OFAC Grants Permission to Iranian American Organization to Open Office in Tehran

In a significant departure from previous policy, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) at the Department of Treasury, has granted permission to the American Iranian Council (AIC) to open an office in Tehran. AIC says it does not receive funds from either the government of Iran or the U.S. AIC hopes to establish the office to promote better understanding and exchange between the U.S. and Iran. The Iranian government has not yet approved of the AIC office in Tehran.

A spokesman for the State Department told the BBC that the move did not signal any change in policy. However, it has been extremely difficult for American non-governmental organizations to obtain licenses to operate in Iran. Even following the Bam 6.6 earthquake in 2002, the humanitarian organization Mercy Corps was unable to renew its OFAC license after the first year of its relief efforts and was forced to pack up and leave despite much work to be done. One Iran expert tells me that the approval may be a feeler before the U.S. moves towards opening an Iranian interests section in Tehran.

Many non-governmental organizations, including the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, have been advocating for the last several years that the Bush administration should repeal Office of Foreign Assets Control restrictions that prohibit US non-governmental organizations from obtaining licenses to work inside Iran as a confidence building measure to demonstrate diplomatic sincerity. Hopefully, OFAC will grant licenses to additional non-governmental organizations in order increase civil society ties between the U.S. and Iran, and not just stop with one license to AIC. There are many organizations worthy of such a license.

Bob Baer on Fresh Air

Former CIA operative Robert Baer discusses his new book The Devil We Know on the October 2, 2008 edition of Fresh Air with Terri Gross. He writes in the book, "The sooner we understand the Iranian paradox — who they are, what they want, how they want to both humble us and work with us — the sooner we'll understand how to come to terms with the new Iranian superpower." Click here to listen to the interview.

Giving Neocons the Fingar

Bob Dreyfuss has a great posting on The Dreyfuss Report, his blog on The Nation's website. Dreyfuss writes:

"Yesterday afternoon, as guests balanced buffet lunches on their knees, one of America's top intelligence official made some provocative and fascinating comments about the current US-Iranian impasse.

What he said was like a thumb in the eye to neoconservatives and assorted other sabre-rattlers.

The official was Thomas Fingar, director of the National Intelligence Council and deputy director for analysis at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. In effect, Fingar is the nation's top intelligence analyst. Previously, he headed the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, one of the few (very few) US intelligence agencies to have mostly gotten Iraq right in 2002, when the CIA and Pentagon agencies were hyperventilating about the threat of Iraqi WMDs...

First, Fingar insisted that the United States has to take Iran's legitimate security concerns into account. 'Iran,' he said, 'like the classic 'even paranoids have enemies' idea, lives in a tough neighborhood. It has reason to feel insecure.'

Part of the reason for Iran's insecurity, he said, was the fact that the United States has armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'Recognizing that Iran has real security needs is a good starting point' for US policy, he said. 'We are part of the reason why Iran feels insecure.'"

Fingar also spoke about Iran's recent missile tests, how Iran is tied to energy supplies and hegemonic control of the Gulf.

Iraq, the Nuclear Issue, Aghanistan and the Gulf: The View from Tehran

Selig Harrison, Director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy, gave a briefing today at the Woodrow Wilson Center where he is also Senior Scholar. Harrison reported on the view from Tehran based on two trips there in the past nine months, most recently in February. His trips were funded by the Trust for Mutual Understanding. Harrison prefaced his remarks with the fact that he went to Iran with the specific objective to see what is possible in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf. He was not able to meet one-on-one with either President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, but he did meet with many of their key advisors. Most signicanlty, the Iranian Foreign Ministry arranged a meeting with 15 experts that work on Iraq.

Harrison focused most of his remarks on Iran’s view of Iraq beginning with an apropos comment from Mahmoud Vaezi, Deputy of Foreign Policy Research at Center for Strategic Research in Tehran. Vaezi told Harrison, “We have been waiting for this moment since 1639,” meaning that Iran has been waiting for the day when Sunni minority rule would end in Baghdad and Iran would restore its influence.

Harrison said that President Bush clearly did not have the Shi’a connection on his mind when he toppled Sadam Hussein and he pointed to comments by Douglas Feith who has said he believed in 2003 that invading Iraq might speed up the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Iran. According to Feith, “It was unclear to us how it would all net out and it is still unclear.” He thought that Iranians would be inspired by the “Iraqi revolution.” Feith still calls what’s happening in Iraq a revolution. Paul Wolfowitz was more realistic and believed a Shiite dominated Iraq would never be a puppet of Iran.

But what about an Iraq that is closer to Iran than any other external power? The U.S. was slow to learn that the politicians in power in Iraq have had close ties to Iran.

