Mediaboss Marketing

Bahareh and Emad Shargi in California in June 2017. Bahareh Shargi hide caption

Bahareh and Emad Shargi in California in June 2017.

Later this month, Bahareh Shargi will mark an anniversary: It will be three years that her husband has been stuck in Iran.

Iranian authorities first imprisoned Emad Shargi, a U.S. citizen, on April 23, 2018. Though they eventually released him on bail, they did not allow him to leave the country and later returned him to Tehran's Evin prison. Now his family hopes that speaking out may help him.

His wife discussed his case at the Washington, D.C., home where they raised two daughters. She sat on their concrete back porch, which overlooks a playground set from the days when their children were little. "I'm so proud to have spent the last 32 years with him," she said. She calls these last three years spent apart "this ordeal."

Emad, Shargi, 56, is one of numerous U.S. citizens who have been arrested in Iran over the years on opaque charges of espionage. He said he was innocent, and Iran made no evidence public.

Iranian diplomats have frequently spoken of exchanging such prisoners for Iranians in U.S. prisons. While the United States formally rejects any such exchanges, some U.S. and Iranian prisoners were released during the Trump administration. But not Emad Shargi.

Bahareh Shargi, 53, said she and her husband were born in Iran, and both moved to the United States when they were young and became citizens. But they maintained family ties to their native country, and when their children went to college a few years ago, they chose to take an opportunity to live in Tehran.

Emad Shargi in 2015 Bahareh Shargi hide caption

Emad Shargi in 2015

"We had this window of time where we thought, 'We can travel,' " she said.

They occupied a house in Tehran belonging to Bahareh Shargi's family. Emad Shargi, a businessman, had previously worked in the Persian Gulf region and briefly worked for the Dutch arm of an Iranian venture capital firm.

His wife insists that they had no hint of trouble with Iranian authorities until after midnight on April 23, 2018, when she woke to find "15, 16, 17 men and a woman, strangers in our home." They took the couple's passports and many other documents, and left with Emad.

She followed him to Evin prison, an imposing mountainside structure in north Tehran. It occupies an outsized place in the Iranian psyche as the destination for many who fall out of favor with Iran's security services. She passed through its gates daily, seeking to meet a senior official, but only reached a secretary who told her to go home. She recounts being told, "We will call you. Your husband will be here for a long, long time."

Emad Shargi was released from prison in December 2018, but his passport was not returned, making it impossible for him to travel. His wife reluctantly returned to the U.S., hoping he could follow. But after nearly two years of waiting, he was rearrested in November 2020.

Bahareh Shargi grew concerned that month when she could not reach him by video conference as she usually did. Finally she learned he was back in prison from the BBC Persian news service. "I opened my phone," she said, and saw "three pictures of a man that looked like Emad, but had aged, I would say, 20, 30 years since the last time I had seen him on FaceTime."

The Shargi family in 2015. Bahareh Shargi hide caption

The Shargi family in 2015.

In February Emad was allowed to begin calling from Evin. He said he had been convicted in a trial he did not attend, and issued a 10-year sentence.

Bahareh Shargi and their daughters, Hannah, 22, and Ariana, 24, gather around the phone when he calls.

"What I've been trying to do lately is let him know we are doing other things and higher up people are doing other things, and 'You are not forgotten,' " Bahareh Shargi said.

On a recent call, she informed her husband that U.S. and Iranian diplomats would be in Vienna this week, passing messages back and forth. It's an effort to find a way for the U.S. to rejoin a nuclear agreement with Iran and other world powers.

When U.S. diplomats last negotiated over Iran's nuclear program during the Obama administration, they worked to keep the talks separate from the discussions of imprisoned Americans. They wanted to avoid being asked to pay a kind of nuclear ransom for prisoners. These most recent nuclear talks are tentative U.S. and Iranian officials are not even in the same room but Rob Malley, the U.S. envoy to Iran, said President Biden "cares deeply" about getting "the American citizens released as soon as possible, reunited with their loved ones."

"They're not part of this negotiation, but they're part, in fact, of our thinking," Malley told NPR in an interview Monday. "And we're determined to see them released regardless of what happens on the nuclear track."

The families of Americans being held in Iran have urged the Biden administration to make their release a priority.

"Looking back," said Bahareh Shargi, "it was one big mistake of going there."

She gestured out into the backyard of their Washington home. "His best times were under this cherry blossom tree, which, if you come back in 20 days, is in full bloom [and] pink." She has no way to know when her husband might return to see their backyard cherry trees.

