House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Written Evidence

Written evidence submitted by the National Council of Resistance of Iran, UK Representative Office

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this memorandum is to deal briefly with the main issues to be addressed by the Foreign Affairs Committee in its inquiry into "Global Security: Iran", while proffering a policy solution for dealing with the threats to regional and global security posed by the theocratic regime in Iran.

THE IRANIAN REGIME

Islamic Fundamentalist Ideology

In order to properly understand the Iranian regime's actions and policies at home and abroad, one must understand the ideology, which drives those policies. Although the roots of Islamic fundamentalism go back to the first centuries of Islam, Islamic fundamentalism in its current context, theory, and power emerged after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979. Khomeini's regime transformed the idea of creating a global Islamic rule from an unachievable ideal to an achievable goal and gave Islamic fundamentalist groups global backing.

Khomeini institutionalised the "export of revolution" and creation of a global Islamic rule, as a specific goal and programme within various parts of his constitution. The foreword of the regime's constitution reads:

"Given the context of Iran's Islamic Revolution, which was a movement for the victory of all the oppressed over the oppressors, it provides the ground for continuation of the revolution inside and outside the country, specifically in spreading international links to other Islamic and people's movements, tries to pave the way for the creation of unique global ummah so the continuation of the struggle for the salvation of deprived and suffering nations can be settled."

A further section in the constitution entitled, "The Form of Government in Islam", reads:

"With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse `This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me' [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples of the world."

Another part of the foreword, under the heading "Ideological Army" reads:

"The Army of the Islamic Republic and the Revolutionary Guards Corps... carry not only the duty of protecting the borders but also ideological duty, ie, Jihad for God and struggle to spread the rule of God's law in the world."

These paragraphs from the Iranian regime's constitution illustrate the expansionist ideology, which lies at the core of the regime. However, nowhere is the expansionist nature of this ideology clearer than in Ayatollah Khomeini's motto of "conquering Qods (Jerusalem) via Karbala".

Iran was home to the first Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world and the mullahs use the powers, resources and facilities of a state to achieve their regional and global expansionist ambitions. To this end, Tehran continues to act as the heartland of the extremist Islamic fundamentalist movement around the world.

Recent years have seen resurgence in the regime's fundamentalist ideology. This is especially so since the regime's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, assisted by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), cemented his control over every lever of power in Iran. This process was completed when the IRGC took steps to guarantee an unexpected Ahmadinejad victory in Iran's neither free nor fair June 2005 Presidential elections. After his "election", Ahmadinejad proclaimed:

He had made similar statements earlier in the year. In January 2005, he said:

Moreover, speaking to Hamas leaders in Damascus in January 2006, Ahmadinejad said that the Middle East conflict had become "the locus of the final war" between Muslims and the west[3].

Terrorism

Terrorism has been the main instrument of the Iranian regime in pursuit of its expansionist ideology. Islamic fundamentalism inspired terrorism now poses the greatest threat to peace and stability around the world.

The Iranian regime has for long used terrorism as a policy instrument to deal with challenges to its survival at home and abroad. At home, the regime uses terrorism to confront the rising discontent of the Iranian people, while boosting the morale of its oppressive forces, in particular the IRGC. Abroad, the regime uses terrorism to blackmail and gain concessions from western countries. Some of the earliest examples of this were in the early 1980s when the regime manufactured the hostage crisis in Lebanon. In exchange for the release of western hostages, the regime secured concessions from governments such as those of the United States and France.

It is widely acknowledged within the international community that the Iranian regime is the most active state sponsor of terrorism. In London on 23 March 2006, Prime Minister Blair described the Iranian regime as having a terrorist "ideology" at its heart. He stated:

"The conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to al-Qaeda and therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy . . . The different aspects of this terrorism are linked. The struggle against terrorism in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya . . . And when Iran gives support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle with the same ideology at its heart . . . Why is it so important to the forces of reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into sectarian war? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq? The answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq".

For many years, the Iranian Resistance had warned of the dangers and threats posed by Islamic fundamentalism. In the early 1990s, Mrs Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), warned that in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalism would become a global phenomenon and would resort increasingly to terrorism as Iran's mullahs attempt to export their "Islamic revolution" to other Muslim countries.[4]

Iran's terrorist campaigns have known no geographical boundaries and have resulted in thousands of deaths. Whether assassinating Iranian dissidents in the heart of Europe or carrying out terrorist bombings across the world, each terrorist operation starts in Tehran where the regime's most senior leaders choose their targets and develop their operations. Based on arrest warrants and investigations conducted by European security services into assassinations of Iranian dissidents in Europe, it is clear that the highest ranks of the Iranian regime are involved in each terrorist operation. This includes the Supreme Leader, the President, the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry of Intelligence & Security (MOIS) and the Qods force of the IRGC.

