• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди20
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы16
      • Показать ещё
      Разное5
      Сферы3
      Компании5
      Международные организации7
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели1
      Формат1
      Издания4
Выбор редакции
25 ноября, 09:10

Iranian Government Preferred Trump But Will Have Second Thoughts Now That His Team is Emerging

Trita Parsi tells Paul Jay that the Iranians thought Trump’s anti-interventionist language would be better that Clinton’s declared antagonism; but now that Flynn, Pompeo, and Pence have been chosen, regime change is likely back on the table Visit http://therealnews.com for more videos.

15 июля, 05:12

Obama Administration Will Hand Off Iran Portfolio To An Uncertain Future

WASHINGTON ― As the international community marks the one-year anniversary of the Iran nuclear deal, some Iran-watchers say they are worried what will happen after the Obama administration, staffed with officials who helped broker the historic diplomatic agreement, leaves office in less than six months. These concerns are based on a belief that a foundation of the U.S.-Iran rapprochement is a delicate personal relationship between two key actors that’s unlikely to extend into the next president’s administration, even if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wins the election. In the absence of formal diplomatic relations, it was the efforts of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif ― and a handful of their deputies ― that allowed the U.S. and Iran to reach breakthroughs like the nuclear accord and a subsequent prisoner swap. The unusual relationship between Kerry and Zarif also allowed the secretary of state to phone his counterpart and avert a military confrontation when U.S. Navy sailors accidentally drifted into Iranian waters earlier this year. “You don’t have anybody, as of Jan. 20, or maybe before, who can pick up the phone to somebody and say, ‘Hey look, we’ve got a problem’ … There’s nothing in place that would help you deal with an emergency,” said William Luers, a retired diplomat with 31 years of experience in the foreign service. “There’s lots of ready-made opportunities for mistakes,” Luers cautioned. “And once there’s a mistake, then you have to figure out, how do you unravel it. The immediate reaction, given the nature of the U.S.-Iranian relations historically, is to be macho on both sides. And then you lose control of a situation.” Some regional experts and former diplomats fear that outgoing Obama administration officials will be replaced in January by people less willing or less able to manage potentially explosive bilateral issues with the longtime U.S. adversary. There’s lots of ready-made opportunities for mistakes ... The immediate reaction, given the nature of the U.S.-Iranian relations historically, is to be macho on both sides. And then you lose control of a situation. Retired U.S. diplomat William Luers Whether it’s Clinton or former reality television star Donald Trump in the White House, “relations are going to deteriorate to some extent,” predicted Ariane Tabatabai, an Iran expert and visiting professor at Georgetown University. While parties to the nuclear agreement have generally adhered to its terms, there’s a long list of potential flash points facing whoever replaces Kerry as secretary of state. Over the past year, the Iranians have accused the U.S. of discouraging foreign investment in Iran, dampening the effects of sanctions relief. Congressional Republicans marked the one-year anniversary by calling for more sanctions against Iran, which Tehran would likely view as a violation of the deal. Iran continues to imprison U.S. citizens without charges, or on unfounded allegations. Washington and Tehran back opposite sides in civil wars in Syria and Yemen. And even with a common enemy ― the Islamic State ― they differ in how to fight the extremist terrorist group. The large U.S. Navy presence off the coast of Bahrain makes an altercation between the American and Iranian militaries a constant simmering threat. “The reality is, personal rapport matters tremendously, and the rapport that has been built between Kerry and Zarif is a unique one,” said Trita Parsi, the head of the National Iranian American Council, which lobbied aggressively in support of the nuclear accord.   