Updates from July, 2018 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Masoud Dalvand 4:54 pm on 14 Jul 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    The Need for Terrorism in the Rule of Velayat-e Faqih in Iran 

    The Need for Terrorism in the Rule of

    Since 40 years ago, with the Khomeini’s achievement to the rule of Iran and the establishment of the Velayat-e faqih regime, “assassination” has been one of the most important and vital means to maintain the dominance of Velayat-e faqih. Quantities and figures, as well as the disclosure of these assassinations are not considered in this note and article. In this regard, significant revelations have been made by the Iranian Resistance.

    In this article, I want to look at some of the motives that the clerical regime, including terrorism based on it, uses as a solution to consolidate the foundations of its political domination.

    In examining the inherent features of the Velayat-e faqih regime, which constitutes terrorism as an integral part of this rule, one can mention the following:

    1 Denial of the freedom and authority for human

    2 belonging to the Middle Ages and lack of the ability to adapt to social evolution

    3 Monopoly in Political Power

    4 Occupation in the sovereignty

    5 Intimidating

    6 Neglecting the main alternative of the Velayat-e faqih (Alternative) regime

    These six features are filters that do not allow the diversity of opinion and dissent, the public participation, the right to free choice and democracy to the rule of the Velayat-e faqih. On the other hand, since these attributes are typical attributes of civilized human societies, this sovereignty always perceives itself against these features in an impasse, a disillusionment, an abomination, anger, and hatred. Therefore, it is a good way to deal with these features in the elimination and physical destruction of their carriers. Therefore, breathing in the atmosphere and the atmosphere of terrorism and inhaling it is a vital requirement for expressing the existence of the system of Velayat-e faqih. The terror card, like a sword in the pod, is always ready to respond and provide for the survival of the sovereignty.

    Denial of the freedom and authority for human

    The principle of Velayat-e faqih and the reactionary ideology of the clerical regime do not perceive the liberty and authority of man.

    In such thinking, the Velayat-e faqih is the representative of God and the extraterrestrial being created by humans for his service and companionship; Hence, they are “small” and “flock”! Therefore, independence and the free choice of any thought, thought and belief are considered as a deviation from the WaliFakyah. To the extent that it is inactive, the dissident can remain silent and alive in the order and obligation of the Velayat-e faqih; however, if someone protects and advocates the independence of thought and dissent and their free choice, their right to life will be abolished and cause applying the apostate, hypocrite, infidel, divine and deviant from the divine path and his representative, Wali Faqih. The decree of such dissent is death. This death must either be carried out by the representative of the Wali Faqih in the judiciary or by assassination.

    One of the fundamentals of the regime’s policy in dealing with ethnic and religious minorities, as well as political and cultural groups since 1979, has come from such a special feature.

    Belonging to the Middle Ages and not having the ability to adapt to social evolution

    One of the characteristics and peculiarities of the current Iranian society is its similarity with the era that in the 15th and 16th centuries led to the Renaissance movement. The main feature of this period was the stagnation of static and frozen thoughts with dissent, modernism, wisdom and enlightenment. In this battle, the church should come down from behind the clouds of holiness and immolation, and it was logic, rationality, innovation, and philosophy and science as a means to explain and understand the world. In the essence of the Renaissance movement, it was the freedom and authority that a church would have to rule upon its admission.

    It is very clear that through the struggles of the 40th anniversary of the people and the leaders of freedom and enlightenment, Iranian society could stand against the thought and explanation of the dilemma of Khomeini and the mullahs from the “man, society and history” and pay its heavy price with thousands of angels of freedom. The payment of this price was due to the battle with the prominent character of this medieval ruler who, with the massacre and executions on the streets of Iran and the world, could not confront the social development of Iran and its pioneers.

    Monopoly in Political Power

    Political sovereignty and the resulting power in democratic and popular systems arise from the free choice of the citizens and their representatives. The purpose of such a government is to advance and realize personal, social, national, patriotic and human prosperity. Thus, such political power derives its legitimacy from the sovereignty of the people and is therefore not absolute and is criticism and substitute. In such a structure, sovereignty is an opportunity to present programs and competitions and turn out the best ideas for the development of the nation and the homeland.

    In the sovereignty of Velayat-e faqih, with deception and deceit, political power is attributed to God and comes from “superior will”. What is sacrificed at the first step is the sovereignty of the people and the freedom of choice of citizens.

    On the basis of such power and sovereignty, “others” have no place in political and ideological and cultural terms in governing and political power. Therefore, the political, ideological and cultural presence of their sovereignty is considered to be a rival and alternative. Therefore, they must either endorse and honor or be recorded on the list of threats. This list is always ready for assassination alongside the podgy sword. From then on, how to regulate the relationship and its relations with the sovereignty of the Wali-Faqih, its fate and its life.

    This feature is inclusive with totalitarianism. It is a feature of Khomeini, and then Khamenei, no group, and someone outside the exclusive circle of power can not tolerate. Therefore, everyone should swear to the supreme leader to ensure the monopoly of power.

