Killing of Haniyeh highlights Israel's deep intel and operational sway in Iran

This report meticulously documents atrocities committed by the Iran’s Islamic government over the past four decades, underscoring that these heinous acts are not forgotten and that there remains a persistent and determined pursuit of justice and accountability for the victims and their families.

Rehman's report serves as a historical record and a critical call to action for the international community. It urges global actors to support mechanisms that ensure accountability and prevent further human rights violations.

By highlighting the systematic nature of these abuses and the enduring struggle for justice, the report emphasizes the need for sustained international pressure and support for Iranian human rights defenders. Importantly, the report underscores the necessity of involving survivors and witnesses in justice. Rehman points out the Iranian government's concerted efforts to destroy evidence, such as mass graves, and suppress the truth. Despite these challenges, the resilience of victims' families and human rights activists has ensured that these atrocities remain in the public consciousness.

The report highlights the systematic human rights violations and atrocities committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) since the 1980s, including the infamous 1988 massacre of political prisoners. Rehman's detailed analysis points out that thousands of political prisoners were executed without fair trials, a dark chapter in Iran's history that has yet to see justice. The enduring suffering of the victims' families, who have been denied the truth about their loved ones' fates, is a stark reminder of Tehran’s ongoing repression.

Had the international community addressed these atrocities when they occurred, subsequent human rights violations by the IRI might have been mitigated, the report emphasizes. The regime's impunity has only emboldened it to continue its repressive tactics. By documenting these historical abuses and connecting them to contemporary issues, Rehman provides a comprehensive overview of the IRI's long-standing patterns of human rights violations.

The success of Rehman's report results from years of dedicated activism and meticulous fact-gathering by human rights organizations and activists. These organizations have played crucial roles in documenting abuses, collecting testimonies, and advocating for justice. Their relentless efforts have laid the groundwork for Rehman to present a compelling case for crimes against humanity and genocide committed by the IRI.

Among these pivotal organizations, the Rastyad Collective stands out for its groundbreaking research and meticulous documentation of human rights abuses in Iran. Their comprehensive study on the 1981 massacre in post-revolutionary Iran has unveiled the systematic nature of state violence and its enduring impact on the nation's legal foundations. The Rastyad Collective's anonymous researchers have bravely gathered evidence on the ground, often at great personal risk, documenting over 3,500 executions across 85 cities. Their work sheds light on the tragic fate of many, including the execution of 103 children. It confirms that the 1981 massacre occurred within a legal vacuum, with the state resorting to extra-legal means of violence to assert control.

By meticulously examining the events surrounding the massacre, the Rastyad Collective has highlighted how these egregious acts of state violence were used to instill fear and consolidate power. Their research has been crucial in understanding the development of Iran's theocratic regime and its legal framework, revealing how the 1981 atrocities have shaped the ongoing human rights landscape in Iran.

Javaid Rehman's July 2024 report is a testament to the power of persistent activism and the critical role of comprehensive, evidence-based reporting in the fight for human rights. It represents a significant victory for those who have long sought justice for the victims of the IRI's atrocities. The report not only brings to light the historical abuses but also highlights the ongoing struggle for accountability in Iran.

The international community must heed Rehman's call to action. By supporting efforts to hold the Iran’s Islamic government accountable, the global community can help ensure that the victims and their families receive the justice they deserve. The report serves as a powerful reminder that the fight for human rights is ongoing, and that the pursuit of justice must continue unabated. Activists from other countries should emulate the Iranian model, continuing to document the crimes of their brutal regimes and never losing sight of hope.

These protests were particularly significant in the United States, home to the largest Iranian community outside of Iran.

The Biden administration has inexplicably allowed Tehran to establish over 30 polling stations across the United States, and it seems that the polls will continue for the second round. This decision is fundamentally flawed, as it legitimizes an undemocratic process, ignores robust opposition from Iranian democracy activists, and disregards US values and security interests.

Iranian elections are notoriously undemocratic. The US State Department has openly admitted that it does not expect the upcoming election to be "free or fair." In Iran, the electoral process is tightly controlled by the Guardian Council, which vets candidates to ensure they align with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's ideology. This leaves no real choice for the Iranian people, as only those loyal to the core of the regime are allowed to run. Even within Iran, there is significant apathy and distrust towards the electoral process.

From the outset, even government surveys revealed that over 73% of Iranians did not watch the first presidential debate, highlighting the populace's distrust and disengagement. This was later corroborated by the results of the first round, where the government announced a 39.92 percent turnout, prompting both candidates, Masoud Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili, who advanced to the second round, to admit during their first one-on-one debate.