Iran's Foreign Ministry uses Iran's diplomatic privilege to move Iranian agents into the countries where terrorist attacks are planned and to coordinate operations out of Iran's embassies. MOIS uses its agents for intelligence gathering.

According to an April 2006 international arrest warrant issued by a Swiss judge, Ali Fallahian, who currently serves as a security advisor to Iran's Supreme Leader, masterminded the assassination of Professor Kazem Rajavi, the NCRI's representative in Switzerland, on 24 April 1990[5]. Fallahian was Iran's Minister of Intelligence & Security at the time of the assassination.

In the spring of 1997, a Berlin Court ruled that the regime's top leaders, including the Supreme Leader, were part of a "special operations committee" that ordered the murder of four Iranian Kurds in Germany in 1992.

Suicide attacks incited by Islamic fundamentalist ideology are a hallmark of Iran's terrorism. Two of the earliest and largest ever suicide bomb attacks carried out by agents of the Iranian regime were on the US Embassy and then the US Marine Headquarters in the Lebanon in 1983, which killed 258 Americans, including 241 US marines. In July 1987 the regime's Ressalat newspaper reported the then minister of the IRGC as stating in respect of these attacks:

"In the victory of the revolution in Lebanon and many other places around the world, the United States has felt our power on its ugly body and knows that both the TNT and the ideology which in one blast sent to hell 400 officers, NCOs, and soldiers at the Marine Headquarters have been provided by Iran."

In 2005, the IRGC announced the formation of a "Martyrdom-seekers" garrison, for the training of suicide bombers for operations against "Islam's foes". On 13 February 2006, speaking to a group of suicide volunteers, a senior commander of the IRGC and the commander of Martyrdom-seekers Garrison, Mohammad-Reza Jaafari, stated:

The regime was also responsible for the most deadly terrorist act against Jews, which took place in Buenos Aires in July 1994, when a suicide bomber blew up a Jewish community centre killing eighty-five people and injuring a further 151. This also represented the worst-ever terrorist attack on Argentine soil.[7] On 9 November 2006, Argentine Federal Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral, issued an international warrant for the arrest of former Iranian President Rafsanjani and eight other senior Iranian officials on charges of masterminding the July 1994 attacks[8]. This is a further illustration of the role played by the regime's highest-ranking officials in acts of terrorism.

Apart from carrying out its own terrorist operations, the Iranian regime has long used foreign groups in the Middle East and elsewhere to carry out terrorist attacks outside Iran. These groups have operated throughout Europe, the Middle East and North Africa.

Fomenting Violence in Iraq

The Iranian regime's primary foreign policy agenda has always been exporting its brand of Islamic rule to the rest of the Middle East and the world. With its majority Shiite population, important Shiite shrines and long border with Iran, Iraq has always been a strategic springboard to achieve this goal. It is for this reason that in the early 1980s, Khomeini founded the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and its armed militia, the Badr Corps. This organisation, which entered Iraq from Iran with the assistance of the Foreign Office in 2003[9], has been responsible for widespread killings in Iraq and attacks on Coalition troops, including British military personnel.

What the Iranian regime was not able to achieve in more than 20 years, including an eight-year war, was handed to it on a silver platter through the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

On 9 May 2007, during Prime Minister's Questions, Tony Blair stated:

"What is happening in Iraq is essentially that Al Qaeda on the one hand and elements of the Iranian regime on the other are backing terrorism in that country, the purpose of which is to destroy the prospect of that country being able to have the democracy its people have voted for and want."

The fact is that prior to the breakout of hostilities, the Iranian regime had set up special sections both in the MOIS and the IRGC responsible for affairs in Iraq. After the collapse of the previous Iraqi regime in the spring of 2003, Iran was ready to take advantage of the situation. It dispatched thousands of armed operatives to Iraq and set up extensive clandestine intelligence and terrorist networks in the country.

Shortly after the breakout of hostilities, a leading Iranian cleric and head of the Guardian Council, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, urged Iraqis to use suicide attacks to expel US forces from Iraq and learn from Iran's Islamic revolution to set up a new government[10]. Since then, the regime has funded, trained and armed various Shiite and Sunni militant groups to attack Coalition troops, sponsored assassination squads and installed a vast intelligence network in Iraq. In January 2007, the NCRI revealed the details of nearly 32,000 Iraqis who are on the regime's payroll. The details included the names of the agents, their dates of recruitment, their salaries and their bank accounts. Most of these people, who were associated with the Badr Brigade, were paid by the IRGC[11]. The regime has also bought political influence, manipulated elections, and seized control of government and police departments.

