Mediaboss Marketing

The Trump administration, delaying an anticipated confrontation with Iran until the completion of a long-awaited policy review, plans to recertify Tehrans compliance with the Obama-era nuclear deal, according to U.S. and foreign officials.

The recertification, due Monday to Congress, follows a heated internal debate between those who want to crack down on Iran now including some White House officials and lawmakers and Cabinet officials who are managing other constituencies such as European allies, and Russia and China, which signed and support the agreement, one senior U.S. official said.

As a candidate and president, Trump has said he would reexamine and possibly kill what he called the disastrous nuclear deal that was negotiated under President Barack Obama and went into effect in January last year. The historic agreement shut down most of Irans nuclear program, in some cases for decades, in exchange for an easing of international sanctions.

Under an arrangement Obama worked out with Congress, the administration must certify Iranian compliance with the terms of the accord every 90 days. If the administration denies certification, it can then decide to reinstitute sanctions that were suspended under the deal.

The Trump administration issued its first certification in April, when it also said it was awaiting completion of its review of the agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. The senior official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations, said the review should be completed before the next certification deadline in October.

(Gillian Brockell and Julio C. Negron/The Washington Post)

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations and other signatories have said repeatedly that Iran is complying with the agreement, under which the country dismantled most of its centrifuges and nuclear stockpile, shut down a plutonium production program and agreed to extensive international monitoring of all stages of the nuclear process.

[Frances Total bets big on Irans gas fields. American rivals watch from afar.]

Beyond disagreements over what supporters of the deal consider minor and quickly rectified infractions, and detractors assert are dealbreaking violations, there is broad consensus within the administration and Congress that Iran continues to participate in other prohibited activities not covered in the nuclear accord.

The question is how the United States should respond.

White House officials, including those charged with managing Iran policy within the National Security Council, believe Iran should be punished not only for nuclear violations, but also for its support of international terrorism and its development of ballistic-missile technology.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has statutory responsibility for certification, and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis have successfully argued that the nuclear deal should not be tied to punishments for those activities and that any nuclear-related action should await the review.

Officials cautioned that Trump, who has made clear his disdain for the accord, could decide not to sign off on the recertification between now and the Monday deadline but said that was unlikely. The decision to recertify was first reported Thursday by the Weekly Standard.

Next Tuesday, the administration must also comply with a separate deadline, reporting to Congress on Irans overall nuclear behavior and deciding whether to waive reinstituting sanctions lifted under the accord. That report, due 180 days after Trumps inauguration, was part of restrictions lawmakers put on the agreement, as was the 90-day certification requirement.

As White House officials have asserted their role in the process, the administration has downgraded internal State Department mechanisms for monitoring Iranian compliance. In recent weeks, a separate State Department office of Iran Nuclear Implementation established by Obama was subsumed by the bureau in charge of overall Middle East policy. Both Stephen D. Mull, the lead coordinator for implementation, and Stuart Jones, the acting head of the Middle East bureau, have told Tillerson they are resigning from the Foreign Service.

It is unclear who will replace Jones or whether Mull will be replaced at all.

Among those weighing in from the outside during the debate, which included a meeting of Trumps national security principals last week, were four Republican lawmakers Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), David Perdue (Ga.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

They urged noncertification in a letter Tuesday to Tillerson, saying that in addition to violations of the deal, Iran continues to wage a campaign of regional aggression, sponsor international terrorism, develop ballistic missile technology and oppress the Iranian people.

Mark Dubowitz, head of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which has long criticized the accord and urged its reformulation, said that recertification was the wrong decision.

I think the administration this time around should have made the decision not to recertify, explain why, and actually gone ahead with the waiver and slapped on some new nonnuclear sanctions.

Noncertification would not automatically trigger the end of the deal. That would require the United States to allege a material breach on Irans part and a referral to the joint commission of signatories to the agreement for assessment. But proponents of the accord said that a failure to certify would nonetheless trigger unwanted reactions.

Even if new sanctions were not related to Irans nuclear program, said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, the real question is whether under those conditions the political support inside Iran for compliance with the deal will continue.

Allegations of Iranian violations, he said, are trumped up and not supported by any evidence. ... They have exceeded heavy-water limits by a tiny percentage, and gone back into compliance within days.

Tillerson aide R.C. Hammond made clear that his boss believes that Iran is behaving badly in a number of areas, regardless of the assessment of the nuclear deal, and that a new policy is being formulated. All the Obama Iran deal did was pay for a pause in Irans nuclear program, he said. It didnt fix any problems. What were going to try to do is fix the problems.

The senior official added that unlike the previous administration, this administration sees the JCPOA as a symptom, not the disease.

The disease is broader Iranian aggression. Thats what the strategy review is focused on, and until its complete, its difficult to know what is the best resolution, the official said. The president has been very frank about his opinion.

Friday is the second anniversary of the signing of the deal, negotiated with Iran over a number of years by the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia and the European Union. Other signatories have been open in their rejection of Trumps assessment, and they have warned that they would continue to honor the agreement, and increase their trade and relations with Iran, no matter what the United States does.

I know that in the U.S. there is a review ongoing, E.U. foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said at a news conference Tuesday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. We respect that. But we also have the duty to make it clear that the nuclear deal doesnt belong to one country. It belongs to the international community, to the U.N. system. ... We share responsibility to make sure that this continues to be implemented fully by all.

Carol Morello in Kuwait contributed to this report.

Read more:
Trump administration plans to certify Iranian compliance with nuclear agreement - Washington Post

Members of Iranian Basij paramilitary force reenact the January capture of U.S sailors by the Revolutionary Guard in the Persian Gulf at a rally to mark the 37th anniversary of the Islamic revolution in Azadi Square (Freedom Square) on Feb. 11, 2016 in Tehran, Iran. Majid Saeedi / Getty Images file

Sattari said Dehnavi and his family were denied entry to the U.S. "under unconventional pretexts," despite obtaining all legal documents, the report said.

The Children's Hospital in Boston issued a statement Thursday saying that Denhavi had not previously worked there.

"He was due to come to Boston Children's as a visiting scholar on a J-1 visa. His visa had been approved by the State Department prior to travel," it said. "Boston Children's has no additional information about the basis for denying Dr. Denhavi entry to the U.S."

Also Thursday, Stephanie Malin, a spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said that "due to privacy law, CBP is prohibited from discussing the details of any individual's admissibility inspection."

See more here:
Iranian Researcher Denied US Entry Allegedly Has Ties to Militia - NBCNews.com

A top Iranian military commander is the latest official to speak out against U.S. chatter of pursuing a policy of regime changeagainstthe government in Tehran, something Washington has successfully done once before.

Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff for the Iranian military, attacked remarks made recently by high-ranking U.S. officials such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggesting they may seek to topple the Iranian government, which they accuseof sponsoring terrorism and political oppression.The military leader'swords echoed long-held suspicions by Iran that the U.S. is plotting to forcefully oust the nation's political and religious leaders in favor of ones more sympathetic to the West, as it did by sponsoring a coup in 1953. More than half a century later, Jazayeri said Iran was unphased by such comments from the administration of President Donald Trump, but vowed to respond with action.

Related:U.S. has no proof ISIS leader Baghdadi is alive, Russia thinks it killed him and Iran is sure he's dead

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

"The ridiculous dreams of the Americans about the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran is nothing more than disturbeddelusionsand we are not worried that they have preoccupied themselves in such a way," Jazayeri said, according to Press TV, an English-language affiliate of the semi-official Islamic Republic Broadcasting Agency.

"We will respondto the nonsensical talksof the American authorities in the theaters of action," he added.

A man holds burning flags during the annual pro-Palestinian rally marking Al-Quds (Jerusalem) Day, in Tehran, Iran, June 23, 2017. Since deposing a U.S.-backed ruler in 1979, Iran's leadership has been deeply suspicious that Washington will once again try to overthrow its government in order to install leaders more friendly to Western interests. Nazanin Tabatabaee Yazdi/TIMA via REUTERS

Prior to 1953, Iran's government was headed by a democratically elected prime minister named Mohammad Mosaddegh whose popularity ultimately allowed him to supersede the authority of the country's monarch,Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, known as the Shah. Mosaddegh nationalized Iran's oil industry in 1951, infuriating the U.K., which heavily invested in Iranian oil. The U.K. ultimately appealed to the CIA to sponsor a coup d'etat againstMosaddegh, which U.S. intelligence did in 1953, arresting Mosaddegh and replacing him with Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi. The Shah regained his former authority and implemented an authoritarianrule backed by the West for over 25 years until he himself was deposed in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that saw Shiite Muslim cleric Ayatollah Khomeinitake power and pursue anti-West policies that persist to this day.

The U.S. only publicly admitted its role in the 1953 coup in 2013, and last month the CIA released a trove of previously top-secret documents publicly revealing new details of the affair, known as Operation AJAX. Relations between the U.S. and Iran somewhatwarmed during the administration of President Barack Obama, who signed a deal that lifted U.S. sanctions on Iran in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program. Trump, however, has taken a more hardline stance toward the majority-Shiite Muslim power and some of his most senior officials have suggested that a second regime change may be in order.

"Until the Iranian people can get rid of this theocracy, these guys who think they can tell the people even which candidates they get a choice of. Its going to be very, very difficult," Mattis said Monday in an interview he granted to a high school journalism student, according to the Middle East Institute. Mattis went on to target the Iranian government, linking it to groups abroad considered by the U.S. to be terrorist organizations, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Ansar Allah, commonly referred to as the Houthi movement.

Comments by Mattis, who has long advocated for tougher U.S. action against Iran, followed Tillerson's response to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last month in which the statesman explained U.S. policy toward Iran as being "to push back on [its regional] hegemony, contain their ability to develop, obviously, nuclear weapons and to work towards support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government."

Jazayeri is not the first Iranian official to respond to the Trump administration's comments. Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General HosseinDehghan told reporters Wednesday that, before the U.S. goes after Iran's internal political affairs, it should address its own scandals and potential shortcomings.

"Whenever the Americans have intended to make any type action against us or hire proxies to this end, our nation has proved that it makes them regret their deeds," Dehghan said, according to Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency.

"The U.S. secretary of defense and the ruling system had better think of resolving their internal issues and study the root causes that will most possibly cause the current U.S. administration to collapse in a not so far future and will make the country's political system face a lot of serious challenges," he added.

Read the rest here:
Iran to US: Don't Even Think About Overthrowing Our Government Again - Newsweek

President Trump must increase pressure on Iran to disclose the whereabouts of Robert Levinson -- the former FBI agent who disappeared in the country a decade ago -- and return him to his family, several U.S. lawmakers said.

A delegation of lawmakers -- led by U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla. -- penned a letter Tuesday to Trump, calling on the administration to "re-engage" with Iran over Levinson, a Florida native who was last seen in 2007 on Iran's Kish Island. Levinson disappeared while traveling on an unauthorized mission to recruit an intelligence source for the CIA. If alive, he is the longest-held hostage in American history.

"As you know, our government has long pressed Iran to return Bob," read a copy of the letter obtained by Fox News.

"After ten years, Bob is still not home, and despite repeated promises, Iran has yet to cooperate in any meaningful way. Iran is responsible if Iranian officials dont have Bob, they know where to find him," the lawmakers wrote. "Bobs return is an urgent humanitarian issue."

The letter was signed by 19 lawmakers, including Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio and U.S. Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Democratic U.S. Reps. Ted Deutch and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

The lawmakers also asked that Trump meet with Levinson's wife, Christine, and seven children to, "hear first-hand their struggle and tireless effort on Bob's behalf."

In March, on the 10-year anniversay of his father's disappearance, Levinson's son, Daniel, told Fox News that he's hopeful Trump will make good on his promise to bring his father home.

Iranian leaders have repeatedly denied knowing anything about Levinson's fate, but U.S. officials have indicated for years they believe the former agent is alive.

Trump had pledged to make Levinson's case a priority during his presidential campaign. The White House said in March the administration "remains unwavering in our commitment to locate Mr. Levinson and bring him home."

Levinson, from Coral Springs, Fla., retired from the FBI in 1998. He was working as a private investigator when he traveled to Kish Island, Iran, on March 8, 2007, on a 24-hour rogue assignment. He was last seen leaving the Hotel Miriam on the island and getting into a taxi to go to the airport.

Iranian state-run television reported at the time that Levinson was in the hands of Iranian security forces -- but no group officially claimed responsibility for taking him.

In October 2009, the FBI told Fox News it had received unconfirmed reports of sightings of Levinson in the Islamic Republic. Two years later, in March 2011, the U.S. government said it "received indications" that Levinson was being held somewhere in southwest Asia.

Levinson's wife criticized the Obama administration last year when she learned, through media reports, of a prisoner exchange with Iran that did not include her husband. At the time, Levinson's son, Daniel, said it felt like "once again, he's been left behind."

Levinson, left, disappeared in Iran in 2007.

Following the release of five American prisoners, President Obama said the U.S. would continue working to find Levinson. When asked by reporters whether Levinson was still alive, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said, "We have no idea." Kerry also said Tehran had pledged to assist the U.S. in its quest for answers.

Shortly thereafter, the Iranian government told the Obama administration it had intelligence that an American's remains had been buried in western Pakistan, near the country's border with Afghanistan and Iran, according to Levinson's son. But when Pakistan officials searched the site in question, no remains were found.

The Levinson family insists he is alive and that Iranian officials know where he is. They last received some visual record of him in video and photos that were sent about five years ago.

"Bob has suffered long enough," the lawmakers said in their letter to Trump.

Levinson is pictured with his daughters in 2006, about seven months before his kidnapping.

"We must never rest until he is returned to his family. We owe them nothing less."

Cristina Corbin is a Fox News reporter based in New York. Follow her on Twitter @CristinaCorbin.

Originally posted here:
Lawmakers to Trump: Iran must return American hostage Bob Levinson - Fox News

It's been a fiery couple of days on the set of "Tucker Carlson Tonight." The famously combative Fox News host, who also happens to be my former boss, has been engaged in something of a foreign policy royal rumble with Republican foreign policy analysts Ralph Peters and Max Boot.

The fireworks started when Peters compared Carlson to Charles Lindbergh because Tucker questioned whether Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian leader Bashar Assad were really serious threats to the United States. Shockingly, being compared to a Nazi apologist didn't sit well with Tucker and the segment quickly became, shall we say, more lively? The next night, Tucker brought on Boot (who had praised Peters on Twitter) for another entertaining, if not always illuminating, display of verbal fisticuffs.

Who you think won these rather nasty battles likely depends on what your foreign policy worldview is. But whether or not you agree with Carlson's foreign policy worldview which is close to, if not exactly the same as, Rand Paul's non-interventionism he is asking legitimate questions that deserve to be answered and debated.

Why is it in America's interest to stand up to Russia? As vile as Assad is, are we sure he is really worse both morally and for U.S. interests than many of those vying to replace him? Is Iran really a serious threat to the U.S.?

It is the last question I want to attempt to reply to here, because I actually think it is the most important of the three questions, as well as the one with the clearest answer. At one point during Tucker's debate with Boot, Tucker asked: "Tell me how many Americans in the United States have been murdered by terrorists backed by Iran since 9/11? You say Iran is a primary threat to us."

After some name-calling, Boot gave a partial answer to Tucker's question by noting that Iran has killed U.S. troops in Iraq and, through its terror proxy Hezbollah, hundreds of U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983.

But as compelling an answer as this may be for some, it won't satisfy people with Tucker's foreign policy worldview not because they don't care about U.S. soldiers as Boot suggested, but because, as they would be quick to point out, the U.S. would never have been in Iraq and Lebanon if their foreign policy ruled the day.

But there is an answer that could appeal to even those with Tucker's foreign policy orientation. If I were on his show, I would have answered his question this way:

You make a fair point, Tucker, by pointing out that neither Iran nor its terrorist proxies have killed Americans on U.S. soil, like Sunni terror organizations have, though we probably should not forget the Iranian-sponsored plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador at Caf Milano in Georgetown that surely would have also killed Americans if it wasn't foiled. (That one should hit close to home since you occasionally eat there, or at least you once ate there with me.)

But, again, I take your point. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that Iran is an even greater threat to America than Sunni terrorist groups, which is saying something because I believe Sunni terrorist groups pose a serious threat. The difference between Sunni terror groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State and an Iranian-sponsored Shia terror group like Hezbollah is that there is an actual modern state supporting the latter and states are most capable of producing weapons of mass destruction.

As you know, Iran has a rather sophisticated nuclear weapons program going, even if it may and I emphasize may have been temporarily suspended. Neither al Qaeda nor ISIS can say the same. If Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb, it would be the first theocratic state in history to have such a weapon.

Just take a look at the havoc North Korea is causing in Asia. Imagine a North Korea in the Middle East, but a North Korea with leaders who believe at least they say they believe that cataclysmic war is necessary in order to usher in a heavenly age. That strikes me as a very scary prospect, especially considering Iranian leaders are fond of leading their people in chants of "Death to America."

Even if Iran's mullahs are more rational than we sometimes give them credit for being a risky bet they would still be a serious threat to us. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, many other countries in its region will try to get nuclear weapons to counter it. That doesn't strike me as a stupendous outcome for the stability of the region. Beyond the potential cost to human life in the region if war broke out, as you know as well as anyone, the Middle East has lots of oil, which is kind of important to our economy. I don't think double-digit per gallon gas is a key ingredient in MAGAnomics.

Perhaps most importantly, let's not forget that Iran's terror proxy Hezbollah reportedly has terror cells in the U.S. And as the State Department once noted, Hezbollah is the A-Team of international terror, al-Qaida's just the B-Team. I can't imagine a graver threat than a theocratic regime that affectionately refers to the U.S. as the Great Satan having the means to annihilate a U.S. city with a suitcase nuke, can you?

So, yes, I'd argue Iran poses a very real and potentially grave threat to the United States, especially if it obtains nuclear capability, as many experts seem to think is inevitable. Whether it is really inevitable and how best deal with the Iranian threat are questions for another day.

Jamie Weinstein (@Jamie_Weinstein) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He hosts The Jamie Weinstein Show podcast and is founding partner at JMW Strategies.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

See more here:
Answering Tucker Carlson: Why Iran is a grave threat to the US - Washington Examiner