IRAN SANCTIONS ACT VOTE IS FIRST STEP IN SETTING FUTURE US POLICY IN THE REGION

 On Thursday, Reuters reported that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives had indicated that the legislative body might vote on reauthorization of the Iran Sanctions Act as early as mid-November. The act is set to expire at the end of the year, and a “clean” authorization of it would extend its mandate for an additional 10 years.

Harsh critics of last year’s Iran nuclear agreement, which suspends many of those sanctions, have put forward plans to expand the period of enforcement or to add additional sanctions related to Iran’s support for terrorism or its human rights abuses. These sorts of additional provisions could be expected to be viewed by Iran as violations of the agreement and thus as potential reasons for its cancellation. But Iranian officials have previously indicated that they would view any sanctions efforts in this same light. This presumably includes a clean reauthorization of the ISA, or even the proposal put forward by some supporters of the nuclear agreement to shrink the period of reauthorization to eight years. 

Because of the implicit risk of a reactionary response from the Islamic Republic, the Obama administration has voiced opposition to the reauthorization, claiming that the US already has sufficient resources in place to penalize Iran for violations of the nuclear agreement, regardless of whether the ISA has been reauthorized. However, this is one area of Iran policy in which there is reportedly widespread agreement between congressional Republicans and Democrats. Thus, Reuters indicates that a clean reauthorization is expected to pass the House quick easily, although the Senate vote is more difficult to predict. 

Regardless of the precise outcome of the reauthorization, the debate over the ISA demonstrates the ongoing discord between different factions of the US government over the future of Iran policy. And as the US approaches the presidential elections scheduled for November 8, there are serious questions about which faction will prevail under a new presidential administration, whether it be Republican or Democrat. 

On Thursday, two news reports gave very different impressions of the prospective future of US policy toward Iran. On one hand, the UK’s Guardian newspaper suggested that even if Republican candidate Donald Trump were to win election, it is unlikely that he would be able to seriously undermine the nuclear agreement, much less tear it up as he has occasionally promised to do. But that claim is based on a premise with which not all political analysts agree: that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is “too obviously a good agreement for US, regional and world security” to risk abandoning. 

On the other hand, an article in Bloomberg expressed a much more critical view of the JCPOA but also indicated that the Hillary Clinton campaign may privately hold views about Iran policy that are not substantially more permissive than those of her Republican rival. At least two of Clinton’s prominent advisors, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell and the campaigns top national security advisor Jake Sullivan, have advocated for a more aggressive policy than that of the current Democratic presidency of Barack Obama. 

Specifically, Morell has expressed interest in expanding economic sanctions on Iran’s behaviors outside of the nuclear sphere. He has also indicated that a Clinton administration should return to direct leadership in the Middle East in order to reassure traditionally Sunni allies and traditional adversaries to Iran. Both these positions were expressed by Sullivan as well, when he was quoted as saying, “We need to be raising the costs to Iran for its destabilizing behavior and we need to be raising the confidence of our Sunni partners.” 

But even if the shift to a more aggressive Iran policy is a foregone conclusion regardless of the outcome of the election, critics of the Obama administration may still question whether that shift will take place in time to constrain the expansion of Iranian influence in the Middle East and the world. Agence-France Presse reported on Thursday that Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif was set to meet with his Syrian and Russian counterparts, both collectively and individually, in order to discuss their future cooperation in the fight against ISIL militants and anti-Assad rebel groups in Syria. Such meetings arguably reflect tightening alliances among Assad’s supporters and growing prospects for the emergence of an anti-Western bloc centered around Iran. 

Such meetings come at a crucial time, as major offensives are underway against depleted rebel forces in Aleppo, Syria, and against the ISIL stronghold at Mosul, Iraq. A video report by Al Jazeera suggested on Thursday that the battle for Mosul would be vital to Iran’s political reach throughout the region, and that the underlying cooperation between the Iranian and Iraqi governments reflects the blurring of the lines between the two countries. For strict opponents of the Iranian regime, that trend threatens to eliminate Western and Arab influence from a crucially important region of the Middle East, replacing it with Iranian foreign activities that have been left unconstrained by the current US administration.

WESTERN CRITICISMS OF IRANIAN BEHAVIOR APPARENTLY NOT AFFECTING TRADE RELATIONS

This week, the European Parliament overwhelmingly approved a new resolution on future relations between European nations and the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the wake of that vote, different news outlets have focused on different aspects of the resolution, which reflected an arguably contradictory attitude toward Iran, urging expanded diplomatic and economic contact but also condemning the regime for familiar behaviors like the support of terrorism, general violations of human rights, and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Outlets that maintain focus on Israeli matters, such as Bridges for Peace, have emphasized provisions in that resolution that condemn the Islamic Republic’s Holocaust denial. That report also points out that amendments were added to address human rights violations and Iran’s support for the Assad regime in Syria, after members of the European Parliament criticized the relatively uncritical language of the original draft. However, there was also reportedly resistance to this pressure in some areas, as amendments specifically calling for the release of political prisoners and an end to torture were defeated. 

