Mediaboss Marketing

By Dina Esfandiary By Dina Esfandiary June 14 at 9:00 AM

This month, the Islamic State successfully carried out its first attack on Iranian soil, resulting in 17 dead and some 50 injured. Iran is a top target for the Islamic State and has been since the group rose to prominence in 2014. But Iranian security forces had effectively thwarted the threat through anextensive counterterror program.Iran took pride in keeping the fight against the Islamist militants outside its territory. Until now.

Threats grow from sectarian roots

The Islamic State views Shiite Muslims as apostates. It portrays Iran as a Shiite power threatening the real Muslim community the Sunnis. Because of this and the threat the group poses to Irans interests in the region Tehran views the Islamic State as a national security threat. As a result, it placed no limits on resources to combat it both inside and outside its borders

To tackle the Islamic State, Iran developed an extensive counterterror program. Irans goal is to undermine the Islamic States spread, ideology and vision, while working to prevent attacks on Iranian soil or against Iranian citizens. The Iranian approach to countering the Islamic State is more hands-on than that of the U.S.-led coalition, because by virtue of proximity, Tehran feels the threat more acutely.

Iran draws on its relatively strong and stable state, with its notoriously effective security services to implement its counterterror measures. Tehran targets the Islamic State directly to disrupt its operations. It sends advisers, military personnel and supplies and money to tackle the group in Syria and Iraq to avoid conflict within its own borders. It also conducts a messaging campaign to tackle the groups ideology by highlighting unity among Muslims and signals its commitment to the fight by showcasing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) presence outside its borders.

To lessen the sectarian aspect of the conflict after all, Iran wants to lead all Muslims, not just the Shiite minority Tehran engages with various political and religious groups fighting the Islamic State, including the Iraqi government and Army, Kurdish fighters and Sunni groups.

Inside Iran

Domestically, Iran undertook a number of anti-radicalization measures, in coordination with the minority Sunni community to tackle the Islamic States effort to recruit inside Iran. While somewhat successful to begin with, in 2016, Iranian official admitted that the Islamic State had tapped into Irans Sunni minority for recruits.

It carried out extensive intelligence operations to thwart planned attacks. In July, for example, Irans Intelligence Ministry successfully defused an Islamic State plan to conduct a large-scale terrorist attack across Tehran, involving 50 targets using more than 200 pounds of explosives.

But given that Iran was a major target, it was unlikely to escape attacks completely.

Islamic State fighters increase focus on Iran

By summer 2016, the Islamic State reportedly lost almost 50 percent of its territorial gains in Iraq. As the fight continues to make progress, the group is lashing out. In the past few months, it upped its anti-Iran propaganda and outlined its vision to conquer Iran to return it to Sunni rule. Iranian officials were quick to dismiss the threats, sayingthe Islamic State could not create insecurity in Iran. The group also published four issues of its online publication Rumiyah, in Persian.

After a number of failed attacks, the Islamic State succeeded in simultaneously targeting Irans parliament and the shrine to Irans religious leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; symbols of democracy and revolution in Iran. The attack will significantly boost the Islamic State morale, at a time where it is facing a losing battle in Iraq and retreating in Syria.

Whats next for Iran?

The attack will spark calls for revenge and a display of strength by the government from conservative quarters. Hard-liners, recently defeated in a presidential election, will point to the attack as proof that President Hassan Rouhanis focus on moderation doesnt work.

The attack will increase public support for the IRGC, who are viewed as the countrys protectors. They were first to respond to the attacks and dealt with the terrorists swiftly, earning themselves the praise of both those caught in the attack and the government. The attack will also spark calls for an expansion of efforts to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, despite the lack of popularity of Irans efforts in Syria.

And yet if the politics in Iran around regional policy will change as a result of the attack, its unlikely that the actual policy will. Iran is already heavily invested in both countries. It doesnt have unlimited resources, and it is already losing soldiers and political capital in both countries.

Most notably, the attackers were Iranians. But the Iranian population will be looking for someone to blame. Saudi Arabias deputy crown prince gave them the opportunity: Last month, hesaid they would take the battle to Iran. Some Iranians, encouraged by the IRGC, drew links between his statements and the attack itself. The alreadyunpopularidea of dialogue with Gulf Arab neighbors will become significantly less popular, and more difficult. And this, at a time when regional coordination is necessary to tackle the threat of terrorism.

Irans extensive and multilayered counterterrorism program was successful in preventing an attack within Irans borders and against Iranian civilians. Until last weeks attack. It is unsurprising that an Islamic State-sponsored attack slipped through the cracks, given Irans significance as a target for the group. The attack, a boon for the Islamic States morale, will make Rouhanis goal of engagement with Gulf Arab neighbors more difficult, but given its limited resources will not see Tehran significantly increasing its efforts in neighboring Iraq and Syria.

Dina Esfandiary is a Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) fellow in the War Studies Department at Kings College London and an adjunct fellow (nonresident) in the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Link:
How Iran fights the Islamic State - Washington Post

Since the advent of nuclear weapons, nations and grassroots movements across the world have sought to eliminate the risk they pose to life on Earth through nuclear prohibition and disarmament.

The foundation for these efforts has been the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),Article VIof which calls on its 190 signatories for a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Last autumn, 123 statesissued acallon the United Nations for a nuclear ban treaty, which leadto a draftof a legally-binding text to prohibit nuclear weapons on 22 May 2017.

Now, from 15 June-7 July, representatives from roughly130 nationswill negotiate the final text and try to make the treaty a reality. Sadly, all the recognised nuclear-weapons states and their allies have voiced strong opposition to the historic talks.

Though the five recognised nuclear powers are signatory to the NPT and have been obligated to pursue disarmament for nearly 50 years, they have not only failed to do so but now have far-reaching plans to upgrade and extend the lifespans of their nuclear weapons.

Even more egregious, they have de facto supported the proliferation ofnuclear weapons by establishing strategic relations with countries like India, Pakistanand Israel, which have rejected the NPT and amassed sizeable weapons arsenals.

All told, there exist about 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today, of which the US and Russia possess around 7,000 each. Americas nuclear modernisation program alone isestimated to cost the country $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

Since the NPT went into effect, the reality has been that the world has been split between the haves and have-nots of nuclear weapons, and the haves have been able to selectively agree on the new haves. This longstanding status quo has now led to a majority of nations cognisant that the world has been held hostage to the weapons stockpiles of the nuclear-armed states to push for a prohibition treaty, to put political and legal restraints on the possession of nuclear weapons.

One state supporting the ban treaty negotiations, Iran, can play a unique role in making the talks a success. Three chief reasons explain why Iran can and should be a strong advocate to advance the causes of nuclear non-proliferation and the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).

First, the July 2015 nuclear deal agreed to by Iran and six major world powers formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action(JCPOA) sets a new global nuclear non-proliferation standard far stronger than the NPT. As President Obama hasstated, the deal cuts off every single one of Irans pathways to a [] nuclear weapons program, and establishes the most comprehensive and intrusive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated.

Consequently, the JCPOA can serve as a new basis for the verification and enforcement provisions of the disarmament treaty that the prohibition treaty will call for. To this end, Iran can play an instrumental role in pushing for the globalisation of the JCPOAs principles, and can even position itself as a regional nuclear fuel hub as part of future prohibition and disarmament treaties.

US officials were asked why they criticised Iran but not Saudi Arabia

Second, Irans long-established track record of seeking to advance the cause of nuclear non-proliferation gives it a responsibility to continue its role of spearheading non-proliferation initiatives.

In 1974, Iranfirst proposed a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone (ME-NWFZ) at the UN General Assembly, which was passed by the body and has been renewed annually since 1980. The ban treaty negotiations provide Iran and other regional states the opportunity to realise a ME-NWFZ.

Third, Iran is the only country that at the highest religious levels has issued religious edicts banning WMDs. Irans position in this regard was shaped during the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, during which it was the victim of WMDs in the form of chemical weapons attacks, but refused to retaliate in kind due to religious considerations.

This wasdueto a fatwa, or religious decree, by Irans revolutionary father Ayatollah Imam Khomeini, against the production or use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Irans current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has upheld this fatwa, uniquely binding Iran to be unequivocally against WMDs of all kinds and making it a sincere voice in any WMD-prohibition debate.

The ban treaty negotiations represent a potential major historical turning point, where a majority of the worlds nations will act to safeguard humanitys future from the threat of nuclear holocaust. While the nuclear-weapons states argue that they need their weapons for reasons of deterrence and strategic balance, their logic does not hold in a world where their nuclear-weapons monopoly is unsustainable.

Increasingly, other countries may seek the same status relying on the same logic as the five-recognised nuclear-weapons powers. The North Korean case serves as an example of how an NPT member may leave the treaty and develop nuclear weapons.

If global peace and stability is to be ensured for future generations, a new model for international security must be created, one that does not rely on WMDs of any kind.

Iran, given its longstanding commitment to the non-proliferation of WMDs, must play a decisive role in ensuring the success of the nuclear ban treaty negotiations to bring about such a world.

AmbassadorSeyed Hossein Mousavianis Middle East Security and Nuclear Policy Specialist at Princeton University and formerhead of Foreign Relation Committee of Irans National Security Council.His latest book,Iran and the United States: An Insiders view on the Failed Past and the Road to Peacewas released in May 2014

View post:
This is why Iran should play a major role in the negotiations to ban nuclear weapons - The Independent

A boy and his brother receive treatment for suspected food poisoning at a medical tent in the Hassan Sham U2 camp for displaced people near Mosul, Iraq, June 13, 2017. Balint SzlankoAP

(HASSAN SHAM U2 CAMP, Iraq) Food poisoning at a camp for displaced residents of Mosul has made more than 700 people sick, with hundreds hospitalized, Iraqi officials said Tuesday.

The incident at the Hassan Sham U2 camp, about 13 miles east of Mosul, has become part of the ongoing dispute between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Saudi media accused a Qatari charity of supplying tainted food to the residents of the desert camp.

Iraqi Health Minister Adila Hamoud told The Associated Press that 752 people in the camp became ill following a Monday night iftar the meal breaking the dawn-to-dusk fast by Muslims during the holy month of Ramadan. At least 300 people remain in serious condition, he said.

The Health Ministry reported that no one had died from food poisoning. Two deaths cited earlier were from other causes. The provincial governor said there had been one death. The U.N. refugee agency at first reported one death but later said nobody had died. The conflicting reports could not immediately be reconciled.

Amira Abdulhaliq of the UNHCR said it was unclear when the meals had become contaminated, whether it was during its preparation, packaging, transportation or distribution.

"So far, we have received around 800 cases. Around 200 have been transported to the hospitals in Irbil," she said.

Irbil Gov. Nawzad Hadi said the food was prepared in an Irbil restaurant by a local NGO, Ain el Muhtajeen, and funded by a Qatari charity known as RAF. In Saudi Arabia, which has been leading a recent campaign to isolate Qatar, state media quickly seized on the issue with coverage that implied Qatar was poisoning refugees deliberately.

On Twitter, Saudi state television accused RAF of supplying tainted meals and posted images it said showed the camp's children "poisoned by the terrorist Qatari RAF organization."

An Iraqi lawmaker who visited the camp overnight also accused the Qatari charity of providing the tainted food.

At midday Tuesday, medics were treating patients in a large tent at the edge of the camp. About 20-30 patients, mostly children, lay on blankets on the floor as several more serious cases were taken away in ambulances. Most were suffering from stomach cramps and dehydration resulting from vomiting and diarrhea.

Raad al-Dahlaki, chairman of the Iraqi parliament's immigration and displacement committee, visited the camp overnight and said the meal contained rice, a bean sauce, meat, yogurt and water. He put the number of sick at 850.

Al-Dahlaki said the food was distributed by RAF, adding that Iraqi officials were to meet those from the organization later Tuesday. The Doha-based charity did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

At a joint news conference in the camp, Irbil Police Chief Abdulhaleq Talaat said seven people were arrested in connection with the incident.

Since a diplomatic crisis between Qatar and other Arab nations led by Saudi Arabia began June 5, Arab media across the greater Persian Gulf have unleashed a daily barrage of reports highly critical of Qatar. Those reports include stories that alleged Qatar has tried to undermine regional security, often presented without attribution or evidence.

RAF is the acronym for the Qatar-based Thani Bin Abdullah Al Thani Foundation for Humanitarian Services, a charity that collects donations for aid work around the world, including meals for needy families during Ramadan.

RAF is also among 12 organizations and 59 people put on what Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini officials described Friday as a list of terrorist entities and individuals.

On Qatari state television, a repeatedly aired program has discussed how the ongoing diplomatic dispute has stopped it from providing meals to Syrian refugees at a major camp in Jordan.

The Hassan Sham U2 camp houses thousands who have fled their homes in and around Mosul after a U.S.-backed Iraqi offensive was launched in October to dislodge the Islamic State group from Iraq's second-largest city. According to the U.N. refugee agency, it is home to 6,235 people.

Mosul fell to IS in the summer 2014 as the militants swept over much of northern and western Iraq. Weeks later, the head of the Sunni extremist group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, announced the formation of a self-styled caliphate in Iraq and Syria.

Months after the start of the offensive, IS militants control only a handful of neighborhoods in and around the Old City, located west of the Tigris River, which divides Mosul into western and eastern sectors.

Go here to read the rest:
Hundreds of People Have Been Hospitalized as Food Poisoning Strikes a Displacement Camp in Iraq - TIME

Human rights groups have criticised theuse ofthewhite phosphorus chemical byUS-led coalition troops in the Iraqi city of Mosul.

New Zealand Brigadier General HughMcAslanadmitted the potentially lethal substance had been used as they attempted to free civilians trapped in neighbourhoods controlled by Isis.

He said thataround 28,000 civilians have travelled out of Isis strongholds in the city over the last few days.

Iraqi troops assisted by US-led coalition forces were in control of 90 per cent of the western area of Mosul, he added. But Isis is still holding out and using people as human shields, according to the United Nations.

Brigadier General McAslantoldNPR: "We have utilised white phosphorous to screen areas within west Mosul to get civilians out safely".

However, the deployment of the chemical was criticised by Human Rights Watch.

No matter how white phosphorus is used, it poses a high risk of horrific and long-lasting harm in crowded cities like Raqqa and Mosul and any other areas with concentrations of civilians, said Steve Goose, arms director at Human Rights Watch. US-led forces should take all feasible precautions to minimise civilian harm when using white phosphorus in Iraq and Syria.

In early June, an internet caf in Raqqa was hit by white phosphorus, killing approximately 20 people, a local resident told The New York Times.

Use of white phosphorus has been called into question, as it puts civilians in danger, but Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) claimed on 4June that it was used to create a smoke screen.

AUS-led coalition statement said: While protecting civilians fleeing from the Jamouri Hospital the Coalition used smoke and precision munitions to suppress the enemy and provide cover for fleeing civilians.

"In conjunction with Iraqi Security Forces, the Coalition used appropriate munitions to suppress and obscure ISIS snipers so that the civilians could reach friendly forces.

White phosphorus is known by the military as WP or Willie Pete and used to create a smokescreen for hiding troop movements. It can also be utilised to target enemy positions.

But if the chemical lands on skin, it can cause horrific injuries, burning deep into the muscle and bone, according to Amnesty International.

If particles of ignited white phosphorus land on a person's body, they can continue to burn through flesh to the bone. Toxic phosphoric acid can also be released into wounds, risking phosphorus poisoning. Inhaling the smoke can cause damage to the heart, liver and kidneys.

Under military law, it is not illegal for the military to use white phosphorus, although its use in populated areas is prohibited by international legislation.

See the article here:
White phosphorus use by US-led coalition forces in Iraq condemned by humanitarian groups - The Independent

Iraq is driving up crude oil exports to the U.S., the worlds second-biggest import market, just as there are signs Saudi Arabia is honoring a pledge to restrict such deliveries, according to tanker-tracking data.

The most important market news of the day.

Get our markets daily newsletter.

The second-largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries loaded 12 million barrels of crude for the U.S. in the first 13 days of this month, the tracking shows. Thats about 50 percent higher than the same period in either April or May. Comparable Saudi Arabian flows slumped by about half. Iraq isnt fully complying with pledges to OPEC to curb production, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday.

Its like the IEA report said, some members have been less than wholly diligent, Giovanni Staunovo, a Zurich-based commodity analyst at UBS Group AG, said of Iraqs early June shipments. The fact that Iraq contested parts of the plan to cut output when the accord was implemented in November mean its no surprise to see flows rising now, he said.

While Iraq is among OPEC nations that pledged to restrict production to eliminate a global glut, there are signs that it may nonetheless be gaining a share of key import markets. The countrys crude flooded into the U.S. in late May and early June, just as Saudi Arabias flows diminished, weekly Energy Information Administration data show. Iraq also passed Saudi Arabia as the number one supplier to India, the fastest growing oil consumer.

Read how Iraq is gaining a foothold in India, the fastest growing market

The flow surge should show up in U.S. imports data sometime in late July. Tankers loading in the Persian Gulf take about 45 days to reach either the Gulf of Mexico or refining centers on the U.S. west coast. Equally, shipments could now decrease making the monthly tally lower than the near 1 million barrels a day average over Junes first 13 days.

The IEA said Wednesday that Iraqs rate of compliance with OPEC, non-OPEC curbs is about 55 percent, while Saudi Arabia is among nations conforming in full.

As well as eight tankers that left Iraqs Basra Oil Terminal and signaled U.S. destinations, there are seven more that either arent indicating where theyre going, or theyre bound for Egypts Suez Canal. Some of those could go still to the U.S.

The tracking data, which are for a relatively small time-span, show Saudi Arabian shipments in retreat. Three tankers were observed heading to the U.S. after departing the worlds biggest exporter in early June, hauling about 6 million barrels between them. Thats down from 14 million barrels in the same period in May.

Decreased Saudi Arabian shipments would be consistent with comments from the countrys Energy Minister, Khalid Al-Falih. He said at OPECs meeting in late May that there would be a marked decrease in the kingdoms shipments to the U.S.

Saudi Arabias oil allocations to customers will be cut for July from their June levels, a person with knowledge of the matter said June 12, asking not to be identified because the information is confidential. About half of a 600,000 barrels-a-day nominations cut will fall on U.S. customers, the person said.

Thats a bit of a new signal that the Saudis are willing to give up a bit of market share, Michael Poulsen, analyst at A/S Global Risk Management, said of the relative changes in Saudi Arabia and Iraqs shipments.

Go here to see the original:
Iraq Sends Millions of Barrels of Oil to US While Saudis Cut - Bloomberg