Iran Provisions in Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations

Yesterday, I posted the language in the Senate Appropriations Committee report on the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations bill. As with most appropriations bills this year, it is not likely that the Foreign Operations Appropriations will be considered by the full House or Senate.

Below is the full text of the Iran-related sections in the S. 3288 the FY'09 Foreign Ops Appropriations bill.

Transparency in Broadcasting (page 26-27)
SEC. 114. Funds appropriated under the heading ‘‘International Broadcasting Operations’’ in this Act for programs and activities supporting international broadcasting to the Middle East and Iran in fiscal year 2009 may be made available if the United States Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Inspector General reports to the Committees on Appropriations that such broadcasting meets the standards in the Office of Inspector General report ISP–IB–08–45, May 2008.

Democracy Fund (page 44)
(e) Of the funds appropriated under this heading, up to $20,000,000 shall be made available for programs to promote democracy in Iran and to counter the political influence of the Government of Iran in Lebanon and the West Bank and Gaza: Provided, That none of such funds may be used for educational and cultural exchanges.

Prohibition Against Direct Funding for Certain Countries (page 77-78)
SEC. 706. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this Act shall be obligated or expended to finance directly any assistance or reparations to Cuba, North Korea, Iran, or Syria, unless the President determines that assistance to such countries is important to the national interest of the United States and notifies the Committees on Appropriations in accordance with the regular notification procedures: Provided,That for purposes of this section, the prohibition on obligations or expenditures shall include direct loans, credits, insurance and guarantees of the Export-Import Bank or its agents.

Special Notification Requirements (page 96)
SEC. 719. None of the funds appropriated under titles II through VI of this Act shall be obligated or expended for assistance for Serbia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Iran, Haiti, Libya, Ethiopia, Mexico, or Cambodia except as provided through the regular notification procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.

Iran in the Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill

Last week, the Senate and House Appropriations Committees completed mark-up of the Fiscal Year 2009 Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations. However, as with most appropriations bills this year, it is not likely that the Foreign Operations Appropriations will be considered by the full House or Senate.

Today, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released a report of the mark-up of S.3288, the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill for the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on July 18, 2008. The Senate version of the bill contains $20,000,000 for democracy programs in Iran and “prohibits the use of funds under this heading for educational and cultural exchanges.” The bill also contains a provision regarding monitoring and reporting on broadcasts to the Middle East and Iran.

Below is the full text of the Iran-related provisions in the Senate report of the FY’09 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.

(Page 51) Iran.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000 for democracy programs for Iran, and prohibits the use of funds under this heading for educational and cultural exchanges.

(Page 27) Transparency in Broadcasting.—The Committee remains concerned with the integrity of U.S. broadcasting overseas and includes a provision to ensure that the Inspector General of the Department of State and BBG continues to monitor and report on the content of broadcasts to the Middle East and Iran. BBG programs are intended to reach countries where fair and unbiased local media is limited and therefore broadcasting a variety of views are required. The Inspector General’s report (ISP–IB–08–45, May 2008) noted several ways to strengthen the transparency and accountability of broadcasts, such as adherence to a journalistic code of ethics, rigorous training programs and internal monitoring. The Committee reiterates its strong support for free and fair broadcasting, and in particular the importance of providing many points of view to maintain balanced reporting.

The Committee notes that the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, as amended, lays out strict standards and principles for U.S. international broadcasting that define its journalistic mission and responsibilities. The Committee directs the members of the BBG to rigorously oversee all broadcasting programs funded under this heading to ensure they are within authorized mandates and that limited resources are used effectively. The BBG is directed, in conjunction with the MBN, VOA, and RFE/RL, to make public English transcripts on a case by case basis if requested by the Committee. The Inspector General for the Department of State and BBG should, through its normal oversight of BBG activities, inspect random translations.

State Department Announces Requests for Proposals

The U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) last week announced a Request for Proposals (RFP) from organizations interested in submitting proposals to support the advancement of democracy and human rights inside Iran. Due to current sanctions on Iran, United States Government funds may not be used for activities involving the Government of Iran. The Bureau anticipates making awards in amounts of approximately $350,000 - $1,250,000 to support program and administrative costs required to implement these programs. Applicants must submit proposals using www.grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) on August 6, 2008.

