Photo Credit: AP

Egypt’s National Salvation Front (NSF) criticized a draft NGO law over the weekend, saying the Muslim Brotherhood-backed bill is more restrictive than laws under former President Hosni Mubarak. The opposition bloc said the law “seeks to reproduce a police state by putting into law the role of security bodies in overseeing the work of civil society groups.” The bill stipulates that NGOs be vetted by a committee comprised in part of members of the security services and get official permission to receive foreign funding. According to the NSF’s statement, “This can allow these entities to refuse funding for rights groups that monitor elections or work to fight torture.” The NSF announced it would support an alternate bill drafted by a group of 50 civil society organizations.

The NSF has also formed an alliance with the Islamist, Salafist-dominated Al Nour party in an effort to limit the increasing power of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Tamara Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, the Salafists stand to gain most in the partnership; they may appeal to voters since they are untested in Egyptian politics. Al Nour may pull votes from the Brotherhood’s “less-loyal constituents,” particularly in conservative rural areas. Analysts say that if the parties are successful in the elections, they could form a coalition government or achieve a majority in parliament, giving them the power to choose the prime minister.

Also in Egypt, two journalists at a newspaper critical of President Mohammed Morsi are facing criminal charges of defamation. Public Prosecutor Talaat Ibrahim, a Morsi appointee, ordered an expedited trial for Magdy El Gilad, editor in chief of El-Watan newspaper, and Alaa El-Ghatrify, the paper’s managing editor, on Sunday. These charges are based on claims that the paper defamed the head of a “local public opinion research center.”

Photo Credit: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

From May 21 to May 27, Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to the Middle East. His visit will begin in Oman, and then he will move to Jordan, Israel, the West Bank. In Jordan, Kerry will meet with international partners to discuss solutions for the conflict in Syria. While in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Kerry will meet with Israeli and Palestinian leadership, respectively, to discuss how the United States can support the two countries in returning to peace negotiations. After a two-day visit to Ethiopia, Kerry will return to Jordan to participate in the World Economic Forum on the 26th.

Secretary Kerry’s first stop in Jordan will include a meeting with the Friends of Syria. The foreign ministers of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and Italy will attend. The discussions of Syria planned for the trip are part of the United States’ ongoing efforts to find a solution to the conflict in the country. Kerry recently visited Russia to discuss the conflict and announced an international conference co-sponsored by Russia after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. President Barack Obama also discussed the conflict this week with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the minister’s visit to Washington.

For the full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

Daniel Calingaert introduced the panelists and noted several recent news pieces on the Syrian conflict.

Kinda Kanbar focused on rape and sexual violence in Syria, citing the research of human rights lawyer Laila Alodaat. She began by stating that Syrian women are in crisis. Kanbar provided statistics from Alodaat’s work on sexual violence in Syria, saying that 81 cases were recorded in March 2011. She pointed to a political ideology that tolerates sexual abuse and discrimination as a central problem, saying that this ideology is enshrined in legislation and litigation. She noted specific laws that exempt men from prosecution for killing or raping women under certain circumstances. She stated that legal reforms directed at changing these laws will only be effective if they are accompanied by a social, cultural, and political movement that eliminates the ideology that supports discrimination throughout Syrian society. Kanbar called for a more proactive role for judges in order to change these laws, efforts to integrate women into Syrian society and politics, and an efficient policy for disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration of combatants.

Mohammed Aly Sergie described a surgical student enrolled in the University of Aleppo when the revolution began who has become deeply involved in activities related to the revolution. While many doctors left Aleppo as the area became more dangerous, this student remained in Aleppo to treat wounded rebels and regime soldiers. Through this role, he has built a reputation as an honest broker between the two sides. He was also elected to a position on Aleppo’s local administrative council. Sergie stated that the group of young doctors working in Aleppo has encountered the same problem faced by all organizations in Syria: a lack of funds. He noted the difficulty of establishing a transitional government and building legitimacy without funding. He argued that if organizations cannot deliver assistance to these doctors on the ground, they are “just an act of democracy” and do not change the situation.