In October 2006, former US Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told AFP:

There is extensive evidence that Iran has been providing insurgents with all sorts of weaponry, including improvised explosive devices, believed to be responsible for the deaths of US and British soldiers in Iraq. In August 2006, The Sunday Telegraph reported on information provided by the NCRI that three factories in Iran were mass-producing the sophisticated roadside bombs[13]. In November 2006, The Daily Telegraph quoted senior British military officials as saying that Iran is sustaining the insurgency against British and American forces by supplying terrorists with weapons and cash. It cited military sources as disclosing that there is "very, very strong intelligence" that elements inside Iran have continued to fund and support the gun-running. Lt Col Simon Browne, commanding officer of 2 Bn The Royal Anglians, told the newspaper, "I'm sure there is outside influence here and it is from Iran. It is clear the insurgents are getting supplied from somewhere. I would believe it comes from Iran, or at least comes from Iranian sources."[14]

More recently, Coalition forces have captured and killed extremist cells that have been smuggling improvised explosive devices into Iraq from Iran with the assistance of the IRGC. On 4 May 2007, the Washington Post reported:

The threat posed to Iraq by the Iranian regime has also been widely acknowledged by Iraqis of all religious and ethnic backgrounds. In June 2006, various Iraqi political groups announced that 5.2 million Iraqis had signed a petition warning of the dangers posed by the Iranian regime in Iraq. The 5.2 million signatories represented 121 political parties and social groups, 700,000 women, 14,000 lawyers and jurists, 19,000 physicians, 35,000 engineers, 320 clerics, 540 professors, 2,000 tribal sheikhs and 300 local officials. The signatories stated:

"Iran's rulers want to dominate this part of the world and have turned Iraq into a hunting ground and the frontline of their war with the international community in a bid to curb the struggle for democracy against dictatorship in this country before it reaches Iran . . . The Iranian regime prevents the establishment of security, stability and democracy in Iraq and poses an immediate threat to our country's integrity and liberty. It is the main obstacle to our independence and the quick departure of the Multi-National Force. Presently, the main dispute is between democracy and dictatorship. The first and most important political alignment in Iraq is between democratic and patriotic forces with their various inclinations and thoughts on the one hand and affiliates of the Iranian regime on the other . . . The solution and the only encouraging prospect for neutralizing these threats come through eviction of the Iranian regime from Iraq and recognition of the status of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran which is the principle bulwark against the Iranian regime's interventions."

Interference in the wider Middle East

Iran has for long been meddling in the internal affairs of other countries in the Middle East. In particular, the mullahs have actively opposed any peace between Israel and Palestine and sought to destabilise Lebanon.

In his foreign policy speech to the Lord Mayor's Banquet on 13 November 2006, Prime Minister Blair said:

"What is happening in the Middle East today is not complex. It is simple. Iran is being confronted over its nuclear weapons ambitions . . . we all want Iran to suspend its enrichment process which if allowed to continue, will give them a nuclear weapon . . . But Iran is refusing to do it. Instead they are using the pressure points in the region to thwart us. So they help the most extreme elements of Hamas in Palestine; Hizbollah in the Lebanon; Shia militia in Iraq. That way, they put obstacles in the path to peace, paint us, as they did over the Israel/Lebanon conflict, as the aggressors, inflame the Arab street and create political turmoil in our democratic politics."

The Iranian regime's instigation of the July 2006 crisis in Lebanon illustrated yet again the use by the regime of terrorism and crises in the Middle East as foreign policy tools. It is clear that Iran's intention was to divert attention away from its nuclear weapons programmes, spread the scope of its conflict with the west into Lebanon and overshadow its extensive destabilising activities in Iraq. This was a fact recognised by Zalmay Khalilzad[16].

On 11 July 2006, one day before the crisis ignited, Ahmadinejad warned the west that it must immediately end its support of Israel or all of the nations in the region would take action. He said on Iranian television, "The storm of their wrath will not be confined to within the borders of the region"[17]. On the same day, Iran's nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, met EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Brussels and told him that Iran would not meet EU demands to suspend its uranium enrichment programme.

The next day, on his way back to Iran, Larijani stopped off in Damascus and met senior Hezbollah leaders and other supporters of the Iranian regime. The same day, Ahmadinejad stated, "In the near future we will witness the rapid collapse of the Zionist regime"[18].

These statements follow similar such statements made by Ahmadinejad, including:

DETERIORATING STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN IRAN

Repression of dissent at home is the next striking feature of the mullahs' ideology and constitution. In 1979 Khomeini said in respect of democracy:

The Iranian constitution is based on God's exclusive sovereignty and right to legislate, and the need to submit to God's command. As God's self-appointed messenger, Khomeini claimed responsibility for ensuring that the people abided by that divine legislation and submitted to God's commands. Article 9 of the Iranian regime's constitution therefore states:

"No individual, group, or authority, has the right to infringe in the slightest way upon the political, cultural, economic, and military independence or the territorial integrity of Iran under the pretext of exercising freedom."

