Mediaboss Marketing

There's mischief afoot in the White House, and it's the familiar mischief of regime change. Some in President Trump's advisory circle are reportedly pushing for an official embrace of regime change as the United States' policy toward Iran.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is at the forefront of this ill-advised endeavor. "I don't see how anyone can say America can be safe," he told Politico, "as long as you have in power a theocratic despotism" in Iran.

Well, senator, let me explain.

First, let's agree the government of Iran is an unsavory regime. Tehran has a well-documented record of human rights abuses, so Cotton's "theocratic despotism" label is not unfair. Iran also has a reputation for sponsoring terrorism and backing Syria's genocidal government.

To be sure, the recent re-election of President Hassan Rouhani, who campaigned on a message of moderation and liberalization, is a step in the right direction. Rouhani's hardline opponent was considered the favorite of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his voters hailed the win as a victory for peace and positive international diplomacy. More importantly, younger Iranians are increasingly secular and pro-Western. They are challenging their government's strict social controls and have a positive view of America. As these generations mature and Khamenei's cohort dies off, political evolution (if not revolution) is likely.

Still, it would be nave to deny that the potentially free and open Iran of the future is not yet here. But it would be even more naveand dangerous, tooto make the leap from this basis to Cotton's support of U.S.-orchestrated regime change.

The weight of pragmatic considerations here is enormous. Consider what happened in Iraq, the United States' biggest post-9/11 regime change project. What was sold as a necessary and relatively easy war has dragged on these 14 years. Iraq today is less stable than it was before American military intervention; it has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a festering sore oozing the poison of radicalism across the greater Mideast. We have little to show for more than a decade of nation-building efforts spread across three presidencies. With trillions spent and tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, no one can credibly say regime change in Iraq was a decision worth repeating.

Apply the same approach to Iran, and the results will be more disastrous. Iran has more than double Iraq's population, and Iranians are better educated and more urbanized. Iran is more than triple Iraq's geographic size, and its economy and technological development are both superior to its neighbor to the east. Add to that the United States' history of meddling in Iran's internal affairsrecent history that is not forgotten and will keep Iranian moderates and reformers from being sympathetic to American goals and the probability of a successful regime change imposed by Washington is exactly nil.

The good news is there is no credible case such an effort is needed. Contra the threat inflation from Iran hawks, the country is fundamentally a regional power with bounded influence.

It is a majority-Shiite state surrounded by Sunni enemies, most notably the well-armed and U.S.-supported Saudi Arabia. It is halfway across the globe from our shores, isolated from us by the world's largest natural moats, and would be laughably outmatched by the U.S. in conventional warfare. Moreover, American intelligence agencies have consistently and unanimously said since 2007 that Tehran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program. And though hardly an American ally in the war on terror, Iran does join Washington in actively opposing the Islamic State, the chief terrorism threat we face today.

This assessment of Iran's limited capabilitiesnot to mention the gross expense, risk, and instability regime change would unquestionably produceis why foreign policy realists argue America can be safe without launching another long, bloody war of choice.

Again, none of this is to say the Iranian regime is a paradigm of freedom and respect for human rights. It is uncontroversial to say it is not. But you don't have to love the government in Tehran to recognize that pursuing a policy of regime change is neither necessary nor prudent.

Read the original:
Regime Change in Iran Is Neither Necessary Nor Prudent - Reason

Weddings have been moved and family visits delayed.

The Trump administration's travel ban, while a shadow of its original self, has dealt a harsh blow to the Iranian-American community, where family ties run strong and friends and loved ones regularly shuttle between Los Angeles and Tehran.

But it isn't the only immigration hurdle facing the community. Iranians allowed to seek visas to visit family in the United States may still have a hard time getting them with a screening process that can take months or longer, immigration lawyers said.

In the meantime, families are being kept apart. Iranian-American homemaker Mina Thrani, 38, had hoped to invite her aunt to visit her in Irvine over the Christmas holiday but can't because of the ban.

Xena Amirani, an 18-year-old college student from Los Angeles, said her family has been grieving since her grandmother died after being struck by a car while crossing the street. They traveled to Iran to bury her. Now, her uncle and his wife want to travel together to visit the family in California to help console them, but the travel ban is in the way.

"It is pointless," Amirani said.

The scaled-back version of President Donald Trump's policy that took effect this week places new limits on visa policies for citizens of six Muslim-majority countries, including Iran. The temporary ban requires people who want new visas to prove a close family relationship in the U.S. or an existing relationship with an entity like a school or business.

The U.S. has nearly 370,000 Iranian immigrants, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, far more than the other countries targeted by the order Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen.

Despite a lengthy history of friction between Tehran and Washington, personal ties between residents of the two countries have held strong.

"Everyone is being hit by this because everyone has a relative in Iran, and there is quite a lot of travel in between," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council.

But travel isn't always easy, and the challenge predates the Trump administration. Because there is no U.S. embassy in Iran, Iranians must go to other countries for visa interviews, requiring time and money.

And it can take longer to get visas approved for Iranians than for citizens of many other countries, immigration attorneys said, while U.S. officials conduct screenings.

"Even under Obama, it was very hard to get these visas and get the background checks cleared. But now, it is official policy," said Ally Bolour, an immigration attorney in Los Angeles.

The Department of Homeland Security said this week that the Supreme Court's decision to allow a partial reinstatement of the ban will help protect the U.S.

But that rings hollow to some Iranian-Americans who note that many in their community came to the U.S. seeking freedom following Iran's Islamic revolution of the 1970s and that the hijackers who carried out the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States were from other countries not limited by the ban.

Trump's initial travel ban in January was broader, affecting current and new visas, which sparked chaos at airports around the world.

Mina Jafari, a 28-year-old graphic designer in Washington, said that during that time, her fianc?e's Iranian mother was in the process of obtaining a visa to travel to the couple's wedding, but it was revoked because of the ban.

That prompted Jafari to move the wedding to Iran so her soon-to-be mother-in-law could attend. The only problem is her elder sister can't go with her due to concerns about her political activism.

"I have family who is banned from Iran, family banned here," Jafari said. "It is a really crazy situation."

Originally posted here:
For Iranian-Americans, Trump travel ban keeps families apart - ABC News

Iranian officials have blasted the U.S.s decision to partially reinstate a ban on incoming nationals from six majority-Muslim countries, including Iran, arguing it is assisting in the fight against militant groups and has complied with the terms of a 2015 nuclear deal.

Irans Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif took to Twitter Friday to condemn theSupreme Courts decision this week to allow the White House to prohibit U.S. travel for citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen unless they prove a credible claim of bona fide relationshipwith someone in the U.S.

The travel ban, which originally included Iraq and omittedexemptions for familial or professional relationships, was devised by President Donald Trump, who designated individuals from these six countries in the Middle East and North Africa ascredible threats to national security.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Zarif has long been a critic of the ban, especially after Iran received praise Friday from the U.N. and EU for respecting the terms of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). U.S. now bans Iranian grandmothers from seeing their grandchildren, in a truly shameful exhibition of blind hostility to all Iranians,Zarif tweeted on his official account.

Related: Trumps War: From bombing Syria to challenging Russia and Iran

The U.N. & entire world say Iran is in full compliance with its commitments, but U.S. visceral hatred of Iran compels it to deny the obvious, he added, referring to international acknowledgment of Irans efforts to denuclearize in exchange for the U.S. rolling back economic sanctions as part of JCPOA.

Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mohammad Javad Zarif (pictured) and German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel speak to the media following talks in Berlin, on June 27. Despite its active role in battling the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria as well as receiving international praise for its compliance with a U.S.-led multilateral nuclear deal in 2015, Iran remains a bitter foe of President Donald Trumps administration, which accuses Tehran of sponsoring terrorism and included it on a list of countries from which citizens are mostly restricted from traveling to the U.S. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Zarif played a leading role in the negotiations with the administration of former President Barack Obama that ultimately led to theJCPOA deal being reached between Iran, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany in July 2015. While the deal moderately improvedU.S.-Iranian relations, it was opposed by conservatives in both countries and repeatedly attacked by Trump as he campaigned and came to office. He and his supporters accuse Iran of breaching their side of the deal and, despite a White Housesponsored review findingIran was incompliance of the deal in April, Trump has continued to target Iran in his foreign policy.

In addition to opposing Irans alleged nuclear ambitions, which Tehran argues is solely for energy purposes, the U.S. has long accused Iran of destabilizing the region through its funding of militant and political groups such as Lebanons Shiite Muslim Hezbollah, which the U.S. considers a terrorist organization. Hezbollah, an avowed enemy of U.S. ally Israel, has been accused of conducting bombs and assassinations around the world, but its fighters are also deeply involved in the fight against ISIS and other insurgents trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran-backed forces, which fight alongside the Syrian army, have also made widespread gains against jihadists, but theiradvances have frustrated U.S. attempts to secure influence in parts of Syria where ISIS has been defeated and the U.S. military has been declared illegal by Assads government. As a result, the U.S. has increasingly targeted the Syrian army and allied militias, angering both Iran and Assads other international backer, Russia.

A map shows areas of control in Iraq as of June 19. An alliance of Iraqi military, Kurdish forces, majority-Shiite Muslim militias backed by Iran and U.S.-led coalition forces have all but defeated the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) in Iraq. The U.S., however, has expressed concerns about Irans growing influence in the country and in neighboring Syria in the wake of ISISs collapse. Institute for the Study of War/U.S. Central Command

Across the border, Iran has played a key role in reversing ISISs 2014 takeover of nearly half of Iraq. Iran sponsors a number of majorityShiite Muslim militias known collectively as the Popular Mobilization Forces that work alongside the Iraqi military and Kurdish militants in defeating ISIS. The U.S. has reluctantly accepted the role of these forces in Iraq, which has a Shiite Muslim majority, but has accused them of committing revenge attacks on the local Sunni Muslim population. The Popular Mobilization Forces are advancing along the countrys border with Syria as Iran-backed forces in Syria conduct a parallel offensiveagainst ISIS. Iranian parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani said Thursday his countrys role against ISIS was superior to that of the U.S.

At the time when Iraq was being overrun by Daesh, by ISIS, did the United States make the slightest move in defense of it? Or was it the Iranian nation that rendered aid to the Iraqi nation and Iraq government?Larijani told CNN.

Had we not assisted them, Baghdad would have been occupied by ISIS. It is with the help of Iran that Daesh, ISIS, is on its last breath in Iraq (and Syria),Larijani added.

See the article here:
Iran: Travel Ban Is 'Shameful' to All Iranians Fighting ISIS and Upholding Nuclear Deal - Newsweek

UNITED NATIONS -- The United Nations and the European Union praised Iran on Thursday for implementing the landmark nuclear deal with six major powers, but U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley accused Tehran of "destructive and destabilizing" actions from ballistic missile launches to arms smuggling.

The speeches at a Security Council meeting on implementation of a U.N. resolution endorsing the July 2015 nuclear agreement showed the deep division over Iran between the five major powers who view the deal as a major achievement and the Trump administration, which is reviewing it.

Play Video

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson says that Iran is abiding by a nuclear deal with the United States, but warns that could change. The Washington ...

President Donald Trump, congressional Republicans and Israel have assailed the agreement as a windfall to Iran that only delayed its pursuit of nuclear weapons. GOP lawmakers say it saved Iran's economy by lifting economic penalties and allowed the country to funnel more money to terrorist groups.

Haley said only that the U.S. would adhere to the deal to rein in Iran's nuclear program while conducting the comprehensive review.

She focused on what the U.S. views as Iran's repeated violations of the 2015 resolution, which she accused the Security Council of ignoring. She cited ballistic missile launches and illicit procurement of missile technology as well as "proven arms smuggling."

"Iran's destructive and destabilizing role in the Middle East goes far beyond its illicit missile launches," Haley said. "From Syria to Yemen and Iraq to Lebanon, Iran's support for terrorist groups continued unabated. Iran's weapons, military advisers and arms smugglers stoke regional conflicts and make them harder to solve."

Play Video

President Trump used his visit to Saudi Arabia to lash out against Iran. The Iranian government is not happy to be singled out. It's accusing the...

By contrast, the focus of U.N. political chief Jeffrey Feltman, EU Ambassador Joao Vale de Almeida and ambassadors from Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany was on Iran's adherence to the nuclear agreement, though there were also expressions of concern about its missile tests and smuggling.

Feltman told the council that Secretary-General Antonio Guterres "is deeply encouraged by the continued commitment by all participants to the agreement," calling it "the embodiment of successful multilateral diplomacy, political will and perseverance."

He noted the International Atomic Energy Agency has issued seven reports, the latest in early June, documenting Iran's continued implementation of its nuclear-related commitments and said Guterres believes sustained implementation of the deal "will guarantee that Iran's nuclear program remains exclusively peaceful."

The diplomatic achievement, Feltman said, "gives us all hope that even the most difficult issues among states can be addressed through dialogue, understanding and reciprocity."

Play Video

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson urged Iran's newly re-elected president to dismantle Iran's "network of terrorism" and to end ballistic missile ...

Vale de Almeida, speaking on behalf of EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini who coordinates the nuclear deal, said, "The initial results are clear and speak for themselves: Iran's nuclear program has been rolled back and placed under tight inspections."

At a time when the world is again faced "with the threat of unchecked nuclear capabilities" -- a reference to the threat from North Korea -- he said the Iran deal known as the JCPOA is "a pillar of the international non-proliferation agenda" that needs to be fully implemented.

In an apparent reference to the U.S. debate over the deal, Vale de Almeida stressed: "We would not be in a better position to address all the other non-nuclear matters (with Iran) without the JCPOA in place."

Britain's deputy U.N. ambassador, Peter Wilson, called the Iran agreement "one of the most important diplomatic achievements in recent memory."

He said the United Kingdom encourages all countries and parties to the agreement -- a message that appeared especially aimed at the U.S. -- "to uphold their commitments, including ensuring that the Iranian people gain further tangible benefits from sanctions relief."

But Wilson also said "some less positive issues" raised in Guterres' latest report need to be addressed. He cited Iran's Jan. 29 launch of a medium-range ballistic missile, reported violations of a ban on conventional arms transfers, including new evidence of an attempted arms shipment from Iran to Somalia, and multiple violations of a travel ban, including by Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, head of the Revolutionary Guard's elite Quds Force.

Haley stressed that the United States won't "turn a blind eye" to such violations and will interdict cargo prohibited under the U.N. resolution and continue to impose sanctions on Iran.

"The continuance of the Iranian regime's destructive, destabilizing behavior will prevent it from ever having a normal relationship with the United States and the rest of the world," she said. "And the regime's continued oppression of its own people speaks volumes about its true nature."

Link:
US, allies disagree about Iran's nuke deal compliance - CBS News

Elated after his pilgrimage, Mr. Amin returned to Iran but couldnt find any work for three months. As often happens with Afghan refugees in Iran, Mr. Amin was humiliated and discriminated against. He lived with the constant fear of being deported. Iran isnt our country. It belongs to strangers, Mr. Amin said. Either you suffer and try to make some money or you die.

Last winter Iranian authorities presented Mr. Amin with an interesting proposition. He could gain legal status in Iran and be free of the fear of deportation. The Iranians offered him a 10-year residency permit and a monthly salary of $800 if he would go to Syria to fight to protect the shrine of Sayyida Zainab, a granddaughter of the Prophet Muhammad.

Around 2013, when Mr. Assads military was losing ground to the rebels, Iran poured billions of dollars into Syria, brought in Hezbollah fighters and began raising Shiite militias from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places with significant Shiite populations. Iran does want to protect the major Shiite shrines in Damascus, Aleppo and Raqqa, but the use of foreign Shia militias in the Syria war was simply another fork in the larger battle for control and influence in the Middle East run by Qassem Suleimani, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps elite Quds Force.

The relationship between Iran and Syria goes back to the Syrian support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, their shared enmity toward Israel, and Syrias being the essential axis of transit between Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Most of the weapons in the Hezbollah inventory are sent by Iran through Syria. Mr. Assads control over Syria allows Tehran to resupply Hezbollah and work toward building a connection to the Mediterranean Sea.

A few months after Iran asked Hezbollah to join the fighting in Syria alongside Mr. Assads forces, it began raising other Shiite militias. Fatemiyoun Division (formerly Brigade), a militia of Shia Afghan refugees, was formed around early 2014 and trained by both the Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah veterans. Its strength has been estimated to be between 8,000 and 14,000 men. The Iranian authorities maintain the fighters are volunteers.

The recruits to the Fatemiyoun Division were initially from among the Shia Hazara Afghans, who settled in Iran after the Soviet occupation, after the civil war in the early 1990s and the subsequent Taliban rule. Their recruitment had echoes of how Pakistan the other major host of the Afghan refugee population recruited the Pashtun Sunni Afghan refugees and their children to form the Taliban in the mid-1990s.

In the past few years, Iranians have expanded the recruitment to undocumented Afghans, like Mr. Amin, recently arrived from Afghanistan in search of economic opportunity. Apart from the refugees economic anxiety and precarious legal status, the Iranians exploit the Shia faith of Afghan refugees to recruit them to fight for the Assad regime in Syria.

Iranian propaganda framed the Syrian war to these refugees as a Shia struggle for the defense and protection of the faith and its holy sites. The fighters have little or no knowledge of the political-security context into which they are marching, said Ahmad Shuja, a former researcher with Human Rights Watch. They do not speak Arabic, most of them have never been beyond Afghanistan or Iran, many are barely literate, most are devout Shiites.

Mr. Amin believed that the Syrian war dated back to a dispute between Jabhat al-Nusra (which was officially founded in 2012) and Mr. Assad. He had been made to believe that the war broke out after the leader of Nusra (who, he said, was related to Mr. Assad) wanted to build a store over a mosque. Mr. Assad, an Alawite, rushed to defend the mosque and protect all religious sites, especially the Shia shrines, in the country. In turn, in Mr. Amins telling, Nusra called for Mr. Assads downfall and the destruction of the countrys shrines.

Irans Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah fighters trained Mr. Amin and various Afghan recruits of the Fatemiyoun Division in using weapons and tactical movement for a month. Some were trained as snipers; some were trained in tank warfare. After the training they were flown to Syria and sent to the front lines in Damascus and Aleppo.

Iranians and Mr. Assads forces used the Afghan recruits as the first-wave shock troops. We would be the first in any operation, Mr. Amin recalled. Several short memoirs by current and former Afghan fighters in Syria published on the Telegram app, which Mr. Shuja studied, recount the Afghans being sent to fight the most difficult battles and speak about heavy casualties among Afghan fighters and the eventual victory after multiple assaults.

Afghan fighters have fought in Damascus, Hama, Lattakia, Deir al-Zor, Homs, Palmyra and Aleppo. In November and December, Mr. Amin was stationed in Aleppo, where the Fatemiyoun Division was tasked with helping the Syrian Army retake the eastern part of the city from rebel groups. He and hundreds of other young Afghans fought under the orders of the Revolutionary Guard.

The foreign Shiite militias, which included fighters like Mr. Amin, played a crucial role in supporting Mr. Assads regime and provided the key ground forces in the decisive battle of Aleppo. The victory in Aleppo turned the tide for Mr. Assad and for Iran, bringing it closer to, as the Syria scholar Joshua Landis put it, the consolidation of this Iranian security arc, stretching from Lebanon to Iran.

Several hundred Afghans have died fighting Mr. Assads and Irans war in Syria. The bodies of slain Afghan fighters were paraded around the streets of Tehran and in Qom, in northern Iran, in elaborate ceremonies before their burials. Both Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and General Suleimani have visited the families of Afghan militiamen killed in Syria and expressed gratitude for the sacrifices their sons made for defending the holy shrines and Islam.

In January, I met Murtaza, a 21-year-old Afghan at the Elliniko Airport refugee camp in Athens. He had lived in Qom. They never make a show of the Iranian fighters who die in Syria, only the Afghans, said Murtaza, who claimed to have seen graves of hundreds of Afghans killed in Syria in Qom. It is their way of trying to convince the Iranian people that only Afghans, and not Iranians, are dying in Syria.

In June 2016, Haitham Maleh, a Syrian opposition leader, addressed a letter to President Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan requesting an end to the influx of Afghan fighters. Afghan deaths in Mr. Assads war have forced several Afghan clerics to speak out against the Iranian strategy. Even Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the warlord who recently made a peace deal with the Afghan government, spoke about it on his return to Kabul. Some estimates put the number of Afghans killed in Syria around 600. Mr. Amin said 15 of his friends were killed in Syria.

After being wounded in Aleppo, Mr. Amin returned to Bamyan two months ago with a 10-year Iranian residency in hand and promise of a home in Iran, or in postwar Syria, if he would like to live there. A majority of the Afghans who fought with him in Syria have stayed in Iran. He keeps in touch with them on the Telegram app.

Bamyan remains peaceful and poor; the roads leading to the province are still dangerous. Mr. Amin has returned to his old life as a subsistence farmer. I came back because I wanted to see what would work out better, Mr. Amin told me. If things are good here, I will stay. If they get worse, then I will go back to Iran, but now I dont have to worry about deportation.

Ali M. Latifi is a journalist based in Kabul.

Read the rest here:
How Iran Recruited Afghan Refugees to Fight Assad's War - New York Times