Выбор редакции
02 апреля, 20:30

SATURN BY 1970 2030? Pulsed Fission-Fusion (PuFF) Propulsion Concept gets Phase 2 NIAC funding. …

SATURN BY 1970 2030? Pulsed Fission-Fusion (PuFF) Propulsion Concept gets Phase 2 NIAC funding. Plus: Mach Effect Propellantless drive gets NIAC phase 2 and progress towards great interstellar propulsion.

15 марта, 19:28

Emails reveal conservative alarm over ‘Obama holdovers’ in Trump administration

‘A cleaning is in order,’ wrote a former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, as State Department officials reassigned a career diplomat of Iranian descent.

02 декабря 2017, 13:36

Is the Iran deal set to unravel? - UpFront (Arena)

While the Iran nuclear deal was hailed as a "triumph of diplomacy" by its supporters around the world, US President Donald Trump called it "the worst deal ever". He recently decided to officially "decertify" the deal formally known as the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, between Iran six world powers and the EU - an action that now moves the deal to the US Congress. So, as the landmark deal hangs in the balance in the US, what will the effect be on the other signatories? Is the deal fixable as some argue? And would the deal's unravelling lead to war in the region? "I think that the JCPOA lacks in two major things. First of all, it does not include Iran's terrorism, support of terrorism throughout the region," says Danny Ayalon, former Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister. "And the second thing is the ballistic missiles, that they continue to test ... This creates a very, very dangerous situation." Trita Parsi, author of the new book Losing an Enemy: Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy, is concerned that attempts to fix the deal will actually destroy it and could lead to war. "I'm very worried that the trajectory of things is going in that direction, and that the measures that are being argued here as fixing the deal will end up, whether intended or not, to kill the deal." says Parsi, who is also founder and president of the National Iranian-American Council. "And once we have no deal, we're back to the situation that existed in 2013, in which everything is pointing towards either acquiescing to Iran's nuclear programme, or going to war." In this week's Arena, Trita Parsi and Danny Ayalon debate the good and bad of the Iran nuclear deal.

01 декабря 2017, 08:47

If Tillerson's Out, is Iran War In?

The Trump administration will reportedly oust Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and install CIA Director Mike Pompeo in his place, with Republican Sen. Tom Cotton replacing Pompeo. Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council says that's a recipe for a US war on Iran Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

14 октября 2017, 12:07

Иран, как и Россия, милости от США не дождется

Тегеран продолжит и дальше ублажать Вашингтон, несмотря на жесткий ответ

Выбор редакции
13 октября 2017, 23:19

Decertifying Iran Deal, Trump Escalates His War

President Trump's de-certification of the Iran nuclear deal and targeting of the Revolutionary Guard is a dangerous escalation, says Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

11 октября 2017, 12:13

Democrats brace for Iran deal upheaval

Defenders of the pact are resigned to President Donald Trump decertifying the pact, and are appealing to cooler heads.

Выбор редакции
25 сентября 2017, 16:40

Космический зонд приземлится на Плутон при помощи «воздушного шара»

Компания Global Aerospace Corporation (GAC) представила свой концепт беспилотного космического аппарата на симпозиуме NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) в Денвере

Выбор редакции
20 сентября 2017, 01:40

At UN, Trump Continues Assault on Iran Nuclear Deal

At the UN General Assembly, President Trump again threatened the Iran nuclear deal. If he follows through, he'll do so with bipartisan Congressional help, says author and NIAC president Trita Parsi Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

Выбор редакции
20 июля 2017, 06:39

How Far Will Trump Go to Kill the Iran Nuclear Deal?

The U.S. has re-certified that Iran is complying with the 2015 nuclear deal, but President Trump has imposed new sanctions in an effort to force Iran to pull out. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, says the move against Iran is a dangerous escalation Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

12 июля 2017, 19:41

What Lies Ahead of Leisure & Travel ETFs in 2H?

Will leisure and travel ETFs replicate their 1H success in 2H, especially after Trump's travel ban?

07 июля 2017, 20:33

В мире: США засылают на Украину нового "ястреба"

В Госдепе нашли замену Виктории Нуланд с ее «печеньками». Бывший аналитик ЦРУ, бывший руководитель Института Джона Маккейна и один из наиболее видных американских «неоконов» Курт Волкер назначен спецпосланником главы Госдепа по Украине. Чем интересна эта фигура и будет ли успешна его миссия находить компромиссы в разрешении украинского кризиса? Госдепартамент США назначил спецпосланника по Украине. Им стал бывший американский постоянный представитель при НАТО, бывший аналитик ЦРУ Курт Волкер. Формально должность спецпосланника по Украине создается впервые, но фактически Волкер становится преемником Виктории Нуланд. Бывший замглавы госсекретаря по делам Европы и Евразии, не имея формальной должности «по Украине», запомнилась здесь отнюдь не только раздачей печенья на Майдане. Волкер займется координацией усилий Госдепа по «урегулированию украинского конфликта». В частности, спецпосланнику Госдепа придется контактировать с помощником российского президента Владиславом Сурковым, с которым ранее общалась Нуланд. В январе этого года Нуланд и несколько других видных представителей Госдепа ушли в отставку, не желая работать с администрацией Дональда Трампа. Все это время украинское направление в работе Госдепа, по сути, оставалось вакантным. В июне замглавы МИД РФ Григорий Карасин говорил, что Россия ждет нового представителя Вашингтона на переговорах по украинскому регулированию. «Это нам было обещано (назначение преемника Нуланд), но, к сожалению, пока никакой фамилии нет. Ждем», – сетовал дипломат. Назначенец Вашингтона, которого «дождались» в Москве, обладает солидным и любопытным послужным списком. Who is Mr. Volker Спецпосланнику Госдепа 55 лет. Его фамилию иногда указывают неверно – «Уокер» (Walker), но правильное ее написание – Volker. Это, так же как и имя – Курт, указывает на немецкие корни нового представителя Госдепартамента.  До перехода на дипломатическую службу Волкер работал аналитиком в ЦРУ с 1986 по 1988 год. В конце 1990-х годов стал первым секретарем миссии США в НАТО, а позже возглавил ее, находясь на этой должности с июля 2008 по май 2009 года. Через два года перешел в вашингтонскую лоббистскую фирму BGR Group, связанную с Республиканской партией США. Именно к этой фирме обращался Петр Порошенко для продвижения своих интересов в администрации Дональда Трампа. Основатель фирмы Эд Роджерс, который в свое время работал зампомощника президента Джорджа Буша-старшего, был противником прихода Трампа к власти и одним из лидеров движения Never Trump, впрочем, его усилия оказались тщетными. С 2012 года Курт Волкер руководит Институтом Джона Маккейна (McCain Institute for International Leadership), образованным при государственном Университете Аризоны, по инициативе и под руководством небезызвестного сенатора-«ястреба». СМИ сообщали, что институт Маккейна принимал деньги от Джорджа Сороса, Ротшильдов, марокканской госкорпорации, иранских лоббистов из Национального ирано-американского совета, Саудовской Аравии. Сам же Маккейн утверждал, что, хоть институт назван в его честь, сам он «не имеет с ним ничего общего». Однако он был образован на деньги (около 9 млн долларов), которые остались после избирательной кампании Маккейна 2008 года. Тиллерсон доставит спецпосланника в Киев Будущие «клиенты» Волкера приветствовали его назначение. Это «немаловажный и своевременный шаг в интересах прекращения российской агрессии и восстановления территориальной целостности Украины, включая Крым», – написал в Twitter президент Украины Петр Порошенко. «Он хорошо знает Украину, был привлечен к украинским вопросам на протяжении последних полутора лет (по всей видимости, речь идет о лоббировании интересов Украины в США фирмой BGR Group). И он не последний человек в американском истеблишменте», – сказал агентству «Интерфакс» источник в дипломатических кругах. Источник добавил, что Волкер уже вышел на контакт с украинской стороной и, скорее всего, прибудет в Киев вместе с госсекретарем США Рексом Тиллерсоном, который 9 июля посетит с визитом Киев. Бэкграунд не располагает к содержательным переговорам Эксперты, впрочем, не ожидают успехов от нового спецпосланника. Директор киевского Центра политических исследований и конфликтологии Михаил Погребинский отметил: с учетом бэкграунда Волкера «более неподходящую кандидатуру для поиска компромисса найти было сложно». «Госдеп назначает для поиска компромисса человека, который официально зарегистрирован как лоббист Украины. Получается как бы усиление украинской позиции в переговорном процессе. Все это совершенно не располагает к тому, чтобы с Волкером вели содержательные переговоры», – сказал Погребинский газете ВЗГЛЯД. Тем не менее Погребинский подчеркнул: в конце концов важно, какую задачу перед Волкером поставит Дональд Трамп, «и он просто вынужден будет реализовывать эту задачу». Но важны не только указания от президента США, но и реальная связь нового назначенца с определенными группами в Вашингтоне. Институт, в котором работал Волкер, советовал Пентагону ударить по Сирии Что касается последнего места работы Волкера – Института Джона Маккейна, то, как отметил в беседе с газетой ВЗГЛЯД американист Виктор Олевич, эта структура связана с неоконсервативными группами во внешнеполитическом истеблишменте США. Неоконсерваторы, или неоконы – группа политиков и экспертов, отчасти связанная с «интервенционистским» крылом Республиканской партии – задавала тон во внешней политике при Джордже Буше-младшем. Трамп находится в довольно сложных отношениях с кланом Бушей и с сенатором Маккейном, однако в последнее время риторика Трампа (например, по Ирану) начинает обретать сходство с агрессивной линией неоконов. Шаткое положение, в котором находится администрация Трампа, заставляет учитывать позицию этой влиятельной группы. Собственно, представители Института Маккейна занимают достаточно жесткую позицию по многим вопросам, отмечает Олевич. В частности, они лоббировали так и не состоявшийся осенью 2013 года удар американских вооруженных сил против Сирии. «Назначение Курта Волкера, еще одного внешнеполитического «ястреба», достаточно логично укладывается в эту канву. Ожидать положительного импульса на украинском направлении от администрации Трампа не следует», – уверен политолог. Назначение Волкера на смену Нуланд говорит о том, что администрация Трампа не намерена «всерьез менять вектор действий по украинскому направлению», отмечает Олевич. Теги:  США, НАТО, Украина, Джон Маккейн, внешняя политика США, Госдеп, США и Россия, Виктория Нуланд, Рекс Тиллерсон

29 июня 2017, 16:38

Trump's "Nightmare" Muslim Ban Resumes

After the Supreme Court partially approved Trump's travel ban, travelers from six mostly Muslim countries who can't prove "bona fide relationships" in the U.S. will be barred--but there will confusion about who makes those decisions, says Shayan Modarres of the National Iranian American Council Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

Выбор редакции
28 июня 2017, 08:02

Trump's Only Iran Policy is Confrontation

If the White House has an Iran policy, "the only one visible is confrontation," says Adam Weinstein of the National Iranian American Council Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

25 июня 2017, 14:06

Trump allies push White House to consider regime change in Tehran

As the new administration conducts a routine review of its Iran policy, senior officials are hinting that they're open to toppling the country's clerical regime.