Harrison thinks it’s obvious the U.S. has embarked on a new military strategy in Sadr City. Iran has carefully avoided playing favorites in Iraq, but the U.S. has not. Harrison said he has heard Iranian anger over the U.S. role in Sadr City and said the timing of the escalation in Hizbollah attacks in Lebanon might be linked to the U.S. decision to step up military action against the Mahdi army. Harrison also said the Iranian suspension of a fourth round of talks with the U.S. over Iraqi security is also a result of situation in Sadr City. Many Iranians asked Harrison, “How can the U.S. accuse us of interfering in Iraq?”

The U.S. has to give serious attention to Iran’s view of what must be done in Iraq. There can be no graceful withdrawal from Iraq without Iranian cooperation. Iran wants a stable Iraq, what they define as a “friendly Iraq.” Their effort is to keep a hand in with all actors so they end up with friends in power. Harrison said the importance of Iran-Iraq war can not be overemphasized enough as the basic context for Iran’s view of the situation in Iraq and in context of the nuclear issue.

Iran is ready to cooperate in stabilizing Iraq, but only if U.S. is willing to set a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq. In return for stabilizing Iraq, the basic U.S. quid pro quo would be accepting Iran’s right to be a major player in Iraq. Acceptance by Saudi Arabia is also implicit.

Iran has carefully avoided taking sides in current Shiite internal struggle and wants the U.S. to do the same. It has also attempted to keep on good terms with all Shia factions. They do prefer al-Hakim as the preeminent force in the Shi’a community in Iraq, but they are being careful to keep their Revolutionary Guard relationships with Muqtada al-Sadr. Essentially, they are hedging their bets in Iraq. It is important to stop the slaughter in Sadr City because it puts Iran in an awkward position, particularly as it has been restraining Muqtada al-Sadr, so far, something Harrison was repeatedly told. It is pretty clear that the March 2008 truce was brokered by an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp general. A Shiastan in the South is also a very important question.

The safest way to predict what would come out of any Modus Vivendi between the U.S. and Iran over Iraq is when withdrawal is completed. But, according to Harrison, in a Modus Vivendi, Iran would pledge not to give missiles capable of hitting green zone. It would end aid to militias in Iraq when U.S. forces are withdrawn and it would help with eliminating al Qaeda in Iraq. Iranians also focus on security guarantees that U.S. bases in Iraq will not be used to attack Iran. Iran also does not want an independent Kurdistan. For a graceful U.S. withdrawal, Iran expects the U.S. to end aide to Party for a Fee Live in Kurdistan (PJAK) and other groups, in particular separatist groups in Balouchistan.

Two Iranian demands would be particularly difficult to get through U.S. policy process. Iran wants the U.S. to end support for Mujahideen al Khalq (MEK) fighters who have been kept at Camp Ahsraf in Iraq for the last five years. Iran wants the U.S. to put MEK fighters through a Red Cross screening process so they can return to Iran.

Iranians are very angry now about what they see as a shift in U.S. policy since the 2005 Iraqi elections. In their perception, they see the Sunni Awakening as an abandonment of support for a Shiite dominated Iraq that resulted from the 2005 elections. Iran wants the U.S. to stop building up Sunni militias, but it is not going to be easy to roll back the Sunni Awakening. As Steven Simon points out “The Price of the Surge” the U.S. made deals “mediated by tribal leaders and consisted of payments of $360 per month per combatant in exchange for allegiance and cooperation… The total number [of combatants] across Iraq is estimated at over 90,000… The Sunni sheiks, meanwhile, are getting rich from the surge. The United States has budgeted $150 million to pay Sunni tribal groups this year, and the sheiks take as much as 20 percent of every payment to a former insurgent -- which means that commanding 200 fighters can be worth well over a hundred thousand dollars a year for a tribal chief.”

The U.S. has started something that will be difficult to stop. Ending the Sunni Awakening is important to re-establishing stability. As George Packer pointed out in an article for the New Yorker, Sunni awakening policy is seen as indicative of the long-range goals of the U.S. in Iraq.

But, what will happen to the Sunnis? They will have to accept rule by the Shiite majority, just as Shiites had to accept Sunni rule for the last five centuries. President Bush assigned the Sunnis to this status when he overthrew Saddam Hussein.

For this reason, a U.S.-Iran agreement must be accompanied by a broader regional agreement. Iran is ready for a regional approach. The U.S. media has given little attention to Iran’s efforts to work on regional cooperation.

Regarding Iranian views of cooperation over Afghanistan, Harrison said his best meeting was with Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of Majlis, who like many other Iranians, said that Iran cooperated with the U.S. to defeat the Taliban after the September 11, 2001 attacks. “Our reward was membership in the Axis of Evil,” Boroujerdi said. Harrison said there is a tremendous feeling of unreciprocated overtures in Iran.

Iranians still believe there are areas for serious cooperation with the U.S. over Afghanistan, particularly with halting narcotics trafficking. Iranians dismissed U.S. claims their helping the Taliban and completely are with U.S. in opposing them. Harrison said it is interesting to note that U.S. accusations on this have died down.

Regarding the Gulf, Harrison said the Iranians have a very pragmatic attitude. No one expects the U.S. to completely withdraw militarily from the gulf. But the carriers represent the biggest threat, especially as they are equipped with tactical nuclear weapons. Removal of carriers from the Gulf would be Iran’s first demand.

