Since the United States employed the policy of maximum pressure and left the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action “JPCOA,” the theocratic regime ruling Iran been inhabiting an increasingly weakened position. The goal of the Trump administration has been to achieve a better agreement with Iran in light of the JPCOA’s significant shortcomings. The strategy is to increase all available types of diplomatic pressure on the authoritarian regime. This increased pressure is hoped to push the Iranian regime into making a choice between its own survival and ending its nuclear ambitions, imperialistic aggression, and widespread human rights abuses.
The JPCOA was a treaty complete with fatal errors. Instead of aiming to stop Iran’s path to acquiring nuclear weapons, the treaty provided a path to achieving nuclear capability following a limited period of prohibition on nuclear development. If the JPCOA deal was maintained, Iran would have the potential to emerge with nuclear capabilities by 2025, with a full-scale nuclear problem, according to nuclear non-proliferation researchers. The Iranian regime already possesses the capability to deliver nuclear weapons using ballistic missiles. 'The JPCOA also perpetuated a fictional idea hoping that by providing the regime with large amounts of cash and integrating Iran into the global economy, Iran would abandon its nuclear ambitions. This same strategy of integration into the global economy failed in achieving related goals with the Chinese Communist Party and Russian authoritarian leader Vladimir Putin in the past. There continues to be a sentiment that this strategy would be effective for nuclear deterrence, according to leaders in global foreign policy. Proponents of economic seduction believe that providing large quantities of cash combined with global economic integration will help deter nuclear ambitions and foreign aggression. The strategy of giving the Iranian regime billions of dollars seemed like a poor fit for a theocracy promoting terrorism abroad and the murder of American citizens. The influx of cash to Iran did almost nothing to transform Iran’s leaders into better global citizens or improve a significant record of human rights abuses. The Trump administration has broken long-held norms held by Washington in the realm of foreign policy, according to Washington-based foreign policy experts at FDD. The administration initiated sanctions against entire sections of the Iranian government, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The IRGC was designated as a foreign terrorist organization. This included sanctions against the highest levels of Iranian leadership and were “firsts” as foreign policy initiatives from Washington. Despite the success of the maximum pressure campaign, a Biden presidency may not continue to support this strategy. In order for the sanctions to have their intended effect, Tehran should not be offered any sanctions relief. Discontent for the Iranian regime has been growing inside Iran. Broad protests have increased in frequency. The regime, in turn, has responded with increased violence. With the combination of internal dissent, economic failing, and international pressure, leading foreign policy think tanks have indicated the regime is currently situated in a weakened position. Continued pressure will likely have its intended effect of bringing the Iranian leadership to come to terms and halting their dangerous ambitions. Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes recently intensified, worrying some foreign policy experts over regional escalation and even global involvement. The conflict is an ongoing one as Joseph Stalin decided that Armenian-majority Artsakh would be controlled by the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic back in the 1920s. Decades later, the Soviet Union collapsed and resulted in 15 new countries, including Armenia and Azerbaijan. Conflicts occurred throughout the region due to Stalin's haphazard borders that didn't align with regional ethnic groups, the partial result of which was a 1994 Armenian victory over the disputed Artsakh parcel whereby they asserted its independence. Nonetheless, that assertion went largely unrecognized.
