The Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups Press Release


All right triangles are congruent.

The Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups Press Release

Monday, July 02, 2018

The first meeting of the Coalition of Iranian Opposition Groups for the first time convened in George Washington University on June 9.

In addition to Iranian opposition groups, the conference also attracted a significant number of highly regarded former US politicians and former senior military personnel some of whom advising the White House. In the conference and for the first time, representatives of Iranian Kurds, Azeris, Baluchies and Arabs took part.

Dr Alireza Nourizadeh, the director of Centre for Iran and Arab Studies and Executive Director of Iran Farda TV opened the conference stating the primary goal of this first meeting of Iran’s opposition group would be to unite all opposition parties against the Islamic Republic under the overarching framework of One Flag, One Nation, One Iran.

“The conference in its essence, was the first stepping stone to demonstrate the unity and solidarity of different Iranian opposition groups against the Islamic Republic. All participants stressed on the shared values of unity and equality and joining forces to protect Iran’s territorial as well as national integrity and dignity”, emphasized Dr Nourizadeh.

Dr Shahrokh Mireskandari, a co-organizer of the conference, also addressed the gathering by stressing that the conference would be a focal point in realizing the fragile situation that the Islamic Republic is gripped with and pointed out the importance of improving human rights in Iran, mending bridges between Iranian people and the US as well as furthering efforts aimed at positive role of Iran in the region.

For many decades, the quest for democracy in Iran has been overshadowed by the perceived notion of Iran’s potential disintegration should all citizens’ fully exercise their socio-political and cultural rights. The other main message of the conference was, to ensure that all ethnic Iranian opposition groups agreed to pursue the common goal of removing the current discriminatory constitution and replace it with a free and fair national constitution guarantying every Iranian citizens’ right regardless of their ethnicity, religion or orientation under one umbrella.

President Trump’s pulling out from Iran’s nuclear deal dubbed as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Actions (JCPOA), along with Iran’s increasing regional interferences and support of terrorist groups has brought the the US administration to a realisation that the Islamic Republic in its current form and shape has two options, only:
Either to fundamentally change behaviour on a verifiable basis or be removed from power so an inclusive and national transitional government could be introduced by all Iranians ending the tyranny of the Islamic Republic.

The conference also, recognized the legitimacy of working with powerful international partners to build up a global consensus against the Islamic Republic while safeguarding that such collaboration would ensure Iran’s national integrity and dignity.

Below is the list of speakers at the conference:

1. Rt. Major General Richard Secord
2. Rt. Major General Paul Vallely
3. Colonel Mike Stevens, Senior Middle East Analyst
4. Dr Alireza Nourizadeh, Centre for Iran and Arab
5. Dr Shahrokh Mireskandari, Lawyer and Political Activist
6. Mr George Cave, Former State Department Advisor
7. Mr Abdullah Mohtadi, Secretary General of Iran’ Komoleh Party of Kurdistan
8. Ms. Katayoun Yazdani, Philanthropist
9. Dr Shahria Ahy, Senior Political Adviser
10. Joe Kauffman, Republican nominee for Congress from Florida
11. Ms Sherry Raz, Institute for Open Middle East
12. Dr Zia Sadr, Distinguished Azeri writer
13. Mr Houshang Kordestani, Iran National Front
14. Dr Reza Hosseinbor, United Baluchistan Front
15. Dr Karim Abdian, Politcal Adviser, Ahvaz SDemocratic Party
16. Mr Fariborz Bakhtiary, Iran Tribes Council
17. Naser Boladai, Baluch People Party




“The Deep State” by Paul Vallely, MG, U.S. Army (ret.)

The Deep State

By Paul E. Vallely
MG, US Army (Ret)
June 29, 2018

In the United States the term “deep state” is used within political science to describe influential decision-making bodies believed to be within government who are relatively permanent and whose policies and long-term plans are unaffected by changing administrations. The term is often used in a critical sense, vis-à-vis, the general electorate to refer to the lack of influence popular democracy has on these institutions and the decisions they make as a shadow government. The term was originally coined in a somewhat pejorative sense to refer to similar relatively invisible state apparatus in Turkey and post-Soviet Russia. When I was on active duty and three tours in DC, I recall calling “The Deep State” the Bureaucracy. The bureaucracy has bled into a four-level deep state!

