Iran’s Sham Elections

Hardliners have further constricted the already narrow choices of Iranian voters by precluding the most popular reformists from running in the March 14 parliamentary elections.  The Guardian Council banned more than 1700 candidates, including many sitting members of parliament, from running for the 290 seats.  As a result, the approximately 4500 candidates represent an extremely narrow spectrum of opinion that favors Mullahcracy over true democracy.  Heritage Foundation Senior Research Fellow James Phillips sees the elections as a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, orchestrated to prop up the sagging legitimacy of the radical Islamic regime.  A key metric will be the voter turnout percentage, which is likely to reflect a growing alienation of many Iranians who are shut out of their repressive political system. 

See:"Iranian Elections Provide View into Power Dynamics"

What’s Wrong with the Iran NIE

U.S. efforts to contain Iran and prevent it from attaining nuclear weapons have been set back by the release of part of the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear program. The unclassi­fied summary of the key judgments of the NIE, con­tained a stunning bombshell: the conclusion that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

What prompted this reversal of intelligence analy­sis is not known. The controversial report released on December 3, 2007, contained only a summary of key judgments and excluded the evidence on which the judgments were made. However, many experts on intelligence, nuclear proliferation, and the Middle East have charged that the NIE is critically flawed. The Heritage Foundation published an analysis of the NIE on January 11 that made the following points:

• The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) uses a narrow definition of Iran’s nuclear weapons program that is so restrictive that even officials from the normally cautious International Atomic Energy Agency have expressed disagreement with its conclusions.
• The NIE mistakenly assumes that weaponization of the warhead is the key aspect of Iran’s nuclear program that constitutes a potential threat.
• The NIE understates the importance of Iran’s “civilian” uranium enrichment efforts to the development of nuclear weapons.
• The NIE does not address related military developments, such as Iran’s ballistic missile programs, some of which make little sense unless the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads.
• The release of the NIE eases international pressure on Iran despite the fact that the NIE itself maintains that such pressure is critical to stopping the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

See: James Phillips "The Iran National Intelligence Estimate:
A Comprehensive Guide to What Is Wrong with the NIE"

Needed: A Team B to Review Findings of Misleading NIE on Iran’s Nuclear Efforts

The December 3 release of the key judgments of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran's nuclear weapons efforts raises more questions than it answers.  Heritage Foundation Research Fellow James Phillips called for the Bush Administration to establish a bipartisan fast-track commission to investigate the classified evidence and review the judgments of the NIE:

"There is a surprising change regarding a reported halt in work on nuclear weapons in 2003 that raises questions about the nature of any new evidence or new ways of looking at the Iranian nuclear issue. The Bush Administration should establish an independent bipartisan panel of experts to take a fresh look at this crucial issue. A controversial 1995 NIE on ballistic missile threats prompted the creation of a similar commission chaired by Donald Rumsfeld that shed considerable new light on that issue.

There is always the danger that the new information about Iran's nuclear weapons program is disinformation or misinformation, although the NIE seems to rule this out by attributing "high confidence" to the judgment that Iran's nuclear weapons program was actually halted. It is also possible that new, better-hidden programs were started up after the old ones were closed down, but this point is not directly addressed in the unclassified document that summarizes the 150-page NIE."

See: James Phillips "Don't Be Misled by NIE on Iran's Nuclear Efforts"

New NIE Report Requires Cautious Interpretation

Although the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program concludes that Iran halted some aspects of its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it is not known what prompted this startling reversal in intelligence analysis, as only the key judgments, not the relevant evidence, was included in the report. John Bolton, a former State Department official with extensive knowledge of the issue has made a strong case that the report is flawed.

See: John Bolton, "The Flaws in the Iran Report," The Washington Post, December 6, 2007

But even if Iran did in fact halt its illicit nuclear weapon program in 2003, such activities could quickly be resumed. Moreover, Iranian uranium enrichment activities continue to accelerate and the chief bottleneck to its military program may be acquiring sufficient quantities of the fissile material necessary to arm a nuclear weapon. A temporary suspension of other parts of its nuclear program would not necessarily slow Iran’s march to a nuclear weapon, even if Iran has no other clandestine programs that remain unknown to the U.S. intelligence community. The bottom line is that Iran, which continues to deny that it ever had a nuclear weapons program, is likely to continue its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons unless it is confronted with strong international sanctions and the possible threat of military action. The Bush Administration’s efforts to ratchet up international pressure on Iran to halt uranium enrichment activities remain an urgent priority.