The full RFP can be located at the State Department's website.

For questions related to proposal submissions, please contact Jessica Lieberman, 202.647.9734, liebermanjd@state.gov or Ramiro Martinez, 202.261.8008, martinezRA@state.gov. Once the RFP submission deadline has passed, Bureau staff may not discuss this competition with applicants until the proposal review and decision process has been completed.

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.'

Shirin Ebadi: 'Don't Attack Iran'

Robert Dreyfuss has a new article in The Nation concerning an interview he conducted with Shirin Ebadi on April 28.

In regards to ongoing death threats to her person, Dreyfuss writes, "Ebadi is not intimidated, and she continues to represent dissidents and others caught up in the labyrinthine Iranian court system. But she warns that threats and bellicose rhetoric from American leaders and politicians is not helping matters." According to Ebadi, "The most important thing is not to militarily attack Iran, or to threaten to attack Iran militarily. Even the language of some of the candidates in the United States threatens Iran."

Ebadi also addressed the regime change slush fund. "When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side," she says. "It gives Iran an excuse for what it does." According to Dreyfuss, she said that all credible Iranian activists have refused to accept American funding, and most of the money has been funneled into radio broadcasts and other US propaganda.

In regards to sanctions, Ebadi told Dreyfuss, "Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they're not going to topple the government of Iran, because the government has a lot of income from the price of oil because the price is so high." According to Dreyfuss, "the only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran's leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country's highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials' travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world's countries could collectively shun the Iranian state."

Ebadi says, "What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people."

Of course, she also believes political sanctions should only be used as a last resort. She believes the best course is dialogue. Ebadi says, "Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public."

Updated "Democracy Promotion" Fact Sheet

Background

The State Department says the purpose of is so-called “democracy promotion” fund in Iran 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, however, the program is universally rejected by its intended recipients in Iran because it has undermined their work for democracy and reform.

Iranian authorities have used the Bush administration's regime change slush fund as a pretext to clamp down on Iran's civil society with thousands of arrests. 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. However, the secrecy surrounding the distribution of these funds has created immense problems for Iranian reformers and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hardliners in Iran are terrified by the prospect of a “velvet revolution” and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts. They are being accused by the Iranian government of taking money from the U.S. government and acting as spies.

Referring to the so-called “democracy promotion” program, activists and dissidents in Iran believe that “democracy in Iran doesn’t need money” and that the fund has only undermined their work for reform. In an Op-Ed for the International Herald Tribune on May 30, 2007, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Muhammed Sahimi aptly explain the situation:

"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.”

In an October 2007 Chronicle of Higher Education article, Woodrow Wilson Center’s Middle East Program Director Haleh Esfandiari, who was incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin prison and detained for several months on allegations of endangering Iranian national security, and International Security Studies Director Robert Litwak write about the unintended consequences of U.S. "democracy promotion" policies. According the authors:

“U.S. law places formidable restrictions on the ability of American NGO's to operate in Iran. Meanwhile, while eschewing official contact, the United States attempts to financially support Iran's own nascent NGO's so that they can become agents of change within the society. Yet this program of democracy promotion has had the unintended consequence of further reducing the political space for open debate in Iran. In this new climate of intimidation, NGO's and journalists are subject to censorship and are defensively engaging in self-censorship. Prominent Iranian activists, such as the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, declared their opposition to the U.S. program because of continued sensitivity about foreign, particularly American, intrusion in Iran's domestic politics. 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 NGO's.”

Suzanne Maloney, who was on the policy-planning staff at the State Department for two years, says the following regarding the democracy assistance funds:

“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.”

Reasons Why Democracy Promotion Funds Should be Eliminated

Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best the US can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

Noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is a legal obligations of the United States. This was stipulated in the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis.

The US policy of “helping” the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired and made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran’s power hierarchy to argue for rapprochement with the West. The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has 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.

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request

The U.S. Department of State Summary and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2009 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) reveals details regarding Iran-related funding in the Economic Support Fund line item. For Fiscal Year 2009, the Statement Department is requesting $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran (page 79), this is more than triple the spending amount for Fiscal Year 2008, which is estimated at $21.623 million. This tripling in Economic Support Funds is due to a couple of factors including the restructure in the State Department and it's Iran desk. A second factor is the Fiscal Year 2008 Foreign Operations bill in which Congress appropriated $60 million under Section 693, a general provision for so-called "Programs to Promote Democracy, Rule of Law and Governance in Iran." It has been unclear since Section 693 was originally added as an amendment introduced by Rep. Crenshaw to the House Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for exactly which programs this funding was meant, i.e. whether this section was meant to increase funding for the Economic Support Fund or the Human Rights and Democracy Fund, or if it was meant to serve as an overall guideline for total spending on so-called "democracy promotion" programs. It is still a question that needs to be answered. Thus, the tripling in the request for the Economic Support Funds could indicate that either the State Department recognizes that Congress supports this program and they can get additional funds for it or that State Department is trying to streamline the so-called democracy assistance funds through the Economic Support Fund line item.

While the FY'09 Summary and Highlights does not state exactly how much of the International Broadcasting Operations funds ($654 million requested) will be devoted to Iran, it does note that funds will 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.

FY’08 Budget

On December 19, 2007, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill which included the consolidated State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The bill provides for $60 million to be made available for “programs to promote democracy, the rule of law and governance in Iran.” The explanatory statement accompanying the bill specifies only two numbers with respect to Iran: $21.8 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF); and $8 million for the Democracy Fund. The remainder of the $60 million is embedded in other accounts and amounts are not specified. The final appropriation was nearly halved from President Bush’s February 2007 budget request of $108.71 million, including $75 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF), $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.

FY’06 Funding

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 a State Department June 2007 report, at the time it had only obligated approximately $16.05 million for Iran democracy programs from its 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.

Policy Recommendations

• Congress should request a Government Accountability Office report evaluating the usefulness of Iran democracy promotion funding.
• Congress should require the President to submit quarterly reports accounting for all government funding relating to Iran, including all funding in support of pro-democracy groups and of “regime change” in Iran.
• Congress should reduce or eliminate all “democracy promotion” funding for Iran.
• Congress should reverse the US policy of regime change towards Iran.
• Congress should require study to determine the content and effectiveness of U.S. broadcasting into Iran.

Senate Hearing on Foreign Operations Appropriations

Caught up in the Petraeus-Crocker hearing, among other things last week, I missed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that was held on April 9.

The U.S. Department of State Summary and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2009 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) reveals details regarding Iran-related funding in the Economic Support Fund line item. For Fiscal Year 2009, the Statement Department is requesting $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran (page 79) to “support the aspirations of the Iranian people for a democratic and open society by promoting civil society, civic participation, media freedom and freedom of information.”

However, Iran did not come up at all in regards to the Economic Support Fund and the only place where Iran appears in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s prepared testimony is in regards to Lebanon. According to Condi’s prepared testimony:

“For FY 2009, the Department of State has requested $142 million in foreign assistance for Lebanon to support two parallel objectives: countering threats to Lebanon’s sovereignty and security from armed groups backed by Syria and Iran, and helping foster good governance and a vibrant economy… Lebanon remains under siege by a Syrian and Iranian-backed opposition working to undermine the nation’s stability, sovereignty, and state institutions.”

So, if promoting democracy in Iran is such a central approach to the Bush adminitration’s policy towards Iran, why isn’t it in Condi’s testimony? Did any INW readers see anything in the Q&A session?

Congress Passes Omnibus Spending Bill with Funding for Controversial Iran Program

Yesterday, the House and Senate passed an omnibus appropriations bill that included $60 million for so-called “democracy” funds in Iran. As one congressional aide speaking on condition of anonymity to the Washington Post noted, “There is a lot of uneasiness about the whole Iran democracy program. It is potentially a way of providing an excuse for cracking down on dissidents.” President Bush, whose signature on the bill is required before it can become law, sent the bill to his budget director for review.

Congress Set to Vote on Controversial So-Called 'Democracy Promotion' Funding

Despite opposition from prominent organizations and individuals, including key Iranian dissidents such as Akbar Ganji and Shirin Ebadi, Congress is pressing forward with funding for a controversial program that undermines U.S.-Iran relations. Later today, the House will vote on a consolidated State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. Following the reconciliation of the House and Senate versions in conference, Section 693 of the bill provides for $60 million to be made available for “programs to promote democracy, the rule of law and governance in Iran.”