Harrison said there was a good reception in Iran for the idea of a reduction of U.S. military presence in the Gulf as proposed by Kenneth Pollack from Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. Pollack argues, “The best way for the United States to address the rise of terrorism and the threat of internal instability in Saudi Arabia and the other [Gulf Cooperation Council] states would be to reduce its military presence in the region to the absolute minimum, or even to withdraw entirely.” The Navy could remain in Bahrain, but there must be fewer American warships. Harrison notes the difficulty comes with Iran’s desires for expansion.

Harrison said the U.S. media portrays Iran as trouble-maker in the Gulf. However, since King Abdullah came to power in Saudi Arabia and since Rafsanjani’s haj when he was president, there has been a marked Saudi-Iran bi-polar balance. Saudi-Iranian political tensions can be serious, but that does not mean that Saudi Arabia is willing to engage militarily.

Finally, regarding the nuclear program, Harrison said the U.S. is not serious about a negotiated settlement otherwise it would not be insisting on suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition. He noted that nuclear negotiations between Iran and the European Union in 2004-05 were based on a bargain that the EU failed to honor. Iran did suspend enrichment efforts for more than half a year. The EU promised to put forward security guarantees and economic incentives, but it could not produce the security guarantees. Many Iranians, including former Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations Javad Zarif, put their reputations on the line to convince the powers in Iran to suspend and the U.S. was unwilling to cooperate on security assurances. All factions in Iran agree that they should not be conned again.

Is a nuclear settlement possible? Harrison argues that given a settlement in Iraq, it would be possible to get a freeze at some point in future negotiations under International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. But reciprocity would be required and the U.S. would have to make a commitment not to use nuclear weapons against Iran. Harrison believes establishing a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone agreement in the Persian Gulf should be part of the settlement. He said no one in Tehran talked about a security agreement extending beyond the Gulf into the Middle East. He said the U.S. could rule out using nuclear weapons in gulf without doing so in the Middle East and this would not hurt its policy on Israel.

Understanding Iran's Policy Towards the United States by R.K. Ramazani

UNDERSTANDING IRAN'S POLICY TOWARDS THE UNITED STATESBY
R.K. Ramazani

Any candidate, Democratic or Republican, who wins the presidential elections will face a great challenge of understanding Iran. The propaganda machine does not help, and actually beclouds, our understanding of Iran. It depicts Iran as an irrational country that threatens world peace, that aims to hit the American homeland with missiles, that threatens to destroy Israel, that works to build nuclear weapons, and that aspires to dominate the oil-rich Middle East. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says publicly that she does not understand Iran, and there is no guarantee that a future secretary of state will either.

To help us comprehend Iran's America policy, we need to look beyond the headlines and search for those fundamental cultural and psychological factors that drive Iran's foreign policy in general and its America policy in particular.

No real grasp of Iran's behavior in world politics is possible without appreciating that the Iranian people take deep pride in their culture. They take pride in the influence of their ancient religion, Zoroastrianism, on Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They take pride in thirty centuries of their arts and artifacts, in the continuity of their cultural identity over millennia, in having established the first world state more than 2500 years ago, in having organized the first international society which respected the religions and cultures of the people who were under their rule, in having liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity, and in having influenced Greek, Arab, Mongol and Turkish civilizations.

But this sense of pride in the greatness of their culture and history is countered by a deep sense of victimization. The Iranian people feel they have been oppressed by foreign powers during their long history. They remember that Alexander of Macedonia, Arabs, Mongols and Turks invaded and conquered their homeland.

Iranians also remember that the British and the Russian empires exploited them economically and subjugated them politically, and that the CIA destroyed their democratically-elected government. Today they fear that the Bush administration is seeking to change their government by covert operations or through outright use of military force, including strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

This paradoxical combination of the sense of pride in the Iranian culture and the sentiment of victimization in dealing with foreign powers in general is also replicated in Iran's particular experience with the United States over the past hundred and twenty five years. Iran took the initiative to establish diplomatic relations with the United States in 1883 for two reasons. First, by involving the United States in Iran's affairs, Iranian officials sought to create a counterbalance to a century of British and Russian economic exploitation and political domination. Second, by attracting American know-how, they believed they could modernize their backward economy.

Enlightened Iranians, however, aspired to more than economic modernization. They tried to create a democratic and representative government by constitutional means. As a result, Iran's Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911 aimed at limiting the tyranny of the monarch and ending British and Russian domination. To these ends, in 1906 they established for the first time in their history a parliament, or Majlis, which continues to the present time.

Given Iran-US amicable relations, the parliament hired the American, Morgan Shuster, to modernize Iran's finances. His reform efforts ran up against British and Russian imperial interests. The Russians bombarded the parliament building and, in collusion with the British, forced Shuster out of Iran. As a result, Iran's first democratic and American supported experiment with democracy failed to materialize by 1911.