Dispute Over Artsakh Coming To a Head Despite the May 1994 ceasefire, skirmishes continued to occur in the mountains of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno-Karabakh, in 2016 and in July of 2020, and those battles are intensifying. The landlocked region is disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan, and it also borders Iran, which has resulted in Iranian villages largely comprised of Azerbaijani communities being impacted by the conflict. To further complicate matters, Artsakh is prime real estate for minerals, mulberries, alpines, and oil pipelines that churn out enough oil to export all over the world, including 40% of Israel's oil supply. The Armenian-Azerbaijani border with Iran, the oil pipeline issue, and the impact to major regional players, such as Russia, Turkey, and China, is not going unnoticed by U.S.-Iranian policy experts. The situation recently took a turn for the worse as both Armenia and Azerbaijan declared martial law and began prepping forces after Azerbaijan regained control over a portion of the Araz River. It is in this area where Tehran partners with Armenian occupation authorities on a hydroelectric project that is now at risk and creates a vested interest on the part of Tehran on behalf of Armenia. However, Iran has a two-thirds Azerbaijani population with a significant portion located in villages impacted by conflict zones and in Tehran where protests against Tehran's support of Armenia are occurring. The current conflict may add fuel to the ongoing protests over Iran's regime as protestors are arrested and Amnesty International expresses concern for their safety. Iran in a Precarious Place Recently, demonstrators in support of Azerbaijan protested Tehran's inaction against Russia's convoys, which funneled supplies to Armenian troops through Iran. Iranian officials acknowledge Tehran's long-standing support of Armenia and worry about Azerbaijan's influence on its majority Azerbaijani population. If Azerbaijan is successful in gaining active support from Azerbaijani-Iranians, Iran may very well have to rethink its support of Armenia and, by extension, Russia. On the other hand, Iran seeks to benefit from an alliance with Russia and China given the recent U.S. sanctions and the desire by some in the regime to challenge U.S. power. Both options carry great risk and leave Iran in a precarious position, as well as the region, according to Middle East policy analysts. Iran's support of Armenia and Russia is not winning favor with Turkey, either, as Turkey supports Azerbaijan. Turkish media has vocalized its discontent with Iran and made its displeasure clear. In addition to words, Turkey recently took action as it has been decreasing its natural gas exports from Iran since last year. They have also openly mocked Iran's "Islamic solidarity" talk as rhetoric, and as being in conflict with their support of Christian-majority Armenia. Moreover, credible reports claim Turkey is mobilizing its militant proxies from Syria to Azerbaijan as tensions increase, a report which Azerbaijan denies but Armenia takes seriously. Will Global Intervention Bring Peace or Conflict? Despite previous relations between Turkey and Russia, the two countries now find themselves on opposing sides. While Russia has initiated intense military drills and communicated a strong showing, Russia may be stretched thin from other military engagements, not to mention Putin's low approval ratings due to his handling of the pandemic and political dissidence. Foreign policy analysts are encouraging the international community to intervene. Other analysts and experts agree as concerns for increased regional instability grow, and some quietly express the possibility of an even greater global conflict due to the number of key players involved, each with competing interests. President Trump shocked many when he announced the U.S. departure from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) two years ago. The unilateral move proved that greater progress could be made by applying direct pressure to Iran and those who do business with them as opposed to infusing them with cash and providing a "patient path" to nuclear proliferation.
The JCPOA had fatal flaws, which Trump has pointed out repeatedly. When the Obama administration penned the deal in 2015, Congress expressed concern about lifting sanctions on a designated state sponsor of terror and the resulting effects on the region as well, according to researchers on foreign policy. For example, it assumed that cash infusions would entice Iran into the global economy and away from the pursuit of nuclear arms and foreign hostility. That approach was ineffective as extremist regimes intent on power grabs are not moderated by cash. Rather, they are emboldened. Indications from leading opinions on policy in the Middle East identified that the JCPOA also created a path to a nuclear program by 2025 that could produce a bomb in short order when the provisions of the deal expire. At that time, not only would Iran be a few steps away from a nuclear weapon with ballistic missiles capable of delivering it, but they would also have a legitimate military force equipped with foreign weapons and become immune to economic sanctions according to new research from FDD. The disentanglement of the U.S. by the Trump administration from the JCPOA empowered it to drain hundreds of billions of dollars from the Iranian treasury as multinational companies preferred the U.S. dollar to the Iranian rial. Despite concerns that the support of key political allies was necessary for the JCPOA withdrawal to work, companies severed ties with the Iran regime when it failed to make financial sense. The market, in other words, drove behavior regardless of political consensus, which placed great strain on the Iranian economy. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a think tank that informs U.S. and Middle Eastern policy information, supports the current administration's willingness to break Washington tradition and label the Islamic Revolutionary Guards-Corps Qud Force (IRGC-QF) as a foreign terrorist organization. The U.S. also campaigned for the United Kingdom and Germany to blacklist Hezbollah as a terrorist group with success, as well as blacklisting and sanctioning political officials such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister. This is in addition to the killing of Qassem Soleimani in a drone strike. Yet another egregious act at the hands of a hostile Iran government is its humanitarian crisis as reported in recent information from foreign policy think tanks such as FDD. The Iranian people are growing increasingly weary of the hostile regime where peaceful protests are met with heavy-handed violence. As research on foreign policy that is foundational to regional diplomacy suggests, the U.S. should offer tangible support for the Iranian people through the identification of human rights abuses and corruption. The U.S. can also offer humanitarian relief efforts through international non-governmental organizations and should do so as a contingency for any potential agreement. While the policy implemented two years ago has been working, a recent analysis on U.S. relations in the Middle East states that more can and should be done. Requiring audit and due diligence requirements for companies who do not do direct business with the U.S. could place additional pressure on them when considering doing business with the current Iranian regime. The Trump administration should maintain current sanctions and consider applying additional pressure to Iran's regional trade. The increased rocket attacks on U.S. forces in the region demonstrate Iran's frustration at recent U.S. policy, which means it is working. Increasing the pressure will force Iran to choose between spiraling economic and political decline and survival at which point a new agreement can be made, which should incorporate humanitarian rights. This will secure the Iranian people, the region, and global citizens. Well, here we go again. This issue with Iran seems to be a never-ending sitcom rerun that just keeps looping. Are we doomed to repeat history again, and again, and again? How many times have we been here before? Why are we here yet another time?
One could argue that we are here because Iran never intends on giving up on its ambitions to become a nuclear power and have a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Yes, many nations do, but few use proxy terrorist groups to serve their political will, as Iran has done and is doing still in the Middle East. A nuclear power nation-state giving nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization is indeed the “Sum of All Fears” a phrase Tom Clancy once penned. Since the U.S. has exited the Iranian Nuclear Deal and put in harsh economic sanctions, the Iranians have decided to increase the number of high-tech centrifuges to enrich uranium faster towards weapons-grade. Some estimates now put the enrichment endeavors within 3-5 months of enough nuclear material to make a bomb. Other estimates put it at 10-months. Iran has demonstrated its ballistic missile technology and all they need is a warhead detonation device, which they also have the technological know-how to make if they haven’t already created one or many. Breakout Time and Uranium Enrichment Breakout time is the amount of time it takes to go from your stockpile of uranium to weapons-grade uranium. Essentially, there are many factors involved such as how enriched your current uranium is, the number of and types of centrifuges you have or will employ, and your capability or nuclear expertise. Yes, there are other factors but in a nutshell that is the basic formula for Breakout Time for weapons-grade nuclear material. The original JCPOA or The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, is a 159-page agreement and roadmap. It tells us how much enriched uranium can be stored, the number and types of centrifuges, the types of nuclear power plants planned, and compliance of it all. The Iranian Regime did not honor its side of the agreement and had not declared all of its facilities, plans, or intentions according to researchers at the Atlantic. One of the goals of the JCPOA was to make sure Iran’s breakout time was never shorter than one year. The JCPOA may never have accomplished that, and now that Iran has restarted its centrifuges it has blown past all the previous limits of the JCPOA. Should the U.S. Have Stayed In the JCPOA? President Trump told the American People that the Iran Nuclear Deal was the ‘most horrible deal ever made’ and although it may not be the worst in all of human history, one could argue that it certainly ranks high as being fairly worthless. The checks and balances and compliance have turned out to be less-than-favorable and Iran obviously never intended on complying with anything. Thanks to harsh economic sanctions Iran is running out of options and will have to come to renegotiate soon says policy analysts at the leading policy think tank. Lately, they’ve gotten a bit of a reprieve from France and Germany who’ve invoked a clause in the JCPOA for dispute resolution, but unless that is extended or there is better compliance with the original agreement, it’s unlikely to be resolved. Suffice it to say, getting out of the JCPOA may have caused some short-term crisis, but in the long-term, it was perhaps the best policy, explains leading foreign policy analysts at the FDD. Will Iran Get the Bomb? President Trump has drawn a red line in the sand on that issue stating that ‘Iran can never