09 июня 2017, 02:57

Saudi Arabia's Coalition Could Accidentally Unleash Iran

Adam Weinstein Security, Middle East The unfolding Qatar crisis is a microcosm of Riyadh’s vision for the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is exploiting a largely engineered threat from Iran to rally Sunni Arab states into what has been labeled an “Arab NATO” and bully those that resist. Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are joining the coalition at the behest of Riyadh’s monarchs. Although perfidiously promoted as a task force against extremism, its primary objective is to isolate Iran and elevate Saudi Arabia’s position in the region. However, its success is doubtful, as the Saudi-led coalition is already splintering, and history reveals that attempts to contain Tehran will achieve just the opposite. Three historical developments demonstrate why any effort to isolate Iran will fail: the durability of the Iran-Syria alliance, the strategic rather than ideological basis of Iran’s alliances and the experience of the Iran-Iraq War. The Iran-Syria alliance has endured the test of war and time. In the early 1980s, Iraq and Iran were engrossed in a brutal conflict that Baghdad portrayed as a war against Iranian expansionism. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq and the United States formed a coalition to isolate Tehran from the Hafez al-Assad regime and invite a swift victory for Baghdad. The Syria-Iran alliance never broke, even as Syria became entrenched in its own conflict in Lebanon. In his book chronicling the alliance, Jubin Goodarzi even asserted that Hafez al-Assad turned down $2 billion offered to him by the Saudis if he reopened the trans-Syrian pipeline to Iraq. Despite intense economic and military pressure, this strategy only solidified the nascent alliance between Tehran and Damascus. This alliance has remained durable and transcended significant strategic disagreements between the two countries over the last three decades. Iran chooses its alliances and conflicts pragmatically, rather than ideologically. For example, the Islamic Republic historically ignored the plights of Shia minorities in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in favor of maintaining semi-cordial relations with Riyadh and Islamabad. Western analysts often portray Iran’s most important alliance with Syria as that of a client and patron state. In reality, it is much closer to a genuine partnership rooted in common strategic goals, despite widely diverging ideologies. Both countries see themselves as unique partners in the “resistance” against Israel. Both also portray themselves as tolerant of religious minorities and sects in a region enveloped by Salafi extremism. Most importantly, Damascus and Tehran have always viewed a strong Arab bloc and Arab detente with Israel as an existential threat. This was true when Egypt and Syria cut diplomatic relations after the Camp David Accord, and when Arab states formed an alliance against the new Islamic Republic in Iran. Thus Tehran and Damascus see themselves as partners in a fight against an Arab bloc that is increasingly dictated by a U.S.-Saudi alliance. No amount of pressure on Iran will make the cost of Tehran’s intervention in Syria too high to bear. Iran’s experience of relative isolation during the war imposed on it by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq inspired a frenzied race to develop domestic defensive and ballistic-missile capabilities. In a 2016 interview, Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif asked, “What do you expect, Iran to lie dead? You’ve covered the Iran–Iraq war, you remember missiles pouring on Iranian cities with chemical weapons. You remember that we didn’t have any to defend ourselves.” The harsh realities of the Iran-Iraq War quelled revolutionary Iran’s ambitions to export its revolution and ideology. Ever since the end of the war, Tehran has instead placed an emphasis on developing strategic alliances outside of the Middle East and developing a domestic military-industrial complex. President Trump’s calls to isolate Iran during his recent speech in Riyadh will only provoke a surge in Iranian military development. Three contemporary developments also demonstrate why an “Arab NATO” will fail at its mission: Arab Shia communities view Saudi and Wahhabi hegemony as an existential threat, the Saudi-coalition is already fractured, and China and Russia have every reason to tilt towards Tehran. The main threat that the Saudi-led coalition seeks to combat is the rise of Arab Shia movements and militias that it believes are loyal to Iran, especially in Iraq and Syria. As I have written before, Shia movements are not nearly as loyal to Iranian interests as often believed, but the existence of an “Arab NATO” will likely result in driving vulnerable Shia communities closer to Tehran. Powerful cleric and warlord Muqtada al-Sadr has called on Assad to resign as president, and expelled fighters found to have fought in Syria in direct opposition to Iranian policy. Several high-ranking Shia clerics in Iraq have issued fatwas forbidding their followers to participate in Syrian operations. The most senior of these clerics, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who himself is of Iranian extraction, has long been the darling of Western analysts due to his rejection of theocracy. In 2005, Thomas Friedman called for Sistani to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his quietist inclinations and role in legitimizing the new Iraqi government in the eyes of Shia. However, the rise of U.S.-backed Sunni coalitions will likely push Iraqi Shia toward institutionalized militancy if they feel their communities are under attack by Saudi-funded Sunni extremists. Even if an “Arab NATO” could achieve its task of isolating Iran, the political will of coalition members to seriously challenge Iran remains dubious at best. Officially, the Saudi-led coalition presents a unified front against supposed Iranian aggression, but underneath the surface, there is little consensus on how to approach Iran. Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently claimed that Saudi Arabia is a “primary target for the Iranian regime.” Saudi-run news agencies frequently publish claims of alleged Iranian plots to invade and conquer Saudi Arabia, often by citing the statements of obscure and uninfluential hard-liners. But this tactic appears to be causing more divisions than unity. Qatari emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani allegedly stated that “there is no wisdom in harboring hostility toward Iran,” but Qatar quickly claimed unconvincingly that the story was fabricated. This led Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Yemen’s Western-backed government and Libya to cut off relations with Qatar and put in place an aggressive blockade on its population. Doha’s open support for the Muslim Brotherhood and Riyadh’s allegation that Qatar provides support for ISIS—and, more importantly, Shia protesters in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province—were used as the official excuse for severing ties. But this is clearly intended by Saudi Arabia to escalate tensions with Iran and send the message that lukewarm partners in the proxy war will not be accepted. Still, it appears unlikely that Oman’s Sultan Qaboos will follow the Saudis and depart from his traditional role as Iran-GCC-U.S. mediator, a position that significantly elevates Oman’s importance. Even the forty-one-state Saudi-based Islamic Military Alliance (IMA) prefers diplomacy, as Pakistan recently made headlines when it announced that it would not officially join the IMA until certain red lines are established—namely, no confrontation with Iran. Pakistani army chief Gen. Qamar Bajwa is rumored to be planning a trip to reassure Tehran that it doesn’t pose a threat. Tehran will capitalize on the disunity of the Saudi-led coalition while increasing its military coordination with world powers beyond the scope of Syria. A Saudi-led and U.S.-sponsored coalition runs contrary to Russian and Chinese interests in the region, as well as Iran’s. Russia has already invested significantly into a naval base in Tartus, Syria, and will continue to support Iran and the Assad regime against any outside interference. China will continue to increase its ties with Iran, especially as it develops its “One Belt, One Road” project across Central Asia, in which Iran is a crucial partner. In return, Beijing will continue to prove an invaluable partner for Iran’s domestic military-industrial capabilities and production. An Iran-China-Russia alliance will serve as a formidable antidote to the ambitions of a U.S.-sponsored Saudi-led coalition. An “Arab NATO” will provide little deterrence, and instead result in an arms race and a deepening of sectarian conflict in the region. It also risks dragging U.S. forces into a sectarian conflict. As former secretary of defense Robert Gates pointed out, the Saudis always want to “fight the Iranians to the last American.” If the Trump administration really wants to demonstrate its leadership and power in the Middle East, then it must rise above taking sides and turning itself into a proxy of one side against the other. Instead, Washington must facility diplomatic engagement between regional powers and demand that its allies and its foes genuinely participate. Adam Weinstein is a policy associate at the National Iranian American Council. He is a veteran of the Marine Corps where he served in Afghanistan. He has contributed to Foreign Policy, The Diplomat, CNN, and other outlets. Image: Iranian president Hassan Rouhani's first press conference in 2017. Wikimedia Commons/Tasnim News Agency/Hamed Malekpour