Anyone who has spent time on Capitol Hill will get the feeling when watching debates in the House or Senate chambers that he or she is seeing a kind of marionette theater, with members of Congress reading carefully vetted talking points about prefabricated issues. While the public is now aware of the disproportionate influence of powerful corporations over Washington, best exemplified by the judicial travesty known as the Citizens United decision, few fully appreciate that the United States has in the last several decades gradually undergone a process first identified by Aristotle and later championed by Machiavelli that the journalist Lawrence Peter Garrett described in the 1930s as a “revolution within the form.” Our venerable institutions of government have outwardly remained the same, but they have grown more and more resistant to the popular will as they have become hardwired into a corporate and private influence network with almost unlimited cash to enforce its will.
Even as commentators decry a broken government that cannot marshal the money, the will, or the competence to repair our roads and bridges, heal our war veterans, or even roll out a health care website, there is always enough money and will, and maybe just enough competence, to overthrow foreign governments, fight the longest war in U.S. history, and conduct dragnet surveillance over the entire surface of the planet.

These paradoxes, both within the government and within the ostensibly private economy, are related. They are symptoms of a shadow government ruling the United States that pays little heed to the plain words of the Constitution. Its governing philosophy profoundly influences foreign and national security policy and such domestic matters as spending priorities, trade, investment, income inequality, privatization of government services, media presentation of news, and the whole meaning and worth of citizens’ participation in their government. We have come to call this shadow government the Deep State. We use the term to mean a hybrid association of key elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States with only limited reference to the consent of the governed as normally expressed through elections.
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the CIA and DOJ. But these isolated cases have not provided a framework for understanding the extent of the shadow government, how it arose, the interactions of its various parts, and the extent to which it influences and controls the leaders whom we think we choose in elections.

My reflection on our shadow system of government has come only after my retirement in 1993 and my physical withdrawal from Washington, D.C. proper and the institutions located there to the State of Montana. Unlike the clear majority of Capitol Hill strivers who leave the place for greener pastures, I had no desire to join a lobbying shop, trade association, or think tank. But I did have a need to see the events I had witnessed in perspective, and I came to realize that the nation’s capital, where I lived and worked for many years, has its own peculiar ecology.

To look upon Washington once again with fresh eyes, I sometimes feel as Darwin must have when he first set foot on the Galapagos Islands. From the Pentagon to K Street, and from the contractor cube farms in Crystal City to the public policy foundations along Massachusetts Avenue, the terrain and its people are exotic and well worth examining in a rational and common-sense manner. The official United States government has its capital there, and so does our state within a state. To describe them in the language of physics, they coexist in the same way it is possible for two subatomic particles to coexist in an entangled quantum state. The characteristics of each particle, or each governmental structure, cannot fully be described independently; instead, we must find a way to describe the system. The Deep State also extends to many States and local governments.

If you don’t know what the Deep State is then you’re obviously part of the Deep State. We know, of course, that the liberal Deep State that lurks within our government is and always has been hellbent on destroying President Trump and preventing him from making America great again. And we know for certain that Deep State weasels fabricated the whole Russia HOAX and, quite likely, rigged the election so Hillary Clinton would lose, allowing Trump to win and be mercilessly persecuted by — you guessed it! — the Deep State. (It all tracks, believe me.) But this week’s raids on Cohen’s Manhattan office and hotel room confirm one of my long-held suspicions: The Democratic Deep State has sunk to an even more insidious level and is now targeting our Republican president in the sneakiest way possible — by using Republicans.

Let us start with Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating all this Russia nonsense. As Trump has said, the whole thing is a big witch hunt, and that makes Mueller the lead witch hunter. Well, Mueller is a registered Republican and was first appointed head of the FBI by President George W. Bush, who is also a Republican. (I’m telling you, this conspiracy goes DEEP!). The raid on Trump’s lawyer began with a referral from the Mueller investigation to the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York. What the hell kind of Republican special counsel and lifetime law enforcement official would refer a legal matter that might make a Republican president look bad to a U.S. attorney’s office? That stinks to high heaven of Deep State involvement.

But it gets crazier. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York is Geoffrey Berman, a Trump supporter who also gave money to the president’s campaign. In a normal world in which the Deep State does not exist and wacky libs are not constantly trying to ruin America, you’d expect Berman to shut this investigation down and protect his president. But no, Berman reportedly recused himself from the case and didn’t get involved in obtaining the warrants for the Cohen raids. Is that a case of a public servant adhering to reasonable ethical standards? HELL NO! It’s a case of the Deep State finding a way to turn a Republican feral and make him attack his own kind.