Khomeini may be gone, but the oppressive and tyrannical system he invented and installed in Iran, including the system of "velayet-e faqih" (absolute rule of the religious jurisprudent) is very much alive. During his Presidential campaign in 2005, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran "did not have a revolution in order to have democracy"[22].

The Iranian regime does not tolerate any form of dissent and nor does it recognise the most fundamental rights of the Iranian people. The Iranian regime has been condemned in 53 United Nations resolutions for its gross and flagrant abuse of human rights. Since Ahmadinejad became the mullahs' President, there has been a considerable increase in executions, including the execution of political prisoners and minors[23], as well as a drastic increase in general repression.

On 19 December 2006, the UN General Assembly voiced "serious concern" about what it said were widespread human rights abuses in Iran. The resolution slammed Iran for its "harassment, intimidation and persecution" of human rights defenders, political opponents, religious dissenters, journalists, clerics, academics, union members and labour organisers. It expressed concern at the "continuing use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment such as flogging and amputations" and at "public executions . . . and stoning". It also decried "the continuing violence and discrimination against women and girls in law and in practice" as well as "the increasing discrimination and other human rights violations" against members of ethnic and religious minorities.[24]

Ahmadinejad's Presidency has also seen a widespread crackdown on universities and women. In early 2006, many student activists were jailed or expelled from their studies, lecturers were sacked and the regime proposed subjecting academics to strict religious testing. The regime also began a programme of burying the bodies of unknown soldiers on campus grounds in an attempt to bring religious extremists into the universities to violently suppress student activities.[25] In September 2006, Ahmadinejad called for a purge of liberal and secular academics from universities. He said, "Our educational system has been under the influence of the secular system for 150 years. Colonialism is seeking the spread of its own secular system."[26]

Alarmed by the increasing involvement of Iranian women in rallies and protests, the Iranian regime has recently announced a new crackdown targeting women under the pretext of "mal-veiling". The regime's Intelligence Minister, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, said, "The enemy's new strategy is to finance and organise various groups under the cover of women's or student movements". On 26 April 2007, the Italian new agency, Adnkronos International, quoted State Security Forces Brigadier General, Ismail Ahmadi Moaqddam, as saying, "During the first four days [since the code came into effect], we have picked up 150,000 women who were not properly veiled". The crackdown also enjoyed the support of the regime's Majlis, with 203 MPs writing to Moaqddam describing the crackdown as an "admirable act".[27]

INCREASED ANTI-REGIME PROTESTS

In response to the increasing repression inside Iran, Iranians have in recent years stepped up anti-regime protests across the country. During 2006, there were close to 5,000 acts of protest across Iran, including those by Tehran's bus drivers and the international women's day protests, which were brutally crushed. In the case of Tehran's bus drivers, dawn raids were carried out at their homes and they were arrested along with their wives and children. Some drivers had their tongues slashed.

In May 2006, hundreds of thousands of Iranians rallied in the city of Tabriz and surrounding cities. The protests quickly spread to Iranian universities. For ten days, the entire region was engulfed in anti-regime protests including in the towns of Orumieh, Zanjan, Marand, and Ardebil. These protests were violently suppressed. More than 10 people were killed as the regime's suppressive forces opened fire on the demonstrators. In a 26 May 2006 statement, Amnesty International reported that between 300,000 and 500,000 people had been involved in the demonstrations. Listing the names of many of those arrested, Amnesty stated, "They are reportedly held incommunicado and it is feared that they are at risk of torture and ill-treatment".

On 12 June 2006, thousands of Iranian women gathered in Tehran's 7th Tir Square to demand equal rights. They chanted, "Put an end to misogyny", "Freedom, freedom", "We are human beings but have no rights", and "We want equal rights". The peaceful protestors were attacked using truncheons and tear gas. Over 400 women were arrested.

In December 2006, students at Tehran's Amir Kabir University held angry protests and disrupted a speech being made by Ahmadinejad, forcing him to flee. Students held his photograph upside down, burned his photograph and chanted "death to the dictator". Other students held up banners, which read, "Fascist president, the polytechnic is not for you". This protest followed protests across the country on students' day (7 December).

Such protests have intensified yet further into 2007. On 3 March 2007, some 15,000 teachers demonstrated in front of the mullahs' parliament in Tehran protesting against the appalling state of their living conditions and calling for the resignation of the regime's minister.

On Wednesday 14 March 2007, despite repeated warnings by the regime's oppressive forces, Iranians used the anniversary of fire celebrations traditionally held on the last Wednesday of the Iranian calendar year to hold widespread protests across the country. Extensive clashes were reported between youths shouting anti-government slogans and the regime's forces.