have nuclear weapons’ and we should take him at his word on that. The JCPOA is only paperwork, a 159-pages of nothing if Iran never intended on complying with it in the first place, and continues to stall inspectors from visiting its facilities and hiding its capabilities. The JCPOA was an attempt to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for at least a decade, by keeping their breakout time over 1-year. Thus, giving a chance to diplomacy to deal with the problem if they reneged on the agreement explain experts on diplomacy and foreign policy. Critics of Trump’s move to exit the agreement say; Iran is enriching uranium again and will have a nuclear weapon soon. But in reality, this has been Iran’s plan all along and without teeth in the agreement, they’d eventually have had a nuclear weapon anyway. Iran would have merely surprised the world one day with a nuclear weapon, perhaps given a nuclear weapon to a Middle East terrorist organization. This current powerplay from the Trump Administration may in fact work and prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, indicate diplomatic researchers at the FDD. It looks like the Trump Administration may pull off another big win in a new Iranian deal in 2020. Time will tell, of course, everything is fluid at this point. It's no secret that the nation you live in and governmental structure you live under affects the level of freedom, liberty, and quality of life you enjoy. For those of us that live in a first world nation with all the amenities and trappings of self-governance and freedom we often forget about the plight of those who live under rotten regimes. Once you've lived in a country with such liberties and freedom you never want anything less. Once you leave a repressive nation-state you become an instant and passionate advocate for human rights, freedom, liberty, and self-determination.
Okay so, let's talk about a problematic country, one which once enjoyed the best civilization had to offer, a nation which was led astray by less-than-honorable men, a country whose leaders sought out power and wealth over the desires and needs of their people. We are talking about Iran and the current Iranian regime. To say that this regime is illegitimate, corrupt, and repressive is an understatement. The list of human rights violations is so long it's hard to say where to start. The number of Iranian senior level government officials and bureaucrats committing these human rights atrocities is almost too numerous to be believed. There appears to be no end in sight as to how far the Iranian regime and its overbearing bureaucracy will go to hold power over the people, crushing dissenters for even the smallest negative comment or even social media posting. It's been an on-going and unrelenting repression of the people, often arresting activists, then brutally torturing to extract confessions of crimes they didn't commit, according to a leading non-partisan think tank. Then the Iranian regime uses those confessions to prosecute them sentencing them to long prison terms or even death. One of the best reports we've seen on the evil that pervades the once Great Persian Empire is; "Profiles of Iranian Repression" put out by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. In that one report, you will begin to scratch the surface of the unfathomable atrocities and human rights violations now occurring in the Islamic Republic of Iran. All of this information has been previously reported by the foreign policy experts at the FDD. The long-list of human rights abuses under the guise of weeding out subversion and traitors from the citizenry is inexcusable. The list of culprits in the research from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reads as if one was perusing through the resumes of Hitler's henchmen. One could ask; how could this possibly happen in the present period? It happens because the world has turned a blind-eye to the despots of such regimes. And while Iran is hardly the only place in our world where such human rights abuses occur, these acts will go on until something is done about it. It has become readily apparent that the Iranian Regime under their Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei has absolutely no intention of changing its domestic behavior, or for that matter, its international behavior as it wreaks havoc throughout the region serving its political will. It should give everyone pause for concern as the Islamic Republic's attempts to dominate its regional neighbors while ruling its own people with an iron fist. Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are nothing more than a manifestation of lust for power and control. Waiting for Iran to get nuclear weapons to possibly hand-off to its proxy terrorists is not an option, nor is allowing such an anti-human rights regime to get away with murder, literally. A nation that will murder its own people without regret is dangerous. Imagine what it might do to other people outside its current domain? Now imagine what it might do with a nuclear weapon, able to deliver upon a declared or non-declared enemy or people, yet remain in full denial it was involved? It doesn't take much to imagine the sum of all fears coming to a nation near you. In February of 2019, world leaders from some 60 nations met in Warsaw, Poland. The main topic of conversation was what to do about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions. Leaders were also concerned with Iran's continual funding of proxy terrorist organizations to serve its political will. Among the nations represented were ten Arab nations, the United States, and Israel. Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo were in attendance for the US, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was there for Israel.