There are several reasons why this funding is a bad idea. For starters, Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best the US can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

The secrecy surrounding the distribution of these funds has created immense problems for Iranian reformers and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hardliners in Iran are terrified by the prospect of a “velvet revolution” and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts.

Noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is a legal obligations of the United States. This was stipulated in the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis.

For all of these reasons, 25 organizations signed a letter to House and Senate Conferees in September. The letter made the case for reprogramming the funds to better support Iranian democratic activists. According to the organizations:

“We believe this program, intended to aid the cause of democracy in Iran, has failed and instead invigorated a campaign by conservative regime elements to harass and intimidate those seeking reform and greater openness in Iran. As segments of the U.S. Administration tout regime change, secret State Department “democracy promotion” funding has enabled Iranian authorities to label those supporting reforms or engagement with the West as foreign agents and traitors. Recent detentions of Iranian-American scholars, journalists, union leaders, student activists and others are widely viewed as responses to threats posed by U.S.- funded efforts.

“Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported and must be based on indigenous institutions and values. Intended beneficiaries of the funding, -- human rights advocates, civil society activists and others -- uniformly denounce the program. “Washington’s policy of ‘helping’ the cause of democracy has backfired,” wrote Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi in the International Herald Tribune recently. “The Bush Administration should put an end to its misguided policy.” Others respected human rights activists, including Akbar Ganji and Emad Baghi, voice similar sentiments. The fact is, given the current dynamic of conflict between the U.S. and Iranian governments, no organization inside Iran can openly accept funding from the U.S. Government.

“The inability of the State Department to expend funds in this account from previous years and its failure to respond to Congressional inquiries for information about the program, further justify its elimination. The program’s fundamental flaw is reflected in the State Department’s inability to generate realistic proposals for activities inside Iran. Less than half of funds allocated in previous years for “democracy programs” in Iran have been expended -- on activities unknown.

“As supporters of the values of democracy, we believe any such funding would be better spent on activities outside Iran which could facilitate openness and still promote civil society. We urge Congress to mandate that the Department of State take into account the views of democracy advocates living in Iran -- the intended beneficiaries of the funding. As people-to-people exchanges involving scholars, artists, athletes, groups of professionals and others are proven to foster understanding and cooperation, we urge you to include language in the bill to ease restrictions which make it extremely difficult for NGOs to implement exchanges. Iranian civil society advocates welcome access to information technologies that help expand their access to internet and other media. Finally, while funding for radio and television broadcasting to Iran is extremely important and useful, given the large expansion of Voice of America’s Farsi service last year, we believe further funding should be contingent upon a thorough evaluation of current programming.

“Congress can and should play a constructive role in promoting democracy in Iran and elsewhere. Eliminating so-called democracy promotion programs in Iran, and reprogramming such funds for activities that Iranian democratic activists want, are good first steps.”

"Democracy Promotion" Coordinator Resigns

Yesterday, David Denehy, who has been coordinating the Iran "democracy promotion" account at the U.S. Department of State resigned. In an email Denehy writes:

"October 26, 2007 will be my last day with the U.S. Department of State; my decision to leave the administration is due, in part, to my belief that I am better able to serve the goals of the President’s Freedom Agenda from outside of government. While there have been many challenges to the work we have done together, the rewards have been equally as great. I leave the Department proud that I was able to work with you to support those seeking to expand personal freedom and democracy in Iran. I urge you that no matter how strenuous the debate of our work that you continue to support those in Iran who cannot speak for themselves."

Denehy did not state where he is going or what he will be doing.

How Promoting Democracy in Iran Can Backfire

In a must-read October 19, 2007 article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education entitled "Confronting Iran: How Promoting Democracy Can Backfire," Woodrow Wilson Center’s Middle East Program Director Haleh Esfandiari and International Security Studies Director Robert Litwak write about the unintended consequences of U.S. "democracy promotion" policies.

According to Esfandiari and Litwak:

"Current U.S. policy precludes broad government-to-government talks with Iran and seems to permit only episodic ambassadorial discussions in Baghdad on Iraqi issues -- meetings that serve as a forum for dueling talking points. U.S. law places formidable restrictions on the ability of American NGO's to operate in Iran. Meanwhile, while eschewing official contact, the United States attempts to financially support Iran's own nascent NGO's so that they can become agents of change within the society. Yet this program of democracy promotion has had the unintended consequence of further reducing the political space for open debate in Iran. In this new climate of intimidation, NGO's and journalists are subject to censorship and are defensively engaging in self-censorship. Prominent Iranian activists, such as the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, declared their opposition to the U.S. program because of continued sensitivity about foreign, particularly American, intrusion in Iran's domestic politics. 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 NGO's."