Khamenei views high voter turnout as a source of legitimacy for his regime. He has stated that every vote "increases the credibility and immunity" of the Islamic Republic. However, this so-called legitimacy is built on a foundation of repression and violence and denying the Iranian people the right to elect their leaders freely. Over the past six years, nearly 3,000 protesters have been killed, and tens of thousands have been arrested. The regime employs brutal tactics, such as blinding protesters with shotgun birdshots and carrying out chemical attacks on girls' schools, to maintain control.

Many Iranian Americans maintain that the US should stand with the Iranian people, who have repeatedly expressed their desire for change through protests and boycotts of sham elections. Many groups in Iran, including the Mourning Mothers, political activists, student and civil society organizations, and political prisoners, have called for a boycott of these elections, risking their safety to do so. By allowing these polling stations, the U.S. is inadvertently legitimizing a fraudulent system and ignoring the struggles of the Iranian people.

The Islamic Republic uses the participation of expatriates to whitewash its crimes and justify its rule. Former Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has pointed to voter turnout, including from those abroad, as evidence of the regime's legitimacy. This is deceptive, as the regime is desperate for legitimacy. According to their own statistics, the majority of Iranians abstained in the last four elections since 2020. Furthermore, the regime's international image has suffered significantly due to its involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, the nuclear program crisis, and repression at home.

Canada has set a precedent by refusing to allow the Iranian government to set up polling stations on its soil for the past three elections. Despite not having formal diplomatic relations or an embassy, Canada has taken a principled stand in support of its Iranian-Canadian population and against the regime's propaganda. The US should follow Canada’s example and deny the Islamic Republic this platform.

Tehran has a history of using its embassies and consulates as bases for soft power expansion, propaganda dissemination, and monitoring of dissidents. Recently, a staff member at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington, DC, threatened an Iranian dissident with death, illustrating the regime's dangerous activities on US soil. Allowing polling stations could provide cover for further such activities.

The decision to allow polling stations in the United States is misguided and dangerous. The Biden administration responded to criticism by stating that both the Trump and Biden administrations granted permissions in recent elections, implying that this is not a new practice. However, past practices do not justify continued wrongs, especially given the changing realities in Iran. The uprisings of 2017, November 2019, and the 2021 "Women, Life, Freedom" movement, where people chanted "Reformist, principlist, the game is over," calling for the regime's overthrow, illustrate a clear shift in the Iranian people's stance.

Allowing these polling stations lends undue legitimacy to a repressive regime and poses security risks. The US must reconsider this decision and take a firm stand against Tehran’s efforts to exploit American soil for its propaganda and control. By doing so, the US would not only uphold its democratic values but also support the Iranian people's quest for freedom and justice.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International

A recent poll by Gamaan reveals that only 22% of respondents intend to vote, while 65% plan to abstain, and 12% remain undecided. This significant potential drop in voter participation underscores a growing recognition among Iranians that elections under the Islamic Republic are neither free nor fair.

Since establishing the Islamic Republic in 1979, the Guardian Council has exercised significant control over who can run for office. This body, comprising clerics and jurists loyal to the Supreme Leader, routinely disqualifies candidates deemed insufficiently loyal to the regime.

Notably, even former presidents like Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hassan Rouhani, and prominent figures such as former parliament speaker Ali Larijani have been disqualified.

This pattern illustrates the Council's stringent criteria that exclude not only dissidents but also high-ranking insiders who fall out of favor. Moreover, the Council's exclusion extends to women and non-Shi'a men, who are categorically barred from running for president. These practices ensure that only those who unequivocally support the regime's ideological and political goals can compete, transforming elections into formalities designed to maintain the status quo rather than reflect the people's will.

Over the years, voter turnout in Iran has steadily declined. The 2021 presidential election saw the lowest turnout in the country's history, officially with only 48.8% of eligible voters participating. This trend was seen as a clear indicator of public disillusionment with the electoral process, as many Iranians increasingly view elections as futile exercises in legitimizing authoritarian rule.

William J. Dobson, in his book, “The Dictator’s Learning Curve: Inside the Global Battle for Democracy,” argues that modern dictators have learned to adapt and refine their methods of control and repression, using less overtly violent methods. Instead, they employ tactics like censorship, legal manipulation, co-optation of opposition, and economic control. While the 20th-century dictators imprisoned, tortured, and executed their opponents, the 21st-century dictators prefer the voting system and the ballot box to achieve their goals.