Warrants for the Cohen raids had to get approved by the Department of Justice, which is run by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a Republican. But Sessions recused himself from all criminal matters relating to the 2016 election, a decision that led to the appointment of Mueller (a Republican) by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein (a Republican) after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey (a Republican). So, it was Rosenstein who signed off on the warrants. And Rosenstein (a Republican) was handpicked by Trump (a Republican).

I know we will terminate and destroy the Deep State.



    “How come the lights went on before he clapped”


“What do you mean that you don’t remember the exact count?”

Shanghai Summit May Prove More Important Than The Trump-Kim Meeting

Shanghai Summit May Prove More Important Than The Trump-Kim Meeting


Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve

10:53 PM 06/12/2018

Overshadowed in the U.S. media by the Singapore meeting between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the 2018 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit, held in Qingdoa, China on June 9–10, may have far greater strategic significance.

Established in 2001, the SCO is a Eurasian political, economic, and security organization, which now has eight member states; China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan and India. Aspiring member states include; Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, Mongolia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Turkey.

In his opening remarks, chairman of the meeting, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered several specific proposals reflecting China’s strategic objectives.

First, President Xi recommended that Eurasian countries focus on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) “to build a powerful engine to achieve common development and prosperity.” It is understandable why he would do so.

BRI is China’s blueprint for global dominance is a development plan: a program of infrastructure projects and a network of commercial agreements designed to link the world directly to the Chinese economy through inter-connected land-based and maritime routes. The area initially targeted by Beijing, Eurasia, represents two-thirds of the world’s population and one-half of the worldwide Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

BRI is soft power projection with an underlying hard power component: a comprehensive China-centered economic, financial and geopolitical web with far-reaching, cascading consequences affecting American national interests. It is not just resource acquisition or utilization of China’s industrial over-capacity, but its projects are specifically designed to ensure economic and, eventually, military dominance.

The linchpin of BRI is the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), the backbone of which is a transportation route that connects China to the Pakistani ports of Gwadar and Karachi on the Arabian Sea. It is why China’s “all-weather ally”, Pakistan, has been dutifully working to hasten U.S. exit from Afghanistan through its support of the Taliban and the Haqqani network, as well as maintaining Pakistan’s stranglehold on the supply of our troops to landlocked Afghanistan.

Second, in order to “facilitate peace and reconstruction in Afghanistan,” President Xi said, “we need to give full play to the role of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group,” which recently held a meeting in Beijing including Russia, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. The SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group will likely become the vehicle to remove the U.S. from Afghanistan.

Third, President Xi emphasized the need “to expand partnership networks of international cooperation,” particularly “by engaging in dialogue with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and other international financial institutions.“

Not only was the IMF present at this year’s SCO Summit, but it was the first time the World Bank was seated with the inner circle of SCO members. In addition, China offered to extend its “debt trap” practice by announcing an additional $4.7 billion in potential loans through the SCO Inter-bank Consortium. No doubt additional cash will be needed by BRI countries like Pakistan, which devalued its currency for the third time since December and could explain the presence of the IMF and the World Bank at the SCO Summit. International financial institutions may provide supplementary monetary resources to support China’s global ambitions.

In contrast, it would be surprising if anything comparably significant arose from the Trump-Kim meeting in Singapore. Since before the Korean War, North Korea has had the same two objectives: survival of the regime and reunification of the Korean peninsula under North Korean rule. It is difficult to imagine any major U.S. proposal not ultimately contributing to the extinction of North Korea and the Kim dynasty.

Only time will tell, but the U.S. may again become the victim of North Korean subterfuge, while its mentor, China, quietly orchestrates a major strategic shift.

Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired colonel with 29 years of service in the US Army Reserve and a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq.



“Iran first submitted an official application for SCO observer status on 25 February 2005. Iran’s interest in upgrading its SCO observer status to full membership dates back to March 2008, when it first applied for upgrading its status. Not surprisingly, beset by rhetoric about a possible Israeli attack against its nuclear facilities and the ongoing disintegration of neighboring Iraq, Iran’s quest for SCO full membership can be seen as an additional layer of international diplomatic “life insurance.” On Nov. 12, 2011, Iranian Supreme National Security Council’s Secretary Assistant Ali Bageri reiterated that Iran was again seeking full SCO membership, telling journalists in Moscow, “We have already submitted a relevant application.”