Meanwhile, Iranian news outlets like Tasnim News Agency conveyed Iranian officials’ rejection of the critical amendments that did make their way into the resolution. Ignoring the defeated amendments, those reports suggested that the final language of the document was unfair to Iran and reflected unspecified political motives. The Tasnim report off-handedly mentions that Iran embraced the aspects of the resolution that “defined areas of cooperation with Iran in all fields,” but it focused primarily on the criticisms levied against the resolution by Iranian judiciary chief Javad Larijani. 

In a statement, Larijani accused the European Union member states of “lacking the competence” to instruct Iran on the correction of human rights violations. He also suggested that the West was maintaining a double standard in its focus on Iran’s abuses. This same attitude was reflected in a report by the Indo-Asian News Service, which quoted Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Bahram Qassemi as similarly rejecting Western pressure on human rights. That report, however, primarily emphasized the prospects for cooperation outlined in the European Parliament’s resolution – prospects that it says were welcomed by Iran. 

Qassemi further remarks seemed to embrace the idea of expanded contact between the two sides, but also to suggest that that contact would be used by Iran in an effort to diminish human rights criticisms without addressing the abuses they highlight. “Iran is ready to explain about Islam’s views on human rights under a peaceful atmosphere and through talks,” he said. “It attempts to interact with others to bring the two sides’ views closer to each other.” 

This reflects an Iranian approach to human rights issues that has been highlighted in the past by human rights organizations and political groups opposed to the Iranian regime. Iranian Foreign Ministry and Judiciary officials, as well as the country’s domestic human rights monitor, have frequently accused the international community of trying to impose a Western view of human rights on the Islamic Republic. Such appeals to cultural relativism have been used to dismiss criticism of some human rights issues on which there are defined international standards, such as the reservation of the death penalty for perpetrators of the “most serious crimes” and for persons who were over the age of majority at the time of their offenses. 

Iran regularly ranks as having the highest rate of executions per capita, largely as a result of its execution of non-violent drug offenders. It is also one of the only nations in the world that continues to carry out executions of minor offenders. Some of the latter type of cases have been reviewed in recent months by the Iranian Supreme Court, apparently in response to international pressure. But the death sentences have been consistently upheld via decisions that affirm their legality under Iranian law, thereby rejecting the international standard. 

Although these sorts of moves help to keep alive the international criticism that constituted one aspect of this week’s European Parliament resolution, they have had no obvious impact on the level of international interest in doing business with state-linked entities in the Islamic Republic. The resolution itself reflects the ongoing pursuit of expanded trade ties, and Iranian officials have variously boasted of the progress that the country is seeing in its own pursuit of foreign investment. 

CNBC recently interviewed Ahmad Jamali, the Iranian director general for foreign investment, about the source of foreign investment and the effects of linger economic sanctions. Iranian officials have repeatedly accused the US of violating the spirit of last year’s nuclear agreement by maintaining those non-nuclear sanctions and thus making reintegration into the international financial system more difficult. But in spite of this, Jamali claimed that the majority of foreign investor interest is coming from Europe, with Asian countries taking second place. 

Signs of investor interest are even coming from the European countries that traditionally take a leading role in criticism of the Iranian regime’s behavior. In fact, while Bridges for Peace emphasizes that Germany has insisted that the Islamic Republic recognize the state of Israel as a precondition for normalized relations, Iran’s media suggests that economic relations between Germany and Iran have already gone beyond normalization. 

German exports to Iran have reportedly increased by 25 percent, when comparing the first seven months of the current Iranian year to the same period last year. The 1.27 billion dollars’ worth of exports represent the largest such figure out of all European countries, and the fifth largest overall. 

Meanwhile, there are signs that the United Kingdom is making efforts to keep pace with the German expansion in trade with Iran. The Financial Tribune reported on Thursday that the UK had removed Iran’s Bank Saderat from its sanctions list, thereby potentially freeing up more trade between the countries. The financial institution in question handles an average of 42 million transactions per month and its newly de-sanctioned status reflects a broader European Union project to remove sanctions on such institutions after the third month of October. 

Of course, such agreements exert no force upon the United States government, major factions of which are strict in their criticism of the Iranian regime and persistent in their insistence upon keeping sanctions in force. Yet, notwithstanding the critical aspects of the European Parliament’s resolution, various European entities are attempting to pressure the US to remove its own sanctions on Iranian financial institutions, in order to make it easier for European businesses and banks to do business with the US and the Islamic Republic at the same time. 

As one example of this trend, The Guardian reported on Thursday that the former British ambassador to Iran, Sir Richard Dalton has roughly emulated Iran’s taking points about the nuclear agreement, saying that the West risks breaching it if it does not help to give Iran full access to the international financial system. 

But even opposing factions of the US government seem to agree that Dalton’s criticisms are unfounded. The Obama administration has praised its own compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action by saying that it had gone beyond the requirements of the deal in the interest of encouraging Western investment in Iran. At the same time, the Republican-led US Congress has criticized the White House for going too far with the implementation of the JCPOA, not merely lifting sanctions and permitting investment but actively encouraging Europeans to do business with a regime that continues to sponsor terrorism and carry out human rights violations. 

Although the European Parliament’s resolution seems to acknowledge these criticisms, it does not seem to share US lawmakers’ concerns that increased economic contact with Iran will facilitate more of the same behaviors and increase the reach of Iran’s influence. But the recovery of the Iranian oil economy has already been linked to Iran’s worsening confrontations with its adversaries in the broader Middle East. 