    Power is a special monopoly on the part of the “superior will” and entrusted to the Wali-Faqih. Denying and violating this monopoly is denied the right to life, and Its sentence includes deprivation of ordinary life, exile, imprisonment, isolation and exclusion, and if not, “terror”.

     Occupation in the sovereignty

    This government is not a rule of free will and democratic choice of the people. Khomeini, from the beginning, betrayed the promises made before the revolution, imposed a clerical assembly of people instead of the constituent assembly. This constitutional assembly passed the Velayat-e faqih, and the sovereignty of the Iranian nation was usurped and handed over to a beast called the Wali-Faqih.

    In February 1979, in parliamentary elections, Khomeini did not allow any opposition political group candidate, including MEK candidates, to run in parliament with fraud and crackdown.

    Representatives of the Wali Faghih have repeatedly acknowledged that people do not have the right to choose. If there is an election for the demagoguery and people make a comment, this opinion has no religious authority and the verdict is validated by the religious leader.

    Therefore, the right to vote and opinion about the fate of themselves and the country will be denied to the citizens. His vote is 80 million. He does not have any weight in terms of the Wali Faghih. Being or not having a citizen will have no effect on the fate of society and the environment. Hence, the people of Iran are in control of the occupation, which implements and enforces the laws of the occupied country.

    This peculiarity to the sovereignty of the occupier gives the authority to interfere in all matters of life of the nation. From this perspective, all people in the occupied country are suspected and threatened. The greatest cost should be spent on the continuation of occupation. From this perspective, the occupied people must be aware of their right to live on the occupying government. This nation is all “superior will” in the governorate and elected province; therefore, the lives and honor of the people and the amulets are hostages of the occupying power. Hence, the need for assassination and physical removal, the necessity of exercising sovereignty and guaranteeing the survival and consolidation of the foundations of power.

    The obvious feature of this occupation is to justify the assassinations, escape from any law and non-accountability for domestic and international complaints and protests and audits.

    Intimidating

    In a society where equality between men and women, dissent, democracy, pluralism and freedom in its entirety, as well as the critique of the absolute power of the Velayat-e faqih, are considered as a crime and a sin, the means of coping with these values ​​and necessities turn into a state of affairs that addresses all possible ways of a peaceful life It brings to the door. In such a society, the first victim is civility, law, and political and judicial rights. Therefore, the only possible way is to impose power through the promotion of fear and terror.

    Terrorism Iran

    Execution and assassination are like a lofty corridor whose first and second ends meet with fear and terror. Racial and religious fascists in mullahs’ regime use this weapon to promote fear and terror as the most effective tactical and strategic weapon.

    Execution and assassination are one of the main tools and foundations supporting the sovereignty of Velayat-e faqih, which has extended it from prisons to the streets of Iran and the cities of the world. The weapon is so effective for this sovereignty, and if even one day it stops, the elements of the clerical regime will be shaken. The propagation, propagation and propagation of the horror of executions and assassinations act as a spell of the glass of the life of this sovereignty. Therefore, it should be regarded as the main leverage of repression.

    Denial the main alternative of the Velayat-e faqih (Alternative) regime

    We need to point to a very important feature in the need for terrorism, which undoubtedly are the axes or previous features used to realize this very important principle: the negation of any alternatives or alternatives for the rule of the velayat-e faqih.

    From the outset, Khomeini chose and propagated the word “Islam”, the pseudonym “himself” and the clerical regime. With unsurpassed arrogance, he never denied the character of ‘Imam’; on the contrary, he always tried to dismiss it for the general public and, with many tricks, surrounded himself with a halo of sanctity and disintegration.

    Some later, he saw the intention and determination that he had learned from the very soon afterwards, under the title of “Velayat-e faqih” in the constitution and formalized. He even nominated his designated government to the “Imam of Time”!

    The same sanctity that was arranged and propagated around it was an attempt to eliminate any idea and probability of substitution, which is commonly found in the circle of ordinary political power and commonplace in democratic systems, and set itself the boundary of its inheritance. There is no sunset over this occupation and occupation.

    Such a structure, with a combination of power and holiness, does not discourage any opposition from its opponents and critics. All the behavior of Khomeini from the following February 12, 1980 indicates that this special feature is very important: The Islamic Republic should not have any alternative. Therefore, any possibility must be suppressed and destroyed with intensity and intensity.

    The vital need for terrorism to eliminate any substitution justifies all policies, strategies, deals, and clauses for this regime. In this need, it will pay for whatever price it needs. In this terrorism, any dignity, if any, goes down and trades.

    In the latest example of the need for terrorism in spite of the crisis of achievements, sanctions and uprisings in Iran, which threw the whole regime into turbulence and inflammation, it is willing to sacrifice its democratic alternative to bring the Iranian Resistance in Paris under because he sees in the PMOI and the National Council of Resistance of Iran and Its president, Mrs. Maryam Rajavi an alternative to It’s overwhelming and capable force.