They suggest several fundamental shifts in U.S. policy including:

• "Governments should talk to governments, while Iranian and American NGO's should be permitted to interact in a transparent fashion without the intrusion of governments. If the United States is to have any chance of enlisting Iranian cooperation on issues of major concern -- stabilizing Iraq and resolving the nuclear impasse -- it must make clear that its objective is a change in Iranian behavior, not a change of regime...Although such a U.S. assurance is no guarantee of success, it is the prerequisite for a change in Iranian foreign-policy behavior, as well as for positioning the United States to win multilateral support for meaningful action at the United Nations if Iranian intransigence continues."
• "In tandem with a shift on the government-to-government level, the counterproductive democracy-promotion program aimed at Iranian NGO's should be scrapped in favor of a more permissive U.S. stance toward the operation of U.S. nonprofit organizations in Iran. "
• "Another element of this revamped approach would be a new program of privately financed scholarships for Iranian students to study at American institutions of higher learning...The United States has a long-term interest in providing educational opportunities to Iran's successor generation of scholars, as well as in promoting the development of a new cadre of U.S. experts on Iran, a country that now commands so much of our attention."

The article concludes with a sobering admonition: "U.S. policy should be guided by a recognition that the ability of outside actors to influence that potentially long-term process is severely limited."

Both the Adminitration and Congress should heed these policy recommendations, particularly as it is offered by Prof. Esfandiari who recently returned from Iran after eight months of detention, four months of which were spent in solitary confinement in Evin Prison, on accusations of conspiring against the Iranian regime.

WP Story on Iran Democracy Funding

The Washington Post has a great article today by Robin Wright on our joint efforts to cut Iran democracy funding.

An excerpt from the article:
"'Iranian reformers believe democracy cannot be imported and must be based on indigenous institutions and values. Intended beneficiaries of the funding -- human rights advocates, civil society activists and others -- uniformly denounce the program,' according to an open letter organized by the National Iranian American Council, the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. The letter was signed by 23 other liberal and conservative pro-democracy groups."

Open Letter from Akbar Ganji

Below is an Open Letter from Akbar Ganji to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon published prior to Iranian President Ahmadinejad's arrival to the UN General Assembly. The letter is also endorsed by more than 300 prominent academics.

Open Letter from Akbar Ganji to the UN Secretary-General
September 18, 2007

To His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council. Domestically, a despotic state has through constant and organized repression imprisoned them in a life and death situation.

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran.

Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about the possibility of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran.

Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.

Your Excellency,

Iran’s dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran’s dispute with the West have totally deflected the world’s attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights. The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade. Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison.

All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure variouspenalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the 21st century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws. A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs and some have even been sent into internal exile in far-flung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defence of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.

If students' activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic's prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that theyhave not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show-trials. There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran’s top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.

Your Excellency,

Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of "the right to life"? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one’s religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article and the killers have been acquitted in court. In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.

Are you aware that, in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of "propaganda against the ruling system" are deprived for life of "the right to all press activity". In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court’s verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.

Your Excellency,

The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world's intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government in keeping with your legal duties for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.

Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency's immediate intervention, all of Iran's political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran’s quest for freedom and democracy.

Yours Sincerely,

Akbar Ganji

House Version of Foreign Operations Bill Unclear on Iran Monies

The reported version of the Fiscal Year 2008 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives included the "Rep. Crenshaw Assistance for Iran Amendment," which was adopted by voice vote and "specified $50 million of the funds appropriated in the bill should be made available for programs to improve democracy, the rule of law and governance in Iran." It is unclear how these funds relate to the $25 million in Economic Support Funds approved in the Committee's report.