That rapport between Kerry and Zarif was developed after the two spent hours in marathon negotiation sessions, in person and over the phone. “It’s certainly true that the negotiations at some point did get personal with the fact Zarif and Kerry are kind of the same sorts of guys,” said Richard Nephew, a former member of the State Department negotiating team. “They’re big talkers. They like the thrust of the debate. It was adversarial at times, but I think they genuinely understood one another and could see eye to eye on a number of things.” While Clinton and her top aide Jake Sullivan were involved in early stages of the negotiations with Iran, it’s not clear that they ever developed that same rapport with their Iranian counterparts (in part because Iran’s more moderate leadership came to power shortly after she stepped down as secretary of state). Parsi described Iranians as generally “suspicious” of Clinton. Tabatabai said they are “wary” of her. Parsi and Tabatabai said people in Iran took note when Clinton listed “the Iranians” as an enemy she is proud to have made during a presidential debate last year. When Clinton speaks about enforcing the nuclear agreement, said Parsi, she frames it in terms of punishing the Iranians for potential violations and does not explicitly promise to block congressional sanctions that could stymie the agreement, as Obama does. 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); But Nephew argued that the notion that Clinton is substantially more aggressive in her rhetoric on Iran than the Obama administration is overhyped. President Barack Obama and his deputies often talked tough on Iran, too, he noted. In the final stages of negotiations, Obama concluded nearly every statement on the subject with an obligatory warning that if talks failed, the U.S. would bomb Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. The nuclear agreement succeeded, Nephew said, not because Kerry and Zarif got along, but because both countries deemed it to be in their strategic interest ― a reality that is likely to outlast the Obama administration. It’s harder to predict what Trump’s relations with the Iranians would be, mostly because he doesn’t seem to have an Iran policy. He moves freely between pledging to rip up the nuclear accord and enforce it vigorously. “It’s not clear to me that Mr. Trump understands this agreement, has read this agreement, understands the weight of this agreement, or would know how to manage this agreement,” said Wendy Sherman, a former undersecretary of state who served as the State Department’s chief negotiator in the nuclear talks. Regardless of what approach Trump would ultimately land on, it’s unlikely that the Islamic republic would be receptive to a man who has floated the idea of banning Muslims from the U.S. That’s especially true if he selects as vice president former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has appeared multiple times at rallies hosted by the Mojahedin-e-Khalq, or the MEK, an exiled group advocating regime change in Iran. Republicans and Iran hawks, of course, may regard Trump’s disinterest in establishing establishing ties with the Iranians as a virtue. Both the Clinton and Trump campaigns declined to comment for this article. Individual personalities aside, it’s the lack of broad, institutionalized means of communication between the two countries that causes supporters of improved relations between the U.S. and Iran to worry. ... It is hard to imagine how this level of dialogue can continue once Obama leaves office. Seyed Hossein Mousavian, former nuclear negotiator for Iran Embassies and diplomats typically provide continuity when a president leaves office. There are some career foreign service officers, like Stephen Mull, the diplomat tasked with overseeing implementation of the nuclear deal, who have relationships with the Iranians and will likely stick around past January. But Mull’s mandate is strictly limited to the nuclear issue. A State Department official, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said there are efforts underway aimed at “solidify the existing relations beyond what Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif have established and to ensure that going into the next administration, there will be lines of communication.” But the official declined to elaborate. The most obvious solution would be for the U.S. and Iran to re-establish normal diplomatic relations, Zalmay Khalilzad, a former ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations; and James Dobbins, a former special envoy to Afghanistan, suggested last month. But a more politically realistic approach, they said, would be to assign mid-ranking diplomats to the interests sections of embassies representing each other ― Switzerland for the U.S. in Iran, and Pakistan for Iran in the U.S. If there is a concrete plan to avoid a breakdown in communications, it seems that former diplomats from both sides have yet to hear about it. “The relationship between Kerry and Zarif was hugely impactful in terms of reaching the [nuclear deal] and continuing cooperation afterwards. However, because it is more a personal relationship and not institutionalized, it is hard to imagine how this level of dialogue can continue once Obama leaves office,” Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator for Iran, wrote in an email. “The channels of communication need to be formalized,” Mousavian continued. -- 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.