     

    Advertisements
     

    • wizzymedpower 9:26 pm on 16 Jul 2018 Permalink

      Thanks for the update from Iran.. Prayer: God’s intervention in Jesus name amen!

      Like

  • Masoud Dalvand 9:29 pm on 12 Jul 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    What should be done about the Iran’s government-sponsored terrorism 

    The Iran government sponsors terrorism

    Iran, July 11, 2018 – On June 30, as thousands of Iranians and political figures from five continents convened at Paris for the annual Iranian opposition Free Iran rally, the Belgian police arrested a group of terrorists in Brussels. At the same time, the German police arrested Assadollah Assadi, an Iranian regime diplomat. Other undisclosed arrests took place in neighboring European countries, all linked to a complicated terror plot against the Iranian opposition gathering in Paris.

    This is part of a broader confrontation between the Iranian opposition and the regime and has now assumed a much larger context.

    The U.S. government, whose distinguished citizens and politicians were speaking at the Iranian opposition gathering and could have been the victim of the Iranian regime’s terrorist plot, has declared that it will be pursuing this matter and it won’t go unanswered. Europeans should also make their move. European taxpayers should know about the Iranian regime’s terrorist activities in their countries and decide what to do with its diplomatic facilities, which have become the centers of planning and staging terror plots.

    While this latest terror attempt has been in the headlines for several days, the Iranian regime has a long history of attempting and carrying out similar operations in foreign countries. In fact, in the same rally that the regime was going to the be target of the Iranian regime’s failed terror attempt, Louis Freeh, former director of the FBI, reminded the crowd of another violent terrorist attack that had been hatched in Tehran and carried out by the Iranian regime’s operatives.

    “Although, things are changing around and under the regime, the regime’s agenda of terrorism has not changed,” Freeh said in his speech. “Last Monday was the 22nd anniversary of the IRGC Saudi Hezbollah bombing of the US barracks in Khobar Tower. Since then, the regime has continued to export terrorism in Yemen, in Argentina, in Syria and all around the world. That has not changed. What has changed, however, is what’s going on in the hearts and minds and on the streets and bazaars of Iran…”

    In 1996, after the bombing of the Khobar towers, Louis Freeh, who at the time was the director of the FBI, dispatched an investigation team. They soon learned that the persons behind the terrorist attack had been trained, armed and financed by the IRGC. However, since the dominant policy of the U.S. administration was rapprochement and appeasement toward the Iranian regime, the matter was not pursued.

    Another notable episode was the bombing of the U.S. Marines barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, again the doing of the IRGC and Hezbollah. During the attack, which took place on October 23, 1983, 241 American and 58 French military personnel were killed along with 6 civilians.

    Four years later, on July 20, 1987, Mohsen Rafiqdoust, the former IRGC Minister, officially stated, “Americans know that the explosive that combined with that ideology and sent 400 American soldiers and officers to hell, both the ideology and the explosive material came from Iran.”

    Some of the other terrorist attacks conducted by the Iranian regime abroad include the following:

    • Assassination Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic party, in Vienna, Austria, in 1989
    • The assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar, the last Prime Minister of the Shah regime, in Suresnes, France 1991
    • The assassination of Kazem Rajavi, NCRI member, and brother of Iranian opposition leader Massoud Rajavi, in Coppet, Switzerland, in 1990
    • The assassination of Kurdish opposition leaders in Berlin, Germany, in 1992
    • The assassination of Mohammad Hossein Naghdi, NCRI member, in Rome, Italy, in 1993
    • The assassination of Zahra Rajabi, NCRI member, in Istanbul, Turkey, in 1996

    These are just some of the terror attacks that the Iranian regime has conducted in European countries in the past decades. There are also several failed assassination attempts, and the regime was also involved in bombings in London and Paris.

    Disappointingly, in most cases, European governments have let the Iranian regime’s terrorists off the hook because of their goals to appease Tehran.

    Some of the diplomat terrorists of the Iranian regime in European countries include the following:

    • Alireza Moayeri, the regime’s ambassador to France and UN
    • Vahid Gorji, Iranian terrorist in France
    • Massoud Hendi, Iranian terrorist in France
    • Kazem Darabi
    • Ali Vakilrad
    • Fereidoun Pourahmadi
    • Mohammad Azadi

    Ali Vakilrad , Fereidoun Pourahmadi & Mohammad Azadi

    Ali Vakilrad , Fereidoun Pourahmadi & Mohammad Azadi

    Left to right Mohsen Rafiqdoust, Momed Saleh Al-Hosseini, Aniss Naqash, Mosen Rezaei

    Left to right Mohsen Rafiqdoust, Mohammed Saleh Al-Hosseini, Aniss Naqash, Mohsen Rezaei

    The group that assassinated Kazem Rajavi were well-known diplomats of the Iranian regime. They had traveled to Geneva with their diplomatic documents and returned to Tehran after carrying out the assassination.