The FY 2008 Bush administration request included $75 million for Economic Support Funds to be spent on democracy promotion projects in Iran and this so-called "democracy promotion" funding was presented on pages 75-76 in the Committee report under the Economic Support Fund section:

“The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for programs in Iran, which is $50,000,000 below the request. The Committee is concerned that of the $25,000,000 appropriated for democracy programs in Iran in fiscal year 2006, less than $2,000,000 had been expended as of the end of May 2007. The Committee is further concerned at the lack of adequate justification for the funds that have been requested in fiscal year 2008. The Committee urges that within the amount provided, $5,000,000 be provided for women’s rights and support programs with a particular focus on minority communities. The Committee is aware of the work of the National Endowment for Democracy on these issues and encourages support for such programs."

As noted in the excerpt above, the report language highlights that "less than $2,000,000 had been expended as of the end of May 2007. The Committee is further concerned at the lack of adequate justification for the funds that have been requested in fiscal year 2008." To take a step back for a moment, 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 (Public Law 109-234). Of the $66.1 million, Congress allocated $20 million for democracy programs in Iran through the Middle East Partnership Initiative in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.

According to the State Department, it has obligated approximately $16.05 million for Iran democracy programs from its FY06 regular and supplemental budgets, which includes $11.9 million through Middle East Partnership Initiative and $4.15 million through the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Additional explanation of monies can be found here.

Senators Up "Democracy Promotion" Funding in Foreign Ops Bill

On September 6, 2007, Senator Lieberman’s Amendment No. 2691 to the Senate Foreign Operations bill was adopted by unanimous consent. The amendment restores funding for “democracy assistance,” which was cut in the Appropriations Subcommittee, to the Bush administration's request. The amendment provides “that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available for the Economic Support Fund, $75,000,000 shall be made available for programs of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State to support democracy, the rule of law, and governance in Iran.” It was cosponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mel Martinez (R-FL), David Vitter (R-LA).

The House version of the Foreign Ops bill appropriates $25,000,000 for democracy assistance and directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to initiate a comprehensive assessment of the capacity of the U.S. Government to effectively administer democracy programs worldwide.

The Lieberman-Brownback amendment reads:

"On page 410, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY, THE RULE OF LAW, AND GOVERNANCE IN IRAN

Sec. 699B. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available by title III for other bilateral economic assistance under the heading “Economic Support Fund”, $75,000,000 shall be made available for programs of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs of the Department of State to support democracy, the rule of law, and governance in Iran."

Here is Senator Lieberman’s floor statement in defense of the amendment:

"Dissidents and democrats in Iran today are under attack by their own Government. The question before this Congress is whether we are going to stand with them in solidarity or whether we will turn away our heads. This amendment would provide $75 million in funds, the amount requested by the administration; in fact, announced by Secretary of State Rice. That announcement, I know from sources I have, was broadly heard and appreciated within the Iranian civil society dissident movement. The committee has recommended one-third of that amount of money. This $75 million would go to labor activists, women's groups, journalists, human rights advocates, and other members of Iranian civil society. It provides Congress an opportunity to demonstrate that even as we condemn the behavior of the Iranian regime, we stand with the Iranian people, a people with a proud history who truly are, in my opinion, yearning to be free. That freedom is suppressed by the fanatical regime that dominates their lives today.

The alternative path before Congress, if we don't adopt this amendment, would be to cut the administration's request by two-thirds. At that level of funding, existing programs will not only be unable to expand, they will actually be cut back. In other words, at just the moment when the Iranian Government is engaged in an unprecedented rollback of the human rights and political freedoms of the Iranian people, the American Government will be rolling back its own programs to help defend those rights and freedoms. Why would we do this?

The report language of the Appropriations subcommittee, I say respectfully, says that ``the Committee supports the goals of promoting democracy in Iran,'' but ``it is particularly concerned that grantees suspected of receiving U.S. assistance have been harassed and arrested by the Government of Iran for their pro-democracy activities.''

In other words, the argument against this amendment seems to be that we should give less to help dissidents in Iran because our help, in turn, may lead to their harassment by the totalitarian government in Tehran. I respectfully disagree with this logic. I know that we do not give less to democracy advocates in Myanmar or Zimbabwe or Belarus when they are being harassed by the regime, nor do we give less to freedom fighters behind the Iron Curtain in Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. On the contrary, it is precisely when dissidents are under attack that they need more help from the United States, not less. I am sure my colleagues would agree that if we give less money to these civil society human rights activists in Iran, the Iranian regime will not repress them any less. The repression probably, in fact, will be greater. As to the argument that those who accept this money--and I can say, speaking generally, that the money is given through third parties, international organizations, to the civil society human rights advocates in Iran--that somehow they will be harassed for receiving this money, I believe the just and right thing to do is leave that decision to those who are fighting for freedom in Iran, for us to be willing to help them if they want that help. The record is clear there.

