[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 70 (Wednesday, June 3, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1003-E1005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         THE SITUATION IN IRAN

                                 ______
                                 

                      HON. JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR.

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 3, 1998

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian government under President 
Mohammad Khatami remains a brutal and oppressive regime. Despite words 
of moderation and conciliation, the Iranian government continues to 
actively and aggressively sponsor international terrorism. It continues 
to brutally oppress the Iranian people. In today's Iran there is still 
no freedom of the press. Under the Khatami government, there is still 
no freedom of religion or freedom of speech. Human rights abuses 
continue unabated.
  On May 21st, a number of my colleagues in Congress held a press 
briefing in the Rayburn Building to discuss the prospects for change in 
Iran, and how U.S. policy should be shaped to encourage democracy and 
freedom in Iran. While I was unable to attend the briefing, I did 
release a written statement. In addition to Members of Congress, other 
distinguished experts participated in the briefing, including former 
U.S. Ambassador James Akins, who served in our nation's Foreign Service 
with great distinction from 1956 to 1976. Ambassador Akins spent much 
of his career in the Middle East in such places as Syria, Lebanon, 
Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. He is the author of numerous articles 
about the Middle East. He is now an international and economic 
consultant. I would like to insert into the Record the written remarks 
I prepared for the briefing, as well as the remarks made by Ambassador 
Akins.

Statement of the Honorable James A. Traficant, Jr., Briefing on ``U.S. 
     Policy Options & Prospects for Change in Iran'', May 21, 1998

       As we approach the one-year anniversary of Mohammad 
     Katami's election as President of Iran, it is appropriate to 
     assess how much Iran has changed over the past year, and how 
     U.S. policy should be shaped to encourage democracy and 
     freedom in Iran. While President Khatami has spoken quite 
     differently than his predecessor, Iran's actions both 
     domestically and internationally, have not materially 
     changed.
       Iran still supports international terrorism. Iran continues 
     to deny its people basic freedoms and human rights. Iran 
     continues to treat its women like cattle.
       There is chaos and conflict throughout the government. One 
     thing is clear--President Khatami may have--may have--good 
     intentions, but his good intentions have not yet resulted in 
     a change in Iran's behavior internationally or internally.
       Yet, our State Department continues to grope, hope and 
     search for moderates in the Iranian regime. Our State 
     Department continues to pursue a flawed policy of 
     appeasement. When will the State Department learn that the 
     moderates in the regime they are so desperately searching 
     for, don't exist!
       It's time for the State Department to recognize and support 
     those Iranians inside and outside Iran who are struggling on 
     behalf of a democratic and free Iran--including the Iranian 
     Resistance.
       The State Department's refusal to recognize the Resistance, 
     and their labeling the Resistance as a terrorist organization 
     is a travesty! Such a policy of appeasement and weakness 
     plays right into the hands of the terrorist strongmen ruling 
     Iran.
       Let me repeat: there are no moderates in the Iranian 
     government. Goodwill gestures from the U.S. will be perceived 
     by the Iranian regime as a sign of weakness. Such gestures 
     will achieve little, and will only embolden the Iranian 
     mullahs to continue their non-stop campaign of terror and 
     repression.
       Contrary to the hopes of the Clinton Administration, 
     Khatami's election last May has not resulted in any changes 
     in Iran's domestic or foreign policies. Iran still poses a 
     grave threat to U.S. security and world peace. Iran's ongoing 
     support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hizbollah 
     continues to threaten the Oslo Accords and other initiatives 
     to establish a lasting peace in the Middle East.
       Khatami's election has not halted or diminished Iran's 
     efforts to expand its arsenal

[[Page E1004]]

     of weapons of mass destruction, including the development of 
     ballistic missiles that could threaten Israel, Western Europe 
     and U.S. troops stationed overseas. Iran also continues its 
     covert efforts to develop nuclear weapons.
       Instead of trying to appease the Iran regime, the Clinton 
     Administration should adopt tough policies that make it clear 
     that the U.S. will not, in any shape or form, condone the 
     outlaw behavior of the mullahs. Such a policy should include 
     a real trade embargo, an all-out diplomatic offensive to get 
     our allies to abandon their appeasement policies and join the 
     U.S. in a total embargo of the Iranian regime, and open and 
     full support for those Iranians dedicated to the principles 
     of democracy, religious freedom and equality--including the 
     National Council of Resistance.
       The NCR has made remarkable and dramatic strides forward in 
     recent years. It has brought together Iranians from all walks 
     of life in a unified effort to bring democracy, freedom and 
     human rights to Iran. Like many groups struggling against a 
     repressive and cold-blooded regime, the NCR has evolved over 
     the years. It has undergone a number of dramatic changes.
       Let there be no illusions about how seriously the Iranian 
     regime takes the threat to their rule posed by the NCR. All 
     over the world, members of the Resistance have been 
     assassinated by the regime. If, as the regime claims, the NCR 
     does not have any support inside Iran, why does the regime 
     continue to go to such great lengths to assassinate 
     Resistance leaders? Why does the regime go to such great 
     lengths to discredit and undermine the Resistance? It is 
     because the Iranian Resistance has real and deep support--
     both inside Iran and among those Iranians living in exile.
       Instead of employing a gross and outrageous double 
     standard, the U.S. government should officially recognize and 
     support the Iranian Resistance and other groups struggling 
     for freedom in Iran. History shows that the worst way to deal 
     with a dictatorship is through appeasement. Just ask Neville 
     Chamberlain.
                                  ____


