Iranian General Killed in Ethnic Resistance Clash

Fars News Agency is reporting that Brigadier General Mohammad Sar-Golzaie and three other Iranian security forces were killed in clash on Thursday night with the Sunni militant group Jundullah (Soldiers of God) in the southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchestan, which borders both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Jundullah claims to be fighting for Sunni rights in Iran, but it is considered a terrorist organization by both Iran and Pakistan and believed to have links to Al Qaeda.

Seymour Hersh claimed in July this year that the U.S. government has supported Jundullah as part of covert operations inside of Iran under a policy of "my enemy’s enemy is my friend." A previous report by ABC News in April 2007 said, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional oversight. Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states."

ABC News then reported in May 2007 that Bush had authorized a "non-lethal" covert operation in Iran to destabilize the Iranian government. Seymour Hersh argued in "Preparing the Battlefield" that in late 2007 at the same time the updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was being released, "Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran... These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership." A Presidential Finding is highly classified but must be issued in order get covert intelligence operations underway. At a minimum, it must be made known to both the Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate, as well as to the ranking members of Intelligence committees in both chambers. Once approved, monies can be re-aportioned in appropriations bills and relevant appropriations committee members briefed. According to Hersh, both the Democratic and Republican leadership were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration's covert operations expansion.

New House Resolution on Covert Operations

On September 18, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced H.R. 6951, "To prohibit the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran." The short title of the legislation has been changed to “Transparent Actions over Covert Tactics in Iran Act 0f 2008” or the “TACT in Iran Act.” The bill has six co-sponsors, including Representatives Raul Grijalva (D-NM), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), James McGovern (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

New Bill to Prevent Funding for Overthrow of Iranian Government

This week, Representative Barbara Lee (D-CA) will introduce the “Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008,” which prohibits the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense from providing covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran. The resolution is based on amendments Rep. Lee has previously submitted to legislation for consideration, including Fiscal Year 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act. Below is the full text of the new bill.

A Bill
To prohibit the use of funds by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine assistance for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Dealing with Iran Act of 2008’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:

(1) The security of the United States is not enhanced when the United States acts in a manner that leads other nations to distrust its public pronouncements, question its motives, and view its actions with suspicion.

(2) Engaging in covert or clandestine activities intended to undermine or overthrow the Government of Iran is antithetical to democratic values and respect for the rule of law.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO COVERTLY OR CLANDESTINELY SUPPORT THE OVERTHROW OF THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), no funds appropriated to the Federal Government may be obligated or expended by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to provide covert or clandestine support, including military training or advice or equipment for military activities, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of Iran.

(b) EXCEPTION FOR DECLARATION OF WAR.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if a declaration of war by Congress with respect to Iran is in effect.

Representatives Call for Supporting the MEK to Overthrow Iranian Regime

On July 14, 2008, Representatives Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and Bob Filner (D-CA) called on Congress to support the cult "People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known as the MEK." Reps. Tancredo and Filner urged the MEK be taken off the list of terrorist organizations and called on the U.S. to provide support for the organization to overthrow the regime in Iran. Below is the full text of both speeches.

---

HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
OF COLORADO
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, July 14, 2008

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, in the 1980's the United States supported and helped arm the Afghan resistance to Soviet occupation of their country, a policy later portrayed in the award-winning Tom Hanks movie, "Charlie Wilson's War.'' Today we need to show support for dissidents fighting to overthrow the terrorist regime in Tehran. It will come as a surprise to most Americans that we are not doing so.

In that struggle to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, not all of those Afghan freedom-fighters were fighting for democracy. It was a coalition of forces who had one thing in common: they wanted the Soviets out of their country. We supported them, and they won. Not only did the Soviets leave Afghanistan, within four years the Soviet Union imploded.

One of the main groups fighting to overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime is the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI)--also called the MEK--and its political arm, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI). Strangely, instead of assisting these dissidents, our Department of State decided to label them terrorists in 1997.

In the decade since, a debate has raged about whether the designation of the MEK as a terrorist group was driven less by the facts than it was a desire on the part of State Department bureaucrats to curry favor with "moderates'' in the government of then-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami. Either way, it is has become clear that this "good will gesture'' on the part of the State Department failed to yield any progress with Tehran.