Security agenda is a top SCO priority, with many of its policy documents delineating joint approaches to terrorism, separatism, and extremism threats. The main coordinating bodies for security cooperation are the Secretariat of the SCO in Beijing and the Regional Counterterrorist Structure based in Tashkent. Russia and China share a commonality with their fellow SCO members about rising Islamic militancy in Eurasia, but after that their security concerns diverge, with Russia primarily looking westward toward NATO’s eastward expansion, while beyond Xinjiang, China’s security concerns are largely to the east, in the South China Sea and most notably, over U.S. policy toward Taiwan and possible disruptions of Chinese maritime energy imports from the Middle East by U.S. Navy ships based in the western Pacific.”


The SCO Celebrations after the rendering of the U.S. telecommunications infrastructure and defense apparatus:

August 18-25, 2005China-Russia held their first joint anti-terror military exercises code-named “Peace Mission-2005.” The one-week maneuver involved 10,000 troops from the two countries.  Also called Sino-Russian wargames.

August 9-17, 2007: SCO joint military exercises (Sino-Russian Wargames) code-named ‘Peace Mission-2007’ included 6 SCO member countries and took place in the Ural mountain region of Russia and China.  It was the SCO’s largest to date.




MG Paul Vallely on Donald Trump’s Iran Policy and the U.S. Military

MG Paul Vallely on Donald Trump’s Iran Policy and the U.S. Military


I wonder what they missed.


Treaty with Iran Spells Disaster for the Middle East, and for the US.

By MG Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.)

A speech from 7-11-2015


Over the past 12 years, I have had the honor of being a member of the Iran Policy Planning Group and have been engaging with the Iran Opposition who defected from Iran after the Shah fell. My heart and soul yearned with them for the tyrannical government under the ayatollahs to be replaced by a democratic government. But that has been a failure thus far as we all know. All we have seen is an evil and radical Islamic regime gain in strength over the years; supporting international terrorism, torture, and murdering its own people and others throughout the world. Can you only imagine what chaos and turmoil will occur with much stronger, bolder, and expanded Iranian Armed Forces – armed with nukes that can reach any target by air, land, and sea launched systems?

Aiding and abetting an enemy of the United States (and Iran is our avowed enemy), is a treasonous offense under the Constitution.

From 2009 to the present, Obama, with the guidance of Valerie Jarrett, has been involved in clandestine negotiations with Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world.  Americans will recall that on November 4, 1979 Iran “Declared War on the United States” when it invaded the US Embassy in Tehran and took all the Americans in the Embassy as hostages. Iran feared Ronald Reagan and his peace through strength and released our hostages very soon after Reagan was elected.  Since then, for over 35 years, Iran has been killing thousands of Americans and expanding its hegemony throughout the Middle East and the world.

For 6 years, while Iran was employing Iranian manufactured Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) to kill and maim (for life), thousands of members of the US Armed Forces, Obama has been involved in secret back channel negotiations in Oman, not negotiating to stop Iran from employing Iranian manufactured IEDs to kill members of the US Armed Forces, or in negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

For over 3 years, Obama has continued to lie to the American people, by saying first Hillary Clinton and then John Kerry have been engaged in negotiations to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; nothing could be further from the truth.   Obama has only been interested in normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, regardless of the cost to the lives of US military personnel in combat over a 6 year period, regardless whether it resulted in giving Iran nuclear weapons to put atop its intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The treacherous activity with Iran began with Hillary Clinton, and continues with John Kerry.  The Obama’s clandestine activitities have been covered up for 6 years by the left of center, liberal media establishment, and the members of the US Congress who have been kept informed of those step-by-step negotiations.

Obama chose to decouple his negotiations concerning Iran’s development of nuclear weapons from Iran’s aggressive behavior in the Middle East that was killing members of the US Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry backtracked on virtually every demand that would have curbed Iran’s nuclear weapons development program and on international inspection regime that would have detected Iran’s continued violations of every agreement it ever entered into.