See: Peter Brookes, "Iran Nuke Report Shows Need for Vigilance"

New Sanctions on Iran

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson today announced the imposition of a new package of economic sanctions against Iranian organizations involved in supporting terrorism or in the proliferation of prohibited weapons of mass destruction. The organizations sanctioned for proliferation activities included Iran’s Revolutionary Guards; two state-owned banks, Bank Melli and Bank Mellat; the Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics; and individuals associated with the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s Aerospace Industries Organization or companies owned by the Revolutionary Guards. In addition, the state-owned Bank Sadarat and the elite Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards were sanctioned for their support for terrorism.

The sanctions prohibit US persons and firms from conducting transactions with the targeted Iranian entities or individuals and freezes the assets of the sanctioned groups that are under U.S. jurisdiction. While the targeted organizations are believed to conduct little or no business with American companies, the sanctions will reduce the ability of the Iranian regime to use the international financial system to support terrorism or proliferation activities, and could greatly raise the costs of its hostile behavior if U.S. allies and other countries follow suit.

For more information see:

Department of Treasury Fact Sheet, October 25, 2007

Briefing on Iran, R. Nicholas Burns, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and Under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey, October 25, 2007

Impending Sanctions Against the Revolutionary Guards

The Bush Administration’s impending decision to declare the Revolutionary Guards to be a terrorist organization is a welcome step that raises the costs of Tehran’s use of terrorism as an adjunct of its foreign policy. The Revolutionary Guards, the shock troops dedicated to exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution, have a long history of meddling in other countries and training, equipping, and supporting a wide variety of terrorist groups. For an analysis of Revolutionary Guard activity inside Iraq, see Iran’s Hostile Policies in Iraq.

While unilateral U.S. sanctions are likely to have limited effectiveness in imposing significant economic costs on the Revolutionary Guards, they are nonetheless important as signals of resolve to ratchet up the costs and risks to Iran’s radical regime of its aggressive support for terrorism. Moreover, if other nations (particularly Iran’s major trading partners in Europe and Japan) can be induced to follow suit and rule out future business deals with the growing commercial empire of the Revolutionary Guards, then the economic impact of the sanctions would snowball and escalate pressure on Tehran to reduce its dangerous support for terrorist groups. For background on the economic empire built up by the Revolutionary Guards, see: Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, Inc.

Conference: Iran's Rising Challenge -- Nuclear and Energy Security Dimensions

On July 25 the Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies hosted a conference on the growing challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear efforts and its potential threat to the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf.  The first panel, which addressed the nuclear issue, consisted of Ambassador Robert Joseph, Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy;  Dr. Kenneth Katzman, Specialist in Middle Eastern Affairs at the Congressional Research Service; and Gary Milhollin, Executive Director of Iran Watch.  The second panel, which focused on the results of a Heritage Foundation simulation exercise that explored the energy security implications of an Iranian disruption of Persian Gulf oil exports, featured three Heritage Foundation experts: William Beach, Director of the Center for Data Analysis; Ben Lieberman, Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and the Environment; and James Phillips, Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs. 

To view the conference proceedings, go to:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev072507a.cfm

Lecture: Taking on Tehran

Ilan Berman, the lead author and editor of the book, Taking on Tehran: Strategies for Confronting the Islamic Republic, gave a talk on his new book at The Heritage Foundation on July 10. Mr. Berman presented a realistic analysis of the current stalemate over Iran's prohibited nuclear weapons effort and suggested several innovative approaches for dissuading Iran from continuing on its dangerous path.

Ilan Berman is Vice President for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council in Washington, DC. An expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Russian Federation, he is Adjunct Professor for International Law and Global Security at the National Defense University. He also serves as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger and as Editor of the Journal of International Security Affairs.