The MEK advocates a secular democratic government for Iran, one that that respects human rights and basic freedoms (including freedom of the press and freedom of religion) and has provided intelligence and assistance about the activities of the Iranian regime in Iraq, and Tehran's covert nuclear program. Moreover, a number of the group's members are under the protection of Coalition troops in Iraq.

Unfortunately, the group was recently the victim of a missile attack at Camp Ashraf in Iraq. This is a testament to how much Tehran fears the group.

I hope the Iranian regime will refrain from future attacks of this nature, as Ashraf's residents are protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Their well being is and continues to be the obligation of the Coalition troops in Iraq, and the Iraqi government.

This raises another interesting point. Not only does the MEK not behave like a terrorist group, in many respects the U.S. government does not treat them like one.

The MEK is a group that the United States and the west should cultivate as we seek an organic, democratic change agent in Iran.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom has already come to this conclusion in removing the MEK from the British terrorist list earlier this year.

Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were willing to enter into an alliance with Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union in 1941 in order to defeat Hitler. We used every ally and every resource to defeat the Axis Powers. Yet today, in dealing with the terrorist regime of Iran, a regime that daily threatens to destroy Israel and the U.S. (the "Great Satan'') and is actively seeking the means of fulfilling that threat, we cannot find it in our interest to render aid to the People's Mujahideen of Iran because of its checkered past.

It is time for the western world to re-examine our treatment of the MEK in the wake of the UK court decision.

For starters, the political goals behind designating the MEK as a terrorist organization here in the U.S. have failed to materialize. If anything, the Iranian government has become more aggressive and repressive in the years since the MEK designation. Iran is supporting violence and terrorism from Baghdad to Beirut, has defied U.N. demands to end its nuclear enrichment program, and shows no signs of moderating its behavior--test firing missiles yesterday in violation of UN Security Council resolutions.

What better way to send a message to Tehran than to free the MEK from the international stigma that comes with the 'terrorist' label.

This year's U.S. State Department Country Reports on Terrorism rightly brands the Iranian government as the number one state sponsor of global terrorism. Iran has also been the principal supplier of IEDs to terrorists in Iraq who are killing American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Despite continued efforts at diplomacy, financial sanctions, and--in the case of placing the MEK on various terrorist lists--outright appeasement by many western countries, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that his country will never yield its "dignity'' by suspending its uranium enrichment program.

U.S., EU and UN negotiators have been talking with Tehran about its nuclear program for many years, but Tehran has shown no sign of changing course. And why should they when we keep handcuffs on Iranian dissidents who might cause the Iranian regime real problems?

If western efforts at "dialogue'' and "diplomacy'' are to be successful, they must be more than opportunities for Iran to stall for time while moving forward with their nuclear program. A willingness to negotiate with carrots doesn't work unless one is willing to use a few sticks as well.

Today, there no longer remain any legal or political justifications for maintaining the MEK on the terror list. I therefore urge our government to seriously reconsider its stance on the democratic opposition of Iran and remove the group from our list of terrorist organizations.
It's time to take the handcuffs off of the MEK.

END


====================

SPEECH OF
HON. BOB FILNER
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
MONDAY, JULY 14, 2008

Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of democracy in Iran and stability in Iraq. We in the United States Congress must work together for a stable and democratic Iraq. Today, there is undisputable evidence that Iran is the main contributor to the violence in Iraq which causes American and Iraqi casualties.

On July 4, Iran fired yet another GRAD missile at Ashraf City, the residence compound of the Iranian resistance--the People's Mujahadeen Organization of Iran. Iran's mercenaries in Iraq have also been busy calling for arrest, trial, and expulsion of these ``protected persons'' living in Ashraf. Our soldiers are protecting Ashraf in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention. Iranian action has therefore endangered them as well.

I have said many times that the mullahs in Tehran do not hold all the cards. The Iranian regime's aggressive policies are rooted in the weakness of their regime. The unrelenting assault on the civil and human rights of the Iranian people is a direct response to the illegitimacy of the extremist theocratic government. A military attack on Iran would be a tragic mistake. Yet, it is an error almost as grave to think that continued appeasement of the Iranian regime is the only alternative to war.