March and April saw continuous anti-regime protests by teachers and other workers across Iran. On 18 March 2007, The Guardian reported:

"The authorities in Iran have arrested up to 1,000 teachers in a brutal crackdown that signals their determination to break a pay revolt. Riot police beat demonstrators with batons as they tried to gather outside Iran's parliament and education ministry and herded them into police vans and buses before transporting them to detention centres across Tehran.

Around 150 of those arrested in Wednesday's protest are still in custody, with the ringleaders believed to be in the capital's notorious Evin prison. Others were released after signing a commitment not to participate in "illegal" demonstrations.

During the first week of April 2007, the regime's media reported demonstrations and sit-ins by deprived workers in various government branches and workshops over their unpaid salaries. These protests took place in Tehran, as well as other cities including Ahwaz, Sosangard, Isfahan, Yazd, Tabriz, Rasht, Chalous, Kerman-shah, and Tabas.

On 9 April 2007, hundreds of angry protesters stormed the regional offices of the Justice Ministry and local police stations in Marivan (western Iran) located in the Kurdish region.

On 15 April 2007, thousands of Iranian teachers staged a strike, which ran on for days. Striking teachers were attacked in their homes by the regime's suppressive forces and many were arrested.

On 21 April 2007, Amnesty International called on the Iranian regime to release immediately and unconditionally all those detained in connection with recent peaceful demonstrations by teachers, students and others, to halt all trial proceedings that could result in the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience and to cease harassment of those campaigning to uphold human rights, including trade union and political rights.

On 23 and 24 April 2007, thousands of residents of Eqlid, in the southern Iranian province of Fars, took part in major anti-regime demonstrations. Running battles were reported between the regime's suppressive forces and Eqlid residents, which led to the burning of government buildings. A number of residents were killed and hundreds of others were injured in the clashes, which also saw hundreds more being arrested.

May Day also saw widespread anti-regime protests across Iran. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian workers filled the streets leading to Tehran's Amjadieh Stadium. They were protesting against the anti-labour policies of the Iranian regime. The security forces attacked the participants who shouted slogans such as, "Freedom is our unalienable right". In a statement issued on 1 May 2007, Amnesty International stated that it "is concerned at the reported beating today of workers taking part in peaceful May Day demonstrations. According to information available to Amnesty International, scores of others may have been detained in the course of the May Day demonstrations".

On 8 May 2007, thousands of teachers converged on the regime's Majlis and Ministry of Education chanting anti-regime slogans including, "Teachers will die, but will not accept humiliation".

Campuses across Iran have also been the scene of anti-regime protests since the beginning of May. These include sit-ins and demonstrations in universities and polytechnics in Tehran, Shiraz, Lorestan and Kermanshah. At Tehran's Polytechnic University, students attacked the police kiosk on campus and chanted "death to the dictator" in protest against the arrest of a student.

In a government-sponsored survey in 2002, nearly 94% of Iranians demanded a change of regime.[29] Moreover, a government survey last year found that 45% of respondents wanted the political system totally changed, even if it involved foreign intervention. If nearly half of Iranians were willing to say this to official pollsters, you can imagine how strong the anti-mullah sentiment really is.[30] Since then, the level of discontent nationwide has increased dramatically, particularly since 2005 when Ahmadinejad became President.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME

The Iranian regime began work on its nuclear programme in the early 1980s. In 1984, the regime built a new nuclear research laboratory at the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre, the facility that had originally been built by the Shah in the 1970s. The centre was involved in experiments in uranium conversion and fuel production, using uranium secretly imported into Iran in 1982.[31] The regime decided to restart a fully-fledged nuclear programme in 1985. In 2003, the Iranian regime admitted to the IAEA that it had begun uranium enrichment in 1985 and had received blueprints for centrifuge design "through a foreign intermediary in around 1987".[32] That foreign intermediary was A Q Khan.

By 1988, the regime had failed to win the war with Iraq, which seriously undermined its expansionist ambitions. After the ceasefire agreement with Iraq in 1988, the quest for nuclear weapons took on an added urgency. That year, the IRGC created a top-secret nuclear weapons programme at the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran (AEOI). Since then, Iran's nuclear programme has consisted of two parts. The first is that run by the AEOI, which is the public face of the Iranian regime's nuclear programmes and reports to the IAEA. Running alongside that programme is a parallel nuclear weapons programme that is controlled, operated and run by the IRGC, with its own nuclear experts and facilities. To conceal this aspect of its nuclear programme, the regime has hidden secret operations within the AEOI and used research centres and companies as front organisations for nuclear weapons work.