14 июля, 22:42

Inside Story - Has the Iran nuclear deal changed anything?

It's a year since the signing of a wide-ranging deal designed to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Since then, the Iranian government has largely lived up to its side of the bargain. The US says the world is a safer place. But the deal is fragile to say the least. The upcoming elections in the US and in Iran threaten to derail the whole agreement. Inside Story looks at whether the deal has had any impact in Iran and beyond. And why hasn't it made the region more peaceful? Presenter: Fauziah Ibrahim Guests: Trita Parsi - Founder and President of the National Iranian American Council Hamid Reza Gholamzadeh - Editor-in-Chief of Mehr News Agency David S. Jonas - Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown and George Washington University Law Schools - Subscribe to our channel: http://aje.io/AJSubscribe - Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AJEnglish - Find us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/aljazeera - Check our website: http://www.aljazeera.com/

05 июля, 20:27

Lawmakers push bipartisan bill to free Americans imprisoned in Iran

Republicans and Democrats in Congress are putting new pressure on Iran to release Americans in its prisons, an effort that comes nearly a year after the U.S. and other world powers struck a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.GOP Rep. Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, plans to introduce a resolution Wednesday calling on Iran to free Siamak Namazi and his father, Baquer, multiple sources told POLITICO. Royce's lead co-sponsor on the resolution is Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia.The resolution also is likely to state that the House of Representatives "encourages the president to utilize appropriate measures against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran if Siamak and Baquer Namazi are not released," according to a source who read a draft of the text over the phone.Connolly declined to share a copy of the resolution, but he said the goal is to avoid weighing it down with language delving into the contentious politics of the nuclear deal. Connolly supports the deal, which was reached July 14, 2015, while Royce opposes it.The Namazi resolution “brings us together on a bipartisan basis,” Connolly said. The resolution is likely to get strong support in the House, similar to past resolutions dealing with Americans held by Iran.Connolly said he was especially perturbed by the fact that Iran has yet to announce any charges against the Namazis, despite holding them for months. "The fact that I supported the (nuclear deal) does not mean I’m going to turn a blind eye to Iran’s misbehavior,” the congressman said.Siamak Namazi is a businessman in his mid-40s with dual Iranian-American citizenship and degrees from Tufts and Rutgers universities. He had long advocated for improved ties between Iran and the U.S. and has links to a number of Washington officials and analysts with expertise on Iran. He was working as the Dubai-based head of strategic planning at Crescent Petroleum Co., an energy company in the United Arab Emirates. During a visit to Iran last summer, he was blocked from leaving the country, and he was later placed under arrest in October. Namazi was in Iranian custody in January, when Iran — as part of a prisoner swap with the United States — agreed to free five other Americans in its custody, including Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian. But Namazi was not included in the swap, and his father, Baquer, who also has Iranian and U.S. citizenship, was later detained in February.The Obama administration usually says little on such cases due to privacy laws, but in a statement to POLITICO on Tuesday, State Department spokesman Sam Werberg said the U.S. makes "all appropriate efforts to work for the release of any unjustly detained U.S. citizens held overseas.”"We are not aware of any charges against either Siamak or Baquer, and we believe that both reported detentions are unjust,” Werberg said.The Namazis' case has frustrated many friends and colleagues who want to ensure the family's situation is not forgotten, especially as the United States prepares for a presidential election and a transition between administrations. "Siamak Namazi loves his ancestral homeland just as much as he loves the United States of America," said Afshin Molavi, a friend and Iran expert at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies. "He is a great bridge builder, and jailing him is not only unjust but counterproductive as well to Iran’s future."Compared to its recent predecessors, the Obama administration has relatively strong channels of communication with Iran — Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif are known to communicate fairly regularly. Kerry's departure could change some of those dynamics.Iran does not recognize dual citizenship, so the U.S., because of its lack of diplomatic ties to the country, has little to no access to its citizens being held there. In recent months, the Iranian government, which has any number of competing, shadowy factions, also has detained Iranians with citizenship in Britain and Canada.Many dual citizens who are arrested often face harsh interrogations. Some wind up being tried on vague charges of espionage or allegations they were trying to foment a popular uprising in Iran, which has been an Islamist-led theocracy for more than 30 years.