To view Ilan Berman’s July 10 lecture, go to:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev071007a.cfm

Iran's New Hostages

In recent months, Iran's hostile regime has again resorted to one of its favorite tactics: taking hostages to advance its aggressive foreign policy. Iranian hard-liners have learned that taking hostages helps them gain concessions from foreign governments and enables them to conjure up external enemies as convenient bogeymen to unify Iranians under their own radical leadership. Hostage-taking helped propel Iranian hardliners to power after the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran; it helped them secure American weapons and spare parts for their war against Iraq during the 1985–1986 Iran-Contra affair; and it paid off earlier this year when the seizure of 15 British sailors in Iraqi territorial waters enabled Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to puff himself up on the world stage. The U.S. must firmly demand the release of Iran's newest hostages and rule out making any concessions that would encourage Iran to take more hostages in the future.

For further information see: Kim Holmes, Ph.D. and James Phillips,
Iran's Growing List of Hostages

Iranian Meddling in Iraq

Iran's radical Islamic regime is playing an increas­ingly aggressive role in neighboring Iraq, where it seeks to drive out American and coalition forces, cement its Shiite Iraqi allies' hold on power, and pre­vent the consolidation of a stable democracy that would pose a long-term threat to Iran's theocratic political system. The recent kidnapping and holding of 15 British sailors and marines in Iraqi territorial waters is but the tip of the iceberg. Tehran is pursuing a dual strategy of maintaining good relations with Iraq's government while cultivat­ing allies among radical Shiite militias and groups that are violently opposed to the presence of U.S. and coa­lition forces. Iran's ultimate goal is to oust U.S. and Western influence from Iraq and to assert its hege­mony over Iraq and a broader crescent extending through Syria and into Lebanon.

To combat Iran’s meddling, Research Fellow James Phillips argues that the United States must raise the costs and risks of Iran’s proxy war, privately warn Tehran that its hostile policies will undermine its own security, and pressure Iraqi political parties to distance themselves from Iran.

For further information see:
Iran’s Hostile Policies in Iraq

Iran's Dismal Human Rights Record

Although much attention has been focused on Iran’s prohibited nuclear weapons efforts, not enough attention has been paid to the systematic human rights abuses perpetrated by Iran's radical Islamic regime. Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at The Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, argues that the United States has a strong interest in supporting the struggle for human rights in Iran. In a backgrounder published on March 26, 2007, Groves wrote that:

"A major obstacle to the advancement of freedom and democracy is the Iranian constitution, which institutionalizes Iran's despotic regime and restricts rather than protects the civil and political rights of the Iranian people. The United States should use its influence to pull together a coalition of dissident groups from the Iranian population under the single cause of holding a national referendum on drawing up a new constitution. Only when a representative, pluralistic government is in place in Tehran will U.S. security interests be ensured."   

For further information see:
Advancing Freedom in Iran

Iran Invited to Conference on Iraq

The inclusion of Iran and Syria, the two leading state sponsors of terrorism, in a March 10 regional conference focused on stabilizing Iraq has raised unrealistic expectations about the benefits of engaging the two countries. Each is likely to issue supportive public statements while continuing efforts to sabotage the emergence of a stable democracy in Iraq, which would pose a long term threat to the legitimacy of both authoritarian regimes. Moreover, these two hostile powers are likely to exploit their participation in the conference to deflate rising international pressure on them to curb their support of terrorism and halt Iran’s uranium enrichment activities.

Heritage Foundation Research Fellow James Phillips warns that: “Both countries have strong reasons to continue their efforts to undermine the peace and security of their beleaguered neighbor. Both want to inflict a stinging defeat on the United States and drive Western forces out of Iraq, as they did in Lebanon in the 1980s. Little is likely to be gained by including them in the multilateral negotiations, and much could be lost. Tehran and Damascus will seek to use the Iraq talks to deflect international pressure to curb their support for terrorism and subversion of Lebanon and to rein in Iran's nuclear program. The United States must not trade concessions to Iran and Syria in exchange for promises that those counties are unlikely to keep.” 

For further information see:
The Iraq Conference: Iran and Syria's Engagement Brings Unrealistic Hopes and Diplomatic Risks

Iran and the Iraq Study Group

The Iraq Study Group report, dubbed “the revenge of the realists,” included some extremely unrealistic recommendations on Iran.  Not only did the ISG call for resolving problems over Iran’s nuclear program exclusively at the U.N. Security Council, which has been frozen in inaction since Iran chose to ignore its August 31 “deadline” for halting its uranium enrichment activities, but it recommended engaging Iran in a diplomatic effort to stabilize Iraq, despite Iran’s continued efforts to obstruct the development of a stable democracy in that country.  Heritage Research Fellows James Phillips and James Carafano have rejected the logic of this approach, writing: “Iran and Syria have been very much part of the problem in Iraq and cannot be trusted to be part of a genuine solution. Both seek to inflict a decisive foreign policy defeat on the U.S., and both seek to throttle democracy in Iraq because it would pose an ideological threat to the survival of their repressive regimes.” 

Iranian Political Dissident Speaks at the Heritage Foundation

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, a leading member of Iran’s student opposition movement, gave an October 2^nd speech on “Why Iranians Do Not Think Like the Iranian Regime.”   A former medical student, law student, journalist, and writer, Fakhravar was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on defamation charges in November 2002 because of comments about Iran's political leaders in his book, Inja Chah Nist (This Place is Not a Ditch). After three years of imprisonment that included torture, Fakhravar was able to escape while on a two day temporary leave to take his law degree exams. He became a fugitive, fled from Iran in April 2006 and arrived in the U.S. in May, where he has spoken out on the plight of the Iranian people.

To view a recording of the speech go to: Event Archive

Khatami’s Duplicitous Dialogue

Iran’s former President, Mohammed Khatami, will visit Washington to deliver a speech at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C. on September 7. Heritage Foundation Research Fellow James Phillips writes:

It was a major error to issue a visa to former Iranian President Khatami at a time when Iran is defiantly thumbing its nose at the U.S. and the U.N. Security Council regarding its nuclear weapons program. Although Khatami put a softer face on Iran’s blood-soaked revolutionary regime, Iran’s nuclear program flourished during his eight years in power. While calling for a “dialogue of civilizations” Khatami turned a deaf ear to Iranian student reformers who called for long-overdue reforms in Iran but were beaten, imprisoned, and murdered when their peaceful demonstrations were violently crushed in 1999.

Although widely portrayed as a lovable liberal in the Western media, Khatami fully shares the long term goals of Ayatollah Khomeini’s radical revolution. During the recent fighting in Lebanon, he called Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has killed more Americans than any other group except Al Qaeda, “a shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world.”

In addition, while in America Khatami is slated to attend a fundraising dinner for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Islamist organization that has served as an apologist for Middle Eastern terrorist groups. It is difficult to understand how issuing the visa serves American national interests in confronting Iran’s nuclear program or winning the war on terrorism.

For more on the Khatami visit, see “Visa Not Denied” a symposium published at National Review Online.

Penalize Iran for Defying the U.N. Security Council’s Deadline

Now that Iran has ignored the U.N. Security Council’s deadline for freezing its uranium enrichment program, what is to be done. Heritage Research Fellow James Phillips calls for a full court press at the Security Council to attain the strongest possible sanctions against Iran, but warns that Russia and China will seek the weakest possible action. Therefore it is necessary to seek sanctions outside the U.N. framework in cooperation with the EU, Japan, and other interested countries.

See: Penalize Iran for Defying the U.N. Security Council’s Deadline

Iran’s Provocative Role in the Current Crisis in Lebanon

Lurking behind the recent upsurge in attacks on Israel is the Iranian regime, which is the chief foreign supporter of both Hezbollah and Hamas, the terrorist organizations that provoked the latest Middle East crisis by seizing hostages on Israeli soil. The United States must hold Iran and Syria responsible for the terrorist attacks of their surrogates and ratchet up pressure on Iran on the nuclear issue at the United Nations Security Council. 

