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

68–325 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 112–104 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC 

REFORM IN IRAN 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND 

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 11, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

FRANK G. LOWENSTEIN, Staff Director

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director

——————

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Apostolou, Andrew, senior program manager, Freedom House, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Bakhtiar, Rudi, communications director, International Campaign for Human 

Rights in Iran, New York, NY ............................................................................ 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Casey, Hon. Robert P., Jr., U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1 

Dibble, Philo L., Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ............................................ 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hosseini, Kambiz, Voice of America, Washington, DC ......................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Posner, Hon. Michael H., Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ........ 4 

Joint prepared statement of Michael H. Posner and Philo Dibble ............... 6 

(III)

(1) 

HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC 

REFORM IN IRAN 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND

SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr. 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Casey, Shaheen, Udall, and Risch. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., 

U.S. SENATOR FROM PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator CASEY. This hearing of the subcommittee will come to 

order. 

I want to thank everyone for being here. We’re getting started 

almost exactly on time, which is a good thing for us to do once in 

a while around here. 

I’m grateful for this opportunity to chair this hearing, and grateful to our witnesses for providing their time and their testimony 

and their work. I’m also grateful to those in the audience for joining us today. 

I think it’s an understatement to say that we’re witnessing a historic time in the world, especially as it relates to the change in the 

Middle East. We know that, earlier this year, few could have predicted that the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt would soon 

spread to neighboring countries, such as Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, 

and most recently to Syria. The so-called ‘‘Arab Spring’’ has inspired prodemocracy movements across the region and activists 

across the world. Given these momentous political changes, it’s all 

the more important that we take a closer look at the status of 

democratic reform in Iran, where authoritarian regime forces 

continue to repress political opposition activists and commit 

deplorable—deplorable—human rights violations against their own 

citizens. 

Iran’s opposition movement poses perhaps the most significant 

challenge to the Islamic regime. And I think that it is the most significant challenge that we’ve seen since the regime was founded in 

1979. The prodemocracy movement gained momentum in the wake 

of the 2009 disputed Presidential election, as protestors filled the 

streets of Tehran, demanding an end to government oppression and 

calling for democratic reforms such as freedom of speech and 

2 

assembly—the same freedoms being demanded by scores of 

protestors across the Middle East today. 

While Iran’s deplorable human rights record predates the postelection crackdown, the human rights crisis has deepened significantly in recent years. Since the demonstrations in 2009, security 

forces have used live ammunition to suppress protestors, killing at 

least seven and arresting more than 600 individuals, according to 

Human Rights Watch. 

Many of us recall with outrage the horrific death, in 2009, of 

Neda Soltan, a young protester shot to death in the streets of 

Tehran during the post-election crackdown. Neda is just one of 

many innocent victims of the Iranian Government’s relentless use 

of force and oppression against Iranian citizens. As we sit here 

today, scores of activists are imprisoned for their efforts to bring 

political change to Iran. 

Let me describe just a few. As you can tell, we don’t have our 

posters, yet, with pictures. But, we will have them, momentarily, 

to help us to go through and to highlight not just facts and information about these individuals, but a little bit about what they 

actually look like. And I think that that is something we need to 

do more often. 

The first person that I’ll highlight is Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer 

and a women’s rights activist currently serving an 11-year sentence 

for her work defending juveniles and women in Iran. She is the 

mother of two and has been held in Iran’s notorious Evin Prison 

since September 2010. Nasrin has been on hunger strikes three 

times to protest her mistreatment, which has increasingly diminished her health. And her husband has been pressured, threatened, 

and detained for advocating for his wife. 

Next, the second person that I’ll highlight this morning is Navid 

Khanjani, who is a 23-year-old student activist and defender of the 

rights of the Baha’i community, Iran’s largest non-Muslim religious 

minority, which has been the victim of state-sponsored persecution 

since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Navid faces a 12-year prison 

sentence, the longest that Iran has given to a human rights activist 

for speaking out against the government’s ban against members of 

the Baha’i community attending universities. Navid spent 65 days 

in Evin Prison, the first 25 of which were in solitary confinement. 

He was forced to record false confessions and experience brutal 

beatings and torture. 

I should also mention that seven members of the Baha’i group, 

the Yaran-i-Iran, meaning ‘‘Friends in Iran,’’ were also arrested 

and imprisoned 3 years ago. They are currently serving a 20-year 

sentence in Evin Prison. 

Third, I’ll highlight one more person this morning. And, of 

course, we could highlight many, but we don’t have time for hundreds here today. Mahdieh Golroo, a 25-year-old women’s rights 

activist, was imprisoned, along with her husband, in November 

2009, after security forces raided their home. After being expelled 

from her university and denied her degree, Mahdieh received a 28- 

month prison sentence for ‘‘antistate propaganda’’ and ‘‘assembly 

and conspiracy to disturb public order.’’ Those are the charges that 

have been lodged against her, which she, of course, denies. She is 

currently being held in the women’s ward of Evin Prison and has 

3 

been repeatedly denied visitation rights and the right to medical 

treatment for medical problems, which her family says pose serious 

dangers to her health. She, too, has gone on multiple hunger 

strikes to protest her treatment. 

So, these are just a few—very few—of those who are suffering in 

Iranian prisons as we speak, as we gather here today, with all the 

freedoms we enjoy in this country. 

Now more than ever, the United States must stand in support 

of these brave activists, just as we supported the courageous political dissidents, like Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Andre Sakharov, 

who spoke out against the repressive Soviet regime. It is our duty 

to bear witness to the truth of the plight of the Iranian opposition, 

and signal our unwavering support for their ongoing struggles 

against this repressive regime. 

The United States must also work with the international community to hold the Iranian regime accountable for human rights 

abuses. In 2010, I introduced a bipartisan resolution calling for a 

renewed focus on the Iranian regime’s violations of internationally 

recognized human rights, as found in the Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights. The United Nations establishment, in March, of a 

Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran is a welcome step, 

but more needs to be done to address these serious concerns that 

we all have. People from both political parties and from all walks 

of life have these very serious concerns. 

In September 2010, the administration sanctioned eight Iranian 

officials determined to have committed serious human rights 

abuses in the post-2009 crackdown. And I was pleased to see the 

addition of the Tehran prosecutor, Abbas Dowlatabadi, and the 

commander, Reza Naqdi, in February of this year. 

However, as I and Senator Menendez and Senator Cardin wrote 

in a letter to Secretary Clinton on April 20, we must enhance our 

efforts to prioritize the humane treatment of the Iranian people 

through the framework of existing United States sanctions on Iran. 

The European Union’s recent sanctioning of 32 regime officials involved in human rights abuses, including asset freezes and travel 

bans, is a welcome development. And we should continue to work 

with our European partners to ratchet up the pressure on the 

regime. 

The United States can assist the Iranian opposition movement by 

enacting measures to prevent the Iranian Government’s suppression of electronic communication. International companies have reportedly provided goods and technologies, including cell phone monitoring equipment and Web-spying capabilities that help the regime 

suppress Iranian citizens. I firmly support current and future 

efforts to hold these companies accountable and to help prodemocracy forces in Iran circumvent the regime’s efforts to disrupt and 

prevent their communications with activists in Iran and around the 

world. 

Let me be unequivocally clear. The United States must continue 

to engage our international partners to find ways to support the 

democratic movement in Iran and to hold the Iranian regime 

accountable to its international human rights obligations. We must 

not be reluctant to support political activists who are courageous 

enough to demonstrate in the face of extreme government represVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
4 

sion. The United States has a moral obligation—let me say that 

again—the United States has a moral obligation to stand in support of the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy. 

Today’s first panel will include testimonies from two State 

Department officials who deal with these issues on a daily basis. 

Michael Posner is the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. He leads the State Department’s 

comprehensive efforts to support Internet freedom around the 

world, an initiative that I strongly support. And, before joining the 

administration, he was the executive director, and then president, 

of Human Rights First. 

Next we have, from the administration as well, Mr. Philo Dibble 

who is Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and a career member of the Foreign Service. He has 

served in the Near East Affairs Bureau since 2003. 

I look forward to hearing both of their testimonies today about 

how we assess the political strength of the opposition movement in 

Iran, ways the administration is working to highlight human rights 

abuses there, and steps we can take to support democratic reform 

in the country. 

Now, our second panel includes three individuals with intimate 

knowledge of the political environment inside of Iran. 

Mr. Kambiz Hosseini is a cohost of ‘‘Parazit’’, which is the popular Persian-language satirical television show broadcast on Voice 

of America’s Persian service. Launched prior to the 2009 election, 

it is a reference to the Iranian Government’s repeated attempts to 

jam foreign satellite programming. 

Mr. Andrew Apostolou is a senior program manager at Freedom 

House, where he chairs the Iran Strategy Task Force, which serves 

to formulate new approaches to the United States foreign policy on 

Iran, with a focus on human rights. 

And finally, Ms. Rudi Bakhtiar is communications director for 

the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an organization that seeks to gather support for human rights activists and 

defenders in Iran. She is also an Iranian-American journalist who 

has over 10 years of experience working for international news 

networks. 

I welcome all of our panelists today and look forward to hearing 

their assessment of how the U.S. Government can work to support 

democratic reform in Iran. 

And now I will move to our first witness for an opening statement. 

I know that, as members come in, we’ll have not only questions 

from members, but we may have some statements, as well. 

But, let’s move, first, to Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Michael Posner. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN 

RIGHTS, AND LABOR, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman Casey, 

and for holding this important hearing. 

5 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Dibble and I have a written statement that I’d ask be submitted to the record. 

You said, in your—— 

Senator CASEY. Your statement will be submitted. As would be 

true of anyone submitting a statement today, your full statement 

will be made part of the record. 

Mr. POSNER. Great, thank you. 

As you said in your opening comments, now more than ever we 

need to be redoubling our efforts to both speak out about the systematic violations of human rights and democracy in Iran, but also 

to engage our allies and to amplify the voices of democratic activists inside of Iran. 

This administration is firmly committed, deeply committed, to 

promoting democracy, promoting human rights everywhere in the 

world. And, as we see, and as you commented, all of the changes 

going on in the Middle East region, the repressive crackdown, continued crackdown in Iran is such a stark reminder of unfinished 

business that we need to be attentive to. 

So, I want to say a few words about our speaking out, a few 

words about our efforts to engage multilaterally, and then what 

we’re trying to do, via the Internet, to amplify the voices of Iranian 

dissidents and activists. 

You’ve cited a number of cases in your opening statement. I 

could give you many more; they’re in our testimony. But, just to 

give a flavor: In February, a number of protestors were killed in 

Tehran. In April, more killed in ethnic Arab areas. We’ve paid a 

lot of attention to the fate of the Baha’i community. And seven 

leaders of that community who had prison sentences reduced from 

20 to 10 years, had those sentences reinstated, the reductions reversed. People in prison are given added sentences because they 

send letters to their family members. Political prisoners are held 

with common criminals and murderers in stockyards, in terrible 

conditions. The list goes on and on. 

We’ve seen executions, this year, of 135 people, including many 

ethnic minority prisoners, their intense restrictions on free speech; 

teachers and other workers who seek to assert their rights are 

repressed for doing so. Universities that teach liberal arts are 

deemed un-Islamic and they’ve been forced to close their doors. It’s 

really an appalling list of restrictions on everything contained in 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 

I want to single out a couple of other particular cases, in addition 

to the ones you mentioned. 

One is a distinguished labor leader, Monsour Osanloo, who was 

arrested in 2007. He suffers from a heart condition and they repeatedly deny him medical care. Student leader, Bahriya Hedayat, 

who was arrested in 2009, for the fifth time in 4 years, for being 

a member of the One Million Signatures campaign, a women’s 

movement to changes laws that discriminate against women. She 

faces further charges for sending a public letter describing the conditions in prison. 

And I want to also—you mentioned Nasrin Sotoudeh, who’s also 

the lawyer for Shirin Ebadi. In addition to the harsh prison conditions she’s suffering from, other members of Ebadi’s Center for 

6 

Human Rights Defenders have been jailed or barred from practicing law. 

The list goes on and on. 

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and other senior members 

of the administration are constantly speaking out about these 

abuses. And we will continue to do so. 

We’re also engaging, as you mentioned in your opening, in spotlighting Iran’s gross violations of human rights at the U.N. and 

with our allies. We were successful, in March, in persuading the 

U.N. Human Rights Council to establish a Special Rapporteur on 

Iran. In June, that person will be selected and will begin monitoring and throwing more of a spotlight on what’s going on. 

The intensity of Iran’s resistance to that speaks to the importance of our doing so. And I’m very proud of the effort of our team 

and our government to play a leading role in really getting that 

resolution to be passed. We will continue to use the U.N., both in 

Geneva and in New York, as a forum for raising these issues and 

for, as you say, accelerating the pressure on the regime. 

We’ve also been involved and are very aware that change in Iran, 

and every country, starts from within. And Iran has a brave, courageous population, many young people who are determined to 

change their destiny and who are seeking to amplify their voices. 

We seek to help them. 

As you know, through Congress’ generosity, we have spent $22 

million, in the last 18 months, on Internet freedom programming. 

And just last week, we’ve notified Congress of our intent to spend 

another $28 million more, this spring. We’re going to do that 

quickly. And it’s, in part, to counter Iran’s increasingly active 

Internet surveillance and censorship. We’re supporting grants that 

will counter censorship—countercensorship technologies, increase 

circumvention tools in Farsi, secure mobile communications, and 

protect online activists against cyber attacks, which you also 

mentioned. 

We’ve now trained 5,000 activists worldwide, including Iranians, 

in cyber self-defense. And we plan to expand all of these efforts to 

teach democratic activists, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders, and others how to protect their online privacy and their 

data so that they, in turn, can train others. 

We’re also very determined and will continue to support their 

efforts to convey their own messages, to speak in a loud voice with 

each other and with the rest of the world. These are tools, but 

they’re important tools, and they’re an important part of our overall effort to try to keep pressure on the Iranian Government and 

to make sure that people in Iran know that we haven’t forgotten 

about them. 

Thank you very much. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Posner and Mr. Dibble follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. POSNER AND PHILO L. DIBBLE

Chairman Casey, Ranking Member Risch, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to appear before you today to discuss the Iranian 

Government’s continuing and worsening abuses against its own people. 

Almost 2 years after Iran’s disputed Presidential election, Iranian authorities continue to harass, arbitrarily detain, torture, and imprison their citizens, as well as 

7 

some of ours. Their targets include those who demand accountability from their government and who stand up for the rights of their fellow citizens; ethnic and religious 

minorities; journalists, bloggers, and students. Unfortunately, the situation has only 

further deteriorated in the first months of 2011 as compared with last year: 

protestors were killed in Tehran in February and in ethnically Arab areas in April; 

the reduction of prison sentences for seven Baha’i leaders from 20 years to 10 was 

reversed; additional sentences were levied on those already in prison merely for 

sending letters to family members; political prisoners are held in deplorable conditions with convicted murderers in former stockyards; those released from prison are 

forced to pay exorbitant bail sums; a Jewish woman and her Armenian-Christian 

husband were reportedly executed based on undisclosed charges; mass executions of 

mainly ethnic minority prisoners have been carried out without their families’ 

knowledge; Iran has executed at least 135 people this year, more than any other 

country in the world except China; restrictions on speech have intensified; journalists and bloggers continue to be targeted by the regime for daring to write the truth; 

teachers and other workers are harassed and incarcerated when they seek freedom 

of association and payment of wages owed; trade union leaders remain imprisoned 

on questionable charges; politically active students have been banned from universities; and entire university faculties deemed un-Islamic have been forced to close 

their doors. 

