Will John Kerry Stand with the Mullahs of Iran?

There was a ray of hope among Iranian-American human rights activists that, after four years of failed negotiations with Tehran, the Obama administration would see the light and adopt a new policy on Iran. After all, the negative IAEA reports against the Khomeinist regime, as well as the backing of European allies have proven fruitless and the State Departments' secret and public negotiations have been nothing but futile.

However, the appointment of Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State dashed all hopes that the second term of President Obama may bring a policy change leaning towards the people of Iran, whose uprising for freedom and democracy was willfully ignored by the United States in 2009.

Senator Kerry's controversial background on Iran has raised serious concerns among Iranian-Americans. Considering Kerry's long relations with known proxies and brokers of the Khomeinist regime, Iranian-Americans have come to wonder whether Kerry's ideological disposition would lend itself to making the appropriate decisions and executing the effective actions.

John Kerry has been involved with some of the most notorious lobbyists for the Iranian regime and has received a tidy sum of contributions for his 2004 presidential election from them.

One of his number one backers was one Hassan Nemazee. A notorious businessman and mullah apologist, Nemazee was also a close friend of the Clintons, and is now serving a prison sentence for embezzlement. He was one of the many lobbyist supporters who raised about $100,000 for Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004.

During his presidential campaign, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in December of 2003, Sen. Kerry announced; "As president I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interests with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago." Is he going to act on that policy, knowing that his predecessor wasted four years doing the very same? And during his time as a Biden crony on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, wasn't Kerry privy to all the negotiations conducted by both the Bush administration and the European Union?

Senator Kerry's ties to the Iranian lobbyists do not end there by any means. Another scandalous character among the Khomeinist peddlers is Rutgers University professor and founder of the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Hooshang Amir Ahmadi, who along with the AIC board members advocates close ties with the dictators of Iran.

Also among this long list of infamous Iranian regime hustlers backing Kerry is Trita Parsi, founder of the NIAC, National Iranian American Council. Parsi has been Senator Kerry's advisor on Iran policy.

Mr. Kerry's foreign policy is that America will be "respected" through negotiations with the dictators who hate America and betrayal of the "dictators" who are America's friend. That America will be "respected" if supports one people's uprising for democracy but ignores another freedom-loving people, because their dictator hates America and should be rewarded by appeasement.

By now Sen. Kerry should know that the mullahs of Iran will never be allies of the U.S. and will never 'succumb' to any American diplomat's charm offensive. As a result of this obtuse mentality, peddled by the likes of Kerry, the young Iranians who were sacrificed in 2009 to the altar of negotiations with Islamist dictators have lost respect for the United States also. To that end, the question is; why does the American government support one people for freedom (i.e. Libya, Egypt) but ignore another?

Mr. Kerry evidently cares more for scoring a 'diplomatic' goal for his own career's track record over promoting democracy and supporting the people who want to be free by challenging the dictators. His delusion about adopting the "soft power" is fashioned after Obama's own reveries of soft power policy which in and of itself is the continuation of the failed and corrupt Carter mandate.

If after thirty-four years, Washington has not yet figured out that this remains a recipe for disaster, it never will.
During his 2004 Presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry issued a document insisting that "spreading democracy will be among his priorities" but he also added that;"Democracy will not bloom overnight". It is beyond comprehension that a candidate for the secretary of state does not know that Iranians had a revolution for democracy and established a parliament and senate in 1906, that Iranians have fought against dictators, corrupt and vicious clerics, and European imperialists for sovereignty, modernity, and prosperity; that over a hundred year struggle for democracy is not 'overnight'.

One can only hope that John Kerry will use Mrs. Clinton's experience over the past four years and instead of exploring areas of mutual interest with Iranian mullahs, that he will change Iranian advisors and shift his policies toward supporting the Iranian peoples populist movement against the Iranian regime. Though given his track record, I'm not holding my breath.

There was a ray of hope among Iranian-American human rights activists that, after four years of failed negotiations with Tehran, the Obama administration would see the light and adopt a new policy on Iran. After all, the negative IAEA reports against the Khomeinist regime, as well as the backing of European allies have proven fruitless and the State Departments' secret and public negotiations have been nothing but futile.

However, the appointment of Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State dashed all hopes that the second term of President Obama may bring a policy change leaning towards the people of Iran, whose uprising for freedom and democracy was willfully ignored by the United States in 2009.

Senator Kerry's controversial background on Iran has raised serious concerns among Iranian-Americans. Considering Kerry's long relations with known proxies and brokers of the Khomeinist regime, Iranian-Americans have come to wonder whether Kerry's ideological disposition would lend itself to making the appropriate decisions and executing the effective actions.

John Kerry has been involved with some of the most notorious lobbyists for the Iranian regime and has received a tidy sum of contributions for his 2004 presidential election from them.

One of his number one backers was one Hassan Nemazee. A notorious businessman and mullah apologist, Nemazee was also a close friend of the Clintons, and is now serving a prison sentence for embezzlement. He was one of the many lobbyist supporters who raised about $100,000 for Mr. Kerry's campaign in 2004.

During his presidential campaign, in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in December of 2003, Sen. Kerry announced; "As president I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interests with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago." Is he going to act on that policy, knowing that his predecessor wasted four years doing the very same? And during his time as a Biden crony on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, wasn't Kerry privy to all the negotiations conducted by both the Bush administration and the European Union?

Senator Kerry's ties to the Iranian lobbyists do not end there by any means. Another scandalous character among the Khomeinist peddlers is Rutgers University professor and founder of the American-Iranian Council (AIC), Hooshang Amir Ahmadi, who along with the AIC board members advocates close ties with the dictators of Iran.

Also among this long list of infamous Iranian regime hustlers backing Kerry is Trita Parsi, founder of the NIAC, National Iranian American Council. Parsi has been Senator Kerry's advisor on Iran policy.

Mr. Kerry's foreign policy is that America will be "respected" through negotiations with the dictators who hate America and betrayal of the "dictators" who are America's friend. That America will be "respected" if supports one people's uprising for democracy but ignores another freedom-loving people, because their dictator hates America and should be rewarded by appeasement.

By now Sen. Kerry should know that the mullahs of Iran will never be allies of the U.S. and will never 'succumb' to any American diplomat's charm offensive. As a result of this obtuse mentality, peddled by the likes of Kerry, the young Iranians who were sacrificed in 2009 to the altar of negotiations with Islamist dictators have lost respect for the United States also. To that end, the question is; why does the American government support one people for freedom (i.e. Libya, Egypt) but ignore another?

Mr. Kerry evidently cares more for scoring a 'diplomatic' goal for his own career's track record over promoting democracy and supporting the people who want to be free by challenging the dictators. His delusion about adopting the "soft power" is fashioned after Obama's own reveries of soft power policy which in and of itself is the continuation of the failed and corrupt Carter mandate.

If after thirty-four years, Washington has not yet figured out that this remains a recipe for disaster, it never will.
During his 2004 Presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry issued a document insisting that "spreading democracy will be among his priorities" but he also added that;"Democracy will not bloom overnight". It is beyond comprehension that a candidate for the secretary of state does not know that Iranians had a revolution for democracy and established a parliament and senate in 1906, that Iranians have fought against dictators, corrupt and vicious clerics, and European imperialists for sovereignty, modernity, and prosperity; that over a hundred year struggle for democracy is not 'overnight'.

One can only hope that John Kerry will use Mrs. Clinton's experience over the past four years and instead of exploring areas of mutual interest with Iranian mullahs, that he will change Iranian advisors and shift his policies toward supporting the Iranian peoples populist movement against the Iranian regime. Though given his track record, I'm not holding my breath.