Iran's second attempt to experiment with democratic government was also stopped in its tracks by foreign machination. This time, the American CIA staged a coup in 1953 that destroyed the popularly-elected government of Dr. Mohammad Musaddiq.

The United States returned the shah to the throne, and American economic, political, military and cultural domination ensued over the following quarter century until the Islamic revolution in1979. Besides ending the shah's regime, the revolutionary forces aimed at terminating American domination.

After the shah fled to America, the militant students took over the American embassy and held fifty-two American diplomats hostage for 444 days. The students claimed that they acted out of fear that the United States might try again to return the shah to the throne in 1979 as it had done in 1953.

Just as the American destruction of the Musaddiq government had burned deeply into the Iranian psyche, the Iranian taking of American diplomats hostage humiliated the American public. These two events in combination have cast a long shadow over US-Iran relations to date.

Yet, this mutual psychological trauma is countered by America's and Iran's collective memory of seventy years of amicable relations between the two countries before 1953. Iranians remember the American support of their first attempt to establish a democratic representative government, the American championship of Iranian rejection of the British attempt to impose a protectorate in Iran, the American support of Iranian resistance to Soviet pressures for oil concessions in the1940s, and, above all, the American support of Iranian independence and territorial integrity by pressuring the Soviet Union to end its occupation of northern Iran at the end of World War II.

The real challenge for the next American president will be to draw creatively on this historic reservoir of Iranian goodwill toward the United States. The new administration should recognize the Iranian Revolution unequivocally, assess the Iranian rising power in the Middle East realistically, and end more than three decades of containment and sanctions.

The next administration should also engage the Muslim people of Iran in a dialogue between civilizations, start talking to Iran unconditionally, and accept the Iranian proposal to put on the table for discussion all differences between the two countries, including Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah, the security of Iraq and Israel, regional security, and above all, the nuclear issue.

Note: This article was first published by the Charlottesville Daily Progress.

Notes from Meeting with President Khatami

President Khatami opened our meeting with his thoughts on whether it has become the human destiny to always experience conflict or whether we might experience peace. He believes that while war has dominated human society throughout history, it is not part of human nature, but rather has been imposed on mankind.

The greatest problem facing the world today, he said, is insecurity. It is not only in Palestine, Africa or Iraq; it is even in the center of the most civilized countries. According to President Khatami, “Either everyone has security or no one has security. We should fight the causes of insecurity, which are injustice and lack of understanding.”

The greatest injustice is humiliating human beings, which results in reactions, which is the reason we find that terrorism derives from violence. From one side, we see violence and humiliation and then we see terrorism as a reaction from the other side. If we want peace, we must understand the causes. He said the lack of justice, love and compassion has led to the situation we are in today.

President Khatami works for peace through religion because he believes that the soul of all divine religions is love and compassion. According to Khatami, if we refer to the spirit of the divine religions and do not allow superficial difference to cause misunderstandings; if we make a return to religions and cooperate in the spread of religion and if we encourage people to withstand the activities of those who wish to cause war, then our mutual concerns will be ameliorated.

In Fall 2008, President Khatami and his Center for the Dialogue of Civilizations will be partnering with the National Cathedral and Vatican to have summit in Washington DC in attempts to start a movement to bring together the Abrahamic faiths.

President Khatami also expressed concern for the situation the region is facing in regards to Palestine. He asked how we can expect peace in the region to be established when such atrocities are occurring. He said he was sorry that the U.S. does not want the United Nations Security Council to issue a statement against such crimes. If powers work and support justice, than we can attain justice. Terrorism is condemned, but the root cause of terrorism is suppression and humiliation and these must be addressed.

President Khatami said the U.S. is a great nation and its Constitutional Law is one of the most important in the area of human rights, democracy and freedom. It holds a high position economically and in scientific fields. Why then should violence and humiliation come from such a great nation?

He said American policies have been hostile toward Iran and these are the causes of misunderstanding and drifting apart. He tried during his tenure as president to take many steps to eradicate misunderstanding and he is sorry that forces on both sides did not wish to see understanding.

What has been happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine in the name of fighting terror has done nothing to stop terror. Today, extremists are more powerful than before the invasion of Afghanistan. President Khatami said he is afraid that the U.S. might have to arrive at a compromise with extremists in order to reach a settlement and this worries him.

Iran was happy to see the dictator of Iraq ousted, but selfish motives of the U.S. have caused more extremism in the region. It is in the long-term interests of the U.S. to change its policies. The U.S. can’t have double standards in its policies, such as depriving Iran of its rights to access to peaceful nuclear energy despite the fact that all international reports show that Iran’s nuclear program are for peaceful purposes. Yet, Israel has hundreds of nuclear warheads not being condemned; they are being supported. Such actions cause violence in the world.

He said we should focus on mutual understanding and dialogue. He said there is no problem between our two nations. The nuclear issue and what is happening in Iraq can be ground for better cooperation between the U.S. and Iran if these become the subject of unconditional talks.