Reasonably, Western democracies, with the support of the peace activist community, should use all peaceful means possible to isolate the Iranian regime and to avoid war. However, the desire for a peaceful resolution of this crisis has led into policy choices which provide Iran with the legitimacy it craves and a strengthened diplomatic hand.

The most notable remnant of the West's unsuccessful attempt at "engagement'' with Iran is the designation of the People's Mujahedeen Organization of Iran, also known as the MEK, as a foreign terrorist organization. The MEK provided significant intelligence that helped blow the whistle on Iran's clandestine nuclear weapon and missile development programs.

The MEK has already been removed from the United Kingdom list of terrorist organizations. Late last month, the British parliament approved the order put before it by that country's home secretary and removed the MEK from the UK blacklist. In light of the recent developments, the United States must seriously consider the court's findings as well as the present political environment and also remove the limitations it has placed on the MEK.

We must stop appeasing Iran and shift our support to the Iranian people. They are our best allies against Iran's aggression. Iranian people have an unwavering longing for freedom and democracy. We must work together to acknowledge their resounding rejection of extremism and move to support their efforts for democracy in Iran.

Iranians Speak Out on Regime Change Slush Fund

On Wednesday, July 16 the House Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs will meet to mark-up the FY'09 International Affairs budget. Included in the budget is the so-called program to "promote democracy" in Iran, the regime change slush fund.

As I have previously written, the FY'09 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) includes $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran, this is more than triple the spending amount for Fiscal Year 2008, which is estimated at $21.623 million.

While the FY'09 budget for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which also falls under Function 150, does not state exactly how much of the International Broadcasting Operations funds ($654 million requested) will be devoted to Iran, it does request $1.2 million to be used to launch Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Azerbaijani broadcasts to Iran. It is also unclear how much of $522 million in requested funding under the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs will be allocated to Iran-related programs, but the funding will "provide new opportunities for American students to learn critical need languages." In addition to four other languages, the initiative focuses on Farsi.

While it is unlikely that a Foreign Operations Appropriations bill will be passed and signed into law (a Continuing Resolution is more likely), the mark-up of the bill in the House subcommittee is an opportunity to raise issues regarding the controversial program. Today, I received an email from more than 30 prominent and credible civil society representatives in Iran specifically calling on Congress to drop the program. I can only hope that Members of Congress will heed their call. Below is the full text of the letter.

Message of peace and friendship to the people of United States of America: Request for the Congress and President of USA

We are a group of independent Iranian civil society representatives engaged in scientific and humanitarian work in our country. Some of us are also engaged in social service activities beyond our borders. While working for common causes, we often hold hands with civil society partners from other parts of the world, including members of the US scientific and civil society community. Because of the many compatriots we have in your country, we feel a special human bond linking us together. We are non-partisan and have no political agenda

We extend our warm greetings to the people of America and wish peace, friendship and prosperity for all. We hope logic, reason and justice will prevail and remove the dark clouds casting a shadow and constraining communications and collaboration between us.

We want to look beyond troubling issues such as the US intervention, that toppled the democratically elected popular government of Mossadeq and the drama of hostage taking of US diplomats by Iranian students. We want to look at the positive responses and deep empathy shown by people of the two countries, when Iran faced the aftermath of the Bam earthquake tragedy and US faced the consequences of the man made disaster of September 11.

We are confident that our message will be heeded. Our request to the US Congress and to the US President is to scrap the fund for promoting democracy in Iran. This will pave the way for us to strengthen our bonds for people to people cooperation between America and Iran, WITHOUT INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENTS OF BOTH SIDES. Yes, we are confident that we can achieve what both governments have declared as intentions, but have failed to achieve in practice.

How Iranians look at the fund:
(a) Iran has had a sad history of external interference. Iranians have deep suspicion of any foreign inspired initiative. No credible civil society member would want to be associated with such a fund. Even opposition figures and prominent democracy and human rights activists in Iran have called for the termination of the democracy promotion program.