Since the State Department began making these grants 8 months ago, 90 percent of the fiscal year 2006 funds have been obligated, with the remaining funds expected to be obligated by mid-September. Perhaps there are some Iranian groups that do not want our funding, but it is clear that many others do. The need is great. It is beyond the $75 million this amendment would provide. That choice should be theirs. Our moral responsibility is to make the money available to these courageous fighters for freedom in Iran, those who want not only more freedom but a better future for themselves and their children.

I want to close by saying that we know from history that dissidents can change history, because history is made not by abstract, inexorable forces but by individual human beings such as Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa or Andrei Sakharov or Natan Sharansky. It was the bravery of these people that kindled our moral imagination to see the suffering of millions behind the Iron Curtain, and it was their leadership that inspired millions more to cast off their shackles and overthrow a cruel and dictatorial system of Communist government that many thought would endure forever. Like the Communist terrorists of eastern Europe, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran repress their people because they are frightened of them. They know how powerful the dissidents and the democrats in their midst can become. These are the people to whom this money would go. That is the reason my colleagues and I have offered this amendment."

"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."

NWI Issues Statement on Haleh

Yesterday, the Nobel Women's Initiative (NWI) issued this statement regarding Haleh Esfandiari's case. Shirin Ebadi, is one of the co-founders of NWI and also Haleh's lawyer.

A portion of the statement reads:

"Dr. Esfandiari’s harassment began even earlier than her arrest on May 8. Dr. Esfandiari went to Tehran in December 2006 to visit her 93 year old mother. On December 30, on her way to the airport to fly back to her home in the United States, she was stopped by three masked, knife-wielding men who took away all her belongings, including her American and Iranian passports.

Prevented from leaving the country, she was subjected to over 50 hours of interrogation by officials of the Ministry of Intelligence, subjected to intimidation and threatened with graver consequences if she did not “cooperate” with the authorities. Such interrogation methods continued after her unjustified incarceration in Evin Prison.

Iranian authorities apparently wish to charge her with actions against national security. Such charges are entirely without foundation.

In her work at the Wilson Center, Dr. Esfandiari has strived to provide a forum for exchanges among scholars, researchers and journalists representing a wide range of views on Middle Eastern issues. She has been a tireless promoter of and believer in dialogue between Iran and the international community. She has devoted a lifetime to the advancement of women’s rights in the Middle East."

Click here and here for more info on how US policy is affecting the arrest of Iranian Americans.

Senate Foreign Ops Bill

Below is the Senate Foreign Operations Bill Conference Report language on Iran for FY 2008 appropriations. The Committee only appropriated $25,000,000 of the administration request of $75,000,000 for democracy assistance in Iran. It also includes language regarding identifying grantees. This language was not included in the House version of the bill, which appropriated $50,000,000 to democracy assistance.

"Iran – The Committee supports the goals of promoting democracy in Iran, but received a total of only one page of justification material for the request of $75,000,000 for this program. The Department of State has also declined the Congress’ requests to publicly identify grantees under this program. The Committee is particularly concerned that grantees who receive U.S. assistance have been harassed and arrested by the Government of Iran for their pro-democracy programs in Iran, and recommends the administration seek future funding for these activities under a different appropriations function. The Committee also provides $22,287,000 for broadcasting, including Radio Farda, to Iran by VOA and RFE/RL in title I of the act."

Global View of US Plummets

A new poll conducted by The Pew Research Center and released on June 27, 2007 find that the image of the US around the world has plummeted, "including sharp drops in favorability among traditional allies in Western Europe, as well as substantial declines in Latin America, the Middle East, and elsewhere."

Of Iran-related interest is the view on US democracy promotion. US democracy promotion is seen as inconsistent (page 5 of the poll). Majorities in 43 of 47 countries surveyed – including 63% in the United States – say that the US promotes democracy mostly where it serves its interests, rather than promoting it wherever it can.