She remembered when their daughters were small, and "showered themselves with cherry blossoms" as the petals fell. "And the reason I say that is that I want to tell these people [that] you have the wrong person. Why do you have Emad?"

Lisa Weiner and Denise Couture produced and edited the audio story.

The rest is here:
3 Years Later, A Prisoner's Family Still Awaits His Return From Iran - NPR

Robert Malley, pictured in 2018, helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. He's now involved in talks to potentially restart the deal, beginning this week in Vienna. Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

Robert Malley, pictured in 2018, helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. He's now involved in talks to potentially restart the deal, beginning this week in Vienna.

The U.S. and Iran are holding indirect talks this week in Vienna over a return to the 2015 nuclear deal.

Diplomats from the two countries won't meet face to face representatives from Europe, Russia and China will serve as a go-between. Both the U.S. and Iran insist the other needs to make a concession first Iran says the U.S. should lift sanctions, while the U.S. says Iran should scale back its nuclear program.

Robert Malley will be one of the people representing the U.S. in the talks. He tells Morning Edition that it's only a first step in a long and difficult process with the goal of bringing both countries back into compliance.

"This is going to involve discussions about identifying the steps that the U.S. has to take and identifying the steps that Iran is going to have to take," he says. "Because they've been increasingly in noncompliance with their nuclear commitments."

Former President Donald Trump broke off from the deal in 2018 and imposed punitive sanctions. Iran in turn began to enrich uranium to higher percentages than was allowed under the deal, getting slightly closer to making the radioactive fuel used in nuclear weapons.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the sanctions imposed by Trump are illegal and that they must be removed before Iran changes its nuclear activities.

Malley, who is serving as a special envoy for the Biden administration, responds that "it's not going to work that way," telling NPR's Steve Inskeep that stance would mean Iran is "not serious" about rejoining the deal.

Malley helped negotiate the deal in 2015 when he served in the Obama National Security Council.

Here are excerpts from the interview, which have been lightly edited for clarity and length.

How out of compliance is Iran at the moment?

Every day that goes by, they're more out of compliance because they have obviously increased their stockpile of enriched uranium. They are experimenting with centrifuges that are more advanced than the ones that they were supposed to be using, they have restricted the access of the International Atomic Energy Organization. So they are doing things that are out of compliance.

And, you know, President Biden has been clear during the campaign and since he's been in the Oval Office that the United States is prepared to come into compliance if Iran does. Unfortunately, ever since the president has been in office, Iran has moved further out of compliance.

Even before these negotiations began, there were groups who are opposed to resuming this nuclear agreement who've been taking out ads in papers and lobbying in different ways. Is there a case to be made for the status quo? It wasn't what you would have done had you been around during the Trump administration. But Iran is still sort of in the deal and it's also sanctioned and restricted in many ways.

Listen, we've had a real life experiment with this. The last three years the Trump administration tested the proposition that putting Iran under maximum pressure and telling it either it needs to come back and forget about the existing nuclear deal and agree to more stringent requirements, or else the pressure would continue.

Well, we've seen what happened. Iran expanded its nuclear program, is getting closer to, sort of, troubling levels of enriched uranium, troubling levels of advanced centrifuges, troubling restrictions on the verification and monitoring, the unprecedented verification that the nuclear deal provided. So, no, we've seen the result of the maximum pressure campaign. It has failed.

You're telling me that this situation gets a little more dangerous each day. Iran comes a little more out of compliance each day. Are we on a trend line where if nothing changes, ultimately there would be a war because the United States is committed never to allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon?

I'm not going to go there. I am going to say that the United States under President Biden is committed to making sure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. We believe the best way to do that is through diplomacy.

Do you have any indication that there could be any bipartisan support? There wasn't for the last agreement.

You know, hope springs eternal. We'll work as closely as we can with Congress. And this is a very polarizing issue. We understand that. At the same time we've stated clearly it was what the president ran on that we would come back into the deal if Iran resumed compliance and then work on it to achieve what I think every member of Congress has said he or she wants to achieve, which is a stronger, longer deal that meets U.S. core interests. But also would have to include further steps that Iran is looking for. And doing this in coordination with our regional allies, our regional partners.

This administration has set a goal for itself of a foreign policy that is in some way connected to Americans. How, if at all, could reentering this nuclear agreement help ordinary Americans?

It would not serve the interests of America or American citizens if there were growing tension in the Middle East because of an expanding Iranian nuclear program. So getting back into the deal is very much, in our estimation, in the interest of the United States and of its citizens.

So that the president and his team could focus on what really matters for the well-being of the American people and a return to an understanding that was working and which could serve as a platform to then get something even stronger for our benefit.