He said it was very difficult during his tenure to have talks with the U.S. Iran was branded as part of the ‘axis of evil’ despite the fact that the country’s cooperation was the most important fact of the U.S. topple of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Violent-oriented actions result in violent-oriented reactions. Misunderstandings between the two countries have become even more powerful. Iran’s main policy still today is that it is willing to have such talks, but the U.S. has stopped them by making preconditions.

Robert Dreyfuss asked President Khatami to reflect on his term as president. He said that he believed in reformation. He distinguished reform as taking place within the system, not outside. When it is outside the system, it is revolution.

He doesn’t say the system is flawless, but the present government came to power with the peoples’ power. Power can be shifted. Is the soul of a democracy anything else than this? A lot of blood was sacrificed for this system. The reform movement seeks to strengthen the democratic aspects of this system through peaceful means. He believes that in the short time following the Islamic Revolution, Iran has taken great strides towards democracy, but there are factors that have impede the speed of democracy, like war, and we must be patient.

Larry Beinhart agreed with President Khatami that the ideals he expressed about religion – as agreed between himself and the pope – were wonderful ideals at the heart of all true religion. However, the historical record is that when religion acquires political power it is always as least as violent as any secular regime. He asked why should we expect the Islamic Republic to be different? President Khatami responded that religious wars and conflicts resulted in secular forms of government in the West. Secularism led to a reduction in religious wars. But war and violence still exist in a secular world. The two World Wars, which were more destructive than any other war, were in the secular West and at the hands of secular government. Therefore, we should not look for causes in religion. It is possible to set aside religion and still have violence and wars.

I asked about the offer made in 2003 that put everything on the table and what he thinks must be done in order to create the environment where such an offer and the normalization of U.S.-Iran relations might occur in the future. In his response, President Khatami said he was going to reveal a secret everyone knows – in Afghanistan, itw was cooperation between the U.S. and Iran that led to the toppling of the Taliban. He also said that Iran supported the U.S. destruction of the Ba’athist party in Iraq. He said changes in the policies of the U.S., particularly in the foreign policy, and in the implementation of more realistic policies in Iran would lead to better relations. “We can be hopeful and find factors that serve the interests of both countries. But, for success we need wisdom and being realistic.” Referring to both governments, Khatami said, “There seems to be an absence of wisdom.”

President Khatami also invited me to join him when he flies from Washington DC to California this fall to interview him and have a fuller discussion.

Enriched Iranium

Ethan Chorin, a Senior Fellow in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, has a new blog called Enriched Iranium (very clever). He notes that the origin of his blog "sprang from a few months’ consistent read of Arabic and Farsi sources on the US-Iranian relationship. I felt a posting offering multiple perspectives—both Iranian AND Arab, in particular—on key issues in Iran-U.S. relations might be a useful assist in framing policy." Check out Enriched Iranium.

Better Relations? Why Not?

During President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the U.S. last fall, he said during a meeting with religious leaders that Iran was open to such exchanges. However, there have been several Congressional Delegation (CODEL) attempts, none of which have been successful due to difficulties in getting visas from Iran. Dozens of members of Congress have expressed interest in going to Iran, though only some have a sincere interest in working towards normalization of relations, while others would use such a trip for their own purposes.

The question of intentions for wanting to go to Iran is a serious issue that is not taken lightly inside the regime. In a meeting in Iran with the Deputy Foreign Minister for North and Central America Ali Rezaei, I asked about the prospects for Congressional/Majlis exchanges. Rezaei responded that such delegations might be possible, but “the timing is so important.” He pointed to the upcoming elections as an excuse for a delay in such a delegation, but said requests should be submitted to the appropriate channels and they would be considered.

Following the discussion about Congressional delegations, we discussed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s January speech in Yazd in which he said he would be the first to approve U.S.-Iran relations if deemed beneficial. Ali Rezaei noted that positions in Iran at the highest level view the topic of relations with the U.S. as a live debate. He also said reiterated Ayatollah Khamenei’s position that relations with the U.S. is not easy and can’t be done overnight. But, as soon as the situation is acceptable, Rezaei asked “why not?”

He said Iranians see many contradictory signals coming from the U.S. and the debate in Iran centers on a cost-benefit analysis of the issue. Most people in the regime do not yet see the benefits of a relationship with the U.S. They argue that they do not see honesty from the U.S. side. Instead, they only see a desire to diminish Iran’s power, rule and influence worldwide. Elements in the Islamic Republic’s regime view the U.S. as seeking to diminish Iran’s capabilities either through engagement or confrontation. And, they see preconditions as a form of submission. They are waiting for the U.S. not to be aggressive and they argue that it is time for the U.S. to change its behavior if it wants better relations.

Another element of the cost-benefit analysis is the perception of the U.S. in the region. Iran sees itself as having a better reputation in the region than the U.S. Some in the regime argue that Iran may hurt its reputation by opening up to the U.S. As Rezaei put it, “We don’t want to be a card in the hand of the U.S. or Israel.”

