq, but to the Iranian regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei. They have been the primary source of sectarian violence in Iraq and have perpetrated countless crimes against Iraqi civilians, giving rise to the emergence of ISIS. As such, confronting the mullahs and evicting them from Iraq and Syria is indispensable to destroying ISIS. The failure to do so is not only wrong, but outright dangerous.”
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is the political branch of the Iranian dissident group the Mujahadeen e-Khalq (MeK), a vocal proponent for regime change in Iran. The group was placed on the United States Foreign Terrorist Organization watch list in 1997, but was removed by Secretary Clinton after a court challenge. The organization has long alleged that its listing was a politically motivated move to curry favor with the Iranian government.
Dec 8, 2016
With the Iraqi national army and Shia militias now pushing into Mosul, and Kurdish forces providing support on the outskirts, the downfall of the Islamic State in Iraq seems imminent. While most observers expect the fighting to be fierce, conventional wisdom suggests that the Islamic State will eventually lose out.
Still, even as the hard-lined Sunni group is being pushed out of Iraq, the real battle for control of the country has yet to even begin. In spite of whatever cataclysmic aspirations the Islamic State might have, the group was always destined to be an aberration. The Shia militias controlled by Iran, however, will likely prove to have far more staying power and influence within Iraq. These Shia militias now supposedly fighting to “liberate” Iraq from the Islamic State may, in fact, deliver the country right into the hands of the Iranian regime....
...
Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran’s Washington branch has stated:
“While the United States has been paying the cost, and expending the effort to liberate Mosul, the misguided policies pursued so far have regrettably enabled the Iraqi militias affiliated with the terrorist Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to gain the upper hand. The Iraqi Shiite militia groups have been the brainchild of the ruling mullahs in Iran and financed, trained, and armed by Tehran since the 1980s. Their allegiance is not to the government or to the people of Iraq, but to the Iranian regime’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei. They have been the primary source of sectarian violence in Iraq and have perpetrated countless crimes against Iraqi civilians, giving rise to the emergence of ISIS. As such, confronting the mullahs and evicting them from Iraq and Syria is indispensable to destroying ISIS. The failure to do so is not only wrong, but outright dangerous.”
The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is the political branch of the Iranian dissident group the Mujahadeen e-Khalq (MeK), a vocal proponent for regime change in Iran. The group was placed on the United States Foreign Terrorist Organization watch list in 1997, but was removed by Secretary Clinton after a court challenge. The organization has long alleged that its listing was a politically motivated move to curry favor with the Iranian government.
Iran uses sectarianism card for political influence
Daily Sabah, Istanbul, YUSUF SELMAN İNANÇ, December 9, 2016
Iran has been sending thousands of troops to Syria since the war broke out in 2011 and has been supporting extremist Shiite groups like Hezbollah. Playing the sectarianism card to keep relations tight with Shiite minorities and armed groups across the world, the Tehran administration has gone into a deadly war against civilians not only in Syria but also in Iraq by giving unconditional support to Hashdi al-Shaabi militants who are infamous for their brutal acts against Iraq's civil Sunni citizens. Iran has also been promoting Shiite Islam in Africa and Asia in order to create its own communities, as has happened in Nigeria. It is obvious that Iran uses sectarianism as an instrument to establish its political influence, which is followed by economic gains.
The former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards intelligence and head of Ammar Garrison Mehdi Taeb's words, said in 2013, show the reality. "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic one for us. If the enemy attacks us and wants to appropriate either Syria or Khuzestan [in southern Iran], our priority is to keep Syria."
Since 2013, Iran has increased its military presence in Syria and deployed hundreds of its special operation troops, besides militants. It is claimed that Iran has been collecting young people from poor countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India with the promise of granting citizenship. According to a report, entitled "How Iran Fuels Syria War" published by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) said, "non-Iranian mercenaries number around 55,000 men, Iraqi militias are around 20,000 men, Afghan militias are approximately 15,000 to 20,000 men, Lebanese Hezbollah are around 7,000 to 10,000 men, and Pakistani, Palestinian and other militiamen number approximately 5,000 to 7,000. The Tehran regime spends $1 billion annually in Syria solely on the salaries of the forces affiliated with the IRGC, including military forces, militias, and Shiite networks," the report said.
