Connect with us

RSS

Does America Have a Plan Once Iran’s Supreme Leader Dies?

A police motorcycle burns during protests in the Iranian capital Tehran. Photo: Reuters/File

Since 1989, the unwavering grip of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, has cast a long shadow over the Middle East, surviving the terms of six US presidents.

This period has been characterized by a strategic game of political chess, with Iran often playing a destabilizing role in the region. US presidents, CIA directors, and the broader US intelligence community have kept a diligent watch over Iran’s maneuvers. The 1979 revolution, which fundamentally transformed the societal and political landscape of Iran, marked the beginning of an era that the White House has monitored with acute vigilance, particularly the actions and evil intentions of Tehran’s mullah regime.

In the ever-shifting sands of US politics, marked by bipartisan candidates and fluctuating party influences, the question of which party will lead the nation next remains open. Amidst this uncertainty, Iran’s strategic posture and internal dynamics consistently emerge as points of contention and discussion among both Democrats and Republicans. Democratic presidents such as Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden have sought engagement strategies with Tehran’s clerical leadership, aiming to temper Iran’s regional ambitions through diplomacy and dialogue. However, these efforts have often been met with limited success, mired by complex geopolitical realities and Iran’s intricate internal politics.

In contrast, Republican presidents have typically favored a more hard-line approach, symbolizing a show of strength and resolve. Yet, despite their tougher stance, the idea of directly instigating regime change in Iran has remained a complex issue, often sidestepped in Washington D.C.’s political discussions. This hesitance reflects the complexities and potential repercussions of altering Iran’s power structure, a task fraught with unpredictable outcomes.

Throughout this era, spanning over three decades, all six US presidents have closely observed the significant nationwide anti-regime protests in Iran, indicative of widespread public dissent against Khamenei’s authoritarian rule. This sustained observation underscores the geopolitical significance of Iran in US foreign policy. Meanwhile, the American democratic process has seen six presidents come and go, each elected through the people’s mandate — a stark contrast to the narrative in Iran, where Khamenei has wielded power under the guise of divine right, unchallenged and unyielding.

The impending post-Khamenei era in Iran teeters on the brink of uncertainty. The absence of a clear and widely accepted successor poses a significant challenge. The proposition of installing Mojtaba Khamenei, Khamenei’s son, or Ebrahim Raisi is seen by many as an outright affront to the Iranian public, reminiscent of dynastic successions in Islamic history. Such a move could precipitate the further unraveling of Iranian society, already seething with deep-rooted animosity towards the Mullah regime.

Since the Islamic Marxist revolt in 1979, Iran has undergone a transformation marked by increasing corruption and societal decay. The once revered notion of religion has been co-opted as a tool for amassing wealth and consolidating power. This period has been punctuated by heinous crimes committed in the name of preserving power. The Islamic caliphate’s history is a testament to the continuous struggle for power and dominance, often marred by violence and internal purges.

The current Shia mullah’s regime in Iran reflects aspects of the historical Islamic caliphates, spanning a 1,400-year legacy, with Khomeini’s movement marking the beginning of a new era of authoritarianism. The destructive ideology of Khomeinism, with its roots in savagery and criminality, ascended to power through manipulation rather than democratic means. Since 1979, Iran has been governed by a regime where the Supreme Leader interferes in all state affairs, placing himself above the law. The concept of Wilayat al-Faqih, central to this governance model, lacks any genuine legal or moral foundation.

Iran today stands precariously at the brink of social unrest and potential upheaval. The government’s response to dissent has been characterized by brutal suppression, relying on religious authority and force to maintain control. The regime’s legitimacy is increasingly questioned, with social media playing a pivotal role in exposing its fragilities.

As we contemplate the future, the question of whether the Islamic Republic will collapse during Khamenei’s lifetime looms large. The current level of suppression, coupled with disorganized opposition and remnants of the 1979 revolt, makes such an outcome uncertain. None of them are serious for the White House. Yet, upon Khamenei’s death, the Iranian populace might become uncontrollable, driven by pent-up frustration, and a lack of respect for the regime. Is there any plan in Washington?

During Khamenei’s eventual funeral ceremonies, the government is likely to engage in extensive propaganda and displays of power, focusing on introducing the third caliph. However, the fear of a public uprising looms large. Iran’s internal situation is catastrophic, resembling a nation plundered and awaiting an imminent economic tsunami. The government flounders, devoid of competence and direction.

