Mediaboss Marketing

As someone characterized as part of the Iran Deal echo chamber in 2015, many might anticipate that I would oppose the sanctions against Iran presentlybeing developed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. But, with modifications and in the right context, the bills being developed in theHouse and in the Senate may actually point the way for the kind of approach to sanctions against Iran that preserves and advances the common cause ofJPOCA proponents and skeptics alike.

Though sometimes lost in the public debates of 2015, the United States neither gave away all of its sanctions leverage over Iran in the JCPOA nor did itlose the right and the ability to impose targeted measures against Iran for actions incompatible with the JCPOA or outside its aegis. Under the JCPOA,what was agreed is that we would exchange nuclear relief for sanctions relief, offering Iran the promise of some economic renewal and securing for theUnited States the relief of Iran being unable to produce a nuclear weapon undetected and in less than a year.

Recognizing the very real threat such a development would pose, the House and Senate bills now under consideration would largely preserve the Obama-era approach. Modifications to the bills are necessary, particularly the Senate bills sweeping, mandatory sanctions on activities with Iran that pose a riskof contributing to Irans missile program, its mandatory terrorism designation of the IRGC (which adds nothing to the sanctions already in place against theIRGC but which military analysts fear could pave the way for retaliation against U.S. forces in the region), and language that could prejudice the ability ofthe U.S. to terminate in time some sanctions designations covered by the deal. These changes do need to be made to make the bill JCPOA compliant.But, by and large, both bills take the approach of imposing targeted sanctions for specific bad acts. They will engender caution in international businesses,but perhaps not outright fear. Iran will benefit economically, but lagging due to its policies.

What is missing now is a reaffirmation that the objective of the United States is not to undermine the JCPOA. Both the White House and the Congressshould state clearly, publicly, and in advance of any movement of this legislation that the JCPOA is working and merits protection and implementation. Thelegislation should reflect this specifically and in the construction of its waiver provisions. U.S. sanctions experts at the State and Treasury Departmentsshould be authorized to continue conversations with international businesses and banks about how to take advantage of JCPOA relief within the sanctionsregime, and to give assurances that so long as Iran fulfills its commitments the rug will not be jerked from under their feet. Absent this reaffirmation, itwould be a mistake to move the bills and certainly to sign them into law.

Irans hardliners are desperate for the United States to walk away from the JCPOA and looking to capitalize on U.S. missteps. Though they may profit inthe short term due to the control they exert over the Iranian economy (made possible in part because of the exigencies imposed by sanctions), economicopenness is seen by hardliners as a wedge through which political change may one day be pursued. Domestic Iranian efforts at reform are based in largepart on demonstrating success being attained via access to the international economy. Instead of granting perverse relief to our opponents in Tehran bydoubling down on a hostile policy, we should avoid chest thumping and grandstanding, including in sanctions form. For example, an aggressive sanctionsapproach to the IRGC that harms the JCPOA will do the IRGCs work for it. Tehran wont scrap the IRGC because it has been designated or targeted. TheUnited States cannot sanction it into oblivion. Its role can only be curtailed by showing that, particularly in the economic space, its involvement does moreharm than good. We should impose some limited, targeted sanctions to be sure; abandoning sanctions altogether for fear of offending the Iranians easesthe pressure on the system to resolve the contradictions in Irans own policies and government management. But, we must tailor our measures in a waythat makes the necessity of reform easier to argue and keeps the pressure on the IRGC and on Iran where it counts: at home.

We must proceed carefully, sensibly, and with a measure of respect for the needs and requirements of our adversary, our partners, and our own nationalsecurity. After all, if the JCPOA is damaged or lost, we lose something as well. Far from being something Iran should be grateful for getting, the JCPOA isdelivering value to the United States. For the first time in a generation, U.S., Israeli, and Gulf Arab national security thinkers can imagine a Middle East inwhich the near term risk is not Iranian nuclear weapons acquisition. In todays Middle East, that is a win worth preserving.

Richard Nephew was the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran from 2013-15 and before thatserved as Director for Iran on the National Security Council staff. He is now a Fellow at the Center on Global EnergyPolicy at Columbia University.

Continue reading here:
Sanctioning Iran while preserving the JCPOA - The Hill (blog)

The Hindu

15 fishermen return from Iran The Hindu The 15 fishermen released from an Iranian prison landed at the Chennai airport on Thursday night. They were arrested on October 22 last on charges of entering Iranian waters without permission. They reached Chennai by an Emirates flight from Dubai. Iran ordeal over, 15 fishermen reach ChennaiThe New Indian Express all 4 news articles »

See original here:
15 fishermen return from Iran - The Hindu

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

More specifically, the trio was charged with insulting the Prophet and insulting the Supreme Leader of Iran with text messages, per the UKDaily Mail.Evidently, insulting the Supreme Leader only gets you 16 months in jail but insulting Mohammed is a capital offense. The Center for Human Rights in Iran notes that if a person accused of insulting Mohammed claims his words were due to anger or a mistake, the court can reduce the sentence to 74 lashes instead of death.

