Forbes  |  August 9, 2015

Schumer And The Secrets Of Iran

By Michael Ledeen, Contributor

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) (L) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) talk with reporters after the weekly Democratic policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol August 4, 2015 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

I’m fascinated by the Schumer thing, because I know something about his past involvement with Iran policy that may well have played a role in his decision to oppose The Deal. Senator Schumer had a direct, personal involvement in a brief secret correspondence between the Obama Administration and the leaders of the massive insurrection against the Iranian regime in 2009, following the fraud concerning the outcome of the June elections in Iran. Former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi got the most votes, while then-current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was proclaimed the winner. The streets of all major cities filled with protestors, bigger than the monster crowds that had massed against the shah in 1979.

At this dramatic moment, the administration decided to send a message to Mousavi’s group, the Green Movement. Senator Schumer had a Wall Street friend who was in touch with the Greens, and he was picked to be the messenger.

Schumer was asked to pass two questions to the Green leaders on behalf of the administration: The Greens were given to understand that the questions came from the secretary of state. The questions were: “What should we do?  What should we NOT do?”

The reply is in the form of an eight-page typed memorandum, dated November 30, 2009.

You can read it here.

The authors were careful. It is unsigned, and I have good reason to believe that several people worked on it in Tehran. The memo presents a snapshot of Iran under theocratic tyranny, which is described in very harsh terms (“It is as if the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ were to be reestablished in the West…the regime is a brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship that tries to survive by means of suppression of its own people, military force, theft of national resources and economic stealth”). The memo says something that should be stressed in our current debate: the regime cannot change; like all totalitarian regimes it cannot be reformed. But the memo insists that the forces for change within Iran are strong and well led.

It cautions that any agreement with the regime would require the United States to recognize the legitimacy of the regime, promise to maintain silence on questions of human rights inside the country, and abandon the Middle East.  Even if the regime promised to abandon its nuclear program and cease its support for terror, it would not honor these commitments, because It needs both terror and nukes in order to survive.

And so it has been.

In answer to the two questions, the Greens pointedly presented the American government with its real options:

“…at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance Western interests and world peace?”

According to his Wall Street friend, with whom I have spoken, the memo was delivered to Schumer. The State Department says they know nothing about it, and Schumer’s office has refused to discuss the matter, but I cannot imagine he failed to pass on the memo to Hillary Clinton, his friend and former colleague. More to the point, the episode undoubtedly played a role as he pondered what to do about The Deal. The Greens told the Obama Administration exactly what the real options were: support the regime—thus abandoning the Middle East—or support freedom, and thereby encourage democratic change—in Iran.

Don’t you hear echoes of the memo in Schumer’s statement? Listen attentively:

if one feels that Iranian leaders won’t moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.

Iran has a large number of people who want their government to decrease its isolation from the world and focus on economic advancement at home. But this desire has been evident for 35 years, yet the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat…To me, the very real risk that Iran won’t moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.

Just as the leaders of the Iranian opposition warned America’s leaders some six years ago. Schumer was uniquely privy to that warning. He has seen its accuracy. And he has drawn the appropriate conclusion.

Original article here.