Babylon The Great’s Freedoms Head South

Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor Stephen Bannon during a press conference at the White House
Mr Bannon, formerly the head of the populist right-wing, Breitbart News website, will join high-level discussions about national security.
The order was signed on Saturday.
The director of national intelligence and the joint chiefs will attend when discussions pertain to their areas.
Under previous administrations, the director and joint chiefs attended all meetings of the NSC’s inner circle, the principals’ committee.
Profile: Stephen Bannon
What executive actions has Trump taken?
The National Security Council (NSC) is the main group advising the president on national security and foreign affairs.
It is led by retired lieutenant-general Mike Flynn, who was one of Mr Trump’s closest advisers and most ardent supporters during the campaign.
“The security threats facing the United States in the 21st century transcend international boundaries,” Mr Trump’s executive order said.
“Accordingly, the United States Government’s decision-making structures and processes to address these challenges must remain equally adaptive and transformative.”
Last week, Mr Bannon described the US mainstream media as “the opposition party”, saying it should “keep its mouth shut”.
The site he once managed, Breitbart News, serves up an anti-establishment agenda that critics accuse of xenophobia and misogyny. Under Mr Bannon, it became one of the most-read conservative news and opinion sites in the US.
Mr Trump also ordered a restructuring of the Homeland Security Council.
In two separate measures, the president ordered:

Another Neocon Added To The Mess

BY JASON LE MIERE @JASONLEMIERE
11/17/16 AT 9:20 A
Flynn, a top adviser to Trump throughout his campaign, wouldn’t require confirmation from the Senate to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft and Condoleezza Rice. But he has been derided as “impulsive” by Rep. Adam Schiff, a ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence. And that’s not the only reason his appointment would be a controversial one.
Flynn only retired from the Army in 2014, which limits the roles he could take in the Trump administration. Specifically, a defense secretary needs to be at least seven years out of active duty unless they receive a congressional waiver. While in the Army, Flynn led intelligence efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Flynn was appointed as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012 but left his post in 2014, reportedly over clashes with President Barack Obama’s administration. In particular, he repeatedly warned of the threat of radical Islamic terrorism, stating that the United States was less safe in 2014 than prior to the Sept. 11 attacks, even after the killing of Osama bin Laden.
The 57-year-old has since become a sharp critic of Obama’s policies and has rallied against what he has called “political correctness.” Recently, he called the decision to announce ahead of time the operation to retake the Iraqi city of Mosul from the Islamic State group “just insane.”
Flynn remained steadfastly supportive of Trump throughout his presidential campaign and was considered for the role of vice-president. His sharp criticism over the Obama administration’s handling of the Islamic State group and the Iran nuclear deal sits comfortably with the message Trump espoused throughout his campaign. However, they could come into conflict over Russia. While Trump has called for improved relations with Russia, Flynn has slammed the country in the past, particularly its role in Syria.
Punctuating his speech with chants of “U-S-A! U-S-A!” and leading a chorus of “lock her up,” Flynn called on Clinton to drop out of the race “because she put our nation’s security at extremely high rich with her careless use if a private email server.”
However, on at least two occasions, Flynn’s own handling of classified information has come under scrutiny, CNN reported. While Flynn has denied allegations he shared classified information with Pakistan, he admitted a separate incident of sharing intelligence with British and Australian allies without following proper security procedures.
In another potential controversy, an investigation by Politico alleges that Flynn runs a consultancy firm that receives money from a close ally of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Dick CHITLER Says Iraq War Was Right! (Rev 13:10)


Dick Cheney: ‘We were right’ to invade Iraq

09/01/15 02:43 PM
By Zachary Roth

Dick Cheney just won’t let it go.

In a new book, the former vice president mounts a furious assault against President Obama’s foreign policy, which Cheney argues has damaged American security by retreating from a position of global leadership. And Cheney takes the obligatory shot at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over the deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya. But Cheney often seems more concerned with defending the disastrous foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration—from invading Iraq to the use of torture—made more than a decade ago.

In “Exceptional: Why the World Needs a Powerful America,” Cheney, writing with his daughter Liz Cheney, a former State Department official during the Bush administration, takes aim at the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran, writing it will “guarantee an Iranian nuclear arsenal.” The Cheneys insist that invading Iraq was the right call, writing “things were in good shape” in the country when Obama took office. Oh, and they suggest that National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden was probably a Russian spy.

Almost the first half of the book is devoted to defending Dick Cheney’s tarnished legacy as perhaps the most important figure in the Bush administration’s push for war in Iraq and its handling of the war on terror.

At one stage, the Cheneys write that “history will be the ultimate judge of our decision to liberate Iraq.” But just two pages later, as if unable to resist re-engaging the issue, they describe the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein as a “grave threat to the United States” before concluding: “We were right to invade and remove him from power.”

They even insist that U.S. troops “were in fact greeted as liberators,” just as Dick Cheney predicted before the invasion—a quote that Bush administration critics have frequently hung around his neck.
The Cheneys also offer a strained rationale for why, even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, the terror attacks still were a reason to invade Iraq. “[A]fter 9/11 … we had an obligation to do everything possible to prevent terrorists from gaining access to much worse weapons. Saddam’s Iraq was the most likely place for terrorists to gain access to and knowledge of such weapons.”

As for the Bush administration’s enhanced interrogation program, “it worked,” the Cheneys write. “As we pieced together intelligence about al Qaeda in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the enhanced interrogation program was one of the most effective tools we had. It saved lives and prevented attacks.”

And, they claim, it’s a “falsehood” to say that the torture that occurred at the Abu Ghraib prison “represented official policy,” or “had something to do with or was related to America’s enhanced interrogation program.”

The prison at Guantanamo Bay “was and remains safe, secure, humane and necessary,” according to the Cheneys. And people who oppose the Bush administration’s controversial warrantless wiretapping program “will be accountable for explaining to the American people why they fought to make it more difficult for the United States government to effectively track the communications—and therefore the plans—of terrorists inside the United States,” they write.
Still, the thrust of the book is an attack on Obama’s foreign policy, which, the Cheneys argue, has made the U.S. less safe by failing to wield American power around the globe.

“President Obama has departed from the bipartisan tradition going back 75 years of maintaining America’s global supremacy and leadership,” the Cheneys write, calling the idea that that “America is to blame and her power must be restrained” the “touchstone of [Obama’s] ideology.”
With the Iran nuclear deal, Obama “is gambling America’s security on the veracity of the Mullahs in Tehran,” they write, calling it a “falsehood” that the pact will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. “The truth is the opposite,” they write. “This agreement will guarantee an Iranian nuclear arsenal.”

Indeed, the Cheneys compare the deal to the Munich agreement of 1938, a frequently used example among conservatives of the dangers of appeasement.

Hitler got Czechoslovakia,” the Cheneys write (in fact, at Munich, Hitler got the Sudetenland, an area of western Czechoslovakia mostly inhabited by German speakers). “The Mullahs in Tehran get billions of dollars and a pathway to a nuclear arsenal.”

The Cheneys also take the chance to go after Clinton on Benghazi, in an effort to reinforce questions about her character as she runs for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. They accuse her of “adopting a false narrative because it serves political purposes,” adding, “It is the difference between lying to the American people and dealing with them truthfully.”

Dick Cheney also recounts that a Pentagon official told him in a phone call that the administration’s “pivot to Asia” was “all about budgets.” From this Cheney writes: “President Obama was pretending the war on terror was over so that he wouldn’t have to continue to allocate significant military resources to the Middle East.”

“We’ll decline comment on second-hand anonymous quotes, but the President has been clear about the re-balance and its place in our national security. The re-balance to the Asia-Pacific region is based on a comprehensive assessment of long-term U.S. interests,” Defense Department spokesman William Urban told msnbc. “The security and prosperity of the United States depends on continued stability in the Asia-Pacific region, and therefore, the United States will stay fully engaged in the region to ensure that we continue to promote those interests.”

Perhaps the strangest charge in the book is the one about Snowden, the former NSA contractor who leaked a trove of classified documents before fleeing to Hong Kong, and, ultimately, Russia.
“Whether Snowden was a Russian operative at the time he stole the U.S. secrets is a subject of debate, although it is hard to conceive of his landing in Moscow as a coincidence,” the Cheneys write. Snowden has denied being a Russian spy.

The Failed Iraqi National Guard (Rev 13:18)

 
The Foreign Policy Essay: Harnessing Militia Power—Lessons of the Iraqi National Guard

Ariel I. Ahram and Frederic Wehrey
May 24, 2015

Editor’s Note: National governments seem to be failing throughout the Middle East. The United States, unfortunately, does not usually have the luxury of waiting until a strong government returns, and building a strong state is often beyond what the United States is able or willing to do. One option to fight terrorists and otherwise fill the governance void is to work more with local militias. Ariel I. Ahram of Virginia Tech and Frederic Wehrey of Carnegie draw on the U.S. experience in Iraq and offer lessons for what to do—and what to avoid—when going down this road.

***

Faced with the breakdown of national armies in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, Arab states have increasingly turned toward alliances with armed militias to ensure security. Popular, anti-government protests and insurgencies for the most part precipitated the breakdown of regime military institutions, yet pre-existing internal ethnic, clan, and ideological cleavages helped to hasten the breakdown. The beleaguered state security forces have now entered into a variety of alliances—tacit or active—with militias they deem sympathetic to their interests, often organized on the basis of entrenched ethno-sectarian or tribal identities. Such militia forces supplement and at times even stand in for the weak or absent army and police as providers of local security.

On the one hand, militia forces have in certain circumstances proven effective at counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. On the other hand, they have also committed atrocities against civilians that hamper long-term efforts to build trust and stability. Their greatest risk is that, by eroding the central government’s monopolization on force, they jeopardize the territorial cohesion of the state.

In Iraq, the rise of powerful communal militias has paralleled the growth of the threat from the Islamic State. This has presented the United States with a quandary: how to combat the Islamic State by mobilizing local Sunnis while at the same time safeguarding the broader integrity of the Iraqi state and its security institutions. The national guard concept, which successive Iraqi governments have tried in the past, was seen as one way to do this. A national guard force would retain the militias’ local knowledge and roots, both unique tools necessary for a successful counterinsurgency against the Islamic State. At the same time, the guard would (at least in theory) be subject to increased oversight and control by the central government.

Other fractured Arab states, most notably Libya, have tried to implement a national guard model as a way to harness militia power, but this too has failed. Variations of hybrid, provincially-organized military forces exist in Yemen and Syria. While each case is different, the failure of national guards bears certain similarities. Examining the Iraqi case in particular can highlight the potential utility of national guards but also the parallel political and institutional reforms that are necessary to make the concept work.

False Analogies and False Starts in Iraq

The idea of creating a national guard in Iraq has been a centerpiece of U.S. engagement since the dramatic advance of the Islamic State on Tikrit and Mosul in 2014. President Obama specifically mentioned U.S. support for a national guard as a means to help Iraqi Sunnis “secure their own freedom” from the Islamic State. Much of U.S. thinking about the Iraqi National Guard (ING) was guided by the example of the Sunni Awakening of 2006 and 2007, when the United States actively recruited and “flipped” Sunni tribes that had supported the al-Qaeda-inspired insurgency. In return for guarantees of autonomy and military, financial, and political backing, the Sunni tribes were able to turn the tables on the insurgent fighters and impose a measure of peace and stability. The 2014 initiative essentially sought to reproduce this arrangement. The idea was that given proper incentives, the Sunni tribes would again fight the radical Islamists who threatened their supremacy. Over the long term, such national guard forces could be integrated formally as auxiliary troops in a federal structure, comparable in many ways to the U.S. National Guard.

Yet the Awakening analogy failed on a number of levels. The Shi’i-dominated Iraqi central government had never been enthusiastic about empowering Sunni tribes in the first place. With the dismantling of the Iraqi army in 2003, security had effectively devolved to party, tribal, and sectarian militias. Many Iraqis wondered why the United States would seek to create new militias, especially ones recently tied to al-Qaeda and other terrorists. As Iraq scholar Adeed Dawisha described, the gains in security came “not because of the state, but in spite of it.”

As the U.S. began withdrawing from Iraq in 2009 and 2010, then-Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki quickly moved to dismantle the Awakening-associated militias. Only a handful of former militia fighters received their promised positions in the police, army, or civil services. Some former militia leaders were arrested on seemingly politically-motivated charges of terrorism or subversion. Efforts to enact a Sunni-dominated super-region comparable to the federal status of the Kurdish Regional Government in the north were rebuffed, despite the provisions of Iraq’s constitution that allowed for the creation of such an entity. Politically marginalized, some Sunnis returned to their alliance with the radical mujahideen.

The election of the new prime minister Haydar al-Abadi in 2014 raised the promise of renewed Sunni-Shi’i reconciliation. Abadi expressed support for the national guard initiative and forwarded a bill to parliament in 2014. Thousands of volunteers came forward from the Sunni tribes in the west and U.S. and Iraqi officials met with tribal leaders to help solidify support. The United States began to enlist support from Iraq’s Sunni neighbors to provide training and support for the ING.

Yet resistance within Abadi’s own political coalition stymied these efforts. The National Guard bill foundered in parliamentary committee, with open questions about the extent of control vested in provincial governors and the chain of command subordinating the ING to the ministries of interior, defense, or the prime minister himself. Officers of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) regarded the militias as unfit for duty and as rivals for budget and resources. Iraq’s constitution specifically prohibited the formation of militias outside the framework of the armed forces (with an exception of the peshmerga forces of the Kurdish Regional Government). Moreover, there was concern that once the Sunnis were authorized to organize a militia, other ethno-sectarian communities, such as Christians or Turkomen, might try to follow suit out of fear of falling under the mercy of their more powerful neighbors. The ING, then, could undercut any pretense of the Iraqi state possessing a monopoly over the use of force.

At base, though, many of Iraq’s Shi’i leaders simply believed that they didn’t need Sunni support. With the ING initiative stalled in parliament, the Shi’i factions have actively cultivated Shi’i militias as part of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF, or Hashd al-Shaabi). The origins of the PMF can be traced to a statement by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraq’s senior Shi’i cleric, which explicitly called on the faithful to take up arms to defend Iraq in the face of the Islamic State onslaught in 2014. Muqtada al-Sadr’s Jaysh al-Mahdi, the Badr Organization, and other political factions quickly took the opportunity to reconstitute or expand their private armies.

Backed by Iran’s expeditionary al-Qods Force, PMF militias played a prominent role in the spring 2015 offensive against the Islamic State in Tikrit. By spring 2015, PMF counted around 60,000 men under arms. Still, the performance of these militias has been less than stellar. In the spring 2015 offensive on Tikrit, PMF forces failed repeatedly to dislodge Islamic State resistance, despite enjoying superiority in numbers. U.S. air support proved critical to allowing the offensive to proceed. Some PMF units quit the fight instead of working under American air cover. Others were involved in a campaign of terror against Sunnis, looting, kidnapping, and killing those suspected of collaborating with the Islamic State.

Awakening Again?

The prospects for the mobilization of Iraq’s Sunnis are not dead—yet. A handful of Sunni tribes joined the PMF during the Tikrit offensive. In Anbar, likely the next front in the campaign against the Islamic State, U.S. and Iraqi officials have cultivated ties with local Sunni tribes and organized some 8,000 men into Sunni PMF units. Some tribes have made their service conditional on guarantees of greater autonomy and the removal of Shi’i militia forces. Yet the intake for training programs remains slow and drop-out rates high. On the one hand, tribes continue to resent the central government. On the other hand, they fear retribution should the Islamic State return.

Abadi’s visit to Washington in April 2015 focused on expanding and enhancing security cooperation with the United States. The United States has insisted that the PMF be brought more fully under the control of the Iraqi Security Forces and that PMF units reflect the demographics of the provinces and districts in which they operate. This would mean that in ethnically-mixed areas, such as in Nineveh or Babil, each ethnic group would have its own militia proportional to its size in the locality. The Iraq Train and Equip Program (ITEP) is slowly coming online, funneling American money and weapons to various local militia forces as well as ISF.

Cooperating with the United States has been a delicate balancing act for Abadi. While Kurdish and Sunni leaders see U.S. military support as a means to their own ends, Abadi’s own Shi’i political camp—as well as his allies in Tehran—are far more wary. When the U.S. Congress passed a bill in May 2015 effectively mandating the Defense Department to bypass Baghdad and provide support for Sunni and Kurdish fighters directly, Abadi protested that this constituted a grave violation of Iraqi sovereignty.

Still, reliance on the ragtag PMF alone is not sustainable in the long term. Operating far from home and with limited training, these overwhelmingly Shi’i forces cannot be expected to become an army of occupation in Sunni areas like Tikrit or Fallujah. Ultimately, local partners will be necessary to build and maintain peace and stability. The national guard, then, may well re-emerge as a more sustainable structure for administrative and security devolution.

Lessons Learned From Failure

While analysts and policymakers naturally focus on cases of success, there are important lessons to be learned from Iraq’s failures. For countries like Iraq where central armies have more or less broken down and a bevy of militias has emerged in its stead, as in Libya, Yemen, and Syria, the national guard could represent a path to reconstituting fragile state authority.

But for this to happen, several broad principles need to be heeded:

National guards cannot simply be conceived as short-term, improvised solutions to immediate security crises. Rather, the creation of national guards is part of the impetus of security-sector reform (SSR) and post-conflict demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration (DDR) of armed groups.

National guards must overcome the legacies of past authoritarian experiences where pro-government militias were often seen as mere thugs for the regime, not a disciplined professional fighting force. In particular, the older officer class of regular forces may see them as competitors. To build trust among the population and other military institutions, national guards should be accompanied by revisions to chain of command establishing clear relationships of authority between the guards, the police, the army, and other security agencies, and subordinating all security services to civilian authorities.
National guard initiatives must also be accompanied by moves toward political power-sharing arrangements. The success of national guards ultimately depends not just on their short-term tactical effectiveness but on the degree of local buy-in. Constitutions can provide a structure for bolstering confidence between a central government and subnational militia forces. Since militia membership and cohesion is often based on geographic linkages—to town, municipality or province—national guards may well be a part of federalist power devolution, especially in countries with overlapping ethno-sectarian and regional cleavages.

Western governments can assist in setting up and training national guards, but they must ensure that proper political and institutional reforms are also undertaken. In many cases, Western states provide models for how decentralized, federally-organized military forces can complement national armies and local police. The United States, for instance, has a great deal of experience with its own federalized national guard structure and can draw on this example in its train-and-equip programs. There are other potentially useful models as well, including the British Territorial Army, a part-time, volunteer force that was integrated into the British Army in the early twentieth century; the Danish Home Guard, which incorporated anti-Nazi resistance militias into a national command structure after World War II; or the Italian Carabineri, which is often discussed as a potential model for dealing with Libya’s unique security challenges.

Outside assistance to national guards must avoid exacerbating existing communal and political fault lines. Helping peripheral and minority groups set up their own armed forces can, on one hand, embolden these groups to resist the central government and, on the other hand, spur resentment from the central government and fear of future disloyalty or rebellion. These concerns become even more acute when national guards are seen as proxies for outside powers. With this in mind, the U.S. and outside powers should calibrate their assistance to both regionally-based national guards and central government forces to ensure rough parity between the two. This could entail making funding, equipment and training for the central security services contingent on a proportional commitment to strengthen the guards.

National guards are political institutions, not just military instruments. They can have far-ranging consequences for political stability and cohesion. While no panacea for the challenge of building effective states, they can play an important role in addressing security concerns and moving toward more meaningful power sharing.

Iran Will Keep Their Uranium For The End (Rev 15:2)

uranium-enrichment

White House: Negotiators still working on Iran’s enriched uranium

BY: Brian Hughes March 30, 2015 | 12:02 pm
The White House Monday hit back at the suggestion that Iran had agreed to and then backed out of a deal to send its stockpile of enriched uranium abroad, saying the issue could still be overcome ahead of the Tuesday deadline for talks.
“The idea that there had been an agreement that Iran had backed away from in the last 24 hours is not true,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters aboard Air Force One, as President Obama traveled to Boston for an event honoring the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.
In terms of what’s going to happen with that stockpile, that is something our negotiators are working through, but it’s not accurate to say there had been an agreement that was then backtracked. As we’ve said all along, nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to.”
Iranian nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi told reporters late Sunday that his country would not send its stockpile of enriched uranium to Russia for storage, which had been sought by P5+1 nations to keep Iran at least a year away from being able to develop a nuclear weapon.
Negotiators insist the Iranian position is not a deal breaker but concede that a number of issues remain with the Tuesday deadline swiftly approaching.
Critics, however, say the development is proof that Iran can’t be trusted to live up to terms of an agreement keeping it from building a nuclear weapon.
Schultz reiterated Monday that Obama would indeed walk away from the deal if the framework did not meet his conditions.

