Mediaboss Marketing

Since the Iranian regime has been the main source of conflict in the Middle East, countering Irans destabilizing interventions should be the top priority of the U.S. Middle East policy. The recent act passed by Congress and signed by President Trump takes the first step in that direction.

However, the primary reason for accelerated Iranian meddling in the region has been the security guarantees provided by the 2015 nuclear deal. Therefore, to successfully counter Irans destabilizing activities, the U.S. needs to deprive Iran of those undeserved security guarantees by ending the nuclear deal.

To be successful in keeping Iran in check, we need to understand the dynamics of the three main threats originating from the Iranian regime: its nuclear program and the joint missile development; its destabilizing regional activities and its violation of human rights at home.

Tehran is standing on shaky ground. The Iranian regime started its regional interventions shortly after taking power in 1979. It's interventionist approach stemmed from a lack of popular support at home, which was clear during the first presidential election in 1980 whenthe candidate of the Islamic Republic Party followers of Khomeini who are now ruling the country achieved less than 5 percent of the popular vote.

To compensate for its domestic weakness, the regime needed to find or create allies like Hezbollah in the region.

Brutal suppression of dissidents and flagrant violation of human rights is another indication that the regime has a mostly nonexistent popular base. It was less than a month after the establishment of the regime in 1979 that the Iranian people started their anti-regime resistance movement via the demonstration of Iranian women against compulsory veiling or hijab instituted by reactionary mullahs.

Since then, ongoing rule of the regime has been made possible only by the ruthless suppression of all dissident groups by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its affiliate bodies, like Basij.

Deprived of legitimacy at home, the Iranian regime sought to forcibly gain recognition by seeking weapons of mass destruction. It poured tens of billions of dollars into its nuclear and ballistic missile programs instead of investing in the economy, education and the Iranian people's long-term demands. The mullahs want the nuclear capability to dishearten the dissident majority at home and deter foreign actors.

There is, therefore, a clear link between Irans destabilizing activities and its nuclear program. Since, for the mullahs, the nuclear program is vital, and due to their lack of legitimacy at home, the mullahs perceive the threat of military action and sanctions against their nuclear facilities as an existential threat.

In fact, credible threat of military action and the harm done by sanctions were the main reasons for Irans temporary retreat on the nuclear issue and its return to negotiations in 2011. Accordingly, when Iran achieved the nuclear deal with the U.S. and its allies and was reassured of the practical improbability of military action, the mullahs intensified their destabilizing regional interventions.

One might object that the nuclear deal is working, and scrapping the deal might not be in Americas interest. However, the problem is that most of Iran's nuclear facilities are located in military bases to which the IAEA inspectors do not have any access. Against this backdrop, how can one definitively claim that Iran is not cheating?

Worse yet, who would be able to conclude that Iran is in fact cheating? Under the deal, it is not surprising that Iran "remains in compliance with the deal," as the proponents of the deal claim.

Irans destabilizing regional interventions cannot be addressed with the current security reassurances Iran enjoys as a result of the nuclear deal.

In the end, the regime's greatest security vulnerability is at home. That is why any U.S. policy on Iran must include the indigenous forces within Iran, including the organized opposition, as the primary actors for confronting the threat of the mullahs once and for all.

Ultimately, it is up to the Iranian people to produce fundamental and long-lasting change. The international community should support them by ending the policy of engagement toward Tehran.

Dr. Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran, MA, Ph.D., teaches at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University. He has participated in international policy forums, including the Policy Studies Organization's 2016 Middle East Dialogue, and has written for multiple Iranian news outlets.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read the rest here:
Scrap the nuclear deal to make sure Iran sanctions work - The Hill (blog)

Men greet each other in front of Turkish flag and picture of modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk at Istanbul Ataturk airport, Turkey, following yesterday's blast June 29, 2016. . (photo credit:REUTERS)

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotoveli told Israel's Reshet Bet radio on Monday that the Iranian blogger who was offered asylum in Israel was delayed from coming to the country because of "personal reasons" and would be arriving in "the coming days."

Hotoveli also said that the Israeli consulate was in touch with her.

Israel's foreign ministry was looking into reports that the Turkey-based Iranian blogger who was offered asylum in Israel was arrested at Istanbul Airport Monday morning, according to Reshet Bet radio station. The blogger, Neda Amin was reportedly en route to Tel Aviv.

Times of Israel Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz who's online publication featured Amin's blogs tweeted that the report was false.

Neda Amin faced forcible deportation to Iran, where she would be at risk given her work as a Persian-language blogger at an Israeli news site, before Israel offered her asylum on Sunday. Amin left Iran in 2014 for Turkey, according to The Times of Israel. She has been in a court battle to prevent her repatriation and has sought other countries that might take her in as a refugee, the site said.

Iranians are generally not admitted to Israel, due to hostility between the two countries.

But following appeals by Israel's journalist federations, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said he would issue 32-year-old Amin with a special visa on Sunday.

"This is a journalist whose life is in real danger," Deri said in a statement. "Given the clear humanitarian circumstances, I authorized her entry without delay."

Reuters contributed to this report.

Share on facebook

Go here to see the original:
Deputy FM says Israel is in touch with Iranian blogger seeking asylum - The Jerusalem Post

President Trump seems determinedto not certifythat Iran is complying with the nuclear deal when that question comes before him this fall. But that would be only the beginning of the story. He could follow such a determination with actions thatrisk blowingup the deal and the U.S.-Iran relationship. Or he could assome of his senior national security advisersprefer adopt a more careful, complicated approach.

Theres a growing push both inside and outside the administration to craft a way to acknowledge what many see as Irans violations of the nuclear agreement without precipitating a crisis. Many worry that provoking the deals collapse would not only risk an unpredictable and dangerous escalation but also hamper the international effort to confront Irans regional expansion, support for terrorism and other mischief.

The question is whether Trumps national security team can persuade him to take a middle approach to a nuclear deal he campaigned against and clearly despises.

In a news conference last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid out his view that the Iran deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), must not dominate the administrations Iran focus. Tillerson admitted he disagrees with the president on whether the agreement can be salvaged.

The JCPOA represents a small slice of the Iranian relationship, he said, adding, We continue to have conversations about the utility of that agreement, whether it has utility, whether it doesnt have utility.

[President Trump] and I have differences of views on things like JCPOA and how we should use it, he said.

Tillerson argued for certifying Irans compliance when it came up in April and July. Both times, Trump yielded to Tillersons view. But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump suggested he wont again.

If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago, Trump said, adding that next time, I think theyll be noncompliant.

The intelligence community believes that Irans violations are minor and do not amount to a material breach. But the presidents view is that Iran is in violation of the spirit of the deal, a senior White House official told me. Under the law Congress passed, the certification is subjective.

Its also unclear what follows non-certification. Trump could continue to waive nuclear sanctions on Iran or stop, effectively reimposing them. The White House admittedly does not know how the Iranian government would react to new sanctions, the official said.

Congress could also reimpose sanctions if Trump does not certify compliance. For many Republicans, having new negotiations with Iran would be nice but is not necessary. They agree with Trump that the deal is probably not worth saving.

I dont think we get much benefit from the deal, so it collapsing doesnt trouble me all that much, said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). The presidents instincts on Iran are sound.

Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster argue that if Trump decides not to certify Iranian compliance, rather than scuttle the deal he can work to improve it and increase pressure on Iran in other ways, according to sources involved in the discussions.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo agrees with Tillerson and McMaster that Irans regional threats are the near-term priority. Unlike Tillerson, Pompeo has never supported certifying compliance.

McMasters team is leading an interagency policy review that is sure to call for expanding confrontation with Iran in places such as Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. The Iran deal, if in place, could be used as a pressure point while upping the ante on those fronts, experts argue.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and David Albright of Institute for Science and International Security have offered a middle approach they describe as waive and slap, recommending that Trump not certify compliance but continue to waive nuclear sanctions while imposing new sanctions on nonnuclear issues.

Skeptics doubt the Trump team can thread the needle, considering that once Trump declares noncompliance, theres no way to predict what Iran will do. Also, tinkering with the deal or reimposing sanctions could cause new disputes with European allies and other partners, such as Russia and China.

Even if they did a great job, its serious risks, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. And for what gain?

If Trump is determined to get the United States out of the Iran deal, nobody can stop him. But if the majority of his national security team gets its way, Trump will repeat what he did with Cuba: make minimal changes to the policy, then declare he has undone Obamas terrible deal and fulfilled a campaign promise.

And if Trump cant bring himself to certify Irans compliance anymore, he should at least minimize the chances his decision will cause a diplomatic crisis and distract the United States from the mission of combating Irans other nefarious activities.

Read more from Josh Rogins archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

View original post here:
How Trump can confront Iran without blowing up the nuclear deal - Washington Post

HARI SREENIVASAN, PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND ANCHOR: Were now in the 16th year of U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. The numbers are less than they were, and it is reported that the Trump administration is looking at political and military options there. The president has also reportedly weighed personnel changes overseeing the American effort, and is frustrated by what he sees as a losing position in the war.

And, as The New York Times reported this weekend, Iran has gained influence in Afghanistan, conducting covert activities and supporting their one-time enemy, the Taliban. According to The Times report, quote: As the NATO mission in Afghanistan expanded, the Iranians quietly began supporting the Taliban, to bleed the Americans and their allies by raising the cost of the intervention so that they would leave.

Joining me now via Skype from Istanbul, Turkey, is Carlotta Gall, who wrote the story.

Carlotta, Iranians and the Taliban are on opposite sides of the Sunni/Shia divide. Why are they working together here?

CARLOTTA GALL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thats what amazes me, and this is where we found last year when the Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed, he was actually returning from a very high-level visit in Iran. And it wasnt his first. Hed done at least three trips.

Theyre calculating that the American drawdown is going to continue, and that they want to have proxies that they can influence, on, along their especially along their border. And so, the Taliban were the ones who were in play. And so, they reached out to them, and amazingly, they even connected them with Russia and helped get weapons to the Taliban.

So, its a turnabout from when the Taliban was really, almost at war with Iran. Now, they seem to think, you know, a lesser enemy would be each other, and get to work.

SREENIVASAN: Whats financing all this?

GALL: The Taliban, as you probably know, have always been financed by Pakistan and the Gulf Arab states really as a Sunni force. And they are, actually, have been just trying to diversify under Mansour. He was keen to reach out to Iran for money, but also weapons, training. And he also gets a lot of money from the drugs, but it seems that also how he had connections with Iran, because a lot of narcotics that are grown in Afghanistan go out through Iran.

SREENIVASAN: And youre saying that theres evidence of Iranian involvement even in some of the Taliban raids that are happening in Afghanistan?

GALL: We went down to Farah, which is a very remote province on the western Afghanistans western border, with Iran. And they had a very big assault last year, last October. They had big air strikes. And they have discovered that through Iranian commanders, whod been killed in that operation. So, Iranians had been involved on a high level.

SREENIVASAN: So, is the goal then for Iran to sow instability in the region, or just specifically in Afghanistan, knowing that, even if they dont particularly control it, this is an opportunity for them to get the Americans out?

GALL: They really dont want American troops and influence in Afghanistan. They see it as their backyard. But they are also calculating, they want proxy forces that are loyal to them or at least controlled by them, that they have some leverage over. So, thats the calculation to help some of the Taliban that are local along their area.

They also really want to hurt America, and thats their ultimate aim to bleed them, as we wrote, and to push them out eventually.

SREENIVASAN: All right. Carlotta Gall of The New York Times joining us via Skype from Istanbul, thanks so much.

Originally posted here:
Iran gains influence in Afghanistan as war continues - PBS NewsHour

Iran is on the same side as the US in opposing the Islamic State and is a democracy. Photo: AFP

In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump and his advisers have joined Saudi Arabia in accusing Iran of being the epicentre of Middle East terrorism. The US Congress, meanwhile, is readying yet another round of sanctions against Iran. But the caricature of Iran as the tip of the spear of global terrorism, in Saudi King Salmans words, is not only wrongheaded, but dangerous, because it could lead to yet another Middle East war.

In fact, that seems to be the goal of some US hotheads, despite the obvious fact that Iran is on the same side as the US in opposing the Islamic State (IS). And then theres the fact that Iran, unlike most of its regional adversaries, is a functioning democracy. Ironically, the escalation of US and Saudi rhetoric came just two days after Irans 19 May election, in which moderates led by incumbent President Hassan Rouhani defeated their hardline opponents at the ballot box.

Perhaps for Trump, the pro-Saudi, anti-Iran embrace is just another business proposition. He beamed at Saudi Arabias decision to buy $110 billion of new US weapons, describing the deal as jobs, jobs, jobs, as if the only gainful employment for American workers requires them to stoke war. And who knows what deals for Trump and his family might also be lurking in his warm embrace of Saudi belligerence.

Americas anti-Iran animus goes back to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. For the US public, the 444-day ordeal of the US embassy staff held hostage by radical Iranian students constituted a psychological shock that has still not abated. The hostage drama dominated the US media from start to finish, resulting in a kind of public post-traumatic stress disorder similar to the social trauma of the 9/11 attacks a generation later.

For most Americans, then and now, the hostage crisisand indeed the Iranian Revolution itselfwas a bolt out of the blue. Few Americans realize that the Iranian Revolution came a quarter-century after the Central Intelligence Agency and Britains intelligence agency conspired in 1953 to overthrow the countrys democratically elected government and install a police state under the Shah of Iran, to preserve Anglo-American control over Irans oil, which was threatened by nationalization. Nor do most Americans realize that the hostage crisis was precipitated by the ill-considered decision to admit the deposed Shah into the US for medical treatment, which many Iranians viewed as a threat to the revolution.

During the Reagan administration, the US supported Iraq in its war of aggression against Iran, including Iraqs use of chemical weapons. When the fighting finally ended in 1988, the US followed up with financial and trade sanctions on Iran that remain in place to this day. Since 1953, the US has opposed Irans self-rule and economic development through covert action, support for authoritarian rule during 1953-79, military backing for its enemies, and decades-long sanctions.

Another reason for Americas anti-Iran animus is Irans support for Hezbollah and Hamas, two militant antagonists of Israel. Here, too, it is important to understand the historical context.

In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon in an attempt to crush militant Palestinians operating there. In the wake of that war, Iran supported the formation of the Shia-led Hezbollah to resist Israels occupation of southern Lebanon. By the time Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000, nearly 20 years after its original invasion, Hezbollah had become a formidable military, political, and social force, and a continuing thorn in Israels side.

Iran also supports Hamas, a hardline Sunni group that rejects Israels right to exist. Following decades of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands captured in the 1967 war, and with peace negotiations stalemated, Hamas defeated Fatah in the 2006 election for the Palestinian parliament. Rather than entering into a dialogue with Hamas, the US and Israel decided to crush it, including through a brutal war in Gaza in 2014.

Israel also views Irans nuclear programme as an existential threat. Hardline Israelis sought to convince the US to attack Irans nuclear facilities, or at least allow Israel to do so. Former president Barack Obama resisted, and instead negotiated a treaty between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (plus Germany) that blocks Irans path to nuclear weapons for a decade or more, creating space for further confidence-building measures on both sides. Yet Trump and the Saudis seem intent on destroying the possibility of normalizing relations created by this important and promising agreement.

External powers are foolish to allow themselves to be manipulated into taking sides in bitter national or sectarian conflicts that can be resolved only by compromise. The Israel-Palestine conflict, the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Sunni-Shia relationship all require mutual accommodation. Yet each side in these conflicts harbours the tragic illusion of achieving an ultimate victory without the need to compromise, if only the US (or some other major power) will fight the war on its behalf.

During the past century, Britain, France, the US, and Russia have all misplayed the Middle East power game. All have squandered lives, money, and prestige. More than ever, we need an era of diplomacy that emphasizes compromise, not another round of demonization and an arms race that could all too easily spiral into disaster. 2017/Project Syndicate

Jeffrey D. Sachs is professor of health policy and management, and sustainable development, at Columbia University

See the original post:
America's dangerous anti-Iran posturing - Livemint