Rezaei said that he sees the lack of alternative debates inside the U.S. about Iran as the biggest obstacle towards normalization of relations. However, he underscored that small steps towards normalization of relations are still worth pursuing.

Iranian Religious Leaders Denied Visas

Jonathan Bell at Inter Press Service published an article today on the Iranian Religious leaders being denied visas. He points out that "what is particularly remarkable about the visa denials is that the administration has spoken out frequently in favor of 'people-to-people' exchanges as a means of encouraging change in Iran and other allegedly hostile nations."

Bell writes, "The State Department declined to comment on why the four members of the delegation were not approved for a visa, insisting that visa matters were confidential. Two of the four proscribed members of the Iranian delegation, however, reportedly were members of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] during the 1980s, although this could not be independently confirmed."

The visa denials are particularly disturbing because the organizers of the trip were assured by the State Department earlier this year that they would be able to obtain them. The delegation was to be a reciprocation of a 14-member delegation of US religious leaders that went to Iran in February.

Senator Specter on Engaging Iran and Parliamentary Exchanges

On August 1, 2007, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) delivered a lengthy statement on the Senate floor regarding US policy in Iraq, including his view that the US should engage both Iran and Syria. His remarks included discussion of his support for two amendments to HR 1585, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (debate on the bill was suspended in the Senate in July). The two amendments in question are S.Amdt. 2208, introduced by Senators Warner (R-VA) and Lugar (R-IN), and S.Amdt. 2063, introduced by Senators Salazar (D-CO) and Alexander (R-TN).

Senator Specter stated:

“…Both the Warner-Lugar and Salazar-Alexander proposals address the issue of diplomacy in the region. I have consistently urged the administration to work with Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria, in order to develop cooperative stabilization efforts. To that end, I have met with President Bashar Assad of Syria. I have met with Iran's Ambassadors to the United Nations, Seyed Muhammed Hadi Nejad Hosseinian and Muhammad Javad Zarif, on four occasions in New York and Washington, DC. Additionally, I was the only Member of Congress to attend the September 2006 address by former President Khatami at the National Cathedral. [Ed. Note: This is an untrue statement. I personally spoke with Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) at the National Cathedral event.]

“During my meetings with Iranian officials, I developed a proposal for an exchange of visits by Members of Congress to Iran and Iranian parliamentarians to the United States to try to open dialogue between our two countries. In January 2004, my efforts to foster such a dialogue were successful. There was a tentative agreement for U.S. Members of Congress to meet with Iranian parliamentarians in Geneva. Regrettably, this parliamentary exchange never came to fruition.

“In an effort to jumpstart this exchange, on May 3, 2007, I sent a letter, with support from Senators Biden, Hagel and Dodd and Representatives Lantos, English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks, to the Speaker of Iran's Parliament suggesting we convene a meeting of U.S. and Iranian parliamentarians.

“I have amplified my strong belief that dialogue with nations such as Iran and Syria is necessary in an extensive Senate speech on June 16, 2006 and most recently in an essay 'Dialogue With Adversaries' published in the winter edition of The Washington Quarterly. While we can't be sure that dialogue will succeed, we can be sure that without dialogue there will be failure.

“I am not alone in calling for enhanced dialogue with U.S. adversaries. Of the many suggestions gleaned from the Baker-Hamilton commission, one passage crystallizes their conclusion: ‘Our most important recommendations call for new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region, and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. We believe that these two recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another.’

“However, the President's plan places a disproportionate emphasis on military force while neglecting the needed diplomacy and political efforts.

“Having served in the Senate for 26 years, holding the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee and senior positions on the Appropriations subcommittees on Defense and Foreign Operations, I am aware of what challenges nations like Iran and Syria pose to the United States. A world in which Iran seeks nuclear weapons and supports terrorist groups such as Hezbollah is not a safe world. A world in which Syria provides refuge for Hamas and Hezbollah and permits its territory to be used as a conduit for terrorism is counterproductive to peace and stability. I expressed my views on the danger the connectivity between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah poses to peace and security in an August 2, 2006, floor statement.

“Today, however, Americans are not dying from nuclear weapons or from direct attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. Many are dying policing a civil conflict.

“President Assad, during our December 2006 meeting in Damascus, suggested that a conference with regional players and the United States would be beneficial to addressing the issues confronting Iraq. On January 22, 2007, I conveyed this proposal and my support for it to Secretary Rice in a meeting in her office at the State Department. One month later, on February 27, 2007, during her testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Secretary Rice announced such a proposal…

“Very little has happened to effectuate that ‘new diplomatic initiative.’ The Iraq Study Group clearly states: ‘Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively.’

“It would have been my hope that these types of meetings would have occurred frequently in the intervening months. However, I am pleased that the President has recently indicated a commitment to ramp up diplomatic efforts in the region.”

