ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Frederick Douglass called freedom of speech “the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they, first of all, strike down. They know its power.”

Back in the day, tyrants could gag those they ruled, but in free nations people were free, their rights protected. Once Alexander Solzhenitsyn arrived in America, once Natan Sharansky was in Israel, the Kremlin could silence them no more.

Today, tyrants are increasing their reach, attempting, not without successes, to restrict speech everywhere.

What brings this to mind: As a congressional staffer, a scholar at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction at the U.S. National Security Council, Richard Goldberg has for years been making the case for a “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign on the rulers of the Islamic Republic of Iran in response to their illicit nuclear weapons program, sponsorship of terrorism and domestic oppression.

So last week Iran’s rulers announced they were “sanctioning” Mr. Goldberg, who is now back at FDD. A year ago, they “sanctioned” FDD in general and, by name, FDD’s Mark Dubowitz, a recognized expert on the Tehran regime, and international economic statecraft, calling them “the designing and executing arm of the U.S. administration” on Iran policy.

Since FDD isn’t contemplating opening an office in Tehran, and no FDD employees plan on vacationing in Shiraz anytime soon, such sanctions may appear symbolic. But they carry a threat. This was made explicit in the statement accompanying the 2019 designations: “[T]his measure will be without prejudice to any further legal measures that the other administrative, judicial or security institutions and organizations may take in order to counter, prosecute or punish” FDD.

How serious is this threat to “punish” (which led to bipartisan condemnation, including from Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton administration officials)?

According to the U.S. State Department, the theocratic regime’s overseas “campaign of terror has included as many as 360 targeted assassinations” in more than 40 countries. “Iran leverages its well-earned reputation for extrajudicial killings to try to silence civil society through death threats against activists, dissidents, and journalists.”

One definition of war: the use of violence to impose one’s will on others. It is within that context that such murders should be viewed. Iran’s rulers won a pivotal battle back in 1989 when Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie, British author of “The Satanic Verses.”

One can only imagine how differently history might have unfolded had the response of free nations been robust; had they, for example, recalled their ambassadors from Tehran and sent the regime’s envoys packing. Instead, only the U.K. broke diplomatic relations, and only for about a year.

The tyrants of the world learned a lesson. A report by the British Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament, about which I wrote last month, estimates that 14 Russian dissidents have been murdered on British soil over recent years.

The rulers of North Korea and China have found nefarious ways to limit speech critical of them, intimidating and manipulating what we might otherwise consider powerful and independent individuals in Hollywood, professional sports, and the news media.

The crime for which Tehran has found Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Dubowitz, and FDD guilty is “economic terrorism against the interests” of the Iranian government and citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In part, this is an attempt to strike a blow for false moral equivalence. Tehran has long been designated by the United States — Republican and Democratic administrations alike — as the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.

One example: According to the French government, the Iranian intelligence ministry was behind a 2018 plot to bomb a large gathering of Iranian opposition supporters in Paris. “This extremely serious act envisaged on our territory could not go without a response,” read a rare joint statement from France’s interior, foreign and economy ministers. In truth, their response — e.g. freezing the assets of two suspected Iranian intelligence operatives — barely amounted to a slap on the wrist.

More to the point: Equating the murder of dissidents with the imposition of economic sanctions on murderers is risible. The United States has a right — as does any nation — to decide with whom it will and will not maintain commercial relations. As for other countries and the corporations based in those countries, they are free to choose to do business with America or with those who vow “Death to America!” Establishing that they may not do both hardly qualifies as terrorism.

This raises an interesting policy question. For decades, it was widely believed that treating tyrants as respected “stakeholders” in the “international community,” trading with them, providing them aid, welcoming their participation into international organizations, and getting them to sign multilateral treaties would put them on a path to liberalization. That belief, we now know — or should now know — was misplaced.

Perhaps the free nations of the world might consider an alternative: building their own international communities based on comprehensive free trade agreements, while leaving the rogue regimes to manage on their own.

Disabusing ourselves of the comforting notion that commerce and engagement are transformative also should make clear why it is essential that free nations maintain defensive capabilities and mutual defense alliances sufficient to deter adversaries. Bellicose regimes we cannot deter; we will need to defeat. (How do the isolationists and “restrainers” not get this?)

Finally, we should always support, as much as we can, those fighting for freedom and human rights in foreign lands, in the hope that sooner or later they emancipate themselves. “The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” Frederick Douglass said that, too.

• Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Source: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/aug/11/tyrants-including-rulers-of-iran-china-and-north-k/

The post Tyrants, including rulers of Iran, China and North Korea, threaten free speech in all countries first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

The meeting to discuss the Islamic Republic will be attended by the heads of state of the UN Security Council’s members. As it holds the presidency of the Security Council for this month, the US has the leverage to direct talks toward specific topics and in a specific direction, which is deemed critical.

Without a doubt, the US decision to lead a meeting on Iran is a blow to the theocratic establishment. The timing is significant because it coincides with the 73^rd session of the UN General Assembly.

As a result, Iranian leaders from across the political spectrum have been enraged. Messages from several hardline and moderate leaders echoed what Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter: “There’s only one UNSC resolution on Iran. Donald Trump is violating it and bullying others to do same.” Zarif added: “Now he (Trump) plans to abuse presidency of SC to divert a session — item devoted to Palestine for 70 years — to blame Iran for horrors US and clients have unleashed across the Middle East.”

First of all, Iran’s accusation that the US is abusing its presidency is absurd. The presidency of the Security Council rotates among its members every month and the role of the president is to examine the secretary general’s provisional agenda, to approve it, to preside over meetings, to speak to the press as a representative of the Security Council, and to discuss any other major global crisis or conflict.

Shouldn’t Iran’s destabilizing behavior and military adventurism across the Middle East be one of the topics discussed by the Security Council?

Considering the Iranian regime’s involvement in terrorism, support for militias and human rights violations, its leaders should not be surprised the US wants to discuss their government at the United Nations.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

Iran’s reckless drive to extend its influence throughout the region provides Syria’s Bashar Assad with extremist reinforcements, it funds the weapons he needs to massacre Syrian civilians, drive millions of Syrians from their homes, and turn city after city into wastelands. None of those resources have been turned on Daesh.

In Yemen, Houthi rebels armed and financed by Iran spread death and destruction. In Iraq, militias led by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps incite sectarian strife and thwart efforts by the central government to unite the nation in a campaign to isolate and drive out Daesh. The Iranian leaders have even frequently boasted about currently controlling four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.

With respect to human rights and global terrorism, the Iranian regime is top in the world when it comes to the number of executions per capita, is the world’s leading executioner of juveniles — according to Amnesty International — and is the top state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Shouldn’t the brutal activities of such a regime be at least one of the topics discussed in the UN body?

Secondly, it is ironic that the Iranian leaders are accusing the US or other regional powers of bullying nations to turn against Tehran.

Since its establishment in 1979, one of the fundamental pillars of the Islamic Republic has been linked to Ruhollah Khomeini’s revolutionary principle of undermining the US and Gulf states, as well as threatening any state or non-state actor that the Iranian leaders perceive to be an ally of Washington or the likes of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain.

Iran has not solely relied on political posturing or incendiary rhetoric. Tehran has resorted to asymmetrical warfare and terrorist attacks, as well as the assassinations of those who disagree with the regime.

While several of Iran’s plans, such as a plot to assassinate Riyadh’s ambassador to Washington, have failed, many other measures succeeded in significantly scuttling foreign policy objectives and damaging the national security of the US and its allies. Examples of such schemes with the direct or indirect involvement of Iran’s leadership include the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the Riyadh compound bombings of 2003, the suicide bombing in Lebanon in 1983 that killed 241 American servicemen, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, as well as involvement in the 9/11 attacks on the US mainland in 2001. In 1994, it carried out the bombing of a Jewish community center in Argentina, which is still under investigation.

Taking into consideration the regime’s deep involvement in terrorism, support for militias and terrorist groups, as well as human rights violations, Iranian leaders must not be surprised that the US wants to discuss their government at the UN Security Council.

But, by investing significant political and financial capital, the ruling ayatollahs have long pressured the international community into turning a blind eye to Iran’s foreign policy.

To confront the Iranian regime’s threat to the region and the world, the international community must cut off the flow of funds and forces from Tehran. This means that discussing the Iranian regime’s destructive behavior and military adventurism in the region ought to be on the top of the UN Security Council’s agenda.

• Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a Harvard-educated Iranian-American political scientist. He is a leading expert on Iran and US foreign policy, a businessman and president of the International American Council. Twitter: @Dr_Rafizadeh

The post Iran should be top of UN Security Council’s agenda first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.