U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

54–940PDF 2010

AMERICA AND THE IRANIAN POLITICAL REFORM

MOVEMENT: FIRST, DO NO HARM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

FEBRUARY 3, 2010

Serial No. 111–93

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York, Chairman 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

VACANT 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

HOWARD DIAMOND, Subcommittee Staff Director 

MARK WALKER, Republican Professional Staff Member 

DALIS ADLER, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Mehdi Khalaji, Senior Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East 

Policy ..................................................................................................................... 14

Ms. Geneive Abdo, Director, Iran Program, The Century Foundation ............... 19

Fariborz Ghadar, Ph.D., Distinguished Scholar and Senior Advisor, Center 

for Strategic and International Studies ............................................................. 26

Mr. J. Scott Carpenter, Keston Family Fellow, The Washington Institute 

for Near East Policy ............................................................................................. 37

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Middle East 

and South Asia: Prepared statement ................................................................. 4

Mr. Mehdi Khalaji: Prepared statement ................................................................ 17

Ms. Geneive Abdo: Prepared statement ................................................................. 21

Fariborz Ghadar, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ....................................................... 28

Mr. J. Scott Carpenter: Prepared statement ......................................................... 39

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 60

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 61

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 62

The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia: Prepared statement ............................................................... 64

(1)

AMERICA AND THE IRANIAN POLITICAL 

REFORM MOVEMENT: FIRST, DO NO HARM 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST

AND SOUTH ASIA, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gary L. Ackerman 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Our witnesses having come forward; the committee is called to order. 

Americans are not very good at sitting still. Patience is not our 

strong suit historically; it has not been a very prominent feature 

of our national character. The terms that describe us best most 

often reflect our restless impatience for progress, our natural inclination for pragmatism, and our deeply ingrained tendency to focus 

most of all on getting the job done. In foreign affairs, however, the 

world offers few situations that lend themselves to neat, quick, and 

simple solutions. 

It is not that Americans are incapable of patience. We can rise 

to the challenge when necessary, and especially when the alternatives offer little hope of success. Following the Second World 

War, a 40-year Cold War was not America’s first choice for a foreign policy. But the alternatives to slow, grinding, vigilant containment of the Soviet Union, when honestly examined, led both Democratic and Republican administrations right back to containment. 

With more diplomacy, some with more pressure, but all with the 

same deadly serious goal of preventing the expansion of Soviet 

domination and all committed to the eventual collapse of the Communist system under the weight of its own failure and fallacies. 

Iran, as I have stated in other hearings, is not the Soviet Union. 

By every measure of size, wealth, capability, and influence, it is a 

vastly smaller, though still a dangerous challenge. And I would respectfully suggest that, though the temptation is strong, reasoning 

in the Middle East, by historical analogy in Europe, is an invitation 

to disaster. Nevertheless, the situation in Iran today does resonate 

most powerfully with Americans, recalling memories of the late 

1980s and the collapse of Communism. 

Again a long policy of containment appears to be on the cusp of 

an unexpected but remarkable success borne on the backs of oppressed people struggling to be free from a vicious, brutal, ideological regime. Moreover, there is a chance that this wholly indigenous 

2

movement, by virtue of its own success and entirely for its own reasons, could bring about an incredibly positive shift in the global security environment. 

I don’t think anyone believes the current leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran will go quietly or easily into retirement, and 

I think it would be foolish to assume that a reformed Iranian Government would automatically be very friendly to the United States 

or be less committed to the pursuit of its own national interest. But 

there is good reason to think that a different Iranian Government, 

one that was truly answerable to the aspirations of the Iranian 

people, would transform the politics of the Middle East, dramatically change the global struggle against violent Islamic extremism, 

and potentially salvage the global nonproliferation regime. 

With stakes of this scale, American minds, my own included, 

begin to race ahead. How can we help? How can we support the 

green movement? How can we accelerate the demise of this awful 

and irresponsible regime? And so on. The most essential thing, I 

think, is to be patient. Not passive, not indifferent, but instead of 

heeding the inner voice that yells, don’t just stand there do something, we need to turn this impulse on its head. Rather than just 

doing something, we need to stop and think things through. 

Even if there were not a painful history of American intervention 

in Iranian affairs, and even if the Iranian regime was not desperate to smear its domestic opponents as American lackeys and 

spies, we should at the very least have some humility about the 

ability of our Government to competently shape highly politicized 

and dynamic events in other nations. I would submit as proof the 

entire previous decade. 

It seems to me that our first obligation is to do no harm. And 

our second obligation is to recognize that we are not a doctor and 

Iran is not a patient. Iran is a sovereign state whose people are 

struggling bravely for their own freedom. It is natural and right for 

us to want to support their struggle. The question is how. I would 

suggest that we start with a healthy amount of skepticism about 

our ability to shape political developments in other countries and 

a firm respect for the sovereignty and independence of Iran. 

With these caveats, I believe there are some important things 

that we can and should do, all of which can be done publicly and 

outside of Iran. First, I think it essential that the President and 

the Secretary of State continue to regularly comment on the situation within Iran. I think the President’s inclusion of Iran in his 

State of the Union Address was very important, and I would want 

to highlight the very strong remarks made by Secretary Clinton following the regime’s violence against protesters during the observance of Ashura in December of last year. 

Second, I think the White House and the State Department in 

their daily briefings should draw attention to events in Iran as 

they occur and make clear the views of the United States when 

there is violence or reports of severe violations of human rights. 

Third, the United States along with other nations must assure that 

we are actually committed to the international human rights, 

should press within the United Nations the issue of Iran’s repression of its own people, if possible in the Security Council and at 

least within the Third Committee, and in the Human Rights CounVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\020310\54940 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

cil. Every nation should be given the chance to stand with the people of Iran. 

Finally, I am convinced that the United States must continue to 

work with our international partners to apply sanctions on the 

Government of Iran for its defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions and for its violations of its IAEA Safeguards agreement. Both 

the House and the Senate have passed gasoline sanctions, and I 

look forward to working with the Obama administration to find a 

way forward on this legislation. Our goal must be to ensure the 

maximum impact on the Iranian Government with the minimum 

harm to our diplomatic efforts and to the people of Iran who are 

struggling for their freedom. 

What I hold to be essential is that we must act and that we must 

act in concert with others if at all possible. The Iranian regime is 

facing pressure from within unlike anything it has ever felt before. 

To the extent that we can heighten that pressure by political and 

economic sanctions, I believe we are absolutely bound to do so. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ackerman follows:]

4


54940a-1.eps
5


54940a-2.eps
6


54940a-3.eps
7

Mr. ACKERMAN. I would like to call on my distinguished partner 

in these hearings, the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. You know, when you say those nice things, I always 

wish, Mr. Chairman, my wife was here to hear it, she doesn’t appreciate me that much. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today’s hearing regarding the growing political opposition movement 

in Iran and what this movement might mean for U.S. relations 

with Iran in general, and specifically in our efforts to stop Iran 

from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. 

On June the 12th, 2009, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ostensibly 

reelected to his second term as President of Iran. Within 48 hours 

of Iranian officials announcing his landslide 62.6 percent victory in 

what outside observers widely expected to be a close contest, 

Tehran and other cities throughout the country were overwhelmed 

with protesters in response to what the people of Iran knew to be 

a rigged election. 

The immediate response by the Obama administration was, in 

my opinion, weak. In a statement released to the media, the President said he was ‘‘deeply troubled by the violence that I have seen 

and been seeing on television.’’ He went on to say, ‘‘I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the 

election, but what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on 

the part of the people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so 

committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.’’

This, in my opinion, was a tepid and half-hearted endorsement 

of freedom in Iran, whereas the President should have immediately 

and forcefully denounced a sham election, indicated U.S. support 

for the demonstrators, and called on other nations to do the same. 

Furthermore, he should have used the crisis to rally additional 

international support for sanctions aimed at stopping Iran’s quest 

for nuclear weapons. Instead, the administration, naive in my opinion in its policy of engagement with Iran, more than likely squandered the chance for real political change from within by failing to 

speak out against a regime’s brutal oppression of its people when 

it mattered the most. 

There are some, as evidenced in the title of this hearing, ‘‘First, 

Do No Harm,’’ who believe the President was right to be measured 

in his response to the crisis, believing that an excessive degree of 

interventionism from the United States would have backfired and 

hardened Tehran’s determination not to negotiate with the United 

States and the international community over its nuclear program. 

Again, I believe this reasoning is flawed because Tehran has never 

wavered in its nuclear ambition. 

A year has now passed since the President first reached out to 

Iran in a bid to engage the regime. In this time, Iran has responded to President Obama’s open hand by continually and continuing to defiantly maintain its uranium enrichment program, 

calling for the destruction of Israel, pursuing long range missile 

weaponry, working to destabilize the peace process in the region, 

and supplying weapons to terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and 

Hamas. 

Iran has no interest in resolving the dispute over its nuclear program, and has skillfully outmaneuvered the Obama administration 

8

into giving the regime 1 more year to go get closer to acquiring an 

atomic bomb. The administration may finally be getting wise to 

Iran’s diplomatic shell game. As we speak, the United States is dispatching patriot defensive missiles to four Persian Gulf countries—

Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait—and moving U.S. war ships into the gulf which are capable of shooting down 

Iranian missiles. 

In addition, the President’s Ambassador to the United Nations, 

Susan Rice, is preparing a new sanctions resolution, the fourth in 

4 years, for the United Nations Security Council to consider. And 

finally, the Congressional leadership has also lifted its block on the 

Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act as it recently passed both 

the House and Senate. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope we will talk to 

the chairman of the full committee and make sure we get this bill 

through Congress as quickly as possible and send it to the President without further delay. 

Unfortunately, the President’s timing with regards to Iran seems 

wrought with irony. As he begins to finally close his open hand into 

a fist, we see that the regime that never once attempted to unclench its own fist now seems to be gaining back its footing. I more 

than anyone hope for the sake of national and regional security 

and for the sake of the people of Iran that we have not done too 

little too late. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. You are very welcome. And a copy of my remarks will be sent to your wife. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, are these my opening remarks or my 

questions? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Your opening remarks, and we will have your 

questions after your opening remarks. 

Mr. ELLISON. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for this 

hearing. I think that it is extremely well timed and well titled. I 

think we should be trying to learn more about how we can help improve the well being of the people of Iran without exacerbating any 

problems that may be existing. For me, I think we should avoid a 

ham-handed meat cleaver approach, and I think we should use all 

deliberate information to be as most skillful and effective as we 

can. 

I think it is important that we have signal and are beginning to 

broaden our portfolio and demonstrate not only that we are concerned about nuclear proliferation but that we are also concerned 

about the welfare and human rights and other people of Iran. And 

so I am glad that we have embarked on this path, and I think it 

is very important that we do so. I will say that, you know, the 

United States and Iran have a long history. We have a very long 

history and it is complicated, and the fact is that those of us in the 

United States don’t know nearly enough about it. 

But some of the things that have happened in the course of this 

relationship people in Iran are very painfully aware of. And so it 

is important that we put a premium on effectiveness and that we 

build a international consensus as President Obama’s overtures 

have begun to do, and that we act decisively to protect the world 

from nuclear proliferation and equally promote the civil and human 

9

rights and well being of the people of Iran, who have a long, long, 

long history of creativity and contributions to the entire world. So 

with that, I thank you again, and I look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for holding this hearing. I want to identify myself with 

Mr. Burton’s remarks, I am very skeptical that our President has 

had a policy that will in some way take advantage of the opportunity we have in Iran. I think that what the President has been 

doing unfortunately has actually hindered the efforts of the free 

people of Iran from achieving their goal, which is a mutual goal we 

should have, which is displacing this repressive mullah regime that 

threatens the peace of the world but also threatens each and every 

one of their families in Iran. 

Let me just note that I agree with the chairman that change is 

absolutely necessary in that region for all of our sake. But what I 

would disagree with, Mr. Chairman, is your call for patience. The 

time for patience is over, it is long over. We should have been engaged in a very active way a long time ago. And we have had plenty of time to think about what our strategy is. Let us just note that 

containment did not end the Cold War. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. 

Containment didn’t end the Cold War. Had we continued with a 

containment strategy, the Soviet Union would still exist, it would 

still have all its missiles aimed at us, and the world would be a 

lot less safe. Ronald Reagan initiated a plan, a strategy, of rolling 

back the Communist world, rolling them back by supporting those 

elements within those Communist countries which would fight tyranny in their countries and thus accomplish the goal that was mutually beneficial to all free people, which is expanding the realm of 

freedom and displacing antidemocratic tyrants which then were in 

charge of the Soviet Union. 

We should have been doing the same with the people of Iran all 

of these years, not just this administration but the last administration. The people of Iran should have not only unequivocally known 

that we were on their side, but that we have actually provided 

them with the resources that they need to succeed. A solidarity 

movement in Poland didn’t just emerge out of nowhere. We helped 

the solidarity movement, we helped the mujahedin, we helped the 

Contras, we helped those fighting the Cuban mercenaries in Africa. 

And the bottom line is, Communism did disintegrate, but that was 

not containment. 

We have contained radical elements in Iran for too long. Containing them in power will lead us to a more dangerous world. We 

should have an offensive strategy aimed at helping the freedom 

loving people of Iran who are our greatest allies. We should do it 

overtly if necessary. We must side with the oppressed people in 

order to fight the oppressor, and that will make it a more peaceful 

world and a more successful strategy. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing so this type of discussion 

can go on between us and these expert witnesses, and perhaps we 

can send a message today to those brave people on the streets of 

Tehran who are putting their lives on the line to stand up for their 

10

own freedom and democracy. We are on their side, no if or buts 

about it, we are on their side and opposed to the mullah regime. 

It is time for the mullahs to go back to the mosque. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Appreciate the gentleman’s support for separation of mosque and state, and I do appreciate your conclusions, but 

I am reluctant to turn the hearing into a debate over which President has had more patience, those who had 8 years of patience including President Reagan and 8 years of patience with President 

Bush without actually doing anything provocative, and I don’t 

know that we now have to run out of patience after 1 year. But 

let us commit to work together to try to encourage the things that 

we want to see accomplished by our country, because our failure 

to do so is not our President’s failure but our nation’s failure. Now 

Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to associate myself with those more recent remarks, because there have 

been many Presidents of both parties since the 1940s who opposed 

Communism in lots of different ways, and it just so happened in 

1989 under the first President Bush’s watch that system came 

down after many, many years. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank 

you for holding this hearing today and I would like to welcome our 

distinguished panel to the subcommittee. 

Since last summer the political tension in Iran has continued to 

capture the international community’s attention. Today we are 

here to discuss what the U.S. role should be as the green movement continues to make its presence known. The Obama administration is reportedly debating whether to deemphasize or abandon 

outright engagement efforts with Iran and help the green movement. Therefore, do you think these protests offer an opportunity 

for the U.S. Government to ramp up its democracy promotion efforts or should we step back and let them address it internally? 

Are we correct in even viewing the reform movement as significant? I remember the 1990s when Iranian leaders entered office 

with strong support from various pro-reform constituencies, yet despite that public support for reform, the Supreme Leader and key 

conservative allies successfully limited their ability to carry out the 

reforms by tying up the key legislations and the appointed legislative review bodies and used their control over the key oversight 

bodies to shape the election outcomes. It wasn’t necessarily in the 

streets it was being shaped, it was actually in the government. 

Therefore I am interested in our panel’s assessment for the prospects of the opposition to bring on major changes. 

Is the violent crackdown on the opposition a sign that the current government is weak? That is another question. And if the 

green movement is ultimately successful in acquiring a leadership 

position or even concessions from the current government, how 

would such an outcome affect Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies 

and therefore our interest in the Middle East? As a strong supporter of H.R. 2194 The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, I 

am interested in whether our panel believes these sanctions are 

consistent with the goals of the opposition movement. And, Mr. 

Chairman, I appreciate their testimony, I yield back my time. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Green. Mr. Fortenberry. 

11

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today, and I welcome all of our distinguished panelists as 

well. Mr. Chairman, as we have spoken of many times, I believe 

that unless we improve our strategy the world is going to awake 

very soon to the headline that Iran has a nuclear bomb. For many 

years the United States and world powers have tried various tactics to halt the nuclear ambitions of Tehran’s clerical elites. They 

have in essence litigated Iran’s case in the National Security Council, they have imposed several rounds of economic sanctions, and 

they have tried to engage Iran with diplomacy, most recently with 

a deal that could have begun the long process of normalization of 

relations. 

But through all of this, as we are very much aware, Iran’s leaders have not blinked as they move closer and closer to the ability 

to make nuclear weapons on short notice. Tehran doubts the collective resolve of world powers. And it is not difficult to see why. European corporations continue to do business with Iran, Russia exploits the international rile over Iran’s nuclear program for its own 

geopolitical gain, in maneuvering China seeks to profit. And this 

international deadlock over Iran’s nuclear intransigence certainly 

seems bleak. 

But in the last 6 months, Mr. Chairman, we have seen something fairly remarkable and something that has stunned the leaders in Iran, something that could help us eventually transcend 

these international deadlocks. In June, everyday Iranians started 

to take to the streets to protest the Presidential election’s controversial outcome. In Tehran alone, crowds of demonstrators 

swelled up to the hundreds of thousands. These protests were nothing short of remarkable. 

Indeed, Iran has not seen such demonstrations since 1979, the 

infamous year since the theocrats that reign in Tehran today first 

seized power. Iran’s leaders were initially caught flat-footed by 

these protests, but they quickly mounted a counteroffensive, and 

over the following days and months Tehran’s crackdown became 

ever more brutal. YouTube enabled the world to witness some of 

this brutality and the barbaric shooting in broad daylight of one female demonstrator whose name is now chanted by crowds. 

News networks broadcast in real time the violent clashes between regime-sponsored militia and protesters. The international 

media reported the shocking slayings of opposition figures on the 

holy day of Ashura in late December. And among those who were 

killed was Ali Mousavi, a nephew of the man whom the opposition 

views as the rightful winner of the contested Presidential election. 

Yet the Iranian regime’s escalating violence has seemed to embolden the Iranian people’s resolve. 

What started out as a series of protests quickly became something else, it became a movement. By year’s end, demonstrators 

throughout Iran were calling not for a mere recount, they were 

challenging the legitimacy of Tehran’s clerical authoritarian regime. While we in Washington focus, appropriately so, on a new 

round of sanctions, many Iranian people continue to risk their lives 

in the country’s growing protest movement. They continue to brave 

the regime’s fists, clubs, water hoses, and bullets to take to the 

street. They continue to defiantly hold signs and chant slogans, not 

12

just in Farsi but in English, so that the whole world might know 

their call for dignity and justice. 

With this growing mass protest movement, everyday Iranians 

have accomplished what sanctions and other forms of multilateral 

pressure aim to do, create the conditions for change in Tehran. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, while I support the new sanction, I believe 

it is time, and you alluded to this as well, for the White House and 

the Congress and the entire international community to elevate the 

Iranian people’s struggle to the center of the world stage. The Iranian people deserve a more moderate, reasonable, and just government in Tehran, and the Iranian people may be the last and best 

hope for halting Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons capability, and it 

may be the Iranian people who help avoid a nuclear arms race in 

the Middle East. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from the expert witnesses this afternoon. And I would just add, 

I don’t have an opening statement, but I don’t think any human 

being who watches or listens to 24/7 news has missed at least in 

passing even what has taken place in Iran over the past year. Just 

some very moving, nonprofessional, everyday human beings, and 

they are capturing on either cell phones or iPods the images of brutality within the Ahmadinejad regime. 

I also think we do disservice to that heroism by, at least from 

this side of the world, trying to cast blame, and I think time ought 

to be focused more on what can we do to make a difference, to let 

the Iranian people know that we are concerned about them? We 

know that their desire is to have a healthy, respectful relationship 

with the West, and particularly with the United States, and that 

there are people suffering in that country today because of radicalism and fundamentalism. And whatever we can do to help 

change that is what I think the focus ought to be. 

And respectfully say to my colleagues, I have been moved by it, 

and what these people go through, the bravery that has been demonstrated, by those who are on trial today even for their protest, 

is remarkable and something that every American ought to be 

made aware of. So, Mr. Chairman, with that, I don’t want to go on 

any more than I have, I am interested in hearing the testimony of 

your witnesses. And with that I will yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A big problem we have 

is that the Obama administration seems to act as if the June election in Iran never happened. Not long ago, an Iran expert noted 

that the administration views the democratic movement inside 

Iran, to use his words, ‘‘as a wrench in the works of nuclear negotiations.’’ I think that there is an inability here to see things as 

they are right now in Iran. 

After the brutal crackdown on the religious holiday of Ashura, 

the President did speak out somewhat more forcibly. I will grant 

that. With oppositionists denouncing the Supreme Leader by name 

and demanding the dismantling of the Islamic regime, he didn’t 

have much choice at that point. Indeed, we will hear testimony 

today that ‘‘even staunch conservatives and hardline clerics have 

13

now joined the opponents of Ahmadinejad.’’ We will also hear that 

the ‘‘sanctity around Supreme Leader Khamenei has been shattered.’’

Despite some rhetoric on human rights in Iran, the Obama administration hasn’t committed the needed resources to creatively 

encourage change. There is no full throttle support for the Iranian 

democracy movement in the budget that landed in Congress this 

week. Instead, the administration seems intent on a regime-centered approach. But I would ask this, which is more likely, what 

is the more likely thing we will see, a verifiable nuclear deal with 

the current regime, or the opposition movement’s success? 

The regime in Iran probably doesn’t fear another round of ‘‘least 

common denominator’’ U.N. sanctions, and that is increasingly 

what these are being termed. But it is downright paranoid, that regime in Iran is downright paranoid, of a color revolution. It is paranoid of the feelings of the people in Iran that we have seen expressed on the street. Next week on February 11th, large protests 

are being planned to coincide with the anniversary of the Islamic 

Revolution. 

The year that the people of Iran as we watch internationally and 

the media that is broadcast out of Iran, they seem to indicate to 

us that if past protests are a guide, many in the street will be asking again whether President Obama is ‘‘with them or against 

them.’’ I hope he is ready to clarify that answer to that question, 

because to be on the right side of history is to be speaking out 

forcefully for the people who are taking these risks and going to the 

streets in Iran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this important hearing today, I am looking forward to the witnesses. I will be brief. I think that the administration does need 

to voice in a stronger fashion their support for what is being heard 

around the world as these Iranians take tremendous risks of their 

own lives and their families’ lives to protest the outrage in the election that was circumvented, the results that were circumvented 

last year. 

Clearly there is nothing more powerful than those within the 

country that are being oppressed and are reacting to that oppression. I will be looking for the witnesses to in their testimony let us 

get a better sense of how widespread that is, and how it is impacting what has been the formal opposition as well as the informal opposition to the current regime, and how it deals with the ruling 

body and what sense you have as to the debate and the turmoil 

that may be taking place within that structured element of the regime. 

So it just seems to me that there is an opportunity to not just 

focus on sanctions, which sadly have not seemed to have much effect at this time, and we know where this regime is headed if left 

to their own devices. So it seems to me that this is a time to recalibrate the efforts that took place last year that have not been successful and to focus on taking advantage of the opportunities that 

are now before us, and I would like the witnesses to tell us what 

you think those opportunities are. So with that said, I will yield the 

balance of my time and look forward to the witnesses. 

14

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. I will now introduce our 

witnesses. Mehdi Khalaji is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Mr. Khalaji focuses on Iranian politics 

and the politics of Shia groups in the Middle East. From 1986 to 

2000, Mr. Khalaji trained in the Seminaries of Qom studying theology and jurisprudence and earned his doctorate researching intellectual and philosophical political developments in Iran and the 

wider Islamic and Western worlds. Mr. Khalaji pursued a career in 

journalism at two Iranian publications, then working for BBC Persian as a political analyst of Iranian affairs, and eventually becoming a broadcaster for Radio Farda. 

Geneive Abdo is a foreign policy fellow and director of the Iran 

Program at the Century Foundation. Prior to joining the Century 

Foundation Ms. Abdo, was the Liaison Officer for the Alliance for 

Civilizations, a U.N. initiative under then Secretary General Kofi 

Annan. Prior to her tenure with the U.N., Ms. Abdo spent 20 years 

as a foreign correspondent for The Guardian, The Economist, The 

Dallas Morning News, and Reuters, and has contributed to many 

other publications focusing on the Middle East and the Muslim 

world. 

Fariborz Ghadar is a distinguished scholar and senior advisor at 

the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Dr. Ghadar is 

a professor and founding director for the Center of Global Business 

Studies at Penn State University. During his career he has focused 

on global business, economics and finance, and has worked as an 

investment banker at the World Bank. He has been a consultant 

to a score of businesses and governments, but served last in government as a Vice Minister in the Shah of Iran’s Government. 

Finally, Scott Carpenter is the Keston Family fellow at the 

Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of Project 

Fikra, which focuses on empowering Arab democrats—that is with 

a small ‘‘d’’—in their struggle against extremism. From 2004 to 

2007, Mr. Carpenter served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State 

in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, and in 2006 was named Coordinator for the State Department’s Broader Middle East and 

North Africa Initiative. Mr. Carpenter also served in the Coalition 

Provisional Authority in Iraq, and before coming to the State Department at the International Republican—that is with a capital 

‘‘R’’—Institute. 

Without objection, each of our witnesses’ full statements will be 

entered into the record, and I would ask you each to summarize 

your testimony in about 5 minutes. The lights are in front of you, 

and we can move directly to questions after each of our witnesses 

presents their testimony to us. Thank you very much, we will begin 

with Mr. Khalaji. Press the button on your microphone and move 

it a little bit closer, if you would. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MEHDI KHALAJI, SENIOR FELLOW, THE 

WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY 

Mr. KHALAJI. Yes. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr. Burton, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for having 

me here and giving me this opportunity to testify before you. The 

current democratic movement in Iran, which began after the big 

Presidential election in June 2009 is a nonviolent movement which 

15

aims to rely on itself without asking for foreign help. The people 

involved in this movement believe that democracy is not a gift that 

can be received by others, but rather an internal effort of a people 

to emancipate itself from tyranny and realize its dream of justice, 

freedom, and national sovereignty. 

The Iranian people appreciate President Barak Obama’s policy of 

not intervening in Iranian political affairs and allowing them to 

manage their way toward democracy. Therefore, any policy toward 

Iran should be chosen in a prudent and cautious way that would 

not affect the democratic movement in a negative manner. My experience with political activists who are involved in the green 

movement is that they do not expect any direct help from the 

United States or any other foreign power, but a close look at the 

Iranian situation reveals that in this specifically historical moment, 

the interest of the international community and the democratic interest of Iranians are in confluence. 

To be sure, the focus of international community is on the Iranian nuclear program, while the main preoccupation of Iranian 

people is securing basic political and human rights and integrating 

the country into the international community. However, peace in 

the region and democracy in Iran now seem to be inseparable because the same forces that threaten the peace are the same powers 

in Iran who threaten democracy and run the repressive machinery 

against the Iranian people. 

The threat to regional peace and Iranian democracy are the 

same: The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, IRGC. IRGC is not 

only the main body in charge of the Iranian nuclear program, but 

also is the most effective means for political suppression in the 

hands of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s leader and commander in 

chief. The Islamic Republic is nothing but an economic-religiousmilitary complex that applies its coercive power not through political institutions but through a military and security apparatus 

under the direct supervision of Ayatollah Khamenei. 

His religious authority is contested by clerical establishment. The 

only power base he has is within the military and security community of the country. Khamenei has lost much of his political and religious legitimacy, and without the military, and especially IRGC, 

he would have no real power. Since coming to power, Ayatollah 

Khamenei has never given an interview to the media. He does not 

feel any sense of responsibility to the people, driving his power 

from Iran’s oil income. 

In practice, he is accountable before nobody despite the constitutional provision for an assembly of experts to supervise his leadership. Because he bids who can run for this assembly, he directly 

controls dozens of foundations that own some of the wealthiest 

companies in Iran and is not accountable before the Parliament or 

the government. The IRGC, whose commanders he appoints, and 

its affiliates control one third of Iran’s national income, dominating 

construction, oil field services, and telecommunications among 

other industries. 

In order to stop Iran’s suspicious nuclear activities, the international community needs to apply pressure on the IRGC, which 

not only threatens the region through a suspicious nuclear program 

but is using the Quds force as symmetrical warfare and support for 

16

extremist groups to try to weaken Sunni allies of the United States 

and sabotage the Arab-Israeli peace process and the budding democratic process in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Democracy and peace can be achieved through weakening the 

military government in Tehran and pressuring the IRGC. The two 

parallel tracks, the international community’s effort for peace and 

the Iranian people’s democratic movement, naturally reinforce each 

other because they fight with the same enemy. Therefore, the main 

mechanism for supporting the democratic movement in Iran is to 

target the financial and military capability of IRGC. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. If you can begin to sum up. 

Mr. KHALAJI. Yes. A more powerful IRGC would result in a more 

militarized government, and a more militarized government is 

more likely to militarize the nuclear program for dangerous purposes. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Khalaji follows:]

17


54940c-1.eps
18

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Ms. Abdo. 


54940c-2.eps 54940c-3.eps
19

STATEMENT OF MS. GENEIVE ABDO, DIRECTOR, IRAN 

PROGRAM, THE CENTURY FOUNDATION 

Ms. ABDO. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee. I am extremely honored to have this opportunity to discuss the opposition movement in Iran with you and policy approaches the United States could take in order to encourage the opposition movement. My perspective is based upon my first hand experience with Iran’s leaders and civil society when I worked in 

Tehran as a correspondent for The Guardian newspaper from 1998 

to 2001. 

The opposition protests have become an ever present force in Iranian politics. It is apparent from the recent demonstrations in December that the protesters have become more determined and more 

radicalized. Perhaps the most significant outcome of the protest 

movement is that the sanctity around Supreme Leader Khamenei 

has been shattered. He no longer is respected as a powerful political authority, nor is he considered a religious leader with divine 

attributes. 

Moreover, the concept of supreme clerical rule, viewed by many 

now as a form of government that inevitably leads to despotism, 

should be abolished. It is clear now that a country which once aspired to be an Islamic state and a republic cannot withstand all 

power concentrated in the hands of one Ayatollah. As a result, in 

the eyes of many Iranians, the Islamic Republic of Iran is no longer 

an Islamic state or a republic. 

Seven months after the Presidential election, it is impossible to 

determine the outcome of this conflict. However, in the short term 

it is safe to assume that the state will prevail through the use of 

excessive force and violence, particularly through the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. The strength of the opposition movement for this 

reason is of supreme importance now, and the United States’ action 

and assistance to this movement is extremely important. 

A strong opposition movement provides the West with leverage 

against the regime. For these reasons and many others, it is important for the United States to assist those people as part of this 

movement who are trying to reform the system, even if a reform 

state still means that a theocracy remains in power. So who is the 

opposition movement? The movement is not restricted only to 

street protesters. Increasingly the opposition is gaining the support 

of traditional and religious Iranians, and this is very important, 

who have historically supported the hardliners around Supreme 

Leader Khamenei. 

A groundbreaking survey was recently published that provides 

evidence of this complete defection of the traditional base that once 

supported President Ahmadinejad. Many Iranians living in the 

provinces, which had been the base of his support, now are part of 

the opposition movement. Another important feature of this movement today is that it has abandoned the ideological underpinnings 

of the Islamic Revolution. They no longer believe in an Islamic 

state, at least that part of the movement that is the younger generation. 

Perhaps this is only the minority of the movement, we don’t 

know, it is difficult to assess the percentages. However, the opposition generally is effectively depriving the regime of its revoluVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\020310\54940 HFA PsN: SHIRL
20

tionary ideology, and this is something that the United States 

could certainly exploit. So regarding the expectations that the opposition movement has from the United States, I have made a short 

list. One of the primary, I think, avenues that the opposition thinks 

that the United States could take would be toward highlighting the 

human rights violations through the United Nations. 

The United States could pressure Iran’s regime on its abysmal 

human rights record somehow through the United Nations if not 

through the Human Rights Commission that is part of the U.N. 

The opposition believes that a U.N. tribunal could investigate the 

torture and killings of demonstrators and other dissidents. This 

would highlight their abysmal human rights record before the 

international community, but more importantly it could cause a lot 

of Iranians inside Iran who now still support the system to understand that the Islamic Republic is no longer behaving as an Islamic 

state. 

The opposition movement is dependent upon the Internet and social networking in order to communicate with Iranians inside and 

outside the country and to organize protests. Oppositionists want 

the United States to provide technical assistance to run and maintain anti-government Web sites, and also enable them to communicate when the regime blocks Internet sites and social networks. 

They want, for example, anti-filtering software that would be immune to government interference. 

The United States also should pressure foreign telecommunications firms not to sell telecommunications technology to Iran and 

to refuse to ship technology that has already been purchased. The 

opposition also believes that the United States should signal to 

Tehran that Washington does not recognize the legitimacy of President Ahmadinejad’s administration due to the rigged election. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. If you could begin to wrap up. 

Ms. ABDO. Okay, thank you. Activists and NGOs, such as Women 

and the Million Signature campaign, whose members have been arrested and interrogated, believe that they would benefit from the 

opportunity to network with other NGOs from the region and from 

the United States. They believe that such workshops and training 

could help them develop their strategies inside the country. In conclusion, the green movement is not searching for grand gestures 

from the United States. However, modest steps, particularly those 

that would address the lack of human rights and the absence of political liberalization would give the opposition more legitimacy in 

Iranian society. This kind of assistance, they believe, could come 

from the United States. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Abdo follows:]

21


54940b-1.eps
22


54940b-2.eps
23


54940b-3.eps
24


54940b-4.eps
25


54940b-5.eps
26

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Dr. Ghadar. 

STATEMENT OF FARIBORZ GHADAR, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED 

SCHOLAR AND SENIOR ADVISOR, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC 

AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 

Mr. GHADAR. Chairman Ackerman, Ranking Member Burton, 

and distinguished members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, I am honored to have been invited by the committee to testify 

today about America and the Iranian political reform movement. I 

will be testifying today in my capacity as distinguished scholar and 

senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies 

and a professor of business at Smeal College of Penn State University. 

Chairman Ackerman and the members of the committee eloquently described the mess that Iran is in right now. The latest 

events in Iran are symptoms of a tectonic shift in Iran’s political 

environment. The regime has been using the Basij and the paramilitary guards to beat up on protesters. If you look at last week, 

we had recent conciliatory movements by both Karoubi and 

Mousavi to reconcile to a certain extent with Khamenei. Khamenei 

did not respond to that. 

The opposition has asked for participating on February 11th in 

a massive demonstration but in a peaceful matter. We don’t know 

what the outcome will be, but there are three possible outcomes. 

The Revolutionary Guards will beat down the opposition into the 

underground for them to raise another day, a compromise will finally be worked out among the different factions of the regime, or 

the demise of the regime as we know it will occur. 

Given the uncertainty and the demand for freedom from oppression by the public, but also for independence, we should not take 

sides in the future nature of the regime. We should not endorse a 

candidate or a party or even a constitution. These matters are up 

to the Iranian public. A wise strategy is one that informs the Iranian public and ensures that their voices are heard. That we can 

do. The opposition, however, needs to know that we will not use 

them as a chip that is traded away to the Iranian regime. 

A successful strategy is to respond to the aspiration of the Iranian people, the aspirations that are ignored by their own regime. 

The Iranian public, as many mentioned, is pro-America. What Iranians want, freedom and independence. Various surveys and polls 

show that zotsmosmd would like to promote economic development, 

share technology, create employment, and have a closer relationship with our country. 

The great majority of the Iranian population, as was mentioned, 

are young people, technologically advanced, unhappy with the situation, the way they are being treated, and the social restrictions. 

They are, however, at the same time concerned about the U.S. Government. The fear is partially due to the potential military attack 

or expanded sanctions. Neither of these policies is going to be successful. Military action would likely galvanize Iranian society 

against attackers, delay the nuclear program by a limited lies, and 

encourage the hardliners to go after nuclear bombs. 

Sanctions can be broken down into three categories: Trade sanctions, which have not been successful; investment sanctions on forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\020310\54940 HFA PsN: SHIRL
27

eign direct investments, which have been successful; and fund 

flows, controlling the funds that go to the Revolutionary Guard and 

target it and confiscate it. Based on the desire of independence and 

at the same time freedom, I suggest the following. Continue and 

expand our broadcasts highlighting the mismanagement and corruption that exists in the system. 

Ahmadinejad in his first election talked about corruption, sat 

there piously in front of his house and showed that his house is 

very small while his opposition lived in mansions. He tried to do 

the same thing in the recent election on television, but that did not 

sit well with everyone. Broadcast Iran’s economic performance. The 

economic performance has been miserable. Corruption, nepotism, 

disregard for meritocracy, is just rampant. 

In fact, Iranians often compare themselves to the Turks. In the 

past 30 years the GDP per capita in Iran has been practically stagnant, while the Turks’ GDP per capita has grown four fold. Iranians visit Turkey, see that, but not only that, the Azeris across 

the border are doing much better than the Azeris in northern Iran, 

the Arabs are doing much better across the Gulf than they are in 

Iran. Continue broadcasting the brutality and the lack of human 

rights, which were mentioned earlier. Show how the Revolutionary 

Guard and senior leaders have pilfered the economy and show how 

they have passed the money around. 

Continue to target and confiscate Iran’s Revolutionary investments, and at the same time while targeting them, sanction it to 

prevent civilians, so for example civilian airlines from being repaired. It may seem heartless, but enhancing sanctions to prevent 

electronic gear that allows the government to control what is going 

on would be very helpful. I believe that we are at a critical point 

in dealing with the Iranian regime. The Iranians are already ready 

to take major action. They want independence, and at the same 

time they want freedom. We can assist in both without interfering. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ghadar follows:]

28


54940d-1.eps
29


54940d-2.eps
30


54940d-3.eps
31


54940d-4.eps
32


54940d-5.eps
33


54940d-6.eps
34


54940d-7.eps
35


54940d-8.eps
36


54940d-9.eps
37

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Carpenter. 

STATEMENT OF MR. J. SCOTT CARPENTER, KESTON FAMILY 

FELLOW, THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST 

POLICY 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Burton, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the timely opportunity to testify before 

you today. For most of its history, the United States has sought to 

support freedom and opportunity abroad, knowing that free peoples 

properly concerned with their own hopes and dreams, to not to be 

enemies and indeed often become partners. As we come together to 

apply this principle to Iran, the subcommittee sounds a note of caution, urging us to first do no harm. 

In my experience, however, working on the inside at the State 

Department, this seemingly appropriate, reasonable tone often becomes an excuse for hand wringing and paralysis. Creativity and 

a willingness to take a modicum of risk are suborn by the simple 

phrase uttered all too often, we have to be sure that whatever we 

do does not put them at greater risk, whether the them is 

Zimbabwean labor activists, Egyptian bloggers, Chinese civil rights 

lawyers, or others. 

For this reason, I take my cue from the activists themselves. 

Surely they know better than we the risks that they are prepared 

to take for their freedom. The U.S. Government’s responsibility 

therefore should be to make a clear offer of support for them to 

take up or not as they choose. In the case of Iran’s green movement, so much more. The green movement represents the latest 

iteration of a century-long effort to forge a constitutional republic 

based on pluralism and democracy. 

Since 1906 this strive has been thwarted, first by monarchs and 

later by theocrats, often aided and abetted by outside powers, including the U.S. Today, the Islamic regime has unleashed increasingly brutal waves of violence against its own people, as we have 

heard. Yet in the face of this violence, people in the streets are calling on the Obama administration to support them. Demonstrators 

in November chanted, Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you 

with them? We would be foolish to think that they were asking this 

rhetorically. 

As several Iranian-Americans have noted, the goal of protesters 

holding signs in English is not simply to show off their linguistic 

ability. Given our principles and their calls for support, it is critical 

that the U.S. avail itself of this opportunity and responsibility to 

get it right. Too often when it comes to the people of Iran we have 

come down on the wrong side of history, as we did in 1953 and 

again in the lead up to the revolution in 1979. As one green movement activist put it to me recently in Brussels, if the United States 

thought relations between it and Iran were strained after the 

Musaddeq coup, just wait until Washington betrays the green 

movement. 

So what should the U.S. do? In my view, it is time for the Obama 

administration to launch a comprehensive offensive to challenge 

the regime on human rights grounds. In my written testimony I 

have made a number of recommendations but will highlight just a 

38

few here. First, future policy actions must be set squarely within 

the context of human rights. If the U.S. imposes targeted even 

more broad-based sanctions, link it to human rights violations of 

the IRGC and the Basij. 

The administration should make it known publicly that it is 

planning for the eventuality of a democratic government coming to 

power in Iran by working with Congress to prepare the necessary 

legal groundwork to lift sanctions and remove Iran from a list of 

state sponsors of terrorism. It should articulate the benefits that 

would flow from such steps while also making clear the process will 

take time. This would have the twin benefits of making clear the 

current regime is not democratic while helping to set expectations 

in the event the regime actually did collapse. 

The administration in my view should publicly relaunch a revitalized Iran democracy fund and/or bolster the National Endowment for Democracy’s ability to support democrats inside and elsewhere. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the administration has renamed the program the Near East Regional Democracy, or NERD, 

fund, and has defunded a number of prominent grantees including 

the Yale Human Rights Documentation Center. 

Critical in the medium term is to do something dramatic to improve the voice of America’s Persian News Network. Poor management and a lack of proper editorial board are currently robbing 

PNN of most of its impact. The administration should finally and 

expeditiously move forward on targeted sanctions against IRGC 

leadership and companies, but not in an incremental manner. Instead it should execute all prospective targeted sanctions at the 

same time as a single tidal wave to boost intended effectiveness 

and strengthen their political impact inside Iran. 

At this critical juncture of Iran’s turbulent history, it is clear 

that the regime is vulnerable, and the reason for that vulnerability 

is the deepening legitimacy crisis spurred on by the green movement. Expressing solidarity with the aspirations of the Iranian people at this moment will reinforce the regime’s paranoia and may 

yet tip the balance in favor of those committed to reshaping or even 

overthrowing this regime. A change in regime provides the best 

safeguard against a nuclear Iran and may even usher in a period 

of U.S.-Iranian partnership that could radically impact U.S. efforts 

to stabilize both Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader Middle East. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carpenter follows:]

39


54940e-1.eps
40


54940e-2.eps
41


54940e-3.eps
42


54940e-4.eps
43


54940e-5.eps
44


54940e-6.eps
45

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much. I will yield myself 5 minutes. First do no harm, that was not made up by me, that was Hippocrates’ advice to physicians who had good intentions of going out 

and helping people, that was the first rule of advice. So I went and 

I saw this movie some time ago, it had a lot of bad guys in it, I 

think it was called The Godfather. And there was this guy there 

that, every time he kissed somebody bad things happened to them. 

The real question before us is, how do we, and I think we have 

all agreed up here despite the fact that we have some divergent 

views, agreed that we want to help the people in the green movement and the people who want a democracy and the people who 

love their country for all the right reasons. How do we embrace 

them without it becoming the kiss of death? How does that happen? We can say things, we can do things, we can spend money, 

how do we do that? 

We need to have some ideas to consider that do no harm. Because it seems to me that the bad guys there are wiping out the 

good guys as soon as they can get their hand on them. And my 

good friend from California spoke to the issue of the democracy 

movement in Poland, and I would remind us that it was not the 

overt action of an American President—the leader of the free world 

who had F–16s at his disposal, the world’s greatest superpower, 

with nuclear weapons, that really triggered this—but it was a quiet 

man of peace who represented millions and had no military division whatsoever whose plane landed from Rome and got out and 

uttered the historic and biblical words, ‘‘Be not afraid.’’

And it was that very inspirational statement from the Pope at 

the time to a very Catholic nation that inspired them to take the 

actions that they needed, knowing that they had world opinion, 

and more importantly right, on their side. It would have been a 

very different message if the chief rabbi of Jerusalem delivered it 

or the imam of all imams, but it was somebody with whom they 

could relate. Should there not be a different messenger, possibly, 

of this message? Is there an uber-imam that could come from somewhere and land in Tehran and tell people not to be afraid? Are 

there things that we can—and there were some suggestions here 

by the panel—specific action that we can take without putting the 

sign of death on the very people that we want to help? That is my 

question. Mr. Khalaji? 

Mr. KHALAJI. I think you are completely right, there are some 

measures that if the United States take them it would harm this 

movement significantly. I am against any sort of financial support 

to political groups or any explicit support to the political figures. 

These are sort of thing that hurt this movement. But I think that 

many people who are involved in the nuclear program and are 

threatening the peace in the region——

Mr. ACKERMAN. I have 1 minute left, and I want everybody to 

answer, so if we could? 

Mr. KHALAJI. Yes. They are the same people who are cracking 

down on people. And I think that putting pressure on these people 

specifically, especially IRGC people, especially Khamenei and people around him, will help a lot. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Ms. Abdo? 

46

Ms. ABDO. Thank you. I would recommend two tangible things. 

As we have said in this meeting, emphasis on human rights violations, because this will cause the base perhaps that still supports 

the regime to take a different position. And two, anything that 

could be done to address Iranians’ access to the Internet and communications so that they can communicate with each other in order 

to mobilize their movement. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Dr. Ghadar? 

Mr. GHADAR. In addition to what has been said, I think the corruption and the nepotism in the regime should be highlighted. The 

Revolutionary Guards are raping the country. In addition to the 

human rights, they are pilfering the country. This should be highlighted, and this is the cause of the Iranian economic malaise and 

desperate situation, unemployment and inflation. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. My time is up, but if I could be indulged? Because I don’t want to cut off the witness questioning by the distinguished minority member. 

Mr. BURTON. You are the boss, whatever you say goes. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. It doesn’t mean I am not going to cut you off, 

Dan. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I move to give the chairman 2 additional 

minutes. Ask for unanimous consent. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Just 30 seconds, if you will, Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you. As I said, in my written testimony 

I have included a number of suggestions, but I do think it is important that the President and senior members of the administration 

be able to speak out as indicated on the human rights issues, putting us squarely on the side of the human rights issues, while finding ways to create platforms for the opposition themselves to be 

able to organize and speak to one another to support them, whether on the Internet or satellite radio or even satellite television. 

Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, and I thank the committee for your indulgence. Mr. Burton. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, 

I was reading some of the information about what they have been 

doing to these demonstrators, and as I understand it they have 

killed two, they have executed two last week. There are 16 more 

that are going on trial I guess Saturday, or this past Saturday, and 

nine more have been announced for execution next week. I just 

can’t believe that we should stand by and see these kinds of atrocities take place because people just want freedom. 

And so I was a little upset when Admiral Blair, who is the National Director of Intelligence, indicated that the protesters had little chance for success. He said ‘‘Strengthened conservative control 

will limit opportunities for reformers to participate in politics or organize opposition.’’ He went on to say ‘‘The regime will work to 

marginalize opposition elites, disrupt or intimidate efforts to organize dissent, and use force to put down unrest.’’

Now he may believe that, but I just think that is the wrong message to send. I mean if we don’t give money, if we don’t give any 

kind of tangible support to the people who are demonstrating, we 

should at least in my opinion say, you know, we wish you success, 

we want to see freedom reign, and we want to do everything we 

47

can—without interfering in your process over there directly—we 

want to do everything that we can to encourage freedom, democracy, and the things that we believe in. And that really concerned 

me that he said that. 

Now, if the current regime were somehow to fall due to internal 

pressure, who would be best situated to take power there? And 

those currently pushing for reform, would they be the best ones or 

would there be other hardline people waiting in the wings to take 

over? And one other thing, some have worried in the past that the 

imposition of sanctions would drive the Iranian people toward their 

government. If we impose sanctions, if we could get our friends 

around the world to impose sanctions with us, would that drive the 

Iranian people toward the regime, would they be neutral, or would 

this encourage them to push harder for reform? And we can start 

at either end. Start at this end this time. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, in terms of sanctions, what we have 

heard, or I have heard from people in green movement, is what 

they want are sanctions that are short and sharp and that shock 

the system. And as we all know, the international community does 

not tend to work in that way. As we have heard, sanctions tend to 

be least common denominator, they are not designed to shock, and 

that is what would be most helpful. They want to avoid what happened in Iraq where there is this slow ratcheting up of sanctions 

that end up hurting the Iraqi people and the system within Iraq 

so desperately that it creates real problems. So I think they are 

open to sanctions, but they have to be short and sharp. 

Mr. BURTON. What do you mean by ‘‘short and sharp’’? 

Mr. CARPENTER. Well, the gasoline embargo that the Congress 

has been considering and asking to put toward the President, I 

think that is the type of thing that would have a potentially huge 

impact. The second thing I would say, again, I want to come back 

to the Iran Democracy Fund. And with deference to my colleague, 

who I love like a brother, he is my marja, but I have heard people 

in Europe who are working in the green movement begging for 

more assistance as journalists are being forced to flee Iran, journalists who had been operating inside. And those funds have been cut 

off by the State Department. So there are things we can do, we 

don’t have to talk about it all the time, I don’t suggest that we talk 

about it. Sorry. 

Mr. BURTON. Go ahead, I am running out of time, I want to 

make sure everybody gets the chance to give their opinion. 

Mr. GHADAR. If we break down sanctions into three categories, 

the most effective has certainly been going after the money of the 

Revolutionary Guards, targeting them, identifying them, taking 

them over. Furthermore, I think we should highlight the pilferage 

that is occurring. Iranians are very sensitive to corruption. We 

should highlight the corruption over and over again, the system is 

corrupt, we should take that to them. Foreign direct investment 

sanctions have been effective but they are long term. In my opinion, trade sanctions have not been effective, they won’t be effective, 

they will hurt the population. I constantly hear that airplanes are 

falling from the sky, and they blame us for not being able to get 

components from Boeing. 

48

Mr. BURTON. Can we do 30 seconds for each of the other witnesses? 

Ms. ABDO. There have been several meetings of people within the 

green movement in Europe. And one thing, even though there is a 

great debate among them, one recommendation they do make is 

that there is some sort of funding for civil society organizations 

that doesn’t come from the U.S. Government directly. This, they believe, will help their organizations without tainting them with 

something like a democracy fund. So their recommendation is that 

it come from unofficial or nongovernmental organizations. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BURTON. Dr. Khalaji? 

Mr. KHALAJI. Regarding to the potential scenario for the end of 

this crisis, I think that the world, and especially United States, 

plays an important role in shaping the future of Iran. Because if 

the efforts we make now, it leads to the weakening of the military 

body of the Iranian regime, the possibility of establishment of a 

military government after this crisis would be less. Because I think 

one of the scenarios which is likely is, after the weakening of 

Khamenei and the civilian politicians, Revolutionary Guard comes 

from behind the scene to the front. So it is a big danger, but we 

can prevent it by confronting this IRGC now. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly, we have 

heard terms in the press, terms like mullah government, but isn’t 

it true that one of the things going on now is that members of the 

opposition are part of the clerical establishment and the IRGC is 

starting to sort of take over and militarize the government? So to 

describe the government now as just a mullah government is sort 

of not accurate, am I right or wrong? It looks like Ms. Abdo is nodding agreeably, do you want to elaborate? 

Ms. ABDO. Yes, you are absolutely right. One of the most important results of what has happened is that even though much of the 

clerical establishment had grown very, really in quiet I guess opposition of the state, what has happened now is that those internal 

private debates have become public. And conservative clerics now 

are opposed to the system. In fact, I don’t know if some of you read 

some of the news reports, but the Chief Justice of Iran now, Mr. 

Larijani, who is the brother of the Speaker of Parliament, made 

statements this week that politics should not enter the judicial system, that he will not take orders to execute people anymore, that 

there has to be a judicial process. So if someone who is a staunch 

hardliner, such as Mr. Larijani, who is also a cleric, is now publicly 

opposed to the state, this means that the cracks within the system 

are pretty profound. And this has happened, as you point out, Representative Ellison, that this has happened actually throughout the 

clerical establishment. 

Mr. ELLISON. And in fact Mr. Karoubi is a religious leader as 

well, isn’t that right? 

Ms. ABDO. Yes, he is a religious leader as well. 

Mr. ELLISON. And he is an opposition leader. Mr. Khalaji? 

Mr. KHALAJI. Yes, as a former seminarian and who has studied 

in the clerical establishment for 14 years, I would say that the clerical establishment in Islam, especially in Shiism, is completely difVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:44 Jun 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\MESA\020310\54940 HFA PsN: SHIRL
49

ferent than other religions like, you know, Christianity and Catholicism. So when somebody wears robe and turban, it doesn’t mean 

that he is necessarily a religious leader or religious authority. 

Mr. ELLISON. Okay. 

Mr. KHALAJI. So Karoubi is known in Iran not because of his religious authority but because of his political record. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you for your inclusion. I only have 5 minutes, so please do forgive me. I appreciate your remarks though. 

You know, you all have talked about sanctions and tried to come 

up with smart sanctions, I have a question for you hypothetical. If 

the people of the democracy movement believe that all we care 

about is the nuclear issue, not their human rights, and if our response to what they believe our concerns are is to deprive the average Iranian of gasoline, what will be the impact of that? And is 

that scenario a possibility? Dr. Ghadar? 

Mr. GHADAR. I absolutely agree with your comment. Let me just 

briefly on the previous one, my fear is even more exaggerated than 

you articulated. I am afraid that it is in fact the Revolutionary 

Guards that are calling the shots and Khamenei is afraid to do 

anything, but I don’t have proof for that, but just the fact that they 

are the instrument as holding control. With regard to sanctions, I 

believe sanctions that hurt the people will ultimately hurt us, 

okay? 

I mentioned the airlines, I don’t think gasoline is going to be effective, I think that what the government will just basically reduce, 

they have no smart cards, the smart cards will basically the 

amount allocated was 100 liters a month, last month they reduced 

it to 80, you can buy it on the black market four times the price, 

the Revolutionary Guards have cards that they can use, they can 

even sell it on the side. Sanctions has allowed the Revolutionary 

Guards to basically play a role in smuggling and profiting from the 

market, and also on foreign direct investment making all the major 

investments themselves. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Doctor, and please forgive my abruptness, they only give you a few minutes. I actually introduced a 

sanctions bill, and the bill I am introducing is called the Stand 

With the Iranian People Act, I call it SWPA, but what it does is 

that it prohibits procurement contracts with persons or entities 

that provide censorship or surveillance technology to the Government of Iran, it encourages U.S. allies to deny visas to Iranian officials who have carried out human rights abuses, it affirms the importance of diplomacy with Iran in order to advance national security interests of the United States, and it also encourages work 

with the U.N. to investigate human rights abuses, and finally it enables U.S. American NGOs to provide humanitarian assistance directly to Iranian people. Now I know you haven’t read my bill, but 

just conceptually based on what I have shared with you, what do 

you think in the last 4 seconds? Just if I could ask for unanimous 

consent for 1 minute, maybe 2? 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Let us give 30 seconds. 

Mr. GHADAR. I think that is a great idea. I would also add to that 

that allowing Iranian students to come to the United States, allowing maybe a consulate to be opened so that actually Iranians can 

see that we are open to them. 

50

Mr. ELLISON. Did you say consulate? 

Mr. GHADAR. Consulate, yes. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Representative Ellison, I have read your bill and 

I think it is a good bill. I think there have to be some safeguards 

put in place on the humanitarian assistance side, OFAC licensing, 

et cetera. And I also think you should go further in terms of allowing certain communications equipment and other things for NGOs 

to be able to distribute, again with that oversight. In terms of the 

broad——

Mr. ACKERMAN. We are going to have to just keep moving. 

Ms. ABDO. I think your bill is perfect. I mean I think that those 

are practical recommendations that are practical and that wouldn’t 

necessarily taint the movement. 

Mr. KHALAJI. I think they are excellent. Just one thing, along 

with banning visa for Iranian officials we have to facilitate the visa 

for ordinary Iranians. This is the nightmare of Ayatollah Khamenei 

to see Iranian people connected to the world outside. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me be the 

contrarian that I guess I have been designated to be on this committee. And let me just say while I have great respect for my very 

creative and I wouldn’t mind saying a new force here in Congress, 

and we certainly appreciate his ideas, but let us take a look at 

where is the pivotal spot over there. What is going to make the 

change? We are not talking about the Revolutionary Guard, we are 

talking about the factor that gives the mullahs the right to determine who will run in the election. 

It is the mullah’s power to determine who will get on the ballot 

and respect for that power that keeps that regime in place. Take 

away that, and have anyone who wants to run on the ballot be free 

to get on the ballot, that regime would disappear. So it is the 

mullah regime that is the enemy. The Revolutionary Guard, where 

does their power come from? It comes from the fact that no one can 

run on the ballot unless they are approved by the mullahs and they 

are not going to let anybody in who is against the establishment. 

The changes that happened in Poland and the disintegration of 

the Soviet Union happened for a number of reasons. Yes, the Pope 

played a major role, that was great. But let us note it wasn’t just 

the Pope. Ronald Reagan had meetings in the White House with 

people who were resisting the Communist dictatorship in Poland 

and elsewhere, he participated in rallies in which the people who 

were struggling for freedom in Poland participated. That type of 

endorsement we do not have today by this administration, and we 

need that kind of endorsement. 

The President of the United States and all of us should identify 

and embrace people who are struggling for freedom in Tehran, and 

we have not done that. And the chairman is absolutely right when 

he says this isn’t the only administration that has held off from 

that type of approach, you are absolutely right in that, Mr. Chairman, and I am not just leveling criticism at Obama who has been 

in the presidency now for just 1 year, but for the entire administration that preceded him. 

51

I am going to be asking Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee in 

which I am a member to hold hearings into broadcasting and what 

quality of broadcasting we have going into Iran and elsewhere. I 

am sitting next to one of the heroes of freedom broadcasting, and 

Ed will certainly have some comments on that in a moment I am 

sure. Finally, about what we can do, go after the money. These 

mullahs are corrupt. 

They are not only repressive, they are not only part of a repressive regime, they are part of a corrupt regime that is, as you say, 

just robbing the people of Iran blind. They are sucking the wealth 

away from that society, and much of it goes into banks in the West. 

We should make it our job, and Mr. Chairman, I would suggest 

that we in the Congress call on this administration to identify and 

locate those funds that have been taken from the people of Iran by 

the mullah leadership and to seek to have those funds frozen and 

perhaps even put into a freedom fund that could be used by those 

people struggling for democracy in that country. 

Those things would be seen as real, not only by the people in the 

streets but also of course by the people in power. We need to do 

more than just every now and then reconfirm that supposedly we 

are on their side but we are going to have patience and think about 

what actions we should take. We have heard some great suggestions today, I think we should follow up on those suggestions, we 

should be powerful in our advocacy of democracy, and we should 

be courageous in aligning with those people who are struggling for 

democracy in Tehran and elsewhere. 

That is the way to build a more peaceful world, and if we had 

people here talking about China I would be saying exactly the 

same thing. People around the world who want democracy are our 

greatest allies, whatever country they come from. Iran is not our 

enemy, the Iranian people are not our enemy. The Chinese people, 

the Iranian people, all of those people are our greatest allies in this 

struggle. We recognize that, Ronald Reagan recognized that, and 

that is how we defeated Communism. We need to have that same 

type of identification of our allies now as we face radical Islam in 

the future. So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this. Unfortunately there is 3 seconds left. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would ask that 

my opening statement be entered into the record at this point. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Without objection, all members’ statements. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair. You know, picking up on my 

friend from California’s last comments, I am certainly totally sympathetic with his point of view, but something that concerns me 

about U.S. identification with what seems to be clearly a truly indigenous mass movement in Iran is that we are between the rock 

and the hard place. Too much identification, public identification, 

by the United States with such a movement could put in jeopardy 

such a movement and play into the hands of the hardliners who 

want to make the argument that dissent is in fact an import from 

foreigners who are up to no good like ‘‘the great Satan America.’’

And on the other hand, you know, we don’t want to be silent in 

the face of human rights violations by the current regime, and we 

certainly want to hold out some lifeline that is meaningful to those 

52

who have the courage to go to the streets, the barricades, to speak 

up for human rights and freedom in Iran. So I guess I would ask 

the panelists to comment briefly, keeping in mind our time, but 

would you comment on the indigenous nature of this mass movement and maybe its prospects of success, and your guidance to us 

and to the United States Government about where is that fine line 

that we not have unintended consequences? Mr. Carpenter. 

Mr. CARPENTER. Thank you. Dissent as an import, that is the accusation the government is already making, they are already saying that this is a United States, British effort to undermine the regime and anybody who participates is a traitor to the regime. So 

the fact that we stand back and dissociate ourselves with it doesn’t 

change anything, they continue to do it. So we might as well help 

in the way we can by associating ourselves strongly with them on 

the ground in terms of support on the human rights basis. No one 

buys it in Iran that the British and the United States are at the 

base of this movement. 

Mr. GHADAR. Congressman, I think two things. One, we need to 

make sure that we inform the Iranians of what is going on so they 

know what is going on. And then we need to take steps for their 

voices to be heard, whether it is on TV or Internet. I don’t think 

neither of those are going to put us between a rock and a hard 

place. However, the critical issue is, the Iranians on one hand want 

freedom, which we support completely, but on the other hand want 

independence. And it is that battle where the opposition is asking 

for freedom and the regime is saying, you are stooges of the opposition. So it is a fine line we can’t cross. But informing them and 

making sure their voices are heard is not going to cause problems 

for us. 

Ms. ABDO. Congressman, you raise an important issue which we 

haven’t touched upon so much today, and that is, what is a realistic 

scenario and how can the opposition really make a difference? And 

I think that at least in the short term the most realistic scenario 

is not the opposition in retreat, neither is it regime change. But it 

is a compromise, some sort of unity government that has been discussed in Iran. 

And that is why it is necessary to empower the opposition, so 

that they can be well placed politically to extract concessions from 

the regime, such as perhaps President Ahmadinejad will remain in 

power but perhaps their own representatives might be allowed to 

enter government in some way. There are parliamentary elections 

coming up as well. Ordinarily, historically, reformists are often 

barred from running in these elections. It would be important to 

have more reformists in the Parliament. So there are many things 

that could happen within the political structure if the opposition 

movement were in a better position than it is today. 

Mr. KHALAJI. I think that, we don’t know what happens, but 

what we are certain about is that Khamenei as the Supreme Leader would not have any strong place in the future of Iran. Whether 

green leaders reach to some sort of agreement with the government, whether Revolutionary Guard takes power, whether regime 

changes, in any possible and likely scenario, Khamenei would not 

be there. Second is that I don’t believe that green leaders can compromise with the government. Or it is better to say that I don’t 

53

think that the government accept to compromise with the green 

movement. What I expect is two extreme sides of this spectrum, either the collapse of the regime or a more militarized regime in 

Iran. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, my time is up. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. Mr. Fortenberry. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well thank you for your excellent testimony 

and for unpacking some of the delicate dilemmas that present itself 

in trying to stand with something that is very important without 

interfering with its eventual positive outcome. In that regard, I 

want to tell you all that many of us discussed behind the scenes 

when the opposition movement first appeared as to what the proper response would be, trying to determine this line between prudence and risk taking, not trying to do something in support of the 

opposition that would actually undermine it by giving a pretext for 

its crackdown by the government. 

And so I chose prudence, I chose to remain quiet, because I 

thought until we had a better understanding of the resiliency, the 

depth, the passion, the willingness to sacrifice, the continuity of 

this potential movement, that given the past history with the 

United States we could inadvertently lead to its crushing. It is different now. I think that we as an international community with 

one collective voice need to shout from the hills the Iranian people’s 

right for autonomy and their right to protest and their right to 

seek a more just form of governance. 

And so I think this hearing is part of that speaking out, Mr. 

Chairman. And with that said, that touches upon some of what 

your concerns were, Mr. Carpenter, in trying to determine when is 

the appropriate time to speak and speak loudly. And even if it gave 

further pretext as you are suggesting, we are already being 

blamed, I have heard that, so what harm can come from it? But 

with that said, Dr. Ghadar, you said there is three possible outcomes. 

I want you to assign a probability to those possible outcomes, 

one, that the movement is crushed, two, that it finds some common 

ground, some compromise for its accommodation with the current 

governmental structures, or three, it results in a paradigm shift in 

the form of governance in Iran. Because this comes back to that 

point as to what to do as well as when to do it. Assign a probably. 

Mr. GHADAR. That is a very difficult thing to do, but I will be 

glad to give you my biased point of view. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I would prefer you do it than me. 

Mr. GHADAR. Okay. I think the likelihood of the Revolutionary 

Guard’s beating up on everybody is quite high on February 11th, 

but that is not going to basically dissipate the problem. So I would 

give that a low probability of 10, 15, 20 percent. I think the probability of the demise of the regime is highly optimistic, I don’t 

think they are going to just walk away. So the bulk of the probability, maybe 60–65, 70 percent, is going to some kind of compromise. These guys are all in cahoots together, with all due respect, Mousavi, Karoubi, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, they all basically 

have the same roots. The opposition in the streets are ahead of all 

54

of them. Therefore, the compromise will be made among them behind closed doors. How it will be done, I don’t know. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. If you agree to that level of probably for that 

outcome, what will these compromise structure look like, would 

anybody have any insight into that? 

Mr. GHADAR. I think there is going to be a reduction in the influence of the Supreme Leader, I think there will be additional opposition members in the Parliament, and I think that Mr. Rafsanjani 

will play a more active role as a mediator. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Go ahead, Mr. Khalaji. 

Mr. KHALAJI. For the same reason Dr. Ghadar mentioned, I 

think that the compromise won’t happen. The relationship between 

green leaders and the government is like the relationship between 

Iran and United States, there is a mutual distrust. When Iran is 

powerful it doesn’t want to compromise, when they are weak they 

don’t want to compromise. That is the situation exactly now with 

the green movement and government. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. I understood this point as well that what 

started out as opposition to what was considered to be a fraudulent 

election has now matured and moved way beyond that. 

Mr. KHALAJI. Exactly. 

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Tapping into a root of opposition that has 

been festering—not festering, organically growing—for a long time 

because of all of the abuses. I think I am done, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. There are votes that are being called 

momentarily on the floor. If we all keep to or under our 5 minutes 

I think we can get the last two members and the witnesses’ response. Mr. Crowley. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many have looked to 

history, and particularly in Indonesia and the demise of Suharto, 

the exposure of his corruption that led to the demise of that regime. Some news reports have suggested that the Supreme Leader 

Khamenei has up to $30 billion in assets. And even if that is not 

true, it still appears that there may very well be serious corruption 

that exists within his own personal life. 

Some of the reports say that he owns over 200 walking sticks or 

canes, one of which has an encrusted diamond in it, also that he 

may have ownership of eight airplanes. One, how do we confirm or 

how are we confirming that those statistics are true or not? How 

widely known or suspected is the level of corruption of Khamenei, 

does the public know about it? And what else is being done to bring 

attention to the corruption that exists within the mullah regime? 

Obviously, as I think what I heard from the testimony, that everyone here believes that the shine is off the apple, but to what degree 

is that the case and what is being done to further expose that? And 

if anyone politely would like to respond? 

Mr. GHADAR. Congressman, it is difficult to say how much money 

he has got, but I will give you some examples. There are reports 

that around $250–300 billion of Iranian money is invested via 

Dubai. Okay, where does this money come from? Who makes $250 

billion? That is not the salary of the Supreme Leader, okay? We 

can track that down, we can put pressure via UAE on Dubai to find 

out what is going on. Much of this transaction has to go outside 

55

of Western banks, but we do have some pressure on those institutions to find out what is going on. 

Right after the election, the foreign exchange reserves of Iran 

dropped dramatically. There was clearly money flowing out very 

rapidly. Where did it go? I don’t know, but I am sure that our 

Treasury can play a very active role in identifying that. There were 

reports that a truck was found in Turkey with billions of dollars 

of gold and currency, where did that go? The Turks confiscated it 

and I don’t know where the negotiations are going on. There are 

numerous examples of this, the question is do we have the will to 

go after it? That is not going to step on the Iranian opposition, the 

Iranian opposition will support this move. Talking about it, broadcasting about it will be positive. 

Mr. CROWLEY. I appreciate that in terms of adding additional 

suspicions, but really more to my question, is it believed, what is 

the level of credibility within the Iranian people that that is the 

case and what is being done to expose more of that? 

Mr. GHADAR. I believe the Revolutionary Guard members who 

have won all the contracts are highly suspect. After the foreign direct investment was held out, the major contracts, anything over 

$1 billion was given to the Revolutionary Guard, the Tehran metro, 

the gas biplane goes to Pakistan, the gas operation Qatar. I think 

the Iranian population questions the Revolutionary Guards. I don’t 

know to what extent they will question the Supreme Leader. 

Ms. ABDO. Yes, I would agree, I think that there is a great difference in how the public views the Supreme Leader versus the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, and very little is known about 

Khamenei and his wealth. But I would also like to just add quickly 

to a suggestion that was made earlier. Even though, as you mentioned, Congressman, the legitimacy around Khamenei has certainly been damaged, I think that if we are talking about restructuring, you know, the government, I think that we can assume that 

he will remain in power until he dies. 

I mean even though his power might be diminished and there is 

much more of a move now to rule by consensus within the power 

structure, I don’t foresee any time in the near future when, even 

though his legitimacy has certainly been affected by this crisis, 

that he will step down from power or that he still, you know, won’t 

have a primary decision making role. Thank you. 

Mr. KHALAJI. It depends what we mean by the economic corruption. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Khamenei collects 

money for himself. He has a very simple life. But he controls the 

wealthiest organizations and companies in Iran, which are actually 

in charge of financially supporting Hezbollah, Hamas, extremist 

groups, and other dangerous group in the region. And they are in 

charge of actually expanding the power of Khamenei inside the 

country. Khamenei has lost his religious and political legitimacy, 

but it is not known in Iran as a symbol of the corruption. 

Mr. CROWLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Final five. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to ask a question of Ms. Abdo. And you and your colleagues have all raised this 

issue of human rights abuses of the Iranian regime. Has the 

56

Obama administration shown any inclination to raise that issue at 

the U.N. in order to try to broadcast that out across the international community? 

Ms. ABDO. So your question is? 

Mr. ROYCE. Has it been brought before the U.N.? In the past I 

have been involved in human rights issues where we have tried to 

get different countries, we have inquired as to why not raise these 

issues, human rights issues, at the U.N. level. And my question, is 

there the inclination by this administration to raise it at the U.N.? 

Ms. ABDO. To my knowledge, this administration has not raised 

it. And I think that one suggestion that has been made is, rather 

than try to get, say, the U.N. General Assembly to pursue any sort 

of investigation, that it might be more wise to have the Human 

Rights Commission within the U.N. pursue such an initiative. I 

know that in the past a body of the U.N. has had negotiations with 

Iran and European diplomats over human rights issues, and what 

the Iranians tried to do at that time was to tie the nuclear issue 

to the human rights issue. So, you know, we will make compromises on this issue if you are going to, and that didn’t really 

work. 

Mr. ROYCE. And you concur with me, I mean our whole problem 

here is that we are not focusing on human rights, and it seems to 

me the ghoulish show trials that we are seeing there and the rapes 

of people in detention and the deaths on the streets and in the universities, all of this, all of these human rights abuses, which in 

terms of the atrocities, the photographs that we see, we have the 

documentary evidence here, it seems that the key issue here is, can 

the West get these facts out so that the entire international community and everyone in Iran are confronted with the facts? 

Can we assist on that or are we going to be preoccupied on other 

questions and not engaged on what needs to be broadcast? And 

then the second question I would ask you, ma’am, is there a way 

to guarantee that we do a better job? I have been involved with legislation, authoring legislation for broadcasting into Yugoslavia, too 

late, into Afghanistan, too late. But here we have an opportunity 

to do what we did too late into Burma, and that is establish the 

facts for people on the ground in terms of what is actually happening. And in the past we haven’t always done such a good job 

in terms of how we have delivered that message. I would like your 

critique on that too and how we could help. 

Ms. ABDO. Well, as a former journalist, I can tell you that media 

is very powerful. And as we have seen with these demonstrations 

the BBC Farsi Service has made an enormous impact in providing 

exactly the kind of information that you are talking about. Now, 

having said that, I think that that kind of sort of example or paradigm can’t really apply to Voice of America, primarily because 

Voice of America is associated in a way with the U.S. Government 

that BBC is not. And so I think that for a lot of reasons, in addition 

to the fact that BBC Farsi Service is just a superb, superb news 

organization, it has had a great effect, but it has been very powerful. 

Mr. ROYCE. Your critique on all of these other issues is very helpful, and we will try to implement them to the greatest extent possible. We don’t have a critique from you, and we get a lot of advice 

57

in terms of what we ought to do in terms of public diplomacy. If 

you would ever feel inclined, given your background, to write up 

some suggestions based upon your observations, I would like to see 

them and I think probably some of the other members of this committee would look forward to those observations. 

Ms. ABDO. Thank you, I am happy to do that. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I think I have a few more minutes. Anyone else want to make a comment on this? 

Mr. KHALAJI. I think that one of the way that United States can 

support human rights in Iran is to use its channels to religious 

leaders of the world and have them put pressure on Iran, especially 

on the Supreme Leader, because the Iranian leader, he consider 

himself as the religious leader and the leader of Muslim World. So 

for example we have seven Baha’is in prison, they are held without 

any reason, and they are at risk. And we have many other people, 

if you have dozens of Sunni religious activists, they are in prison. 

So we can use these channels and ask different religious leaders 

in the world, write a letter to Ayatollah Khamenei publicly and 

criticize him or respectfully ask him to end this human rights 

abuse in Iran. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. And that will have to be the last word. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Mr. ACKERMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired, the committee’s 

time is expired. Let me thank the panel for their indeed expert testimony, you have been a great help to this committee. I am very 

proud of the committee’s number of people who participated today, 

the great questions and the thinking that went into them and the 

responses by our witnesses who have been a great help to the process. Thank you all very much. The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(59)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

60


54940n.eps
61


54940m.eps
62


54940f-1.eps
63


54940f-2.eps
64

Æ


54940g.eps