[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 4425-4426]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           IRAN: THREATS, CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS FOR CHANGE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. WM. LACY CLAY

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, March 29, 2006

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday February 15, 2006, a briefing was 
conducted in the Canon Caucus room of the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Entitled: Iran: Threats, Challenges and Prospects For 
Change, the briefing was sponsored by bipartisan group of Members of 
Congress. During this event speakers assessed the current situation in 
Iran, the Iranian nuclear threat and the status of the Iranian 
opposition group, the MEK. I would like to take this opportunity to 
share with all of my colleagues my opening statement and some of the 
highlights from the remarks of the panelists:

       I would like to begin by thanking all of the Iranian 
     Americans who have traveled to Capitol Hill today to hear the 
     views of our expert panelists. I also want to thank my fellow 
     members of Congress who are here with us in support of this 
     event. Let me start by recognizing Tom Tancredo of Colorado, 
     thank you for being here, and also Congressman Boozman of 
     Arkansas. Can we give them both a hand for their 
     participation [applause]. I also want to thank our 
     distinguished panelists for taking the time to share their 
     insights and understanding of current events in Iran. It is 
     critically important that all Americans understand the true 
     nature of the grave threat posed by the radical extremists, 
     anti American regime in Tehran. We're facing a very dangerous 
     crisis with Iran today. The Iranian government is sponsoring 
     terrorism, developing nuclear weapons, meddling in the future 
     of Iraq and violating the fundamental human rights of their 
     own people. The world community cannot afford to allow the 
     Iranian mullahs to continue to be a regional threat or to 
     grow into a nuclear threat. For too many years we have done 
     nothing to help the Iranian people--inside and outside of 
     Iran--in their struggle for democracy. For too many years we 
     have tolerated terrorism and violence from Iranian 
     extremists. It is time to take action. If we fail to take 
     action against the mullahs meddling in Iraq we risk the 
     future of the Iraqi people and we may find that the Iranian 
     regime and not the Iraqi people were the real winners of the 
     Iraq war.
       U.S. policies toward Iran have failed to achieve our goals. 
     While many advocate more dialogue with Tehran our time is 
     running short. We must seize the opportunity to aid the 
     people of Iran and it is time to give support to the Iranian 
     people who have longed for democracy for more than a quarter 
     of a century. I am troubled by the strategy of our government 
     and the insistence that the Iranian government and the 
     Iranian opposition, the MEK are equal threats to peace and 
     freedom. There is no logic in this reasoning and it is 
     undermining our foreign policies. The U.S. must exercise a 
     genuine commitment to helping the Iranian people overcome the 
     oppressive regime that despises democratic principles and 
     denies fundamental human rights.
       I commend all who are working today for the sake of human 
     rights, peace and democracy in the Middle East. I share your 
     vision of a free and peaceful Iranian nation.

  The first panelist to address the briefing was Professor Raymond 
Tanter the former member of the National Security Agency and the 
President of Iran Policy Committee. His statement began:

       Please allow me to cut to the chase and begin with my 
     conclusions: Coercive diplomacy, military action, and regime 
     change for Iran are three options for the international 
     community. Rather than sliding into military action as 
     coercive diplomacy also fails, it is time to consider regime 
     change for Iran. Because the only possibility to carry out 
     regime change is via the groups feared by the regime in 
     Tehran, the United States should remove their terrorist 
     designation. Coercive diplomacy combines threat of force with 
     promise of diplomacy. For several years, the European Union 
     pursued a policy of promise without threat, ostensibly in 
     order to bolster the fortunes of moderates like former 
     President Mohammad Khatami relative to the likes of the 
     Supreme Leader and President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 
     Rather than reinforcing the moderates, however, there has 
     been a consolidation of power under the Supreme Leader and 
     his selected President Ahmadinejad. Professor Tanter went on 
     to say: President Bush should issue a Finding or Presidential 
     Directive authorizing all appropriate measures to effect 
     regime change in Iran

  The next panelist to address the conference was Ms. Lynn Derbyshire 
who is a representative of victims of terrorism in Beirut She recently 
testified in the U.S. Congress against the Mullah's regime support of 
terrorism. She started her remarks with the story of her brother who 
was killed in Beirut by the Iranian regime. Ms. Derbyshire then 
explained that placing the Iranian Resistance in the terrorist list was 
a present to the clerical regime in Iran. She said: ``Ahmadinejad, not 
Iranian Resistance, is a terrorist.'' She continued on saying that 
``Iranian and American people basically want the same thing. They all 
want to put a stop on terrorism.''
  Lt. General Tom McInerney (USAF, ret.), former Assistant Vice Chief 
of Staff of the Air Force, and an IPC Co-Chair, also addressed the 
briefing. He examined the military option toward Iran: and said:

       The United States has the ability to target the known 
     nuclear sites of Iran and delay its nuclear weapons program. 
     With such capability in hand and in the context of failing 
     diplomacy, we should leave the military option on the table. 
     General McInerney added: However, military alternatives have 
     risks, which suggest that choosing the military option should 
     be a last resort. Prior to taking military action, it is 
     important to begin a regime change clock. McInerney 
     concluded: Regime change begins when the Great Powers remove 
     Iranian opposition groups from so-called terrorist lists. I 
     favor removing of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq from such lists; 
     empowering the Iranian people by recognizing their main 
     opposition groups; building an Arab political coalition to 
     support these opposition groups; and eroding the legitimacy 
     of Tehran regime to point where it collapses in face of 
     determined efforts of the Iranian people working through 
     dissidents and exiles.

  The next speaker to address the briefing was Mr. Bruce McColm, 
President, Institute for Democratic Strategies, a non-profit 
organization committed to strengthening democratic processes abroad. In 
his remarks he asked:

       Can we imagine one day saying that Iran is an island of 
     democratic stability in a turbulent region? We can if we help 
     the Iranian people stand up and demand a greater say in their 
     government and in their own lives.

  He continued:

       Since the days of the Iranian Revolution, we in the West 
     have viewed the Iranian people as victims of a repressive 
     regime. Some thought the period of the Khatami Presidency 
     could usher in much-needed reforms, a little more respect for 
     basic human rights, and possibly the day when a democracy 
     could be established and the Iranian people could take their 
     rightful place in the world community. The election--I mean, 
     selection--of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President should dispel 
     this illusion once and for all.

  He stated:

       Now is the time when we should stop looking at Iranians as 
     victims and use our considerable resources to empower this 
     talented civilization so it can create the free, prosperous 
     society their considerable talents are capable of.

  McColm also said:

       If we are serious about regime change in Iran, what can be 
     done?

  He talked about the bills passed in the Congress that are necessary 
first steps to send the proper signal to Tehran that there is a new day 
dawning and their day is ending. He explained:

       Attempts by the United States and the European Union to 
     placate the leadership of Iran by placing the MEK on the 
     proscribed list of terrorist organizations should end. It is 
     way past time to take back lran's lone diplomatic victory 
     over the past fifteen years. De-List the MEK and the NCRI 
     now. It is the right thing to do.

  He also said:

       Before his recent execution, MEK activist, 30-year old 
     Hojjat Zamani wrote Kofi Annan a letter to encourage the 
     United Nations investigation of the status of the families of 
     political prisoners in Iran. He was too aware that the 
     Iranian regime has been adroit in blackmailing families of 
     those involved in activities considered contrary to the 
     regime. This practice continues to this day. The 
     international community should create a fund in Zamani's name 
     to subsidize the families of political prisoners so as to 
     alleviate their financial suffering.

  The last speaker was Mr. Nasser Rashidi who showed a picture of the 
Mojahedin member, Hojjat Zamani and announced his execution by the 
Iranian regime which took place on February 7th. He highly praised all 
the political prisoners and said that the people of Iran are determined 
to bring freedom and democracy

[[Page 4426]]

back to their homeland no matter what price they have to pay. Mr. 
Rashidi said that the people of Iran have already sacrificed 120,000 of 
their best children who have been executed to bring freedom to their 
country and they will pay even more. He continued as saying:

       It is a mistake to believe that only one individual in the 
     ruling elite is aiming to wipe another country off the map. 
     The colossal mistake is to name the enemy as the individual 
     called Ahmadinejad and not the ideology. The rulers of Iran 
     are representing an ideology that is called ``Islamic 
     Fundamentalism'', or sometimes is called ``Islamic 
     Extremism.'' He said that many members of both chambers have 
     expressed their opposition to the designation of MEK as an 
     FTO. He thanked the many congressional advisors and staff 
     present at the meeting for supporting the Iranian people and 
     their resistance. He then pointed out the latest news 
     conference held by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi in Auver-sur-Oise, 
     France where she said:

       If the West stops giving concessions to the mullahs, petro-
     dollars do not fill the mullahs' coffers, silence and 
     inaction vis-a-vis the systematic human rights abuses and 
     terrorist crimes are ended, and the terrorist list as well as 
     other unjust restrictions on the Resistance are removed, 
     change would be within reach.

  At the conclusion of the three hour briefing reporters interviewed 
the panelists about the Iranian threat.

                          ____________________