It was amazing how well all the leaders got along. The Arab contingency is happy to have an ally in Israel, once again proving the old adage 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. The 'Sunni' Arab nations have been dealing with the Iranian threat for a long time. Up until now, very few nations have taken a hardline against Iran. Israel is steadfast in their resolve and the Arab nations realize the Jewish state's strength. At the conference in Warsaw, it became readily apparent that a coalition against Iran's advances was forming into a strong partnership. There was some trepidation during the conference from Western Europe as France, Germany and the UK were attempting to straddle the fence not wanting to upset Tehran or cause conflict with the United States. Ever since the Obama Administration's 'nuclear weapons deal' with Tehran, Western Europe has done well in trade with the Islamic Republic. Obviously, the Europeans didn't want to upset the apple cart or backtrack on the gains made. But fast forward to today, after Britain has had two oil tankers seized by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, there is more reason for the UK to get on board. Such hostile action by Iran is now being viewed as unacceptable by France and Germany too. Although it does seem strange to see Arab leaders and Israel working closely together, it hardly surprised The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, experts on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel has struck targets in Syria and also attacked an Iraqi base run under the directions of Iran according to Defense Blog Military Magazine. No other nation besides the U.S. has stood up so strongly against Iran or its proxies. Not only are sanctions taking their toll on Iran's leadership, but the regime is running out of friends and doesn’t appear to have any regional allies willing to back them up in a war. You can learn more about the daily events regarding Iran from the FDD here. The threats from the Iranian regime are becoming more amplified with each passing month. Iran has made several blatant attacks in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Generally, Iran's method of operation is to use covert attacks and then deny any involvement. But this time they've been caught red-handed attacking oil tankers. That's not all, Iran also shot down a U.S. drone in broad daylight, and ship-jacked two British oil tankers. The FDD, authorities on Iran and the Middle East note that time and money are running out for the Iranian regime. As long as we maintain a strong military presence, continue building a coalition and keep our resolve on sanctions, Iran will have to come to the negotiating table. If not, Iran’s rulers risk losing any remaining support. The FDD has been studying these rapidly developing events in real-time. With the war in Afghanistan continuing into its 18th year, there is an atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding its progress, and a question of what constitutes its objectives. Over the past several years, the subject of the war has shifted more and more to the sidelines of public awareness. Just recently, there has been another change of policy regarding the level of transparency of the war’s status and goals. This shift in transparency reflects both a prudent decision to stop giving free intelligence to the enemy, as well as a desire to push public consciousness of the war further out of the picture - a sign that maybe the war is not going well.