During the 1990s, Rafsanjani expanded Iran's secret nuclear programmes by entering into a new series of agreements with foreign suppliers, including China and Russia. In 1992, China signed an agreement with Iran to build at least four nuclear power plants and a research centre. At that time, the regime was allocating an annual budget of $800 million to the IRGC's nuclear weapons programme. China was also involved in the construction of an industrial scale uranium conversion plant and zirconium production plant at the Isfahan Technology Centre. In the mid-1990s, Russia agreed to complete the twin reactors at Bushehr. Russia had also agreed to supply the Iranian regime with a large research reactor, plants for manufacturing nuclear fuel, and a centrifuge enrichment facility. However, it agreed to scrap these programmes when US intelligence became aware of them.

Until August 2002, when the NCRI, revealed the secret uranium enrichment site in Natanz, part of which had been built under ground, and a heavy water plant at Arak used for the production of plutonium, the Iranian regime was vehemently denying being involved in such projects. Through the NCRI's revelations, the Iranian regime's 18 years of deceit over its nuclear programmes was exposed[33]. The Iranian Resistance continued to reveal other nuclear sites and activities of the Iranian regime (as it had done throughout the 1990s), including those carried out at Lavizan-Shian Technological Research Centre in Tehran and the laser enrichment activities undertaken at Lashkar Ab'ad in Karaj, west of Tehran. Moreover, in January 2006 the NCRI revealed that the Materials and Energy Research Centre located near the city of Meshkin-Dasht contained hot isostatic press machines used to shape the uranium spheres of a nuclear bomb[34]. At the same time, the regime has been working on critical chemical and hardware aspects of nuclear bomb design, including work on bomb trigger mechanisms, boosted-fission weapon design and bomb casings.

During Ahmadinejad's Presidency, the IRGC's nuclear weapons programme has been accelerated. Senior members of the IRGC were appointed into the regime's Supreme National Security Council, which is responsible for foreign policy, defence and security issues. They included Ali Larijani, Brig. Gen. Ali Hossein-Tash, Brig. Gen.l Mohammad Bagher Zolqar and Brig. Gen. Mohamad Ali Jafari. This has resulted in Iran's nuclear weapons programme falling fully under the complete control of the IRGC.

In August 2005, the head of the IRGC, Major General Rahim Safavi, said: "Technology is a vital factor for political regimes in defending themselves. Technological superiority has been and will continue to be the strategic cornerstone for the defence of nations" adding that nuclear technology was inseparable from "defence and national security."[35]

With widespread internal discontent and pressure from the international community over its support for terrorism and nuclear programmes, the regime sees the acquisition of nuclear weapons as the only means to guarantee its survival. To achieve this, the regime has given carte blanche to the IRGC to increase internal repression, while aggressively advancing its nuclear weapons programmes. The regime is well aware that any waning on either of these issues will result in its implosion by bolstering the Iranian people's demand for a change of regime, while at the same time pulling the rug from underneath the feet of the IRGC, who are relying on the acquisition of nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that Ahmadinejad has made clear that the regime will not back down an iota from its nuclear ambitions.

In any event, the regime has so far been successful in using a combination of offering lucrative trade deals, and blackmailing the west by sponsoring terrorism and fomenting crises in the Middle East, to buy time to complete the final phases of its nuclear weapons programme. This strategy has thus far bought the regime close to five years. During this time, the regime breached agreements reached with the "EU-3" in November 2003 and then again in November 2004—including with the breaking of UN seals and the resumption of work at its nuclear facility in Isfahan and starting uranium enrichment. Since 2003, Iran has ignored more than 15 ultimatums by the international community.

In July 2005, Iran's then top nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rowhani, told the Iranian newspaper "Kayhan" that Tehran had benefited greatly from the talks with the EU-3 in advancing its nuclear programme. He said:

On 11 April 2006, in defiance of the international community, Ahmadinejad announced that Iran had joined the nuclear club by enriching uranium to the level required to make nuclear fuel. Moreover, Iran announced the running of its second cascade of 164 centrifuges and Ahmadinejad spoke of his ultimate ambition of having 60,000 centrifuges.[37] On 16 November 2006, Ahmadinejad told the Islamic Republic News Agency that his country would soon take the "final step" in its nuclear programme, without saying what that would involve.

On 14 November 2006, U.N. inspectors reported finding traces of plutonium at an Iranian nuclear waste site. Reuters reported an IAEA report as saying that the UN watchdog still could not confirm Iran's nuclear intentions were entirely peaceful given its continued stonewalling of IAEA inquiries dating to 2003.[38]

Iran continues to defy the IAEA and has failed to comply with UN Security Council resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747 calling on it to halt its uranium enrichment activities.