A common tactic the regime uses is creating a strawman candidate to manipulate public perception. Candidate Saeed Jalili, a hardliner close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, is presented as the Supreme Leader's favorite. Figures like Mohammad Javad Zarif, former foreign minister, then speak against Jalili, warning the public of the dangers of his potential win and urging them to vote for Masoud Pezeshkian, who is portrayed as a moderate alternative. However, this facade hides the reality that all significant decisions are made by Khamenei, and the president holds no real power. Pezeshkian does not identify as a reformist and repeatedly affirms his loyalty to Khamenei. This strategy aims to convince disgruntled voters that there is an acceptable alternative (Pezeshkian) to the imminent danger (Jalili).

Javad Zarif has worked in the Islamic Republic's foreign ministry since 1981 and has been a key architect of the failed JCPOA. Throughout his career, he has consistently justified and covered up the regime's atrocities on the world stage through lies, deception, and fallacy. Zarif attacked women's rights activist Masih Alinejad, calling her a traitor, and has shown no respect for women's rights, akin to the Taliban but dressed in suits. He uses "cultural relativism" to justify crushing dissent and human rights violations by the gender-apartheid Islamic regime. The bloodiest crackdown in Iran took place under so-called “reformist” President Hassan Rouhani and his chief propagandist Javad Zarif when 1,500 civilians were killed in just a few days in November 2019. Zarif's role in dismissing and ridiculing the slaughter of innocent Iranians highlights his complicity in the regime's crimes.

Additionally, candidate Mostafa Pour Mohammadi, a member of the “death commission” involved in the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, exemplifies the regime's brutal history. On August 28, 2016, referring to media reports about the mass prisoner killings and his involvement in them, Mostafa Pour Mohammadi said: “We are proud to have carried out God’s commandment concerning the [MEK]… I am at peace and have not lost any sleep all these years because I acted in accordance with law and Islam.”

Conversely, opposition groups, including secular democracy advocates, human rights activists, and political pundits, argue that meaningful change can only come through the complete overhaul of the current system. The regime's brutal crackdown on dissent, exemplified by the November 2019 protests where 1,500 civilians were killed, and the 2022 uprising of Woman-Life-Freedom has only strengthened this resolve​​ (The Times of Israel)​​.

The opposition's fight is not just against the regime's repressive tactics but also against the narrative that participating in the elections can bring about change. This perspective is echoed by many Iranians who have taken to the streets in protest, demanding an end to the Islamic Republic. The regime's oppressive actions, such as the imprisonment and torture of political dissidents, suppression of women's rights, and extensive censorship, have further alienated the populace.

Iranian citizens are increasingly aware that their participation in elections is being used to legitimize a system that oppresses them. The declining voter turnout reflects a broader disillusionment with the regime's promises of reform. As one protester aptly put it, voting is ignoring others' suffering and pain. This sentiment captures the frustration and anger of a populace that feels betrayed by a government that uses elections to perpetuate its rule rather than to reflect the people's will.

Drawing from Dobson’s insights, the international community must listen to the voices of the Iranian people and support their struggle for true democracy and human rights. The importance of international solidarity and support for democratic movements cannot be overstated. Like before, the upcoming election is neither free nor fair. Instead, it serves as a reminder of Iran's ongoing fight for justice and freedom.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International.

This exchange, involving the release of Johan Floders, a Swedish diplomat, and Saeed Azizi, a dual-citizen, underscores Tehran’s mastery in leveraging “hostage diplomacy” to further its agenda.

Nouri was convicted for his role in the 1988 massacre of political prisoners, an event that saw thousands executed on the orders of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. His trial and subsequent conviction in Sweden were recognized as a significant step for international justice. However, his return to Iran in a political exchange undermines these achievements and could potentially embolden other regimes globally.

The decision by Sweden to acquiesce to Iran’s demands sends a message that hostage-taking can be perceived as an effective strategy. Sweden’s decision may encourage more kidnappings and unlawful detentions. This development could embolden not only Iran but also other regimes and organizations, demonstrating that democratic nations can be coerced into compromising their principles and judicial decisions. By negotiating Nouri’s return, Sweden has compromised the integrity of international justice and signaled that political considerations can override judicial outcomes.

Iranian government’s tactics are not new. Since its establishment, the clerical regime has shown a willingness to use extreme measures to achieve its goals, including the suppression of political dissidents and the use of state-sponsored violence. The 1988 massacre is one of the most egregious examples of this, with over 5,000 political prisoners executed in a matter of two months. By negotiating Nouri’s return, Sweden has not only failed the victims of these atrocities but also risked the safety of individuals and the stability of international relations.