The U.S. Military and NATO have decided to stop releasing a crucial security report to the public. This report provided the district security analysis for Afghanistan; illustrating the most comprehensive picture of the progress of NATO control versus Taliban encroachment and it was one of the “most widely cited Afghan security metrics.” Now, this assessment is no longer available to the public or to outside groups tasked with oversight. For years the U.S. Military has released basic reporting to the public, summarizing how much of Afghanistan is under Afghan Government and NATO control versus the Taliban. According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, experts on the war in Afghanistan, the canceling of this report is another attempt by the U.S. and NATO to downplay the Taliban’s strength and the stymied progress towards meeting NATO goals. Follow the FDD’s latest reports here. With the report now canceled, there is no replacement source for providing public understanding about the conflict. The Washington Examiner wrote that “despite its limitations, the control data was the only unclassified metric provided by Resolute Support [the name of the military mission in Afghanistan] that consistently tracked changes to the security situation on the ground.” The public is now at a loss if they want a realistic and comprehensive picture of the security situation in Afghanistan. There are reasonable grounds as to why this information is no longer being released to the public. As Defense One reports, in January President Trump explained his thoughts that this information was providing useful battlefield intelligence to the enemy. “What kind of stuff is this? The enemy reads those reports; they study every line of it...I don’t want it to happen anymore, Mr. Secretary...” Trump said. When considered on the grounds of denying enemy intelligence, President’s Trump’s point of view provides a reasonable justification. However, this change in reporting signals more than just a strategy to sideline public awareness or limit the information available for enemy intelligence. General John Nicholson, a top commander in Afghanistan two years ago, stated that control of the population was “the critical mass necessary to drive the enemy to irrelevance.” The status of control of the population was the central theme of the report, and the central theme of the NATO strategy at the time. But now things are different. Recently, the Defense Department told the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) that the reports are not “indicative of the success of the strategy” toward security and stability for Afghanistan. The goal posts have shifted since the last two years. The Defense Department has explained that it is more important to “focus on the strategy of concluding the war in Afghanistan on terms favorable to Afghanistan and the United States.” NATO and Afghan forces are no longer aiming to secure the territory in Afghanistan as a whole. The current goal of the United States and Afghanistan Government is to create conditions for U.S. withdrawal that will assure Afghanistan will not be used as a hub for future terrorist groups that would target the international community. The goal is no longer necessarily ‘control’ of Afghanistan by NATO and Afghan forces - the central theme to the previous and no longer publicly available metric for success. For the present goal to be achieved, it would require a working relationship with the Taliban - and a political agreement between the Afghanistan Government, the U.S., and the Taliban. But as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies observed “the Taliban has lied about Al Qaeda’s presence in Afghanistan since the 1990s,” and the evidence shows clearly that the two remain tied together to this day. Relying on a supposed agreement with the Taliban seems like a tenuous goal at best. On top of that, in order for the Taliban to be driven to the negotiating table, it would require the Taliban to believe that they are locked in an unwinnable stalemate with NATO forces - since both sides know a NATO victory with the original goal is no longer the objective. This past September, the Israeli government unveiled evidence to the world of Tehran’s secret nuclear facilities. Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu presented photographs of the warehouse and included specifications about its design and capabilities including as much as 300 tons of equipment and material stored in fifteen shipping containers and up to 15 kilograms of nuclear material. In his presentation, the Israeli Prime Minister criticized the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with their failure to inspect the site when Israel had previously given them classified intelligence about the locations’ function. To this day, the IAEA has still not inspected it, despite the pleas of subject matter experts to conduct a thorough investigation.