Dehghan was sentenced to death, even though the CHRI says he was told he would receive a pardon if he confessed to his crimes and repented of his actions. The Center notes he only had four days remaining in his military service at the time of his arrest.

Asource told the CHRI:

Security and judicial authorities promised Sinas family that if they didnt make any noise about his case, he would have a better chance of being freed, and that talking about it to the media would work against him. Unfortunately, the family believed those words and stopped sharing information about his case and discouraged others from sharing it as well.

One of his co-defendants was given a seven-year prison sentence reduced to three years on appeal, while the other, Mohammad Nouri, has also been sentenced to death.

According to the UKIndependent,the exact content of the messages sent by the three defendants on the Line messaging application has not been made public.

Dehghan has been held in the notorious Arak prison where a source told the CHRI he is suffering from depression and often cries. The source also said Dehghan is held in a ward with drug convicts and murderers who broke his jaw a while ago.

He is running out of options to escape the death sentence, which was upheld by the Iranian Supreme Court in January. In an interview on March 28th, Dehghans lawyer said a request for judicial review of his sentence has been filed.

AccordingtoSinaslawyer, steps have been taken for a judicial review, and with the good news were hearing from him, God willing this case will come to end positively as soon as possible, said Dehghans mother.

However, another human-rights organization called Article 19 has complained Dehghans court-appointed lawyer failed to adequately defend him at trial.

Article 19 said the case demonstrates how Iranians are at the mercy of a system where forced confessions, false promises, and threats to family members undermine not only national judicial processes but the international standards Iran has signed up to.

View original post here:
Iran Sentences 21-Year-Old to Death for 'Insulting the Prophet' Online - Breitbart News

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has branded Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as "a war criminal,' who has been protected by Russia and Iran in the Security Council for far too long.

She told Fox News the Trump administration hopes Assad will be brought to justice for the overwhelming humanitarian crisis and continued carnage that has torn his nation apart.

She also blamed the Obama administration for not acting sooner to try and prevent the war.

"The previous administration needs to take responsibility for that, as well," she said. "First of all, Assadhe's a war criminal. He's used chemical weapons on his own people. He's not allowing aid to come in. He is very much a deterrence to peace. But then you look at the fact that the Security Council has to acknowledge when the chemical weapons -- we had proof that he used it three times on his own people. Why aren't we dealing with that?

"Then, you know, you have to look at the Iranian influence and the fact that we've got to get that out. Syria is in such sad shape, but it doesn't have to be that way. If you look back, so many things could have been done to prevent where we are today. And that's what we need to focus on now."

Haley, who resigned as governor of South Carolina when the Senate approved her nomination in January, has been a quick learner in her new arena, observers say, who has brought a blunt message from the Trump administration to the international diplomats at the world body on several issues.

She calls North Korea, "a threat to the world," and demands that Beijing impose sanctions on Kim Jong-un's regime for its continued nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

"It all comes down to China," Haley says. "They could put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to step back. Now it's time for them to prove it."

She is clear about her role at the U.N.

"I think that the United States has always been the moral compass of the world. And I think we are generous by nature. And we want to see people safe. We don't want to see people starve. We don't want to see people treated -- mistreated by their governments," she said, noting that her first goal is to bring American values...and the nation's voice...back to the organization that she says has gotten "stale."

Haley intends to focus on human rights, the U.N. budget, peacekeeping reform, and addressing the wrongs that have plagued the world body.

"Leadership is just letting them know what we're for, what we're against, have the backs of our allies and make sure they keep the backs of us, and then anyone that challenges us, call them out. Let them know what we think is wrong. That's all this is just making sure we're changing the culture to showing strength from the United States again, action and making sure that we show value in the United Nations. I think it's important for the American people."

The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts in the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s budget. American taxpayers currently pay upwards of $2.8 billion to fund the world body's regular and peacekeeping operations. The White House has proposed slicing the U.S. contribution by almost half, $1 billion.

According to the U.N.'s own figures, the U.S. is responsible for just over 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget, which the Trump administration has sought to cut by 3 percent, for a total contribution of 25 percent. That amount, however, would still be more than double the next largest contributors, China and Japan...about four times more than Germany, France and Great Britain...and six times more than Russia.

Haley insisted any reductions will not harm the peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, denying the fears expressed by some that refugees could starve, children will not get UNICEF innoculations, and peacekeeping deployments would be crippled.

"What we want is for people to be safe. We want the aid to get in," she sayid, noting that her fellow diplomats share the same goals.

"All of the other countries are saying, 'yes we think that too.' They want to see peacekeeping reform. They want to see management reform. They want to see the U.N. become more active and go back to the mission."