Выбор редакции
23 июня, 14:48

Congressman Joined Gun Control Sit-In Because His Mom Said So

Momma knows best!  Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) learned just that when his mother called him and told him to join House Democrats' gun control protest on Wednesday. Dems staged a sit-in that continued into Thursday to demand action on gun violence.  So I'm meeting with @keithellison. His scheduler walks in and hands him this note. Meeting ends :) #NoBillNoBreak pic.twitter.com/JwnusZKZuo— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 22, 2016 Ellison joined the protest, spearheaded by Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.). He live tweeted from the chamber -- even as Republicans cut cameras that had been broadcasting the event. Sitting in on House Floor against Gun violence & Majority's unwillingness to protect Americans from slaughter. pic.twitter.com/SvZ5cV45nn— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) June 22, 2016 Congress is officially out of session until July 5th, but Democrats said they'd occupy the floor until Republicans agree to engage in a meaningful debate about gun control. Senate Democrats staged their own protest last week, filibustering a bill to fund the Justice Department until Republicans agreed to consider new gun control measures. All of the proposals were ultimately rejected. Read more: Democrats Stage Sit-In On House Floor Over Gun Bills Protesters Gather Outside U.S. Capitol To Push For Vote On Guns Senate Democrats Bring Food To Support House Colleagues Conducting Sit-In On Gun Laws Democrats Finally Tried To Do Something About The Gun Bloodshed Democrats Cause Chaos On House Floor As Republicans Pretend Everything Is Fine You Will Never Be As Ecstatic As This Woman Delivering Pizzas To Rep. John Lewis -- 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 мая, 21:34

New York Times: Clinton Broke With Obama Administration On Iran Strategy

WASHINGTON -- A key talking point of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is the story of how she laid the groundwork for the nuclear agreement with Iran during her time as Secretary of State by convincing the international community to join the U.S. in hitting Iran with crippling sanctions. While her role in sanctioning Iran is well-documented, it is less clear whether her ability to apply pressure on Iran, a long-time U.S. adversary, would have translated into an ability to bring about the diplomatic accord finalized last year. Clinton was “skeptical” of negotiating with the Iranians from the outset, the New York Times reported on Monday. In the lead up to the 2008 election, she accused her rival, then Sen. Barack Obama (Ill), of naiveté for his offer to meet with U.S. adversaries without preconditions. She later agreed to meet with Omani intermediaries in 2011, but remained more cynical than her boss that negotiations would produce an agreement favorable to the U.S. Clinton left the State Department in 2013, and was succeeded by Secretary of State John Kerry, who oversaw a series of diplomatic breakthroughs that culminated in the July 2015 nuclear deal. Clinton's exact role in the broader diplomatic effort with Iran has become a pivotal question as she moves closer to clinching the Democratic nomination, because it offers an indication of her ability to preserve the fragile nuclear agreement as president. Clinton supports the nuclear agreement and her Iran policy is similar to the White House's, though hers is packaged with more hawkish rhetoric. But, according to The Times, she split with Obama and Kerry shortly after she left the administration on whether to ramp up sanctions against Iran in the midst of nuclear negotiations. In December 2013, Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), introduced a new sanctions bill against Iran that attracted bipartisan support. The Obama administration urged lawmakers to hold off on the bill, arguing that the timing was terrible. Hassan Rouhani, a far more moderate politician than his predecessor, had been elected president in Iran earlier that year, campaigning on a pledge to restore the country’s economy by negotiating with the West to lift sanctions. Iran, the U.S., and its five negotiating partners had secured an interim agreement on Iran’s nuclear program the previous month. New sanctions, the Obama administration argued, were unnecessary and would demonstrate to the Iranians that the U.S. was not negotiating in good faith. Publicly, Clinton backed the White House at the time, writing to lawmakers that they should “give diplomacy a chance to succeed.” But privately, she was influenced by several lawmakers and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who predicted that more sanctions would force the Iranians to cave on their demands, The Times reported.  “She would have squeezed them again,” an unnamed source who worked with Clinton for several years told The Times.  Ultimately, Obama and Kerry convinced lawmakers to hold off on that round of sanctions, a feat that may have been complicated if there was discord between the president and the Secretary of State. It’s impossible to say what effect Clinton would have had on the nuclear negotiations had she remained in office. Her allies suggest that her willingness to ramp up the pressure against Iran wouldn’t have precluded her from reaching an agreement with the long-time U.S. adversary -- and actually might have pressured the Iranians to offer more concessions. Her detractors say that her approach would have presented political challenges for Rouhani to continue the talks and could have tanked the negotiations entirely. Proponents of U.S.-Iran diplomacy have voiced concern in the past over the fate of relations between the two countries if she succeeds Obama. “I am worried about her instinct,” Trita Parsi the head of the National Iranian American Council, told The Huffington Post in January. “She is far too inclined to think that only pressure works.” Since the nuclear agreement came into effect earlier this year, politicians in Iran and the U.S. have already alleged noncompliance by the other side. Critics have accused Iran of violating the deal by conducting ballistic missile tests (although the United Nations resolution in question only calls on Iran to refrain from testing ballistic missiles designed to carry nuclear weapons). Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has said that the U.S. hasn’t done enough to reassure the international community it won’t be punished for doing business with Iran, minimizing the benefits of sanctions relief.  If Clinton succeeds Obama as president, she will inherit the task of making sure the nuclear deal doesn’t crumble under all this pressure. She has already proven her ability to aggressively monitor Iran’s nuclear activity and punish the country for non-compliance. But this will be the first test of her willingness to ward off efforts by hawkish lawmakers -- some of whom were her allies in the Senate -- to pass new sanctions that could threaten the agreement. -- 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.