Critics of this deal have said what it did not include: limitations on Iranian missiles or Iran's activities in the region. What is something stronger that you could get in a follow-on agreement if you resume this agreement?

What we would pursue is, first of all, a longer agreement. Even though this one lasts quite some time and some of its provisions last forever, of course, it would be better, as in any arms control agreement, to see whether we could get a follow-on deal that extends the timelines. ...

And, you know, we have concerns about Iran's ballistic missile program. We have concerns about their activities in the region. We want to talk about all that. But we're much better off talking about all of that if we could at least put the current nuclear issue to the side and not have to worry every day about what the latest Iranian announcement will be.

Iran has its own presidential election coming up in June. Is it necessary for you to get any agreement started before that election?

It's not necessary. And we will negotiate with whoever is in power in Iran. And if we could reach an understanding before the elections, fine. And if we can't, we'll continue after that with whoever is in office in Tehran. So we can't ignore the reality of an election, but we can't let it dictate our pace either.

Lisa Weiner and Denise Couture produced and edited the audio interview. James Doubek produced for the Web.

See the article here:
Biden Envoy To Iran On What To Expect In Renewed Nuclear Talks - NPR

Like death and taxes, its long been a fact of life that Iowa and New Hampshire kick off both the Republican and Democratic presidential primaries.

However, the nightmarish hellscape that was the Iowa caucuses in the 2020 Democratic primary the Iowa Democratic Party released barely any results the night of the caucuses because of technical problems heightened calls for ending Iowas reign as the first state to vote in the primary calendar.

But in some ways, the push to bump Iowa and New Hampshire from the start of the primary process has long been picking up steam among Democrats. Iowa and New Hampshire are two very white states 85 to 90 percent of each states population is non-Hispanic white and in 2020 neither state did much to influence the nomination race for a party that is now about 40 percent nonwhite. Now-President Biden won the Democratic primary despite finishing fourth in the Iowa caucuses and fifth in New Hampshires primary.

Yet the mounting opposition to Iowa and New Hampshire voting first might not be enough to actually depose them. Ultimately, state parties and/or governments decide the timing of their caucuses or primaries. And while the national party can encourage these decision-makers to schedule their contests on certain dates, it cannot unilaterally impose its will on the primary calendar. Moreover, because Republicans seem intent on keeping the two states in prime position for the 2024 campaign, it might be even more difficult for Democrats to make any changes.

Its true, though, that Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the Democratic electorate. Back in 2019, we used data from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, a survey of more than 50,000 people conducted by YouGov in conjunction with Harvard University, to reorder Democrats primary calendar based on the similarity of each states Democratic electorate to the partys nationwide voter base. We found that Iowa and New Hampshire ranked in the bottom half of states in terms of how representative they were of the Democratic Partys voters, and thus would vote near the end of the primary season. (This analysis uses data from the 2016 presidential election, but considering how highly correlated the 2016 and 2020 presidential contests were, its hard to imagine the order would change that much if we had final 2020 data, which we dont.)

States by how similar their 2016 Democratic electorate is to the U.S. Democratic electorate in terms of voters race, ethnicity and education, where lower scores mean more similar

Other includes people who identified as Asian, Native American, Middle Eastern, mixed or other.

The Democratic electorate includes anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and anyone who didnt vote for Clinton but identified as a Democrat.

Similarity is determined by Euclidean distance, where a distance of 0 means the items are identical and higher scores mean more dissimilarity.

Source: 2016 COOPERATIVE CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION STUDY

Instead of the current order, a state like Illinois or New Jersey should go first by our calculations. That might be a hard sell, of course, considering a state like New Jersey has often voted at the end of the primary process, and underdog candidates would prefer not to run ads in the expensive media markets of Chicago, New York and Philadelphia.

As another option, Democrats have floated moving up Nevada, which ranked fifth in our similarity calculation and has been an early-voting state since 2008. Nevada Democrats, who have full control of state government, are even considering legislation to establish a state-run primary to try and jump ahead of New Hampshire, but its unclear whether such legislation, which has failed before in Nevada, will pass. (South Carolina is another leading alternative among Democrats, given its also an early-voting state and is one of the few states in the Democratic primary with a majority-Black primary electorate. It also proved vital to Bidens nomination in 2020.) Some Democrats even like the idea of promoting Pennsylvania, a pivotal swing state that ranked just behind Nevada in our analysis. However, in previous years Pennsylvania leaders have been reluctant to schedule an earlier date for the states consolidated primary, where it holds primaries for president and other offices on the same day.