Last year Daily Sabah reported how these Iran-backed non-Syrian people displaced local people. "A Syrian refugee, In'am, who asked for her surname to remain anonymous due to security issues, who left her town near Damascus for Istanbul, said, 'We have no chance to go back even after the war ends.' She said, 'Our homes were given to Iranian troops by the regime. They have come to the town, displaced us and have been using our homes, cars and everything'," the report said.
The Middle East, which has been an area of sectarian conflict since the early years of Islam yet remained relatively calm under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, has been dragged into a new sectarian wave as anachronistic disputes have been triggered by regional powers with the intention of expanding their influence. Iran, which has a centralized Shiite version of Islam, has entered into a competition with other regional actors, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia over the region by applying sectarian policies from which the people of the region suffer. Being far from the mainstream Islamic understanding that is in effect from Indonesia to Senegal, the country has been following expansionist policies. Iran has adopted the policy of leading and uniting the Shiite communities in different Arab countries, including Iraq and Yemen, following the revolution in 1979.
Iran has been holding the flag of sectarianism and using the centuries-old conflicts, narratives and Islamic interpretations as a cloak for its struggle for power. Tehran's involvement in the war in Syria and in the conflict in Iraq through its alliance with Russia has diminished the stability and path to peace in the region. The so-called "Arab Spring" that started in Tunisia and euphorically swept across MENA has posed a threat to both countries since Iran, which was in support of the uprisings in the Gulf by Shiite minorities, especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, felt obliged to stop the moderate Western-backed opposition groups in Syria from overthrowing the Alawite minority's, an offshoot Shiite sect, decades-long rule. Iraq has also become a territory for the country as a power struggle area as Iran has been pursuing a sectarian policy through backing the Shiite Baghdad government, which has a disastrous fame with its treatment against Sunnis, and backing the Shiite militias, which had been harshly criticized by rights groups for arbitrary killings, rapes, kidnappings and looting. Moreover, the removal of Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansur Hadi by Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi militias has led to spilling the sectarian conflict.
Iran has been sending thousands of troops to Syria since the war broke out in 2011 and has been supporting extremist Shiite groups like Hezbollah. Playing the sectarianism card to keep relations tight with Shiite minorities and armed groups across the world, the Tehran administration has gone into a deadly war against civilians not only in Syria but also in Iraq by giving unconditional support to Hashdi al-Shaabi militants who are infamous for their brutal acts against Iraq's civil Sunni citizens. Iran has also been promoting Shiite Islam in Africa and Asia in order to create its own communities, as has happened in Nigeria. It is obvious that Iran uses sectarianism as an instrument to establish its political influence, which is followed by economic gains.
The former commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards intelligence and head of Ammar Garrison Mehdi Taeb's words, said in 2013, show the reality. "Syria is the 35th province [of Iran] and a strategic one for us. If the enemy attacks us and wants to appropriate either Syria or Khuzestan [in southern Iran], our priority is to keep Syria."
Since 2013, Iran has increased its military presence in Syria and deployed hundreds of its special operation troops, besides militants. It is claimed that Iran has been collecting young people from poor countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and India with the promise of granting citizenship. According to a report, entitled "How Iran Fuels Syria War" published by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) said, "non-Iranian mercenaries number around 55,000 men, Iraqi militias are around 20,000 men, Afghan militias are approximately 15,000 to 20,000 men, Lebanese Hezbollah are around 7,000 to 10,000 men, and Pakistani, Palestinian and other militiamen number approximately 5,000 to 7,000. The Tehran regime spends $1 billion annually in Syria solely on the salaries of the forces affiliated with the IRGC, including military forces, militias, and Shiite networks," the report said.
Last year Daily Sabah reported how these Iran-backed non-Syrian people displaced local people. "A Syrian refugee, In'am, who asked for her surname to remain anonymous due to security issues, who left her town near Damascus for Istanbul, said, 'We have no chance to go back even after the war ends.' She said, 'Our homes were given to Iranian troops by the regime. They have come to the town, displaced us and have been using our homes, cars and everything'," the report said.
The Middle East, which has been an area of sectarian conflict since the early years of Islam yet remained relatively calm under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, has been dragged into a new sectarian wave as anachronistic disputes have been triggered by regional powers with the intention of expanding their influence. Iran, which has a centralized Shiite version of Islam, has entered into a competition with other regional actors, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia over the region by applying sectarian policies from which the people of the region suffer. Being far from the mainstream Islamic understanding that is in effect from Indonesia to Senegal, the country has been following expansionist policies. Iran has adopted the policy of leading and uniting the Shiite communities in different Arab countries, including Iraq and Yemen, following the revolution in 1979.