Reuters reported on Thursday that Iran’s oil exports were actually expected to fall to a four-month low in November. But the anticipated figures still represent an increase to 156 percent of last November’s exports, a situation that Reuters describes as a “post sanctions bonanza.” While the coming month’s relative lull will not reverse that trend, it may very well allow Iran to continue working against the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, of which it is a member. 

In April, the Iran regime had already greatly expanded its oil production but resolved to avoid cooperation with OPEC over output levels until its domestic production had surpassed self-described pre-sanctions levels. Since then, Iran’s self-reported growth figures have slowed so as to represent ongoing enrichment of the Iranian oil economy, but without exceeding its standards for non-cooperation with other oil exporters.

IRAN’S APPARENT INVOLVEMENT IN YEMEN ATTACKS REFLECTS BROADER GROWTH OF INFLUENCE

On Friday, Business Insider reported that the US Navy has lately made statements affirming that there very likely was Iranian involvement in the attempted missile strikes that were launched from Houthi-controlled Yemen against US warships in the Red Sea. The commander of US Central Command in the Middle East, General Joseph Votel, had already affirmed his belief that Iran was connected to the attempted attacks. Now, Vice Admiral Kevin Donegan has thrown his weight behind the same conclusion, via remarks to NBC News.

Business Insider notes that the apparent Houthi missile launches were unprecedented, not just insofar as they threatened to draw the US into a war that has thus far been limited to Iranian and Saudi proxies, but also because it was the first time in history that the Navy was obliged to respond to an attack by launching defensive interceptor missiles to assure that the incoming projectiles splashed down harmlessly. 

After taking those defensive measures, the Navy also launched retaliatory strikes on three radar stations in Houthi-controlled territory on the Yemeni coast. This, at least for the time being, appears to be the extent of the involvement that the US is willing to pursue in the conflict. But the statements from Votel and Donegan may be indicative of a much broader conflict that awaits if the Iran-backed rebels in Yemen continue to act provocatively toward the West. 

The US had previously intercepted Iranian shipments of weapons headed for Yemen, which included cruise missiles like those fired against the US ships earlier this month. This, together with the limited resources and know-how of the Houthis and the nation of Yemen as a whole, helps to justify the conclusion that the attacks were only made possible with shipments of Iranian weapons, and perhaps with Iranian assistance in launching them. 

Now, despite the limited US response to the previous attacks, Business Insider reports that the Houthi still appear to be targeting international shipping lanes, as indicated by RPG fire recently directed at a Spanish tanker. It is impossible to say at present whether these weapons also originated in Iran or whether the provocations are being either supported or directed by the Houthi’s allies and handlers among the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. But whatever the extent of Iran’s involvement in Yemen, it is representative of a broader patter of expanding influence. 

Earlier this week it was reported that Iran had seemingly made new inroads toward a controlling interest in Lebanon, as the more than two-year-long presidential vacancy in that country had been resolved in favor of the candidate preferred by Hezbollah. Iran News Update previously pointed to a Reuters report that described this as a victory for Iran over its Saudi adversaries, who had supposedly retreated from Lebanon in order to focus on other, less deeply threatened regions of influence. 

On Friday, the Lebanese news source NOW reported upon the same development from a different angle, describing it as a “milestone” in the waning influence of the Syrian government over the nation of Lebanon. This report emerged on the same day as the Syrian and Iranian foreign ministers were meeting with their Russian counterpart in Moscow to discuss future strategies for the defense of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against a five-year, multi-party rebellion. 

It is generally understood that Iran’s direct involvement in that conflict has deepened its political influence over Assad and has made his government dependent upon Iranian patrons. This trend is helped along by the fact that the Iranian strategy in Syria includes recruitment and support for a number of Shiite militias and paramilitaries, one of which is Hezbollah. On this point, NOW observes that Iranian influence has led to a reversal of an older situation. Whereas the Syrian army had once been able to attack Hezbollah barracks in Lebanon with little fear of consequences, now Hezbollah’s political influence has grown domestically and its military strength has expanded to allow it to “invade” Syria on Iran’s behalf. 

But the NOW article concludes by emphasizing that this change in the balance of power in Lebanon does not signal a change in the overall situation for the Lebanese people, or for the region as a whole. In other words, as the Assad regime has been driven further back behind its own borders, Iran has taken up at least one foreign role that used to be served by Syria, its ally and newfound dependent. At least in this case, direct Iranian influence in one Middle Eastern country appears to help foster indirect influence over another. 

Naturally, the affairs of many countries in the region are closely entangled. And there are clear signs that Iran is trying to expand its influence into as many areas as possible, thus minimizing threats to its existing alliances. This tendency is perhaps most clearly on display with Turkey, whose relations with Iran had been deeply strained for years, especially in light of the two countries’ backing of different sides in the Syrian Civil War. 

Today, Turkey continues to support Sunni and Kurdish rebels in Syria, though for a time that support appeared to be on the wane. This, no doubt, reflected the increasing closeness between Iran and Turkey, especially in the wake of an attempted coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, during which Iran supported the existing leadership. 

Although Iran recently condemned Turkish forces’ involvement in Syria, where they are training rebels and apparently firing artillery in support of them, the leaders of Iran’s state-linked businesses have also taken to boasting of the extent of cooperation between the two on-again off-again allies. Jokpemereportst that this boastful commentary emerged recently in the wake of an explosion inside of Turkey that halted gas imports from Iran. 