And Pennsylvanias logistical concerns underscore one of the fundamental challenges to supplanting Iowa and New Hampshire: Doing so will require cooperation among the national parties, state parties and in the case of state-run primaries state governments, which is no easy task because these actors often have conflicting goals.

Although the Democratic National Committee can try to encourage states to schedule their contests in certain calendar windows with various carrots and sticks like handing out delegate bonuses or penalties they cant force states to cooperate. And Iowa and New Hampshire have no interest in giving up their valuable calendar real estate, which, beyond its outsized political influence, is also worth millions of dollars to each states local economy.

Take New Hampshire, where state law gives Secretary of State Bill Gardner unilateral power to move the primary date as necessary to protect the states distinction of hosting the cycles first presidential primary. This has arguably been Gardners raison dtre during his four-plus decades in office, as hes gone pretty far to keep New Hampshire first. Ahead of the 2012 GOP presidential primary, for instance, multiple states moved their primary dates up, which prompted Gardner to threaten that hed schedule New Hampshires contest in December 2011 if he had to. And in an age where theres little bipartisanship on most issues, maintaining New Hampshires privileged place unites Democratic and Republican leaders in the Granite State, so if Nevada does switch to a primary and tries to schedule it before New Hampshires primary, Gardner will just pick an even earlier date.

Democratic efforts to shake up the primary calendar would probably be more feasible if Republicans were on board, but theres little sign they are. Republican Party chairs from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada are banding together to protect their carve-out spots at the front of the line, and potential 2024 Republican presidential contenders arent anticipating radical shifts, as theyre already visiting Iowa and New Hampshire.

One reason for the GOPs apparent lack of interest in changing the schedule may be that it has fewer concerns than Democrats about these two states being representative: Using 2016 CCES data, we found Iowa ranked as the sixth-most representative state for Republicans, based on educational attainment and born-again religious identification although New Hampshire also ranked in the bottom half of all states.

Democrats may still try to relegate Iowas caucuses after the messy 2020 event, and some Iowa Democrats have acknowledged they will have to fight to hold onto their spot. But because the GOP isnt moving to supplant Iowa, attempts at the wholesale changes many Democrats want may be a bridge too far.

Now, moving Iowas caucuses wouldnt be as involved as moving the primary in New Hampshire because they are a party-run event and dont involve the state government. But even if the DNC heavily penalizes Iowa and New Hampshire for going first by reducing or even eliminating their delegates, it risks a situation where Republicans are still competing first in those states. This could prompt Democrats in those states to still hold their contests at the same time as Republicans, hoping the inevitably intense media coverage of the races preserves their influence over the overall nomination race.

At this early vantage point, we cant say what the primary schedule will look like in 2024, or if Democrats will even have a competitive race. (Biden has said he plans to seek reelection, but hell be 81 years old in 2024.) But what we can say at this point is that making major alterations to the nomination calendar has never been easy if it were, things wouldve changed already. And attempts to remove the two states that have long had a stranglehold on the top rung might prove to be especially messy.

View post:
Many Democrats Are Sick Of Iowa And New Hampshire Going First, But The Primary Calendar Is Unlikely To Change - FiveThirtyEight

The House Speaker needs all her skill to keep her shrinking majority in control. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Fifteen-term congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida died on April 6 at the age of 84, apparently from pancreatic cancer. That means there are now five vacancies in the U.S. House of Representatives. Unlike the Senate, the House does not allow states to fill vacancies temporarily or permanently via appointments; special elections are required. Hastings was a Democrat, like Cedric Richmond, Marcia Fudge, and Deb Haaland, all of whom resigned from House seats to accept positions in the Biden administration. Theres also one empty seat previously held by Republicans in Texas, which was vacated by the death of Ron Wright in February.

So the 222-213 margin by which Democrats originally held the House after the 2020 elections is currently at 218-212, pending special elections in May (Louisiana and Texas), June (New Mexico), and November (Ohio), with Floridas date not yet established. The Texas and New Mexico districts are somewhat competitive but lean Republican and Democratic, respectively. The rest are not competitive.

As The Cook Political Reports Amy Walter noted before Hastingss death, for all the talk of Joe Manchins leverage in the Senate, it wouldnt take many House Democrats to upset Nancy Pelosis apple cart, either.

Thus far, only Rep. Jared Golden (ME-02) has been a consistent defector. He was the one Democrat to vote against the American Recovery Act. Most recently, he was the only Democrat to vote against a Democratic immigration bill.

There are six other Democrats who, like Golden, sit in districts that Donald Trump won in 2020. Those include Cheri Bustos (IL-17), Cindy Axne (IA-03), Elissa Slotkin (MI-08), Matt Cartwright (PA-08), Andy Kim (NJ-03), and Ron Kind (WI-03). Another 18 Democrats won in 2020 withless than 52 percentof the vote.

Redistricting may help shore up the districts of some of these Democrats like Bustosin western Illinois. But new lines couldalso put those like Tom OHalleran (AZ-01)in an even more competitive or challenging CD.

Assuming the May special elections go as expected and cancel one another out, between now and June, Pelosi can afford to lose only two Democratic votes and still enact legislation. Luckily for her, the House Democratic Caucus is more ideologically cohesive than it has been since well, maybe forever. As Walter observed, Back in 2009, for example, Democrats had a whopping 40-seat majority, but 22 of them represented conservative districts in deep-red states like Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama, West Virginia, and Mississippi. What theyve lost in numbers theyve gained in unity.

And fortunately for Democrats, Pelosi is firmly established as one of the most skillful legislative leaders in the storied history of House Speakers. Still, you never know when the Grim Reaper, a scandal, or simply an unexpected personal decision could produce another vacancy. And politicians being politicians, you can be sure that quiet, self-convened caucuses of Democrats have taken a look at which prizes they may be able to secure by threatening or even executing a revolt.

So far, Pelosi has kept firm control in what she has said will be her last term as Speaker. Before deciding on a successor, Democrats will face a tough fight to maintain a majority in the midterms, when the presidents party almost always loses ground.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

View post:
Democrats Control of the House Is Increasingly Fragile - New York Magazine

Like every Nevadan, I grew up in awe of the American experiment. As children, we looked up to the flag and were proud of what it symbolized and what it stood forfreedom, opportunity and promise.Back then, we knew both partiesdespite their political differencesshared the same values.

Like so many other Nevadans, I registered with the Democratic Party because Democrats seemed to be the party of the working class. As a dishwasher who joined the Culinary Union, thats what wasand still isimportant to me.

But like President Ronald Reagan and President Donald Trump, Ive seen firsthand how the Democrat Party has changedradically, and not for the better.Theyve embraced a socialist, extremist agenda that is not the party of JFK, or of my parents.Their ideas hurt working-class families, restrict freedom and extinguish opportunity for millions of Americansparticularly working-class minorities who deserve the chance to give their families a better life.

NIKKI HALEY: BIDEN'S BORDER CRISIS HERE ARE LESSONS HE CAN LEARN FROM TRUMP'S IMMIGRATION EXAMPLE

As the Democratic mayor of North Las Vegas, I have the great privilege of leading our city, both in times of prosperity and through incredibly trying times, much like weve seen this past year. We Nevadans, and we Americans, are resilient. We live in the greatest country in the world, made possible thanks to the values we hold dear. Today, these values are under attack.

Here in Nevada, weve seen the full takeover of the Democratic Party by admitted socialists.Their goal is clearending the America we know and love, and replacing it with a culture of socialist conformity that erases freedom, opportunity and liberty from the American canvas.

I will not let the America I love be hijacked by an extremist left-wing mob that blacklists, bans, shouts down and cancels anyone who disagrees with them.

That is why I am switching to register as a member of the Republican Party.Though Ive been a registered Democrat on paper, I made the switch in my heart a long time ago, because on some things, theres simply no compromise.

Thats why I voted for President Trump twice. Thats why I had an A-plus rating from the NRA and their endorsement in my time in the state Senate. I refused to compromise my pro-life, pro-Second amendment values.

There used to be a place in the Democratic Party for conservative voices like mine.Today, thats no longer the case.

There used to be a place in the Democratic Party for conservative voices like mine.Today, thats no longer the case.Their party demands a senseless devotion to cancel culture, socialism and anti-American values I simply do not share.

Im not the only former Democrat who feels abandoned by the modern Democrat Party.I know there are countless others who want to make the switch, because it means the difference between hope and despair for their children and grandchildren. And I want them to join me in making that switch.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

The Republican Party that has emerged from President Trumps leadership is a working-class party of opportunity, freedom and hope.I dont just want that for my familyI want that for every Nevadan and American.

The Great Seal of America says:"Out of many, one."Our national motto is:"In God we trust."Its time to bring people together to get things done. Its time to stop shouting and start solving problems. Its time to defend the America we love so our sons and daughters can share in the blessings weve enjoyed.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

View original post here:
Nevada Mayor John Lee: Why I'm leaving the Democratic Party - Fox News