Iran has been holding the flag of sectarianism and using the centuries-old conflicts, narratives and Islamic interpretations as a cloak for its struggle for power. Tehran's involvement in the war in Syria and in the conflict in Iraq through its alliance with Russia has diminished the stability and path to peace in the region. The so-called "Arab Spring" that started in Tunisia and euphorically swept across MENA has posed a threat to both countries since Iran, which was in support of the uprisings in the Gulf by Shiite minorities, especially in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, felt obliged to stop the moderate Western-backed opposition groups in Syria from overthrowing the Alawite minority's, an offshoot Shiite sect, decades-long rule. Iraq has also become a territory for the country as a power struggle area as Iran has been pursuing a sectarian policy through backing the Shiite Baghdad government, which has a disastrous fame with its treatment against Sunnis, and backing the Shiite militias, which had been harshly criticized by rights groups for arbitrary killings, rapes, kidnappings and looting. Moreover, the removal of Yemeni President Abd Rabbu Mansur Hadi by Iranian-backed Shiite Houthi militias has led to spilling the sectarian conflict.
Iran Is Directly Fueling The Syrian Civil War.
It Won't End Until Washington Gets Them Out.
In recent weeks, bombs dropped by the governments of Bashar Assad and his allies have killed and mutilated innocents - men, women, and children - in Syria's Aleppo. The horrific shelling is Assad’s attempt to force a wholesale surrender from the opposition movement in Syria; Assad seeks to crush his detractors and prolong the life of his brutal regime.
Over the past five years, peace initiatives have failed while war crimes, use of chemical weapons and millions of refugees have grabbed international headlines.
The appalling attacks on Aleppo and the unprecedented number of casualties would not have been a reality were it not for the direct involvement of the Iranian regime in the Syrian conflict.
Assad should have fallen long ago. But more than 70,000 Iranian and non-Iranian mercenaries have been deployed by the Iranian regime's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to fight in Syria. That figure far exceeds the number of the 50,000-strong Syrian military force, according to IRGC reports.
The Iranian regime has divided Syria into five military zones, setting up 18 Operational and Logistical Headquarters in different parts of the country. There are 8,000 to 10,000 IRGC forces, 5,000 to 6,000 regular Iranian Army troops, 20,000 Iraqi militias from ten different groups, 15,000 to 20,000 Afghan militias (Fatemiyoun), 7,000 to 10,000 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, and 5,000 to 7,000 militias from Pakistan (Zeinabiyoun) and elsewhere operating in Syria.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pulled in the top brass of his regime’s military command. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s Commander-in-Chief, personally travelled to Syria for the offensives against the cities of Nubl and Al-Zahra in February 2016. IRGC General Mohsen Reza’i, former Commander-in-Chief during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, was appointed as Khamenei’s Deputy for the Syrian War in 2016. IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the Qods Force, regularly travels to Syria and meets with Assad.
Iran's state-run media have published the names and pictures of at least 33 IRGC generals and dozens of other senior commanders killed during the fighting. Corpses are routinely flown back for burial in Iranian cities. The total number of causalities from the IRGC and the Syrian (non-military), Afghan and Iraqi militias exceeds 10,000. Roughly 1,500 of them belonged to the IRGC.
Over the past 5 years, Tehran has budgeted about 100 billion dollars for the war, most of which has been spent on procurement of weaponry or covering the Syrian military’s expenses. Tehran spends one billion dollars annually in Syria solely on the salaries of its mercenaries, and was also instrumental in prodding Russia to play a greater role in the situation.
But why is Tehran so heavily invested in the conflict? To fight ISIS? Absolutely not.
In fact, the Iranian regime has no presence in the eastern part of Syria where ISIS is dominant. And, after all, it was Tehran’s closest allies, Assad and former Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who played a significant role in the empowerment, if not the formation, of ISIS.
Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with Gregory Palkot of Fox News on November 17, 2015:
“ISIS was created by Assad releasing 1,500 prisoners from jail and Maliki releasing 1,000 people in Iraq who were put together as a force of terror types.”
So, “fighting ISIS” is a smokescreen. There are other reasons for Tehran's direct and profound involvement.