See: James Phillips, “Iran and its Hezbollah Allies Escalate Their Aggressive Policies in the Middle East”

Giving Iran One Last Chance
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on May 31^st offered to enter direct talks with Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Heritage Middle East analyst James Phillips writes about how to minimize the inherent risks of this offer in: Giving Iran One Last Chance

Diplomatic Stalemate at the U.N. Security Council

Diplomatic progress at the United Nations Security Council toward developing a concerted international response to Iran's nuclear weapons program has been blocked by Russia and China, which have extensive economic, military, and energy ties to Iran. Effective action at the Security Council remains highly unlikely.

Iran’s Friends Fend Off Action at the U.N. Security Council: Here’s Why by James Phillips and Peter Brookes May 11, 2006 (WebMemo #1071)

A Crisis in Slow Motion

The same week that the U.S. released reports indicating that Iran may have enough uranium for 10 nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Board met to review the agency's most recent report, which warned that Iran appears determined to expand its uranium enrichment program despite its failure to meet its commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The board meeting has cleared the way for consideration of Iran’s nuclear program at the U.N. Security Council. Iran has responded with its usual bluster. Javad Vaeidi, head of the Iranian delegation to the International Atomic Energy Agency warned, "The United States may have the power to cause harm and pain, but it is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if the United States wishes to choose that path, let the ball roll." Now the ball is in the court of the U.N. Security Council.

James Phillips and Brett Schaefer describe Iran's skillfull diplomatic strategy of the past year that has allowed it to prolong IAEA review and is likely to leave the Security Council split, even as the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran rises. The U.S. must act now, they advise, to lay the groundwork for tougher sanctions, further isolation, and, as a last resort, possible military action. The U.S. just cannot count on the UN alone, with its members wildly disparate interests, to save the day. (March 8)

Moscow's Missiles
With the long overdue referral of the Iranian nuclear issue to the U.N. Security Council, hopes have been raised about the prospects for effective international action to roll back Iran’s prohibited nuclear weapons program. But can Russia, which essentially has acted as Iran’s lawyer to delay meaningful action, be trusted to help rein in Iran’s nuclear efforts? The announcement of yet another Russian arms deal with Iran casts further doubt on Moscow’s willingness to restrain Iran. Jean-Christophe Peuch of Radio Free Europe reports that Russia has agreed to sell Iran an "air-defense missile system." According to Russian media, the $700-million deal was signed in December and cover the sale of 31 missile systems. While Russia denies that any more arms sales are on the table, rumors linger that Russia may still be willing to sell its powerful S-300 missile systems to Iran. (February 10, 2006)

What Comes Next?
By all appearances (and it is difficult tell by appearances just what's going on in an international bureaucracy), Iran's case is headed from the IAEA to the UN Security Council. So now what?

There is the real risk, write Heritage's James Phillips, John Hulsman, and James Carafano in a recent paper, that a lack of consensus on the Security Council will lead to paralysis, as it so often has. Still, they urge, "the Bush Administration must reso­lutely press the diplomatic case to set the stage for possible economic sanctions or, as a last resort, military action."

The paper lays out a five-step escalating strategy to convince Iran that a revitalized nuclear program is not in its interest. Dealing with Iran will require that the U.S. focus on coalition-building and rally international support for Iran's democratic opposition. Public diplomacy should also play a major role. All hope for a diplomatic outcome; still, the U.S. must also prepare for the last resort. (February 7, 2005)

An Innovative Approach
Now that Iran's hardline government has broken the IAEA seals on its (declared) nuclear sites and is threatening to return to uranium enrichment, the world community is inescapably locked in the plodding and bureaucratic process of sanctions and diplomacy.

At least, that's the mainstream view. Heritage's John Hulsman and Nile Gardiner put forward a daring new strategy: extend NATO membership to Israel.

Israel joining NATO "would explicitly extend the Western alliance’s nuclear deterrent to cover Tel Aviv and Jerusalem." Finally, "It will be Tehran, and not the rest of the world, that has a proliferation problem" (January 24, 2006)