08 июня 2017, 00:11

Trump Suggests Iran Brought Deadly Terrorist Attacks Upon Itself

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Hours after suicide bombers and gunmen launched deadly assaults against Iran’s parliament and the tomb of its former supreme leader in Tehran on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump extended seemingly backhanded condolences to the grieving nation. “We grieve and pray for the innocent victims of the terrorist attacks in Iran, and for the Iranian people, who are going through such challenging times,” Trump said in a press release. He didn’t stop there. “We underscore that states that sponsor terrorism risk falling victim to the evil that they promote,” Trump concluded. The twin attacks, claimed by the so-called Islamic State terrorist group, killed at least 12 people and injured dozens. The six known assailants were also killed, and five other suspects have been detained so far. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have blamed Saudi Arabia and vowed to seek revenge. During his recent visit to Saudi Arabia, Trump criticized Iran for fueling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror” and blamed the country for supporting militias and extremist groups that “spread destruction and chaos.” He called on other nations to isolate Tehran and to stop prioritizing political correctness while addressing terrorism. Trump had already faced a backlash over his response to foreign terrorism last weekend when he seized on carnage in London to promote his internationally condemned travel ban affecting several Muslim-majority nations, including Iran. He tweeted his condolences to the British people Saturday, then swiftly attacked London Mayor Sadiq Khan as support and messages of solidarity flowed in from other leaders around the globe. Members of the National Iranian American Council, a nonpartisan Washington-based organization, replied to Trump’s remarks Wednesday with a statement of their own: “We support the people of Iran who have repeatedly demonstrated their dedication to the values of tolerance and diplomacy, despite the hardships they face. We underscore that administrations that cannot empathize with human suffering risk losing their humanity, and presidents that cannot genuinely recognize victims of terrorism are incapable of leading the fight against terror.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая 2017, 21:12

Weekend Roundup: Trump’s Siding With Saudi Arabia Against Iran Deepens The Mideast Divide

In a speech in Riyadh ostensibly billed as seeking to unite the Muslim world against terrorism, U.S. President Donald Trump instead further inflamed the Shia-Sunni schism in the region by signaling America’s embrace of the Saudi anti-Iran vision for the Middle East. It was, of course, left unmentioned that the so-called Islamic State, which claimed credit for the truly evil atrocity in Manchester days later, derives part of its fanatic ideology from the fundamentalist Wahhabism strain of Islam that legitimates Saudi Arabia’s monarchy.   One can only imagine how the images of Trump partaking in a traditional sword dance with Saudi officials played to voters who had just gone to the polls in Iran and overwhelmingly returned the reformist leader Hassan Rouhani to the presidency. Rouhani’s re-election was due in no small part to the nuclear and sanctions relief deal he negotiated with the United States and other major powers. That deal was crucial to former U.S. President Barack Obama’s effort to not only curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but to establish a new balance in America’s Mideast policy between Sunni and Shia powers as well. It is a tragic mistake for the Trump administration to reverse that policy at the very moment it was producing results in Iran. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who once headed the Foreign Relations Committee of Iran’s National Security Council, underscores this shift in Iran. “The Iranian electorate has spoken in its decision between two stark alternatives: strengthening civil society and engaging with the world, or turning inward with economic populism and combative foreign policy,” he writes. “In decisively voting for Rouhani, Iranians have endorsed diplomacy and moderation. And they have done so in direct contrast to U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called for increasing tensions with Iran and championed isolationist foreign policy.” Abolhassan Bani-Sadr concurs that Iran’s election was a milestone. The first president of the Islamic Republic of Iran told The WorldPost this week that Rouhani’s landslide win marked a level of democratic culture in his country not seen since before the pro-American shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi: “In this election ― for the first time since the early days of the revolution itself and the rule of our democratic Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, back before the shah ― the core debates were about human rights, the rights of citizenship and democracy. I am a good barometer to measure this shift, after all, since I was forced out of office in those early revolutionary days by the ayatollahs for promoting these values. This gives us reason to believe that democratic culture is spreading and deepening in Iran.” Despite Trump’s anti-Iran remarks in Riyadh, Bani-Sadr’s hope and expectation is that this budding advance of democratic culture in Iran will make it more difficult for Washington to demonize Tehran. Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council expects that, given Rouhani’s victory, Iran will continue to try to engage the U.S.-Saudi alignment and damp down rivalry. But it is a two-way street, he says: “Rouhani’s track record demonstrates that sustained engagement can lower tensions and produce peaceful solutions to conflict. By electing him to a second term, Iran has once again extended its hand. It remains to be seen if the world will unclench its fist.” Turning to other key events, in an article ahead of the G-7 summit in Sicily, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe highlights the populist backlash against free trade and globalization. “We are approaching the 10-year mark since the start of the global financial crisis,” he writes. “Many countries and regions have made tenacious efforts to ride out the crisis and ensure a growth path. Looking at things globally, however, much remains to be done on issues such as youth unemployment, wage levels and productivity. The key to overcoming these challenges,” he boldly states, “is free trade.” But trade, he goes on to stipulate, must not only be free, but fair. Above all, its benefits must be spread more inclusively both within societies and globally, the Japanese leader says, if the zero-sum alternative of protectionism is to be avoided. Finally, Singapore’s scholar-statesman George Yeo explains this week why “civilizational states” in Asia, like China and to some extent Japan, are less prone to populism than the West. As he sees it, China’s largely homogenous Han people, not unlike Japan’s even more homogenous population, “bow before the ideal of a common ancestry and destiny” that ties them together more strongly than any factional or individual interests might divide them. Other highlights in The WorldPost this week: Trump Reportedly Called Germans ‘Very Bad,’ Vowed To Stop German Car Sales In The U.S. Inside North Korea’s Secret Cyber Warfare Cell Climate Change Is Turning Antarctica Green Elon Musk Is ‘Cautiously Optimistic’ After Talking To Trump About Paris Climate Pact There’s A New Type Of Pollution Invading The Oceans WHO WE ARE     EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Executive Editor of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Suzanne Gaber is the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost. Rosa O’Hara is the Social Editor of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is News Director at HuffPost, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar (First Look Media), Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun). VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large. The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea. Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the “whole mind” way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine. ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council — as well as regular contributors — to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail and Zheng Bijian. From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherland and Guy Verhofstadt. MISSION STATEMENT The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets. We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