    On June 17, 2004, the Tribune De Geneve newspaper published an article in which it identified a bank account with a $200 million balance, which might have been used to fund 400 terrorist attacks in Europe. According to TDG, the account was also linked to the terrorist bombing of the AMIA building in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 86 people and injured 200 others. The account was used to fund a team of 13 people, who had been dispatched to Switzerland to assassinate Kazem Rajavi.

    So this all brings us back to the first question: What must be done with the government-sponsored terrorism of the Iranian regime? As far as the people of Iran and taxpayers in western countries are concerned, the answer is clear: Every center and facility that gives the Iranian regime a diplomatic cover to carry out its evil terrorist plots must be closed down.

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 5:24 pm on 7 Jul 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    The Iran policy choice is clear: Support the people 

     

    The Iran policy choice is clear- Support the people

    The people of Iran support sanctions against the clerical regime and its repressive apparatuses such as the IRGC

    Iran, July 7, 2018 – As Iran’s crises in the Middle East escalate, especially in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, more signs are showing the regime’s internal crises will be boiling to a point of causing extreme troubles for Tehran’s mullahs.

    “… the United States and our allies need to use whatever political, economic, diplomatic and commercial capabilities we have to help the people of Iran take the regime down themselves,” wrote Peter Huessy, director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies of the Air Force Association, in a recent article in The Hill.

    With a close look at the region, it is easily realized that Washington has been preparing a vast coalition to tackle this task. Iran’s forces and proxies Syria and Yemen are also under heavy strikes.

    Iran is also facing a conglomerate of challenges. The collapsing currency, the constant outpouring of capital, the middle class joining the protests, increasing government repression, including measures such as beatings, jailing, extrajudicial executions and killings, and arbitrary arrests.

    Multiple cities across the country are witnessing a variety of protests causing enormous damages for the regime. In response, the mullahs are only pledging to increase the severity of punishments against such scenarios.

    To add insult to injury, a long list of companies are also ending their investment projects in Iran, in fear of confronting U.S.’ secondary sanctions, especially come November 4th when Iran’s oil and banking sectors go under major blockades.

    Further harsh measures are in the making for Iran’s regime.

    “Iran should be removed from access to SWIFT, (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications), so it cannot sell and purchase oil,” Huessy adds.

    The next logical step would be to effectively embargo the Iranian regime’s oil export. This is especially necessary as videos on social media are proving that the Iranian people are suffering and never enjoying any benefits of oil sales or other sources promised by the regime, particularly following the flawed Iran nuclear deal signing.

    Further steps should include:

    Shutting down the Iranian regime’s embassies, enhancing water supplies for the people after this regime’s toppling, launching cyber campaigns targeting the regime’s nuclear weapons/ballistic missile program, and providing meaningful support for the Iranian people in their protests and demonstrations against this regime.

    The free world today is facing a simple choice. Stand alongside the Iranian people to end the mullahs’ rule, or stand aside and witness the rise of an enormously dangerous regime in the Middle East that threatens all our ways of life and the entirety of our values.

     

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 2:32 pm on 29 Jun 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , IRGC and Meddling in the Region, , Panel Discussion on Iran   

    Panel Discussion on Iran: IRGC and Meddling in the Region 

    Panel discution Policy on Iran

    Panel Discussion on Iran: IRGC and Meddling in the Region

    Moderator: Walid Phares, Expert, global terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs

    Second panel discussion on Iran starts: IRGC and meddling in the region, moderated by Mr. Walid Phares, Expert, global terrorism and Middle Eastern affairs.

    Raid Yassine, Ambassador of Yemen in Paris, former Foreign Minister of Yemen:

    The reason the Iranian regime meddles in the region is instituted in its constitution. This highlights the fact that they will continue what they have been doing.

    Deputy Commander of the Quds Force said Yemen is more important than Lebanon. They infiltrated a huge country with 27 million people.

    We have been receiving aid and support from Saudi Arabia, Egypt , etc. We did not receive any support from Iran . Instead, we discovered spy networks. In January 2013.

    Ret. General Charles Wald, former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command: “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not moderated the behavior of the Iranian regime. The JCPOA was pretty much a failure.”

    “Security of the Iranian regime depends on the export of revolution by that regime. Currently, Iran’s regional ambitions constitute its control over Syria. They provide troops for Assad.”

    U.S. Defense Secretary Mattis accused Iran of trying to influence the Iraqi elections. In Lebanon , Iran is accused of making at least two underground factories for manufacture of missiles.

    James Conway, General (Ret.), former Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.: We have been using the term “meddling” for years, but I think that word no longer satisfies. Iran is today calling the shots in all Middle Eastern capitals.

    I have seen their (regime) activities described with terms “interdiction”, “subversion”, “cancer” and even “takeover.”

    Soleimani sees his mission in Syria as two folds: One is to support the Syrian regime and that includes the survival of the Assad regime. Syria has been Iran’s best ally for years and is crucial to this whole concept of the Shiite Crescent.

    Frédéric Encel, writer and scholar of geopolitics specialized on the Middle East.

    Mohammed al-Sulami, Head of International Institute for Iranian Studies · Yves Thréard, Editorialist in Le Figaro.

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 11:16 am on 8 Feb 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    How the Iranian Regime Is Using Its Proxy Groups and How the US Can Tackle Them 

    The Iranian Regime has a network of foreign proxy groups all across the Middle East, from large formal organizations like Hezbollah to small splinter groups like Asaib Ahl al-Haq. This means that Iranian influence is spreading further than ever before and is doing so in increasingly diverse ways. How can we stop them?

    At a Policy Forum at The Washington Institute on February 2, Hanin Ghaddar, the Institute’s Friedman Visiting Fellow and a veteran Lebanese journalist and researcher, spoke about the Iranian Regime’s control of Lebanon via Hezbollah and explained the political balance is a mere illusion in Lebanon because of Iran.

    He explained that because of Iran’s power over Hezbollah, the Regime has been able to build a land bridge across the Middle East through Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, which the mullahs will use to transport weapons, troops, and money to its terrorist proxies (including splinter groups) across the region, and expand its power even more.

    At that same forum, Phillip Smyth, a Soref Fellow at the Institute and a researcher at the University of Maryland, explained that if the US wished to tackle these Iranian-backed groups, they must recognise that they are all connected.
    Even though it may seem as if the groups are divided along religious or ethnic or political grounds, they are all reading from the Regime’s script. They are paid from the same coffers, following the same idealogy, and fightinging the same battles.

    Smyth said: “Understanding Iranian ideology will allow Washington to counter it more effectively. Iranian operatives know how to work with individuals and splinter groups, while U.S. policy tends to be more binary in determining allies and adversaries. Going forward, U.S. officials should learn how to better utilize religious networks in the region. They should also take advantage of the fact that Iran overestimates its influence in certain quarters, particularly within the Iraqi army.”

    Both speakers agreed that because of the speed that the Iranian Regime was recruiting fighters via their proxy groups, the fighters were no longer as loyal to the cause or as well trained, which was also a way to attack the Iranian Regime.

    Ghaddar said: “The United States can take several steps in response… In the short term, supporting anti-Iran and anti-Hezbollah candidates in the May elections could harden the line between the state and Hezbollah. In the longer term, Washington would be wise to draw red lines in Syria and stick to them.”

     

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 9:35 am on 24 Jan 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Iran Regime Is a Threat to Us All 

    Iran threat

    Houthis Terrorists supported by the Iranian regime

    NCRI – The Iranian Regime was founded on the principal of exporting their revolution- including their widely discredited interpretation of Islam- to the rest of the world. They have never given up on this idea and continue to pursue world domination through the use of nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and proxy militias to fight for them.

    The Iran- sponsored Houthi militia in Yemen sought to overthrow the internationally recognised government, and replace them with former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. The Houthis captured the capital of Sana’a, and the Iranian Regime rejoiced at controlling another capital in the Middle East, but faced opposition from a Saudi-coalition, which stepped up the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, stated: “Iran is gradually increasing its support for the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Rather than eliminating the Iranian presence in the country, the Saudi-led war is giving Tehran the opportunity to become more influential there than ever. The Houthis … will need Tehran’s backing more as the stalemate continues … A war designed to weaken Iran is actually helping it against its regional rival.”

    In November, the Houthis attempted to fire a ballistic missile towards Riyadh International Airport in November, which was the first missile to be aimed at such a densely-populated area.

    The Iranian-made missile was thankfully destroyed in flight by Saudi forces before it could do any damage, but it is clear that the Iranian Regime at the very least supplied the missile and quite possibly order the attack. It is believed that the missile was disassembled, smuggled into Yemen, and reassembled by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its Lebanese-based proxy Hezbollah.

    The US considers this attack as evidence that Iran has violated two United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on the Yemen crisis and Iran’s missile program.

    The Houthis have since followed this up another attempted missile attack on Riyadh in December, but this was once again thwarted by the Saudis. However, the Iran-backed Houthi warned that these attacks mark a new chapter, because now Saudi palaces, military bases, and oil facilities, are within missile range.

    Iran’s use of proxies is widespread in the Middle East. Iran armed Shiite militants in Bahrain as part of an effort to bring the country back under Iran’s control- despite Bahrain gaining independence nine years before the Regime took power- and in November, the militants created an explosion on a major oil pipeline in Bahrain to slow the supply of oil to Saudi Arabia.

    With the help of their proxies, Iran does not need to get their hands dirty and have widely escaped the consequences of their actions.

    When the US threatened sanctions against Iran for noncompliance with the nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA), IRGC Major General Mohammed Ali Jafari threatened to launch ballistic missiles on any US military base within 1,200 miles (the range of their ballistic missiles). Ironically, Iran’s use of ballistic missiles is one of the things that Donald Trump sees as a violation of the JCPOA.

    Following those comments, US Representative Ron DeSantis responded: “Iran’s behaviour… has only seemed to get worse. … The present course is untenable and Iran’s threatening behaviour is likely to increase in frequency.”

    In 1983, Iran attacked a US Marines barracks in Lebanon and killed 241 American service members using its terrorist proxy Hezbollah. There is no reason to suspect that they would not do so again.

    Iran also threatened France after various French politicians raised concerns about the Iranian missile program, Iranian expansionism, and called for a political dialogue on the subjects.

    IRGC Brigadier General Hossein Salami said: “If Europe wants to turn into a threat, we will increase the range of our missiles… we have no limitations for the range of our missiles in technological terms.”

    Anthony Chibarirwe wrote on The Trumpet: “These [European leaders were] exercising caution even in their efforts to preserve the JCPOA nuclear deal with Iran. But they aren’t doing so because they trust Iran or because they want it to go nuclear; they are doing so because they distrust and fear this belligerent Iran so much that they choose appeasement rather than confrontation. But their idealist school of thought will not solve the problem.”

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 10:03 pm on 27 Dec 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    VIDEO: One way to counter Iran’s aggression? Change the map of the Middle East 

    The current political structure of the Middle East serves Iran’s interests

    The current political structure of the Middle East serves Iran’s interests

    Fox News, Dec. 25, 2017 – Iran’s geopolitical ascent is the most significant and dangerous development in the Middle East this century. But while the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy properly identifies Iran as among the important challenges to U.S. security interests, it doesn’t offer a concrete strategy on how to counter Iran’s growing regional power.

    President Trump should follow the example of President Reagan, who pursued an offensive strategy to undermine the Soviet Union that included supporting indigenous anti-communist insurgents around the globe. Today, America should support indigenous forces that oppose – and seek independence from – Iranian domination.
    Reversing the strategic threat posed by Iran will require a continued U.S. military presence and military aid to local forces in Syria and Iraq. It will also require greater support for our regional allies, such as Israel and Jordan, which must contain the provocative actions of Iran and its proxies. But this defensive posture will not suffice even to contain Iran, let alone transform its trajectory.
    The United States also needs to recognize Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen for what they are: failed, artificial constructs now dominated by Iran. Iran has taken advantage of ISIS’ crumbling caliphate to increasingly consolidate control over these four nations.

     

    The current political structure of the Middle East serves Iran’s interests, and it’s time to upend it.

    Maintaining Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen in their existing forms is unnatural and serves Iran’s interests. There is nothing sacred about these countries’ borders, which seem to have been drawn by a drunk and blindfolded mapmaker. Indeed, in totally disregarding these borders, ISIS and Iran both have already demonstrated the anachronism and irrelevance of the borders.
    Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen are not nation-states as Americans understand them, but rather post-World War I artificial constructs, mostly created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in a colossally failed experiment by international leaders.
    With their deep ethno-sectarian fissures, these four countries have either been held together by a strong authoritarian hand or suffered sectarian carnage.
    Indeed, the principal vulnerability of Iran’s regional strategy is its dependence on brutal regimes to rule lands riven by ethno-sectarian fissures. The United States should exploit this vulnerability by supporting those forces in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen that oppose Iran’s domination and seek greater self-determination or independence from their own capitals.
    The result could be transforming these failed states into loose confederations or new countries with more borders that more naturally conform along sectarian lines.
    Any redrawing of political relationships or borders is highly complex, and the United States cannot dictate the outcomes. But we can influence them. We would need to deeply examine each country for its unique qualities and histories, and consult closely our regional allies before deciding upon a policy.
    Here are some examples of policy conclusions that the U.S. government might draw:
    ·         We might cease supplying arms to Iraq and declare our support and strong military aid for an eventual Iraqi Kurdish state, once its warring factions unify and improve governance. We could support a federation for the rest of Iraq.
    ·         For Syria, we could seek a more ethnically coherent loose confederation or separate states that might balance each other – the Iranian-dominated Alawites along the coast, the Kurds in the northeast, and the Sunni Arabs in the heartland. We could also demonstrate we are not anti-Shia Muslim by improving relations with Azerbaijan, a secular Shia country bordering Iran that seeks a closer relationship with the United States.
    An added potential benefit of this approach could be a fomenting of tensions within Iran, which has sizable Kurdish and Azeri populations, thereby weakening the radical regime in Tehran.
    Some might argue this approach impractical, destabilizing and offers Iran new opportunities.
    Perhaps, but the region’s current trajectory is more dangerous. The burden is on the United States to adapt its policy to the dissolving of borders and responding to Iran’s aggression.
    Iran is not a status quo power content to consolidate its winnings; its emboldened radical regime is intended to dominate the region and destroy Israel. An Iranian-Israeli conflict looms ever closer as Iran establishes bases and missile factories in Syria, posing a second front in Israel’s north.
    In addition, Americans must concentrate on Iran’s continued development of nuclear-capable ballistic missiles that could eventually reach the U.S. homeland.
    Artificial states have been divided or loosened before with some success, such as the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, which are all post-WWI formations. Bosnia and Herzegovina have also managed as a confederation.
    President Trump should take the offensive to Iran. The current political structure of the Middle East serves Iran’s interests, and it’s time to upend it.