Particularly troubling is the deepening persecution of religious minorities. On 

May 1, the Revolutionary Court in the northern city of Bandar Anzali tried 11 members of the Church of Iran, including Pastor Abdolreza Ali-Haghnejad and Zainab 

Bahremend, the 62-year-old grandmother of two other defendants, on charges of 

‘‘acting against national security.’’ On September 22, 2010, Christian pastor Youcef 

Nadarkhani was given a death sentence for apostasy although, according to human 

rights groups, this sentence is against Iranian law. Another pastor could be 

sentenced to death later this year. In March, over 200 Gonabadi Sufis were summoned to courts around the country based on allegations that they were insulting 

Iranian authorities. In April, eight other Sufis were rearrested on charges of disrupting public order—charges for which they had been punished with flogging and 

imprisonment. 

Iran’s leaders continue to signal to their citizens that criticism will not be tolerated, while selectively applauding protestors in other countries in the region. As the 

country’s economic situation deteriorates, workers are arrested when they protest 

for back wages, only to have authorities deny that strikes are taking place. At the 

same time the Iranian Government was claiming influence in shaping popular unrest in the Arab world last month, its security forces arrested over 200 of its own 

people and three protestors died at the hands of authorities. While it decries crackdowns against protesters in Bahrain, it defends and assists the Syrian Government’s repression of protesters in Syria. Though Iranian leaders continue trying to 

portray regional events as inspired by the 1979 Islamic revolution, we are confident 

that the people of the Arab world will recognize those statements for the opportunistic falsehoods they are. 

As Iran’s leaders have increased their repressive tactics, we have increased the 

scope of our efforts aimed at challenging the Iranian Government’s deplorable 

human rights violations. President Obama and Secretary Clinton continue to speak 

out on behalf of the hundreds of victims in Iran who suffer at the hands of their 

government. Other world leaders have done the same. We have designated 10 Iranian officials for serious human rights abuses in accordance with the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act and, as the act requires, we 

are actively seeking more information on possible targets. 

Following these designations, we engaged our European partners on ways to 

strengthen our collective voice, express solidarity with victims of torture, persecution, and arbitrary detention, and amplify the effect of our asset freezes and travel 

bans against Iranian officials. We welcomed the European Union’s April 11 decision 

to sanction 32 Iranian officials, and have begun working with other partners to explore similar actions. We immediately imposed travel bans on the additional individuals not designated by the United States. While the U.S. and EU human rights 

sanctions regimes have different evidentiary standards, we are working closely together to share information on possible targets. 

We continue to urge more nations to join our call to shine a spotlight on Iran’s 

gross violations of human rights in bilateral and multilateral settings. We successfully kept Iran off of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) and helped 

win passage of a Canadian-led resolution condemning Iran’s human rights abuses 

by the largest margin in 8 years. At the March session of the United Nations 

Human Rights Council, we led a successful effort to establish a Special Rapporteur 

on Iran—the first country-specific human rights rapporteur created since the CounVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
8 

cil came into being. This historic action sent an unmistakable signal to Iran’s leaders that the world will bear witness to their systematic abuse of their own citizens’ 

human rights. More importantly, the Special Rapporteur will serve as a critical 

voice for those Iranians being persecuted for their political, religious, and ethnic 

affiliations. We have also urged other countries to press Iran on its abuses in their 

bilateral diplomacy. 

Our efforts to address Iran’s human rights abuses have been consistent and sustained. We often work behind the scenes in order to increase our effectiveness. We 

also continue to work quietly with civil society organizations in Iran to give them 

the tools they need to expand political space and hold their government accountable. 

Just as we do throughout the region, we provide training and tools to civil society 

activists to foster freedom of expression and the free flow of information on the 

Internet and via other communication technologies. 

We believe that Internet Freedom is essential to 21st century democracy promotion. Our Internet freedom programming, which is a priority for Secretary Clinton, is aimed at making sure the voices for peaceful democratic reform—in Iran and 

around the region—can be heard. We have spent $22 million on Internet freedom 

programming to date, and have notified Congress of our intent to spend $28 million 

more this spring. Countering Iran’s increasingly active Internet surveillance and 

censorship efforts requires a diverse portfolio of tools and training. State Department grants will support more advanced countercensorship technologies, including 

circumvention tools in Farsi, secure mobile communications, and technologies to 

enable activists to post their own content online and protect against cyber attacks. 

We also have trained 5,000 activists worldwide—including Iranians—in cyber selfdefense. And we plan to expand these efforts to teach democratic activists, journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and others how to protect their online privacy 

and their data—so that they in turn can train others. 

One of our grantees has just developed a mobile panic button that works on the 

kind of inexpensive cell phones used in much of the world. Pushing the button alerts 

others that an activist has been assaulted or arrested—a sad necessity in an era 

when official abductions and disappearances are all too common. Activists around 

the world have told us that when police come to break up prodemocracy protests, 

they often grab demonstrators’ mobile phones in order to track down their contacts. 

Within a few months, we also expect to have software that will wipe the contact 

lists from mobile phones with the push of a button. 

Countering Iran’s increasingly active Internet surveillance and censorship efforts 

requires a diverse portfolio of tools and training. We are finalizing new global grants 

for projects that will support digital safety and capacity-building training, countercensorship technology, virtual communication, and peer-to-peer technologies. No single tool will overcome the Iranian Government’s repressive Internet efforts, and that 

is why we have invested in incubating a diverse portfolio of technologies and digital 

safety training. This way, even if one particular tool is blocked, other tools will still 

be available. Likewise, we work to prevent the Iranian Government from acquiring 

sensitive technology to repress its citizens. 

Despite growing international consensus and a resounding condemnation of the 

Iranian Government’s actions, the regime continues to turn a deaf ear to the aspirations of its own citizens. But there is hope. Hundreds of brave Iranian citizens continue to engage in the most basic of human rights work, documenting and reporting 

on abuses, with the hope that one day Iranian Government officials will be held accountable for crimes they have committed against their fellow citizens. Along with 

our international partners, we will continue to draw attention to these and other 

abuses and call on the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect the universal rights enshrined in Iran’s constitution and enumerated in the International 

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a signatory. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Dibble. 

STATEMENT OF PHILO L. DIBBLE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NEAR EASTERN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. DIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I’d like to add my 

thanks, to Assistant Secretary Posner, for allowing us to testify 

this morning. 

As Assistant Secretary Posner has noted, the Iranian Government’s repression of its citizens has intensified in recent months. 

9 

But, as Iran’s leaders have increased their repression, we have intensified our diplomatic efforts to call attention to those abuses and 

to press the Iranian Government to end them. 

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have spoken out more 

than a dozen times, this year alone, on behalf of the hundreds of 

Iranians whom you have correctly identified as having suffered at 

the hands of their government. At our urging and on their own initiative other world leaders have done the same. 

Secretary Clinton opened the March session of the Human 

Rights Council of the U.N. in Geneva. And her remarks helped us 

galvanize the cross-regional support we needed to create the 

Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Iran. This is the first such 

action by the Human Rights Council under its new mandate. And 

that historic action sent an unmistakable signal to Iran’s leaders 

that the international community will not ignore their systematic 

abuse of their citizens’ human rights. But, more importantly, the 

Special Rapporteur will serve as an essential voice for those 

Iranians being persecuted in Iran for their political, religious, and 

ethnic affiliations. 

The second stream of actions comes under the Comprehensive 

Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, under which we 

designated and sanctioned, as you noted, 10 Iranian officials for 

serious abuse of human rights. We continue to investigate others 

for designation under the act, as information becomes available and 

as events unfold. 

After that first set of designations under CISADA, I joined my 

counterpart in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor, leading a group of experts from our two 

Bureaus, the State Department’s Legal Advisor’s Office, and the 

Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control to Europe, and to the 

European Union headquarters in Brussels. 

We discussed, with our counterparts there, ways to strengthen 

cooperation in combating the repression of human rights in Iran, 

including by speaking out together; by expressing solidarity with 

victims of torture, persecution, and arbitrary detention; and supporting one another’s assets freezes and travel bans against Iranian officials. Partly a result of that engagement, the European 

Union, on April 11, sanctioned, as you noted, again, 32 Iranian officials for human rights abuses. We followed that action with our 

own travel ban on the officials the European Union has sanctioned. 

We are now considering how to expand the scope of our own 

human rights-related visa bans. And we have also begun working 

with other international partners to explore similar actions they 

might be able to undertake. 

What I’m trying to underscore here is that we have a very fruitful and productive interaction with our European partners and 

beyond Europe on this question. 

We will, of course, continue to work closely with the EU and 

other like-minded partners to ensure that the cause of human 

rights remains at the forefront of policies, with respect to Iran. 

We are also, as Assistant Secretary Posner noted, again, looking 

for ways we can help Iranians more effectively act and speak on 

their own behalf, whether on the Internet, in journalism, or in the 

arts. As we do throughout the region, the State Department and 

10 

USAID provide members of Iran’s civil society with capacity-building training and new media tools to help them hold their government accountable and to strengthen their call for greater freedoms, 

transparency, and the rule of law. 

Despite growing international consensus and a resounding condemnation of their actions, the Iranian authorities continue to try 

to ignore the aspirations of their own citizens. But, we think there 

is hope. Hundreds of Iranians continue to engage in the most basic 

human rights work, holding their government accountable for acts 

of violence against its own citizens and for its stubborn unwillingness to permit the exercise of universally admitted human rights, 

including those enshrined in Iran’s Constitution. 

The efforts of this administration on the issue of human rights 

in Iran involve several different agencies and departments. Along 

with my counterpart in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor, I cochair an interagency working group that directs and 

coordinates U.S. Government action on Iran human rights issues. 

And those include initiatives regarding Internet freedom, implementation of human rights sanctions, engaging with like-minded 

partners, and working through multilateral institutions. As cochair 

of this group, I look forward to continuing our dialogue with the 

Congress on the best means to effectively deal with these issues. 

I cannot conclude a discussion of human rights without expressing our deep and continuing concern for the safety and well-being 

of all American citizens currently detained in Iran. In particular, 

we urge the Iranian Government to promptly release Shane Bauer 

and Josh Fattal so that they may return to their families. We note 

that, this morning, the trial that was scheduled to resume today 

did not resume. We’re not quite sure what that means, but we hope 

it is a positive omen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. And I appreciate both of 

your testimonies, as well as your expression of solidarity that you 

just outlined. 

I want to make sure that we properly identify the pictures that 

were put up after my opening statement. 

The first picture on the audience’s left and my right, is the gentleman I spoke about before, Navid Khanjani. Again, he’s a 23- 

year-old student activist and defender of the rights of the Baha’i 

community in Iran. 

Next to him, closer, on my right, on your left, is the first individual I spoke of, Nasrin Sotoudeh, who is a lawyer and women’s 

rights activist currently serving an 11-year sentence for her work 

defending juveniles and women in Iran. She’s, of course, being held 

in Evin Prison, as I mentioned before. 

And then, finally, on my left, your right, is the third individual 

I mentioned, Mandieh Golroo, a 25-year-old women’s rights activist 

who was imprisoned, along with her husband, in November 2009, 

after security forces raided their home. 

So, that’s just a very limited spotlight on real people suffering 

the most brutal kind of repression that any of us could imagine. 

And that’s one of the main reasons we’re here this morning: those 

individuals, who have given, in some cases, some people in the 

streets gave their lives, but also those who have been imprisoned 

11 

and have given up their rights, have been forced to do things we 

can’t even imagine in this country. 

So, let me get to the questions for our panelists. 

You both highlighted some of the actions the administration has 

taken in response to the Iranian regime’s human rights violations. 

And I’m reading from the prepared statement that, as you said, is 

a fuller statement of your testimony. You assert here that the 

administration’s efforts to address Iranian human rights abuses 

have been both consistent and sustained, that the administration 

has provided training and tools, and has trained 5,000 activists, 

and you also mention the help on technology. So, there is a lot 

happening. 

But, here is one of the concerns that I have, and I think this is 

shared by a lot of people. We need to know who, in the U.S. Government, is taking the lead on this. I know the State Department 

plays a role, and I know the National Security Council plays a role, 

but who is the lead on this? Because like anything else in life, unless there is one person or one office charged with the overall responsibility, I think there will be some concerns that will continue. 

Mr. POSNER. Thank you, Senator. 

There are two different ways in which the administration is approaching particularly important sensitive issues. One is to appoint 

special envoys or experts. And the other is to make it part of the 

everyday business of the Department and the government. 

And I don’t know that I—you know, maybe some political scientists one day will evaluate which of those works well. We’ve 

opted for the second, here. And I would say, from my perspective, 

obviously this is an area where both Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Dibble and I are both very deeply involved. But, the main messengers here are the President and the Secretary of State. There 

is no issue, in my portfolio on human rights, where the President 

and the Secretary of State have been more outspoken more often. 

And I want to keep it that way, frankly. I want there to be a 

sense—we talk about a whole-of-government approach—I think if 

we send a signal that the most senior officials of our government 

are paying attention, as they are, I think that’s actually the most 

powerful message we can send. 

So, from my perspective there are many, many fronts around the 

world where I’m trying to get more attention from senior leaders. 

This is not a place where I have a problem doing that. 

There is support throughout the Department. We work very 

closely with NEA, with the Middle East Bureau. And we work very 

closely with the White House. And I think we are all in alignment 

here. This is a priority for the United States. Human rights is a 

central part of our policy. We recognize the deplorable conditions 

in Iran. We know we need to keep the pressure up and even to extend it. And I think, as a practical bureaucratic matter, we’re working, actually, very well together. 

Senator CASEY. Well, I’d urge you to keep that up and to amplify 

it, because repetition is very, very important here in Washington, 

and, I think, around the world. And, if anything, we need to see 

more repetition, more emphasis. 

I know that, on March 24, the U.N. Human Rights Council 

decided to take action against Iran, through the establishment of, 

12 

as you and I both highlighted, the Special Rapporteur to investigate and report on human rights abuses in the country. The resolution was the first new country-specific mandate for monitoring 

human rights since the Council was established, in 2006. 

How will the establishment of this Rapporteur in Iran help pressure the regime to abide by its international obligations to uphold 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? 

Mr. POSNER. As I said in my opening comment, the intensity of 

the Iranian Government’s opposition to the establishment already 

sends a signal that this is an important undertaking. 

It’s important in three ways. 

One, the Rapporteur will be seized, throughout the year, with 

gathering comprehensive information, shining a spotlight, making 

that information available, and leading the debate in the United 

Nations about what is going on and what should be done about 

Iran. 

Second, that person will be the focal point for activists, both inside and outside of the country—outside of Iran—who are always 

eager to tell their stories and to have an official of the U.N. listen. 

So, that’ll be the point-person, within the U.N. charged with gathering the information, dealing with the activists, and trying to 

address day-to-day concerns. 

And I think the third piece, which is critically important, is that 

it will force every government, not just the United States or Western Europe, but every government that’s part of the Human Rights 

Council and part of the U.N. system, to reflect on the fact that this 

is now an obligation that’s been undertaken by the U.N., as an institution. So, it allows us to go in, in a different set of conversations, to say, ‘‘This is not the United States saying it, it’s not Western Europe saying it, this is a United Nations expert who’s come 

to these conclusions.’’ I think it opens the door for a range of other 

conversations with other governments. 

Mr. DIBBLE. Mr. Chairman, if I could add—— 

Senator CASEY. Sure. 

Mr. DIBBLE [continuing]. One comment to that. I agree with everything Mr. Posner said, of course. But, I would point to the effort 

that was made to establish the Special Rapporteur and what that 

means, in terms of international support. We were able not only to 

get the votes of the European group, which we expected, having 

worked on them very heavily, but also votes from leading members 

of the nonaligned movement that Iran was counting on to support 

their position. And the signal to Iran of those votes going in our 

direction or in direction of supporting the Special Rapporteur, I 

think was a very, very strong one and that we should not undervalue. 

Thank you. 

Senator CASEY. Tell us more about how this individual will work. 

It is a significant achievement that this action was taken. But, tell 

us more about the how and the when. When will that person be 

operational in terms of what they’ll be able to do on the ground? 

Can they get on the ground in Iran, itself? If we’re saying that this 

person is the individual that’s going to help pressure the regime to 

abide by its international obligations, what kind of tools and 

13 

support will this person have, and how will that authority be 

exercised? 

Mr. POSNER. The person—the new Rapporteur will be selected at 

the June session of the Human Rights Council, next time they 

meet. They will undoubtedly seek permission to visit Iran. It won’t 

shock me if the Government of Iran is not cooperative. And we’re 

under no illusions, here. The government’s going to be highly resistant to this exercise, from start to finish. But, that doesn’t keep 

the Rapporteur from meeting with Iranian dissidents, democracy 

activists out of the country, to communicating in the ways that we 

now can communicate within—across borders, and getting information from other governments, including our own. 

We will do everything we can to support this effort. I’m sure 

other governments will, as well as the NGOs who are so active in 

this field. So, I think there will be no problem getting the information. The information exists, as we all know. The next question is, 

How do you use this Rapporteur to ramp up the pressure, as you 

say, to make it clear that this represents an escalation of international diplomatic attention, to really put pressure on the regime? 

Senator CASEY. I want to move to sanctions. But, I’m a little bit 

over time. I know that Senator Udall has joined us. 

Senator Udall, do you want to use this time for your questions? 

Senator UDALL. Sure. And I could actually—thank you, Senator 

Casey—actually follow up on a couple of things that you were inquiring on. 

Have you seen any evidence at all that the Iranian regime, or 

anybody in Iran, is doing anything differently as a result of the 

Special Representative? 

Mr. POSNER. I would say no. I mean, the Special Rapporteur was 

just designated. I mean, the position was just—— 

Senator UDALL. Right, right. 

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. Created, and nobody’s yet in that position. I—there’s certainly—— 

Senator UDALL. But, all the development leading up to it—the 

letters that have been written, the action by the U.N., all of that— 

you haven’t seen anything different? 

Mr. POSNER. No. What is interesting, though, is, again, the 

extent to which the government is hypersensitive about the U.N. 

getting involved, here. They devoted huge resources, diplomatic resources, across the world to try to defeat this. And we’ve been at 

this, in a way, for a couple of years. But, it’s really extraordinary 

for the government to put so much of its diplomatic capital behind 

defeating it. So, that, to me, says there’s a sensitivity or a vulnerably to this kind of multilateral action that is much greater than 

just the United States or U.K. or others criticizing them. 

But, I can’t tell you that there has been a great improvement in 

human rights in Iran. We just don’t see that right now. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Would you expect to see changes in the future? I mean, I think one of you said something, that they’re pretty 

entrenched and they’re going to fight this. What kind of positive 

approaches or outcomes would you expect to occur as a result of 

this? It’s obviously, as you talked about, a very effective tool to pull 

all the human rights folks around the world, and the people that— 

14 

where there are violations—and have a focal point. But, what do 

you expect on that front? 

Mr. POSNER. You know, I guess what I would say—I’m a chronic 

optimist. I’ve been in the human rights world for a long time, and 

I—— 

Senator UDALL. Even working in the human rights world, you’re 

a chronic optimist. 

Mr. POSNER. Yes. Because I—— 

Senator UDALL. Yes. 

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. You can see that things do change. And 

they change because people hold their nerve and because, ultimately, governments, like the Iranian Government, that try to suppress their people, are fighting a losing battle. It’s a young population, a population that sees what’s going on in the rest of the 

world and in the region, and increasingly impatient with the kind 

of autocratic policies that this government employs. 

So, I don’t—I can’t tell—I can’t give you a timeline. I can’t say, 

‘‘In 6 months, X is going to happen.’’ 

Senator UDALL. Right. 

Mr. POSNER. But, I think all of these efforts, collectively—our 

efforts, the multilateral efforts—empower and strengthen democracy human rights activists. And then you sort of wait. All of the 

sudden something happens and there’s a moment. And that moment represents the beginning of real change. We’re not there yet, 

but I think, if we hold our nerve and we maintain our principles 

and our commitment to universal human rights and democracy, in 

the longrun we’re going to prevail. 

Mr. DIBBLE. Senator, if I could add—— 

Senator UDALL. Please—— 

Mr. DIBBLE [continuing]. A couple of points. 

Senator UDALL [continuing]. Please do, Mr. Dibble. 

Mr. DIBBLE. I, on the other hand, am a chronic pessimist. But, 

even I will agree that, having now established this new tool, in the 

form of the Special Rapporteur, we have another mechanism which 

will force the Iranian Government to talk to the international community about these questions. We’re not the—the Special 

Rapporteur is the beginning of yet another process that we are putting underway to not just offer encouragement to human rights and 

civil society activists within Iran, but to force the Iranian Government to account for itself to the international community. And we 

have that in the U.N.’s third committee in the General Assembly, 

and now in this, as well. So, at a minimum, we will have that. And, 

you know, if things work properly, then we may have the result 

that Mike Posner has described. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, and Senator Casey may have covered this 

earlier, but you talked about the huge effort that Iran put out there 

around the world to defeat this from coming to fruition. Why was 

it that we were able to get it done? What happened this time that 

didn’t happen in the past? What lessons are we to learn from this? 

Mr. POSNER. I think there are three things that have changed. 

One is that our presence in the Human Rights Council since 2009 

has begun to change what is a very terrible—a poor environment. 

The Human Rights Council is, in many respects, not a healthy institution. It’s been very politicized and very weak. But, we’ve begun 

15 

to push on country-specific situations. This is one; Cote d’Ivoire is 

another; Syria, a couple of weeks ago; and Libya. And so, there’s 

a sense that the institution itself is more open to change. 

Second is the Arab Spring. There’s no question that the world is 

changing and the dynamics of the global diplomatic community is 

changing with it. 

And then, the third thing is that the events on the ground are 

so grim that I think people recognize this was long overdue. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Dibble, do you—— 

Mr. DIBBLE. Absolutely. And I would add that, watching the 

Arab Spring unfold and watching the Iranian Government’s reaction to it, its efforts to, one, claim credit for it, but then, at home, 

of acting in ways that were entirely at odds with that position, certainly we can disclaim, in every forum. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator Casey, thank you very much. I really appreciate it. 

Senator CASEY. Senator Udall, thank you very much. 

We are joined by Senator Risch, the ranking member of the 

subcommittee. 

And next we’ll go to Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you all for being here. And I apologize for missing the discussion, to this point. So, hopefully I won’t repeat too much of 

what’s already been said. 

I know that Senator Udall was talking about the reaction, internally, to the Arab Spring. And I wonder if—I would like to go into 

that a little more, in terms of to what extent that might be influencing the internal dynamics between Ahmadinejad and the 

supreme religious leader. Do we think that that has contributed to 

what appears to be a rift there? And are there ways in which we 

should be responding to that to—in a way that might be helpful toward moving Iran? 

Mr. DIBBLE. With respect to the connection between the Arab 

Spring and the current tensions between the Supreme Leader and 

the President, it’s very hard to see a connection that’s any kind of 

direct connection, because tension between the institutions of Government in Iran have been present for some time. I think we don’t 

quite understand what the basis for the current disagreements 

might be. We obviously notice—we notice them. We observe them 

closely, but it seems to have as much to do with power as anything 

else. 

I think none of the current institutions of Government in Iran 

would be particularly advantaged by the unfolding of an Arab 

Spring-like event in Iran right now. It would be to everybody’s disadvantage who is currently in government. So, unfortunately, I 

think that the repression that we’re seeing in Iran is repression 

that is undertaken by all the members of all branches of this 

government. 

Senator SHAHEEN. But, do those internal divisions provide more 

of an opening now for elements from the Green Movement or 

others who might want to look at ways in which they can affect the 

government’s reaction? Or are you saying that there’s just—that 

the repression has just shut down everything? 

16 

Mr. DIBBLE. It hasn’t shut down everything. We’re seeing that 

civil society remains very active. The Green Movement has, in its 

own way, echoed the activities of the Arab Spring, with demonstrations that it called for in January and March. Now, none of those 

threaten the regime, but they are clear evidence that the Green 

Movement and other opposition groups, as well as civil society 

itself, remain active and vital in Iran. Whether they’re a threat or 

not is something for, I think, a classified briefing, perhaps. But, I 

think we can certainly say that they’re there, they’re active, and 

they take inspiration where they can find it. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Mr. Posner, are there lessons that we’ve 

learned, based on what’s happened in Egypt and Tunisia, and now 

what’s happening in Libya and Syria, that can help guide our policies with regards to Iran? 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, I think there are. I mean, one of the lessons 

is that the desire for democratic participation, political participation, is very deep-seated. It’s particularly deep-seated among young 

people, who are increasingly better educated and look around them 

and they say, ‘‘Why are we living like this?’’ The governments that 

are autocratic and brittle tend not to know how to deal with these 

things, and that, because of the Internet and because of television 

and because it’s so easy to travel, people are making comparisons. 

So, I think, you know, for a government like the Iranian Government, the lesson they’re learning is, ‘‘Oh, my God,’’ you know, 

‘‘everybody here is looking around the neighborhood and saying, 

‘Why not us?’ ’’ And I think that does provide us an opportunity. 

Again, I don’t want to be Pollyanna and say, ‘‘In 3 months or 6 

months, there’s going to be a dramatic change.’’ But, I have no 

doubt that there are millions and millions of Iranians—young Iranians that are looking at Egypt, looking at Tunisia, and saying, you 

know, ‘‘We also aspire to freedom. We want a better life. We want 

a decent job. We want a stake in our society and our political future.’’ And those are the people that I think are going to be in the 

vanguard of change when it occurs. 

Senator SHAHEEN. And can you talk more about what we can do 

to help exploit those opportunities? 

Mr. POSNER. Well, I think one of the things is—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. ‘‘Exploit’’ may not be the right word. 

Mr. POSNER. Yes, well, I think—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Encourage? 

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. One things that we’re doing here is to 

be public, in our own government, about expressing our concern, 

our solidarity with people who are on the receiving end of these 

terrible abuses, so they don’t feel alone. 

Second, I think there are ways, through the U.N.—and we’ve 

been talking about that—that we can, you know, build more momentum, globally, diplomatically. And then, I think some of the 

technical support and training and support for Internet expansion 

and so forth, all of that range of things that amplify the voices, 

that provide a safe space for people within Iran to communicate 

with each other, that’s vital. People need the ability to talk with 

one another and compare notes and know what’s going on. Inevitably, that will accelerate the pace of change. 

17 

Senator SHAHEEN. And to what extent do we think they will be 

responsive to the international community in some of these areas? 

Mr. POSNER. Is the ‘‘they’’ the government or the people? 

Senator SHAHEEN. You’re right. I’m sorry. Yes, the government. 

Mr. POSNER. You know, this is a government that’s dug in. And 

certainly it’s not on a democratic trajectory. And so, you know, they 

view everything I just said as a threat. But, it is the reality in 

which they now live. And again, they can’t operate in isolation. 

They’re part of the global economy; they’re part of a global political 

system, where, increasingly, they’re isolated. And that, undoubtedly, provides us more opportunity. But, they’re not going to—this 

is not going to be an easy sell. We’re not going to find—— 

Senator SHAHEEN. Sure. 

Mr. POSNER [continuing]. Willing partners who want to come and 

talk about how to democratize. 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

Before I get to the issue of sanctions, I want to ask you a threepart question. 

The first one would be to give us a report, in a sense—and I 

know it would be just by way of a summary—but a report on how 

you think the sanctions are impacting the regime’s behavior, if you 

could provide some sense of that. 

And then, second, I wanted to ask you a followup question about 

areas that we can pursue, statutory change or otherwise, that 

would enhance and strengthen already existing or underway sanctions. 

And I have a third question, as well. 

But first, from either or from both of our witnesses, it would be 

helpful to have a sense of how you think the sanctions are impacting the regime. 

Mr. DIBBLE. I will take the liberty of talking about sanctions 

broadly; not just the human rights sanctions, but also the economic 

sanctions that have been put in place, internationally as well as 

unilaterally, by the United States and other governments. 

We haven’t yet seen a change in Iran’s strategic calculus as a result of the sanctions. Nevertheless, evidence that we are getting 

suggests that the Iranian Government has been forced to look for 

alternative ways both to procure, to sell, to engage in normal commerce in sensitive areas, that it did not require before. So, we do 

see the economic sanctions as having an impact; not the decisive 

impact that we’re looking for, yet, but we are looking at ways to 

intensify the pressure. 

With respect to human rights, as I think we’ve detailed, this is 

not an easy sell. The government will resist, from the beginning. 

None of the governments that were subject to the Arab Spring were 

happy about what happened in their countries; they resisted. The 

Iranians have had practice; they will resist even harder. 

I think we’re always looking for ways in which we can intensify 

the pressure, specifically on the human rights field. We do have a 

very strong international sense of cooperation and solidarity on this 

question. And we should exploit it wherever we can. 

I think one of the new phenomena that we need to look at more 

carefully is the interest among the nonaligned, especially leading 

18 

countries in the nonaligned—for example, Brazil—in joining with 

us on the question of human rights in Iran. They did so on the 

question of the Special Rapporteur. I think they would be sympathetic. And we will be looking at how to work with them and with 

others to advance this issue even further. 

I hesitate to make any recommendations with regard to legislation or statutes. We think we have the authorities we require to 

mount a very aggressive and productive human rights campaign on 

Iran. I think we’ve outlined what we’ve been able to do and what 

we’ll continue to do. But, we’ll be happy to continue our conversation with the Senate and with the House to see what more can be 

accomplished. We don’t think we have the final word, by any 

means. 

Senator CASEY. Mr. Posner, anything you want to add to that? 

Mr. POSNER. No, thank you. 

Senator CASEY. I just want to highlight one letter. And I know 

that our government has already designated 10 individuals, and 

the Europeans have a list of some 32. But, I wanted to just highlight, for the record, a letter dated April 20, that Senator Menendez 

and Senator Cardin and I sent to the State Department; in particular, with a list of 12 individuals in Iran, in both the military 

and law enforcement area of their government. And I just want to 

provide a friendly reminder, that that letter is still in need of a 

response. I’m not quibbling about the timing. But, I think that we 

have to have a response to that, because a concern that I have is 

that there are things we can do, in addition to what’s already been 

done. And I want to see those move forward. 

Our ranking member, Senator Risch, has some questions. 

Senator RISCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The question I have is on sanctions. And I’m just mystified why 

the administration won’t enforce the sanctions. I mean, there’s all 

kinds of cases out there, where entities could be sanctioned or 

action could be taken against them for violating the sanctions. And 

we can’t seem to get an answer to that. Can you enlighten me at 

all? 

Mr. DIBBLE. I hope so. I think we are enforcing the law. We have 

imposed sanctions. Some of the cases, that I’m sure you have in 

mind, are very difficult ones, from the perspective of the other 

issues that they bring in their train. And the decisions to sanction 

or to waive or to defer are way above my paygrade, at this point, 

because of the very nature of the relationships that are involved in 

that. 

We have however, using CISADA, using ILSA, before that, basically dried up petroleum-sector investment by foreign companies in 

Iran. And, using the assurances that we have been able to provide, 

we have gotten major international oil companies out. So, in that 

sense, we have had an effective policy, based on ILSA and 

CISADA. 

Senator RISCH. Well, Mr. Dibble, can you give me a specific— 

I understand we’ve placed sanctions. I’m not quarreling with that. 

I think everybody here supported that. And I understand that, 

when you’re enforcing sanctions, there’s a spectrum, all the way 

from a very robust enforcement to a very benign—or what have 

you. I feel ours is almost nonexistent. Can you give me specific 

19 

examples of actions that were taken against entities who continue 

to do business, be they banks or be they oil companies or refining 

companies—can you give me some specific examples of action that 

was taken against those entities for violating the sanctions that 

we’ve put in place? 

Mr. DIBBLE. The Treasury Department has designated any number of—apologies. 

The Treasury Department has designated any number of Iranian 

banks, and has taken to the road, if I can call it that, to warn 

international banks and banks in third countries about the penalties that they are looking at if they continue to do business with 

these designated banks. That has been an effective campaign. 

Senator RISCH. Well, you say they’ve been warned, but what specific actions have been taken against banks, outside of Iran, who 

are doing business with banks in Iran, that we all know is an absolute, total violation of the sanctions that we have in place? Has any 

action been taken against any entity? 

Mr. DIBBLE. I can’t give you specifics, but I’m happy to come 

back to you with more information. 

Senator RISCH. Please do that. 

[The information referred to was not available at the time this 

hearing went to press.] 

Senator RISCH. I’m not aware of any. And I think most of us 

would be aware of some. But nobody can seem to find any. So 

again, you know, I understand that there has to be discretion here, 

as far as whether it’s a robust enforcement of the sanctions or a 

mild enforcement of the sanctions. But, it seems to me, unfortunately, the sanctions are nothing more than talk, which is aggravating, since at the time we put them in place, the Iranians told 

us, ‘‘So, what? We’re going to continue to do business as usual.’’ 

And, to be honest with you, it looks like they are continuing to do 

business as usual. 

So, thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Senator Risch. 

Senator Shaheen. 

Senator SHAHEEN. I have no more questions. 

Senator CASEY. I just have one final question. I know we’re going 

to be moving to our second panel. The question is on Camp Ashraf. 

According to the U.N., 34 residents at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, near 

the Iranian border, were killed in early April. I’ll ask one or both 

of you to speak to that issue. What is the U.S.’s position on that 

issue? 

Mr. DIBBLE. We were appalled by the attack on Camp Ashraf. 

We believe we had assurances, from the Iraqi Government, that 

they would treat the residents of Camp Ashraf in a manner that 

was humane. And they didn’t. We have made our views very clear 

to the Iraqi Government. We have also, however, begun to develop, 

with them, some ideas on how to relocate the residents of Camp 

Ashraf somewhere where they can be more safe—more—better protected and less in harm’s way. We are also starting to talk to the 

leadership of the camp, and seeking their cooperation in that effort; 

the idea being, eventually, to relocate the residents to third counVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
20 

tries through some sort of resettlement program. That’s the longterm objective. 

Senator CASEY. Well, I thank you both for your presence here 

today, and for your testimony. 

We’ll have questions for the record, as well. And that record will 

be open for members of the committee. 

I think we’ll move to our second panel. 

Thank you. 

[Pause.] 

Senator CASEY. Well, thank you very much. We have our second 

panel. And we’re grateful for our witnesses. 

Each of you, as you might have heard me say before, will have 

your full statements be made part of the record. If you can summarize, as best you can, your statement, that would be helpful. 

[Pause.] 

Senator CASEY. Ms. Bakhtiar, if we can start with you. And I 

appreciate your being here with us, and for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RUDI BAKHTIAR, COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN FOR HUMAN RIGHTS IN 

IRAN, NEW YORK, NY 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing 

this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of the International 

Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. It is an independent NGO 

dedicated to research and advocacy regarding the human rights situation in Iran. We’d like to share our main concerns and offer you 

some recommendations. 

Two years after the disputed Presidential election of 2009, the 

human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to 

deteriorate and is in a state of unprecedented crisis. Under the 

Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has become one of the 

worst violators of human rights in the world, egregiously violating 

virtually every article of the International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights of which Iran is a state party, and also ignoring the 

human rights protections in Iran’s own constitution. 

Since the start of 2011, Iran has been on an execution binge. In 

January alone, IRI officials executed 85 people, compared to 86 in 

all of 2005. That’s the year President Ahmadinejad took power. 

In all of 2010, Iran executed at least 542 people, 242 of them officially announced and over 300 reportedly put to death in secret 

executions inside of Vakilabad Prison in Mashad. 

Reports of cruel and inhumane punishments, including stoning, 

limb amputations, and floggings, are also on the rise. The government falsely justifies these practices on the basis of Iran’s religion 

and culture, while they are clearly part of a program to terrorize 

Iranian citizens. 

Human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, as 

well as minority, ethnic, and religious groups, all have been facing 

growing repression; the authorities continually silencing those who 

try to expose and criticize the government’s violence or hold the 

government accountable. 

The Iranian judiciary has become deeply politicized under the 

influence of the state security establishment. The judiciary and 

security forces regularly use coerced confessions, obtained under 

21 

torture or duress, to issue lengthy sentences on vaguely worded 

offences, including ‘‘acts against national security’’ and ‘‘enmity 

against God.’’ 

Over the past 2 years, numerous detainees have risked their 

lives and come forward with personal accounts of rape, severe beatings, sleep deprivation, verbal threats, and other ill treatment by 

their interrogators. Right now, an estimated 500 people remain 

arbitrarily detained for peaceful activities or for exercising free 

expression. Another 500 prisoners of conscience have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms following unjust trials. In addition, 

authorities in Iran are effectively criminalizing human-rights-based 

legal representation by prosecuting a number of lawyers who represent political detainees, including the one you mentioned, Nasrin 

Sotoudeh, and Mohammad Seifzadeh, sentenced, in 2010, to 11 

years and 9 years, respectively. 

Even the creation of an independent human rights organization 

has become a crime in Iran. Mohammad Kaboudvand was sentenced to 10 years in prison for starting the first human rights organization in Kurdistan. Family members and colleagues of Shirin 

Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, have been arrested, 

harassed, and intimidated in order to force them to disassociate 

themselves from Mrs. Ebadi, who has led the country’s most effective human rights organization, the Center for Human Rights 

Defenders. 

Leading human rights advocate Emad Baghi, of the Association 

for Prisoner’s Rights, who has shown how Iran’s policy of executing 

juvenile delinquents is, in fact, not justified by shariah law, he is 

now serving 6 years in prison. 

The government continues to impose increasingly severe restrictions on freedom of expression, association, and assembly, including widespread censorship of newspapers and the Internet and imprisoning numerous Iranian journalists, including Bahman Ahmadi 

Amouee and Issa Saharkhiz. 

Religious and ethnic minorities continue to face discrimination, 

as well. In December 2010, Iranian courts sentenced Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani to death for ‘‘apostasy,’’ an offense that has 

no basis in Iranian law. 

The broadscale discrimination against members of the Baha’i 

faith, that you mentioned, has included the sentencing of seven 

Baha’i leaders to 20 years in prison each on baseless espionage 

charges in August 2010, and denying Baha’is access to higher education. Sufism followers have also been routinely persecuted and 

prosecuted solely because of their beliefs. Furthermore, violent suppression of the ethnic Arab population in Khuzestan continues. 

Dozens of protesters were killed, and many more were injured, 

during demonstrations on April 15, 2011. Many have since been 

arrested. 

Now, despite unassailable evidence of widescale rights violations 

by the government, Iranian officials continue to misrepresent their 

human rights record, reject calls for reform, and block any attempts by the international human rights mechanisms to cooperatively address the crisis in Iran. In this connection, I wish to note 

the critical role of the administration for its leadership and support 

of the United Nations Human Rights Council resolution that estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
22 

lished a Special Rapporteur on Iran. It’s something the Iranian 

people deeply appreciate. 

Two years ago, millions of Iranians took to the streets, in an unprecedented fashion, demanding respect for fundamental freedoms, 

human rights, and democracy. Today, popular movements throughout the Middle East are making similar calls. Although Iranians 

are living under severe repression right now, there is no doubt 

their civil and human rights movement cannot be contained in the 

long term. 

We believe the United States policy toward Iran must give priority to the dire human rights situation there. In particular, we 

recommend the following actions. 

Access to information is of critical importance today. While the 

Iranian Government engages in broad censorship and implements 

severe restrictions on Internet access and broadcast media, the 

United States could help Iranian people to gain access to the Internet and satellite channels as a means to expand communications, 

access impartial news and information, and to challenge the government’s narrative and expose truths. 

The U.S. policy should also focus on ending the illegal jamming 

of satellite channels by the Iranian Government. Also, I’d like to 

give you an example, here. The United States should lift sanctions 

on hardware technology—specific hardware technology that would 

allow ordinary Iranians to download Internet content wirelessly 

through their TV satellite dishes, and should also facilitate providing such wireless access. 

The administration and Congress should also continue to express 

clear moral support for the Iranian people, in responding to the unfolding human rights crisis there. The moral support should be articulated in a way that does not allow legitimate aspirations of the 

Iranians to be falsely portrayed by the government as foreign intervention. Upholding international legal commitments is not interfering in the internal affairs of another state. 

As noted above, the administration’s diplomacy at the Human 

Rights Council, leading to a multilateral consensus on appointing 

a Special Rapporteur for Iran, is welcomed and should be strongly 

supported. However, this mechanism should be strengthened to result in tangible improvements. 

The United States should also target companies that sell surveillance technologies to the Iranian Government, which is empowering its repression. Several European companies are suspected of 

such business activities and should be denied access to American 

markets. 

And finally, the United States should continue to expand its targeted sanctions against government officials implicated in gross 

human rights violations. It should also encourage countries, such 

as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to adopt similar 

travel bans and financial freezes. The U.S. Treasury should put 

financial institutions in countries, such as Thailand, Malaysia, 

Singapore, and the UAE on notice that any financial services to 

sanctioned individuals will result in their losing the ability to engage in financial transactions through United States institutions. 

23 

Thank you all for your attention and concern. And thank you in 

advance for concrete steps that you can take to help the people of 

Iran realize their fundamental human rights. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bakhtiar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUDI BAKHTIAR

I would like to thank the Chairman for providing this opportunity to speak to you 

on behalf of the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an independent 

NGO dedicated to research and advocacy regarding the human rights situation in 

Iran. We want to share our main concerns and offer some recommendations. 

Two years after the disputed Presidential election of 2009, the human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to deteriorate and is in a state of 

unprecedented crisis. 

Under the Presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran has become one of the 

world’s worst violators of human rights, egregiously violating virtually every article 

of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which Iran is a state 

party, and ignoring the human rights protections in Iran’s own Constitution. 

Since the start of 2011 Iran has been on an execution binge. In January 2011 

alone, Iran executed 85 persons, compared to 86 in all of 2005, the year President 

Ahmadinejad assumed power. 

In all of 2010, Iran executed at least 542 people, 242 officially announced and over 

300 reportedly put to death in secret executions inside Vakilabad Prison in Mashad. 

Reports of cruel and inhumane punishments including stoning, limb amputations, 

and floggings are also on the rise. The government falsely justifies these practices 

on the basis of Iran’s religion and culture, while they are clearly part of a program 

to terrorize the citizens. 

Human rights defenders, civil society activists, journalists, as well as, minority 

ethnic and religious groups, have been facing growing repression; the authorities 

silences those who try to expose and criticize its violence, or hold it accountable. 

The Iranian Judiciary has become deeply politicized under the influence of the 

state security establishment. The Judiciary and security forces regularly use coerced 

confessions obtained under torture or duress to issue lengthy sentences on vaguely 

worded offences including ‘‘acts against national security,’’ and ‘‘enmity against 

God.’’ 

Over the past 2 years, numerous detainees have risked their lives and come forward with personal accounts of rape, severe beatings, sleep deprivation, verbal 

threats, and other ill treatment by interrogators. 

An estimated 500 persons remain arbitrarily detained for peaceful activities or the 

exercise of free expression. Another 500 prisoners of conscience have been sentenced 

to lengthy prison terms following unfair trails. 

Authorities in Iran are effectively criminalizing human rights based legal representation by prosecuting a number of lawyers who represent political detainees including Nasrin Sotoudeh and Mohammad Seifzadeh, sentenced in 2010 to 11 years 

and 9 years respectively. 

Even the creation of an independent human rights organization has become a 

crime in Iran. Mohammad Kaboudvand was sentenced to 10 years in prison for 

starting the first human rights organization in Kurdistan. Family members and colleagues of Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s 2003 Nobel Peace Laureate, have been arrested, harassed, and intimidated in order to force them to disassociate themselves from Ms. 

Ebadi, who led the country’s most effective human rights organization, the Center 

for Human Rights Defenders. 

Leading human rights advocate Emad Baghi of the Association for Prisoner’s 

Rights, who has shown how Iran’s policy of executing juvenile offenders is not justified by Sharia law, is serving 6 years in prison. 

The government continues to impose increasingly severe restrictions on freedom 

of expression, association, and assembly, including widespread censorship of newspapers and the Internet, imprisoning numerous Iranian journalists including 

Bahman Ahmadi Amouee and Issa Saharkhiz. 

Religious and ethnic minorities continue to face discrimination. In December 

2010, Iranian courts sentenced Christian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani to death for 

‘‘apostasy,’’ an offense that has no basis in Iranian law. 

The broad scale discrimination against members of the Baha’i Faith has included 

the sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders to 20 years in prison each on baseless espionage charges in August 2010, and denying Baha’is access to higher education. Sufi 

followers have been routinely persecuted and prosecuted solely for their beliefs. 

24 

Furthermore, violent suppression of the ethnic Arab population in Khuzestan, 

continues. Dozens of protesters were killed and many were injured during demonstrations on April 15 2011, and many have since been arrested. 

Despite unassailable evidence of wide-scale rights violations by the government, 

Iranian officials continue to misrepresent their human rights record, reject calls for 

reform, and block attempts by international human rights mechanisms to cooperatively address the crisis in Iran. In this connection I wish to note the critical role 

of the administration for its leadership and support of the United Nations Human 

Rights Council resolution that established a special rapporteur on Iran. It is something the Iranian people deeply appreciate. 

Two years ago, millions of Iranians took to the streets demanding respect for fundamental freedoms, human rights, and democracy. Today popular movements 

throughout the Middle East are making similar calls. 

Iranians are today living under severe repression, but there is no doubt their civil 

and human rights movement cannot be contained in the long term. 

We believe United States policy toward Iran must give priority to the dire human 

rights situation. In particular we recommend the following actions: 

• Access to information is of critical importance today. While the Iranian Government engages in broad censorship and implements severe restrictions on Internet access and broadcast media, the United States could help Iranian people to 

gain access to the Internet and satellite channels as a means to expand communications, access impartial news and information and to challenge the 

government’s narrative and expose the truth. For example, the United States 

should lift sanctions on hardware technology that would allow ordinary Iranians 

to download Internet content wirelessly through their television satellite dishes 

and should facilitate providing such wireless access. U.S. policy should also 

focus on ending the illegal jamming of satellite channels by the Iranian Government. 

• The administration and Congress should express clear moral support for the 

Iranian people in responding to the unfolding human rights crisis. This moral 

support should be articulated in a way that does not allow legitimate aspirations of Iranians to be falsely portrayed by the government as foreign intervention. Upholding international legal commitments is not interfering in the internal affairs of another state. 

• As noted above, the administration’s diplomacy at the Human Rights Council, 

leading to a multilateral consensus on appointing a special reporter for Iran is 

welcomed and should be strongly supported. This special mechanism should be 

strengthened to result in tangible improvements. 

• The U.S. Government should target companies that sell surveillance technologies to the Iranian Government, empowering its repression. Several European companies are suspected of such business activity and should be denied 

access to American markets. 

• The United States should continue to expand its targeted sanctions against 

government officials implicated in gross human rights violations. It should also 

encourage countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to 

adopt similar travel bans and financial freezes. The U.S. Treasury should put 

financial institutions in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and 

the UAE on notice that any financial services to sanctioned individual will result in their losing the ability to engage in financial transactions through U.S. 

institutions. 

Thank you for your attention and concern. And thank you in advance for concrete 

steps that you can take to help the people of Iran realize their fundamental human 

rights. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Apostolou. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW APOSTOLOU, SENIOR PROGRAM 

MANAGER, FREEDOM HOUSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. APOSTOLOU. Senator Casey, Senator Risch, members of your 

staff who have worked so hard in putting this together, thank you 

very much indeed for inviting me today. And also, thank you for 

putting me on a panel with Rudi Bakhtiar and Kambiz Hosseini. 

It’s very flattering to be in such good company. 

25 

I’d like to talk about three aspects of the human rights issue in 

Iran. The first is the regional, the second is the repressive policies 

of the regime, and the third is how we can practically help 

Iranians. 

In terms of the regional, the place where the Arab revolt meets 

Iran is in Syria. By sending tanks into his own cities, Bashar alAssad has demonstrated that he is as much a reformer as Leonid 

Brezhnev was in 1968 when he sent tanks into Czechoslovakia. I 

think Shirin Ebadi has put it very well when she said that, ‘‘If 

there is democracy in Syria, it’s as if an arm of Iranian regime was 

cut off.’’ The Syrian regime, let’s remember, is not only an ally of 

the Iranian regime, it’s also a partner in many of its crimes. So, 

let’s take the Syria test seriously, because I think it tests just how 

committed we are to helping our friends in Iran. 

With regard to the regime’s repressive policies, there are three 

main aspects here. The first is the isolation of the opposition leaders. Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi and their wives, who are, themselves, activists in their right, Fatemeh Karroubi and Zahra 

Rahnavard, have been in a form of incommunicado detention since 

mid-February. I’m sorry to say, I don’t think we’ve said enough 

about this and made enough of a fuss. Let me remind you of the 

fuss that we did make in August 1991, when Mikhail Gorbachev 

was detained, when Margaret Thatcher stood up in public and said 

‘‘we will hold you accountable for this person.’’ We must do the 

same in Iran. 

The second repressive policy of the Iranian regime is, as Rudi 

Bakhtiar mentioned, the horrendous increase in executions. Iran 

doesn’t just use the death penalty against people who are murderers or drug traffickers, as they claim—and even those people 

don’t have proper trials or proper legal process before they face the 

death penalty—Iran uses the death penalty for matters of sexual 

orientation and matters of opinion. This is clearly an attempt to 

intimidate the population. What was encouraging was that the 

United States, the European Parliament, and the U.N. made statements on the large increase in executions. We saw a decrease in 

the reported number of executions. But, we fear—and Rudi has 

pointed this out, as have many others—that they’re actually doing 

executions now in private. 

The third repressive measure being used—and you’ve highlighted 

it with these pictures—is to try and break political prisoners. Iran 

has implemented the most outrageous sentences on people who 

have done nothing more that Nasrin Sotoudeh, be a human rights 

activist and lawyer; or Navid Khanjani, be a human rights activist 

and a Baha’i; or Mahdieh Golroo, for being a human rights activist 

who stood up for Mansour Osanloo or the Alaei brothers. Another 

case I’d like to mention is Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki. He is currently 

serving a 15-year sentence for helping people with Internet 

freedom. 

I’d also like to mention a very worrying development that occurred last week, which is, a number of prisoners, some of them political, were moved from Rajaei Shahr Prison, which is a pretty 

awful place, where Mansour Osanloo is currently held, to a place 

called Qarchak Varamin, a prison where the facilities are grossly 

inadequate to handle the number of women held there. The reports 

26 

we have is that something like two or three times the number of 

prisoners are being held in that prison, relative to its capacity. And 

that’s precisely the sort of thing that a U.N. Rapporteur or a U.S. 

Special Representative could demand answers about. 

So, how can we help people in Iran? Well, there are four ways. 

The first is doing what you’ve just done here, which is adopt prisoners. It worked with the Refuseniks. It will work with Iran. 

The second thing we can do is push human rights up the human 

rights agenda, in terms of U.S. policy. I have to say I was very 

pleased with President Obama’s Nowruz address this year. He 

mentioned human rights defenders. He mentioned human rights. 

And it was a very welcome change from the message in 2009. 

The third thing we can do is to sanction both the abusers and 

those who help those who do abuse. That can mean using existing 

legislation, having new legislation, or doing the sort of, frankly, 

guerrilla actions, if I can put it that way, that Stuart Levey did 

when he was at Treasury. 

Fourth, and finally, we can actually practically help activists in 

Iran. That means helping them document abuses and report on 

abuses, helping them to communicate and to organize. 

At Freedom House, we were helping people in Syria and Egypt 

for many years. And there were many years, frankly, where it 

looked pretty lean and fairly bleak. But, you never know when the 

opportunity will come. And I think we have to be ready, and we 

have to make certain the people of Iran are ready, for when their 

next opportunity of freedom emerges. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Apostolou follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANDREW APOSTOLOU

Chairman Casey, Ranking Member Risch, members of the subcommittee, it is an 

honour to be invited to address you and to represent Freedom House. Please allow 

me to thank you and your staff for all your efforts to advance the cause of human 

rights and democracy in Iran. It is also a great pleasure to be here with Rudi 

Bakhtiar and Kambiz Hosseini. They are leaders in how we communicate the 

human rights issue, both to Iran and to the rest of the world. 

Freedom House is celebrating its 70th anniversary. We were founded on the eve 

of the United States entry into World War II by Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell 

Wilkie to act as an ideological counterweight to the Nazi’s antidemocratic ideology. 

The Nazi headquarters in Munich was known as the Braunes Haus, so Roosevelt 

and Wilkie founded Freedom House in response. The ruins of the Braunes Haus are 

now a memorial. Freedom House is actively promoting democracy and freedom 

around the world. 

The Second World War context of our foundation is relevant to our Iran work. The 

Iranian state despises liberal democracy, routinely violates human rights norms 

through its domestic repression, mocks and denies the Holocaust. Given the threat 

that the Iranian state poses to its own population and to the Middle East, we regard 

Iran as an institutional priority. 

In addition to Freedom House’s well-known analyses on the state of freedom in 

the world and our advocacy for democracy, we support democratic activists in some 

of the world’s most repressive societies, including Iran. I am very fortunate to work 

with highly talented and committed colleagues who have provided exemplary support to Iranian dissidents and democrats. This testimony represents their expertise 

and round the clock efforts to stand up for some of the Iranian regime’s most isolated and repressed victims. 

Freedom House conducts projects to defend human rights in Iran. We make representations in favour of human rights in Iran to the U.S. Congress, to the United 

Nations, to the European Parliament, and to responsible U.S. allies. 

27 

1 International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, ‘‘Egyptian Activist’s Message to Iranians: 

Learn From Egyptians, And We Learned From You,’’ February 10, 2011, available at <http:// 

www.iranhumanrights.org/2011/02/wael-ghonim-on-iran/>. 2Tehran; Rasht, northern Iran; Isfahan, central Iran; Masshad, northwestern Iran; Shiraz, 

southern Iran; Kermanshah, Iranian Kurdistan; Ahwaz, southwest Arab inhabited area. Among 

the slogans were: ‘‘Mubarak, Ben Ali, your turn Seyyed Ali’’ (a reference to ‘‘Supreme Leader’’ 

Ali Khamenei); ‘‘Dictator, run away. Look at Mubarak!’’; ‘‘Death to the Dictator!’’; ‘‘Not Gaza! 

Not Lebanon! Tunisia and Egypt and Iran!’’ 3Tahman Bradley, ‘‘White House Ups Pressure on Iran After Effort to Quash Anti-Government Protests,’’ ABC News, February 12, 2011, available at <http://blogs.abcnews.com/ 

politicalpunch/2011/02/white-house-ups-pressure-on-iran-after-effort-to-quash-anti-governmentprotests.html>. For a useful compilation of statements see Robin Wright, ‘‘U.S. Gets Tougher 

on Iran,’’ The Iran Primer, The United States Institute of Peace, February 15, 2011, available 

at <http://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2011/feb/15/us-gets-tougher-iran>. 

In this testimony, the focus will be how the regional context affects Iran, the key 

elements of Iranian regime repression, and how the United States and its allies can 

assist our Iranian friends. 

THE REGIONAL CONTEXT

The regional context has already had an important impact inside Iran. The Iranian regime chose in June 2009 to discard the facade of so-called Islamic democracy 

and engage in crude electoral theft. Until that point the Islamic Republic of Iran 

could claim some degree of controlled electoral legitimation for aspects of the state, 

a process that was comfortably more open than most of its Persian Gulf neighbours. 

As of June 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran placed itself in the then wellpopulated ranks of electoral frauds and dictators. This was a reasonable choice at 

the time. The prospects for political change across the Middle East were bleak in 

the summer of 2009. The signal from the United States was of engagement with 

the powers that be as opposed to seeking to promote new political arrangements. 

The Iranian regime did not choose its political path wisely. The Arab uprisings 

against undemocratic regimes mean that the model of elections as rubber stamps 

for dictators is no longer in vogue. Similarly, the practice of ‘‘resistance’’ that Iran 

has supported is seen to have failed when compared to peaceful civic mobilization. 

The last 5 months of Arab activism have ousted two dictators, led to the fall of two 

governments, and forced others to make concessions. Not for the first time Middle 

Eastern dictatorships have been shown to be less stable than believed and to have 

rather less support than their apologists and lobbyists claimed. 

Three regional factors are currently relevant to Iran. First, Arab activists such as 

Wael Ghonim have said that they were inspired by the Iranian demonstrations of 

2009.1 Other Arab activists have said they want to assist their Iranian comrades. 

That sense of solidarity and the inspiration of Arab successes have lifted the moral 

of Iranian activists. 

Second, Iranians were encouraged to demonstrate to resist their own regime following the fall of President Mubarak in Egypt. Musavi and Karrubi called for demonstrations, which occurred in large numbers in seven towns and cities on February 

14, 2011,2 with further demonstrations in subsequent days. The slogans on both 

those days were against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s so-called Supreme Leader. 

The protestors ignored President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This indicates that some 

Iranian discontent is against the system and is no longer about the stolen election. 

Furthermore, it demonstrates that Iranians understand where power lies and who 

bears ultimate responsibility. 

Similarly encouraging was that the U.S. Government promoted the notion that 

Iran would not escape the wave of Middle East protests. On the day of Mubarak’s 

departure the U.S. Government pointedly criticized the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime’s attempt to claim ownership of the Arab uprisings. Tom Donilon, the National 

Security Advisor Tom Donilon, said that ‘‘By announcing that they will not allow 

opposition protests, the Iranian Government has declared illegal for Iranians what 

it claimed was noble for Egyptians.’’ 3

Third, and most importantly, the Arab uprising has now shaken Syria, the 

Iranian regime’s close ally and partner in crime. The strategic gains from genuine 

political change in Syria are considerable. The Syrian regime is a serial human 

rights abuser—in its own territory and in Lebanon. It is worth remembering that 

the Syrian regime has an even longer career in the terrorism business than the Iranian regime, a record that has cost hundreds of American lives. The strength of U.S. 

and allied policy toward Syria during the current crisis is a test of our seriousness 

about confronting Iran. Freedom House called for Bashar al-Assad to resign on April 

28 

4Press Release, ‘‘Freedom House Calls on Syria’s al-Assad to Resign, Condemns Indefensible 

Attacks on Civilians,’’ Freedom House, April 7, 2011, available at <http://www.freedomhouse.org/ 

template.cfm?page=70&release=1387>. 5David Feith, ‘‘The Weekend Interview With Shirin Ebadi: The Education of an Iranian Revolutionary.’’ The Wall Street Journal, April 23, 2011, available at <http://online.wsj.com/article/ 

SB10001424052748703983704576277373280750408.html>. 6Geoffrey Robertson, ‘‘The U.N. must try Iran’s 1988 murderers: The mass murderers of 

1988 now hold power in Tehran. The world must make them face justice,’’ The Guardian, 

June 7, 2010, available at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentra1/2010/jun/07/ 

iran-1988-prisoners-murder-international-court>. See also, Geoffrey Robertson, ‘‘The Massacre of 

Political Prisoners in Iran, 1988, Report Of An Inquiry,’’ Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, 

April 18, 2011, available at <http://www.iranrights.org/english/document1380.php>. 7The Green Voice of Freedom, ‘‘Karroubi: Why do these ‘generals without army’ make you 

shiver and panic?’’ January 4, 2011, available at <http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2011/jan/ 

04/2635>. 8Mahmood Amiry-Moghaddam, ‘‘Annual Report of the Death Penalty in Iran in 2010,’’ Iran 

Human Rights, February 11, 2011, available at <http://iranhr.net/spip.php?article1984>. 9 Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation ‘‘Iran: In Support of the International Campaign 

Against the Death Penalty,’’ February 22, 2011, available at <http://www.iranrights.org/english/ 

newsletter-18.php>. 

7, 2011, before he intensified his crackdown.4 By sending in the tanks, Bashar alAssad has proven conclusively that he is as much a reformer as former Soviet leader 

Leonid Brezhnev was when he invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. 

Iranians understand the political importance of Syria to developments inside Iran. 

Shirin Ebadi, the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, has connected the two, telling 

The Wall Street Journal on April 23, 2011 that: ‘‘People are very happy about the 

uprising of the people of Syria. . . . If there is democracy in Syria it’s like the arms 

of Iran are cut off,’’ she says. ‘‘The people of Iran would be very happy if Bashar 

Assad is toppled because that’s the beginning of the toppling of the Iranian Government.’’ 5

The demonstrations of February 14 and 21 have not been repeated on a large 

scale because the Islamic Republic is becoming an increasingly efficient and systematic surveillance state. Iran has always been a police state of one kind or another. 

What the Islamic Republic is implementing is an Soviet-style approach that relies 

upon a professional approach to surveillance that takes full advantage of modern 

interception capabilities for mobile telephony and the Internet. 

The Iranian regime is pursuing three major policies to repress its critics and prevent its opposition from organizing. First, the Iranian regime has isolated Mir Hussein Mtisavi and Mehdi Karrubi, the nominal leaders of the opposition Green Movement, and their wives, distinguished activists in their own right, Zahra Rahnavard 

and Fatemeh Karrubi. They are being held in their homes, which are located in a 

regime sector of Tehran, and are barred from using communications. Family visits 

occur under regime control. 

There are legitimate concerns about the sincerity of their commitment to democratic norms and human rights. Both men have waxed lyrical about the glories of 

the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Musavi’s 

human rights record in government was appalling. There are serious questions to 

be asked about his knowledge or involvement in Khomeini-era crimes.6 Karrubi recently made the fanciful claim that the abuse of prisoners at the Kahrizak detention 

centre in the summer of 2009 would not have occurred had Ayatollah Khomeini remained in power.7

The isolation of Messrs. Musavi and Karrubi, along with Mrs. Karrubi and Ms. 

Rahnavard, is a clear violation of human rights and act of repression. The United 

States and its allies have been insufficiently vocal about the de facto detention and 

isolation of these four leading Iranian political figures. A good example of how to 

respond occurred in August 1991 when Mikhail Gorbachev was held in isolation 

during the brief Soviet coup. Margaret Thatcher publicly called the putschists to account for Gorbachev. We should be asking the same tough questions of the Iranian 

regime. 

Second, the Iranian regime has increased its already high rate of executions. The 

Iranian regime claims that the death penalty in Iran is required to maintain order. 

It does not take much imagination to understand that the noose also sends a political message given the execution of political dissidents. During 2010 Iran executed 

between 312 and 546 persons.8 In January 2011 alone, however, 95 persons were 

executed, of whom 6 were identifiably political prisoners.9

The use of the death penalty in Iran is highly abusive. There is no credible criminal process, no transparency in sentencing, and no legal protections worthy of the 

name. Iran imposes capital punishment for ill-defined offences such as ‘‘rebellion 

29 

10 Human Rights Watch, ‘‘We Are a Buried Generation: Discrimination and Violence Against 

Sexual Minorities in Iran,’’ December 15, 2010, pages 19–20, available at <http://www.hrw.org/ 

en/reports/2010/12/15/we-are-buried-generation>. 11Statement by the International Campaign for Abolishing the Death Penalty in Iran, January 29, 2011: ‘‘In the past 36 days (December 20 to January 27) alone, 117 individuals were 

hanged and many more are awaiting to face the gallows,’’ available at <http://stopexecution.info/ 

en/137>. 12Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Public Affairs, ‘‘Concern for the Denial 

of Human Rights in Iran,’’ State Department, January 31, 2011, available at <http:// 

www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/01/155719.htm>. 13 U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘‘Alarmed at rise in killings, U.N. 

rights chief urges Iran to halt executions,’’ U.N. News Centre, February 2, 2011, available at 

<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37443&Cr=lran&Crl>. 14 ‘‘European Parliament resolution of 10 March 2011 on the EUs approach towards Iran,’’ 

(2010/2050(INI), P7–TA–PROV(2011)0096, available at <http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201103/20110322ATT16074/20110322ATT16074EN.pdf>. 15 International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, ‘‘Ten More Secret Executions at 

Mashad’s Vakilabad Prison,’’ February 9, 2011, available at <http://www.iranhumanrights.org/ 

2011/02/ten-more-secret-executions-at-mashads-vakilabad-prison/>. 

against God’’ (article 190 of the penal code) and for sexual behaviour, such as adultery, ‘‘sodomy,’’ and foreplay between men.10

The growing number of executions prompted an international campaign by 

Iranian activists calling for a moratorium on executions.11 The United States condemned the execution of the Dutch-Iranian national Zahra Bahrami and called for 

a halt to executions.12 Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, 

also called for Iran to halt executions, as did Christof Heyns, the U.N. Special 

Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and Gabriela Knaul, 

the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers.13 The 

European Parliament also called for a moratorium on the death penalty.14

These statements clearly had some effect, despite the usual regime response of 

public defiance. The publicly recorded rate of executions has certainly declined. 

However, along with our colleagues at the International Campaign for Human 

Rights in Iran, we are concerned executions are being conducted in secret.15

Third, the Iranian regime is engaged in a Soviet style attempt to break its political prisoners. Human rights activists have received lengthy prison sentences simply 

for advocating for fundamental freedoms. Their treatment in prison has been harsh. 

Some activists have been sent to prisons far from their homes, making it difficult 

for their family members to visit them. On some occasions family members are not 

allowed to visit or have their prison visits curtailed. The Iranian regime has locked 

away many hundreds of peaceful dissidents. 

An example of the use of prison as a form of psychological and physical pressure 

was the transfer of female political prisoners and 200 other inmates from Rajaei 

Shahr Prison in Karaj province, to Qarchak Varamin Prison in Qom province on 

May 3, 2011. Rajaei Shahr has a reputation for being a harsh place, a prison used 

to break the recalcitrant and the defiant. It currently holds such prominent political 

prisoners as the student leader Majid Tavakkoli and the trades union leader 

Mansour Osanloo. 

By all accounts, Qarchak Varamin is worse. Many of its 2,000 prisoners are hardened criminals. Each of the seven wards at Qarchak Varamin has a capacity for 100 

prisoners, but currently holds around 300. Each ward has just two bathrooms and 

two toilets. Prisoners are allowed outside for fresh air and exercise for no more than 

2 hours a day. There is no prison shop, as exists in Evin Prison in Tehran and 

Rajaei Shahr, for prisoners to buy food and medical supplies. 

Among the political prisoners at Qarchak Varamin that we know of are: Shabnam 

Madadzadeh, Maryam Hajiloei, Maryam Akbari Monfared, Masomeh Yavari, Kobra 

Banazadeh, Motahareh Bahrami, Mahvash Sabet, Fariba Kamalabadi the last two 

are Baha’is imprisoned for trying to help others practice their religion. 

It is invidious to choose among these many cases, but three in particular illustrate 

the nature of repression in Iran: 

Nasrin Sotoudeh—in Iran it is a crime to be a lawyer. 

Nasrin has represented juveniles facing the death penalty, abused children, and has defended the civil rights of human rights activists in Iran. 

Her crime appears to have been that she was the lawyer representing 

human rights activists, including Shirin Ebadi. Nasrin is currently serving 

an 11-year sentence. She also faces a 20-year ban from practicing law and 

from leaving Iran after the end of sentence. Nasrin’s own lawyer, Nasim 

Ghanavi, has also been summoned and interrogated before by Iran’s Revolutionary Court. Put otherwise, the Iranian regime has harassed the lawyer 

30 

16 Roxana Saberi, ‘‘A Chance To Stand Tall Against Iran on Human Rights,’’ The Washington 

Post, May 13, 2010, available at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/ 

05/12/AR2010051204297.html>. 17 ‘‘Remarks of President Obama Marking Nowruz,’’ The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, March 20, 2011, available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/20/remarks-president-obama-marking-nowruz>. 18 ‘‘Videotaped Remarks by the President in Celebration of Nowruz.’’ The White House, Office 

of the Press Secretary, March 20, 2009, available at <http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/ 

videotaped-remarks-president-celebration-nowruz>. 19More details on their case are available at <http://freethehikers.org/>. 

of the lawyer of the lawyer. The Iranian regime has also arrested and 

threatened Nasrin’s husband, Reza Khandan, for speaking to the media 

about his imprisoned wife. 

Navid Khanjani in Iran it is a crime to be a human rights activist. 

Navid Khanjani is a student rights activist currently on probation but 

facing a 12-year sentence. He has also has been banned from attending university and from leaving the country. Navid was physically abused during 

his interrogations. A Baha’i who helped to found the Baha’i Education 

Rights Committee, Navid also worked with two human rights organizations. 

The Iranian regime refuses to recognize the Baha’i religion, persecutes its 

followers, and uses a variety of administrative measures to keep Baha’is out 

of universities. 

Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki in Iran it is a crime to promote Internet freedom. 

Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki is a student of computer programming serving 

a 15-year sentence. Hossein helped create Iran’s largest domestic 

anticensorship group ‘‘Iran Proxy.’’ He spent close to 10 months in solitary 

confinement in Evin Prison in Tehran. The authorities have harassed his 

family after they talked to the media about their fears for Hossein’s health. 

FOUR WAYS TO HELP IRANIAN DISSIDENTS AND DEMOCRATS

There are four approaches that can be taken in response to the widespread violation of human rights in Iran, measures that will also assist Iranians as they seek 

to unite and organize against this evil regime. 

First, we can break the isolation of the political prisoners by supporting them. 

Members of the U.S. Congress, such as Senators Casey and Kirk to give two examples, have already started to ‘‘adopt’’ Iranian political prisoners, a tactic that proved 

highly effective when used to support the Soviet dissident and refusenik movements. 

Campaigns for prisoners work. According to Roxana Saberi, an American journalist held in prison in Iran for 100 days in early 2009: 

When I was incarcerated in Iran’s Evin Prison last year on a trumpedup charge of espionage, I was fortunate that my case received a great deal 

of international attention. I was not aware of the extent of this attention 

until the day my interrogator allowed me to lift my blindfold to see a pile 

of news articles on a desk in front of me. As he read aloud the names of 

journalism and human rights organizations, Iranian-American groups and 

others that had been calling for my freedom, I realized he was trying to 

scare me into thinking that this outcry was bad for me. But suddenly I no 

longer felt so alone. Friends and strangers were standing with me, and I 

didn’t have to face my captors by myself anymore.16

Second, we can increase the prominence of the human rights issue in U.S. and 

allied policy toward Iran. This process has already started, but it can be intensified. 

President Obama’s Nowruz (Iranian New Year) message on March 21, 2011, was 

an important change. The President mentioned Nasrin Sotoudeh; the filmmaker, 

Jafar Panahi; the journalist Abdolreza Tajik; the Baha’is and Sufi Muslims; Mohammad Valian a student on death row; and the poet, Simin Behbahani.17 The contrast 

with President Obama’s 2009 Nowruz message, which mentioned the Islamic Republic of Iran and ‘‘its rightful place in the community of nations’’ was striking and 

welcome.18

In a similar fashion, EU countries have become far more vociferous on human 

rights issues in Iran. My own country, the United Kingdom, has taken the lead on 

this issue in the EU. 

Diplomacy can enhance the effect of symbolically standing with the protestors 

rather than seeking to sit and talk to the regime. The U.S. and its allies can continually raise the issue of Iranian human rights violations, and the continued illegal 

detention of two American citizens Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal,19 in bilateral and 

multilateral diplomacy. The U.S. and its allies can ask the Iranian regime to impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
31 

20The Council of the European Union, ‘‘Council Regulation (EU) No. 359/2011 of 12 April 2011 

concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of 

the situation in Iran,’’ Official Journal of the European Union, April 14, 2011, available at 

<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:100:0001:0011:EN:PDF>. 

ment a moratorium on executions to demonstrate that it take international norms, 

whether on human rights or nuclear proliferation, seriously. 

Third, we should push ahead with sanctioning the abusers and those who assist 

abuse. The United States has already listed 10 Iranian human rights abusers, the 

EU a total of 32.20 The U.S. sanctioning of Iranian human rights abusers results 

from the provisions of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and 

Divestment Act (2010). 

Human rights sanctions are a useful and effective way of targeting abusers and 

communicating international concerns to the Iranian people. They complement the 

existing economic and financial sanctions because they act in a different manner. 

Economic and financial sanctions are important. The difficulty with such sanctions 

can be that their enforcement requires cooperation from third parties such as foreign countries and companies. In addition, the regime portrays can easily portray 

such economic and financial measures as indiscriminate attacks on Iran as a 

country. 

By contrast, human rights sanctions are easier to initiate and have tremendous 

symbolic effect. The more abusers we sanction, and the lower level regime thugs 

whose names appear on U.S. and EU lists, the more we illuminate the mechanism 

of repression. Such sanctions can be unilateral and require nobody else’s cooperation. They often have little practical effect as abusers do not travel to the United 

States, or the EU, nor do they have assets here. However, what such sanctions communicate unequivocally is that the Iranian regime is the problem, not the people 

of Iran. 

In addition, denying visas to the family members of regime abusers is also a useful measure that does not require additional legislation. The ability of family members of regime officials to globe trot using their ill gotten gains is greatly resented 

in Iran. We should encourage these people to take their holidays at home. 

The recently announced Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act addresses the issues above. The Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act is 

being sponsored by Senators Kirk and Gillibrand from this Chamber by Representatives Dold and Deutch in the other place. The act proposes a U.S. Special Representative on Human Rights and Democracy in Iran. The U.S. Special Representative can 

work in tandem with the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in Iran that the 

U.N. Human Rights Council voted for on March 24, 2011. 

Fourth, we can redouble our efforts to assist Iranian human rights and civil society activists. In practical terms that means funding programmes that enable 

Iranian dissidents and democrats to communicate with each other safely and to 

organize, to document regime abuses and to report them. 

We do not know when Iranian activists will be able to fully use such training and 

education. Our experience in Egypt and Syria was that there were lean years in 

which it seemed as if we were assisting a small number of people with limited 

chances to use their skills to defend human rights and advocate for freedom. Then 

to everybody’s surprise opportunity knocked and suddenly those activists had valuable skills to share with others. The people of Iran deserve to be better prepared 

for their next chance of freedom. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

Mr. Hosseini. 

STATEMENT OF KAMBIZ HOSSEINI, VOICE OF AMERICA, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. HOSSEINI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Casey and distinguished members of the subcommittee, and honored panelists and guests, my name is Kambiz 

Hosseini. I’m the host and writer of the program called ‘‘Parazit’’ 

on the Voice of America Persian News Network. 

This subcommittee has heard from distinguished policymakers 

and human rights activists. I respectfully point out to the honorable chairman of the subcommittee that I am a journalist, satirist, 

32 

comedian, a bad boyfriend, and just a plain old Iranian who wants 

to help his country. 

My testimony today reflects my personal perspective. It does not 

represent the view of the U.S. Government. I hope it will be of 

value to the subcommittee in considering the critical issues of 

human rights and democratic reform in Iran. 

I and a talented team of producers began our program in 2009, 

with the goal of bringing a fresh and entertaining perspective on 

events inside Iran to our audience. Our goal remains the same as 

it was since the beginning: being the voice of voiceless youth inside 

Iran, and projecting and amplifying what they are whispering on 

the streets. 

Despite all governmental pressure to limit basic freedom in Iran, 

my generation is sending—I was born in 1975, by the way—sending a clear message to the Islamic Republic. We want our basic 

rights as human beings. We criticize the Iranian Government with 

respect, and we make fun of hypocrisy of political figures in a civilized manner. We try to be civilized with them, even though 

they’re not civilized with us. We offer dialogue, and we defend 

universal human rights and values for all Iranian, including those 

authorities inside Iran who dislike the show because of its 

anticensorship spirit. 

And how we do it? We do it Persian-style, with humor—dark 

humor. Dark, because nothing bright is coming out of today’s Iran, 

where women are forced to obey laws that are discriminatory, children are being executed, information is censored, prisoners don’t 

have basic rights, lawyers are in jail simply because they wanted 

to defend human rights, and artists and filmmakers, like Jafar 

Panahi, who is an internationally acclaimed director, is prohibited 

from pursuing his art for next 20 years. Imagine, 20 years. If that 

happens to me, I’ll commit suicide today. 

I believe that currently in Iran the human rights situation is 

absurd, and that’s exactly what our program is doing, showing the 

absurdity of the system to the audience. Believe me, watching irrational—if you knew Persian and you watched the irrational and 

illogical speeches made by the officials in Iran, they’re as funny as 

watching ‘‘Waiting for Godot’’ live for 3 hours. You would laugh. 

That’s what we are doing right now. 

And it’s working. Our show is working. And we have over 

428,000 fans, just on Facebook, where they leave comments proactively and communicate with us in a manner that sometimes 

make us think that they are producing this show and we are their 

audience. Our broadcasts reach Persian-speaking audience in Iran 

and the entire Persian-speaking world, including the large Iranian 

diaspora outside Iran. 

As the Iranian Presidential election of summer 2009, and their 

aftermath, unfolded, our show became an important rallying point 

for many Iranians, particularly young Iranians, to stay connected 

and continue their quest for democratic change in Iran. We have 

continued this dialogue with our audience ever since. We use all 

available communications means to stay connected, and our audience in Iran remains in touch, despite the Iranian Government’s 

severe limitations on electronic communications and free access to 

information. 

33 

It’s important to note that many people in Iran struggle to view 

our program, as the Iranian Government has aggressively jammed 

our satellite broadcasts. In fact, our program name, ‘‘Parazit,’’ 

means ‘‘static’’ in Persian, which is what many Iranians’ viewers 

see when they try to view or listen to international satellite broadcasts their government has jammed. 

But, we will continue to reach out, you know. We’re sending the 

message of hope for our audience. Our audience is why we do 

‘‘Parazit.’’ I believe our program speaks to, and for, the many people inside Iran who lack the freedom to express themselves. 

We remain in constant contact with our viewers and fans. And 

they help shape the direction of our show. When we announce a 

guest for our program, for instance, thousands of suggestions and 

questions flood in from our viewers and help to inform the questions we ask our guest. In addition, we welcome and respond to 

viewer feedback on who deserves mention for positive and negative 

actions within Iran. Through this and other means, we give our audience a chance to speak out about conditions and events in Iran 

they might not otherwise have. 

Perhaps someday the Iranian Government will lift the electronic 

curtain it has built around its people. Unless and until that day 

comes, our show and VOA Persian, in general, will work to keep 

the lines of communication between the Iranian people and the 

United States open. 

I thank the chairman and the distinguished subcommittee for the 

opportunity to offer my comments, and would be pleased to respond 

to any easy question. [Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hosseini follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAMBIZ HOSSEINI

Chairman Casey and distinguished members of the subcommittee and honored 

panelists and guests, my name is Kambiz Hosseini, and I am the host of the program ‘‘Parazit’’ on the Voice of America’s Persian News Network. This subcommittee 

has heard from distinguished policymaker and human rights activists. I respectfully 

point out to the honorable chairman and the subcommittee that I am a journalist, 

satirist, and program host. My testimony today reflects my personal perspective; it 

does not represent the views of the U.S. Government. I hope it will be of value to 

the subcommittee in considering the critical issues of Human Rights and Democratic 

Reform in Iran. 

I and a talented team of producers began our Program in 2009, with the goal of 

bringing a fresh and entertaining perspective on events inside Iran to our audience. 

Our goal remains the same as it was since the beginning: being the voice of voiceless youth inside Iran and projecting what they are whispering on the streets. 

Despite all governmental pressure to limit basic freedom in Iran, my generation is 

sending a clear message to the Islamic republic: we want our basic rights as human 

beings. We criticize the Iranian Government with respect, and make fun of political 

figures in a civilized manner. We offer dialogue and we defend universal human 

rights and values for all Iranians including those authorities inside Iran who dislike 

the show because of its anticensorship spirit. And how we do it? 

We do it Persian style! With humor. Dark humor. Dark because nothing bright 

is coming out of today’s Iran, where women are forced to obey laws that are discriminatory, children are being executed, information is censored, prisoners don’t 

have basic rights, lawyers are in jail simply because they wanted to defend human 

rights, and artists and filmmakers like Jafar Panahi who is an internationally acclaimed director is prohibited from pursuing his art for next 20 years. I believe that 

currently in Iran the human rights situation is absurd and that is exactly what our 

program is doing: showing the absurdity of the system to the audience. 

Believe me—watching irrational and illogical speeches made by officials in Iran 

are as funny as Waiting for Godot live! And it is working. We have over 428,000 

fans just on Facebook, where they leave comments proactively and communicate 

34 

with us in a manner that sometimes makes us think that they are producing this 

show and we are their audience. Our broadcasts reach Persian speaking audiences 

in Iran and the entire Persian-speaking world, including the large Iranian diaspora 

outside Iran. 

As the Iranian Presidential elections of summer 2009 and their aftermath unfolded, our show became an important rallying point for many Iranians—particularly young Iranians—to stay connected and continue their quest for democratic 

change in Iran. We have continued this dialogue with our audience ever since. We 

use all available communications means to stay connected, and our audience in Iran 

remains in touch despite the Iranian Government’s severe limitations on electronic 

communications and free access to information. It is important to note that many 

people in Iran struggle to view our program, as the Iranian Government has aggressively jammed our satellite broadcasts. In fact, our programs name ‘‘Parazit’’ means 

‘‘static’’ in Persian—which is what many Iranian viewers see when they try to view 

or listen to international satellite broadcasts their government has jammed. 

But we will continue to reach out—for our audience. Our audience is why we do 

‘‘Parazit.’’ I believe our program speaks to—and for—the many people inside Iran 

who lack the freedom to express themselves. We remain in constant contact with 

our viewers and fans, and they help shape the direction of our show. When we announce a guest for our program, suggestions for questions flood in from our viewers, 

and help to inform the questions we ask our guest. In addition, we welcome and 

respond to viewer feedback on who deserves mention for positive and negative actions within Iran. Through this and other means, we give our audience a chance 

to speak out about conditions and events in Iran they might not otherwise have. 

Perhaps someday the Iranian Government will lift the ‘‘electronic curtain’’ it has 

built around its people. Unless and until that day comes, our show and VOA Persian in general will work to keep the lines of communication between the Iranian 

people and the United States open. I thank the Chairman and the distinguished 

subcommittee for the opportunity to offer my comments, and would be pleased to 

respond to any questions. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

We’re so grateful to each of you for your appearance today and 

for your testimony. We are reminded that, when we confront a 

challenge this difficult, in terms both what the Iranian people are 

up against and the international response, government alone, and 

governments alone, cannot solve this problem or provide the kind 

of help that we need. So, those who are outside of government and 

are providing the kind of testimony and advocacy that you’ve 

already demonstrated, whether your expertise is in communications or in public policy or in the arts or other ways to communicate, it’s critically important. 

And, for each of you, whoever would want to respond to this— 

I don’t necessarily direct it at any one person—but, how would you 

assess, right now, the strength, or the status, maybe is a better 

word, of the Green Movement today? And just give us kind of your 

sense of where things are. Because, of course, for many Americans, 

the coverage, in June 2009, was significant. There are some other 

events that played out in that same time period that, at least in 

my judgment, watching it and remembering it, started to push the 

story off the television, I think, unfortunately, at the time. But, I 

wanted to get your sense of where things are today. 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. I’d like to say that the civil and human rights 

movement inside of Iran is alive and well, as you saw in the broad 

massive demonstrations, a couple of years ago and subsequently. 

However, the reason why you’re not seeing that same outpouring 

of popular discontent is because Iran has had, now, 2 years to basically hone its repression skills, its repression machinery, if you 

will. And it has nearly a complete monopoly over mass communications. And it is basically using the high price of oil to bankroll this 

kind of repression on the Iranian people. 

35 

And you also have to understand the psyche of the Iranian people. We’re coming out of 30 years of a recent history of mass violence, starting with the 1979 Revolution, then, subsequently, the 

8-year Iran/Iraq war, leaving hundreds of thousands dead, and 

then the mass executions that followed afterward, and the extreme 

repressions. These have left the Iranian people deeply scarred and 

wishing to see their aspirations for democracy in Iran to come to 

fruition in a bloodless way. 

They’ve also witnessed what’s going on around them, 800-plus 

killed in Syria, thousands killed in Libya, massive repression in 

Bahrain. And they have no doubt that their own government is 

willing to use the same repression and kill thousands to stay in 

power. 

And they’re actually showing a sign of political maturity to not 

want to start this violence and bloodshed. They basically believe 

that any form of transformation that comes with heavy violence 

also has the danger of bringing forward another violent and repressive regime. At the same time, they also understand that the popular aspirations of the people of Iran, for democracy and human 

rights, can’t be stifled forever. 

Now, what can we do to help them? We need to try to create an 

environment where they can have access to information. We need 

to expose these massive human rights violations and also empower 

their communications means, which I have several concrete ideas, 

if you’d like, I can later address. And we believe that, when this 

environment is created, where Iranian people can communicate, 

where they have access to information, that environment will again 

allow them to collectively raise their voices. But, unfortunately, no 

one can predict when. There’s always a chance that an unpredictable event can spark protests and mass demonstrations again. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you, Ms. Bakhtiar. 

Would either of our two other witnesses like to comment on this? 

Mr. APOSTOLOU. Got it, thank you very much. 

Well, first of all, as I mentioned, the leaders have been isolated. 

So, that’s obviously had an effect. But, what was interesting was 

the demonstrations in mid-February that followed the fall of 

Mubarak, which showed, you know, people Iran are watching 

what’s happening elsewhere. 

In terms of the horizontal connections among the movement, 

many of these have now been broken. Many of the organizers have 

been arrested or they’ve been forced to flee the country. But, at the 

street level, there’s clearly a lot of discontent. What we’ve seen is 

that there are people organizing autonomously. Clearly, helping 

them with organizational techniques is very important. I’ve spoken 

to Arab activists who have said to me—and actually, Wael Ghonim, 

the Google executive, said this publicly—that they were inspired by 

what the Iranians did in 2009. They were amazed. They said, 

‘‘Wow, the Iranians stood up to that regime? Well, I can do that 

in my own country.’’ And what’s interesting is to hear from those 

Arab activists, who now say, ‘‘Well, I’d like to help the Iranians, 

in turn, because they inspired me.’’ 

So, I think there is great potential there. But, you know, I think 

Rudi’s absolutely right, we shouldn’t expect people to stick their 

necks needlessly on the line, but I think the occasion will come. 

36 

Mr. HOSSEINI. I just want to add something really quick, that 

you don’t see clear evidence of protests, on physical evidence. But, 

online this movement does exist, where people can go without, you 

know, getting identified, and all that. 

And it’s so interesting that now, when, for instance, a football 

player—a soccer player says something about government, he 

becomes the icon, and he becomes the talk of the town. And people 

go after him and try to support him on live show, keeping—keep 

calling the sports shows, because—not because of he’s a good soccer 

player, because he made that comment about government. So, it’s 

just—like they said, it’s fire under ashes. And any opportunity that 

that movement that has changed, shifted from, ‘‘Where is my 

boat?’’ to, ‘‘Death to the dictator,’’ and broad prodemocracy movement will explode. 

Senator CASEY. By way of followup, before I move to Senator 

Risch, that last point you made, I think is very important. I said, 

at the time, and I think I’ve said it a number of times since then, 

that even though we didn’t see people on the streets, month after 

month, and we didn’t have a lot of coverage of it, that I’ve always 

believed that, once something stirs in someone’s heart and they 

want to take action, just because they’re not on the streets every 

day, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a movement. It might be quieter, 

it might be more repressed, but it’s still there. And I think there’s 

plenty of evidence to show that. 

And I think we also, here in the United States, tend to underestimate how difficult it is to start and to take action and to sustain 

what we’ve seen both in Iran, as well as in Tunisia and Egypt and 

Syria, among other places that we could mention. 

I have a few other questions, but we’ll move to Senator Risch. 

Senator RISCH. Let me ask you this. What was the pool of people—how many people were in the pool who were looked at as the 

leaders of the movement in 2009? Was it ‘‘an’’ individual, two individuals, three individuals? What was the pool of these people? 

Whoever wants to take that on. 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. The pool of the individuals that they were—I’m 

sorry, can you ask the question again? 

Senator RISCH. Well, how many leaders were there of the protests, in 2009? 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. Well, I think the natural leader came out to be 

President Mousavi, as you saw. He was the natural leader. But, 

also you saw various voices. You saw President Khatami, the 

former President, also speaking out. You saw Karroubi, another 

opposition leader, speaking out. So, there are various leaders, but 

obviously all of them have been silenced right now. 

Senator RISCH. And that’s the followup I have. I—you know, I— 

the individuals you’ve identified, of course, we all saw. But, I mean, 

the way these things work, generally, somebody else is in charge 

of the mechanics, as opposed to these people who are speaking out. 

Is it the same thing there? They’ve been silenced? They’ve been—— 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. One of the first things you saw, right after the 

elections that same day, was the raiding of Mousavi ’s headquarters and the arrest of several of his key men. And that’s what’s 

basically been happening. There’s been a lot of arrests of the top 

opposition, right under the top echelon; even their sons, their 

37 

daughters have been arrested. And also the key players in the 

Green Movement have been arrested, so that the movement was 

brought, basically, to a virtual standstill for a while, it seemed. 

But, again, this movement has no natural leaders anymore. It’s 

become a movement of everybody who opposes this government, 

everybody who wants freedoms, and everybody who wants human 

rights respected in this country. So, it has become a very undefined 

movement, basically almost a civil rights movement for human and 

civil rights. 

Senator RISCH. And is there someone who—my impression is 

that movements always do better if they’ve got a strong leader. Is 

there a person like that, that people look to as—that they may rise, 

at some point in time, to lead this? 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. When you look at the youth of Iran that are in 

the prisons right now—the Navid Khanjanis, the Emid Baghis, the 

Nasrin Sotoudehs, the Seifzadehs, the Mohammad Koboudvands— 

these are all potential leaders in Iran’s future. But, I can’t think 

of anybody who has risen right now, other than the leaders that 

we’ve mentioned, as a particular figure to be leading the movement. 

Senator RISCH. And all these people that you have indicated have 

been—that were arrested shortly after the elections—do you track 

those people, as far as where they are or what’s happening to them, 

or what have you? 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. Yes, we do. There were numerous people arrested. 

And, of course, that’s part of our organization’s job, to track them, 

to see who’s been released, what sentencing they’re receiving. And 

you have to understand, you saw the show trials. Many of these 

protestors have been arrested, they’ve been tortured, they’ve been 

forced into giving false confessions, they’ve been tried, and they’ve 

been sentenced unjustly. In some cases, people have been executed. 

And this is basically what’s unfolding inside the prisons of Iran. 

Senator RISCH. Is there a standard for the execution, or it subjective? That is, they just choose people that they think are going to 

be—— 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. There is a judge that we have targeted as part 

of the 15 men of violence our organization is targeting as Iranian 

officials that are responsible, directly, for the human rights violations that are going on inside the country. Judge Salavati, we’re 

trying to figure actually what his credentials are to be a judge. But, 

he is also one of the judges who’s doling out very harsh sentencing—10 years, 9 years—for protestors. And he is also sentencing young men to death for protesting, saying that they were 

protesting, when they weren’t protesting, in the case of Arash 

Rahmanipour, a young 19-year-old who was executed last year, on 

claims of enmity with God. 

So, there are judges, yes, doling out unfair sentences based on— 

for example, another young man, Mohamad Valian was a 20-yearold who was arrested. And they had taken his picture throwing 

three stones at a protest. And they arrested him, and his trial 

lasted 7 minutes. And, in 7 minutes, he was convicted, to death. 

Now, we were able to launch a video campaign and get that death 

sentence overturned to 3 years. But, again, this is what we’re dealVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
38 

ing with, a very haphazard, unjust way of sentencing the Iranian 

people. 

Senator RISCH. Is there any sense that any of these individuals 

understand that, when and if the regime crumbles, that they’re 

going to be held accountable, either by the Iranian people or by 

World Court or something like that? Is there any sense of that at 

all? 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. Well, I’m sure there is. I’m sure that speaks to 

the level of repression we’re seeing there. It seems like they are 

looking around the region and what’s going on in the region, and 

upping the ante on the repression in their own country. So, I believe that, yes, they do understand that they will be subject to 

international law, and, eventually, the law of their own country. 

Senator RISCH. Finally, you made reference, on page 4 of your 

remarks; you said several European companies are suspected of 

selling surveillance technologies to Iran. Can you identify those 

companies for me? 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. Yes. I’d like to speak to the issue of access to information and safe communications, which are two areas which the 

United States must be proactive in and should be focusing on. 

With regards to the Internet, we’re strongly recommending investing in wireless, satellite-based technology. There’s technology 

right now inside of Iran which actually would allow the Iranian 

people to download the Internet through their television via their 

satellite dishes. We need to provide the service for that. 

Now, as long as the Internet is carried through fiber optics, we 

have to find a way to counter that, because fiber optics will always 

allow a government to block it, and always has the ability to be 

controlled by the government. So, the sooner that we invest in the 

wireless technology, the better. 

Now, with regards to satellite television, Iran consistently is jamming television broadcasts, as well, which is very illegal. It’s 

against international law. And, by all means, we should stop it. 

And we can stop it, because, ironically, the same satellite company 

which is beaming in the programming from outside of the country—which we were talking about, like ‘‘Parazit’’, which is being 

blocked by the Iranian Government—that same satellite company, 

which is called Eutelsat, is also the same company that is also providing, inside of Iran, the state-controlled television and radio 

information. 

So, the way we need to operate here is, force Eutelsat to basically 

hold Iran accountable and hold Iran to international standards. 

This is easily doable. What you tell them is, is, ‘‘Either you get Iran 

to stop jamming programming from outside the country, or they 

lose the opportunity to channel their own programming into the 

country, because you can stop—Eutelsat can stop sending programming into the country.’’ And the U.N. agency, the International 

Telecommunications Union, should strongly pressure Iran to stop 

its illegal jamming activity, as well. 

Senator RISCH. Ms. Bakhtiar, you still didn’t name the several 

European companies that are suspected of selling surveillance 

equipment to—— 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. Yes. I’m sorry, I don’t have that information right 

now. 

39 

Senator RISCH. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CASEY. Thanks very much. 

I wanted to ask a question in reference to testimony provided to 

us this morning by Mr. Hosseini. On page 2 of your testimony— 

and you highlighted part of this in your summary of the testimony—you say, and I’m quoting, ‘‘We have over 428,000 fans, just 

on Facebook where they leave comments proactively and communicate with us in a manner that sometimes makes us think that 

they are producing the show and we are their audience. Our broadcasts reach Persian-speaking audiences in Iran, in the entire Persian-speaking world, including the large Iranian diaspora outside 

of Iran.’’ That’s from your statement. 

And I’d ask you, based upon all of that interaction that you have, 

what advice do you have for us to be able to keep making the case, 

not just against the regime, but about the moral gravity of this 

challenge that we face? Because sometimes bills and legislation 

and action here doesn’t translate very well, and we often don’t communicate very well. And I just want to get your sense of how you 

see this challenge, from your vantage point. 

Mr. HOSSEINI. I want to refer to what you mentioned earlier, 

about—that the human rights issue in Iran is a moral issue for 

United States, a moral obligation, moral duty. I think you should 

communicate with people, via media, and translate this for them, 

and try to let them know that, ‘‘Hey, this is how we think, here, 

United States, and this is a moral value for us.’’ 

And also, don’t underestimate the power of media. I believe we 

can do a lot with what we have in Persian Service, if we had just 

a little bit more money. You know, we could pump it up to something very more interesting than what we have right now. And this 

is the only channel of communication that we have with Iranian 

people. And supporting them with this only channel of communication, I think, to me, we can proceed a lot with all we want to do, 

as a human being, and help them. 

This is the only thing I can recommend. Support media and don’t 

underestimate the power of media. 

Senator CASEY. And you purposefully named the show ‘‘Parazit’’, 

which means ‘‘static.’’ Tell me about that, in terms of the thematic 

underpinning of that name, why you chose it, and how it’s so 

relevant. 

Mr. HOSSEINI. Look, I basically made the show for myself. When 

I was a young—younger man in Iran, I used to go through those 

channels and I—you know, I was thirsty to get some sort of information. You know, please, give me some sort of truth. Because you 

can’t—you know, any normal man in the world who watches the 

state media in Iran, you can say they’re lying. You—that’s—you 

use your common sense. This is what we do on our show, too; we 

use common sense a lot. You use your common sense, as a viewer, 

you sit down and you watch the state media; you know they’re 

lying. You know you can’t trust these people. 

I make the show for myself, a young man who was thirsty to get 

information. When I sit in front of camera, I’m like—I see myself 

in my little room, in the small town in Iran. And I used to—this 

is my experience—I used to surf through the channels, and I’d see 

40 

a lot of static, because of the jamming, you know. And it’s frustrating that you see all the static. And through all the noises, you 

want to hear something, you know, a sentence from a newscaster 

or something. So, I thought, why not we call our self ‘‘Static’’? 

That’s who we are. And we’re going to be static in Iranian government’s face. 

Senator CASEY. You’re obviously reaching a lot of people in a 

very direct way, and especially young people. What do you see as 

the main impediment that you confront to making your audience 

even bigger? Is there a mechanical impediment, or is it more complicated than that? 

Mr. HOSSEINI. Yes, we have—like Rudi said, we have this Green 

Movement that is alive, and we have all those people that—who 

oppose the government—are with us; they agree with whatever we 

say, and we all have that base of audience that we have had. 

We are trying to reach out to those lower-class people, who voted 

for Mr. Ahmadinejad and who are supporting the government, 

despite the fact that this government is brutally violating human 

rights in Iran every—everyday basis. So, what we are trying to do 

is win the heart and mind of those lower-class people, who are 

getting paid by government to survive, and they have no choice— 

morally, sometimes they know that this is wrong, what they’re 

doing. But, they’re getting paid, they have to survive. We’re trying 

to reach out to them. Like those Basijis and plain-clothed people 

that you see on the streets, we’re trying to communicate with them. 

Like, we had a show, a couple of months ago, that we communicated directly with Basijis, and we talked to them, and we said— 

and we got some responses, too, from them. 

We get e-mails from people who support Ahmadinejad and who 

support Abdul Khameini. And it’s very interesting to—I can forward some of them to you, if you’re interested to read those. 

They’re very interesting to see that people are frustrated. The economy is not that good in Iran, and people are struggling to survive. 

And that’s their main—this is the main concern right now: economy. They want to feed their family, and they can’t do it. So, those 

people, they’re communicate with us. They send us e-mail, they 

send us comments, and all that. And it’s heartbreaking, but those 

are the people we’re aiming for: lower class, people who live in 

small cities and villages, and they vote for certain candidate without knowing who that person is. 

Senator CASEY. And you obviously think some of them are persuadable, to use a word in our lexicon. Yes? 

Mr. HOSSEINI. Yes. 

Senator CASEY. And even some—a good number who may have 

been supporters of Ahmadinejad in the past? 

Mr. HOSSEINI. Yes. We, as our audience is growing, we suspect 

that we’re getting some of those, you know? Because how many 

people can—how do you call a show popular? How many people in 

a 70 million population country can watch a show that you call 

that show popular? And I think we have the base of all oppositions 

on our show, but we’re getting bigger every day. The number I told 

you, 428,000, a week ago—10 days ago, we had 4—we just reached 

400,000; so, 28,000 in 10 days. To me, it’s skyrocketing, these numVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:32 Sep 21, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\HEARING FILES\112TH CONGRESS, 1ST\2011 ISSUE TEXT HEARINGS\051111-Q.TXT
41 

bers, and I’m sure that we’re tapping into the lower class, because 

now they’re interested in our common sense. 

Senator CASEY. I’d ask the same question to the other two witnesses. Is there anything you can tell us about this communications challenge, and what is the best strategy? 

Mr. APOSTOLOU. Well, thank you very much. 

I think what Kambiz has done is very important. Because, if you 

think about it, in any dictatorship, to be a subject of that dictatorship is to be a target of broadcast; that’s all they’re doing to you 

all day: broadcasting, broadcasting, broadcasting. In his case, 

though, they’re broadcasting to him. So, that interaction and giving 

people that ability to speak is very, very important. 

I think the second thing is, he’s right, that there is a base of support of the regime. This is not a hollow regime. This is not the 

meaningless NDP regime in Egypt, where nobody even knew what 

the ruling party stood for in the last few years. There are people 

who really do believe in this regime. And the government in 

Tehran is very good at feeding that base and mobilizing it. So, if 

you can find the correct message to undermine that, that’s absolutely critical. 

The other point is, you have to make people understand that— 

again, Rudi made this point—we’re not asking for excessive risk. 

But, at a certain point, you’ve got to take your frustration and activism offline. I mean, political power does not grow out of a 

Facebook account. And so, there has to be a certain movement at 

a certain point. But, if you can undermine the base of the regime 

and teach people, themselves, how to do that—this has been done 

elsewhere; there are other places where people have gone to people 

in their area and said, ‘‘Look, I know your husband, your uncle, 

your brother, your cousin is in the police, in the Basij. You know, 

I want you to know there’s a future for them in a new democratic 

Iran. We’re not after you; we’re not after the little guys. We’re after 

the big ones.’’ And eroding the base that way is a very useful 

technique. 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. First, if you don’t mind, I’d like to address Senator Risch’s question. We are, in fact doing research on the companies. And we don’t want to name them publicly, just yet. But, aside 

from Nokia Siemens, which was the German company which was 

mentioned 2 years ago, Ericsson, the Swedish company, and 

Huawai, the Chinese company, which have been released, we are 

doing a comprehensive report. 

Senator RISCH. Thank you. 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. And we can forward you that information when 

it’s done. 

Senator CASEY. OK. 

Ms. BAKHTIAR. And, as far as what to do, I think I mentioned 

it. Again, I can’t stress how important it is to help Iranians be able 

to access information and have safe communications. Again, there’s 

concrete ways that we can actually help Iranians be able to access 

the Internet using these wireless satellite-based Internet-access 

technologies. And there’s also the ability to lift sanctions on the 

hardware that’s needed to use this technology. But, we need to be 

providing the proper service for them. And, as long as the Internet, 

like I said, is carried in fiber optics, it’s a losing battle for us. The 

42 

sooner we can get on the wireless technology and the sooner we can 

provide it for the Iranian people, the better. 

And again, I can’t stress the fact that there is a company called 

Eutelsat, which is the satellite company which is responsible for 

feeding Iran all of its own programming and also bringing in programming from abroad. We must be applying pressure to Eutelsat, 

to put pressure on Iran to stop jamming the satellite and the 

programming. 

But, as far as international institutions, I have to say, we’ve had 

the—we very much welcome the administration’s engagement recently with the Human Rights Council and the assignment of the 

Special Rapporteur. That was a very significant achievement, and 

we believe it will have significant ramifications and be able to expose great injustices that are happening inside of the prisons of 

Iran. And I think that’s the most important thing, is to be able to 

get information out of the country and give information back into 

the hands of the Iranian people, empowering them to create the 

environment that they need to have their voices heard. 

Senator CASEY. Well, thank you all for your testimony. 

Is there anything else that you’d like to say before we conclude? 

We’re just about ready to wrap up, and I want to give you that 

opportunity—I know that there are a number of things we did not 

cover. But, is there anything you wanted to say before we go? 

Mr. APOSTOLOU. Can I just quickly say with regard to Rudi’s 

point about Nokia Siemens networks. I think it’s extremely important that this be pursued. They provided a monitoring center for 

mobile telephony. That’s standard when you provide this sort of 

equipment, but it’s standard when you provide it to a country that 

has law enforcement agencies, as opposed to people who impose 

human rights abuses. What they have done is that they claim to 

have sold that business to other companies—and quite who those 

new companies are and who’s doing that is important—because you 

cannot operate this sort of equipment without ongoing updates of 

both software and hardware. It’s a very sophisticated kit. That 

needs to be fully investigated. Nokia Siemens does a tremendous 

amount of business in the United States. And, you know, many of 

us carry their telephones. They do an awful lot of U.S. Government 

work. And the potential to expose that, I think, is very important. 

And that needs to be very, very fully investigated. The two companies that have been named as being involved here, Trovicor and 

Perusa, and we don’t really know who owns them. 

Senator CASEY. Thank you very much. 

And I know that the Congress has more work to do, and the 

administration has more work to do, even though you could point 

to progress in both branches of government. But, we have more to 

do. And this hearing today, and your testimonies, will give us, not 

just inspiration, but also the information that we need to move forward. And we look forward to working with you as we move into 

a new chapter. 

And we have to do everything we can to meet the moral obligation we have, and also to recognize that, what happened in June 

2009, and leading up to June 2009, has changed that country forever, even though we may not see daily manifestations of it on our 

television sets. But, I think what’s stirred in the hearts of people 

43 

in that country have changed it forever. And we’ve got to make 

sure that we’re providing even more tools and more strategies to 

allow what is in the hearts of the people to be able to be fully realized. And I look forward to working with you on that. 

Thank you very much, and we’re adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

Æ