Many believe that the images of the site that have been released to the public reveal an attempt to transfer nuclear materials to a different location. Iran has vehemently denied the allegations of the warehouse’s function and stated that it was merely a carpet cleaning facility. They went as far as to release ground images from a carpet cleaning factory across the street and claim it to be from the nuclear facility. However, photographic analysis confirmed the imagery provided by the Iranian government belongs to a different building than the photographs released by Israeli intelligence. The images that Tehran insist vindicate the warehouse in question, also only show exterior views. This is possible proof that the government hasn’t finished emptying the warehouse of all nuclear assets. Israel also revealed that Iran disposed of radioactively contaminated material from this site near Tehran. Even though the material in question likely only has low-levels of radioactivity, the fact that the government disposed of it into the public domain proves a flagrant disregard for the safe handling of nuclear waste and the health and safety of their own people. It also speaks to the balance of power between military and civilian authorities in the country that the nuclear site can skirt around the government’s officially held policies regarding nuclear waste disposal without suffering consequences. Satellite imagery suggests that nearly all material from the site has been removed as of now. Its exact location is unknown. If the IAEA had acted on Israeli intelligence when it was first given access to the information over the summer they would have had the chance to inspect the site while the storage containers were still present. Now the weapons equipment nuclear components are gone and unlikely to be found again soon. It is vital that IAEA explain its reasons for failing to act and the United States should demand an explanation. The United States has a responsibility, as a member state of the IAEA, to ensure that such inaction does not continue. Currently, there is no evidence that Iran destroyed any documentation or equipment relating to the nuclear-weapon construction. That is why it is vital that their whereabouts be found as soon as possible. Analysts believe IAEA must conduct an investigation and inspect the warehouse for any remaining evidence. There are too many questions left unanswered to not follow through. Environmental samples can be taken to determine the radiation level and Iran should be forced to provide the shipping containers so they can be properly examined. Many falsely believed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), would make it easier to conduct investigations when evidence called for it, however even after Israeli intelligence presented actionable, credible evidence to the IAEA no inspection was held. This failure of the regulatory body directly responsible for overseeing Iran’s nuclear research can’t go unnoticed and must be addressed if Western powers have any hope of preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb. Iran has been extremely divided since the Shah left Iran for exile in 1979. The last Persian Monarch of the time, he left his duties to a regency council and the opposition prime minister, and in the decades that followed the country never fully stabilized. Rampant corruption and civil rights abuses have been frequently cited as a roadblock to economic equality. However, in recent years the already politically tumultuous climate may have reached a new low, thanks in large part to burgeoning economic and social discontent.
The causes of anger are all too similar to the other oil-rich countries in the region: corruption and financial inequality. Sanctions from the U.S. and other Western powers were lifted in 2016, until being reinstated by under Donald Trump’s orders. That two-year span of relief did little to improve factors such as youth unemployment, which is at an all-time high. The price of fuel, dairy and meat have skyrocketed and show no sign of letting up. Mark Dubowitz from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) spoke with the Wall Street Journal about the present state of Iran, and how the current administration could learn something from Ronald Reagan. Dubowitz’ opinion on this: “The Islamic Republic of Iran is imperialist, repressive, and—unless we adopt a new strategy—[is] on its way toward possessing nuclear weapons.” The series of public Iranian protests, which lasted from December 2017 to January 2018, could suggest a threat to the stability of the government. Details regarding the size of the demonstrations and specifics behind the groups present and their motivations are unclear due to the Iranian government’s strict control over news outlets. The Iranian Minister of the Interior went as far as to blame the stoked fears on social media and as a response, the government swore to clamp down on the technologies. During the protests, many cities experienced widespread power outages. While the government takes no responsibility for the blackouts, many believe the timing is evidence at how far the Iranian administration will go to keep information from leaving the country’s borders. At its peak, the entire country experienced a drop as high as 50% in internet traffic. Since then, likely as a result of paranoia about web-activity monitoring, the country has seen a significant rise in the use of online masking software, such as the anonymous browser TOR. We know for certain that the national unrest was kicked off by a protest in Mashhad because of surging prices. It’s clear the feelings were shared across the country. Many experts say that protests against the Iranian regime were caused by the corruption of the government that ruined Iran's economy. Click here to read more about Mark Dubowitz. In response to the events, President Rouhani gave an official statement condoning the citizens’ right to protest in a peaceful manner. His words, however, are in stark contrast to the actions his administration has taken since; going so far as to ban English language lessons because they were to blame for a “cultural invasion of Western Values.” The government’s actions didn’t end there. Many watch-dog organizations have cited the country’s record-high arrests and use of torture as evidence that basic freedoms are not respected. Nearly thirty suspicious deaths were reported during the protests and US intelligence agencies received reports of inmates being treated inhumanely. In one instance a 15-year-old was given a five-year prison sentence because he removed a government flag from a city square. If these kinds of human rights violations persist and the government continues to censor free press and individuals alike then Western alliances might be forced to heighten the sanctions already in place. However, China’s recent oil purchases have proved that not all countries are willing to honor US sanctions. What’s more, any ability for the current administration to negotiate a new Nuclear deal will be hampered by the corrupt government’s actions. As Iran’s financial inequality worsens, it’s likely more civil unrest will follow. Understanding how terrorist organizations receive funding is an essential step in targeting them more effectively. While there are standard trends, it’s vital to look at the specifics of each organization to understand how they finance their activities and work with governments in the region to curb terrorists’ efforts whenever possible. To achieve this end and educate lawmakers the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, (FDD), created the Terror Finance Briefing Book which explains how individual terrorist groups fund their operations. Read more about the FDD CEO here.
