Target Iran’s nuclear/terrorism threats for regime change

Iranian missile program, a menace to the security of the region
Iranian missile program, a menace to the security of the region
PMOI/MEK staff writer

May 9, 2018 – Following the United State’s decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal and fully impose powerful economic against Tehran, there will be an increase in discussions on the path forward from here.

If the Middle East is to experience anything resembling peace, democracy, stability, and security, it is an inarguable necessity to first realize democratic change and end the mullahs’ rule in Iran.

Tehran has taken advantage of several decades of appeasement, resulting in the suffering of the Iranian people and nations across the region. The history of billions flowing into Iranian regime bank accounts and pallets of cash flown into this country must come to an end.

Iran’s sinister regime, understanding no language but the language of a firm and definitive policy, is beginning to see the end of a long and fruitful journey at the expense of many others.

Tehran, being the world’s central banker of international terrorism, “has funded its long reign of terror by plundering the wealth of its own people,” according to U.S. President Donald Trump’s speech.

It is worth noting how the Iranian opposition coalition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), of which the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK) is a member of, first blew the whistle back in 2002 on Iran’s clandestine nuclear program, highly suspicious of seeking nuclear weapons.

Such an industrial scale effort is meaningless for a country sitting on an ocean of oil and natural gas. Especially when such a multi-billion dollar project is depriving millions of people struggling with poverty across the country.

“Eradicating the clerical regime’s nuclear and terrorism threats means getting rid of the regime in its entirety. A regime based on the principle of Velayat-e faqih (absolute rule of the clergy) cannot exist without terrorism, suppression, and weapons of mass destruction,” said NCRIPresident Maryam Rajavi following the US decision.

All banks and companies currently doing business with Iran are finding it extremely difficult to continue their endeavors. It is quite obvious that Iran’s $450 billion economy is no choice in the face of the U.S. $44 trillion economy.

It is also a moral decision placed before everyone from all walks of life in the international community: to continue seeking short-term economic interests with Iran’s regime, or finally deciding to stand with the Iranian people in their quest for freedom, democracy, and human rights.

Iran’s regime must also be stopped in its treks of warmongering, export of fundamentalism and terrorism, as explained by Mrs. Rajvi. It is quite interesting how standing alongside the Iranian people will actually further the long-term interests of the very parties currently appeasing the Iranian regime and only seeking short-term interests.

Such a policy will also prevent Iran from launching a new war and bring an end to the ongoing wars already causing havoc across the region.

The Iranian people proved once again in December and January how they seek liberation from the oppressive rulers sitting on the throne in Tehran.

Democratic change is coming to Iran and each and every member of the international community must decide sooner or later where they stand on this very dire matter.

As a necessity, the United Nations Security Council should take this opportunity and launch the global effort focusing on Iran’s long forgone human rights dossier, parallel to holding this regime accountable for its meddling throughout the Middle East and beyond, and advancing a dangerous ballistic missile program.

Countless crimes have been committed by the Iranian regime inside the country and abroad. Steps are being taken against Tehran. More needs to be done and the Iranian regime must be held to the ropes until all those responsible for these crimes are placed before justice.

Advertisements

Editorial: A Way Out Of The JCPOA Crisis

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

One of the most important international issues in recent weeks is the pending decision by the US President on whether to remain or withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal known as the JCPOA. During their visits to the White House, France’s President and Germany’s Chancellor pressed President Trump not to withdraw as he has hinted he would do.

In the run up to the May 12 deadline for President Trump to make his decision, the fate of the Iran deal continues to dominate the agenda. However, there is a way out of this crisis. But it depends on whether Western leaders are prepared to consider it or if they would rather continue to ignore the facts like in the past and disregard potential solutions?

There are two opposing views. Both sides say they seek security and the most effective way to prevent the Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear weapons.