(b) The fund has undermined Iran.s home grown civil society initiatives. It has fueled paranoia of US and Israel conspiracies to undermine political stability bring about regime change and install a pro-American government. Thus, the fund has provided a pretext for distrust and suspicion, leading to narrowing of space for independent civil society.

(c) Contrary to US laws and international norms of transparency, the recipients of the US funding are secret. Thus, those in contact with western partners are placed at risk of being treated as potential conspirators and become the target for crack down by the Iranian
government.

(d) If governments of both sides are sincere about supporting people to people collaboration, the best way is for both of them to step aside and let the scholars and civil society members work without restrictions that are based on unsubstantiated suspicion, and remove legal obstacles of the sanctions, issuing of visas, etc. Terminating the democracy promotion fund is the first step for the US and releasing all people, who have been imprisoned on suspicion of connection with the US Government, is the first step for the Iranian Government. These steps will provide incentives for action by independent scholars and civil society activities. Obviously, the cooperation of the two sides must adhere to the principles of transparency, accountability and being free from any political agenda.

Here is the gist of our message:

1. To the great people of America, which has drawn on the best of talents from all over the world, including Iranians: We extend our hands in love, friendship and cooperation, transcending differences of governments. There is much to gain from our collaboration, including infusing rationality, compassion, peace and tolerance into policies and practices of our Governments. Through our on-going dialogue, we hope together to identify people-based programs and mechanisms for collaboration. Through the wonderful centers of science and technology, and through your universities and centers of higher learning and your civil societies, we hope to give concrete shape to our mutual aspirations, which will serve not only the people of our two countries, but citizens of the whole world.

2. To the members of Congress: As representatives of the people of America, including the large number of Iranian Americans, we look to you to support us through the power of the people you represent. We request you to encourage the Government to abolish the fund, which has caused so much pain and stress to a significant part of Iranian civil society.

Without interference or funding from the two governments, we can together develop and expand our cooperation. Governments must be facilitators and not caretakers. We also need to see easing of the severe restrictions the sanctions have placed on our mutual cooperation.

3. To the American President:. You have declared your deep respect and affection for the Iranian people. We want to take you at your word. So, here is a group of independent Iranians asking you:

(a) to dismantle the fund for democracy, which has had an outcome completely opposite to your declared goals

(b) to set up a non-partisan panel of scholars to study ways and means of easing sanctions so that independent and genuine Iranian civil society and scholars can cooperate with their US counterparts, observing universally accepted code of ethics, including transparency, accountability and partnerships based on equality and equity. We will respect international law, and the laws of both countries. What we do not like about the laws, we will try and change through non-confrontational dialogue and committed advocacy.

4. We have used various channels to communicate with our own government: Some of us have already engaged various state authorities in a dialogue designed to foster trust and confidence. We will hold the Government to the promises made, and accountable to the laws of Iran, including rights of citizens.

We hope our peaceful, non-confrontational discourse, free from any political motivation, will be taken seriously and we can, through strengthening of genuine and independent people to people cooperation serve the real interests of both countries.

So far signed by:

Elham Ahmadnejad
Bijan Khajehpour
Pari Namazi
Soraya Bahmanpour
Hesam Aldin Naragi
Heliya Faezi Pour
Robabeh Sheikholeslam
Jabiz Sharifian
Setareh Forozan
Samira Farahani
Simin Hanachi
Simin Naseri
Shirin Niyazmand
Ali Ardalan
Alireza Rabiei
Fatemeh Farhang Khah
Forozan Salehi
Lili Farhadpour
Mohammad Baquer Namazi
Mohamad Ali Barzegar
Mojgan Tavakoli
Mostafa Tourabi Zadeh
Masomeh Torabi
Molouk Aziz zade
Mona Moghadaci
Naser Yousefi
Nasrin Jazani
Naghmeh Yazdanpanah
Shadi Azimi
Giti Shambayati
Yasaman Aghajani

Regime Change Slush Fund Shrouded in Secrecy

Jason Leopold at The Public Record, has an excellent article today on the State Department's Iran Democracy Fund.

Leopold writes:

"An aggressive effort by the State Department to fund regime change in Iran is ongoing, but the State Department has refused to provide lawmakers with specific details of the program other than to say that the core mission of the initiative is to assist 'those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression, greater rights for women, more open political process, and broader freedom of the press.'

Congress has appropriated more than $120 million to fund the project. The State Department has spent most of the money on the U.S.-backed Radio Farda, Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe, and to broadcast Persian programs into Iran via VOA satellite television...

Next Wednesday, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations will consider the fiscal year 2009 budget that calls for setting aside $65 million for additional regime change and democracy promotion efforts inside Iran...

But just the possibility that some Iranians may be linked to American led efforts to overthrow the Iranian government, or have accepted money from the Bush administration, has led to numerous arrests last year.

Emaddeddin Baghi, a human rights activist based in Tehran who was sent back to prison in September said “it is neither wise nor morally justifiable for the U.S. to continue its path” of promoting regime change by trying to give money to dissidents.

Last year, Haleh Esfandiari, was arrested and sent to a prison in Tehran on charges of spying for the U.S. He was incarcerated for eight months, four of which were spent in solitary confinement.

Some funds, according to State Department sources familiar with the how the program is run, have also been secretly funneled to exile Iranian organizations, and politically connected individuals in order to help the U.S. establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

In June of 2007, the State Department said it would spend $16 million on democracy promotion projects that extends beyond broadcasting. However, to date the State Department has not released details on how it intends to obligate or expend those funds...

In an October column published in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Esfandiari, the director of Woodrow Wilson Center’s Middle East program said 'the fact that the identity of Iranian recipients of U.S. aid is regarded as classified information by the U.S. government feeds the regime's paranoia and casts suspicion on all Iranian' non-government organizations...

Shirin Ebadi, who was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 2003, explained that 'no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept' State Department funds to promote a policy of regime change because 'Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous.'

'They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone,' Ebadi wrote in a May 30, 2007 column published in The International Herald Tribune. Ebadi’s column was published as Congress approved emergency supplemental legislation to fund the Iraq war, which contained a $75 million earmark for the State Department’s Iran Democracy project.

'The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has also created immense problems for Iranian reformists, democratic groups and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hard-liners in Iran are terrified by the prospects of a 'velvet revolution' and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts,' Ebadi added. 'Thus, Washington's policy of 'helping' the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired. It has made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran's power hierarchy to argue for an accommodation with the West.'

Regime Change is a Pathetic Notion

Yossi Alpher, a former senior adviser to Isreali Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, and co-editor of the bitterlemons family of online publications, published an excellent new opinion editorial in The Jewish Daily Forward on February 6 in which he argues against the U.S. policy of regime change in Iran. He concludes:

"If Washington does agree to sit down at the negotiating table with Iran, it cannot permit itself to be perceived by Iranians as entering the talks with dirty hands. It cannot appropriate tens of millions of dollars to encourage Iranian civil society efforts, however admirable, that are understood by the regime as subversive, and perhaps here and there encourage dissident Iranian Baluch and Kurds to oppose the regime (while reassuring Iran with a smirk that regime-change is not official American policy), and still expect to engage the Tehran regime in dialogue on a level playing field.

"Whether talking to this regime will produce useful results is, of course, not clear. But it is certainly a more pragmatic option once we rid ourselves of the pathetic notion that, with a little push, or even a big push, the regime will collapse.

"If and when the theocratic regime in Tehran is replaced, its demise will, like the Khomeini revolution 30 years ago, be the result of domestic developments, not outside intervention. In the meantime, containment will be an easier task if we approach Iran without illusions."

New Regime Change Manual and a Call for Military Action

While questions remain regarding exactly how the $60 million Congress appropriated for the regime change slush fund in 2008 (aka, the so-called "democracy promotion" fund for Iran in the Foreign Operations bill) will be allocated, Freedom House, a known recipient of these funds last year has published a new manual through its Gozaar project. According to Hoder.com, the Non-Violent Struggle: 50 Crucial Points, teaches Iranians how to organize and manage urban riots to destabilize the Iranian government.

Meanwhile, Norman Podhoretz, the "father of neoconservatism," has published a new commentary arguing that the case for military action against Iran still stands.