Such figures as the head of the National Iranian Oil Company insist that the delay from this incident will last merely days, owing to the close relationship between Turkish and Iranian government and business leaders. And certainly, this situation represents a dramatic improvement over the previous tensions between Iran and Turkey. In fact, the extent of those tensions is still being clarified today. 

PanArmenian reported on Friday that new information had been revealed indicating that the Iranian judiciary executed three Turkish nationals last year, less than two weeks after a fraught visit to Tehran by Erdogan. As well as indicating how far the two countries have come, stories like this could serve to illustrate the threats that Iran may hold over Turkey and its visiting citizens, in addition to the threats of diminished exports and other economic contacts. 

Although the apparent aims are different, this situation is arguably similar to the widely-reported threats lingering over Western nationals traveling to Iran, whether for business purposes or to visit family. At least four such individuals have been convicted of collaborating with the US over roughly the past month, and have been sentenced to prison terms between five and 18 years. Authorities have reportedly also demanded money for one US permanent resident who has not yet been sentenced.  

This latter case clearly underscores the notion that Iran is holding Western nationals as bargaining chips as it negotiates for reentry into Western export markets and the international banking system. If this is Iran’s strategy, it is easy to conclude that similar threats could be used against its tentative regional partners as the Iranian regime strives to expand its influence and bring nearby countries’ foreign policies into line with its own.

INQUIRIES INTO 1988 MASSACRE SHOWCASE THE IRANIAN REGIME’S CULTURE OF SILENCE

 On Thursday, the National Council of Resistance of Iran reported that a political prisoner named Maryam Akbari Monfared had written a letter of complaint from Evin Prison to the Tehran prosecutor general, regarding the 1988 massacre of political prisoners, which claimed the lives of her two siblings. The letter outlined the ways in which the executions were violations of the Islamic Republic’s own laws, insofar as they put people to death for political crimes for which they were already serving prison terms.

Monfared also explained that Iranian law codifies a technical procedure for addressing these cases of double jeopardy and other situations in which a person is unlawfully executed. In those cases, the next of kin supposedly have a legal right to call for an investigation into the matter. Of course, the relatives of persons killed in the 1988 massacre have never been afforded this right. Neither have they been permitted to publicly mourn their losses or otherwise acknowledge the incident, although this situation has reportedly changed somewhat in the wake of the August revelation of an audio tape, dating to the time of the massacre, in which then-heir to the supreme leadership Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri condemned the massacres architects for committing the “greatest crime of the Islamic Republic.”

Both the Montazeri recording and the Monfared letter were referenced in media that appeared on Thursday, also discussing the massacre and its legacy. The report pointed out that few people outside of Iran cared about the incident as it was going on and in its immediate aftermath. The international neglect was exacerbated by the fact that there were few sophisticated mechanisms for investigated cases of “enforced disappearances.” This term apparently describes the lens through which legal experts now view the massacre, at a time when groups like the NCRI and individual activists like Monfared are working to bring new international scrutiny to bear on its perpetrators.

News reports also points out that an organization called Justice for Iran is currently working to identify the numerous mass graves in which the regime secretly buried thousands of victims of the massacre. So far, it has confirmed the location of 11 such sites, but an additional 54 are alleged to exist, and that number could grow even larger.

The Monfared letter calls for domestic action to uncover the details of the massacre and burials, and to hold perpetrators to account. But of course, such action under the current regime is highly unlikely, considering the longstanding conspiracy of silence and the fact that many of those perpetrators remain in power to this day. Some, such as Justice Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi, have responded to the newfound notoriety of Montazeri’s criticisms by saying that they are proud to have carried out the massacre in their attempt to destroy the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran.

The report thus describes Monfared’s letter as purely symbolic, and it adds that other countries that have witnessed similar such crimes have taken decades to address them. On the other hand, the issue may progress more quickly in Iran, provided either that the current regime is overthrown or that the international community gets intimately involved.

This involvement is, of course, something for which persons both inside and outside Iran are aggressively advocating. The US House of Representatives and the Canadian Parliament have both presented resolutions calling for a United Nations commission of inquiry into the massacre. And on Thursday, the NCRI reported that a group of political prisoners in the Iranian prison at Karaj had directly reached out to the recently-elected UN Secretary General António Guterres and the newly appointed special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Asma Jahangir.

Their letter to these two officials urged the UN to demand that Iran disclose the names and burial sites of all the victims of the 1988 massacre. But the letter also called for the international community to address a range of other ongoing human rights abuses, including a world-leading rate of executions and the imprisonment of civil activists and political dissidents.

But although these abuses are well publicized outside of Iran, a conspiracy of silence hangs over them within the ranks of the regime, as it does over the massacre. This is at times enforced through repression of those calling for international attention, as by making it illegal for Iranians to speak to the UN special rapporteur.

It may or may not be coincidental that, also according to the NCRI, prison authorities in Karaj have recently begun a campaign of transfers of death row inmates, whom they have threatened with expedited implementations of their sentences. As many as 120 people in Karaj Central Prison have been sentenced to death, and their family members report that authorities have stated that all of those sentences will be carried out before the end of the Iranian year in March.

Although this may be intended as an intimidation measure, it also has limited reach and will not be alone sufficient to prevent inmates from reaching out to the international community or to domestic activists. But violent repression through mass executions is only one tactic that contributes to the atmosphere of secrecy regarding Iran’s human rights abuses and its treatment of political prisoners.

Perhaps the most obvious such tactic is to simply deny the political nature of certain arrests and prosecutions. Recently, perhaps in response to international pressure on the case, a group of Iranian members of parliament wrote a letter urging the judiciary to reconsider the case of prominent lawyer and human rights activist Narges Mohammadi, whose 16 year sentence for her peaceful activities had been upheld on appeal. Attorney General Jafar Montazeri responded to their letter by insulting Mohammadi and accusing her supporters of failing to study her case before commenting on it.

Now, the NCRI reports that Mohammadi herself has responded to the attorney general’s comments, pointing out that it was the judiciary that insisted on keeping her case secret when she asked for a public trial. Mohammadi’s written response repeated that call for a public hearing so that the Iranian public could judge for itself whether her activities constituted a crime.

Though it remains to be seen whether the judiciary will respond in turn, it is clear that Mohammadi is not making her request within an environment of openness, either before the government or before the media. However, just as she has a handful of supporters in the Iranian parliament, there are also a few domestic lawmakers who have shown willingness to challenge this culture of obfuscation. In yet another report published on Thursday, the NCRI pointed out that Member of Parliament Parvaneh Salahshouri had publicly decried the fact that journalists and news outlets had been attacked and “dragged to court” for reporting upon government corruption, when the regime could instead utilize that exposure as an opportunity to address endemic problems.

Political Prisoner Remains Jailed Two Years After Family Posts $362,000 Bail money

Two years ago the family of political prisoner Maryam Akbari-Monfared posted an unusually high bail amount for her temporary release on furlough, but her husband says Iran’s Intelligence Ministry is blocking her release from Evin Prison ’s Women’s Ward, where she has been held since 2009.
“In 2014 they demanded 1.15 billion tomans ($362,000 USD) in bail to grant her furlough,” Akbari-Monfared’s husband, Hassan Jafari, told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. “So we went ahead and presented the deed to a property and paid for the appraisal, but they have still not allowed her to go on furlough, not even for surgery or to attend [one of our] daughters’ first day of school.”
“The court has been sitting on the property deed for two and a half years and they’re telling us that the Intelligence Ministry has not agreed to grant her furlough,” he added. “No one answers our questions. We don’t know which office to go to. We have been going to the prosecutor’s office for seven years, but we haven’t been able to meet him even once.”
Akbari-Monfared, 47, was arrested in December 2009 for her alleged involvement in Green Movement street protests and was later charged with being connected to Mojahedin-e Khalgh organization (MEK, also known as PMOI). Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court sentenced her to 15 years in prison for “waging war against God” in June 2010.
Jafari said four of his wife’s siblings were executed in the 1980s for their membership in the MEK, and in 2009 she was also accused of making phone calls to her remaining bother and sister who were at the time based in the MEK’s headquarters at Camp Ashraf in Iraq.
“I was in the courtroom when my wife was being tried. Judge [Abolqasem] Salavati told my wife that she was paying for her brother and sister’s activities [with the MEK in Iraq]. I was left with taking care of our three small girls, whose mother has now been imprisoned for six and a half years,” said Jafari.
Jafari told the Campaign that his wife is eligible for conditional release based on Iran’s New Islamic Penal Code. According to Article 58: “…the deciding court can issue the order of conditional release for convicts sentenced to more than ten years imprisonment after half of the sentence is served, and in other cases after one-third of the sentence is served.”
“We got a lawyer for her and requested conditional release,” said Jafari. “Her case was sent to Branch 31 of the Supreme Court in Qom, but five months later the chief judge of this branch said his court did not have jurisdiction over the case and it should be sent to Tehran where the alleged crime took place. Now we have to chase the case and see where it landed.”
Reza Akbari-Monfared, one of Maryam’s brothers, has been serving a five-year prison sentence in Rajaee Shahr Prison since December 2012 for “assembly and collusion against national security” for his alleged involvement with the MEK.
On October 16, 2016 Akbari-Monfared called for a judicial inquiry to investigate the execution of her siblings and the location where they were buried.
“Three of my brothers and one of my sisters were executed in prison in the 1980s,” she wrote in an open letter. “My youngest brother, Abdolreza Akbari-Monfared, was executed in 1980. He was only a 17-year-old high school student when he was arrested. He was charged with distributing MEK literature. Although he was sentenced to only three years in prison, he was kept incarcerated until his execution in the summer of 1988 along with scores of other prisoners.”
The letter added: “Another brother, Alireza Akbari-Monfared, was arrested on September 8, 1981 and he was tried and executed ten days later… On the seventh night of mourning for my brother Alireza, agents raided our house and arrested a number of guests as well as my mother and sister, Roghieh Akbari-Monfared. My mother was released after five months but my sister was sentenced to eight years in prison. She was executed in August 1988 near the end of her prison term… My other brother, Gholamreza Akbari-Monfared, was arrested in 1983 and died under torture in 1985.”

Source: International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, October 28, 2016

Indian female Shooter pulls out of competition in Iran in objection to dress code for women

Indian shooter Heena Sidhu on Saturday pulled out of the Asian Airgun Shooting Championships in Iran in objection to the dress code for women at the event, The Times of India reported. Sidhu, a defending champion at the event, said asking female tourists and guests to wear a hijab was not a “sporting thing” to do.

The former world number one thinks that forcing athletes to wear a hijab is against the spirit of a sport.

'Sport is an exhibition of sheer Human Effort Performance. Our ability to dig deep for Strength, Will Power and Determination. 'This is d reason I compete n I cannot compete for anything lesser than this. ,' Sidhu wrote on her twitter handle.

Sidhu said that Iran was the only country that engaged in this practice.

 “If you are forcing your …beliefs on me, then I don’t want to compete,” she said.
The shooter further said that she had informed the National Rifle Association of India about her decision to not participate 20 days ago.
Last year, Sidhu won a gold at the tournament, and also contributed towards the Indian contingent winning the overall event.

Source: Scroll, 29 Oct. 2016

Tehran-Aligned Houthis Face International Outrage for Attack against Makkah

Washington, London, Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat, 29 Oct. 2016- Friday witnessed a horrendous act of transgression against the Islamic faith after Iran-aligned militias having launched a failed attack on the holy city of Makkah in Saudi Arabia. The attack shocked the entire Muslim World.
Houthi militiamen fired a border crossing ballistic missile– however; Saudi Arabia said the missile was “intercepted and destroyed” 65 kilometers from Makkah, which is home to the Kaaba that the world’s Muslims pray toward five times a day.
The attack drew in international condemnation from renowned Arab and Islamic institutions.
Saudi Arabia’s Foreign minister tweeted that Yemen’s Iran-backed militias had violated a core holy site for Islam and all Muslims. The act infringes on fundamental reverence and integrity for religious sites.

Washington condemned the attack– “These types of attacks are unacceptable,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner.
“There is no military solution to this conflict and (we) urge all sides to exercise restraint and immediately and publicly agree to an unconditional cessation of hostilities,” added Toner.
The Houthis and their allies, including forces loyal to former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, have a stockpile of Soviet-era Scud missiles and locally designed variants. A Houthi ballistic missile fired earlier this month targeted Taif, home to Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd Air Base, which is also near Makkah.
The series of cross-border attacks launched by Yemen’s Iran-aligned militias raise deep concerns, given that it sounds a grave violation to international laws and sovereignty, other sources at the U.S. State Department told Asharq Al-Awsat.
Both Muslim leaderships and Arab writers were quick to react in condemnation, emphasizing that the attack on Makkah “was an attack on all Muslims, not just Saudi Arabia.”
Saudi clerics and scholars voiced loud condemnations, labeling the assault as an undisputedly “great crime.”
Bahrain also condemned the Houthis’ action against Makkah, saying that this was an act of provocation to all Muslims in the world.
Qatar denounced the attempt to attack Makkah. “This is an outrageous aggression against the sanctity of the holiest Islamic shrine and a provocation to the religious sentiments of millions of Muslims around the world,” the Qatari foreign ministry said in a statement.
The statement reiterated support for Saudi Arabia’s relentless efforts to ensure the regional security and stability and its efforts to achieve peace in Yemen in accordance with the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2216, the GCC initiative and the Yemeni National Dialogue.

Kuwait strongly condemned the missile attack against the holy Makkah region.
Targeting Muslims’ qibla is a provocation of their feelings, neglect of the holiness of the blessed spot and disregard of Islamic sanctities, an official source at the foreign ministry said in a press statement.
The statement added that the brutal aggression is considered a grave development, an insistence on rejecting and defying the will of the international community, as well as its efforts to enforce a truce for the aspired political solution that rids Yemen and the entire region from the continuation of the bloody conflict and its repercussions.
GCC head Abdullatif Al-Zayani said in a statement issued Friday: “The council considers this brutal assault, which violates that sanctity of this country, a provocation to the feelings of Muslims, and disregard for Islamic holy sites, and evidence of Houthis’ refusal to obey the will of the international community and its decisions, to apply the existing armistice, and tireless efforts to reach a political solution to the crisis in Yemen.”
UAE Foreign Minister Abdullah bin Zayed said on his Twitter account: “The Iranian regime that supports a terrorist group which targets Holy Makkah, is this an Islamic regime as it claims?”
More so, An Egyptian foreign ministry statement on Friday announced Egypt’s “full solidarity” with Saudi Arabia and stressed its support of the internationally recognized government in Yemen, which is backed by the Saudis.
Egypt condemned the missile attack calling it an “unacceptable precedent” and a “disregard to the sanctity of Muslim holy sites that should not pass in silence”—denouncing the attack, Egypt authorities warned that the assault represents a “dangerous escalation.”
Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam’s center of learning, in Cairo condemned the “treacherous” attack and said it cannot happen from anyone who has some faith in Islam.
Jordanian government spokesman Mohammed Al-Momani said that “such heinous acts serve neither the Yemeni cause, nor the Arab and Muslim causes.”
“Any attack against holy places would expand the cycle of violence,” Al-Momani said, while reiterating calls to adhere to legitimacy and restore security of Yemen.
Jerusalem’s Grand Mufti Muhammad Ahmad Hussein also said that the attack on Makkah “sets a very dangerous precedent.”
“It is very unfortunate that this attack today might fuel an already sectarian-strife region. The Sunnis of the Arab world don’t believe in dividing the religion as we accept that Allah will welcome any Muslim as long as he or she is repentant of their sins. Unfortunately, though, the attack on Makkah represents a sectarian angle where you have someone like Iran attacking a place of worship,” Hussein told reporters.
Turkey’s Foreign Ministry statement denounced the attack saying: “We are glad that the attack was blocked by Saudi security forces.”
Yemen has been wracked by chaos since late 2014, when the Houthis and their allies overran the capital Sana’a and other parts of the country, forcing members of Yemen’s Saudi-backed government to temporarily flee to Riyadh.
The conflict escalated in March of last year when Saudi Arabia and its allies launched a massive military campaign aimed at reversing Houthi gains in Yemen and restoring the country’s legitimate government.

Source: Asharq Al-Awsat, 29 Oct. 2016

Commander of Iran's regime battalion in Syria killed: reports

Al Arabiya, 30 Oct. 2016- Iranian websites said on Saturday that Brigadier General Mohammed Ali Mohammad Husseini, the commander of the commando battalion in the Special Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards which is fighting alongside the Assad regime in Syria was killed.

According to the Iranian website Tanweer, the Revolutionary Guard commander in the city of Kazerun in the Fars province also issued a statement declaring the death of Husseini. The statement however did not mention when and where he was killed.

Iranian media outlets said that Husseini, the commander of the Sejad battalion, played a major role in the battles of Nubl and al-Zahraa in Aleppo, north of Syria.

Husseini has participated in Revolutionary Guards’ operations against opposition Kurdish groups in northwestern Iran and he’s also participated in the Iraqi-Iranian war.

Reports on Husseini’s death come after Major General Gholam Reza Smaiie died during an advisory mission to support Syrian forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo on Wednesday.

Iran has lost tens of generals, officers and members of its elite forces during the past months while attempting to tighten the siege on Aleppo and to expel opposition groups from it.

According to some statistics, seven officers from the Special Forces unit known as the Green Berets which was sent to Syria in April have been killed so far. Meanwhile more than 450 members of the Revolutionary Guards have been killed since battles in Aleppo and its surroundings renewed in September of last year.

Western and Asian ambassadors to Saudi condemn Iran Backed Houthi missile launch to Mecca

Riyadh, Aden, Asharq Al-Awsat, 30 Oct. 2016 – Islamic, Arab and Western reactions emerged on Saturday as a response to the ballistic missile launched last Thursday by Yemeni rebels against the Holy Mecca and which the Saudi Air Defense intercepted.
The ambassadors of seven countries to Riyadh condemned the attack in telephone calls conducted by Asharq Al-Awsat, saying Holly Mecca was a red line for all Muslims. The ambassadors of Germany, Singapore, Ireland, Turkey, Peru, Greece and Afghanistan asserted their objection to any attack against Islamic targets, and stated that the international community should not allow such crimes to pass without punishment.
Meanwhile, the efforts of U.N. envoy to Yemen Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed to reach a solution to the Yemeni crisis returned to “square 1,” after he presented a new plan that substantially and comprehensively contradicts the three references, according to Yemen Government’s Spokesman, Rajeh Badi.
Badi told Asharq Al-Awsat that the three references, including the Gulf initiative and its executive mechanisms, Security Council resolution 2216 and the outputs of the national dialogue should be the foundation of any negotiations based on an agreement reached since Geneva 1.
Commenting on the options of the next government, Badi said: “The government is keen on implementing peace and protecting the political track that would prevent a war. When we see a vision chiming with the spirit of the three references, then the Yemeni government would be ready to start any political track.”
Also, Yemeni presidential advisor Yassin Makawi told Asharq Al-Awsat that the roadmap presented by Ould Cheikh “constitutes a dangerous initiative to legitimize rebel militias around the world… this constitutes a true threat to peace worldwide.”
On Saturday, Yemeni President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi refused to take the proposal handed to him by the U.N. envoy during a meeting held in Riyadh.

Thousands of Iranians gather in Pasargade for demonstration against the regime

There were rumours the area had been closed off to the public ahead of the rally.

Thousands of protesters took part in a demonstration against the Iranian regime in Pasargade, the site of the tomb of Cyrus the Great.

Prior to the 28 October protest, authorities reportedly took measures to limit the impact of the demonstrations, sealing off roads to Pasargade and stationing plain clothes security agents by the site of the tomb.

But despite rumours the whole area was closed – with tours to the tomb also cancelled – demonstrations went ahead as planned, with thousands of people making their way to Pasargade from cities around the country, the National Council of Resistence of Iran (NCRI) reported.

Shahin Gobadi, of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the NCRI, said: "None of these schemes could prevent the gathering from taking place.

"The long line of vehicles and the large scope of the participants were clear indications of the Iranian people's hatred towards the unpatriotic regime.

"This regime is incapable of standing up against the Iranian people's desire and will to achieve democracy and popular sovereignty."

The protesters chanted: "Iran is our country, Cyrus is our father," and clerical rule is synonymous with only tyranny, only war."

It is not yet clear if there were any repercussions from the authorities for those who took part in the demonstrations.

Congress: Attorney General
Lynch ‘Pleads Fifth’ on Secret Iran ‘Ransom’ Payments

Attorney General Loretta Lynch is declining to comply with an investigation by leading members of Congress about the Obama administration’s secret efforts to send Iran $1.7 billion in cash earlier this year, prompting accusations that Lynch has “pleaded the Fifth” Amendment to avoid incriminating herself over these payments, according to lawmakers and communications exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) initially presented Lynch in October with a series of questions about how the cash payment to Iran was approved and delivered.

In an Oct. 24 response, Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik responded on Lynch’s behalf, refusing to answer the questions and informing the lawmakers that they are barred from publicly disclosing any details about the cash payment, which was bound up in a ransom deal aimed at freeing several American hostages from Iran.

The response from the attorney general’s office is “unacceptable” and provides evidence that Lynch has chosen to “essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries regarding [her] role in providing cash to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism,” Rubio and Pompeo wrote on Friday in a follow-up letter to Lynch, according to a copy obtained by the Free Beacon.

The inquiry launched by the lawmakers is just one of several concurrent ongoing congressional probes aimed at unearthing a full accounting of the administration’s secret negotiations with Iran.

“It is frankly unacceptable that your department refuses to answer straightforward questions from the people’s elected representatives in Congress about an important national security issue,” the lawmakers wrote. “Your staff failed to address any of our questions, and instead provided a copy of public testimony and a lecture about the sensitivity of information associated with this issue.”

“As the United States’ chief law enforcement officer, it is outrageous that you would essentially plead the fifth and refuse to respond to inquiries,” they stated. “The actions of your department come at time when Iran continues to hold Americans hostage and unjustly sentence them to prison.”

The lawmakers included a copy of their previous 13 questions and are requesting that Lynch provide answers by Nov. 4.

When asked about Lynch’s efforts to avoid answering questions about the cash payment, Pompeo told the Free Beacon that the Obama administration has blocked Congress at every turn as lawmakers attempt to investigate the payments to Iran.

“Who knew that simple questions regarding Attorney General Lynch’s approval of billions of dollars in payments to Iran could be so controversial that she would refuse to answer them?” Pompeo said. “This has become the Obama administration’s coping mechanism for anything related to the Islamic Republic of Iran—hide information, obfuscate details, and deny answers to Congress and the American people.”

“They know this isn’t a sustainable strategy, however, and I trust they will start to take their professional, and moral, obligations seriously,” the lawmaker added.

In the Oct. 24 letter to Rubio and Pompeo, Assistant Attorney General Kadzik warned the lawmakers against disclosing to the public any information about the cash payment.

Details about the deal are unclassified, but are being kept under lock and key in a secure facility on Capitol Hill, the Free Beacon first disclosed. Lawmakers and staffers who have clearance to view the documents are forced to relinquish their cellular devices and are barred from taking any notes about what they see.

“Please note that these documents contain sensitive information that is not appropriate for public release,” Kadzik wrote to the lawmakers. “Disclosure of this information beyond members of the House and Senate and staff who are able to view them could adversely affect the diplomatic relations of the United States, including with key allies, as well as the State Department’s ability to defend [legal] claims against the United States [by Iran] that are still being litigated at the Hague Tribunal.”

“The public release of any portion of these documents, or the information contained therein, is not authorized by the transmittal of these documents or by this communication,” Kadzik wrote.

Congressional sources have told the Free Beacon that this is another part of the effort to hide details about these secret negotiations with Iran from the American public.

One senior congressional source familiar with both the secret documents and the inquiry into them told the Free Beacon that the details of the negotiations are so damning that the administration’s best strategy is to ignore lawmakers’ requests for more information.

“Every Obama administration official and department involved in the Iran Deal appear to be running for cover,” the source said. “Like we feared, the [Iran deal] is turning out to be a disaster and Iran is emboldened in its aggression. Evidently Attorney General Lynch and the Department of Justice have decided ‘refusal to cooperate’ is their best strategy. But this is dangerous and ultimately won’t protect them from anything.”

Iran death penalty: Justice minister calls for fewer executions

Iran's justice minister is looking for an "effective punishment" for criminals instead of execution, according to local media.

Mostafa Pourmohammadi said he thought the number of capital crimes should be revised, the Tasnim News Agency said.

"In fact we want to find the most effective kind of punishment so that we are able to consider replacing execution," Mr Pourmohammadi said.

The minister said the death penalty should be kept for "corrupt people".

Fears over Iran woman's execution

Journalist sues Iran over 'torture'

'Disturbing rise' in global executions

"Of course, maintaining execution as a punishment is still on the agenda, but not in the numbers implemented today," Mr Pourmohammadi said.

"The punishment of execution cannot be rejected, as there are some corrupt people in the country and there is no way for them but execution," he added.

However, the minister observed that executions seemed to have had no deterrent effect over the past years.

Iran executed at least 977 people in 2015 - the vast majority for drug-related crimes - compared with 743 the year before, according to Amnesty International.

BBC Persian sources said that executing people for drug offences has recently sparked a debate in Iran. Users caught with small amounts of drugs intended for personal use are being sentenced to death, which some believe is excessive.

Iran's justice system is based on Sharia law, which does not make capital punishment obligatory for drug crimes.