Senior Iranian regime cleric Mehdi Taeb, head of the Ammar Garrison and former commander of IRGC intelligence, said it best. On February 14, 2013, he called Syria Iran's strategic “35th province,” and explained:
"If the enemy attacks us and seeks to take Syria or Khuzestan [oil-rich western Iranian province], our priority would be to keep Syria, because if we keep Syria, we can take back Khuzestan. But if we lose Syria, we would lose Tehran.”
What should Washington do to prudently resolve the Syrian conflict and to end this century’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe?
The key is to end the occupation of Syria by Tehran. So long as IRGC forces remain in Syria, peace would be an illusion. In Tehran's absence, there would have been a political solution that could include the removal of Assad from power, not to mention that ISIS would have been defeated as well.
To stave off the threats Iran and Assad pose, the U.S. must pursue a broad-based political and financial backing of the democratic Syrian opposition, supplying them with essential military needs and weapons, while establishing a no-fly zone in northern Syria to protect civilians and to help displaced refugees. Otherwise, the Syrian war will have irreparable international consequences for years to come.
Over the past five years, peace initiatives have failed while war crimes, use of chemical weapons and millions of refugees have grabbed international headlines.
The appalling attacks on Aleppo and the unprecedented number of casualties would not have been a reality were it not for the direct involvement of the Iranian regime in the Syrian conflict.
Assad should have fallen long ago. But more than 70,000 Iranian and non-Iranian mercenaries have been deployed by the Iranian regime's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to fight in Syria. That figure far exceeds the number of the 50,000-strong Syrian military force, according to IRGC reports.
The Iranian regime has divided Syria into five military zones, setting up 18 Operational and Logistical Headquarters in different parts of the country. There are 8,000 to 10,000 IRGC forces, 5,000 to 6,000 regular Iranian Army troops, 20,000 Iraqi militias from ten different groups, 15,000 to 20,000 Afghan militias (Fatemiyoun), 7,000 to 10,000 Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, and 5,000 to 7,000 militias from Pakistan (Zeinabiyoun) and elsewhere operating in Syria.
Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pulled in the top brass of his regime’s military command. Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s Commander-in-Chief, personally travelled to Syria for the offensives against the cities of Nubl and Al-Zahra in February 2016. IRGC General Mohsen Reza’i, former Commander-in-Chief during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, was appointed as Khamenei’s Deputy for the Syrian War in 2016. IRGC General Qassem Soleimani, Commander of the Qods Force, regularly travels to Syria and meets with Assad.
Iran's state-run media have published the names and pictures of at least 33 IRGC generals and dozens of other senior commanders killed during the fighting. Corpses are routinely flown back for burial in Iranian cities. The total number of causalities from the IRGC and the Syrian (non-military), Afghan and Iraqi militias exceeds 10,000. Roughly 1,500 of them belonged to the IRGC.
Over the past 5 years, Tehran has budgeted about 100 billion dollars for the war, most of which has been spent on procurement of weaponry or covering the Syrian military’s expenses. Tehran spends one billion dollars annually in Syria solely on the salaries of its mercenaries, and was also instrumental in prodding Russia to play a greater role in the situation.
But why is Tehran so heavily invested in the conflict? To fight ISIS? Absolutely not.
In fact, the Iranian regime has no presence in the eastern part of Syria where ISIS is dominant. And, after all, it was Tehran’s closest allies, Assad and former Iraqi PM Nuri al-Maliki, who played a significant role in the empowerment, if not the formation, of ISIS.
Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with Gregory Palkot of Fox News on November 17, 2015:
“ISIS was created by Assad releasing 1,500 prisoners from jail and Maliki releasing 1,000 people in Iraq who were put together as a force of terror types.”
So, “fighting ISIS” is a smokescreen. There are other reasons for Tehran's direct and profound involvement.
Senior Iranian regime cleric Mehdi Taeb, head of the Ammar Garrison and former commander of IRGC intelligence, said it best. On February 14, 2013, he called Syria Iran's strategic “35th province,” and explained:
"If the enemy attacks us and seeks to take Syria or Khuzestan [oil-rich western Iranian province], our priority would be to keep Syria, because if we keep Syria, we can take back Khuzestan. But if we lose Syria, we would lose Tehran.”
What should Washington do to prudently resolve the Syrian conflict and to end this century’s greatest humanitarian catastrophe?