The Europeans claim that, despite its flaws, the JCPOA has to date halted the regime’s nuclear program and a degree of international monitoring is in place. They believe that there is no other viable option. If this is indeed Europe’s position, one could say that there is general consensus that there are many flaws in the JCPOA and if there are any other viable alternatives to prevent the regime from acquiring nuclear weapons they must certainly be pursued. To this end, President Macron went as far as suggesting a new proposal to remove the expiration dates of key provisions of the JCPOA and add to it plans to counter the regime’s missile program and destructive meddling in other countries. The prevailing truth is the fact that so far the regime has shown no sign of intent to abandon its destructive policies on these issues.

On the other hand, critics of the JCPOA underline two points: Firstly, their emphasis is on the deal’s flaws which even the Europeans acknowledge. Secondly, they point to the regime’s worrisome behaviour in the period after the JCPOA took effect in areas such as its missile program and increased meddling in the region, which, interestingly, is also acknowledged by the Europeans. But, to overcome these common concerns they end up with a different conclusion; one that rejects the JCPOA. They reason that, given that the regime cannot be trusted, the JCPOA with these flaws would not prevent the regime from obtaining a nuclear bomb. In view of the North Korean experience in 1990s this is not too farfetched an argument. This is especially true in light of the fact that the Iranian regime’s initial goal for starting a nuclear program was to build a bomb and that all indications were that contrary to Hassan Rouhani’s claim at the time when he headed Tehran’s nuclear negotiating team, they were not stopped in 2003. Rouhani admitted later in his memoires that he had deceived the West when he was the chief negotiator.

Following the adoption of the JCPOA, the Iranian Resistance announced that as far as the Iranian regime was concerned, its decision to accept the terms of the deal were tantamount to a retreat, imposed on it. The regime wanted the bomb as soon as possible without any hitch but the growing pressures of sanctions and fear of a possible uprising forced the regime to give in.

At the time, Mrs Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, said, “Circumventing the six UN Security Council resolutions and coming up with an unsigned agreement that is not internationally bounding as a treaty would neither block the mullahs’ path to deception nor their access to the nuclear bomb.”

“Had the P5+1 been more decisive, the Iranian regime would have had no way but to fully retreat and permanently give up its efforts to acquire the nuclear bomb. Specifically, it would have halted all uranium enrichment and shut down its bomb-making projects.”

“The P5+1 should now insist on evicting the regime from the Middle East and prevent its interferences in the region. This is a fundamental principle that needs to be included in any agreement, otherwise any country in this tumultuous region would have the right to demand all the concessions given to the clerical regime. This would only result in further catastrophic escalation of the nuclear arms race in this part of the world.”

“Another important point is the United Nations’ strict monitoring of the cash poured into the regime’s pockets so that they would be spent on the Iranian people’s urgent needs, especially to pay for the unpaid meager salaries of workers, teachers and nurses and provision of food and medicine for the population. Otherwise, Khamenei, within the framework of the policy of export of terrorism and fundamentalism, would continue sending the money to Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon and before all, fill the pockets of the IRGC (the Iranian Regime’s Revolutionary Guards Corps) forces.”

Mrs. Rajavi further stressed, “Indeed, any agreement that does not observe and consider the Iranian people’s human rights would only embolden the regime in its relentless suppression and executions and trample the nation’s rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Charter.”

The righteousness of the Iranian Resistance’s position has now been proven after almost three years. The mullahs’ nuclear program must be abolished in its entirety. This should have been done many years ago.

After three years, the regime’s behavior has gotten worse in all areas. This is reflected before anything in the suppression of the Iranian people. The Western governments’ silence regarding the widespread protests in Iran is shameful. At least 15 of those detained during the protests which began at the turn of the year have been tortured to death but the West continues to remain silent. This can only be explained within the context of greed for some trade contracts.

All advocates of the policy of appeasing the regime are responsible for the current crisis and its consequences, whatever the outcome may be. Those who were competing against one another for more share of contracts with the regime, indeed with the IRGC, while closing their eyes to the suppression of the Iranian people and the regime’s destructive policies in the region, must be held to account for their role in the present crisis.

It is now time to pay heed to the Iranian people’s demands. The people have shown in their protests that they want the regime to go. The international community must stand by the Iranian people and their Resistance. It is now time to put talk aside and take action. The benchmarks are clear.

Mrs. Rajavi in a message to the convention of Iranian-Americans in Washington on May 5 said, “The experience of the past three years has confirmed that the mullahs took advantage of the concessions in the JCPOA to suppress the people of Iran and massacre the people of Syria. As such, we emphatically demand that Western countries adopt a policy that would eliminate the entire infrastructure of the regime’s nuclear program and, through unconditional inspections, prevent, once and for all, the regime from engaging in any nuclear-related activity, testing or research, including enrichment. Dismantling the regime’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, expelling the Revolutionary Guards from other countries in the region, and compelling the regime to stop torture and execution should be addressed in a holistic approach. Western countries must not ignore any of these aspects.”

In order to secure the achievement of all these demands, the most stringent financial sanctions must be adopted immediately and the regime’s ties with international systems must be cut off. The regime is far too weak to stand against the will of the international community. Regrettably though, so far, it has not seen the necessary resolve on the part of the international community.

Iran exiles demand regime change as nuclear deadline looms

Iran Commentary

The international community is literally hanging in the balance over the upcoming May 12th Iran nuclear deal deadline. Advocates of the accord, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), continue to claim anything but the deal will lead to a new war in the Middle East.

The Iranian people, however, represented by thousands of exiles taking part in Saturday’s “Iran Freedom Convention” in Washington, DC, voiced their demand for regime change in their home country. Their call is coupled with significant support provided by a long slate of American dignitaries and elite Members of Congress.

This is the beginning of even more turbulent weeks and months for the Iranian regime.

Strong voices

The event was hosted by the Organization of Iranian-American Communities, a group supportive of the 2017-2018 protests and advocating regime change to realize freedom and democracy in Iran.

“The people of Iran are calling on…

View original post 761 more words

How Syria Attack Affects Iran Nuclear Deal Crisis

 

As President Trump’s 120-day deadline for fixing Iran nuclear deal gets closer, European countries are focusing on Iranian regime’s missile program and its regional intervention, calling on the regime to stop both.

Meanwhile, the missile attack by US, France and UK on Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons facilities in Syria has extremely scared Iranian regime officials.

“Considering its behavior towards the nuclear deal and Syria, how does the United States expect Iran to negotiate over its missile program?” says head of regime’s Judiciary ‘Sadegh Larijani’, adding “they’re putting forward missile negotiations in such an environment. They should be asked: how do you expect Muslim countries to trust you? Considering your approach towards the nuclear deal and your recent criminal attack on Syria, do you really expect to have negotiations with Iran?’ ” (State-run Fars news agency, April 16, 2018)

In an article titled “tomorrow’s world is the world of missiles, not dialogues”, state-run Kayhan newspaper points to possible negotiations with the West and acknowledges that the recent missile attack on Syria has been aimed at giving a warning to Iran, writing “maybe the most important point hidden in recent missile-throws has been the message the attackers intended to send to Iran. If we agree that the main purpose of the United States and its flunkies’ clear aggression on Syria was to threaten Iran and its allies and also accept the very obvious fact that we’re living in ‘the law of the jungle’ era in which the world’s bullying countries don’t even respect their own-legislated rules, then is it wise to encourage a second JCPOA-like deal and negotiate over our military and missile capabilities with countries that happen to be the same three that were involved in attacking Syria?” (State-run Kayhan newspaper April 16, 2018)

Regime’s former diplomat Soleiman Afshar meanwhile believes that the recent missile attack on Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons sites by three western countries was aimed at ‘continuing pressure on Iran and Hezbollah through bargaining with Russia and causing a rift among Iran, Turkey and Russia.”

Pointing to United States’ 120-day deadline being over on May 12, Afshar predicts that Trump “will either leave the nuclear deal or win concessions from Iran through Europe and stay.”

Afshar refers to both alternatives as pieces of a ‘US pressure puzzle’, saying “more regional and international pieces of the puzzle will be revealed in the future.” (State-run Iranian Diplomacy, April 16, 2018)

Also in this regard, state-run Aftab-e-Yazd newspaper on April 16, 2018, writes “the coming month of May will be a decisive one as the US president makes a decision on the fate of Iran nuclear deal and will also have a possible meeting with North Korean leader. It’s quite possible that Trump’s strategic decisions next month will effectively change the situation. Under such circumstances, it seems that adopting a tougher stance against Iran and the nuclear deal is going to bring him some success.”

Such comments by regime officials and media, however, point to a bigger reality. The reality of regime’s growing weakness and inability, and that it has no defensive tool to deal with the extremely dangerous situation it’s caught in.

Being defenseless against outside pressures is while the regime is also faced with people’s increasing protests at home, protests that can’t be shielded from, either, since the regime has learned from experience that its ‘oppression blade’ could no longer stop the protests from rising.

Fearing the situation, Revolutionary Guards’ Commander ‘Mohammad-Ali Jafari’ said on April 16, 2018, “we’re going through an extremely crucial stage of the revolution, with all enemies joining hands to create an environment of disappointment.”

“In addition to problems coming from outside, there are also domestic issues that should be resolved” added Jafari, somehow pointing to the escalation of regime’s international and domestic crises and the effects they have on one another.

Iran: Consequences Of US Pulling Out Of Nuclear Deal

Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant

With the announcement of a new Secretary of State and a new national security adviser, many have said that the odds of President Donald Trump pulling out of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement have increased.

Furthermore, it seems very unlikely that the European parties to the deal – the United Kingdom, France and Germany – will be able to guarantee and address the changes that Trump requested.

For one, the three European countries submitted a proposal to sanction Iran for its ballistic missile activities and its belligerence and interference in Syria. However, the proposal must get unanimous approval and there are already several countries that have expressed opposition, including Spain, Austria and Italy. Italy said that it was very concerned about its interests worth millions of dollars being put into jeopardy.

Of course no-one can predict how Iran will react if Trump did announce that he was no longer going to waiver sanctions, however it can be safely presumed that the news will not go down well. Some have even said that Iran will immediately start carrying out illicit nuclear activities. The Iranian regime has previously tried to provoke Trump with acts of defiance.

The regime could reinstall some of its centrifuges that have been out of use for months and it could continue to fine-tune other ones. It could also start to stockpile uranium instead of shipping it abroad or it could enrich it to 20 per cent.

Some believe that there will be a race to the nuclear bomb. Others say that this is not possible – no matter how much the Iranian regime wants to.

According to Reuel Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the main obstacle is the unfinished work on advanced centrifuges.

Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), is an Iranian diplomat and academic who is probably behind Iran’s large-scale illicit dual-use import network. He has the support of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and, when President Hassan Rouhani became the president in 2013, he was able to make great progress on the country’s atomic infrastructure.

Gerecht and Takeyh say that it would take years for the Iranian regime to reinstall the high-yield centrifuges. Furthermore, they are currently under surveillance by the nuclear watchdog that is in charge of monitoring Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal – the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). If Iran were to reinstall the centrifuges, it would not go unnoticed and there is a high likelihood that military strikes from the US would shortly follow.

It has also been posited that the Iranian regime will not be quick to take any overly-drastic action if Trump announces a US pull-out of the agreement because it is nervous of the US administration. Especially now that new appointments have been made and the deal-sympathizers have gone.

The United States is making it very clear that the “golden years” of appeasement are over and one can only hope that one day soon, the Europeans will follow.

Analysis: The isolation ring become tighter around the Mullahs regime

The isolation ring become tighter around the Mullahs regime

The news and developments of these days indicate the tightening of the isolation ring of the Mullahs regime in the international arena.

While the regime was hoping to Europe for escape the fate of US deadline on nuclear deal, Europe was on the path to aligning America’s policy with a voluntary response to Donald Trump’s call for coordination in six areas to force the regime moves to change.

In this case, state media from both gangs of regime in Iran almost every day write about talks between US and EU about Iran Deal and expanding to other deals in relation of missile projects and Iran meddling in the region.

Meanwhile on March 29, France’s Radio quoted by the Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Ludrian, accused Iran of supplying weapons to Yemen’s Houthi militia. This position took place following the firing of seven Houthi rockets to Saudi Arabia, and displayed pieces of these missiles by Saudi officials.

– Wednesday, March 28, “Reuters” wrote quoted by diplomatic sources that representatives of EU member states at a meeting have discussed new missile sanctions against Iran. So the report, EU members are trying to finalize these sanctions until the April 16 meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Union. Meanwhile, the representative of Italy at the Brussels meeting announced that such sanctions are not enough to persuade Tramp to stay in Iran Deal. Italy and one other two countries believe that in order to persuade Tramp, they must apply more severe sanctions against the regime!

Well, such news is still on the rise. The first question to start the discussion is what do we think about these news and events, and what are the reasons for this?

As reported in the introduction to the article, these reports indicate a tightening of the isolation ring of the regime. The change and developments in the US foreign policy team, which is clearly indicative of a sharpening of US policy toward Iran, shows the same. Many diplomatic trips and diplomatic visits are taking place in these days. Including the visit of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to the United States, which, according to political observers, is the main theme of his apparent confrontation with the Mullahs regime and threats to the security of the region by the regime.

The news, which is, of course, only part of the mass of developments available, continues to be added. On the contrary, the regime has begun a series of measures in its foreign relations. Rouhani‘s visit to Central Asia and efforts to strengthen economic relations with the northern neighbors, the visit of Kamal Kharrazi to Pakistan, the Zarif visit to the Balkans and the trip of the Foreign Minister of Oman to Iran are another aspect of this boiling space of foreign policy.

There are other developments that are bad for the regime, like North Korea’s recent stance, which seems to want a deal with the United States and the West, which means that the United States and the international community are concentrating more on the regime.

It is easy to see that as soon as we reach the end of the deadline of the United States (May 12th), these developments are accelerating, and the isolation ring gets tighter over the regime. The Mullahs regime has counted Europe on the issue of nuclear deal against the US government, but is clearly EU is beside of US, and it is itself setting up and adopting new sanctions against the regime, independent of the United States. The goal is to push the regime to stop its missile and terrorist interference in the region and withdraw its forces from Syria and …. By that time, the pressure on the regime will increase, the sanctions will increase, and everyone in this direction will tell the regime that there is no other way than to drink poisonous cups for a missile and a regional project and of course, the Human Rights poisonous cup will also be coming after that.

The regime is also trying with all its power to refrain from drinking these poisonous cups. Because, according to Khamenei’s own words, this process is endless and ultimately leads to the negation of the regime of Velayat-e faqih. So we see that missile strikes continue to lead Saudi Arabia, which, of course, has different interpretations; an interpretation is that these gestures of demonstrative power indicate the regime’s decision to stand against the pressures of international community, and another interpretation of this is smoke and camouflage for a retreat. Because at the same time, we see a Zarif and Rouhani plea for negotiating with Saudi Arabia.

However, there are two more ways ahead of the regime, and the regime has no other option. Either surrender and missile, regional interference, or stand up to the international community and accept its deadly consequences.

Which is difficult to say which one is the most dangerous and deadly for the regime. It is important that the other regime, such as the nuclear deal, cannot make decisions and choices, and should be assigned in the coming days.

Tillerson’s Exit Could Doom the Iran Nuclear Deal

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson making a statement on his departure at the State Department in Washington, D.C. on March 13.
Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson making a statement on his departure at the State Department in Washington, D.C. on March 13.

Foreign Policy, MARCH 15, 2018 – President Donald Trump’s sacking of his top diplomat, Rex Tillerson, signals America’s likely withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, and raises the risk of a possible military confrontation with the regime in Tehran.
The future of the Iran deal was already in serious doubt after Trump issued an ultimatum in January, warning he would pull the United States out of the accord unless European allies or Congress managed to “fix the deal’s disastrous
But by picking CIA Director Mike Pompeo, an avowed Iran hawk, to succeed Tillerson as secretary of state, Trump sent a clear message that Washington was hardening its stance as a May 12 deadline approaches for the possible reimposition of U.S. sanctions.
Talking to reporters Tuesday about his decision, Trump cited his disagreement with Tillerson over the Iran nuclear agreement as an example of how the outgoing secretary of state had “a different mindset” than his own.
“When you look at the Iran deal, I think it’s terrible. I guess he thought it was okay…. So we were not really thinking the same,” Trump said before departing for California.
In recent weeks, Tillerson’s deputies have worked to hammer out an arrangement with European allies that could preserve the deal while addressing Trump’s concerns about its shortcomings, including Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal and provisions that expire in the next decade and beyond.
“I think it spells trouble for the nuclear deal,” said Colin Kahl, who served as the national security advisor to former Vice President Joe Biden.
While Tillerson often found himself on the losing side of many issues at the White House, he was a voice of caution and “he did appear to have some impact in delaying Trump dumping the Iran deal,” Kahl said.
The next round of talks among the United States and diplomats from the United Kingdom, France, and Germany aimed at salvaging the agreement is due to go ahead as planned in Berlin this week, officials say. And a meeting of all the signatories to the Iran deal, which includes the U.K., France, Germany, Russia, China, Iran, and the United States, is scheduled for Friday in Vienna.
Despite Trump’s abrupt firing of Tillerson, the outgoing secretary of state’s top aide, Brian Hook, will attend the meetings in Europe, a State Department spokesperson said. Hook was an influential figure on Tillerson’s staff and it’s unlikely he will stay on under Pompeo.
The 2015 agreement between Iran and world powers, which former President Barack Obama touted as a diplomatic breakthrough, imposed elaborate restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program while lifting an array of U.S. and international sanctions that had damaged the country’s economy. In his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump railed against the agreement as the “worst deal ever,” saying Iran had won relief from sanctions without having to give up enough in return.
As president, Trump bristled when faced with a U.S. law that required him to regularly certify to Congress whether Iran was complying with the deal and whether the agreement was in America’s interest. In October, Trump told Congress he could not certify that the agreement was in the national interest but stopped short of pulling the United States out.
Over the past 14 months, Tillerson, along with Defense Secretary James Mattis, repeatedly argued in White House meetings against abandoning the agreement on grounds that it had imposed important limits on Tehran’s nuclear work. Instead, Tillerson proposed trying to address the president’s concerns by negotiating a supplemental agreement or other arrangement with the Europeans, while retaining the benefits of the current deal.
Trump’s January ultimatum set May 12 as the next key deadline, when he will have to decide whether to re-impose a slew of U.S. sanctions that were lifted as part of the nuclear deal.

Critics of the nuclear agreement welcomed Tillerson’s departure.

“The selection of Mike Pompeo at State should remove any doubt about the president’s intentions,” said Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Two months to go and President Trump will snap back the most powerful economic sanctions against Iran unless there’s a real not a fictional fix to the Iran nuclear deal.”
Omri Ceren, managing director of the Israel Project, a Washington organization that works on Middle East issues, said that with or without Tillerson’s exit, the president had made clear he would not keep sanctions relief in place without concrete improvements to the agreement.
“In recent days the Trump administration has, if anything, been toughening its stance on what it would take to make the Iran deal worth staying in,” Ceren said.
If Trump opts to reimpose U.S. sanctions on Iran after May 12, European Union officials have warned that Brussels might try to block the American measures and protect European companies investing in the Iranian market. But analysts said European banks and other firms are already reluctant to do business in Iran due to the threat of a possible “snap-back” of U.S. sanctions and don’t want to lose their access to the vast American market. A U.S. withdrawal could wreck the agreement, scaring off European investment that Iran saw as a key reward for agreeing to limit its uranium enrichment and other nuclear work.
If the deal unravels and Iran concludes it has no economic incentive to hold back on its nuclear work, then Tehran could expel U.N. inspectors and head down a fast track to building nuclear weapons — possibly in a matter of months. Under that scenario, the United States — and Israel — may decide to take military action to prevent Iran from obtaining the bomb or at least slow down a bid for nuclear-tipped missiles.

Source: Tillerson’s Exit Could Doom the Iran Nuclear Deal