In March 2007, the Iranian regime refused to allow the IAEA to install surveillance cameras at the Natanz site, but instead offered to allow announced visits by UN inspectors. The first attempt to carry out such a visit on 21 April 2007 was blocked by the regime.[39] However, on 13 March 2007 the IAEA was able to carry out an inspection. Following this inspection, the IAEA concluded that the regime has solved most of its technological problems and is enriching uranium on a far larger scale than previously thought. The IAEA inspectors are reported to have found that 1,300 centrifuges were producing fuel suitable for nuclear reactors, a further 300 would within days be ready for feeding raw nuclear fuel, and a further 300 were under construction. They further reported that the regime is at the stage that it is producing a cascade (ie 164 centrifuges) per week. Mohammad ElBaradei said:

The NCRI's information is that far greater numbers of centrifuges have been assembled than those being estimated. However, even at these rates, the regime could have 3,000 centrifuges operating by June 2007. This would be sufficient to produce the material necessary for one nuclear bomb each year. Western diplomats have said that the regime could have a further 5,000 centrifuges operating by the end of this year. Moreover, although the output tested by inspectors were producing reactor grade uranium, as was reported in The New York Times on 14 May 2007, "If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90%—the level needed for a nuclear weapon".

It is quite clear that the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons programme is extremely advanced and has entered its final phase. The implications for regional and global security of a nuclear-armed Iran should be clear from Rafsanjani's statement in 2001 that:

"ENGAGEMENT" WITH THE IRANIAN REGIME

"Engagement" with the Iranian regime generally, but in particular those concerning its nuclear programmes, have proved counterproductive. It began with the public relations campaign by former Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, who duped the international community into believing there was an element of moderation within the highest ranks of the Iranian regime. Those who pursued engagement hoped that by providing Tehran with concessions and offering it incentives, the so-called "moderates" would be empowered. Over the past decade, Iran has been offered everything from trade and cooperation agreements to assistance with a solely civilian nuclear programme. At the same time, western governments acceded to the regime's demand to blacklist the largest member organisation of the NCRI, the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI). In doing so, the west, wittingly or unwittingly bolstered the position of the mullahs and allayed their main preoccupation in dealing with the main threat to their regime, the PMOI. The move also allowed Tehran to spread its Islamic fundamentalism throughout the world, including in Europe.

At the same time, rather than strengthening the so-called "reformers" and the reform process in Iran, this policy has resulted in the hardliners, led by former Revolutionary Guards commander, Ahmadinejad, taking full control. Engagement will never work, because it relies on two fundamental misconceptions. First, that the mullahs are willing to moderate their behaviour and change their policies, and second, that they can be persuaded to abandon their nuclear weapons programme.

With the introduction of Ahmadinejad and the appointment of his hard-line cabinet, the regime has proved that it is not capable of change, nor is it willing to change. The make up of the new regime should act as a wake-up call for the west, which must give careful consideration to its role in bringing about these troubling developments in Iran.

POLICY OPTIONS

Iran is the most serious foreign policy challenge facing the international community and the way that it is dealt with would have a direct impact on the security of the Middle East and the wider world.

The solution to defeating the regime's Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism emanating from it, while at the same time preventing the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons, is to strengthen and support those Muslims who represent a tolerant Islam that is the antithesis to Iran's brand of Islamic fundamentalism—those who will act as a barrier against the spread of fundamentalism.

The NCRI and the PMOI are by far the largest and best organised opposition to the Iranian regime. They have been the primary source of information on the regime's human rights abuses, terrorism, its nuclear activities and interference in Iraq.

The PMOI's progressive and democratic interpretation of Islam, and its belief in secularism, makes it the antithesis to the Iranian regime's brand of Islamic fundamentalism and a barrier to its spread. This was a fact recognised by 5.2 million Iraqis who signed a petition in June 2006 warning of the dangers posed by the Iranian regime in Iraq and affirming their support for the PMOI.

The NCRI and PMOI also enjoy widespread international support. Many in the US Congress, as well as majorities in the Parliaments of Britain,[42] Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, the European Parliament, and many Danish, French, German, Dutch and Swiss members of Parliament have declared their support for the organisation.[43]

In dealing with Tehran and the threats it poses, maintaining the status quo and continuing the same conciliatory approach is not an option. By way of experience, concessions and conciliation will have the opposite effect.

In negotiations over Iran's nuclear programmes, every possible incentive, short of allowing the regime to acquire a nuclear weapons capability was put on the table. The United States dropped its opposition to Iran's membership in the World Trade Organisation and agreed to offer other trade and economic incentives, including lifting the ban on the sale of aircraft parts by AirBus. It also dropped its opposition to holding direct talks with the regime and agreed to join in negotiations with the mullahs if they agreed to temporarily suspend their uranium enrichment. Finally, in conjunction with the other four permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, it offered the Iranian regime an extensive incentive package. The EU-3 went even further by making a commitment to the regime that if Iran complied with the demand to suspend its nuclear activities, it would continue to brand the PMOI, as terrorist.[44] None of this made any difference, as the mullahs made clear they would not abandon their nuclear programmes, instead significantly advancing them.

