On Tuesday, June 18, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs held a hearing titled “Elections in Iran: The Regime Cementing its Control.” Mr. Alireza Nader, Senior International Policy Analyst at RAND Corporation, Dr. Suzanne Maloney, Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, and Mr. Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate at the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, testified. The subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), presided.
For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.
In Rep. Ros-Lehtinen’s opening statement, “in our fervor to repudiate all things Ahmedinejad,” Ros-Lehtinen called Iranian President-elect Hassan Rouhani a “moderate hope.” She argued that it would be detrimental for the United States to “lull itself” into believing that the election was a victory for the Iranian people, as it was still ultimately Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini who made the decision to let Rouhani become President. In her view, the regime continues with “cementing its control” and will march on with its nuclear program. She called Rouhani part of the “core of the inner circle and an ally of those who led the 1979 revolution. She also mentioned Rouhani’s 1999 role in leading a violent crackdown on a student uprising against the regime, his role in concealing Iran’s nuclear program for 20 years before becoming the project’s chief international negotiator, as well as condemned the Iranian government for deeming women and members of religious minorities in the country ineligible to run for President.
Representative Ted Deutch (D-FL) continued with his opening statement, in which he called President-elect Rouhani a “token moderate” who intended to reengage the international community respectfully. He commended the Iranian people for their “civic action” on election day, but expressed his disappointment with the number of candidates that were disqualified, as well as the suppression of reformist activists and websites. He called Rouhani a supporter of the regime that has been hostile towards the United States and Israel. He called on Iran to end its support of international terrorist organizations, as well as Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. He called the Iranian government unsustainable and urged that it needs to do more to support its young population that finds itself more and more frustrated with everyday life. Representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) followed, arguing that the threats that Iran poses to American interests are far more urgent now than they were even ten years ago, and thus the United States simply cannot afford to wait and “see how things play out” in Iran with Rouhani as President.
Afterwards came Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), who described his disappointment with Iran’s democratic process overall and the lasting power of Iran’s Supreme Leader over the country’s elections, foreign policy, and nuclear program. He also expressed his concern for Iran’s elections on the future of the country’s people in general. Representative Tom Cotton (R-AR) called Iran “a totalitarian state” in his opening statement, expressing his disappointment at how every candidate in the election was screened by the Supreme Leader. He argued that Rouhani was not a moderate, and said that Iran wants to join the civilized world, it cannot hold “sham elections” and fail to recognize Israel.
Representative Brad Schneider (D-IL) called on those in attendance to recognize that the President in Iran represents just a small part within a wider power structure, and was eager to hear from the panel about any transformative policies that may come from the Iranian presidency in the near future. In his opening statement, Representative Mark Meadows (R-NC) was not optimistic about Iran’s future in his opening statement, citing the threats the regime poses to both the United States and Israel in addition to the support the regime provides Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
In Representative Juan Vargas’s (D-CA) opening statement, he argued that the United States must remain steadfast against Iran’s nuclear program and presence in Syria. Finally, in Representative Grace Meng’s (D-NY) opening statement, she argued that the question that people should ask is not who Rouhani is or was, “but where he is going.”
As the panelists began their opening testimonies Mr. Nader argued that Rouhani’s election ultimately shows the population’s frustration with the regime, the nuclear program, and the country’s diplomatic and economic isolation from the rest of the world. Inflation in Iran currently stands at about 30%, though some say the figure is actually much higher. He argued that Khameini’s policies could “unravel the Islamic Republic,” and that Khameini could look to back out of the crises he faces through Rouhani. He expressed that U.S. sanctions could be viewed within Iran as a way to cause the regime to implode, and that future sanctions should continue to put pressure on Iran’s nuclear program without causing additional damage to Iranian society. Creative solutions like sanctions that target Khameini’s business holdings are solid ideas while targeting food security in Iran may only make things worse. Sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program should also be separated from sanctions on Iran’s regional behavior and human rights record.
Dr. Maloney continued with her opening statement, beginning that the outcome of the election in Iran should not alter American foreign policy in Iran as of this time. She also argued that while any dismiss the election as illegitimate, it did provide the opportunity for many to challenge the regime and to discuss issues that had been off the table in Iran for years. She contended that the presidency matters in Iran, as shown by the affect Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had on American foreign policy and America’s expanded sanctions regime in Iran, as well as by the control Ahmedinejad had over Iran’s budget and state institutions. Rouhani won, according to her analysis, not only because he led a “smart campaign” but because he took advantage of the disarray and lack of unity within the conservative camp. She called Rouhani a “pragmatic conservative” who represents a new political force in Iran, and has the opportunity to bail Iran out of the crises it faces similar to how the President did the same after the Iran-Iraq war. She suggested that the US offer tangible rewards in exchange for concessions on nuclear power. She cautioned that Rouhani will experience real restraints in designing policy for Iran in the future, though his new role could help the United States reach the deal it needs with Iran on the country’s nuclear program.
Mr. Sadjadpour made the third and final opening testimony, where he expressed his surprise at the outcome of the election in Iran, joking that “there are no experts on Iranian politics, only students.” He called the elections unfair but nonetheless surprising in that the only somewhat moderate candidate won. He was even more surprised that the Supreme Leader allowed Rouhani to win, yet viewed the decision more as a way for the regime to avoid creating mass popular discontent in Iran, and called the result overall “light rain after eight years of drought” for Iran’s people. While Rouhani’s predecessors like Khatami and Ahmedinejad show that the President matters within Iranian politics, Rouhani is “no Nelson Mandela or even a Khatami.” He recalled Henry Kissinger’s observation that few nations have as many common interests as the United States but as many reasons why the countries do not interact. Sadjadpour also called Iran one of the only countries where the United States’ strategic and moral interest coincide rather than “clash,” as the latter is the case for many countries in the Arab World. He concluded by arguing that for the United States, the best way to hurt the Iranian regime is to diminish its control the creation and distribution of information. He cited the success that BBC Farsi enjoys and suggested improving Voice of America in Iran.
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen began the discussion section by asking what the United States can expect to be “different” about Iran’s future given Rouhani’s election, as well as asked what role Ahmedinejad will play within that future. Mr. Nader argued that the survival of the Islamic Republic means that major domestic changes in Iran seem unlikely, and that Rouhani will focus more on alleviating external pressure on Iran. Dr. Maloney argued that his top priority will be to reach a deal with the international community on the nuclear issue because that will be the only way to solve Iran’s long term economic problems, though perhaps a few political prisoners will be released under his administration. Nader followed up by stating that Ahmedinejad made a lot of enemies towards the end of his Presidency, and his future political career does not look bright. Dr. Maloney suggested that Ahmedinejad will be on trial soon and his top priority going forward will be to stay out of prison.
Rep. Ted Deutch followed up by asking how Iran’s offers to compromise on the nuclear issue will change, and how those offers will affect the unity of purpose against Iran within the P5+1 countries. Mr. Maloney argued that the European negotiators with whom he has met called Rouhani frustrating to work with and that Iran will continue to oppose the sanctions. Mr. Deutch followed up by asking if the new “spokesperson” will cause Iran to “give up less” in negotiations, to which Mr. Sajadpour replied that it will be difficult for the P5+1 to offer meaningful concessions on the nuclear program if Iran is not willing to make meaningful compromises. Mr. Nader followed up by mentioning that while uranium could be enriched at lower levels, nuclear enrichment in Iran will not stop under Rouhani. However which way the issue may change, sanctions from China and Russia will continue against Iran. Before Rep. Kinzinger asked his questions, he took a moment to acknowledge the parliamentarians from many countries around the world, including Kyrgyzstan, where he was deployed at one point with the U.S. Air Force. He pledged his support for their struggle towards democracy within their home countries. With respect to Iran, he argued that the United States lost a huge opportunity in 2009 to strongly condemn the Iranian regime after the rigged election, and then asked if the Iranians could continue to develop uranium enriched at levels higher than international laws permit them to. Mr. Nader responded by arguing that more intrusive IAEA inspections will keep Iranian enriched uranium at satisfactory levels. In response to Rep. Kinzinger’s other question on how to engage Iran if the country acquires a nuclear weapon while Rouhani is in power, Dr. Maloney argued that Rouhani’s election should not change Washington’s strategic calculus towards Iran. Mr. Sadjadpour also argued that we should continue to pursue negotiations with Iran, and if they comply and the United States gets what it wants, it has executed successful foreign policy, and if Iran fails to cooperate in negotiations, “then we expose them as the problem.” Mr. Sadjadpour followed up by arguing that the Iranian regime possesses no “Machiavellian brilliance,” and that much of their long term policies are ad hoc and probably had no idea who would win the election that day.
Rep. Cecilline asked that if the Supreme Leader’s motivation to allow Rouhani to win had to do with dispelling criticism for the regime both in Iran and abroad, how does that affect U.S. sanctions on the country and the Supreme Leader’s ability to progress towards attaining a nuclear weapon? Mr. Nader argued that the Supreme Leader is using Rouhani to build confidence in the international community (after essentially being forced to support Ahmedinejad over the last four years) and will not move towards developing a nuclear weapon until Iran is welcomed internationally. Dr. Maloney agreed, and argued that the best way to avoid an “Iranian ploy” is “to continue to approach negotiations with full seriousness.” Mr. Sadjadpour followed up, however, by arguing that the Iranian regime possesses less “Machiavellian brilliance” than the U.S. assumes: much of their long term policies are ad hoc and probably had no idea who would win the election that day. But the Supreme Leader definitely has gained some popularity in Iran as a result of the election. Afterwards, Rep. Meadows asked the panelists to expand on some of their previous statements with his time, to which Mr. Nader argued that the regime has little favorability in Iran and that the days of the Islamic Republic are numbered, though little domestic change will happen while Khameini is still alive. Mr. Sadjadpour argued that while Khameini is an unpopular figure who helped lead Iran’s “revolution without democracy” in 1979, what the people want right now is “democracy without revolution” because they see how transitions in countries like Syria have destroyed the state from the inside and do not want to see Iran face a similar reality, even though such a movement is highly improbable.
Rep. Schneider likewise thanked the visiting parliamentarians before he asked the panelists to elaborate on the significance of the election turnout and whether or not the election should change U.S. strategic calculus on strengthening or weakening sanctions. Dr. Maloney described the election as insanely significant for the Iranian public because the “blatantly rigged” elections in 2009 disinterested many Iranians from voting altogether. As for sanctions, she argued that changes in sanctions need to come at the negotiating table and not from U.S. lawmakers because sanctions from the latter suggest to the Iranian people an attack on them directly. Otherwise, “our benchmark shouldn’t change” but the U.S. should be prepared to “give meaningful sanctions relief in exchange for meaningful concessions in the nuclear issue.” In response to Rep. Yoho’s question regarding how the U.S. should engage Rouhani given his human rights record and stances on Syria and Israel, the panelists argued that his stances on said issues are highly unlikely to change: Dr. Maloney argued that Iran overall will not change its stance on Syria if its role in Syria further harms Iran’s standing in the world, and Mr. Sadjadpour called rejecting Israel one of the few pillars from the 1979 revolution that have survived to today.
Rep. Vargas asked about what the dynamic between the Supreme Leader and President Rouhani will look like, especially given that they are both clerics, and how U.S. sanctions should change as a result. Mr. Nader described how the problem with Ahmedinejad was that “in Persian culture, you respect your elders,” and that Ahmedinejad often defied Khameini’s commands. Dr. Maloney discussed how Khameini has spent years publically making remarks against Rouhani, especially with regard to his stance on the nuclear issue. Whether or not Rouhani now takes the opportunity to defy the Supreme Leader on this issue, the United States should work to ensure it does not have to change its own stances on Iran’s nuclear program. Finally, Rep. Meng likewise welcomed the women dignitaries, and asked how the U.S. can reconcile its goal to aid Iran’s marginalized youth and women while also weakening the regime. Mr. Nader argued that regime change is ultimately out of America’s hands, but both he and Mr. Sadjadpour agreed that improving Voice of America (VOA) in Iran could have a huge effect against the regime. Millions of people in Iran receive their news through satellite TV channels, and the only alternative to state-sponsored news is BBC Farsi, which enjoyed an enormous leading up to the election. Mr. Sadjadpour expressed his dissatisfaction with VOA in Iran and argued that for the cost of an F-15 fighter jet, the United States could expand the station’s reach to several million more Iranians. Nonetheless, Mr. Nader argued that the U.S. should still focus first and foremost to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and Dr. Maloney argued that going forward, the top priority for the Iranian people is still to improve the economy.
With that, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen expressed her satisfaction with the discussion and adjourned the hearing.