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) ISIL, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), is one of the best funded terrorist organizations in the world and they aren’t reliant on any outside income. Instead, they derive the majority of their finances from exploiting resources in the region they control, such as petroleum, taxes levied against the local population, extortion, illegal drug production, and money stolen directly from banks. In 2016 ISIL had revenue north of $500 million. The year before that, they likely earned between $1 and $2 billion. The majority of the organization’s expenses cover supplying and paying its large force, as well as maintaining a defense against the local governments and Western coalition forces. Due to the raging war and a severe loss of land-holdings ISIL members experienced a severe cut to wages. In the coming years, it is likely ISIL will become more dependent on external donors to finance its operations. Hezbollah Mark Dubowitz of FDD has stated that Hezbollah spends a great deal of revenue on its fighting forces in Lebanon and Syria, and on dispensing social services in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah stays afloat thanks to ongoing support from Iran, which has contributed billions since the group’s formation. The group has a vast network of illegal businesses around the world. For this reason, it's often referred to as a cartel as much as a terrorist group. Hezbollah has laundered money and run front companies on six continents. Al-Qaeda's Branch in Syria - HTS Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), is the Al-Qaeda contingent in Syria and generates tens of millions of dollars per year. The group is reliant on maintaining its image as an alternative to ISIL. To meet this goal they pay for sharia courts, provide healthcare, electricity, water, and subsidized food. HTS also runs several charitable operations to appease to the locals and solicit donations. The biggest cost to the group, however, is soldiers’ salaries and military equipment, which is primarily financed through ransom, foreign donations, and the exploitation of resources from the land it controls. Recently HST lost a great deal of oil-rich land to ISIL and has been more dependent on kidnapping to make up for the lost revenue. The Islamic State in West Africa (ISWA) The Islamic State in West Africa (ISWA), is not as well financed as many other organizations but has a significant advantage in its mobility and low-cost operations and largely operates in a poorly governed territory. By exploiting vulnerable populations for resources, the group generated at least $10 million a year until 2015. They have historically taken advantage of the region’s unpoliced borders to carry out raids against villages for food and livestock, but their funding has recently declined and as a result, they have struggled to pay their fighters’ salaries. A key strength of ISWA’s resilience is their lack of reliance on the banking sector. The group has managed to rely on the hawala system to move money and accept donations without being tracked. Each organization is different and will require different solutions to stay ahead of. Whether it’s through sanctions of financial institutions or cracking down on the illicit operations that provide financing to terrorist organizations it’s important that policymakers have the tools necessary to tackle the job. To stay up to date, hear interviews, see news clips, and view other resources check out Mark Dubowitz of FDD on YouTube. |
AuthorExpert on the Iran Nuclear Deal and Global Threat Network Archives
October 2018
Categories |