Today's Dose of SSP

In case you are wondering what "SSP" is, it's the acronym for "shameless self-promotion." Today, I was quoted in a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty article on the next round of US-Iran talks regarding stabilizing Iraq. Essentially, the point I was trying to make is that the talks themselves are set-up for failure and there steps that the US and Iran can both take to change this.

While I think it is a good thing that the two countries are at least meeting, there are several hinderances to progress. For starters, pointing fingers at each other in between meetings and during meetings certainly doesn't help matters. Also, the long intervals between meetings should be shortened and lower-level talks should occur to keep the communication flow going. It is my personal opinion that these talks should remain focussed on Iraq and if there is progress made on this topic, it could lay the groundwork for future talks on other outstanding issues between the two countries.

I also believe that the IAEA-Iran talks and the EU-3/Iran talks should of course be pursued in parallel.

"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."

Famous Iranians

This is much less substantive than a normal post, but it's Saturday night and I'm on my computer, so...here is a video circulating on YouTube about famous Iranians and famous people of Iranian descent. The goal of video is to put a human face to Iran with which mainstream America can identify.

US Escalates Pressure on Iran

Yesterday, the US escalated allegations regarding Iranian involvement in Iraq claiming that its Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (also known as Revolutionary Guards or IRGC) and its covert unit the Qods force played a role in an attack that killed five Americans and was using Lebanese militants to train Iraqi insurgents. Previous allegations have been off the record. Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner conducted the public briefing.

In response, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) reiterated the need to keep open the possibility of using military force against Iran, but stopped short of advocating an immediate military strike.

UPDATE:
For criticism of the New York Times reporting of the press conference with Gen. Bergner, read Greg Mitchell's article in Editor and Publisher entitled "Consider the Source: NYT Reporter Targets Iran."

Bolton Worries About Israel

Former US Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post that sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons.

According to Bolton in the interview with the Jerusalem Post:

"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

Bolton said flatly that "diplomacy and sanctions have failed... [So] we have to look at: 1, overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2, a last-resort use of force."

However, he added a caution as to the viability of the first of those remaining options: While "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," he said, such a process "may take more time than we have."

State Department Democracy Promotion Funding Broken Down

On June 4, 2007, the US State Department released an update on "Democracy Promotion" funding for Iran. I am posting a breakdown below, but some comments first.

The State Department says the purpose of this funding is to support programs that "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." On the surface this seems like a noble goal, but there is no transparency mechanism attached to this money. The State Department has said that information regarding who receives the money and what it is used for should remain classified in order to protect those who receive it. The problem with this argument is that the Iranian government is now detaining prominent Iranian Americans, like Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh, precisely because there is no transparency regarding these monies. They are being accused of taking money from the US government and acting as spies.

In an Op-Ed for the International Herald Tribune on May 30, 2007, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi (who by the way is also Dr. Esfandiari's lawyer) and Muhammed Sahimi explain the situation quite well. They write:

"The recent arrests, including the detention of Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator and a close aid to Rafsanjani, should be viewed as Ahmadinejad's retaliation against the more moderate faction. But the most important reason has to do with President George W. Bush's policy toward Iran. Last year, the administration requested and received $75 million from Congress to 'bring' democracy to Iran.

Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

But 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. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

According to the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis, noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is one of Washington's legal obligations.

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.

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."

Despite this reality, the President's request for FY 2008 is $108.71 million. The FY 2008 request includes $75 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF) to be spent on democracy promotion projects in Iran. It also includes $28.21 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Voice of America - Persian and Radio Farda programs and $5.5 million in Diplomatic and Consular Program (D&CP) funds. Congress has not yet approved this FY2008 budget request.

In the regular FY 2006 Foreign Operations spending bill, Congress appropriated no less than $6.55 million (Public Law 109-102) for Iran from Democracy Funds and requested that at least $10 million be spent by the State Department on democracy and human rights programs in Iran overall.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also requested $75 million in the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental for Iran.

Congress only appropriated $66.1 million, allocated as follows (Public Law 109-234):
* $36.1 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG);
* $10.274 million in International Broadcasting Operations;
* $25.826 million in Broadcasting Capital Improvements.
* $20 million for democracy programs in Iran through the Middle East Partnership Initiative in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs;
* $5 million for Internet and other interactive programming through the Bureau of International Information Programs;
* $5 million for education and cultural exchanges through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

According to the State Department, to date, it has obligated approximately $16.05 million for Iran democracy programs from our FY06 regular and supplemental budgets, which includes $11.9 million through MEPI and $4.15 million through the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Additionally, $1.77 million has been obligated through the Bureau of International Information Programs, and $2.22 million through the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs from the FY 2006 regular and supplemental budgets.

Iran in the FY2008 Senate Defense Authorization Bill

Well, after a bit of a hiatus and what seems like an eternity away, I'm back and in the thick of things, so to speak.

This week, the Senate Armed Services Committee released it's version of S. 1547, the FY 2008 Defense Authorization bill. We expect a floor vote on the bill in the next couple of weeks. Below are the Iran relevant portions.