The American people should know that Obama plans to give Iran $150 billion of US taxpayers money (that Iran will use to continue destabilize the Middle East), will lift economic sanctions that were imposed on Iran for going forward in the development of nuclear weapons, will enter into a formal agreement that will permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons, will allow Iran to keep 4 innocent Americans in prison (a US Marine, a Christian pastor, a retired FBI Agent, and a journalist), and for that agreement Obama will get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!  I take that back, Iran will be allowed to continue to kill and maim members of the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan with their IEDs

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, stuck to his red lines, whereas, Obama made concession after concession on virtually every Iranian demand, such as excluding inspections by the UN’s IAEA inspectors to ensure Iran is not developing of nuclear weapons at military facilities.  It really didn’t matter to Obama, since preventing the development of nuclear weapons was never the purpose of the negotiations—the goal of negotiations that began in 2009 has always been to focus on normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran, just like with Cuba,

Obama will soon authorize Iran to develop nuclear weapons, not with an international treaty required by the US Constitution that would require a 2/3rd approval of the US Senate, but by another of his unconstitutional Executive Orders.  In doing so, Obama will have initiated a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, may be responsible for forcing Israel to take action in self-defense to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons manufacturing facilities, and his ineptness will probably set the stages for escalating events into the beginning of World War III.

In 1815, the European powers met here to establish the post-Napoleonic order and through a balance of power arrangement bring peace to the continent. Obama surely appreciates the historical echo, since 200 years later he, too, means to create a peaceful order in an especially volatile part of the world by balancing the regional powers—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Iran—to ensure that none of them gets too large a piece of the pie and frightens the others into making war. The Iran nuclear talks are important because Obama, a U.S. diplomat circularly explained here last week, “believes a peaceful Iran could be .  .  . the key to peace.”

The difference between 1815 and 2015 is that Napoleon had to be defeated at Waterloo before the peace forged by the Congress of Vienna could hold, lasting nearly a century. The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the other hand, is on the march throughout the Middle East, controlling four Arab capitals, and waging war from the eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Nonetheless, over the last two and a half years of negotiations with Iran, the Obama administration has offered Tehran virtually every concession it sought, which only spiked its appetite for more. Most recently, the Iranians have demanded that Western powers lift the U.N. arms embargo, a demand that could hardly be less subtle—we want weapons, the Iranians are saying, to make war.

The purpose of the Congress of Vienna was to create order. In contrast, the talks with Iran have jeopardized the order of the Middle East that the United States has maintained for more than half a century. The nuclear talks have legitimized and further emboldened a revolutionary regime. The White House’s string of concessions—from sanctions relief to acknowledgment of Iran’s right to enrich uranium—is tantamount to bankrolling Napoleon and arming him. The peace that Obama believes his diplomats are negotiating in the Austrian capital increases the likelihood of war.

The Iran nuclear talks were never exclusively about the clerical regime’s nuclear program. The administration has repeatedly insisted that a firewall separates the nuclear file from all other issues we might have with Iran—the Syrian civil war, the future of Iraq, Iran’s support for terrorism—but from the very beginning of his presidential term, Obama’s engagement with Iran meant everything was up for grabs. The White House believed the two governments had to learn to trust each other and was therefore quietly willing to do favors for the mullahs.

The White House and Iran had “secret dealings” starting in 2009, when the two sides discussed a number of issues—like the three American hikers detained by the Iranians, eventually exchanged for four Iranians held in American prisons. So what if the administration was letting Iran set the terms of engagement by equating college kids, backpackers, with felons who were clearly working for the regime’s intelligence services? The point was to build confidence with the Iranian regime. Eventually they’d settle the nuclear issue and discuss a number of other matters important to both parties.

There were other secret overtures, like Obama’s letters to supreme leader Ali Khamenei. But much more important were the White House’s public shows of confidence-building. The White House gave the regime room to crack down on the Green Movement that took to the streets in June 2009 to protest likely fraudulent elections. And it also left alone Tehran’s friends, like Bashar al-Assad, who is still the president of Syria even though Obama demanded he step aside four years ago.

Further, and this was perhaps the most important aspect of engagement with Iran, the administration showed that it could control and even beat up on Tehran’s enemies, like Israel. The administration not only made a habit of excoriating Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it also repeatedly leaked sensitive items, as if it were messaging Tehran directly. Among others, the White House leaked the Stuxnet exploit that had damaged Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, it leaked the fact that Israel was using Azerbaijan’s air space, it leaked Israeli strikes on Iranian arms convoys heading to Hezbollah. It boasted that it had deterred Netanyahu from striking Iranian nuclear facilities. Of course these leaks were damaging to Israel’s security interests, but the real point was to show Iran that Obama was sincere about wanting to bring them into the international community. They could trust him.

Indeed, maybe Iran could even be made to understand that it didn’t need a nuclear weapons program if it saw Washington as an honest broker. This White House, after all, didn’t automatically come down on the side of Iran’s nemeses in Riyadh and Jerusalem.

Obama may once have meant what he said about preventing a bomb, and the administration’s ostensible red lines were in keeping with decades of American policy opposing proliferation: The Iranians were going to have to dismantle their entire program; there would be no enrichment at all; they would have to ship their enriched uranium to Russia; Fordow would have to be shut; the ballistic missile program was a threat that would have to be addressed; Tehran would have to come clean about its past nuclear activities, to satisfy concerns regarding the program’s possible military dimensions.

But there is a very simple reason why the administration started to cave on all these issues with the Joint Plan of Action in November 2013, and why it continues to cave in Vienna today. Even before the Iranians began to talk publicly with the administration about the nuclear program, they saw that the negotiations had already been decided in their favor. When Obama declined to strike Assad in September 2013 and enforce his prohibition against the use of chemical weapons, the nuclear negotiations with Iran were effectively over. If he wouldn’t lob a few missiles into the Syrian desert to protect his own prestige, he certainly wasn’t going to order strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and risk a larger war. The Iranians had nothing to lose by sitting with the Americans and could in fact earn more each time they threatened to walk away.

For nearly two years then, the Iran nuclear talks have been something like a puppet show. Neither side is really negotiating about Iran’s nuclear program since that’s already been decided. And besides, from Obama’s perspective, the nuclear file wasn’t the major issue—the larger point was the regional order and the new balance of power he was building.

The real subject of the nuclear talks is the role that Iran will play in that order. The White House seems to be hoping that if it keeps feeding Tehran concessions, the Iranians will finally see it is in their interest to help stabilize the Middle East. Obama is counting on Iran to be a cornerstone of a regional peace similar to what the Congress of Vienna built in 1815. The more likely result is that he will be party to unleashing the evil monster.

How realistic is regime change in Iran? How and when Can it happen?

MG Paul Vallely, US Army (Ret)

We have a President and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo who are committed to regime change in Tehran, Iran sooner rather than later!

If any of the preconditions for regime change are in place, is the time right in the near future? To this, the answer is yes, if, a realistic strategy and foreign policy is developed. And it will certainly require a well-organized and funded coalition that can draw from all supporters inside and outside of Iran for a new, free democratic Iran.

Without underestimating the power in the hands of the mullahs, the truth is that Iran today. Iran is passing through “the deepest crisis the nation has experienced in decades” and is further isolating the country from its neighbors and other nations. A new future must come into being for the younger generations as well as the older generations. Policies since the late 70s have produced nothing but grief for much of Iran’s population. A number of protests took place recently in Iran that received almost no attention anywhere other than inside the country itself. These events occurred in peripheral cities that suffer from rising unemployment, lack of infrastructure, increases in the cost of living, extreme climatic conditions, and air pollution. These cities are marginalized in Iran’s public discourse, which is reflected in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with the needs of the residents – most of whom are classified as “ethnic minorities”. In those residents’ eyes, government policy is negligent and inattentive to their distress. Large-scale violent demonstrations took place recently in the Iranian city of Kazerun, which is under the jurisdiction of the Fars Province. They were the collective response of residents to the publication of a plan for a new administrative division of Fars that intends to remove two densely populated areas from the jurisdiction of the Kazerun municipality and grant them independent status (a sub-province called Koh-Chenar). Underlying the protests is the plight of many residents of the province who have long suffered from difficult working and living conditions. The administrative partition proposal served as a spark that ignited flames of frustration over government neglect.

The fall in the value of the Iranian currency—despite rising oil revenues—and the massive increase in the rate of unemployment over the past decade signal an economic crisis already heralded by double-digit inflation. In some cases, the government has been unable to pay its employees—including over 600,000 teachers—on time. We understand that there is a great transfer of money out of Iran, much of it coming to the US and other countries. Money laundering in South America has been validated. So, the question is, “What is happening in Iran? At the start of the new Iranian year, it was having difficulty financing over half of its projects, forcing hundreds of private contractors into bankruptcy. Meanwhile, fear of an international crisis over the nuclear issue, and the possibility of new sanctions imposed by the U.S. have put a damper on Iran’s economy.