06 апреля, 14:22

Константин Черемных. Предвыборные скандалы США: от "сервера Клинтон" до "панамских архивов"

Все предвыборные скандалы Америки: от "сервера Клинтон" до "панамских архивов". Аналитик Института динамического консерватизма Константин Черемных о том, как выборы прездента США влияют на мировые события прямо сейчас, есть ли связь между ними, терактами в Европе и "панамскими документами", а также о том, кем Трамп приходится Путину. Ведущий - Дмитрий Перетолчин. Для оказания поддержки каналу День-ТВ можно использовать следующие реквизиты: - Яндекс–кошелек: 4100 1269 5356 638 - Сбербанк : 6761 9600 0251 7281 44 - Мастер Кард : 5106 2160 1010 4416

22 марта, 22:11

Iranian Vote Affirms Obama Administration Nuclear Deal

Iranians recently voted for a new parliament (Majlis) as well as Assembly of Experts, tasked with choosing the successor to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Moderate reformers did well in both bodies, vindicating the Obama administration's decision to try diplomacy after years of confrontation with the Islamic republic. America's relations with Iran long have been troubled. In 1953, the U.S. helped engineer a coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Mohamed Mossedegh. For a quarter century, Washington backed the authoritarian and corrupt Shah, who built up Iran's military, began a nuclear program, suppressed peaceful opposition, and forcibly modernized his traditional society. The result was a revolution with broad support, but unfortunately Islamic hardliners led by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini won control. The seizure of the American embassy in November 1979 after the Shah entered the U.S. for medical treatment turned the new Islamic republic into one of Washington's bitterest enemies. As a result, the Reagan administration supported Iraq after the latter invaded Iranian territory; the U.S. mistakenly shot down an Iranian passenger plane in 1987 while patrolling the Persian Gulf. Tehran, at odds with Israel and its Gulf neighbors, engaged in subversion and restarted the Shah's nuclear program. Washington responded by imposing sanctions on and threatening war against the Iranian monster that it had done so much to create. The U.S. also more closely embraced such countries as Saudi Arabia, actually more repressive and supportive of radical Islam than Tehran. Indeed, Saudi backing for fundamentalist Wahhabism fomented violent extremism around the globe. In the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion, Iran offered to negotiate, but the triumphalist Bush administration refused. Tehran responded by ramping up its nuclear program. As Iraq turned into a debacle Washington's leverage ebbed. U.S. threats grew as Vice President Richard Cheney and others pressed for war. Although the Obama administration reiterated that "all options" were on the table, it turned to negotiation, yielding perhaps its most important diplomatic achievement. Despite criticism from Neocons who saw destroying Israel's adversary as America's duty, the nuclear deal allowed the U.S. to escape the policy cul-de-sac within which it had been stuck. There now is increased if restrained hope of better bilateral and regional relationships with Tehran as well as more moderate political dynamics within Iran. The most important objective with the nuclear agreement was to stop any movement toward a nuclear weapon. Although Western intelligence believed that Tehran had halted its program, Iran retained an obvious incentive to move forward. Israel, already a nuclear power with a sizeable arsenal, threatened to attack Iran. Most of Tehran's Gulf neighbors were hostile; Saudi Arabia spent lavishly to build up a military directed at Iran. Most important, the globe's singular superpower, having dismembered Serbia and imposed regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya continued to threaten military action. An accord was reached. No doubt, the West would have preferred Tehran to blow up its nuclear facilities, shoot its nuclear engineers, and exile its extremist supporters, but that never was going to happen, even under President Hassan Rouhani, a dramatic change from his hardline predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nor was there any reason to believe the GOP uber-hawks who argued that the U.S. need only maintain sanctions while huffing and puffing a little more to make Tehran surrender to American dictates. When Washington rejected previous Iranian overtures Tehran added centrifuges. The deal was struck because it was a deal, which meant Iran's government received benefits too. The accord ended any potential nuclear weapons program for now. And so far Tehran is living up to the accord. The International Atomic Energy Agency affirmed it had "verified and monitored Iran's implementation of its nuclear-related commitments." No new construction, no production of uranium pellets, heavy water was shipped, no reprocessing, and centrifuges remained in storage. None of which would have occurred without the agreement. Another line of attack against the settlement was that the negotiation over Iran's nuclear program did not cause the Islamic republic to turn itself into a liberal democracy, adopt unilateral conventional disarmament, abandon regional security interests, and accept Saudi dominance. Even some supporters of the nuclear pact worry about Tehran's missile program. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Conn.) argued "We're going to have to be clear that we're not going to tolerate their bad behavior, and we're willing to punish Iran." But no nation, including America, would voluntarily dismantle its political system and sacrifice its safety at the insistence of another country, especially one which long posed its greatest military threat. Iran cannot be blamed for acting militarily when its neighbors and America do so as well. Indeed, why should Tehran supinely accept not only American but Saudi hegemony, including violent regime change in long-time neighboring ally Syria? One can imagine Washington's reaction to a similar threat against Canada or Mexico. In fact, in Bahrain and Yemen Iran is opposing oppression and violence, while in Syria Tehran's conduct is no worse than those who have backed Islamist radical insurgents. Moreover, most of these demands have little to do with America's own security interests. Syria is a humanitarian tragedy, but the U.S. gains nothing from ousting President Bashar al-Assad, which likely would turn more of the country over to the Islamic State. Lebanon's chief occupation is avoiding another bloody break-up, not acting as an Iranian proxy. Tehran's influence in Iraq has risen--as an inevitable result of America's ouster of Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein. Iran's support for Houthi rebels in Yemen is a partnership of convenience triggered by Riyadh's attack and doesn't much concern America. In fact, Saudi Arabia's regional influence is equally if not more malign. It has turned a lengthy insurgency into a bloody sectarian conflict in Yemen, used military force to preserve a repressive Sunni monarchy in majority-Shia Bahrain, and underwritten Egypt's brutal military dictatorship. To reject an agreement constraining Tehran's nuclear options because it did not further strengthen totalitarian Islamic rule in Riyadh would be bizarre in the extreme. Iran's election confirms that the administration was