This critical period may represent a turning point in Iran’s contemporary history. Yet, the Iranian opposition, fragmented and lacking a unified vision, is ill-prepared to offer a viable alternative. Despite this, figures like Prince Reza Pahlavi hold significant sway, particularly among younger generations, owing to the enduring credibility of the Pahlavi name in Iran’s modern history. However, there appears to be no inclination from the White House to engage with him.

In closing, Iran stands at a crossroads, with its people holding the key to any substantial change. The unfolding narrative of succession and the potential downfall of the Mullahs’ Republic pose profound questions about Iran’s future and its impact on global politics. The coming months may shed more light on the potential paths Iran may take, in a landscape rife with uncertainty and anticipation. It is likely that briefings in the White House will be extensively focused on developments in Iran.

Erfan Fard is a counter-terrorism analyst and Middle East Studies researcher based in Washington, DC. He is in Middle Eastern regional security affairs with a particular focus on Iran, counter terrorism, IRGC, MOIS and ethnic conflicts in MENA. He graduated in International Security Studies (London M. University, UK), and in International Relations (CSU-LA). Erfan is a Jewish Kurd of Iran, and he is fluent in Persian, Kurdish, Arabic and English. / Follow him from this twitter account @EQFARD / The newly published book of Erfan Fard is: “The Black Shabbat” (Israel, the target of terrorist), which has been published in the USA. www.erfanfard.com

The post Does America Have a Plan Once Iran’s Supreme Leader Dies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

RSS

US Supreme Court to Weigh Landmark Terrorism Case Targeting Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay-for-Slay’ Program

PA President Mahmoud Abbas at the UN General Assembly in New York. Photo: Reuters/Caitlin Ochs

In a case that could redefine the legal landscape for victims of terrorism seeking justice, the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) over their role in incentivizing violence against Americans abroad.

The high-profile brief — filed this week by a legal coalition and more than a dozen organizations in response to the 2018 murder of Israeli-American Ari Fuld by a Palestinian terrorist — calls on justices to hold Palestinian leadership accountable for its controversial “pay-for-slay” program.

The amicus brief, submitted on Tuesday by the International Legal Forum (ILF) and 16 other Jewish and pro-Israel organizations, argues that the PA and PLO have long been complicit in orchestrating and financially rewarding acts of terror.

“Since their founding, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority have been an instrumental element in inciting, funding, and rewarding terrorism, especially through the pay-for-slay program,” ILF CEO Arsen Ostrovsky told The Algemeiner. “They are not a powerless bystander but a leading driver of modern-day terrorism. Enough is enough.”

The so-called “pay-for-slay” scheme has been widely condemned by US lawmakers, with reports estimating that approximately 8 percent of the PA’s budget is allocated to paying stipends to convicted terrorists and their families. As outlined in the ILF’s legal filing, “the more deadly the attack and the longer the terrorist spends in prison, the greater the stipends they receive.”

The legal brief contends that the US Congress has clear constitutional authority to permit American victims of Palestinian terrorism to sue the PA and PLO in US courts, since these entities have maintained a presence on American soil and were previously warned that their activities could expose them to legal action. Palestinian leaders “had been on notice that their activities would subject them to jurisdiction, yet have continued to reward and sponsor terrorism regardless,” Ostrovsky said.

The lawsuit was initially filed under the US Anti-Terrorism Act by Fuld’s widow and other American victims of Palestinian terror, seeking damages from the PA and PLO. However, the case faced a major setback in 2023 when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that US federal courts lack jurisdiction over the Palestinian entities, citing concerns over the due process rights of foreign organizations.

Congress attempted to address this legal gap in 2019 with the passage of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA), which sought to ensure that the PA and PLO could be held accountable in American courts if they funded attacks against US citizens or conducted activities within the United States. The brief argues that the PA and PLO have done both, and therefore must face legal consequences.

“It is imperative to hold not only Hamas accountable, but the Palestinian leadership as well,” Ostrovsky said. “Acts of terror, such as the one that claimed the life of Ari Fuld, do not occur in a vacuum. They are the direct result of a pervasive Palestinian infrastructure that indoctrinates hate and incentivizes violence.”

The development coincides with an ongoing ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas, which included the release last month of Ari Fuld’s killer, Khalil Jabarin. Ari Fuld’s brother, Hillel Fuld, said the family’s “personal grievance and loss was currently amplified” by Jabarin’s release from prison.

Reflecting on the hostage deal that saw Jabarin walk free — financially secure by Palestinian standards due to the pay-for-slay stipends he received while in prison — Fuld acknowledged that the situation was “not black and white.”

“On the one hand this is a terrible, terrible deal from a strategic perspective, and there’s no sugarcoating the fact that letting go of thousands of monsters is just horrible,” he told The Algemeiner. “The flip side is that it’s the most beautiful thing there is to see those families reunited, and it’s a fundamental pillar of Judaism to free our prisoners, our people, and our soldiers need to know that we will do whatever it takes to bring them back if such a thing happens to them.”

Ostrovsky expressed his hope that the Supreme Court would hold Palestinian leaders accountable and prevent them from “rewarding and underwriting murderers of American nationals abroad, like Ari Fuld.”

The court’s decision to take up the case marks a pivotal moment in US counterterrorism law. If the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it could set a precedent allowing American victims of international terrorism to pursue legal claims against foreign entities that support or enable such attacks. The brief was filed on behalf of ILF by the Holtzman Vogel law firm as well as the National Jewish Advocacy Center, with oral arguments expected later in the year.

The post US Supreme Court to Weigh Landmark Terrorism Case Targeting Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay-for-Slay’ Program first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

US Lawmakers Reintroduce Antisemitism Awareness Act

US Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) at a press conference in Bergenfield, New Jersey, US on June 5, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect

A bipartisan group of US lawmakers on Wednesday reintroduced the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would mandate the Department of Education to apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws.

The lawmakers — Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Max Miller (R-OH), and Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) — reintroduced the legislation after it passed the US House during the last Congress by a vote of 320-91. However, the Senate ultimately opted not to consider the bill in December.

Observers speculated that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Senate leader, feared exposing potential fractures within the Democratic coalition regarding antisemitism and Israel. Following the onset of the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas in October 2023, Democrats have shown inconsistent support for the Jewish state, with some high-profile liberal lawmakers suggesting that Israel’s war against Hamas could be considered a “genocide.” Last November, 17 Democrats voted to implement a partial arms embargo against Israel.

IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US — adopted the definition of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations. Dozens of US states have also formally adopted it through law or executive action.

According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.

In a statement, Gottenheimer said on Thursday that the “explosion of antisemitic violence” after the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel inspired him to reintroduce the Antisemitism Awareness Act. He added that the legislation would provide state officials and law enforcement a “clear framework” on how to properly address antisemitic violence. 

“Since the heinous Oct. 7 attacks on Israel, we have seen an explosion of antisemitic violence and intimidation on college campuses and in communities across New Jersey and the nation. Far too many in our community no longer feel safe in their own homes or classrooms,” Gottheimer said. 

Lawler, a Jewish lawmaker and one of the most strident supporters of Israel in Congress, explained his decision to reintroduce the legislation, writing that “no person should feel unsafe, targeted, or ostracized because of their faith — and the Antisemitism Awareness Act will stop it from happening.”

The post US Lawmakers Reintroduce Antisemitism Awareness Act first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

‘Hypocrisy Will Be Exposed’: Israeli Defense Chief Calls Out Spain, Ireland, Others Over Trump’s Gaza Plan

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares (center), Norway’s Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide (right), and Ireland’s Foreign Minister Micheal Martin (left) gesture after a press conference in Brussels, Belgium, May 27, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Johanna Geron

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Thursday warned that the “hypocrisy” of Spain, Ireland, and other European countries hostile to the Jewish state will be exposed if they do not take in Palestinians who choose to leave Gaza, the war-torn enclave that US President Donald Trump has said he intends to rebuild after the population resettles elsewhere for a unknown period of time.

Katz called out several countries in Europe while announcing he had ordered the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare a plan to allow Gaza residents who wish to leave to exit the enclave voluntarily.

“The people of Gaza should have the right to freedom of movement and migration, as is customary everywhere in the world,” Katz posted on X/Twitter. I welcome President Trump’s bold initiative, which can create extensive opportunities for those in Gaza who wish to leave, assist them in resettling in host countries, and support long-term reconstruction efforts in a demilitarized, threat-free Gaza after Hamas — an effort that will take many years.”

He said his plan would include exit options via land crossings, as well as special arrangements for departure by sea and air, noting that the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which controlled Gaza before the current war and remains the strongest faction there absent the Israeli army, has used residents as “human shields” and and now “holds them hostage.”

Katz’s order came two days after Trump said that the US would take over Gaza and develop it economically after Palestinians are safely resettled elsewhere.

Global reaction to Trump’s plan was largely negative, with many countries expressing both incredulity and indignation.

Spain, for example, said that Palestinians must stay in Gaza.

“I want to be very clear on this: Gaza is the land of Gazan Palestinians and they must stay in Gaza,” Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Albares told reporters on Wednesday. “Gaza is part of the future Palestinian state Spain supports and has to coexist guaranteeing the Israeli state’s prosperity and safety.”

Katz took issue with countries that have been vocal critics of Israel and portrayed themselves as staunch defenders of the Palestinians taking such a stance.

“Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have falsely accused Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory,” Katz said in his social media post. “Their hypocrisy will be exposed if they refuse. Meanwhile, countries like Canada, which has a structured immigration program, have previously expressed willingness to take in residents from Gaza.”

Albares rejected Katz’s suggestion that Spain should accept displaced Palestinians.

Gazans’ land is Gaza and Gaza must be part of the future Palestinian state,” Albares said in an interview with Spanish radio station RNE.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Irish Foreign Ministry told the Turkish state-run Anadolu Agency on Thursday that Katz’s post was “unhelpful and a source of distraction,” adding, “The objective must be that the people of Palestine return safely to their home.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said during a press conference on Wednesday that Gaza under Hamas rule has been a “failed experiment, adding, “As long as immigration is voluntary and there is a country willing to accept them, can anyone really say it’s immoral or inhumane?”

Since Hamas started the Gaza war with its invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, both Spain and Ireland have been fierce critics of the Jewish state.

In the aftermath of the Oct. 7 atrocities, Spain launched a diplomatic campaign to curb Israel’s military response. At the same time, several Spanish ministers in the country’s left-wing coalition government issued pro-Hamas statements and called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, with some falsely accusing Israel of “genocide.”

More recently, Spanish officials said they would not allow ships carrying arms for Israel to stop at its ports. The US Federal Maritime Commission recently opened an investigation into whether Spain, a NATO ally, has been denying port entry to cargo vessels reportedly transporting US weapons to Israel.

Spain stopped its own defense companies from shipping arms to Israel in October 2023.

One year later, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez urged other members of the EU to suspend the bloc’s free trade agreement with Israel over its military campaigns against Hamas in Gaza and the terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Sanchez’s demand came three days after the Spanish premier urged other countries to stop supplying weapons to the Jewish state.

In Ireland, meanwhile, President Michael D. Higgins used his platform speaking at a Holocaust commemoration last month to launch a tirade against Israel’s military campaign targeting Hamas terrorists, appearing to draw parallels between Israel’s war in Gaza and the Nazi genocide of Jews during the Holocaust.

The speech came against a backdrop of strained Irish-Israeli relations, exacerbated by Ireland’s decision to join South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its support for redefining genocide in order to secure a conviction against Jerusalem.

In December, Israel announced it was shuttering its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of undermining Israel at international forums and promoting “extreme anti-Israel policies.”

Last month, Israel announced it was shuttering its embassy in Dublin, accusing the Irish government of undermining Israel at international forums and promoting “extreme anti-Israel policies.”

In October, Irish leaders called on the EU to “review its trade relations” with Israel after the Israeli parliament passed legislation banning the activities in the country of UNRWA, the United Nations agency responsible for Palestinian refugees, because of its ties to Hamas.

Spain and Ireland, along with Norway, officially recognized a Palestinian state in May, claiming the move was accelerated by the Israel-Hamas war and would help foster a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israeli officials described the decision as a “reward for terrorism.”

The post ‘Hypocrisy Will Be Exposed’: Israeli Defense Chief Calls Out Spain, Ireland, Others Over Trump’s Gaza Plan first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News