A historical precedent that underscores the danger of such concessions is the Mykonos trial in Germany. On September 17, 1992, four Iranian-Kurdish dissidents were murdered. The court concluded that the highest levels of the Iranian government, including then-President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, had approved the assassinations. The trial also exposed the involvement of Iran's embassy in Germany and its diplomats, such as Seyed Hossein Mousavian. This trial highlighted the extent to which the Islamic Republic (IRI) would go to silence its opponents, even on foreign soil.

Despite the significant verdict in the Mykonos trial, Germany eventually sent back one of the convicted perpetrators, Darabi, to Iran after 15 years in prison. His return was celebrated by the government in Iran, where he was interviewed by state media and published a book. This action emboldened the IRI, leading to renewed threats against the Iranian diaspora and terrorist activities in Europe. This concession nullified the EU's agreement to halt such activities with Iran.

A glaring example of this renewed aggression was the case of Assadollah Assadi, an Iranian diplomat arrested on June 10, 2018, in Germany. Assadi was accused of involvement in an attempted bombing at a gathering of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Villepinte, north of Paris. Although Assadi was entitled to diplomatic immunity in Austria, his country of posting, he did not have immunity on German soil. Despite Iran's objections, which claimed the detention violated international law and the 1961 Vienna Convention, Assadi was arrested while returning to Austria, highlighting ongoing concerns regarding state-sponsored terror activities.

Assadi was extradited to Belgium, where the conspiracy had been taking shape and eventually convicted, but in May 2023 Brussels decided to exchange him with another hostage. Iran released Belgian aid worker Olivier Vandecasteele, who had been incarcerated in Tehran for nearly 15 months.

This pattern of using hostage-taking as an act of terror was further exemplified on October 7, when Hamas, a group backed by the IRI, kidnapped more than 200 Israelis, including civilians, women, children, and the elderly, and took them to Gaza. This violation of the rules of combat shows the extent to which such groups are willing to go, knowing they can use innocent lives as bargaining chips in negotiations. This act underscores the dangerous precedent set by Sweden’s decision and the emboldening of regimes and organizations to continue such practices.

Sweden’s decision to return Hamid Nouri, despite his conviction for crimes against humanity, risks emboldening the IRI further. It indicates to other regimes that such activities might not face significant consequences. The Mykonos trial and subsequent events should have served as warnings and calls to action for stricter measures against state-sponsored terrorism. Yet, recent developments suggest that lessons from the past have not been fully heeded.

The international community must take a firm stance against hostage diplomacy. This involves refusing to negotiate with regimes that use such tactics, imposing stringent sanctions, and taking diplomatic action against them. Furthermore, democratic nations must collaborate to ensure that perpetrators of crimes against humanity face justice, regardless of political pressures. This means upholding the principles of universal jurisdiction and supporting judicial decisions made in good faith and through fair legal processes.

The opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International

The IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution urging Iran to increase its cooperation with the agency and reverse actions that have hindered inspectors, despite concerns that Tehran might respond with further atomic escalation. This resolution, drafted by the European troika, Britain, France and Germany known as E3, and reluctantly supported by the US, passed with 20 votes in favor, two against (Russia and China), and 12 abstentions.

In his remarks in May, IAEA head Rafael Grossi had raised alarms over Iran's threats to develop nuclear weapons while expressing hope for serious dialogue. This juxtaposition highlights a critical issue: Iran has a history of using negotiations as a strategic tool to advance its nuclear capabilities, extract concessions, and avoid punitive measures, all while continuing its covert operations and support for militant groups.

Over the past 30 years, Iran's negotiation strategy has been marked by deception and delay. Every diplomatic engagement with the West has been leveraged to buy time, stop damning UN resolutions for human rights violations, enhance its nuclear technology, and gain economic and political concessions without genuinely abandoning its nuclear ambitions.

In the early 2000s, revelations about undeclared nuclear facilities in Natanz and Arak triggered international concern and led to negotiations. However, Iran's responses were characterized by stalling tactics. While Tehran engaged in talks (in 2000s and 2010s) and agreed to suspend uranium enrichment temporarily, it simultaneously continued covert activities and expanded its nuclear infrastructure. These negotiations provided Iran with the breathing room needed to develop its capabilities further while presenting a facade of cooperation.

Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian nuclear negotiator, provides an illustrative example of this tactic in a 2005 interview with Iran's National TV. Mousavian explained that in 2003, Iran faced a 50-day ultimatum to suspend its enrichment activities. Instead of complying, Iran entered into negotiations with the IAEA and Europe, which extended the deadline and bought Iran two years to complete its projects in Esfahan and Natanz. During this period, Iran advanced its nuclear capabilities, gained permission to join the World Trade Organization (WTO), and secured international guarantees for its security, national sovereignty, non-intervention in its internal affairs, and protection against invasion. (Minute 15:37 to End)

Another example of this strategy has been particularly evident in the context of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and other diplomatic efforts. The JCPOA, signed in 2015, was hailed as a landmark achievement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. However, even during these negotiations, Iran's intentions were suspect. The deal provided Iran with significant economic relief and lifting of sanctions, yet evidence suggests that Iran continued to advance its nuclear research and missile programs clandestinely.

In 2018, stolen Iranian nuclear documents seized by Israeli intelligence demonstrated that Iran's nuclear program was more extensive than previously known, with plans to build up to five nuclear weapons. These revelations highlighted Iran's strategy of deception and its efforts to advance its nuclear capabilities under the guise of peaceful purposes. These documents prove that even before President Trump exited the JCPOA, Iran was dishonest about its nuclear activities. Also, it continued developing its nuclear capabilities, building missiles, and arming militant groups in the Middle East, some listed by other countries as terrorist organizations.

The repercussions of these activities were starkly evident in the October 7 attack on Israel, the Houthi disruptions of vessels in the Red Sea, and the Hezbollah attacks on Israel from Lebanon. The international community's response has been mixed, with European countries often seeking to salvage the deal through concessions, inadvertently reinforcing Iran's strategy of using negotiations to gain time and advantages.

Notably, Iran's nuclear negotiators, such as Mousavian and Javad Zarif, were trained by Ali Akbar Velayati, who has regularly expressed a deep-seated animosity toward the West and its liberal values and has been one of the main figures in Iran's foreign policy for the past four decades.

Many of these negotiators lived and studied in the West, gaining a profound understanding of Western political dynamics and strategies. Iran's negotiators are well-versed in the concept of carrot and stick, frequently employing it against Western countries: threatening to enrich uranium and develop nuclear weapons while simultaneously calling for negotiations, seeking sanctions relief, and demanding a more significant influence in the Middle East. This approach leverages both intimidation and diplomacy to advance Iran's geopolitical goals, increasing its bargaining power.

This malevolence is evident in the recommendations of Saeed Jalili, a former nuclear negotiator, who advocated for Iran to abandon efforts to revive the JCPOA. He suggested that Iran should begin enriching uranium to 90 percent purity and then engage in direct negotiations with the United States to obtain necessary concessions.

Mousavian echoed this sentiment, stating that when the pressure is too high and the consequences too severe, Iran should move directly toward developing a nuclear bomb. They hold a powerful card, knowing that Europeans are opposed to war between the US and Iran and that the US is unlikely to launch a costly attack on Iran. Thus, Iran uses its proxies to create mayhem in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Israel, and Lebanon, supplies missiles and drones to Russia for use against Ukraine, plans terror attacks against Iranians in the diaspora, and simultaneously demands negotiations.

A critical understanding of Iran's foreign policy reveals that, regardless of who holds the positions of president, foreign minister, or negotiator, the ultimate authority lies with the Supreme Leader, as outlined in the IRI constitution. This concentration of power means that meaningful concessions are only made under significant external pressure when the regime finds itself with no viable alternatives. This dynamic underscores the international community's need to maintain a firm stance, applying consistent pressure to elicit genuine cooperation from the Supreme Leader, since all past negotiations only succeeded when the pressure was too high and the Supreme Leader feared losing power.

Iran’s negotiation history clearly shows a strategy not driven by a genuine desire for peace or cooperation. Instead, it is a calculated effort to advance its nuclear ambitions, secure concessions, and avoid punitive measures. The international community must recognize this pattern of bad faith and respond with increased vigilance and accountability.

Western nations and international bodies should enforce stringent verification measures, maintain robust sanctions, and support regional allies threatened by Iran's destabilizing actions. A firm and united approach is essential to prevent Iran from exploiting diplomacy to further its rogue policies and nuclear ambitions. By understanding and addressing Iran’s deceptive tactics, the global community can better safeguard peace and stability.

Opinions expressed by the author are not necessarily the views of Iran International