Omar Hossino focused on relations between Syrian minorities. He noted the emergence of mediation groups addressing conflicts between minorities as reason for hope. These groups have emerged in areas of conflict between rebel groups and majority and minority groups. He cited two examples in which mediation between rebel ethnic groups and the Free Syrian Army has ended or prevented conflict between these rebel factions. He stated that these councils have forged mediated agreements in instances of ethnic fighting that did not include government forces. Hossino stated that efforts to solve local problems through a “local grassroots Syrian affair” have made him very hopeful for the future in Syria.

Oubab Khalil discussed stereotypes of the conflict in Western media, noting a tendency in the United States and the United Kingdom to characterize the situation in Syria as a conflict between Sunnis and Alawites and calling this characterization “disturbing” and “not true.” He stated that sectarian tensions exist but said, “We have not seen any systematic retaliations.” Khalil also emphasized the need for an interim government. He stated that “every struggle must end with a political solution, an enforceable one,” adding that once an enforceable political agreement is in place, they can move to a transitional government. On the subject of intervention, he praised the United States as the highest donor of humanitarian aid but stated that the U.S. and U.K. are not doing Syrians a significant favor by protecting civilians because this protection is an international responsibility. He also asserted the opposition’s belief in the Geneva Communique as a foundation for a solution to the conflict.

Opening the Q&A, Daniel Calingaert asked whether Hossino’s examples of mediation councils are isolated incidents and whether the work of these groups could be translated to a broader level. Hossino responded that they were not isolated examples but said the groups could not have a significant impact on national issues, arguing that it would be difficult to establish the legitimacy needed to act so broadly and would be difficult to translate their ability to address micro-level issues to a capacity for handling broad questions of war and peace. Calingaert also prompted Kanbar to discuss further the problem of reporting sexual abuse and the role of women in Syrian society. Kanbar agreed that there are difficulties in documenting rape, noting a particular reluctance of victims to come forward in certain areas of the country. She also called for greater representation for women, directing a call for a 30% quota for female representation in the opposition to Khalil. Khalil agreed that greater representation was necessary and responded by stating that a 60% quota that roughly matched women’s proportion of the population might be more appropriate. Kanbar agreed that this quota would be more desirable but expressed her belief that the National Coalition would not allow such a high quota.

On the issue of rape, Khalil emphasized empowering civil society to receive and assist victims of sexual abuse. On a related question on the role of women, Sergie described workshops hosted in southern Turkey by American organizations for young Syrian activists and recounted an encounter with two young men who were avidly “evangelizing” for women’s rights after attending a workshop. He claimed the U.S. is unable to create democracy but that “promoting values is probably the best avenue to go.”

Responding to a question on whether proto-ministry groups would remain active during and after the transition, Sergie stated, “These are the guys who are going to stay.” Hossino echoed this sentiment. Answering a question regarding the revolution’s chances for success without armed outside assistance, Khalil said, “If we had a level playing field, we could do it on our own.” He noted, however, that the opposition is fighting more than just Assad’s forces, pointing to Russian arms sales to the regime and the participation of Iranian and Iraqi forces in the fighting. He stated that the opposition may be able to dissolve the regime but they will not be able to return to the pre-war status quo without assistance and will eventually live in a failed state. Sergie agreed, adding that the weapons the rebels have received from other countries are “rudimentary” and are not a match for the capabilities of the regime. On the subject of foreign aid, Sergie stated that rebel groups are receiving money but the funds are insufficient. Khalil noted that there can be a substantial gap between when aid is pledged and when it is distributed.

When asked what concrete steps should be taken by the international community, Khalil called for stronger leadership, enforcement of a full or limited no-fly zone, lethal support, and increased humanitarian aid. He stated that balance of power on the ground must be achieved in order to achieve a political transition, saying it would change Assad’s calculus by showing the need for a power transition. Kanbar stated that they need to see a sign of goodwill from the regime that indicates it is ready for negotiations.

Photo Credit: Hamad I Mohammed/Courtesy Reuters

Bahraini authorities raided the home of a prominent Shia cleric, Ayatollah Sheikh Isa Qassim on Friday. Opposition group al-Wefaq said Qassim was not home at the time of the raid but there were women and children present. A leading human rights activist believes the house was raided in pursuit of fugitives who had fled from a neighboring house. Mohammed al-Maskati, president of the Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights, said this was the first time Qassim’s house has been raided and that it is “hugely offensive” for many in Bahrain. He added, ”People see him as a red line. I expect that this will cause a big reaction.”

Amnesty International called on the government of Bahrain to “immediately release five men sentenced to a year imprisonment for allegedly insulting the King of Bahrain in messages posted on Twitter.” Five men were tried separately and sentenced on March 15 to one year imprisonment. “The authorities in Bahrain seem to be using every trick in the book to stop people from expressing their views,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Middle East and North Africa Deputy Director at Amnesty International.

Writing for Foreign Policy, Marc Lynch discusses the lack of international attention to Saudi Arabia’s protest movement, specifically the stories of imprisoned activists Mohammed Fahd al-Qahtani and Abdullah al-Hamed, and their lawyer Abd al-Aziz al-Hussan. He points to “generic concern” from the U.S. government in response to crackdowns and a government “offensive against human rights activists and Sunni protesters.” Lynch argues, “Even if a revolution isn’t on the immediate horizon, it would be dangerous to assume that Saudi Arabia will forever be a ‘Kingdom of No Surprises.’”  He says the Saudi government should be reaching out to reformists and ”Washington should more effectively support the opening of political space for reformist voices in Saudi Arabia and all of its regional allies.”

Photo Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo

In a White House press briefing Thursday with visiting Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President Barack Obama reiterated his calls for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down but offered no new details on the administration’s approach to hastening a transition of power to the opposition. Erdoğan has indicated he would like to see the U.S. “assume more responsibilities and take further steps” in supporting anti-Assad forces, including a no-fly zone, and is expected to urge Obama to escalate America’s role in the conflict behind closed doors. At the press briefing, Obama avoided discussion of a unilateral military option and repeated his call for mobilizing the international community to push Assad out. “There’s no magic formula for dealing with a extraordinarily violent and difficult situation like Syria’s…what we have to do is apply steady international pressure, strengthen the opposition,” Obama said, adding, “I don’t think anybody in the region, including the prime minister, would think that U.S. unilateral actions in and of themselves would bring about a better outcome inside of Syria.” Absent from his remarks was talk of the U.S.- and Russia-backed peace conference between Assad’s government and the opposition, simply saying that it “may yield results.”

The White House released an op-ed to the Turkish Daily Sabah Thursday before Erdoğan’s visit in which President Obama expressed interest in working closely with Turkey, and in particular finding a solution to the conflict in Syria. “Most urgently, we need to keep working together to end the Assad regime’s horrific slaughter of the Syrian people.  Prime Minister Erdoğan and I will discuss how we can keep increasing the pressure on the Assad regime, strengthening the moderate opposition, and preparing for a transition to a democratic Syria without Bashar Assad.”

Photo Credit: Reuters/Mladen Antonov/Pool

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed optimism Wednesday that the peace talks on the Syrian conflict they’re organizing will be successful. After a meeting with Lavrov in Sweden, Kerry said, “Both of us are … very, very hopeful that within a short period of time, pieces will come together so that the world, hopefully, will be given an alternative to the violence and destruction that is taking place in Syria at this moment.” Discussing the conference, British Prime Minister David Cameron said, “What is important here is to make sure we really put pressure on the participants to bring forward the necessary names for a transitional government and that we start proper detailed negotiations.” According to Kerry, the peace effort is based on the June 2012 Geneva communique, which advocated establishing a transitional government in Syria ”with full executive authority by mutual consent.”

Meanwhile, the United Nations passed a non-binding resolution urging a political transition to end the conflict in Syria. The resolution placed the onus of bringing an end to the civil war on President Bashar al-Assad‘s government. The resolution passed 107-12 with 59 abstentions, a drop in support compared to a similar resolution passed in August 2012 with only 31 abstentions. Some analysts say the number of abstentions indicate concerns in the international community about extremism among the Syrian rebels. Before voting began on the resolution, the U.N. raised the official death toll to Syria to 80,000, an increase of 20,000 since the beginning of the year. Vuk Jeremic, the president of the General Assembly, said, “most of these casualties [are] believed to be civilians.”

The panel will include Nazila Fathi, former NYT Tehran correspondent; Ambassador John Limbert, former Deputy Secretary of State for Iran;  Mariam Memarsadeghi of Tavaana E-Learning Institute for Iranian Civil Society; and Stephen McInerney, executive director of POMED. Click here to RSVP, and see below for panel details.

On June 14, the Iranian people will participate in an election to elect the Islamic Republic’s next President. While most observers do not expect the election to be free and fair, Iran’s political scene remains lively and competitive, within rigid ideological confines. The announcement of candidates by the Guardian Council and the subsequent campaign period could provide Iranians the opportunity to debate and challenge alternative approaches to the country’s future. Despite these openings, U.S. policy has focused primarily on nuclear negotiations and economic sanctions, while largely ignoring domestic politics or internal dynamics within Iran.

What events or issues are likely to define the campaign period in the weeks leading up to the election? What differences exist between the candidates, and what do these differences mean for U.S.-Iran relations? What policies and political forces have driven restrictions on reform initiatives, civil society organizations, and political activists? What opportunities might these elections present for U.S. policy regarding Iran? How can U.S. policymakers use the election to bring attention to issues beyond Iran’s nuclear program?

Photo Credit: AFP

The Kuwaiti government should scrap a controversial media reform law, Human Rights Watch (HRW) says. Following news that the Ministry of Information suspended a popular television program, “Talk Shawk”, presented by opposition journalist Mohammad al-Washeehi late Wednesday, HRW is renewing its call for Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak to abandon a punishing proposed United Media Law that would severely curtail free speech and impose stiff fines for  “disrespecting” the constitution and “offending the emir.” The Prime Minister delayed the enactment of the new law, expected to pass parliament this month, in April after intense criticism forced him to consult editors and journalists first. Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director at HRW, said of the proposed law: “As currently drafted, it would create new red lines for the media and close down the space for public debate, reversing the trend toward greater openness.” Jason Stern at the Committee to Protect Journalists warned that “The choice confronting the Kuwaiti government isn’t between passing a bad media law and freedom of the press. In fact, the choice so far has been between keeping bad media laws on the books or passing an even worse law,” adding that the government should strive to uphold freedom of the press in a new enlightened  reform bill.

Also in the Gulf, The U.S. ambassador to Yemen revealed talks between the USA and Saudi Arabia to accelerate measures to establish a fund to support Yemen’s democratic transition. Ambassador Gerald Feierstein, accompanied by Treasury Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa and the Middle East Andrew Baukol, expressed American interest in continuing to support Yemen any way it could, including providing technical and logistical aid to the government and urging the International Monetary Fund to provide the largest amount of financial assistance in its Yemen support program’s first year of implementation.

Continue reading for full notes, or click here for the PDF.

In her opening remarks, Nina Shea  introduced the panelists and pointed out that the Center for Religious Freedom in the past focused on the persecution of Christians in the Muslim world, and the discussion is being expanded to include treatment of other religious minorities, both Muslim and non-Muslim. She noted that the Syrian case was especially characteristic of heightening sectarian tensions and religious persecution that has corresponded to the strengthening of radical Islamist forces.

Farahnaz Ispahi pointed out that Muslim and non-Muslim minorities are under attack in Muslim-majority countries and “Arab Spring” countries in particular, where governments are starting to face problems that have long plagued Pakistan. Ispahi offered a comprehensive historical overview of the Islamization process in Pakistan, where extremist groups enjoy an “extremely alarming” hold. While Pakistan was not founded as an Islamic state, in the years following partition, and since the 1970s in particular, the status of religious minorities “has deteriorated over the clamor” for religious influence. The decline in religious tolerance has generated population cleansing; religious minorities once constituted 25 percent of the population, and now total 3 percent. Attacks against Hindus, including forced marriage and conversion of girls, complement the “rampant state-sponsored discrimination… causing Hindus to migrate out in droves.”

Ispahi pointed out that the usage of the blasphemy law to persecute religious minorities for disrespecting Islam has risen sharply in the last four years, though the law technically applies to criticism of all recognized religions. There is however strong resistance to changing the law, not only by Islamists, but even mainstream parties, who refuse to speak on the issue, fearing reprisals. Since 1974 the law has not supported the rights of minority Islamic sects that “do not conform to Sunni/Salafi religious orthodoxy,” such as Ahmadis. The constitutionalization of Islam in 1979 moreover, heightened tensions between Sunnis and Shias, which ultimately resulted in an upsurge in the number of radical Sunni organizations and their militant offshoots, some of which have ties to Islamist and mainstream political parties, and consequently, political leverage. Leading figures in the Shia community are regularly attacked by these radical Sunni groups, culminating in the labeling of 2012 as the “year of Shia genocide,” a pattern that is being repeated in 2013. For Ispahi, it is clear that “this is a genocide” that “reflects the ambitious project of Islamists to purify Islam and transform Pakistan into a land of religious purification.”

Jamsheed Choksy spoke on how Iran’s position towards religious minorities is conditioned by Shia notions of purity, Islamic law on the status of dhimmis (traditionally protected religious minorities), anti-Semitism, anti-Westernism, and Islamic sentimentalism. Article 13 of the Iranian constitution stipulates that only Zoroastrians, Jews, and Christians are recognized by the state, and therefore protected through representation in the Majlis, though barred from higher posts. For other groups such as Catholics, Mandeans, and Baha’is though, Iran’s constitution “enshrines religion as a prime marker of difference,” as they are not recognized nor enjoy any legal standing. Sunnis and Sufis are regarded as heterodox Muslims and therefore “viewed with suspicion and disdain.” Choksy argued that hostile attitudes toward religious minorities ultimately derive from the fundamentalist ideals of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, who once stated “every aspect of a non-Muslim is unclean.” To the regime therefore, challenges to theocracy are considered both an attack on the faith and a threat to security and the nation-state. Choksy contended that to address the rights of religious minorities it is pointless to focus on Ahmedenijad since he will soon be out of the picture; ultimately, the Ayatollah possesses more influence and prominence. Moreover, though religious freedom often takes a backseat to economic and security issues in negotiations between states, “the opportunity exists” to pressure the regime to honor its commitments and “reshape attitudes towards minorities.”

Stephen Schwartz noted that among Muslim-majority countries, Pakistan’s holds the record of most bloodshed of religious minorities, while Iran is most effective at legal repression. Moreover, as the civil war in Syria escalates, the Alawites’ systematic destruction of sacred Sunni sites in the country where Sunnism was founded “will not be forgotten” by the world’s Sunnis, ultimately galvanizing the recruitment efforts of terrorist groups. Listing dozens of holy sites destroyed in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere, Schwartz contended “local resistance by moderate Muslims” is the only thing that works to protect these shrines. Moreover, Sufis in Iran need to defend themselves as no one else “is coming to their defense” since they reject the notion of valayat-i-faqih, which is fundamental to the state. Schwartz also pointed out that “real political change will mean the end of [established] Islamist regimes” in Saudi Arabia and Iran, where “people have had enough” and will not accept a more extreme system.

During the Q&A, Schwartz noted that Sufi-Christian relations are generally strong, although inter-religious dialogue “shouldn’t be a fake dialogue that tries to pretend there aren’t differences.” Choksy discussed how the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fixation on purity that ultimately defined his philosophy and attitude towards Sunni-majority states such as Saudi Arabia (and vice-versa). Choksy also pointed out that the widening of the Sunni-Shia divide is happening across the region, and there is more cause for concern than is noted in the press. Schwartz commented that this split is cemented by the destruction of Syria; extremists will attempt to “pay back the Shias in blood… Al Qaeda will have a one-word incontrovertible appeal for generations.” Choksy contended the spread of fundamentalism and the battle within Islam will “reshape everything from India-Pakistan to Morocco, and not for the better in terms of a pluralistic society.” Ispahi responded that the Sunni-Shia dynamic is not new, the fallout of which will be extremist destruction of the weakest segments of the Pakistani population first—non-Muslim religious minorities—since political parties are unified in their common anti-American, anti-minority, and pro-Taliban attitudes. Concluding on an optimistic note, Schwartz considered the reforms in Saudi Arabia are achieving positive change, leaving some room for optimism.

For full event notes continue reading or click here for the PDF.

In Chairman Menendez’s opening statement, he said the United States needs to “double down on four fronts” in order to prevent a nuclear Iran. First, the U.S. should “encourage further reductions in energy sector purchases from Iran.” Second, ensure that trade is prohibited with Iran “with respect to all dual-use items that can be used in Iran’s nuclear program.” Third, ask the international community to ramp up the pressure and change Tehran’s calculus. Fourth, the time may have come to look “more seriously at all options – and that would include increasing military pressure against Iran.”

In Wendy Sherman‘s prepared statement, she discussed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism and the Assad regime. On human rights, she stated, “We are equally disturbed by the regime’s ongoing campaign of repression against its own people.” Sherman quoted Dr. Martin Luther King, who said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and added, “This is true, too, as we advocate for the rights and freedoms of the Iranian people.” Sherman also stated, “We have stood – and will continue to stand – fully and firmly behind the aspirations of the Iranian people.” She then mentioned the State Department’s public outreach efforts, including Virtual Embassy Tehran and Farsi-language Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and YouTube channels. Sherman concluded by addressing the upcoming presidential elections. “The decision about who leads Iran is for the Iranian people, who should have every opportunity to express freely and openly their opinions, ideas, and hopes for the future of their country. But we do call on the Iranian authorities to conduct a free and fair election that not only conforms to international standards of transparency and accountability but is just and represents the will of the Iranian people.”

The prepared opening statement of David Cohen discussed ways of “increasing pressure on Iran” and recent actions taken by the Obama administration against Iran. With regard to human rights, Cohen stated, “Under E.O. 13628, we recently sanctioned the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting and its managing director, the Iranian Cyber Police, and nearly a dozen other entities and individuals for their involvement in abusing the human and democratic rights of Iran’s citizens.” Cohen addressed claims that American sanctions have caused shortages of food and medicine in Iran, stating, “Whatever shortages may exist, and whatever reluctance foreign banks may have to process transactions, the root cause is not our sanctions programs, it is the actions of the Iranian government.”

After opening statements, Chairman Menendez asked Cohen about the enforcement of sanctions and bans on precious metals.  Menendez stated, “Enforcement of sanctions is more important than sanctions themselves, otherwise it’s a toothless tiger.”

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) also asked about sanctions and stated, “I’m impressed with what the sanctions have done, but very unimpressed with the behavior change it has created.” Corker then asked if any potential Iranian presidential candidates would be more productive to deal with on the nuclear issue. Sherman stated that the “nuclear file is held by the Supreme Leader.” She also noted, “Some people speculate that Rasfanjani might drop out.”

Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked about the state of Iran’s political opposition, mentioning the Green Movement from the 2009 elections. Sherman responded, saying that the Green Movement was non-existent inside Iran and that the government’s repression has depressed the opposition’s capability. She added, “We are doing whatever we can” to encourage voices inside Iran and to press for “the kind of freedom and fair election that the Iranian people deserve.” She noted, “We don’t expect a free and fair election but we want to help people speak with the voice they have.”

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) questioned Sherman about the tools used by the State Department to support human rights in Iran. He said, “Despite the brutal repression of that Green Movement and efforts like it, I don’t think there’s any question that what stirred in the hearts of Iranians at that time is enduring,” adding, “It’s very difficult to suppress it over time.” He argued that Congress and the President don’t talk enough about “our strategy on human rights,” and then asked what the State Department has planned in order to “put pressure” on the Iranian regime regarding human rights abuses and to “open” the country.

Sherman told Senator Casey that the State Department was doing “everything we can so that the people of Iran have a way to make their voices heard,” and pointed to programs that prevent signal jamming and improve phone access. Sherman also stated that the U.S. led the effort to create the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran and released a report on human rights in Iran among other things. She stated that there is “not enough we can do with regard to human rights abuses in Iran.”

Cohen added that the Treasury Department was working with State to apply sanctions with regard to human rights abuses. He said that these sanctions “shine a spotlight” on those involved with human rights abuses.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) discussed Afghanistan, the progress of the P5+1 talks, and Iranian support for Syria.

Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) raised questions about China’s support of potential UN Security Council resolutions.

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) discussed sanctions, arguing that Iran is not likely to back away from its nuclear program due to U.S. sanctions. “That would mean a complete loss of internal political legitimacy,” he said.

Senator James Risch (R-ID) expressed his frustration with the ineffectiveness of sanctions to this point. He also brought up the fact that one of his constituents, Saeed Abedini, is currently detained in Iran and “his crime is preaching the Christian religion.” He acknowledged that there wasn’t much the State Department could do but that “people want to see this brought to an end.”

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) asked about Iran’s influence in Africa.