On Friday, the Security Council unanimously voted to slightly reduce the troop level of the peacekeeping forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Haley told Fox News that the biggest surprise since her arrival two months ago, is what she called the U.N.'s "anti-Israeli bias," citing meetings on the Middle East that focus only on the Jewish State.

"They're not talking about we would care about. They're not talking about Syria. They're not talking about Iran. They're not talking about North Korea. What they are talking about is Israel. Every single month, for 10 years, they've been Israel bashing. And that was something that I just couldn't believe they put the time and energy into doing that, when we have so many threats around the world."

"I think she's great," Haleys Israeli counterpart, Israel's United Nations Ambassador Danny Danon, told Fox News when asked how he thinks she is doing.

"She comes with her values, her tools, and that's what we need at the U.N., to bring the U.N. back to its core values. The U.N. is a good institution, but it was kidnapped by evil forces and I believe with Ambassador Haley, and my team, we can work together, and maybe, maybe change the U.N. and bring it back to what it should be."

Haley points to several changes that have occurred under her watch, from preventing the appointment of a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority until the P.A. engages in peace talks, to the resignation of a U.N. official who released a report branding Israel as an "apartheid state."

"Its changing, and the tone is getting better," she notes.

"And not only that, I think they're tired of me yelling at them about Israel bashing."

Ben Evansky contributed to this report.

Follow Eric Shawn on Twitter: @EricShawnTV

More here:
Haley: Assad a 'war criminal' protected by Russia, Iran - Fox News

Iran has expressed reservations about the appointment of former Pakistan Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif as head of the Islamic Military Alliance created by Saudi Arabia, prompting Islamabad to step up efforts to assuage Tehran.

We are concerned about this issue...that it may impact the unity of Islamic countries, Mehdi Honardoost, Irans envoy to Pakistan, told the media. This was the first time Iran publicly expressed its displeasure on the issue.

Pakistan contacted Iranian officials before issuing a no-objection certificate to Sharif to take up the position of head of the 39-nation military alliance, but this did not indicate that Iran was satisfied with this decision or it had accepted the same, Honardoost was quoted as saying by state-run IRNA news agency.

Defence minister Khawaja Asif said earlier this month the Pakistan government had cleared Sharif to take up the job following a formal request from Saudi Arabia.

Islamabads decision is set to further complicate fraught Pakistan-Iran relations, especially at a time when Saudi Arabia and Iran are jockeying for influence in hot spots across the Middle East.

Read more

Foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua said on Tuesday that the Islamic Military Alliance wasnt against any country and that Sharif will not act against Iran. She told a parliamentary committee on foreign affairs: The Islamic alliance is against terrorism, not any country.

She added Pakistan is making efforts to reduce tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is difficult for Pakistan to maintain equal relations with both countries but Pakistan will not go against Irans interests, she said.

Pakistani officials confirmed they intend to reach out to the Iranian government to address Tehrans concerns. Officials told the media that Pakistan has clearly informed Saudi Arabia that it would not become part of any campaign against any country, including Iran.

Gen Qamar Bajwa, the current Pakistan Army chief, took the Iranian leadership into confidence and Sartaj Aziz, adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairs, travelled to Tehran in late February to address Irans concerns. Bajwa might also visit Iran to assuage the fears of the Iranian leadership over the controversial alliance.

Raheel Sharif reportedly accepted the offer to head the alliance on the condition that countries such as Iran would be invited to join it in order to make it a broad-based initiative and dispel impressions about its sectarian outlook.

But Iranian envoy Honardoost said Tehran had informed Islamabad that Iran would not become part of such a military alliance. Iran had not been extended an offer to join a coalition of this sort, he added.

He proposed that all important Islamic countries come together to form a coalition of peace to resolve issues rather (than) forming a controversial military alliance.

Read more

Iran is known to have opposed the Saudi initiative because of its serious differences over the current unrest in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Yemen.

Just days before Pakistan issued the no-objection certificate to Raheel Sharif, the Iranian envoy visited the General Headquarters, where Gen Qamar Bajwa gave him a categorical assurance that Islamabads decision would not hurt Tehrans interests.

Bajwa also informed Honardoost that Pakistan values its bilateral ties with Iran, The Express Tribune reported. Bajwa also said Pakistan had never objected to Irans close ties with India and, therefore, Islamabad expected Tehran to respect the decision over the Saudi alliance.

Pakistan has found itself in the crosshairs of Middle Eastern politics as Saudi Arabia named it part of the military alliance without first getting Islamabads consent. After initial ambiguity, Islamabad confirmed its participation in the alliance.

Sharifs appointment had been criticised by some politicians, retired army officers and intellectuals, who questioned the former army chiefs decision. Opposition parties, including the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, too are skeptical of Sharifs role in the alliance.

Both parties consider the decision a violation of a parliamentary resolution passed in April 2015 that called for Pakistan to maintain a policy of neutrality, particularly in the conflict in Yemen.

Link:
Iran upset with Pakistan's Raheel Sharif heading Islamic Military Alliance - Hindustan Times