The key is to end the occupation of Syria by Tehran. So long as IRGC forces remain in Syria, peace would be an illusion. In Tehran's absence, there would have been a political solution that could include the removal of Assad from power, not to mention that ISIS would have been defeated as well.
To stave off the threats Iran and Assad pose, the U.S. must pursue a broad-based political and financial backing of the democratic Syrian opposition, supplying them with essential military needs and weapons, while establishing a no-fly zone in northern Syria to protect civilians and to help displaced refugees. Otherwise, the Syrian war will have irreparable international consequences for years to come.
Iran’s sham election was not about reform
By Soona Samsami, The Hill, March 15, 2016
The Iranian regime held two sets of elections in the last week of February. Some in the West see the elections as the first test of power for the mullahs’ president Hassan Rouhani after the signing of the nuclear deal last year. Their optimism is fueled by the vast economic and human potentials of Iran itself. They argue, rather confidently, that the nuclear deal will instigate reforms within the regime by strengthening the position of the “reformers” in Rouhani’s camp.
Did things change after Iran's elections? Not really. The mullahs are still in charge
By Alireza Jafarzadeh, March 09, 2016; FoxNews.com
On February 26th, elections were held for Iran’s parliament and Assembly of Experts. In the aftermath, we are witnessing some of the same rationalizations and tortured logic that allowed certain Western policymakers to convince themselves three years ago that the Iranian regime was entering a period of moderation and reform. Then as now, the election of Hassan Rouhani as president was seen as a serious moment of moderation in the history of the theocratic, terrorist-supporting state.
Iran's cyber army
the latest in a series of maleficence
By Alireza Jafarzadeh
The Hill, Tuesday, May 3, 2016
In July, when the P5+1 struck a nuclear deal with Iran dubbed as “historic,” administration officials spun it as a first step on a path toward improving Tehran’s behavior. That path hit yet another bump in recent weeks, when Iran launched nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed the nuclear deal.
In a letter to the U.N., the U.S., France, Great Britain and Germany decried the missile tests. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking on a visit to Bahrain on April 7, 2016, condemned "the destabilising actions of Iran."
The Hill, Tuesday, May 3, 2016
In July, when the P5+1 struck a nuclear deal with Iran dubbed as “historic,” administration officials spun it as a first step on a path toward improving Tehran’s behavior. That path hit yet another bump in recent weeks, when Iran launched nuclear-capable missiles in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution that endorsed the nuclear deal.
In a letter to the U.N., the U.S., France, Great Britain and Germany decried the missile tests. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking on a visit to Bahrain on April 7, 2016, condemned "the destabilising actions of Iran."
|
|
|
In Iran, it's always Groundhog Day: The U.S. should learn its lesson rather than repeatedly supporting reformers who aren't
BY; Ali Safavi
The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Welcome to U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. The endless repetition of failed policy choices with respect to Tehran — spread across presidential administrations of both parties — is political theater of the worst kind: a high-stakes version of the movie “Groundhog Day.” But unlike Bill Murray’s character, we can’t seem to stop the cycle.
Ever since the 1990s,
The definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Welcome to U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. The endless repetition of failed policy choices with respect to Tehran — spread across presidential administrations of both parties — is political theater of the worst kind: a high-stakes version of the movie “Groundhog Day.” But unlike Bill Murray’s character, we can’t seem to stop the cycle.
Ever since the 1990s,
Interview on Bloomberg Radio on Iranian Elections
Elections Day Interview on CNBC TV
Watch the video clip of the February 24, 2016 briefing on elections
The following briefing was held at the NCRIUS office by Alireza Jafarzadeh, the deputy director of the U.S. Representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
The silver lining in Europe’s ill-advised embrace of Hassan Rouhani
By Soona Samsami, The Hill, February 15, 2016
Late last month, the Iranian regime’s President Hassan Rouhani wrapped up a trip to France and Italy for a deal bonanza after the lifting of sanctions. The inking of a host of commercial deals seemingly fueled arguments formulated by advocates of rapprochement who say that the latest developments signify a new era in international relations. Some western officials are presumably sincere in their expectation of a sea change in Iranian attitudes and policies. In other cases, these pronouncements are purely pragmatic, ignoring the fundamental discord between Iran and the West for the sake of trade agreements and other short-sighted benefits.