right to negotiate. One of the chief criticisms of the agreement is that it is temporary and dependent on transformation of the Islamic regime. Wrote Eli Lake: "the only way it can be considered a success is if, over time, Iran really does undergo reform and its leaders abandon the revolution that threatens the rest of the Middle East." Actually, the accord is dependent on offering enough benefits to convince whoever rules Iran that they do better by not building nuclear weapons. Washington could help by moderating the hostile security environment created by constant U.S. military threats and Saudi military build-up. Indeed, Riyadh has spent more than $80 billion each of the last two years on defense, by some estimates more than Russia. Iran's expenditures were only $26.5 billion and $30.5 billion, respectively, in 2014 and 2015 Still, the administration helped sell the nuclear pact by claiming that the latter would help open up Iranian society and promote a more liberal politics. President Obama expressed his hope that the agreement "would serve as the basis for us trying to improve relations over time." The possibility of such a transformation is why Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council called these "the most consequential non-presidential elections in Iran at least for the last two decades." No surprise, resistance from Iranian hardliners has been strong. Muhammad Sahimi argued that "the deep state is also terrified by President Rouhani's high popularity in the aftermath of the nuclear accord" and end of sanctions. The Guardian Council disqualified many reformist candidates, including the Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson. The supreme leader decried "a U.S. infiltration plot" and "foreign meddling." But, noted author Hooman Majd, "No matter how undemocratic and how compromised the system is, there's no question that the elections matter." Moderates have prospered despite their manifold handicaps. The regime will face greater challenges. Opined Maryam Rajavi of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the result will "aggravate internal tensions, thereby socially isolating the regime further while jeopardizing the political and economic advantages of the nuclear agreement. In a word, the regime will become even more vulnerable." Of course, change remains uncertain and will take time. Indeed, many "moderates" seem reasonable only in comparison with the hard-liners who have run the nation into the ground. However, the alternative--call it massive resistance--favored by American hardliners, especially Neocons who think of nothing other than continued economic sanctions and military threats, would ensure no domestic change in Iran. Washington has no magical ability to reach inside Iran, turn conservative Muslims into Western liberals, and install a regime friendly to America. It isn't 1953 again, and that play actually ended badly. If international social engineering abroad was so easy, Presidents Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush would have fixed the problem long ago. Moreover, intensifying threats against Iran would increase the likelihood of Tehran cracking down domestically while reactivating its weapons program. After all, a regime under siege is less likely to risk opposition on any grounds and more likely to use foreign hostility to justify greater repression. A patriotic public told to choose between unpleasant domestic leaders and hostile foreigners is likely to select the domestic devil they know as the least bad alternative. The end result would be some combination of greater regional instability, a nuclear Iran, conflict between Tehran and Saudi Arabia or Israel, and, worst of all, an American attack on Iran. A democratic, nuclear free Iran would be about the least likely outcome. Washington should play the long game. Hardliners, whether believing Islamists or ambitious cynics, recognize that increased engagement with the West threatens their power. More than 60 percent of the population is under 30 and many younger Iranians already favor the West and its liberal values. The accord has empowered President Rouhani and energized outward-looking citizens. The noteworthy failure of forces of repression to stifle reform currents, buttressed by increasing economic opportunities, likely will encourage greater reform activism. Noted Reza Marashi of the National Iranian American Council: "After these elections there will be a more diverse range of voices, and that will better reflect the will of people. It's not perfect, but will be better." America needs to encourage a welcoming international environment that benefits Iran and draws Iranians outward. As more of the population gains from peaceful engagement, finding both prosperity and security, Tehran is more likely to maintain the same path even after expiration of the nuclear accord. Particularly important is sustained economic growth reaching rural and working class people as well as more Western-oriented elites. No wonder President Rouhani is hoping for $50 billion in foreign investment annually. Whoever is in charge, a more liberal political and social environment is likely to develop in an Iran which has reentered the oil markets, benefited from Western money, and traded with the world. A move back to Islamic radicalism and isolation would become less likely. There is, of course, no guarantee for the future. There are no reform programs or timetables, no transformations or end states which inevitably will result. After a few years Iranians and Westerners alike might be greatly disappointed. However, the nuclear accord appears to have triggered or at least accelerated a process which offers the best chance for the future. U.S. policy in the Middle East has been a catastrophic failure. Yet Washington appears oblivious. Secretary of State John Kerry opined that the U.S. was "not going to stand by while the region is destabilized or while people engage in overt warfare across lines, international boundaries and other countries." Yet it is America which overthrew a democratic Iranian government, sustained decades of dictatorship in Egypt, backed Saddam Hussein's attack on Iran, intervened disastrously in the Lebanese civil war, subsidized an oppressive Israeli occupation over millions of Palestinians, placed a garrison on sacred Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia, ousted Iraq's secular dictatorship, overthrew the Libyan government, backed the overthrow of Syria's secular regime, supported Saudi Arabia in opposing democracy in Bahrain and attacking indigenous rebels in Yemen. Washington's own policies have done much to release the virulent forces of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. One positive step in the opposite direction has been the nuclear accord. The future remains uncertain. The way forward remains difficult. But at least there is a path toward a more democratic and peaceful future for Iran, which would benefit the Middle East, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, and America. In contrast, administration critics offer only the likelihood of more antagonism and conflict. So far the agreement has pushed Tehran back from developing nuclear weapons and triggered a stronger fight for reform in Iran. That's a much better start than many observers expected. This article was first posted to Forbes online. -- 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.

16 января, 21:45

Эксперт: обмен узниками США и ИРИ показал, что дипломатия лучше угроз

США и Иран должны углубить свои отношения по серьезным вопросам с тем, чтобы можно было найти новые решения на основе прагматизма, считает глава вашингтонского экспертного центра Национальный ирано-американский совет (NIAC) Трита Парси.

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.

24 ноября 2013, 13:26

США и Иран договорились: Победители и Проигравшие

23 ноября 2013 года состоялся финальный раунд переговоров между странами «Шестерки» (США, Великобритания, Россия, Германия, Франция и Китай) и Исламской Республики Иран по проблеме ядерной программы. Первые два раунда переговоров прошли безрезультатно (в том числе из-за принципиальной позиции Франции), однако третья встреча стала без преувеличения исторической. Впервые после 34 лет взаимных обвинений и угроз, официальные лица США и Ирана нашли дипломатическое решение. Лидеры стран «Шестерки» и Ирана договорились «о мерах по существенному урезанию ядерной программы» до принятия окончательного соглашения. В частности, Тегеран  обязался прекратить обогащение урана свыше 5%, приостановить производство плутония и центрифуг и допустить инспекторов МАГАТЭ на ядерные объекты. Сделка также предусматривает, что запасы иранского урана с 20-процентным обогащением должны быть уничтожены не позднее 6 месяцев со дня заключения соглашения. В свою очередь, США обязуются разморозить некоторые счета с иранским капиталом (речь идет, прежде всего, о размораживании иранских зарубежных активов на сумму 4,2 миллиарда долларов),  и ослабить санкции, касающиеся поставок золота, нефтехимии и автомобилей. После окончания переговоров госсекретарь Керри сделал весьма символичное заявление, в котором подчеркнул важность достигнутых договоренностей. «Мы считаем, что именно санкции привели нас к этим переговорам и, точнее, к знаменательным переговорам, которые завершились соглашением. Я прошу не делать ошибки: не считайте, что это были санкции ради санкций. Целью санкций всегда были переговоры». Своим заявлением Керри подчеркнул тот факт, что США никогда всерьез не рассматривали военный сценарий решения иранского вопроса, но вынуждали Тегеран сесть за стол переговоров. Президент Барак Обама также заявил, что Иран полное право на развитие мирного атома. «В течение последующих шести месяцев мы будем работать над тем, чтобы заключить всеобъемлющее соглашение. Мы подходим к этим переговорам исходя из базового принципа: Иран, как всякая страна, должен иметь возможность доступа к мирной ядерной энергии. Мы воздержимся от наложения новых санкций, и мы позволим иранскому правительству доступ к средствам, которые им были недоступны из-за санкций»; — подчеркнул глава Белого Дома. В свою очередь, глава внешнеполитического ведомства Ирана Джавад Зариф отметил важность соглашения с лидерами «западного» мира, подчеркнув: «Ядерная энергия для нас — это возможность самим определять свою судьбу, а не позволять другим решать за нас». Лидеры стран «Шестерки» также прокомментировали достигнутые соглашения с Ираном, в частности британский министр иностранных дел Уильям Хейг заявил, что это «хорошая новость для всего мира». Таким образом, мировое сообщество в лице стран «Шестерки» добилось установления международного контроля над процессом обогащения урана и прекращения строительства реактора в Араке. Иран добился  смягчения экономических санкций, получив «добро» на развитие мирного атома. «Дипломатия спасла США и Иран, стоявшие на пороге катастрофической войны. Это начало, а не конец процесса. США и Ирану следует активно добиваться долговременного соглашения, которое позволит нормально развивать мирные отношения двух стран»; — отметила председатель национального совета американских иранцев Трита Парси. Безусловно, достигнутое соглашение нанесло серьезный удар по ряду игроков в регионе. «Израиль не может присоединиться к мировому ликованию, основанному на обмане и самообмане. Это плохое соглашение, затрудняющее поиски приемлемого решения в будущем. Подобно провалившемуся соглашению с Северной Кореей, нынешние договоренности могут фактически приблизить Иран к обретению бомбы»; — говорится в заявлении министра разведки Ювала Стейница. В свою очередь, министр экономики Нафтали Беннет пояснил, что «Женевское соглашение» ни к чему Израиль не обязывает. Известный американский политолог и аналитик Крис Уолт так прокомментировал реакцию Израиля: «Сейчас любые заявления Израиля не имеют никого смысла. Решение приятно лидерами большой шестерки, против которых Тель-Авив никогда не пойдет». Действительно, все последние действия и старания Израиля не обвенчались успехом. Свою позицию по поддержке Израиля пересмотрела Франция, и даже долгие переговоры премьера Нетаньяху с российским президентом Путиным не смогли убедить Москву изменить свою позицию. Конечно, госсекретарь Джон Керри поспешил успокоить израильский истеблишмент, заявив, что соглашение с Ираном – ключ к безопасности и установлению мира в регионе: «Наша сегодняшняя договоренность — первый шаг к всеобъемлющему соглашению, которое поможет сделать мир безопаснее. Соглашению, которое поможет обезопасить друзей США в регионе. Израиль — наш друг и если бы соглашение не было достигнуто, то это могло бы иметь самые негативные последствия». Если Израиль опасается сближения США и Ирана по причине возможной окончательной смены геополитических приоритетов Вашингтона (в которых роль Израиля будет отведена на второй план), то другой союзник Белого Дома Саудовская Аравия панически опасается усиления Ирана не только в политическом, но и религиозном контексте. Для саудитов геополитическое лидерство Ирана означает смещение центра исламского мира из Эр-Рияда в Тегеран. В интерпретации суннитов шииты являются «опасными отступниками, которые отказались от «истинной религии» из-за ложных идолов и верований». После падения режима Саддама Хуссйена, влияние суннитов снизилось, в то время как шииты стали играть важную роль в общественной и политической жизни страны. Другими союзницами Тегерана являются алавитский режим в Сирии и движение Хезболлах в Ливане, которые воспринимаются Саудовской Аравией в качестве главной угрозы. Опасения Израиля и Саудовской Аравии настолько велики, что стороны пошли на сближения. «Два старых врага объединяются против Тегерана», с таким заголовком вышла статья в газете «Sunday Times». «Саудовцы в ярости и готовы предоставить Израилю всю необходимую помощь. Как представляется, за кулисами идет множество дискуссий между обеими странами, в том числе есть правдоподобные сценарии, предусматривающие определенного рода сотрудничество в области разведки и в оперативной сфере. Вместе с тем я не думаю, что  сценарий военного удара по Ирану жизнеспособен. В настоящее время военных приготовлений нет. Просто идут переговоры между Советом сотрудничества арабских государств Персидского залива и Израилем о том, что делать с решениями и соглашениями группы «5+1»; — считает Теодор Карасик,  эксперт военно-аналитического института Ближнего Востока и Персидского залива. Страсти вокруг сближения США и Ирана накаляются, геополитические изменения ожидаются не только  в регионе, но и в системе международных отношений в целом. При этом, как бы не разворачивались события, Иран уже одержал дипломатическую и геополитическую победу над своими региональными конкурентами.   Галстян Арег  «time to analyze» — politics, society, and ideas (tta.am)  

