Scenarios of the Past and Future for Iran: U.S. Options
On Thursday, 30 July 2009, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) held a Congressional briefing for Members of Congress and their staffs, the press, and the general public to discuss 2009 election unrest in Iraq and the attack by Iraqi Security Forces on Iranian dissidents in Iraq.
According to IPC President and former member of the National Security Council Staff at the White House, Professor Raymond Tanter, “The main similarity between the 1979 Iranian Revolution and events of 2009 is that the people wanted and want regime change, respectively, not just an alteration in policies or personnel. The principal difference: In 1978, the Street brought down the Shah from within with some inadvertent political support from the United States; in 2009, it is less the Street and more lack of regime unity in face of a cycle of demonstrations and repression that could spell the end of clerical rule in Iran.”
Prof. Tanter continued, “President Obama leaves the door open for direct talks with Tehran in face of its suppression of Iranian oppositionists. But now is not the time to engage the clerics, given their violent repression of the Iranian people. If President Obama extends a warm hand toward the clerical-military rulers after they assassinated protesting Iranians like Neda, he is likely to wind up with warm blood on his hands. Business as usual is unseemly in the face of cold-blooded murder.”
Dr. Kenneth Katzman, Middle East specialist for the Congressional Research Service said, “[President of Iran] Ahmadinejad is very much off balance and his support base is evaporating rapidly. Former allies are deserting him and he is now in an open dispute with the Supreme Leader. He is going to likely have major difficulty obtaining Majlis [parliamentary] approval of a full cabinet. There is now a substantial and growing chance that he could be impeached by the Majlis or the Supreme Judicial Council, and that the Supreme Leader would ratify his removal as president.”
Dr. Katzman continued, “A special election could provide reformists with another chance to prove their electoral strength, although it is likely that a moderate conservative such as Ali Larijani or Mohammad Baqr Qalibaf might run, and conceivably win. A new election would help Iran’s regime overcome its current crisis of authority.”
According to R. Bruce McColm, President of the Institute for Democratic Strategies, IPC Board of Directors, “Within a day after the election, the armed forces of Iran said they would not get involved in the domestic situation or be used against the demonstrators; but the head of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) openly backed Ahmadinejad — something prohibited by law. Several IRGC commanders were arrested when demonstrations started because they refused to get involved in the repression. One leading commander was arrested for arranging a secret meeting with other officers.”
McColm described the Iraqi police attack on Iranian dissident in Camp Ashraf, Iraq: “A four month siege by Iraqi Forces at the behest of Tehran is ending tragically. It was the Baghdad Brigade of 2,000 and the Iraqi police that invaded Ashraf. Seven dead, 400 injured at this hour, 85 disappeared, and the leadership of the main Iranian dissident organization arrested. Several people are in comas — the wounded are being prevented from receiving medical attention. While the U.S. military medical facility is only minutes away, the Americans seem to be uninvolved.”
McColm concluded that, “Because the United States military has played a monitoring role over the Iranian dissidents to ensure their security as ‘protected persons,’ Washington could be implicated in any war crimes or human rights violations that befall them as they are assaulted in their homes.”
Regarding the plight of Iranian dissidents in Ashraf, Iraq, IPC President and former member of the National Security Council Staff at the White House, Professor Raymond Tanter told of his visit to Iraq in October 2008 to conduct interviews with Iraqis. Tanter reported that, “Both Sunni and Shiite Arab leaders said how they feared an assault by Iraqi Security Forces on the unarmed Iranian civilian Iranian dissidents in Iraq. Iraqis stated that if the people of Ashraf are harmed by Baghdad, it will be to serve the interests of Tehran.”
Commenting on the “assurances” Baghdad would ensure the safety of the people of Ashraf, Steven Schneebaum, an attorney who represents Iranian Americans with family members in Ashraf, stated that, “Washington received assurances that Iraqis would not enter Ashraf with lethal force, but the Iraqis used such force entering Ashraf. Despite the statement of General Ray Odierno, Commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq that the Iraqis had used only ‘non-lethal force’ entering Ashraf, deaths and injuries are indications of lethal force.”
Attorney Schneebaum concluded by stating that, “It is odd that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton criticized the Iranian regime for mistreatment of Iranians demonstrating in opposition to the clerical regime in Tehran, but she failed to criticize Baghdad for using lethal force against Iranian dissidents in Iraq.”
Source: Iran Policy Committee
Stronger Action Needed to Accelerate Lifesaving Safety Belt Laws in States
Today 20 States – Nearly 25 Percent of U.S. Population – Still not Covered by Primary Belt Laws a Quarter Century after First State Law Adoption
More work is needed if lifesaving primary safety belt enforcement laws are to continue spreading across the United States, said two organizations working to get 20 “hold-out” states to adopt the important legislation. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the National Safety Council made the comments today – just days after the 25th anniversary of New York adopting the groundbreaking legislation – as they reaffirmed their support for proposed federal legislation that would condition Highway Trust Fund money awards on whether a state enacts primary enforcement legislation.
Primary enforcement laws allow officers to stop and cite a motorist for not wearing a safety belt without observing an additional traffic violation. Strengthening these laws to primary status so they can be enforced like virtually all other traffic laws has been shown to increase usage rates to as much as 98 percent. Although more states than ever now have primary enforcement laws, nearly 25 percent of the country’s population is still not covered.
“We’ve made tremendous progress,” said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers President and CEO Dave McCurdy. “The bonus incentive program included in the 2005 surface transportation bill resulted in 13 states passing primary enforcement laws, expanding coverage of these life-saving measures by nearly 90 million more Americans.”
“This year alone, Arkansas, Florida, Minnesota and Wisconsin passed primary belt laws, bringing the total to 30 states along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico,” McCurdy added. “That brings this important coverage to 76 percent of the U.S. population.”
The proposed House Surface Transportation Authorization would withhold a percentage of Highway Trust Fund monies, beginning in October 2012, from states that do not enact these lifesaving laws, a proposal supported by the Alliance and the NSC.
“The provisions to increase primary seat belt use, included in the draft House bill, are necessary components of the next Transportation Reauthorization Act,” said Janet Froetscher, President and CEO of the National Safety Council. “We thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member Mica and the members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their leadership in including these lifesaving provisions in the bill.”
States with primary enforcement laws have higher usage rates. Of the 15 jurisdictions (13 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that had belt usage rates of 90 percent or higher in 2008, 14 have primary enforcement laws. Additionally, increased safety belt use by adults provides younger passengers with a positive example, encouraging them to be restrained as well.
“Studies show that crash fatalities could be prevented if more states enacted and enforced primary belt laws,” McCurdy said. “Expanding primary enforcement laws to more states, and increasing usage rates is a straightforward way to save many lives – estimated to be nearly 1,700 annually – that are claimed in the nation’s highway motor vehicle traffic crashes.”
Figures from 2008 show that nationally, 83 percent of vehicle occupants used safety belts during daylight hours. Safety belts are estimated to save over 15,000 lives annually and help reduce the financial burden of medical care on communities.
While there is progress, the present adoption rate would mean another two decades before citizens in all states are protected by primary enforcement laws.
“This month, as we observe the 25th anniversary of New York State adopting the country’s first state seat belt use law, we again stress the need to accelerate the adoption of these lifesaving laws,” McCurdy said.
Provisions for withholding a percentage of Highway Trust Fund monies from states have worked effectively to accelerate legislation and create uniform safety policy across all 50 states. Congress has used this approach previously to encourage states to adopt a minimum legal drinking age of 21 (1984), zero alcohol tolerance laws for youth under 21 (1995), and 0.08 percent per se blood alcohol content laws (2000).
Source: The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers