Iranian Regime

Los Angeles Times ARLINGTON, Va. - His disguise consists of a blue surgeon's mask, sunglasses and a baseball cap that reads "Free Iran. " A small modulator distorts his voice. He uses a pseudonym, Reza Kahlili. He lives in fear, he says, because his years as a paid spy for the CIA inside Iran have made him an assassination target of Iran's government. He worries about his wife and children, who live with him in California. At the same time, implausibly, he has become one of the most influential and outspoken voices in the U.S. advocating the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Re "Nuclear talks with Iran stall," April 7 In Iran, the nuclear program has long been a point of consensus across the country's political spectrum, among both hard-liners and moderates. Being a nuclear power is a matter of survival for the ruling clerics. They didn't endure four rounds of sanctions and decades of isolation only to surrender their nuclear program. From their perspective, having nuclear capabilities will not only support their regional hegemonic ambitions but will also ensure their hold on power domestically.

Saudi Arabian newspapers fiercely attacked the Iranian leadership over the weekend, calling it intellectually retarded and a symbol of terrorism. "Eleven years have passed since the Iranian regime came to power led by (the Ayatollah Ruhollah) Khomeini, and the regime is still as bloody as when it first started. . . . This regime has become a symbol of intellectual retardation and terrorism," the paper Al Jazira said.

 On Tuesday night at the Berlin Film Festival, the Iranian director Jafar Panahi will debut his new movie “Closed Curtain.” Panahi himself won't be there to present it, of course; he remains under house arrest in Iran, and the premiere is scheduled to be anchored by Kamboziya Partovi, Panahi's actor and co-director. Since being sentenced to a 20-year filmmaking and publicity ban in late 2010, Panahi has been downright prolific. While many bans tend to have a paradoxically healthy effect on filmmaking, in Panahi's case it's been something of an IV injection.

An explosion ripped through a four-story building in London housing an Iranian news vendor and an employment agency, killing one person and injuring 13. Police sent an anti-terrorist squad to check for evidence of a bomb amid reports that two men were seen running from the building at the time of the explosion. The news vendor reportedly was opposed to the Iranian regime of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and has sold anti-Khomeini videotapes.

Re "Nuclear talks with Iran stall," April 7 In Iran, the nuclear program has long been a point of consensus across the country's political spectrum, among both hard-liners and moderates. Being a nuclear power is a matter of survival for the ruling clerics. They didn't endure four rounds of sanctions and decades of isolation only to surrender their nuclear program. From their perspective, having nuclear capabilities will not only support their regional hegemonic ambitions but will also ensure their hold on power domestically.

 On Tuesday night at the Berlin Film Festival, the Iranian director Jafar Panahi will debut his new movie “Closed Curtain.” Panahi himself won't be there to present it, of course; he remains under house arrest in Iran, and the premiere is scheduled to be anchored by Kamboziya Partovi, Panahi's actor and co-director. Since being sentenced to a 20-year filmmaking and publicity ban in late 2010, Panahi has been downright prolific. While many bans tend to have a paradoxically healthy effect on filmmaking, in Panahi's case it's been something of an IV injection.

As calls mount, especially in Israel, for military action against Iran's nuclear program, the main counterargument has been seductively simple: Iran is rational. Indeed, our country's top military official, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, recently rejected the need for airstrikes because, as he put it, "We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. " By this logic, we should not risk war to prevent Iran from going nuclear because even if Iran acquired nukes, it would never use them offensively, never share them with terrorists and never utilize them as a shield for regional adventurism.

Re "Reigning in Iran," Opinion, Dec. 26 Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) should be reminded that the resurgence of radicalism of the Iranian regime is the direct effect of the ineptitude of the eight years of former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's administration, to which U.S. foreign policy based on sanctions and isolation contributed handsomely. Policies of containment through economic sanctions in a porous world do not work. Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson's methods for containing communism pushed Mao Tse-tung's movement in China to greater extremes.

Re "War with Iran? Congress says OK," Current, Oct. 29 Although the Iran Freedom Support Act does not contain explicit authority for going to war with Iran, it contains language that could serve as a kind of on-the-shelf Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for later convenience. Apparently, Congress must believe that we have the ability to wage a new war of choice even while Iraq is straining our military and pocketbook to the limit. I would urge my representative in the House to write language into the next appropriations bill that would require 50% of each state's representatives in Congress to serve in ground combat units for the first year of any war of choice against Iran.

Los Angeles Times ARLINGTON, Va. - His disguise consists of a blue surgeon's mask, sunglasses and a baseball cap that reads "Free Iran. " A small modulator distorts his voice. He uses a pseudonym, Reza Kahlili. He lives in fear, he says, because his years as a paid spy for the CIA inside Iran have made him an assassination target of Iran's government. He worries about his wife and children, who live with him in California. At the same time, implausibly, he has become one of the most influential and outspoken voices in the U.S. advocating the overthrow of the Iranian government.

Vice President Joe Biden, seeking to reaffirm the White House's support for Israel and, in turn, its tough stance on Iran's alleged efforts to gain nuclear weapons, promised economic sanctions would have an effect on the Iranian regime and predicted the current leadership's fall within two years. "The U.S. policy under Barack Obama is not one of containment. It is straightforward. We will prevent Iran from acquiring a nuke by whatever means necessary, period," Biden said during his appearance at the 1,600 rabbi-strong international Rabbinical Assembly Convention in Atlanta.

As calls mount, especially in Israel, for military action against Iran's nuclear program, the main counterargument has been seductively simple: Iran is rational. Indeed, our country's top military official, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, recently rejected the need for airstrikes because, as he put it, "We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. " By this logic, we should not risk war to prevent Iran from going nuclear because even if Iran acquired nukes, it would never use them offensively, never share them with terrorists and never utilize them as a shield for regional adventurism.

The Obama administration imposed tighter oil sanctions on Iran on Friday in hopes that the threat to its economy would force the country to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program. That's in addition to the European Union's sanctions, which begin July 1. But is an economic threat persuasive enough? It all depends on who you ask. "The Iranian regime can live without its nuclear program," writes Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian Israeli Middle East analyst, in a piece on CNN's GPS. "But it can't live without its economy, and the recently imposed sanctions, if continued, could turn into an existential danger for the Iranian regime by precipitating an economic collapse.

President Obama told the Israeli prime minister Monday morning he thinks there is "still a window" in which diplomatic pressure will deter the Iranian nuclear program and that he is thinking about the "costs of any military action" as he contemplates that possibility. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked Obama for recently acknowledging that "Israel has the sovereign right to make its own decisions," but he emphasized that "Israel must be able to defend itself. " With those brief remarks before television cameras, the two leaders began a closed-door session in the Oval Office in which each will try to persuade the other of a future course of action.

Obviously, the Republican presidential candidates have the right to speak out on any issue they choose, and just as obviously, the escalation of hostility between Israel and Iran is a terribly important subject that should concern every American. But so far we haven't gleaned much wisdom from the GOP contenders, who, except for Ron Paul, are encouraging a reckless rush to war while unfairly portraying President Obama as an appeaser. At Wednesday's debate in Mesa, Ariz., Mitt Romney assailed the administration for cautioning Israel against launching a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

A German court has condemned the Islamic Republic of Iran and its top leadership for state-sponsored terrorism and assassination of its opponents on German soil. The verdict promptly caused the expulsion from Germany of four Iranian diplomats and the recall, for "consultations," of almost all Western ambassadors to Iran. At the same time, new reports continue to surface implying that Tehran had a hand in last year's bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

For six long years, Akbar Ganji wasted away in an Iranian jail, suffering torture and solitary confinement for promoting democracy and criticizing leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. An 80-day hunger strike badly weakened him. President Bush hailed his valiance and called for his release, authorizing $75 million in funding this year to support Iran's democratic opposition.

Listening to the Republican presidential candidates, one would believe there is no foreign policy challenge more threatening to the United States than a nuclear Iran. As the remaining candidates attempt to distance themselves from President Obama and one another, all but one (Ron Paul) has described the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapons capability as "unacceptable" and endorsed the use of military force if that were necessary to prevent an Iranian bomb. The most troubling aspect of this default position held by most of the Republican candidates is the complete absence of any details on how the use of force could accomplish this ambitious objective.

Iran's threat to close a vital international waterway if stricter sanctions are imposed on Iranian oil exports is more than just bellicose and provocative. It is also a test of U.S. will and commitment in the Persian Gulf at a time when our role in the region is changing. The world has grown used to chest-thumping by Tehran, and there was nothing particularly noteworthy about the exercises conducted by Iranian armed forces last week to demonstrate their ability to close the Strait of Hormuz.