06 апреля, 14:22

Константин Черемных. Предвыборные скандалы США: от "сервера Клинтон" до "панамских архивов"

Все предвыборные скандалы Америки: от "сервера Клинтон" до "панамских архивов". Аналитик Института динамического консерватизма Константин Черемных о том, как выборы прездента США влияют на мировые события прямо сейчас, есть ли связь между ними, терактами в Европе и "панамскими документами", а также о том, кем Трамп приходится Путину. Ведущий - Дмитрий Перетолчин. Для оказания поддержки каналу День-ТВ можно использовать следующие реквизиты: - Яндекс–кошелек: 4100 1269 5356 638 - Сбербанк : 6761 9600 0251 7281 44 - Мастер Кард : 5106 2160 1010 4416

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.

24 ноября 2013, 13:26

США и Иран договорились: Победители и Проигравшие

23 ноября 2013 года состоялся финальный раунд переговоров между странами «Шестерки» (США, Великобритания, Россия, Германия, Франция и Китай) и Исламской Республики Иран по проблеме ядерной программы. Первые два раунда переговоров прошли безрезультатно (в том числе из-за принципиальной позиции Франции), однако третья встреча стала без преувеличения исторической. Впервые после 34 лет взаимных обвинений и угроз, официальные лица США и Ирана нашли дипломатическое решение. Лидеры стран «Шестерки» и Ирана договорились «о мерах по существенному урезанию ядерной программы» до принятия окончательного соглашения. В частности, Тегеран  обязался прекратить обогащение урана свыше 5%, приостановить производство плутония и центрифуг и допустить инспекторов МАГАТЭ на ядерные объекты. Сделка также предусматривает, что запасы иранского урана с 20-процентным обогащением должны быть уничтожены не позднее 6 месяцев со дня заключения соглашения. В свою очередь, США обязуются разморозить некоторые счета с иранским капиталом (речь идет, прежде всего, о размораживании иранских зарубежных активов на сумму 4,2 миллиарда долларов),  и ослабить санкции, касающиеся поставок золота, нефтехимии и автомобилей. После окончания переговоров госсекретарь Керри сделал весьма символичное заявление, в котором подчеркнул важность достигнутых договоренностей. «Мы считаем, что именно санкции привели нас к этим переговорам и, точнее, к знаменательным переговорам, которые завершились соглашением. Я прошу не делать ошибки: не считайте, что это были санкции ради санкций. Целью санкций всегда были переговоры». Своим заявлением Керри подчеркнул тот факт, что США никогда всерьез не рассматривали военный сценарий решения иранского вопроса, но вынуждали Тегеран сесть за стол переговоров. Президент Барак Обама также заявил, что Иран полное право на развитие мирного атома. «В течение последующих шести месяцев мы будем работать над тем, чтобы заключить всеобъемлющее соглашение. Мы подходим к этим переговорам исходя из базового принципа: Иран, как всякая страна, должен иметь возможность доступа к мирной ядерной энергии. Мы воздержимся от наложения новых санкций, и мы позволим иранскому правительству доступ к средствам, которые им были недоступны из-за санкций»; — подчеркнул глава Белого Дома. В свою очередь, глава внешнеполитического ведомства Ирана Джавад Зариф отметил важность соглашения с лидерами «западного» мира, подчеркнув: «Ядерная энергия для нас — это возможность самим определять свою судьбу, а не позволять другим решать за нас». Лидеры стран «Шестерки» также прокомментировали достигнутые соглашения с Ираном, в частности британский министр иностранных дел Уильям Хейг заявил, что это «хорошая новость для всего мира». Таким образом, мировое сообщество в лице стран «Шестерки» добилось установления международного контроля над процессом обогащения урана и прекращения строительства реактора в Араке. Иран добился  смягчения экономических санкций, получив «добро» на развитие мирного атома. «Дипломатия спасла США и Иран, стоявшие на пороге катастрофической войны. Это начало, а не конец процесса. США и Ирану следует активно добиваться долговременного соглашения, которое позволит нормально развивать мирные отношения двух стран»; — отметила председатель национального совета американских иранцев Трита Парси. Безусловно, достигнутое соглашение нанесло серьезный удар по ряду игроков в регионе. «Израиль не может присоединиться к мировому ликованию, основанному на обмане и самообмане. Это плохое соглашение, затрудняющее поиски приемлемого решения в будущем. Подобно провалившемуся соглашению с Северной Кореей, нынешние договоренности могут фактически приблизить Иран к обретению бомбы»; — говорится в заявлении министра разведки Ювала Стейница. В свою очередь, министр экономики Нафтали Беннет пояснил, что «Женевское соглашение» ни к чему Израиль не обязывает. Известный американский политолог и аналитик Крис Уолт так прокомментировал реакцию Израиля: «Сейчас любые заявления Израиля не имеют никого смысла. Решение приятно лидерами большой шестерки, против которых Тель-Авив никогда не пойдет». Действительно, все последние действия и старания Израиля не обвенчались успехом. Свою позицию по поддержке Израиля пересмотрела Франция, и даже долгие переговоры премьера Нетаньяху с российским президентом Путиным не смогли убедить Москву изменить свою позицию. Конечно, госсекретарь Джон Керри поспешил успокоить израильский истеблишмент, заявив, что соглашение с Ираном – ключ к безопасности и установлению мира в регионе: «Наша сегодняшняя договоренность — первый шаг к всеобъемлющему соглашению, которое поможет сделать мир безопаснее. Соглашению, которое поможет обезопасить друзей США в регионе. Израиль — наш друг и если бы соглашение не было достигнуто, то это могло бы иметь самые негативные последствия». Если Израиль опасается сближения США и Ирана по причине возможной окончательной смены геополитических приоритетов Вашингтона (в которых роль Израиля будет отведена на второй план), то другой союзник Белого Дома Саудовская Аравия панически опасается усиления Ирана не только в политическом, но и религиозном контексте. Для саудитов геополитическое лидерство Ирана означает смещение центра исламского мира из Эр-Рияда в Тегеран. В интерпретации суннитов шииты являются «опасными отступниками, которые отказались от «истинной религии» из-за ложных идолов и верований». После падения режима Саддама Хуссйена, влияние суннитов снизилось, в то время как шииты стали играть важную роль в общественной и политической жизни страны. Другими союзницами Тегерана являются алавитский режим в Сирии и движение Хезболлах в Ливане, которые воспринимаются Саудовской Аравией в качестве главной угрозы. Опасения Израиля и Саудовской Аравии настолько велики, что стороны пошли на сближения. «Два старых врага объединяются против Тегерана», с таким заголовком вышла статья в газете «Sunday Times». «Саудовцы в ярости и готовы предоставить Израилю всю необходимую помощь. Как представляется, за кулисами идет множество дискуссий между обеими странами, в том числе есть правдоподобные сценарии, предусматривающие определенного рода сотрудничество в области разведки и в оперативной сфере. Вместе с тем я не думаю, что  сценарий военного удара по Ирану жизнеспособен. В настоящее время военных приготовлений нет. Просто идут переговоры между Советом сотрудничества арабских государств Персидского залива и Израилем о том, что делать с решениями и соглашениями группы «5+1»; — считает Теодор Карасик,  эксперт военно-аналитического института Ближнего Востока и Персидского залива. Страсти вокруг сближения США и Ирана накаляются, геополитические изменения ожидаются не только  в регионе, но и в системе международных отношений в целом. При этом, как бы не разворачивались события, Иран уже одержал дипломатическую и геополитическую победу над своими региональными конкурентами.   Галстян Арег  «time to analyze» — politics, society, and ideas (tta.am)