Ms. Rajavi Is Correct: “There Is A Nuclear Bomb At The End” (Revelation 15)

Maryam_Rajavi
Maryam Rajavi: West must show resolve if it is to stop Iranian regime from obtaining nuclear bomb

Cooperation with Iranian regime under pretense of fighting ISIS is not a solution but a recipe for disaster

Maryam Rajavi, Iranian Resistance President-elect Maryam Rajavi told a conference at the European Parliament on Wednesday, December 10: “The West needs to show resolve to stop Iran from obtaining the nuclear bomb.”

She stressed: “This nuclear program enjoys no legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people. According to government figures, 12 million Iranian people are suffering from hunger. They do not want this program to continue.”

Rajavi pointed to the increase in atrocities by the fundamentalists in Syria and Iraq, and asked: “Why are Western governments not standing up to a regime that is the ‘Godfather of ISIS’ with a record a hundred times worse than ISIS. How can European governments justify their silence vis-à-vis the regime’s suppression?  More regrettable is the fact that the regime’s lobby has been encouraged to promote collaboration with the Iranian regime as the solution to defeating ISIS. This is not a solution, but a recipe for disaster.”

In the conference held on the internationally recognised Human Rights Day,  Mrs Rajavi referred to the bloody record of the velayat-e faqih regime and the gloomy record of its so-called moderate President Mullah Rouhani with atrocities such as the splashing of acid on defenseless women or the stabbing of female students and said: “The regime of velayat-e faqih lacks any capacity to reform. Since Rouhani became President, at least 1,200 have been executed. In the past 25 years, we have not seen as many executions as in the first year of Rouhani’s presidency. Nor have we seen so many opposition members being massacred or taken hostage. Nor have we seen Iranian women being the target of criminal campaigns to this extent.

Mrs Rajavi condemned the conduct of some Western governments that sacrifice human rights in Iran for their relations with the religious dictatorship and said: “Look at the bitter outcomes of European delegations’ visits to Tehran in the past year. The mullahs used each and every one of them to increase executions.”

This conference was held with the participation of senior representatives of the European Parliament from various political groups. In another part of her speech Mrs Rajavi said  “Now is the time to intensify the pressure on the regime. The mullahs agreed to negotiate due to mounting pressure.  They stalled on signing the agreement due to West’s concessions. The only way forward is more pressure and more sanctions.

“There is no light at the end of tunnel of marathon talks. THERE IS A NUCLEAR BOMB AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL.

Mrs Rajavi said in another part of her speech: “The regime is entangled in a destructive power struggle at the top, while Iranian society is deeply discontent and on the verge of another uprising.”
Mrs Rajavi expressed her abhorrence for the continuation of the six-year siege against Iranian dissidents in Iraq (Camp Liberty) and urged the EU to ‘change its policy and show resolve in face of the brutal theocracy ruling Iran’.

She said that in this new policy:

  • Any ties with the Iranian regime should be linked to the improvement of the situation of human rights; the leaders of this regime should face justice; the regime should be forced to fully implement UN Security Council resolutions, halt the uranium enrichment, and accept international inspection of all suspect sites and centers.
  • And the siege on Camp Liberty, especially the medical blockade, should be completely lifted and the Camp Liberty file should be handed over to institutions with no ties to this regime instead of the Iranian regime’s agents.

This conference that was presided over by MEP Gerard Deprez, Belgian State Minister and EP representative, a number of political figures also spoke at this conference including Howard Dean, former U.S. Presidential candidate and former Chairman of the Democratic Party; Alejo Vidal-Quadras, Vice-President of European Parliament (1999-2014) and President of International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) ; Struan Stevenson, President of European Iraqi Freedom Association (EIFA); and a number of European Parliament legislators, including Mairead McGuinness, Vice-President of European Parliament; Patrizia Toia, Eduard Kukan, José Bové, Anna Záborská, Julie Ward, Tunne Kelam, José Manuel Fernandes as well as former MEP, Stephen  Hughes  and Paulo Casaca, former members of the European Parliament.

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran
December 10, 2014