26 мая 2017, 02:03

Cancer With Political Clout

A suicide bomber inflicts hell at a concert hall in Manchester, England that’s full of children, as though that was the point — to murder children. The horror of war ― well, terrorism ― doesn’t get any worse. And the media, as they focus on the spectacle of what happened, as they cover the particulars of the tragedy — the suspect’s name and ethnicity and apparent grievances, the anguish of the survivors, the names and ages of the victims — quietly tear the incident loose from most of its complexity and most of its context. Yes, this was an act of terror. That piece of the puzzle is, of course, under intense scrutiny. The killer, Salman Abedi, age 22, was born in England to parents of Libyan descent and had recently traveled to Libya (where his parents now live) and Syria, where he may have been “radicalized.” He likely didn’t act alone. ISIS has claimed credit. And that’s as deeply contextual as most of the coverage is going to get, until the story disappears from the news — and eventually some other act of terror or loner-horror occurs and consumes media attention for a while. To my ongoing perplexity and despair, what is never part of the story is the concept of karma: what goes around comes around. A culture of violence isn’t the creation of a few lost, “radicalized” souls, nor is it simply the doing of the current “enemy.” Violence is part of our social foundation. It is institutionalized, well-funded, profitable — and ongoing. Consider that, a few days before the Manchester bombing, the president signed a $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia — the largest such deal ever, apparently — which will allow the Saudis to continue waging a brutal war in Yemen, which, in two years, has taken some 10,000 lives, displaced 3 million people and put the desolate country at the brink of famine. “Ironically,” Juan Cole writes, “the attack yesterday in Manchester was likely by Sunni radicals . . . and came two days after President Trump blamed all terrorism on Shiite Iran at a speech in Saudi Arabia, the proponent of a form of extreme Sunni supremacism.” The point of the speech was to express U.S. solidarity with the Saudis and blame terrorism on Shiite Iran, prompting Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council, to charge Trump with laying the groundwork for war, tweeting: “Trump just called for all out isolation until regime in Iran falls. Yes, regime change & isolation. That’s how ground was set for IRAQ war.” And ISIS, you’ll recall, emerged from the chaos in the wake of the disastrous Iraq war, and sees its mission as not simply taking control of its own turf but damaging and punishing its enemies in the West. A year ago, an ISIS social media post, calling on its supporters in the West to wage war at home and defend the organization against the “dozens of nations . . . gathered against it,” commanded some attention: If you can kill a disbelieving American or European — especially the spiteful and filthy French — or an Australian, or a Canadian, or any other disbeliever from the disbelievers waging war, including the citizens of the countries that entered into a coalition against the Islamic State, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be. Call it terrorism if you want, but this is war! ISIS had found a way to “bomb” the West without an air force, to inflict shock and awe with a military budget infinitesimally smaller than that possessed by its enemies. Listening to Donald Trump, following in the tradition of his predecessors, promise to keep us “safe” by throwing more war back at the bad guys — and their children! — with missiles and drones and ground troops, with strategic support of our allies such as Saudi Arabia, freezes the soul. How can we be so stupid? This will do nothing but guarantee retaliation, not just on the “front lines,” but at shopping malls and nightclubs and rock concerts. “Our understanding of war,” Barbara Ehrenreich wrote 20 years ago, in the foreword of her book Blood Rites, “. . . is about as confused and unformed as theories of disease were roughly 200 years ago.” Later in the book, she observed: Meanwhile, war has dug itself into economic systems, where it offers a livelihood to millions, rather than to just a handful of craftsmen and professional soldiers. It has lodged in our souls as a kind of religion, a quick tonic for political malaise and a bracing antidote to the moral torpor of consumerist, market-driven cultures. As I read these words, an operative metaphor seized hold of me: War is cancer with political clout. For instance, CNBC informs us: Defense stocks took off on Monday after President Donald Trump signed a nearly $110 billion weapons deal with Saudi Arabia. The deal will be worth $350 billion over 10 years. On Monday, Lockheed Martin closed up more than 1 percent and General Dynamics closed up about 1 percent. These stocks, along with Raytheon and Northrop Grumman, hit all-time highs earlier in the day. And so it goes. War, which is to say, dehumanization and murder, remains not only morally acceptable but financially rewarding when we and our friends wage it. But what goes around comes around. We won’t transcend the culture of violence with a weapons deal. Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist and nationally syndicated writer. His book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound is available. Contact him at [email protected] or visit his website at commonwonders.com. © 2017 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, INC. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
11 мая 2017, 22:31

One More Judge Agrees Donald Trump's Travel Ban Is Likely Unconstitutional

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); In line with other court rulings, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., said on Thursday she was “inclined to agree” that President Donald Trump’s second executive order restricting refugee resettlement and travel from predominantly Muslim nations likely violates the Constitution. But U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her brief order that she would not put a freeze on the retooled travel ban, reasoning that it’s already been put on hold by judges in Maryland and Hawaii — rulings that are now being appealed. “The existence of two other nationwide injunctions temporarily casts uncertainty on the issue of whether the harms Plaintiffs allege are actually imminent or certain,” Chutkan wrote. The two lawsuits over the ban Chutkan is considering, UMAA v. Trump and PARS Equality Center v. Trump, were brought by a broad coalition that includes Muslim scholars, Yemeni asylees and an Iranian-American association. Together, they claim that Trump’s order violates their right to equal protection and their right to not be stigmatized on the basis of their religion. Even though Chutkan did not rule definitively on these claims, lawyers for the plaintiffs were encouraged by her language. “We have believed all along that this ban was intended to tear apart American communities, inflict pain, and alienate our partners in peace across the globe,” stated Shayan Modarres, a lawyer for the National Iranian American Council, which is behind one of the lawsuits. “We stand ready to take action in the event of nationwide injunctions being lifted.” Based in part on the president’s own campaign statements, courts have concluded that the travel ban is likely tainted by unconstitutional animus toward Muslims, and have prevented the government from enforcing it. Earlier this week, the Trump administration argued in Richmond, Virginia, before a 13-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, that anything Trump pledged during the campaign shouldn’t be held against him, and that his executive order is authorized under federal immigration law. Next week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit will hear from the administration again in a Seattle courtroom, where the state of Hawaii will face off against the federal government over the ban. In her order on Thursday, Chutkan noted that she’ll revisit her ruling “without delay” in the event that both appeals courts rule for Trump and allow the administration to implement the travel restrictions. This story has been updated with a statement from Shayan Modarres. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

03 февраля 2017, 06:45

Крутой маршрут Трампа и опасения Европы

В Вашингтоне теперь дня не проходит без сенсаций. 1 февраля на брифинге для прессы советник президента по вопросам национальной безопасности Майкл Флинн сделал громкое заявление, сказав, что США «берут Иран на заметку» после последнего испытания этой страной баллистической ракеты среднего радиуса действия. К этому Майкл Флинн добавил, что Иран дестабилизирует ситуацию по всему Ближнему Востоку, и в качестве примера привел...

28 декабря 2015, 18:12

ДВА-ТАЛИБАНА-ДВА

Константин Черемных Третья мировая война не будет нефтяной НЕ СТУЧИТЕ, И НЕ СТУЧИМЫ БУДЕТЕ В 2015 году Foreign Policy включил в свою традиционную «десятку мыслителей современности» не Алексея Навального, а Владимира Путина. Тем не менее, освещение президентского послания Федеральному собранию в западной прессе навязчиво жонглировало двумя именами: Путин–Навальный, Путин–Навальный. По той причине, что бывший «мыслительный столп» подгадал ко дню послания детальнейший, в украинском стиле, компромат на руководство российской Генпрокуратуры.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 июля 2014, 00:18