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 9:08 pm on 25 Dec 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Mullahs’ Regime in Crises Explosive Situation in Iran & Meddling in other Countries 

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 11:53 am on 21 Dec 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , ,   

    US New Iran Policy 

    NCRI Staff

    NCRI – Following the release of the National Security Strategy, the U.S. is putting the Iranian Regime in its crosshairs for its support of extremism in the Middle East.

    The Donald Trump administration has made it increasingly clear that Iranian regime’s destructive policies will no longer be overlooked by the US and it is now putting their words into action.

    Terrorism

    The US has long considered Iran the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism but now that the threat posed by ISIS is waning, the West can finally deal with the ‘godfather’ of Islamic terrorism directly.

    Just last week, Nikki Haley, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, explained that the Iranian Regime has supplied ballistic weapons to the Houthis in Yemen in order to attack Saudi Arabia and destabilise the region.

    She said: “We are not just focused on the nuclear programme. We’re also taking a hard look at Iran’s ballistic missile program, its arms exports, and its support for terrorists, proxy fighters and dictators.”

    She explained how the Iranian Regime is essentially the facilitator of malign activities across the Arab world.

    She said: “It’s hard to find a terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran’s fingerprints all over it.[This regime is] fanning the flames” of conflict.”

    Meddling

    It is well known that the Iranian Regime is constantly meddling in the affairs of neighbouring states- like Iraq, Syria, and Yemen- and using their destabilisation to its advantage.

    Douglas Silliman, the US Ambassador to Iraq, said: “Iran simply does not respect the sovereignty of its neighbours.”

    Iraq is now seeking to distance itself from Iran and establish stronger ties with Riyadh and Amman, but the problem is still prominent in other Middle Eastern countries, which could mean a US intervention is necessary.

    There are currently over 2,000 American troops stationed in Syria to fight ISIS and US Defense Secretary James Mattis has indicated that they will remain there for the time being to deter other Iranian proxies from making tracks in the country.

    Reaction

    Some have accused the Trump administration of setting the stage for all-out war with Iran rather than attempting diplomatic measures but diplomatic measures aren’t working.

    Human rights activist Heshmat Alavi wrote on Al Arabiya: “[The accusers’] intentions are far from preventing the US from entering a new war, but to protect Tehran from any strong measures, including international sanctions that target the regime and actually benefit the people by weakening the ruling system.”

    Alavi is by no means calling for war with Iran- he cites that with the level of unprecedented infighting between Iran factions, drop in revenue for the country, and international sanctions, war will not be necessary to bring down the Regime. He advises decisive action- like crippling sanctions- to strike a death blow to the Regime.

    This is also the position of the Iranian opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), who first revealed Iran’s clandestine nuclear programme.

    The NCRI advises:

    • Imposing wide-ranging sanctions on Iran and their Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) and removing access to the global banking system

    • Evicting the IRGC and its proxy militias from Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Afghanistan

    • Preventing the transfer of weaponry and troops from Iran to these countries

    • Referring the Iranian Regime to the International Criminal Court for its human rights violations- especially the 1988 massacre of 30,000 political prisoners- and holding those responsible to account

    • Imposing previous UN Security Council resolutions covering Iran’s nuclear weapons program, banning uranium enrichment, and launching unconditional inspections into the regime’s military and non-military sites

     

  • Masoud Dalvand 10:04 am on 13 Dec 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , ,   

    After Fighting Common Enemy ISIS, How Will Rising Tensions Between U.S. and Iran Affect Iraq? 

    1

    How U.S. and Iran found a common enemy in ISIS

    After fighting ISIS, how will rising tensions between U.S. and Iran affect Iraq?
    Video – For watching the video click on the below link:

    https://player.pbs.org/viralplayer/3007409295/

    TRANSCRIPT :

    Judy Woodruff: Now the final installment in our series Iran Rising in Iraq that examines Tehran’s influence there, and what it means for U.S. policy in the region. Washington is worried about that sway and presence in Iraq, and is taking measures to counter it, raising U.S.-Iran tensions. But, tonight, we look at an extraordinary moment when the U.S. and Iran made common cause to fight a common enemy, and why many say that is unlikely to happen again. In partnership with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, here again is special correspondent Reza Sayah.

    Reza Sayah: October 2016, a coalition of military forces in Iraq launched an offensive to take back the city of Mosul from ISIS. And fighting on the same side were the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iraqi Army General Ghais Al-Hamdawi says it was a superbly coordinated mission.

    Maj. Gen. Ghais Al-hamdawi (through Interpreter): It was the perfect example of bravery and cooperation among everybody, the PMF, tanks, army, air force, the American Air Force, special ops, and even citizens took part. This battle should be a lesson for all the armies in the world.

    Reza Sayah: The mission was called We Are Coming. Among the forces helping the Iraqi army, 500 American troops on the ground and U.S. fighter jets providing air support, and 16,000 fighters from the Popular Mobilization Forces, PMF for short, a volunteer Iraqi militia largely armed and funded by Iran and advised by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. For the next several months, the Iranian-backed militia helped overpower ISIS on the ground in towns and villages surrounding Mosul. Once ISIS was encircled and trapped, in came Iraqi forces, backed by U.S. artillery units and airpower, to finish the extremist group.

    Mazin Al-eshaiker: What unites both Iran and the United States is their goal to end ISIS, which we, as Iraqis, obviously appreciated.

    Reza Sayah: Iraqi politician Mazin Al-Eshaiker says Washington and Tehran never publicly acknowledged the strategy and never made direct contact to discuss it.

    Mazin Al-eshaiker: I’m talking the U.S. and Iranian didn’t sit face to face, but the Iraqis sat face to face with the Iranians, and, in the same token, sat face to face with the Americans to come up with a joint plan for both sides.

    Reza Sayah: The plan worked. In July, ISIS was defeated in its last major stronghold, thanks in part to a rare occasion where the United States and Iran tacitly cooperated to beat a common enemy. But Iraqi officials say, don’t expect U.S.-Iran cooperation again in Iraq any time soon.

    Mazin Al-eshaiker: We are free to dream what we want, but it will not happen.

    Reza Sayah: Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. policy with Iran was cautious engagement on some issues. With the election of President Donald Trump, the policy immediately changed to confrontation, escalating the nearly four-decade-long cold war between the countries. In October, President Donald Trump repeated accusations that Iran sponsors terrorism in the region, and slapped sanctions against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

    President Donald Trump: The Iranian dictatorship’s aggression continues to this day. The regime remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

    Reza Sayah: Mr. Trump also refused to certify that Iran was complying with the 2015 nuclear deal, even though the remaining world powers and U.N. inspectors said Iran was complying. Ten days later, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Riyadh to boost Iraq’s ties with Iran’s main regional rival in the region, Saudi Arabia. Tillerson also suggested the PMF was an Iranian fighting force and called for the militia to disband, a demand the Iraqi government rejected, insisting PMF fighters were Iraqi nationals.

    Rex Tillerson: Certainly, Iranian militias that are in Iraq, now that the fight against Da’esh and ISIS is coming to a close, those militias need to go home.

    Reza Sayah: And, last week, CIA Director Mike Pompeo revealed that he had sent a letter to Qasem Soleimani, a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, warning Iran over its behavior in Iraq.

    Mike Pompeo: He refused to open the letter. It didn’t break my heart, to be honest with you. What we were communicating to him in that letter was that we will hold he and Iran accountable for any attacks on American interests in Iraq by forces that are under their control. And we wanted to make sure he and the leadership in Iran understood that in a way that was crystal clear.

    Reza Sayah: Senior Iranian officials have hit back in the war of words. Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called U.S. policy in the Middle East dangerous. In a live televised address, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani accused Western countries, including the United States, of having fed and armed ISIS. And in a speech to university students last month, Iran’s supreme leader called the U.S. Iran’s number one enemy.

    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (through Interpreter): My dear children, don’t forget that in this very important path where you’re following your goals, your number one enemy is America.

    Seyed Hosseini: America has to learn a lesson.

    Reza Sayah: Iran-based pro-Iranian political analyst Seyed Hosseini says better relations between Washington and Tehran is good for Iraq. But that won’t happen, he says, unless the U.S. changes what Hosseini calls a hostile policy against Iran.

    Seyed Hosseini: Until they don’t correct themselves and their policies in the region, I don’t think there will be a great hope for that. America, for them to be present in the region, they need Iranian help. They must just come to terms and accept the presence of a powerful Iran.

    Reza Sayah: Many Iraqis doubt Tehran and Washington will change their policies. Ali Elami has owned this Baghdad supermarket for five decades. This is where Iraq’s former dictator Saddam Hussein used to stop by for late-night shawarmas, he says. So, Saddam Hussein had shawarma at your place? Elami says the U.S. and Iran are both here for their own interests, not to help Iraq.

    Ali Elami (through Interpreter): The location of Iraq is very strategic. There’s oil, rivers. When Americans came and kicked out Saddam, they didn’t do it for our interests. They did it for oil and money. Iran has expanded here not for our sake. They did it for their own benefit.

    Muthanna Amin Nader: We pay a price as a people in Iraq.

    Reza Sayah: Iraqi politician Muthana Amin Nader is happy to see is defeated in Iraq. But what he fears now is a dangerous proxy war between Iran and the U.S.

    Muthanna Amin Nader: Conflict between Iran and America makes our people as victim. We give a very, very expensive price. It’s time to say enough for bleeding in Iraq and destroying Iraq. They should support us, but also keep away from us.

    Reza Sayah: With so much at stake here for the U.S. and Iran, keeping away from Iraq seems unlikely. How the two adversaries manage that high-stakes competition while they’re here may go a long way in shaping the future of Iraq. For the PBS NewsHour, I’m Reza Sayah in Baghdad.

     

     

← Older posts

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: