Mediaboss Marketing

Irans atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi, who helped forge the 2015 nuclear agreement, warned the United States on June 23 against upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East by siding with arch-rival Saudi Arabia.

Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Salehi said Tehran views a lavish" deal U.S. President Donald Trump's administration recently announced to sell Saudi Arabia $110 billion in weapons as "provocative."

"This is especially the case if the national defense efforts of Iran...are simultaneously opposed and undermined," he said, alluding to steps the Trump administration has taken to increase U.S. sanctions on Iran for developing ballistic missiles even as it has ramped up arms sales to Riyadh and its allies.

"It would be unrealistic to expect Iran to remain indifferent to the destabilizing impact of such conduct," said Salehi, an MIT graduate who has also served as Iran's foreign minister and was a senior negotiator on the nuclear deal.

Salehi stressed that Washington's strong tilt toward Tehran's rivals in the Middle East not only risks setting off a regional arms race and "further tension and conflict" in the region, but it imperils the "hard-won" nuclear deal, which took two years to negotiate.

If the nuclear deal is to survive, he said the West must change course. "The moment of truth has arrived."

Trump, who visited Saudi Arabia on his first trip as president earlier this month, seems largely unconcerned that his showy support for the kingdom threatens to blow up the nuclear accord or set off a renewed arms race in the Middle East. He has openly shown disdain both for Iran's leaders and the nuclear deal.

Trump and the Saudis frequently blame Iran for wars ranging from Yemen to Syria, as well as for restive minority Shi'ite populations within the borders of the kingdom and other Persian Gulf states ruled by Sunni Muslims.

The Saudis, like Trump, were strongly opposed to the nuclear deal. But while Trump has promised to dismantle the disastrous deal, he has not so far taken any concrete steps to do so.

His administration has indicated it will adhere to the deal, which requires Iran to curb its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions, as long as Tehran continues to do so.

But Salehi's article in the Guardian suggested that Iran's so far strict honoring of the deal may come into doubt in the future if the United States continues to disregard Irans "genuine security concerns" and "stokes Iranophobia" in the region.

Salehi urged the United States and its Western partners to "save" the nuclear deal with "reciprocal gestures" showing a commitment to engagement with Iran.

Iranian voters recently showed their preference for engagement with the West by re-electing President Hassan Rohani with his pro-Western platform, but engagement is simply not a one-way street and we cannot go it alone," Salehi said.

"Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment in the region, reaching a new state of equilibrium might simply be beyond reach for the foreseeable future, he said.

Read the original:
Iran's Nuclear Chief Warns US Against Tilting Power Balance In Middle East - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

The tests are not prohibited under the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers, which eased economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for its verifiable promises of peaceful nuclear work.

But Security Council Resolution 2231, which put the agreement into effect, called on Iran not to test ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

When Iran conducted missile tests in March 2016, critics led by the United States and Israel were infuriated, calling the countrys behavior a violation of the Security Council resolution and a sign that it would not honor provisions of the nuclear accord. Iran rejected the accusation.

In a report to the Security Council last July on compliance with Resolution 2231, Ban Ki-moon, then the secretary general, said he was concerned that the missile tests might not be consistent with the constructive spirit demonstrated by the nuclear accord. He called on Iran to refrain from conducting such launches, given that they have the potential to increase tensions in the region.

Mr. Guterress report, his first on Irans compliance with the resolution, also called on the country to refrain from missile tests. But it did not echo Mr. Bans broader concerns about them.

A spokesman for Mr. Guterres, Stphane Dujarric, did not immediately respond to a query about the difference.

Iran has long contended that the missiles are its defensive bulwark in an increasingly hostile region. Since it has already promised not to make nuclear weapons, its leaders have said, the missiles by definition cannot carry them. Iran has also argued that Resolution 2231s language does not ban missile tests.

Some disarmament experts suggested that Mr. Guterress report decreased the possibility of United Nations penalties against Iran over its missile development.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based group, said the difference between Mr. Bans and Mr. Guterress reports was subtle.

Mr. Guterres may have adjusted the language in the report out of recognition that further sanctions of Iranian entities tied to missile development or production will not likely succeed in reducing, or even slowing, Irans ballistic missile program, Mr. Kimball said.

Sanctions intended as punishment for missile tests, he said, could even strengthen hard-liners in Iran who want to accelerate the program in response to U.S. pressure.

A version of this article appears in print on June 22, 2017, on Page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: U.N. Leader Softens Predecessors Criticism of Iran Missile Tests.

More:
UN Leader Softens His Predecessor's Criticism of Iran Missile Tests - New York Times

House Speaker Paul Ryan addressed the Senate Republicans plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act today, including sanctions against Iran and Russia. Watch his remarks in the player above.

WASHINGTON House Speaker Paul Ryan is expressing support for a popular bill to hit Iran and Russia with sanctions. He says work is underway to resolve a procedural snag.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, the Wisconsin Republican says we want to get moving on the sanctions bill.

The measure was written by the Senate, where it passed last week on a 98-2 vote. Now the House must act.

At issue is a constitutional requirement that requires legislation involving revenue to come from the House.

Ryan says the House Foreign Affairs Committee is examining the legislation to make sure that the bill is written the right way.

Democrats have accused Republicans of stalling the bill at the behest of the Trump administration, which they say wants it weakened.

WATCH: What we learned from GOP victories in Georgia and South Carolina

Here is the original post:
WATCH: Ryan says House wants to move on Iran, Russia sanctions bill - PBS NewsHour

Trump administration officials, anticipating the defeat of the Islamic State in its de facto Syrian capital of Raqqa, are planning for what they see as the next stage of the war, a complex fight that will bring them into direct conflict with Syrian government and Iranian forces contesting control of a vast desert stretch in the eastern part of the country.

To some extent, that clash has already begun. Unprecedented recent U.S. strikes against regime and Iranian-backed militia forces have been intended as warnings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Tehran that they will not be allowed to confront or impede the Americans and their local proxy forces.

[U.S. risks further battles as it steps deeper into Syrian quagmire ]

As regime and militia forces have begun advancing eastward, senior White House officials have been pushing the Pentagon to establish outposts in the desert region. The goal would be to prevent a Syrian or Iranian military presence that would interfere with the U.S. militarys ability to break the Islamic States hold on the Euphrates River valley south of Raqqa and into Iraq a sparsely populated area where the militants could regroup and continue to plan terrorist operations against the West.

Officials said Syrian government claims on the area would also undermine progress toward a political settlement in the long-separate rebel war against Assad, intended to stabilize the country by limiting his control and eventually driving him from power.

The wisdom and need for such a strategy effectively inserting the United States in Syrias civil war, after years of trying to stay out of it, and risking direct confrontation with Iran and Russia, Assads other main backer has been a subject of intense debate between the White House and the Pentagon.

Some in the Pentagon have resisted the move, amid concern about distractions from the campaign against the Islamic State and whether U.S. troops put in isolated positions in Syria, or those in proximity to Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, could be protected. European allies in the anti-Islamic State coalition have also questioned whether U.S.-trained Syrians, now being recruited and trained to serve as a southern ground-force vanguard, are sufficient in number or capability to succeed.

One White House official, among several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Syria planning, dismissed such concerns, saying: If youre worried that any incident anywhere could cause Iran to take advantage of vulnerable U.S. forces ... if you dont think America has real interests that are worth fighting for, then fine.

The official said the expanded U.S. role would not require more troops, comparing it to The Rat Patrol, the 1960s television series about small, allied desert forces deployed against the Germans in northern Africa during World War II.

With our ability with air power ... youre not talking about a lot of requirements to do that, the official said. ... You dont need a lot of forces to go out and actually have a presence.

This official and others played down reports of tensions over Syria strategy. No one disagrees about the strategy or the objectives, said a second White House official. The question is how best to operationalize it.

The Pentagon, not the White House, made the decision to shoot down Iranian drones and a Syrian fighter jet in response to their approaches to or attacks against U.S. forces and their Syrian allies, this official said. They shot down an enemy aircraft for the first time in more than a decade. Thats accepting a high level of risk, the official said. ... Weve done quite a lot since April that the previous administration said was impossible without the conflict spiraling.

Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior Pentagon official now in charge of the Center for a New American Securitys Middle East program, agreed that the Obama administration over-agonized about every decision in Syria.

But Goldenberg faulted the Trump administration with failing to articulate its strategy. It has been the worst of all worlds, he said. A vagueness on strategy, but a willingness to deploy force. They are totally muddying the waters, and now you have significant risk of escalation.

I know the president is fond of secret plans, Goldenberg said. But this situation requires clarity about our objectives and what we will or wont tolerate.

Trump promised during his campaign to announce within his first month in office a new strategy for defeating the Islamic State. That strategy remains unrevealed, and for several months Trump appeared to be following President Barack Obamas lead in avoiding Assad, Iran and Russia and continuing a punishing assault on Islamic State strongholds elsewhere in Syria, as well as in Iraq.

In April, Trump broke that mold with a cruise missile attack on regime forces after their use of chemical weapons against civilians. Assad and his allies protested but did little else.

More recently, however, there have been direct clashes between the United States and the regime. Trumps campaign calls to join forces with Russia against the Islamic State have largely disappeared amid increased estrangement between Washington and Moscow and investigations of Trump associates contacts with Russian officials.

Despite U.S. warnings, regime and militia forces have moved toward the Syrian town of Tanf, near the Iraq border, where U.S. advisers are training Syrian proxies to head northeast toward Deir al-Zour, the regions largest city, controlled by the regime and surrounded by the Islamic State. It is a prize that the regime also wants to claim.

At the end of May, Syrian and Iranian-backed forces pushed southward to the Iraq border, between Tanf and Bukamal, where the Euphrates crosses into Iraq. In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias have, in small but concerning numbers, left the anti-Islamic State fight and headed closer to the border, near where regime forces were approaching.

On at least three occasions in May and June, U.S. forces have bombed Iranian-supported militia forces approaching the Tanf garrison. Twice this month, they have shot down what they called pro-regime armed drones, including one on June 8 that fired on Syrian fighters and their American advisers.

On Sunday, two days before the most recent drone shoot-down near Tanf, a U.S. F/A-18 shot down a Syrian air force jet southwest of Raqqa.

In response, Russia said it would train its powerful antiaircraft defense system in western Syria on farther areas where U.S. aircraft are operating and shut down the communications line that the two militaries have used to avoid each other in the crowded Syrian airspace.

The only actions we have taken against pro-regime forces in Syria ... have been in self-defense, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this week.

Dunford also made clear that victory against the Islamic State in Raqqa, and in Mosul, where the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi forces are in the last stages of a months-long offensive, will not mark the end of the war.

Raqqa is tactical. Mosul is tactical, Dunford said. We ought not to confuse success in Raqqa and Mosul as something that means its the end of the fight. I think we should all be braced for a long fight.

In a report Wednesday, the Institute for the Study of War, referring to intelligence and expert sources, said that the Islamic State in Raqqa had already relocated the majority of its leadership, media, chemical weapons, and external attack cells south to the town of Mayadin in Deir al-Zour province.

Neither the U.S.-led coalition and its local allies nor what the institute called the Russo-Iranian coalition can easily access this terrain located deep along the Euphrates River Valley with their current force posture, it said.

At the White House, senior officials involved in Syria policy see whats happening through a lens focused as much on Iran as on the Islamic State. The Iranian goal, said one, seems to be focused on making that link-up with Iran-friendly forces on the other side of the border, to control lines of communication and try to block us from doing what our commanders and planners have judged all along is necessary to complete the ISIS campaign. ISIS is another name for the Islamic State.

If it impacts your political outcome, if it further enables Iran to solidify its position as the dominant force in Syria for the long haul, the official said, that threatens other things, including the defeat-ISIS strategy and the ability to get to political reconciliation efforts.

For us, the official said, thats the biggest concern.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed to this report.

Read more:

Link:
US on collision course with Syria and Iran once de facto Islamic State capital falls - Washington Post

Since the June 7 terrorist attacks in Tehran, the Iranian government has made dozens of arrests and highlighted the fact that ISIS claimed responsibility. The countrys leaders have driven the narrative that Iran is yet another victim of this global terrorist network even going so far as to launch missiles targeting ISIS operations in Syria. But it is increasingly apparent that, while outside terrorists may have played a role, the governments focus on their involvement hides a more complex truth, with significant implications for U.S. policy.

Through recent news reports weve learned that those rounded-up as part of the attacks are all members of the Kurdish and Baluch ethnic minorities. The conflict with Irans Kurdish and Baluch minorities is not new: Tehran has been battling for close to a decade a much larger insurgency with both groups, without any evidence of direct links to ISIS. Most recently, on the eve of the Tehran attacks, a Kurdish nationalist group with no global terrorist connections killed two Iranian border guards near the city of Urmiya.

Despite this, the U.S. and other western countries appear to be taking Iran at its word that the attacks in Tehran were exclusively the work of ISISand part of the groups global campaign. But in doing so, they risk adopting a skewed view of Irans foreign relations and domestic stability.

Tehrans focus on ISIS as the driving force behind recent terror attacks is right out of the countrys playbook for dealing with ethnic conflict.

While Iran is commonly referred to as Persia, it actually has a multi-ethnic population. Close to half its citizens are non-Persian minorities, including Azerbaijanis, Turkmen, Arabs, Baluch and Kurds the latter make up about 10 percent of the population. These ethnic minorities are located primarily in the countrys border regions and share ties with co-ethnics in neighboring states: Turkey, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. This geographic proximity has significant bearing on Tehrans regional foreign policy and individual relations with most of its neighbors.

Irans multi-ethnic composition also affects domestic stability. For close to a decade, Iranian security forces have been engaged in domestic armed conflict with Kurdish and Baluch groups. A disproportionate number of Iranian Kurds, including minors, are executed each year. While the offenders are often charged with drug and smuggling crimes, many observers believe the high number of executions is the result of ethnic politics rather than community crime. This was even more evident in spring 2016, when a large number of Iranian Kurds were executed for charges of enmity to God for membership in Kurdish political organizations. While most of Irans Kurds and Baluch are Sunni, the basis of their dissent seems mostly ethno-nationalist and not sectarian.

Iranian government representatives rarely acknowledge dissent or grievances among the countrys ethnic minorities. But when the conflicts spill into the political realm or the public eye, we get a better understanding of the concern they cause. For example, during the recent presidential campaign the leading candidates, Hassan Rouhani and Ebrahim Raisi, both appealed to Irans ethnic minorities and promised to allow greater use of minority languages in an attempt to gain their votes. In addition, Leader Khamenei also warned foreigners against stirring up ethnic minorities in efforts to interfere in Irans election process.

And the impact of internal dissent goes well beyond political rhetoric in February, when members of Irans Arab community held massive demonstrations, they successfully paralyzed the city of Ahvaz for days, which is the center of Irans oil production.

Despite political promises, Irans leaders rarely take steps to address domestic grievances. Instead, they typically blame outsiders for the activities of the ethnic minorities, often depicting them as tools of foreign governments, primarily Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Britain or Israel. And while Iran claims to be an Islamic Republic that does not differentiate between Muslims on ethnic basis, its leaders refuse to allow use of non-Persian languages in the official sphere and the Iranian mediatends to belittle non-Persian groups.

Tehrans focus on ISIS as the driving force behind recent terror attacks is right out of the countrys playbook for dealing with ethnic conflict. Even if the Kurdish attackers cooperated with ISIS, their motivations and goals are very different than other affiliates. And even while dozens of Kurds and Baluch have now been jailed, this conflict is not going away anytime soon. Kurdish, Baluch and other domestic ethnic groups in Iran have extensive grievances and there continues to be fallout from the regular executions of activists from these communities.

Tehrans official statements and ISIS finger-pointing would have us dismiss domestic ethnic tensions as insignificant. But Irans modern history makes it clear that, during periods of greater political turbulence, these tensions impact the country and its wider political developments, such as during the Islamic Revolution. As Western leaders assess developments in Iran, its essential that they account for its multi-ethnic composition and domestic base of terrorism, and the major role these play in the countrys stability and foreign policy.

Brenda Shaffer is a professor with the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies at Georgetown and a fellow with the Atlantic Councils Global Energy Center.

Continued here:
Terror in Iran: The regime is pointing fingers at ISIS to distract from domestic unrest - Fox News