США ждут от Ирана не компромисса, а капитуляции

Ожидаемое 20 июля окончательное урегулирование ядерной проблемы ИРИ не состоялось. Переговоры Ирана с «шестеркой» (пять постоянных членов Совбеза ООН и Германия) продлены до 24 ноября. Предложение о паузе было внесено США, Великобританией, Францией и Германией, которые направили в этот раз в Вену своих министров иностранных дел. Руководители внешнеполитических ведомств Китая и России в Вену не приехали, прислав своих заместителей, однако с учетом иранского согласия на перерыв Москва и Пекин возражать не стали. В комментариях о продлении срока переговоров о ядерной программе Ирана на 4 месяца тон разный. К общему оптимизму, пожалуй, можно отнести уверенность всех сторон в том, что следующая встреча должна пройти в августе. Место, точная дата и формат проведения следующего этапа переговоров пока не согласованы.  Сам по себе перерыв на переговорах проблемы решить не сможет. Вряд ли, когда исполнится год с момента принятия в Женеве совместного плана действий сторон, гарантирующих исключительно мирный характер ядерной программы Ирана в обмен на снятие международных санкций с Исламской Республики, позиции сторон смогут кардинально измениться. Нельзя исключать и безрезультатного завершения переговоров. Во-первых, документ действует не более года с момента подписания, значит, соглашение должно быть выработано не позднее 24 ноября 2014 года. Очевидно, что переговоры не могут продолжаться бесконечно, оставшиеся четыре месяца уже объявлены «последним шансом». Во-вторых, западные участники «шестерки» сами же мешают продвижению вперед, опираясь на сохраняющееся недоверие к Ирану. Госсекретарь Керри, несмотря на проведенные с ноября прошлого года шесть раундов переговоров, продолжает настаивать на необходимости «удостовериться в том, что Иран не собирается создавать ядерное оружие». Схожую позицию озвучил и глава МИД ФРГ Франк-Вальтер Штайнмайер: «До завершения срока действия плана Иран должен доказать мирный характер своих ядерных разработок». На каких основаниях США и Евросоюз выражают подобное недоверие Тегерану, они не объясняют.  Глава российской делегации на переговорах замглавы МИД РФ Сергей Рябков не согласен с западными коллегами и отмечает, что «изначальный женевский план действий выполняется без нареканий всеми сторонами. Иранцы в полном объеме обеспечивают реализацию тех положений, которые, что называется, записаны за ними». Руководитель внешнеполитического ведомства ИРИ также оценивает ситуацию иначе, нежели представители США. Джавад Зариф констатировал, что «наиболее серьезные разногласия касаются плана отмены санкций против Тегерана». Американо-иранский торг остается стержнем всего переговорного процесса, пойдя на небывалые для исламского режима уступки, Тегеран в конце тоннеля видит полную отмену санкций при признании его права на обогащение урана. Духовный лидер ИРИ Али Хаменеи твердо отстаивает свою позицию: «...исследования в области ядерных технологий, проводимые Ираном, не прекратятся ни при каких обстоятельствах. Иран должен быть готов к битвам с враждебными государствами». Это принципиальное заявление Али Хаменеи сделал после неудачных переговоров Ирана и стран «шестерки» и в связи с отсрочкой в проведении последующих встреч. Иран не зря опасается того, что Америка и ее союзники используют передышку для ужесточения параметров окончательной сделки. Предложения, сделанные Тегераном, кажутся Западу недостаточными, ибо Тегеран не отказывается от своего законного права на самостоятельное обогащение урана, соглашаясь на ужесточение международного контроля над своими ядерными объектами. США хотели бы, чтобы соглашение с Ираном было похожим на соглашение с Сирией об уничтожении химического оружия и включало в себя демонтаж всех объектов, имеющих возможности по обогащению урана. Текст нынешнего соглашения позволяет Тегерану производить и обогащать уран «под контролем», однако Запад сомневается, что подобный контроль в условиях закрытого иранского общества сможет быть эффективен. В этом Вашингтон солидарен с подходом премьер-министра Израиля Биньямина Нетаньяху: «Любое соглашение, предусматривающее, что за Ираном останется право на обогащение урана, обернется катастрофой для США и остальных». Нетаньяху предупреждает американцев: «Нельзя допустить, чтобы у режима аятолл появилась атомная бомба». Правда, обладающий ядерным оружием Израиль, похоже, не столько боится иранской атомной бомбы, сколько стремится не допустить неминуемого после отмены санкций роста экономической мощи Тегерана.  О снятии санкций тем не менее пока речи нет. Заместитель министра иностранных дел России Сергей Рябков заявил о том, что «США и ЕС осуществили мероприятия, связанные с приостановкой наращивания санкционного бремени, с некоторым облегчением этого прессинга по отдельным компонентам. Это тоже нельзя отрицать». Да, с момента начала переговоров осенью прошлого года от введения новых санкций против Ирана Запад воздерживается, но твердо придерживается всех введенных ранее ограничений. Нефтяной эмбарго действует, иранские банки остаются в изоляции от международной финансовой системы и все остальное. Запад разблокировал еще 2,8 млрд. долларов иранских активов, замороженных во время введения санкций. Но это - иранские деньги, получаемые иранцами в расчетах за экспорт нефти, который до сих пор не превышает половины объемов, бывших до введения запрета на импорт нефти из Ирана. Сейчас американцы настолько стали «добрыми», что согласились ежемесячно разрешать Тегерану снимать со своих многомиллиардных счетов по 500 млн. долларов. Санкции не рассматривались Западом, как способные остановить ядерную программу Ирана, и к итогам переговорам имеют лишь косвенное отношение. Они есть не что иное, как инструмент давления и диктата, с помощью которого Ирану выкручивают руки. Вашингтону нужен совершенно другой Иран: послушный и поддерживающий американскую стратегию на Ближнем Востоке. Конкретно можно назвать Сирию, Ирак, Афганистан и район Персидского залива. Без малейших натяжек можно говорить и о стремлении Белого дома вбить клин в отношения Тегерана и Москвы. Иранская ядерная проблема всегда была необоснованно политизирована, Вашингтон никак не откажется от мечтаний о смене исламского режима. И сейчас, затягивая решение вопроса об отмене санкций, американцы подрывают доверие общества к новому руководству ИРИ во главе с президентом Хасаном Роухани, загоняют его команду переговорщиков в угол, дают дополнительные шансы его внутренним оппонентам, которые не оставляют надежд отказаться от дипломатического решения ядерной проблемы Ирана. Подобная американская дипломатия длится уже более 30 лет, и, кстати, «парализует» не только экономику ИРИ, она наносит колоссальный ущерб самим американцам. Экономика США за 18 лет из-за упущенных возможностей в сфере экспорта в результате экономических санкций против Ирана недополучила 175,3 млрд. долларов, говорится в отчете Национального ирано-американского совета (NIAC). Эта некоммерческая организация, базирующаяся в Вашингтоне и ратующая за отмену санкций, подсчитала, что в период с 1995 по 2012 год в результате запрета на продажу американских товаров в Иран экономика США теряла от 51 тыс. до 66 тыс. рабочих мест в год. Данные исследования были предоставлены эксклюзивно для Wall Street Journal. Белый дом при этом всегда настаивал, чтобы санкции против Тегерана вводились согласованно с ЕС для максимального эффекта. Видимо, потери Европы от поддержки американского неприятия Исламской Республики также немалые. Мягкие санкции не бывают эффективными, а сильные – всегда ведут к обоюдным потерям. Однако американский министр финансов Джек Лью, обязанный опираться на государственную бухгалтерию, вслед за Керри также открыто заявил, что США не будут торопиться со снятием санкций против Ирана, так как экономические санкции против Тегерана «поставили экономику страны в сложное положение» и «явились действенным инструментом в диалоге с Тегераном». Опять же во внешнеполитической культуре США – ничего нового. Если и вести диалог, то только с позиций силы, прямого диктата и угроз. Широко разрекламированные дипломатические усилия президента Обамы по выходу из конфронтации с Тегераном опять же катятся по той же колее: от Ирана ждут не компромисса, а капитуляции.

15 июня 2013, 13:05

В мире: Озвучены предварительные итоги выборов в Иране

На выборах в Иране с большим отрывом лидирует реформатор, бывший переговорщик с «шестеркой» по ядерной программе Хассан Роухани. По последней информации, он набирает более 52% голосов. Если в ходе окончательных подсчетов он преодолеет планку в 50%, то станет президентом уже в первом туре. По мнению некоторых экспертов, в случае победы Роухани влияние России на Иран может ослабнуть. По последним данным МВД ИРИ, на выборах президента Ирана с большим отрывом лидирует бывший секретарь Высшего совета национальной безопасности Хасан Роухани с результатом 52,3%, передает MIGnews. Между тем ИТАР-ТАСС отмечает, что по итогам обработки 8 млн бюллетеней (более 20% голосов избирателей) Роухани набрал 51,2% (4,12 млн голосов). За ним следуют его соперники-консерваторы. Вторым идет мэр Тегерана Мохаммадбакер Калибаф, получивший на настоящий момент 16,7%, третьим – секретарь Высшего совета национальной безопасности, главный переговорщик по иранской ядерной программе Саид Джалили – 13,1%. Четвертое место пока удерживает секретарь Совета по целесообразности принимаемых решений (совещательный орган при Высшем руководителе Ирана) Мохсен Резаи – 13%. Остальных двух кандидатов – экс-министра иностранных дел (1981–1997) Али Акбара Велаяти и бывшего министра нефти (1981–1985), экс-министра почты, телеграфа и телефона (1985–1997) Саида Мохаммада Гарази – можно уже считать фактически выбывшими из борьбы. Выборы, завершившиеся в Иране в пятницу поздно вечером, прошли спокойно: не было ни акций протеста, ни волнений и беспорядков. Махмуд Ахмадинежад в выборах не участвовал, поскольку уже пробыл на посту два срока. Отметим, что иранцы выбирали своего президента в буквальном смысле слова пальцем. Как отмечает НТВ, они оставляли отпечатки в специальных отрывных корешках от бюллетеней. В какие базы данных потом попадают эти отпечатки, неизвестно, но говорят, что это надежное средство защиты от фальсификаций. Всего в Иране более 50 млн зарегистрированных избирателей, поэтому подсчет голосов может занять значительное время, а его результаты еще могут существенно измениться. Как сообщают иранские СМИ, к настоящему времени обработаны данные в основном по Тегерану. Явка была высокой – по предварительным данным, около 80%. Спикер Меджлиса Али Лариджани расценил небывалую активность избирателей как «верность народа идеалам исламской революции». Отдать свой голос пришел даже самый старый человек Ирана Хейдар Шахрияри, которому, как пишут иранские СМИ, исполнилось 126 лет. По словам Шахрияри, он счел своей обязанностью прийти на избирательный участок и проголосовать. Граждане Ирана могли проголосовать на 60 тыс. избирательных участков в стране и на 290 участках в 96 странах мира. Властям пришлось неоднократно продлевать время голосования. Между тем за подсчетом голосов в Исламской Республике пристально следят за рубежом. Так, министры обороны США и Израиля Чак Хейгел и Моше Яалон обсудили иранские выборы на своей встрече в Вашингтоне и предупредили Тегеран, что «готовы к широкому спектру непредвиденных ситуаций», передает РИА «Новости». В случае если Роухани удастся сохранить набранные темпы и он преодолеет планку в 50% голосов после окончательного подсчета, ему не придется бороться 21 июня во втором туре с претендентом на пост главы исполнительной власти, пришедшим вторым. Впрочем, как отмечает BBC, на предыдущих выборах, состоявшихся в 2009 году, предварительные данные и результаты экзит-поллов также сулили успех оппозиционеру Мир Хосейну Мусави, а потом объявили о победе Махмуда Ахмадинежада. Его противники объясняли это массовыми фальсификациями, а сторонники – тем, что предварительные данные приходили из крупных городов. Эксперты считают, что исход голосования не повлияет на позицию Тегерана по ключевым вопросам внешней и внутренней политики. Все кандидаты выступали за продолжение ядерной программы и при этом признавали необходимость договариваться с «шестеркой» и МАГАТЭ.Роухани еще в апреле 2013 года объявил, что будет баллотироваться на пост президента на выборах. По его словам, если он будет избран, то подготовит «Хартию гражданских прав», будет работать над восстановлением экономики и улучшением отношений с Западом. Незадолго до дня голосования он стал публично высказываться за возобновление диалога с Западом, обещал освободить политзаключенных и несколько смягчить цензуру. 64-летний Роухани является одним из близких сподвижников имама Хомейни – вождя антишахской революции 1979 года. При прежнем режиме он неоднократно подвергался арестам. Ранее он занимал различные посты в парламенте, а также представлял Иран на переговорах по ядерной проблеме, но был отстранен от этого поста Ахмадинежадом. На его сторону перешли те, кто хотел голосовать за единственного кандидата, связанного с лагерем реформаторов – Мохаммада Резу Арефа. Ареф снял свою кандидатуру во вторник, как он заявил, по совету экс-президента Мохаммада Хатами. Таким образом, Роухани заручился поддержкой сразу двух политических тяжеловесов – Хатами и бывшего спикера парламента Али Акбара Хашеми Рафсанджани, который хотел баллотироваться сам, но не был зарегистрирован стражами конституции. По мнению политолога-арабиста Алексея Малашенко, в случае победы Роухани влияние России на Иран может ослабнуть. При таком раскладе, считает он, более прозрачной станет ядерная программа исламской республики и смягчится позиция Ирана по Сирии, передает «Эхо Москвы». Член думского комитета по международным делам, единоросс Адальби Шхагошев уверен, что Россия и Иран найдут общий язык при победе любого из кандидатов. Эксперты по Ирану в США считают, что победа Хассана Роухани может укрепить положение страны в мире, включая снятие ряда санкций и возможное потепление отношений с Вашингтоном. «Если он будет избран президентом, и особенно если он получит очевидный мандат от избирателей, от Роухани следует ожидать изменений в некоторых аспектах ядерной и внешней политики Ирана, и я думаю, что он ее изменит. Хотя ядерную политику Ирана в конечном итоге определяет верховный лидер Ирана (Али) Хаменеи, победа Роухани будет иметь глубокое влияние на эти аспекты политики», – указывает Мохсен Милани (Mohsen M. Milani), исполнительный директор Центра стратегических и дипломатических исследований Университета Южной Флориды, профессор и автор исследований по внешней политике Ирана. В свою очередь основатель и президент Национального совета американцев иранского происхождения (NIAC) Трита Парси (Trita Parsi) полагает, что возможные изменения во внешнеполитическом положении Ирана будут зависеть от позиции Запада и в первую очередь США. «Если Иран будет двигаться в позитивном направлении, реакция Запада будет ключевой в определении того, насколько далеко могут зайти изменения. Иранцы упустили важную возможность в 2009 году, когда они сочли, что президент Обама не будет отличаться от предыдущих президентов США, и стали действовать исходя из этого предположения», – отметил Парси, автор книг по внешней политике Ирана. По его словам, отсутствие реакции со стороны Ирана усложнило задачу Обамы изменить ситуацию в отношениях между двумя странами. «Вашингтон должен быть осторожным, чтобы не совершить эту ошибку. Разъяснительная работа Обамы в отношении Ирана зависела от желания Тегерана к ответным шагам, и любые попытки Роухани изменить отношения с Вашингтоном точно так же будут зависеть от желания Америки подыграть ему», – сказал Парси. Теги:  Иран, борьба за власть, выборы Закладки: