The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East only when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The history of the past six decades shows that whenever there has been conflict between furthering democracy in the region and advancing American national interests, U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the latter course. Furthermore, when free and fair elections in the Middle East have produced results that run contrary to Washington's strategic interests, it has either ignored them or tried to block the recurrence of such events. #msg-6083247
-Am
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi
Apr 29, 2005
TEHRAN - The Bush administration may be openly contemplating giving economic incentives to Iran's ruling clergy in exchange for denuclearization, yet the US Congress is singing a different tune, that of regime change, as seen by a house committee's recent approval of a bill that for all practical purposes shuns any chance of US-Iran dialogue.
On April 13, the House Committee on International Relations overwhelmingly passed HR 282 titled "Iran Freedom Support Act". It calls for financial support of anti-government groups, as long as they meet some criteria, tightening the sanctions regime on Iran, and penalizing foreign companies doing business with Iran and/or investing in Iran. While it is unclear whether the US Senate will follow suit and adopt this bill when and if it is passed in the House of Representatives, it is nonetheless instructive to point out some of the salient aspects or consequences of this bill and to contextualize it in terms of overall US-Iran relations.
First, this bill sets aside any hesitations regarding interference in Iran's internal affairs and seeks to make "transition to democracy" the US government's central focus on Iran. Second, it broadens the purview of current sanctions on Iran by prohibiting sales to Iran of "advanced conventional weapons" in addition to "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons". Third, the bill authorizes the president to "provide financial and political assistance to foreign and domestic individuals, organizations and entities that support democracy" in Iran. And fourth, it calls for a complete halt of Iran's nuclear program and the "supply of nuclear fuel" to Iran.
Regarding the latter, it is noteworthy that the Bush administration of US President George W Bush, much like the Europeans, has tacitly consented to the recent Russia-Iran agreement for the return of "spent fuel" from the Bushehr power plant to Russia. Hence, if adopted into law, the above-mentioned bill would dictate a policy change on the part of the Bush administration and its atomic diplomacy toward Iran. Yet, such a change would collide with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) regime which, even in its proposed revised format, allows Iran's import of nuclear fuel for its reactor.
On the other hand, the Bush administration is currently engaged in a highly sensitive and delicate concert with Europe on Iran, which can be quickly derailed if Europe's "package approach" is undermined by a congressional intervention that makes dialogue and political and security cooperation with the current regime in Iran impossible, in the light of last November's Paris Agreement between Iran and the so-called European Three (EU-3 - Britain, Germany and France), which calls for precisely such a cooperation.
Of course, US history is replete with episodes of legislative interference in what is usually referred to as the executive branch, namely the foreign-policy turf, but what is so striking about HR 282 is that it appears on the surface to be completely in tune with the Bush administration's singular focus on Tehran's regime as a member of the "axis of evil", or to paraphrase President Bush in his latest State of the Union Address, the "world's primary state sponsor of terror".
Yet, as stated, increasingly, given the geopolitical realities and the mix of shared or parallel US-Iran interests in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, the White House appears more and more willing to go multilateral vis-a-vis Iran when, in fact, HR 282 saddles US policy back on the unilateralist track almost by definition.
Not only that, the US government has pledged itself, since signing the Algiers Agreement with Iran in 1981, not to interfere in Iran's internal affairs, yet that appears to be not the least inhibitive of Congress's singular march to democratize Iran - even if it means collaborating with certain opposition groups, such as the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, deemed as "terrorist" both by the State Department and the EU (in their joint Paris Declaration of November 5, 2004).
There is no doubt the democratic process in Iran needs to be deepened and much remains to be done in all areas of freedom of speech, political pluralism, and the like. Yet it is far from clear that in the light of the United States' unhappy history in Iran, harking back to the 1953 coup and the subsequent quarter of a century of one-man dictatorship, such initiatives by US Congress will actually end up serving this objective.
Instead, it has the likely potential of causing a political backlash against the democratic forces in Iran struggling for a more open polity in a difficult regional milieu, by the mere fact that the US government via this bill has targeted these groups for alliance for a major regime change inside Iran.
At present, there does not appear to be any significant momentum toward regime change in Iran, and the best that can be realistically hoped for is incremental democratization, through a selective "rationalization" of the political and judicial process and the strengthening of Iranian civil society.
Unfortunately, HR 282, by calling on the US president to tap into the funds for the "greater Middle East" to implement the objectives of this bill, introduces yet another blow to the legitimacy of this project, recently adopted by the Group of Eight nations under the rubric of partnership for progress. In other words, this pending bill risks the entire edifice of Bush's Middle East policy, and not just his evolving Iran policy.
Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University.
US offers grants to help oppose Iran's clerics By: Guy Dinmore on: 06.05.2005 [06:10 ] (225 reads)
“We have turned opposition into a profession,” said Ray Takeyh, analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think-tank. “This money is going to go up.”
Note: the CFR owns both the Democrats and Republicans. We could use a little money for our opposition.
(2382 bytes)
The Bush administration has put the democratisation of Iran out to tender--offering money to groups and individuals inside the Islamic republic--in what officials describe as the start of a long-term effort to pay for opposition to the ruling clerics.
A tender notice posted on the US State Department website is soliciting bids for grants totalling $3m (€2.3m, £1.57m). It notes that the Iranian government may not apply because current US sanctions prohibit funding for official purposes, but these may be waived for non-governmental organisations.
The Iranian government has protested against what it calls illegal interference, diplomats say.
Proposals should focus on “promotion of democracy and human rights in Iran”, the notice says. Priorities include development of political parties and media, labour rights, civil society, and human rights, particularly women's rights.
An official in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor said the tender was in keeping with the procedure for ensuring open competition in issuing grants.
The initial amount is small but the department's Middle East Partnership Initiative has separate funding for democracy promotion in the region running into tens of millions of dollars.
Some senators are proposing a bill that would raise $50m, specifically for Iran. Unspecified funding for Syrian opposition groups has been approved by Congress.
“We have turned opposition into a profession,” said Ray Takeyh, analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think-tank. “This money is going to go up.”
Iranian analysts say there is little chance in the current climate of US-Iranian hostility of groups inside Iran accepting US money. They would risk retaliation from the government, and also their credibility among some sectors of society.
However, the official tender notice does not exclude funding for Iranian opposition groups in exile. In recent months, many new exiled organisations have sprung up, waiting for such a moment.
“We are starting from scratch,” a US official said. “We don't know who the players are in Iran and Syria.” The Bush administration had not let go of the idea of “regime change” in those two countries, he added, but saw the process as a long-term project.
Comments on the bomb explosions targeting Iranian elections.
The intent of the bombing is to keep the people of Iran from voting which is the aim of the U.S. backed opposition groups.
Iranian state radio commented on 12 April that Washington already supports "isolated and rejected groups or elements" but that this only leads to embarrassment for the United States or these groups. It added that not only have U.S. efforts to cause "anarchy and domestic unrest" in Iran over the last 20 years failed, but they have in fact caused "increased public anger and hatred against America." The commentary concluded: "It seems that the American officials have thrown themselves in a fatal abyss by financing opposition Iranian groups." #msg-6130783
June 03, 2005 Paris (CNSNews.com) - Two weeks ahead of Iran's presidential elections, the exiled son of the deposed Shah is urging a boycott of the poll, saying Iranians should send a clear message to the world that the regime has no political legitimacy and is ready for a change.
Addressing a press conference in Paris Thursday, Reza Pahlavi said most Iranian opposition groups have declared their intent to boycott the June 17 election.
Pahlavi, who has lived in the U.S. since his father was overthrown in the 1979 Islamic revolution.
The bombings took place in Ahvaz where ‘some foreign agents’, think U.S., were accused of being behind a previous riot.
On April 15, a letter, which was said to be written by Iran'sformer vice president Mohammad Ali Abtahi to promote a coercive migration of Arabs in the southwestern province of Khuzestan,touched off riots in the provincial capital of Ahvaz.
Iran disclaimed the letter and reined in the unrest, claiming "some foreign agents" were behind the incident.
US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on April 11 that Washington had earmarked 3 million US dollars to "promote democracy in Iran," a move criticized by Tehran as "interfering in Iran's internal affairs." #msg-6489463
-Am
Bomb Explosions Target Iranian Elections
Updated 9:51 AM ET June 12, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Four bombs exploded in the capital of an oil-rich province on the Iranian border with Iraq on Sunday, killing at least eight people and wounding at least 36 in the deadliest explosions in the nation in more than a decade, state-run television reported.
At least four women were among those killed in the explosions in Ahvaz, capital of the southwestern Khuzestan province. At least two of the explosions were caused by car bombs, witnesses said.
Gholamreza Shariati, deputy provincial governor for security affairs, said the bombers were seeking to undermine public participation in Friday's presidential elections.
Television pictures showed the blast sites with heavily damaged buildings and blood on the ground. The force of the explosions also damaged cars in the streets. Shariati said 36 people, including eight police officers, were injured.
After the first three blasts, disposal experts tried to defuse a fourth bomb but failed, and it exploded, injuring one officer.
Amir Hossein Motahar, director of security at the Interior Ministry, said one bomb went off in front of the Ahvaz governor's office and another next to the city's housing department.
The third bomb blew up in front of the residence of the head of the provincial radio and television station, he said. The fourth bomb was placed near the same residence.
Shariati said intelligence and security officials were investigating the bombings, which targeted "Iran's territorial integrity as it was on the verge of presidential elections."
Ahvaz was the site of two days of violent demonstrations in April after reports circulated of an alleged plan to decrease the proportion of Arabs in the area. Officials at the time confirmed one death but opposition groups said more than 20 demonstrators had been killed. Some 250 were arrested.
The protests were sparked after copies of a letter allegedly signed by Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi circulated in the area. The letter ordered the relocation of non-Arabs to the Ahvaz to make them the majority population. Abtahi denied writing the letter.
Arabs make up about 3 percent of Iran's population of 69 million, Persians account for 51 percent and other minorities comprise the remainder.
Bomb explosions have been a rare occurrence in Iran since the end of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
