Iranian people eager for freedom

Former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird

 Washington Times, Former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird spoke in front of some 100,000 Iranian supporters of the NCRI in Paris on July 9, 2016. Foreign Minister Baird said: The great struggle of our generation is the struggle against terrorism, and the regime in Tehran is by far the biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Over the years, billions of dollars have left Tehran to sow fear, violence, death and destruction. From Assad’s war against his own people, to a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, from a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington, to arming Hezbollah with missiles targeting civilians in Israel, we must call the mullahs out on it.
The people of Iran suffer each and every day under this regime… We must call out this slick public relations campaign for what it is: a lie. We have so many allies in the fight against this brutal regime. But you know who our biggest ally in this struggle is? Friends, it is the people of Iran. Make no mistake whatsoever that the people of Iran do not support this regime and they want to see it overthrown. Each and every one of us need to stand in solidarity with the people of Iran and come together and state clearly that the notion that Hassan Rouhani is a moderate or is a reformer, simply put, is a fraud.

NO “moderates” in Iran stop the nuke deal with them

 

they all think about just one single thing

 The following is an article written by Majid Sadeghpour, a political director of the Organization of Iranian-American Communities (OIAC-US), and published in The Hill on Monday, August 24th: i have changed its title! He sais“I think we all share a simple, basic premise, which is that the United States must not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-armed Iran would threaten our national security,” so said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.), adding that he would support the nuclear deal struck between the P5+1 and Iran, “only if I’m convinced it sufficiently freezes every Iranian pathway to a nuclear weapon.” He could not have said it any better.
Although the administration insists that this agreement is not based on trust but on verification, the supreme leader Ali Khamenei and his underlings have already rejected inspections of military sites, a critical part of the inspections regime envisioned in the comprehensive long-term deal with Iran.  Tehran’s interlocutors, it appears, have made a series of unnecessary concessions in the agreement. Meanwhile, the regime has sensed that it can win even more compromises if it digs in deep enough.
As part of their sale’s pitch to unconvinced and concerned lawmakers and the public at large, President Obama and others in the administration have highlighted comments by “hardliners” in Tehran in opposition to the deal. It seems that they have bought into the myth of moderation, believing that the “moderates” will create a better future.
Indeed, the theatrics by “hardliners” in Iran’s parliament, or the anti-negotiation demonstrations by “ultra-hardliners” in Tehran’s street, coupled with the supreme leader’s rejection of military site inspections made it sound like the mullahs really did not need a deal as bad as the West. At the very least, it seemed like a “faction” of the mullahs is against the deal, while the “moderates”, including the regime’s foreign minister Javad Zarif and president Hassan Rouhani , are trying to convince the “ultra-hardliners” and Khamenei to accept some sort of agreement....more

News - Categorized News A Letter to Chuck Schumer: Convince Your Democrat Colleagues Iran Deal Is Bad

 
 

Dear Sen. Schumer,
Or may I call you “Chuck”? About 30 years ago, when I first met you, you were an informal kind of guy. You had recently been elected to the House from a district in Brooklyn and Queens. I was a New York Times reporter. I remember you were sharing a row house with two other House members—Leon Panetta was one—and I wrote a story about that. I always thought it could be the premise for a situation comedy. (“Friends with Entitlements”? Just kidding.)
I had no better source than you. You’d call to give me a heads-up on a bill or to explain some Hill battle so my editors would think I knew what I was talking about. It was nice of you, but it was also smart. You are smart: A perfect score on the SAT. On to Harvard College and Harvard Law. Elected to the New York Assembly at 23. Never losing a single election.
I’ve been thinking about writing you for a while regarding your vote on President Obama’s Iran deal. I knew you’d recognize that, from a policy perspective, this deal doesn’t get a passing grade. But from a political perspective, I understood that voting to disapprove would not be easy. Then, last week, you announced your decisions in an incisive 1,670-word essay. Kudos to you.
You pointed out that there won’t be “anywhere, anytime” inspections—which Obama himself had said was a necessity. American demands for inspections will be reviewed by a commission—on which Iran gets a seat. Iran’s rulers have flatly ruled out “entry into our military sites”—hardly an unlikely place for weapons research and development.
You grasp that sanctions, once lifted, cannot be “snapped back.” Then there is the curious decision to “sunset” restrictions on a regime whose supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, continues to call for “death to America!” As for Hassan Rouhani , Iran’s “moderate” president, he has said Iranians need “to express ‘death to America’ with action.” Like this deal?
Both Gen. Ray Odierno, U.S. Army chief of staff, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been clear: Iran has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. The United States, as you point out, has designated Iran as “one of only three nations in the world who are ‘state sponsors of terrorism.’ “...more