"Confessions"

Yesterday, the Iranian government aired the first of a two-part series of "confessions" of Iranian-American academics Haleh Esfandiari, Kian Tajbakhsh and Iranian-Canadian academic Ramin Jahanbaglou on Tehran Vision of the Islamic Republic of Iran Network 1 in Persian. All of the academics have been detained under charges of violating the national security of Iran. The reality is that the academics are merely victims of an estranged relationship between the US and Iran and the resulting Cold War-like paranoid atmosphere.

The English transcript of the program attempts to link the work of the academics to network scholars, researchers and journalists representing a wide range of views on Middle Eastern issues, to the Bush administration's agenda for a "velvet revolution" or regime change in Iran. Between "confessions" of the academics, the program cuts back and forth to footage from Georgia and the protests that led to the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze, Ukraine's Orange Revolution and the 2005 protests in Kyrgyzstan, apparently in attempts to make the parallel between the uprisings there.

Below are a few excerpts from the English transcript. There is clearly no evidence of misconduct by the academics. Their confessions mostly demonstrate the Iranian government's fear of being criticized. But the airing of these so-called confessions may also mean that the release of the Haleh, Kian, Ramin and other academics may be near.

"The program cuts to Ramin Jahanbaglou who says that David Cameron introduced him to Democracy magazine and he wrote an article about Iranian intellectuals for the magazine. That is how I met Mark Plattner who is one of the managers of the NED or the National Endowment for Democracy in the US. Mr Plattner contacted me in 2001 and told me that there are some fellowship that are starting this year and if you could come to the US in October. That is where my contact with American political institutions started."

"The program goes to Haleh Esfandiari who is saying the goal of the Iran programme was that when a speaker comes from Iran and speaks at a centre as important as the Wilson Institute, policymakers come to listen to them speak. In Washington policymakers are people who work for government, people who work for congress, people who work for intelligence agencies, the mass media, foundation people, academics and researchers. In other words, policymaker encompasses a varied group."

"The program cuts to Kian Tajbakhsh who is saying that the first aspect isthe project and overt objective; the second aspect is institution buildingand network building and the third aspect are the long-term goals of theSoros Foundation which is to create open societies."

"The program then cuts back to Haleh Esfandiari who says that universities and foundations work together, foundation give fellowships for example Mr. Sazegarha has research grant this year from Harvard University. The government plays two roles in relation to Iran. One is to make use of the analyses about Iran that are presented at conferences and meet people who come from Iran. Second is the budget that is allocated for Iran that budget goes to research institutions, universities, civil society and foundations. The objective is to bring about change in Iranian decision-making institutions."

"The program cuts back to Kian Tajbakhsh who says the fact that the American government gave permission to Soros to work in Iran shows that inspite of the differences between Soros and the Bush Administration, they have the same agenda where Iran is concerned."

Realities of the Democracy Promotion Funding

The June 24, 2007 edition of the New York Times has a great piece on Iran democracy assistance funding.

One particularly interesting quote comes from Suzanne Maloney who was on the policy-planning staff at the State Department for two years. Regarding the democracy assistance funds, she says:

“I was worried about the safety of those on the receiving end of the funds. But I also just wondered if this was feasible. I don’t see how a U.S. government that has been absent from Tehran for 30 years is capable of formulating a program that will have a positive effect.” She continued: “You had to wonder where this money was going to go and what’s going to happen when you don’t have the time to sit down and sift through the more questionable proposals. There’s just not enough oversight. Of the 100 or more preliminary proposals I saw under the first call, it was an enormous challenge to find anything viable. This may have been a very high profile, sexy project, but the likelihood of real impact was minimal.”

Meanwhile, Hillary Mann Leverett, former director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council, "considers the democracy fund a concession to those who were keen on regime change but, for timing reasons — particularly with the U.S. bogged down in Iraq — couldn’t have their way. 'There was a strong push for policy toward U.S.-style democracy from the White House and the N.S.C. the entire time I was in the administration...'

“They were looking to undermine the Iranian government any way they could, from military strikes and sanctions to funding U.S.-style democracy activists. The compromise was among the regime-change advocates; some of them believed that all they could have gotten then was the democracy funding. But at least it would set the U.S. government on a course for regime change.”