In December 2006, the Court of the First Instance of the European Communities (CFI), delivered a judgment annulling a May 2002 decision by the Council of the EU to include the PMOI on a list of individuals and organisations whose funds were to be frozen as part of the fight against terrorism. Ordering the EU to pay the PMOI's legal costs, the CFI eliminated retroactively the legal order that included the PMOI in the EU terrorist list, deeming it not to have existed.

Yet, more than five months on, despite not having appealed the judgment, the EU, with the encouragement of the British government, has failed to comply with the judgment. This has forced the PMOI to launch yet further proceedings against the EU demanding compliance with the CFI's earlier judgment, through removal of the PMOI from the EU terror list, as well as paying more than €1million in damages.[45]

The second policy option available to the international community is the use of force. This does not represent the solution. Ironically, engagement, often a euphemism for appeasement, increases the likelihood of military confrontation by the mere fact that it strengthens the most radical factions of the Iranian regime.

Speaking about the Balkans conflict at the Economic Club in Chicago on 24 April 1999, Prime Minister Blair said:

"We have learned twice before in this century that appeasement does not work. If we let an evil dictator range unchallenged, we will have to spill infinitely more blood and treasure to stop him later."

The solution is to eradicate the roots of the problem, by uprooting the source of Islamic fundamentalism. A third, more realistic and sensible policy option, presented at a meeting in the European Parliament in December 2004 by Mrs Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, is for the West to support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people and the opposition as they strive to bring about fundamental change and establish a secular democracy. In an article appearing in the "International Herald Tribune", Mrs Rajavi wrote:

" . . . the best option is to initiate change through the Iranian people and the organized resistance movement. There is no need for war; no one would want to see an Iraq II played out in Iran. But engagement, which has shaped policy toward Iran on both sides of the Atlantic for two decades, has been a disaster, strengthening the most radical factions of the ruling theocracy . . . The failure to isolate a religious dictatorship bent on spreading its fiery brand of Islamic fundamentalism and acquiring nuclear weapons has led to the current stalemate. Now Tehran's missiles, capable of bearing weapons of mass destruction, can reach eastern and southern Europe . . .

No concession is going to dissuade the mullahs from continuing their ominous objectives . . . But there is another answer: democracy. The more than a thousand students who shouted antigovernment slogans during a speech by Khatami at Tehran University last month are evidence that Iranians seek a change in the totality of the regime.

The Iranian regime's reaction to Mrs Rajavi's visits to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament, the Belgian Senate and the Norwegian Parliament[47], is an indicator of how much the mullahs fear the Iranian Resistance and the Iranian people.

To continue appeasing the Iranian regime at a time when it has (i) intensified brutal internal repression, (ii) increased its financial and military support for terrorists causing havoc across the Middle East, and (iii) aggressively advanced its nuclear weapons programmes in complete disregard for three UN Security Council Resolutions, would have serious consequences for the security of the Middle East and the wider world.

The west must instead adopt a firm policy towards the Iranian regime over its human rights abuses, support for terrorism, interference in Iraq and pursuit of nuclear weapons. Immediate and comprehensive sanctions should be imposed on the regime to enforce compliance with its international obligations, including Security Council Resolutions 1696, 1737 and 1747.

At the same time, the west must discard the unjust terror label placed on the PMOI and instead engage in dialogue with the Iranian Resistance. By proscribing the PMOI in an attempt to placate the mullahs, the west has assisted the mullahs by restricting the ability of the PMOI to help the Iranian people in their quest for democracy and freedom.

16 May 2007

1 "President invokes new Islamic wave", Times Online, 30 June 2005,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article538795.ece Back

2 "Iran can be a powerful and idol country in the world", Kayhan news, 23 January 2005 Back

3 "Final war" between Muslims, West- Ahmadinejad, Aljazeera.com, 21 January 2006 (http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10517) Back

4 "Islamic Fundamentalism: The New Global Threat", Mohammad Mohaddessin, Seven Locks Press, 1993 Back

5 "Mandat d'Arret International" No. A/289/90, issued by Jacques Antenen, Juge d'instruction du Canton de Vaud, 20 March 2006. Back

6 "Iran's suicide bombers threaten to burn down US interests", Iran Focus, 13 February 2006
(http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5752) Back

7 "Argentina order for Rafsanjani arrest `baseless:' Iran", AFP, 11 November 2006 Back

8 "Argentina seeks Rafsanjani arrest", BBC News 24, 9 November 2006
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6134066.stm) Back

9 Letter from Mike O'Brien to Donald Anderson dated 12 June 2003 Back

10 "Iran Cleric Urges Iraqi Suicide Attacks", Associated Press, 3 May 2003 Back

11 "Iranian opposition group claims Iran has thousands of agents in Iraq", Associated Press, 26 January 2007 Back