Panel on Iran Nuclear Negotiations: Prospects of Nuclear Agreement, challenges, verification & policy options
In an online question and answer session, the issue of the Iran nuclear agreement was discussed. The panel, moderated by R. Bruce McColm, President of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, included Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Ph.D, former US Undersecretary of State for Arms Control &International Security, Professor Raymond Tanter, former White House National Security Council senior staffer and Alireza Jafarzadeh, Deputy Director of the National Council of Resistance of Iran US Representative Office.
Ambassador Joseph opened the session by saying he wanted to see a negotiated outcome and a “good agreement” at the end of the nuclear talks. However, he stated that there have been too many concessions, one being the fact that the talks are not preventing Iran from having nuclear weapon capability – a goal that has now been abandoned, meaning that Iran will one day have a large-scale enrichment capability.
Iran’s poor track record was extensively discussed with Ambassador Joseph reminding us how unreliable they have been when faced with questions about their nuclear capability. This means that there is no baseline knowledge for understanding if 12 months is a meaningful deadline - America has no idea how far Iran has advanced. The IAEA has been struggling to make progress in their investigations for years after constant stonewalling from the regime.
Ambassador Joseph also highlighted the unknowns surrounding the excess of enriched uranium that Iran possesses. Will it be sent out of the country? What will Iran do to make it secure? These are questions that we do not have answers to. It is unknown how long it could take for Iran to break out.
Access at any time, to any site and any person affiliated with the site is crucial according to Ambassador Joseph. However, he said that Iran wants to manage access, in other words, they want the right to deny access. This, in his opinion, is one of the many faults that Obama’s administration and the P5+1 have made in the nuclear talks. They have given too many concessions to Iran.
In fact, Ambassador Joseph went on to say that the Obama administration has made a series of serious errors in the negotiations. They have:
• relieved sanctions to “keep Iran on the negotiating table”
• demonstrated that they are desperate for a deal – something that Iran has exploited to the fullest
• made concession after concession (i.e. deadlines)
He concludes that the above makes it “almost embarrassing to watch” and that the U.S. is explaining away Iran’s violations.
Ambassador Joseph concluded his opening remarks with a warning that Iran will become the prominent country in the region – its presence in Middle Eastern countries is becoming more and more prominent. He warned that Iran will think it is immune to external pressure when they have nuclear capability and will therefore continue to repress their people.
Professor Raymond Tanter opened by discussing North Korea – a country that possesses extensive ballistic missile knowledge. This knowledge, Prof. Tanter believes, will eventually be passed to Iran, allowing Iran to militarize their nuclear weapons.
The disconnect between the nuclear talks on one hand and Iran’s support for terrorism, their missile delivery research, the repression of its people, etc. is of concern to Prof. Tanter. He stated that this should all be factored into the nuclear deal.
He believes that there is an increasing likelihood that America will accept any deal in order to avoid having to use force. The regime is therefore increasing their demands for concessions and America keeps granting them in return.
Prof. Tanter predicted that Iran will become more active in its support for terrorism, more active in its support for activities in Yemen and more active in its support for Shiite rebellion. He believes that Iran will be very comfortable behind its “nuclear umbrella” and will therefore be able to extend its reach far beyond its current reach.
Alireza Jafarzadeh discussed the inspections of nuclear sites. A major problem is that the joint plan has continued to allow Iran to ban inspectors from visiting nuclear sites. Another problem is Iran’s continual “cheating”. He explained that the regime have many different methods for cheating. They provoke delays, tamper with evidence, lie until they are eventually exposed, distract authorities and promise cooperation that they do not follow through with.
One major example of the above cheating and deception is the case of “Kala Electric” – a site that was exposed by NCRI in February 2003. The IAEA went to visit immediately after the site was exposed but noticed discrepancies only a month later. They took samples and noted that there had been considerable modifications to the premises. The regime said this was because the space was previously used as a storage facility, then changed to a laboratory, hence the major changes. However this was a lie – it was just an attempt to hide evidence and conceal the truth. The regime also lied about discrepancies in uranium quantities and hid evidence and centrifuges in other facilities.
Jafarzadeh said that the lesson we can pull from Kala Electric is that having access any time to any suspect site is crucial in the negotiations. Iran’s strategy of controlled access to already known nuclear sites is to not answer questions. This is why we can’t let this continue. He said that it is unacceptable that Iran can deny requests from IAEA. Obama should make sure this doesn’t continue. He claimed that there are at least a dozen suspect sites and questioned why they are not being looked at. How can future problems be resolved if they can’t even resolve the current and existing ones? The negotiations have not addressed the issue of suspect nuclear activity and Jafarzadeh said this needs to be resolved before a deal can be reached.
Ambassador Joseph opened the session by saying he wanted to see a negotiated outcome and a “good agreement” at the end of the nuclear talks. However, he stated that there have been too many concessions, one being the fact that the talks are not preventing Iran from having nuclear weapon capability – a goal that has now been abandoned, meaning that Iran will one day have a large-scale enrichment capability.
Iran’s poor track record was extensively discussed with Ambassador Joseph reminding us how unreliable they have been when faced with questions about their nuclear capability. This means that there is no baseline knowledge for understanding if 12 months is a meaningful deadline - America has no idea how far Iran has advanced. The IAEA has been struggling to make progress in their investigations for years after constant stonewalling from the regime.
Ambassador Joseph also highlighted the unknowns surrounding the excess of enriched uranium that Iran possesses. Will it be sent out of the country? What will Iran do to make it secure? These are questions that we do not have answers to. It is unknown how long it could take for Iran to break out.
Access at any time, to any site and any person affiliated with the site is crucial according to Ambassador Joseph. However, he said that Iran wants to manage access, in other words, they want the right to deny access. This, in his opinion, is one of the many faults that Obama’s administration and the P5+1 have made in the nuclear talks. They have given too many concessions to Iran.
In fact, Ambassador Joseph went on to say that the Obama administration has made a series of serious errors in the negotiations. They have:
• relieved sanctions to “keep Iran on the negotiating table”
• demonstrated that they are desperate for a deal – something that Iran has exploited to the fullest
• made concession after concession (i.e. deadlines)
He concludes that the above makes it “almost embarrassing to watch” and that the U.S. is explaining away Iran’s violations.
Ambassador Joseph concluded his opening remarks with a warning that Iran will become the prominent country in the region – its presence in Middle Eastern countries is becoming more and more prominent. He warned that Iran will think it is immune to external pressure when they have nuclear capability and will therefore continue to repress their people.
Professor Raymond Tanter opened by discussing North Korea – a country that possesses extensive ballistic missile knowledge. This knowledge, Prof. Tanter believes, will eventually be passed to Iran, allowing Iran to militarize their nuclear weapons.
The disconnect between the nuclear talks on one hand and Iran’s support for terrorism, their missile delivery research, the repression of its people, etc. is of concern to Prof. Tanter. He stated that this should all be factored into the nuclear deal.
He believes that there is an increasing likelihood that America will accept any deal in order to avoid having to use force. The regime is therefore increasing their demands for concessions and America keeps granting them in return.
Prof. Tanter predicted that Iran will become more active in its support for terrorism, more active in its support for activities in Yemen and more active in its support for Shiite rebellion. He believes that Iran will be very comfortable behind its “nuclear umbrella” and will therefore be able to extend its reach far beyond its current reach.
Alireza Jafarzadeh discussed the inspections of nuclear sites. A major problem is that the joint plan has continued to allow Iran to ban inspectors from visiting nuclear sites. Another problem is Iran’s continual “cheating”. He explained that the regime have many different methods for cheating. They provoke delays, tamper with evidence, lie until they are eventually exposed, distract authorities and promise cooperation that they do not follow through with.
One major example of the above cheating and deception is the case of “Kala Electric” – a site that was exposed by NCRI in February 2003. The IAEA went to visit immediately after the site was exposed but noticed discrepancies only a month later. They took samples and noted that there had been considerable modifications to the premises. The regime said this was because the space was previously used as a storage facility, then changed to a laboratory, hence the major changes. However this was a lie – it was just an attempt to hide evidence and conceal the truth. The regime also lied about discrepancies in uranium quantities and hid evidence and centrifuges in other facilities.
Jafarzadeh said that the lesson we can pull from Kala Electric is that having access any time to any suspect site is crucial in the negotiations. Iran’s strategy of controlled access to already known nuclear sites is to not answer questions. This is why we can’t let this continue. He said that it is unacceptable that Iran can deny requests from IAEA. Obama should make sure this doesn’t continue. He claimed that there are at least a dozen suspect sites and questioned why they are not being looked at. How can future problems be resolved if they can’t even resolve the current and existing ones? The negotiations have not addressed the issue of suspect nuclear activity and Jafarzadeh said this needs to be resolved before a deal can be reached.