On page 32 of the bill, the bill conveys that Iran's missile threat as a justification for missile defense in Europe: "(A) The threat to Europe of ballistic missiles (including short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range, and long-range ballistic missiles) from Iran and from other nations (except Russia), including the likelihood and timing of such threats."

More importantly, on page 327 of S. 1547, reads:

"SEC. 1216. PRESIDENTIAL REPORT ON POLICY OBJECTIVES AND UNITED STATES STRATEGY REGARDING IRAN. Not more than 75 percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated by this Act and available for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy may be obligated or expended for that purpose until the President submits to Congress the report required by section 1213(b) of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364; 120 Stat. 2422)."

Last year, I blogged about Sec. 1213(b) of the FY 2007 Defense Authorization Act here. Senator Reid is credited with asking for the President to submit to Congress a report on the administration’s objectives on US policy on Iran and the strategy for achieving those objectives. You can find the full FY 2008 Defense Authorization Report here.

There are additional references to the Iranian missile threat as the rationale for US missile defenses on European soil in the full report, including on pages 141-142 (163-164 if you go by page numbers in the Adobe Acrobat pdf). There is also a mention of the potential threat of Iranian missiles on page 261 (pg. 283 in Acrobat) as means for justifying Theater High Altitude Area Defense.

The report also references the difficulty of solving the Iran and North Korea nuclear issues if Congress gives a green light to new US nuclear weapons programs, such the Reliable Replacement Warhead. Page 626 of the full report (pg. 648 in Adobe Acrobat pdf) reads: “Historically, the United States has sought to prevent the development of nuclear weapons by non-nuclear weapons states by being the world leader for nonproliferation. Many critics and skeptics of the RRW, including former Senator Sam Nunn, are deeply concerned that if Congress gives a green light to this program, such an action will be ‘misunderstood by our allies, exploited by our adversaries, complicate our work to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons . . . and make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all the more difficult.’”

Rice: Bush Won't Give Up Military Option

In an interview with Al Arabyia television yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "The American president will not abandon the military option and I believe that we do not want him to do." She also added that Bush is "committed to the diplomatic option. If the world remained strong, there would be a chance for the success of the diplomatic option."

"I say to the Iranians ... there are two options -- isolation and dialogue," she said. "The international community has made its demands through the United Nations; Iran should stop nuclear enrichment, after that there would be a change in the U.S. policy that has been going on for 27 years and then I can talk to them about any issue."

Another Opportunity Come and Gone?

Everyone has not doubt read many of the headlines today about the Iraq conference, such as here and here. The conference is more memorable for what did not happen than what did. On the what did happen side, press seized the story of Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki storming out of the Diplomats dinner last night, allegedly because the female violinist was dressed too revealingly. The US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack seized the opportunity to say, "I don't know which woman he was afraid of, the woman in the red dress or the secretary of state," across from whom he was directly seated. Mottaki of course claimed that there were problems with "Islamic standards" at the dinner and that was the only reason he left.

Apparently, however, Condi wasn't rude, as President Bush promised she would not be, when she exchanged pleasantries with Mottaki over lunch.

Neither the US nor the Iranians made a first move at the meeting to set up a real meeting where direct talks between the two countries to begin. When pressed why, Condi responded: "You can ask him why he didn't make an effort. I'm not given to chasing anyone."

According to the Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari , there were talks between the Iranian and American ambassadors to Iraq today on the sidelines of the conference, which is the second such meeting since March 10, 2007.

Iranian journalist and social activist Omid Memarian has a slightly different take on the conference. In his piece today for IPS news, he says that the mere fact that the Iranians were willing to participate in the conference boosts the chances for eventual negotiations between Tehran and Washington. According to Memarian, "Even if direct talks do not occur this round, indications are that both sides are seeking a way out of the impasse while saving face."

Meanwhile, Mottaki gave his speech on Friday, assailing US policy in Iraq: "There should be no doubt that the continuation of and increase in terrorist acts in Iraq originates from the flawed approaches adopted by the foreign troops. The United States must accept the responsibilities arising from the occupation of Iraq." Mottaki also demanded the release of five Iranian diplomats captured in Irbil, Iraq in January.

US Might Confront Iran on Nuclear Program

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Secretary of State Rice may confront Iran on its nuclear program when she goes to Egypt this week for a regional conference on Iraq security. Over the weekend, the Iranians had accepted an invitation to attend the conference on stabilizing Iraq.

According to President Bush: "Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't be rude. She's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite. But she'll also be firm in reminding the representative of the Iranian government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than isolation...

"If, in fact, there is a conversation, it'll be one that says, if the Iranian government wants to have a serious conversation with the United States and others, they ought to give up their enrichment program in a verifiable fashion. And we will sit down at the table with them along with our European partners and Russia as well. That's what she'll tell him."

The statement appears to be a toughened stance from previous comments by Secretary of State Rice and State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack who said she would be willing to talk to the Iranians.