Pompeo left open the possibility of a new deal, but one based on 12 conditions—including a full halt to all uranium enrichment, withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria, and an end to support for groups like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq—that the current regime would never support. The idea may seem to be that the U.S. will simply continue to ramp up the pressure until the regime capitulates. Any plan must not follow and be close to the neoconservative impulses of the George W. Bush administration people. Or for that manner, follow any of the Obama failed policies that had no specific strategy to assist the Iranian people in their quest for freedom and democracy. Pompeo argued that recent economic protests in Iran are evidence of public anger at a regime that “reaps a harvest of suffering and death in the Middle East at the expense of its own people.”

In a brief question-and-answer postlude with Heritage Foundation President Kay Cole James, Pompeo came even closer to calling for an uprising, saying, “At the end of the day, the Iranian people will decide the timeline. At the end of the day, the Iranian people will get to make a choice about their leadership. If they make the decision quickly, that would be wonderful. If they choose not to do so, we will stay hard at this until we achieve the outcomes that I set forward today.”

Given that there’s almost no chance of Iran meeting the Trump administration’s conditions, the hope seems to be that the Iranian people will take matters into their own hands. This is an enormously risky strategy. Many Iranians who are highly critical of their government’s policies are also resistant to foreign interference in their domestic politics. The regime already depicts anti-government demonstrations as American-inspired regime-change efforts. Pompeo just endorsed that depiction.

Why does the Islamic Republic behave as it does? The answer is that, as the spearhead of a revolutionary cause, it can do no other. The Islamic Republic is unlike any of the regimes in its environment, or indeed anywhere in the world. Either it will become like them—i.e., a nation-state—or it will force them to become like itself. As a normal nation-state, Iran would have few major problems with its neighbors or with others. As the embodiment of the Islamic Revolution, it is genetically programmed to clash not only with those of its neighbors who do not wish to emulate its political system but also with other powers as Iran continues as a threat to regional stability and world peace.




Paul Vallely: A Step Toward Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula…and…



Paul Vallely: Summit Step Toward Denuclearization of Korean Peninsula

By Bill Hoffman

Wednesday June 13, 2018

The historic deal President Donald Trump has hammered out with North Korean strongman Kim Jong Un is an excellent first step toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, retired U.S. Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.

“This is not shooting from the hip; this is well thought out,” Vallely told Wednesday’s “America Talks Live.”

“This is what President Trump does: He thinks things out. Diplomacy is ‘The Art of the Deal.’ Now we’ll have any opportunity to move forward.”

The Trump-Kim summit in Singapore provided no details on when Pyongyang will give up nuclear arms or how that might be verified, but Vallely, who served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy commanding general of the Pacific Command, said that is “the next step” for the two nations.

“[They have] to lay down what the requirements would – be but again this is going to be a give and take situation,” he told hosts Miranda Khan, John Cardillo, and Gina Loudon.

Vallely added he was also comfortable with Trump’s announcement the United States will halt military exercises with South Korea and Japan because they can easily be restarted if necessary.

“We still have the assets over there, so, while the exercises may stop, they can be renewed or reinvigorated at another time,” Vallely said.

“Keep in mind, we still have our forces in South Korea, we still have forces in Japan, a Marine division in Okinawa and the Seventh Fleet, so there are plenty of assets.

“So that’s why the cessation of joint exercises right now – [exercises] which I’ve been a part of at least four different times – is not going to make a difference.”

Additionally, Vallely said he was impressed with the Hollywood-style video Trump showed Kim extolling the possible development of the North Korean coastline. The four-minute presentation showed part of the heavily developed Miami Beach skyline, which Trump told reporters could potentially happen along the beaches of North Korea.

“A picture is worth a thousand words,” Vallely said. “Just one minute of that video can influence people dramatically. So, I think it was a good move.”



Reporters were shown a video ahead of Donald Trump’s press conference in Singapore, which the US president said he had played it to Kim Jong-un and his aides toward the end of their talks. It was made by Destiny Productions and was presented in Korean and English in the style of an action movie trailer.