                           The ``New'' Iran--

       For a quarter of a century from the early 1950's when the 
     CIA restored him to his throne until the late 1970's our 
     policy was one of unconditional support for Shah Mohammad 
     Reza Pahlevi. Along with Turkey and Israel, Iran became one 
     of the ``pillars of our defense'' in the Middle East. Our 
     diplomats, our secret service and indeed our presidents were 
     so beguiled by the Shah that they were blind to unmistakable 
     signs that his people has turned against him. President 
     Carter's New Year's eve 1978 toast to his country as ``an 
     island of stability'' in a sea of chaos has made the history 
     books. Much worse, the first cable from the Embassy 
     suggesting that his regime just might be in serious trouble 
     was sent to Washington in October, 1978. About the same time 
     the CIA reported that Iran was ``not in a revolutionary or 
     even a pre-revolutionary stage.''
       The Shah fled the country three months later and after a 
     brutal internal struggle, secular opponents of the monarchy 
     were killed or driven out of the country and a theocracy was 
     established. It opposed the West, it opposed all liberal 
     though and it characterized the United States which had been 
     so closely associated with the Shah as the font of all evil, 
     as the embodiment of the Great Satan himself.
       One year ago Iran had its first relatively free 
     presidential election. Only four candidates out of 238 
     aspirants were approved by the Council of Guardians, which 
     itself had been chosen by Ayatollah Ali Kamenei, the supreme 
     religious leader. But there was a real choice. The 
     government's favorite, Ali Akbar Nateq Nouri, was a dour 
     conservative of the Khomeini model; there were two non-
     entities and the fourth was Mohammad Khatami, an obscure 
     cleric who had served as Minister of Islamic Guidance in the 
     1980's.
       To the world's surprise and the consternation of the ruling 
     mullahs, Khatami won 70 percent of the votes--not so much for 
     any reputation for moderation but simply because he was most 
     certainly not the government's favorite. He was installed as 
     President and he survives. Some American policy-makers and 
     American businessmen have read much into his implied promises 
     of reform and change. They even argue, in face of strong 
     evidence to the contrary, that internal reforms have already 
     been adopted or that the are about to be so. While some of 
     these Americans are, no doubt, sincere, others who argue for 
     a softening of American sanctions on Iran may have allowed 
     their judgment to be colored by the prospects of lucrative 
     contracts for new oil and gas pipelines form the former 
     Soviet Union through Iran to Turkey or to the Persian Gulf.
       The State Department is clearly divided and confused. In an 
     admitted effort to curry favor with the mullahs at no 
     apparent cost to the United States, one branch of the State 
     Department branded as a ``terrorist organization'' the 
     Majahedin Khalq, the largest and best organized of 
     the Iranian opposition movements and the prime target of 
     official Iranian terrorism at home and abroad. History 
     repeated itself; during the Iran-Contra affaire the 
     mullahs insisted on the same condemnation of the Mujahedin 
     and the State Department complied. The mullahs welcomed 
     the announcement as a triumph of their regime as they did 
     15 years earlier but, again exactly as in the mid-1980's 
     made no changes in internal or external policies. Not much 
     later another branch of the State Department ranked Iran 
     as the ``most active state sponsor of terrorism.''
       But hasn't there been some evidence of change? Well, in the 
     last several years a few restrictions on social life have 
     gradually been relaxed; the Revolutionary Guard is less 
     fervently revolutionary and can now usually be bribed not to 
     break into private homes where ``immoral activities'' might 
     be suspected. Visitors to Tehran--but no place else--notice 
     that the all-encompassing chedors prescribed for women are 
     not quite as concealing as they had been; some have even 
     reported seeing wisps of feminine hair slipping out from the 
     head covering. The state-run press is free to criticize 
     certain actions of government officials, mostly those of 
     rival factions. As American team of wrestlers was allowed 
     into the country where it was received with wild popular 
     enthusiasm. And Khatami spoke of ``opening up informal 
     contacts'' with the United States.
       But nothing more. The basic reforms and changes in 
     theocratic rule which most Iranians want have not been made. 
     Any one suspected of questioning the religious basis of the 
     ruling theocracy is arrested, tortured and murdered. In the 
     year of Khatami's presidency tens of thousands of ``enemies 
     of the people'' usually accused of ``drug use'', ``adultery'' 
     or general ``corruption'' have been arrested and often 
     tortured. According to official figures, 199 have been 
     executed; Iranians believe the true figure is much higher. 
     Moderate religious leaders, including the highly respected 
     Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who have questioned the 
     actions of the ruling mullahs, are imprisoned or kept under 
     house arrest.
       Opposition to the Arab-Israeli peace talks is as strong as 
     ever but the tone has changed to triumphalism now that ``the 
     peace talks have clearly failed''. Iran continues to give 
     financial and military support to the Hizbullah and Hamas and 
     to welcome their leaders to Tehran.
       The death threat against Salman Rushdie has not been 
     lifted; indeed, the reward for his murder has been increased. 
     Critics of the regime continue to be assassinated abroad. In 
     the year of the Khatami presidency 24 have been killed, a 
     sharp increase compared to the previous year.
       Iran, whose natural gas reserves are the second largest in 
     the world, could enjoy exceedingly cheap electricity. Yet 
     electricity remains in short supply and the regime continues 
     the fiction that the nuclear reactions under construction are 
     exclusively for production of domestic electricity. It 
     imports missile technology from China, North Korea and 
     Pakistan, and has recently tested missiles with a range of 
     1400 kilometers.
       The ``opening to America'' which Khatami seemed to favor 
     was dismissed contemptuously by Ayatollah Kamenei. Khatami 
     then quickly explained that he had been misinterpreted. The 
     United States remains the ``great Satan'' and the anniversary 
     of the capture of the ``Nest of Spies'', the American 
     Embassy, is still celebrated.
       The failure to proceed with a rapprochement with the United 
     States can not be ascribed to Khatami who, for all we know, 
     may well be a closet moderate, a modernizer who would really 
     like to make life easier for his countrymen. He simply does 
     not have the ability--even assuming the will--to make 
     significant changes. His title of ``President'' implies 
     authority when he has little; he is outranked and frequently 
     overruled by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the head of the 
     Council of Expediency and by the Supreme Guide himself, the 
     Ayatollah Khamenei.
       The Iranian people revolted against the Shah not to turn 
     the clock back to the Middle Ages but because they were 
     sickened by the corruption of his court and his government, 
     by the lack freedom of expression and by the excesses of 
     SAVAK, the Shah's secret police. Ayatollah Khomeini promised 
     them a ``government of God on earth'' but he and his 
     successor have given them a government whose corruption 
     exceeds that of the Shah and whose human rights abuses are an 
     order of magnitude worse. In the 20 years of the rule of 
     mullahs, 120,000 Iranians have been sentenced to death after 
     quasi-legal proceedings--some 40 times the number executed 
     during the entire reign of the late Shah.
       The election a year ago was important. Although it was not 
     so much the victory of Khatami as it was the humiliating 
     defeat of Neteq Nouri, the Ayatollah's favorite, the Iranian 
     people convincingly demonstrated its desire for real change, 
     real liberalization and an end to corruption and oppression. 
     Some, perhaps many Iranians hoped that Khatami would be the 
     instrument to achieve these goals but he has done nothing. 
     And now, after a year, all illusions about the new President 
     have evaporated; the mass of Iranians who want radical reform 
     must look elsewhere. And they do. In almost daily 
     demonstrations in Tehran and in all provincial capitals the 
     mullahs' favorite old chant ``Death to the Israel and 
     America'' has given way to youthful shouts of ``Death to 
     Despotism''.
       The leader of the Iranian Resistance, Massoud Rajavi, may 
     well be right when he said recently ``The government of the 
     mullahs is entering its final stage; the time to prepare for 
     its overthrow has arrived.''
       My enduring nightmare is that one of our major foreign 
     policy blunders in the Middle East is about to be repeated. 
     The United States supported the Shah long after it was clear 
     to every objective observer that almost all Iranians had 
     turned against him. It would

[[Page E1005]]

     be ironic, it would be tragic if we were to open relations 
     with the Iranian theocracy just as the Iranian people have 
     concluded it must go.

     

                          ____________________