Iran Focus
London, 22 Apr – The pro-Iran lobby in the US has accused Trump of trying to start a war with Iran.
The Regime apologists, who refuse to accept that middle-eastern country could possibly be bringing this on itself, criticised Donald Trump for extending sanctions against Iran, allowing Congress to debate whether Iran’s Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) should be designated as a foreign terror organisation (FTO), and putting the Gulf nation on notice following ballistic missile tests which violate the 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers.
Amir Basiri, an Iranian human rights activist, wrote an op-ed for Forbes, in which he argues that attempting to appease the mullahs in order to prevent tensions between the US and Iran, has not worked out well in the past.
He wrote: “The facts prove that it is rapprochement with Iran that has driven the Middle East deeper into conflagration and chaos, and if anything, only a tough stance can bring us back from the brink of open warfare with the leading state sponsor of terrorism.”
Supporters of the Iranian Regime put forth the ludicrous notion of a distinction between the hardliners and the moderates within the Regime. They claim that unless the moderates are swayed, the hardliners will walk away from the nuclear pact, stop fighting ISIS and use its proxy militias in order to target US troops and allies in the middle east.
Basiri disagreed, pointing out Iran gets far more out of the nuclear pact than the US and would only be hurting themselves if they pulled out.
He also noted that Iran-backed militias already pose threats to US troops and allies in the middle east, which is why they attack US naval ships in the Persian Gulf.
As for stopping its fight against ISIS, it’s hard to see how that would benefit the Iranian Regime. After all, ISIS is currently fighting in Syria and Iraq; both countries that Iran is heavily involved in.
Basiri wrote: “Undoing Iran’s violent meddling in the Middle East is a key component to eradicating terrorism, extremism and Islamic fundamentalism. This is an issue that the international community will have to deal with sooner or later—better sooner than later.”
He argued that the only way forward was a tough, defiant stance against the Iranian Regime’s terrorist activity and destabilisation of the middle east.
He wrote: “If history is any indication, the Iranian regime will only keep its nefarious deeds in check if it understands that not doing so will cost it dearly. Case in point: Iran froze its nuclear program in 2003 when it felt the imminent threat of international action. Again, it was crippling sanctions and not a change of heart that brought the mullahs back to the negotiation table in 2013 to resolve the crisis surrounding their nuclear program.”
He quoted former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council, Michael Singh, who argued for pushing back against Iran.
Singh, managing director at The Washington Institute, said: “[T]he United States should adopt a strategy of deterrence toward Iran—erecting daunting defences that dissuade the Islamic Republic from challenging the interests of the United States and its allies, and imposing sharp costs should Iran do so nonetheless.”
Basiri also argued for the labelling of the IRGC as an FTO, quoting Maryam Rajavi, president of the opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).
Rajavi said: “The people of Iran would welcome the designation of the IRGC [as an FTO], which is responsible for thousands of political executions and tortures in prison. It is also responsible for training terrorists supporting and engaging in terrorist activities outside Iran.”
Basiri concluded: “If there’s a lesson to learn from four decades of dealing with the mullahs, a tough stance toward Iran will prevent war, while further concessions will make it inevitable.”
