• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди38
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы31
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации12
      • Показать ещё
      Разное12
      • Показать ещё
      Сферы5
      Компании10
      • Показать ещё
      Издания9
      • Показать ещё
      Показатели1
      Формат1
22 марта, 21:23

Federal staffers panicked by conservative media attacks

A spate of stories in Breitbart and other outlets have singled out individual career employees, questioning their loyalty to Trump.

07 марта, 00:29

Trump Didn't Start The Anti-Iranian Fire

Last week, Adam Purinton – a 51-year-old white man – reportedly stepped into a bar in Kansas and shot at two Indian men, killing one. He then left the bar and went to a restaurant where he allegedly confided to a barmaid that he had just killed two “Iranians.” With that act, the anti-Muslim and anti-immigration rhetoric that rode Donald J. Trump to the White House has now spilled over into fear for the physical safety and security of Iranian Americans. Yet Trump is not the sole author of this newfound dread. He was not present when the foundation for the climate of fear and hate that so suffocates our politics today was being laid. Instead, Trump built on and rode the wave of a project that has been years in the making. While there can be no mistaking Trump’s contribution to this project, Trump is nothing but the most outward symptom of an affliction that has long plagued our country. To chalk up the killing in Kansas to him and him alone – while ignoring the anti-Muslim and anti-Iran rhetoric that has long toxified our discourse – risks misdiagnosing a cause for its most prominent champion. We believe that it is time to deal with the root causes. We can start by calling out those who have forged and dedicated themselves to a project aimed at treating the Muslim world writ large as an enemy of the United States and as a threat to the safety and security of “ordinary Americans.” We can start by calling out those who pushed war with Iraq – cratering a country and subjecting its people to a paroxysm of violence that has yet to dissipate more than a decade later – as well as those who remain intent on pushing war with Iran.  It is these individuals and organizations that have utilized the most exaggerated rhetoric, up to and including the threat of nuclear holocaust and domestic terrorism, to build a climate of fear so that Americans unflinchingly support U.S. adventurism and aggression overseas.  It is these individuals and organizations that have helped lay the groundwork for Trump and his Breitbart acolytes to take the reins of power and push repressive anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant policies. For more than a decade, there has been an organized effort on the part of groups like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), The Israel Project (TIP), Secure America Now, and United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and propagandists like Michael Rubin, Eli Lake, Adam Kredo, and Josh Block to push war with Iran in the most hyperbolic terms, all the while defaming those – most particularly, those in the Iranian-American community – who urge a peaceful resolution to the historical tensions between the two countries.  Many of these seek to do nothing more than reprise their role during the lead-up to the war in Iraq by exaggerating the threats from Iran. Nor is it a surprise that their mode of argumentation – their modus operandi – so closely resembles that of the most hardline and pro-war elements in Iran, who for decades have likewise worked diligently, but unsuccessfully, to make the Iranian public fear and hate America, while accusing voices for reconciliation of being U.S. spies and agents. Consider, for instance, the historical analogues for rhetoric like this, which rivals, if not routs, the most hardline voices in Iran:  They want to dominate & enslave every man, woman and child they can reach w/ their nuclear terrorist totalitarian regime @terrinamajnoona— Josh Block (@JoshBlockDC) February 7, 2015 Or for the virulently racist agitprop that David Keyes, now the English-language spokesperson for the Prime Minister of Israel, organized during the nuclear negotiations in Vienna, depicting “Iranians” as medieval religious zealots: Or Michael Rubin, infamous for cheerleading the Iraq War and then overseeing Iraq’s destruction from his perch in the Green Zone, who once suggested that Iranian tourists to the United States might be planning terror attacks in New York City and who has never failed to accuse a viable Iranian-American political organization of working on behalf of the Islamic Republic: The parade of horribles can go on.  But the central point is that this anti-Iran project has perfected the art of pushing war with Iran, recognizing that its work is made all the easier by resorting to exaggerated threats and repeating racist themes ― by so indelibly connecting Iran (and Iranians) with terrorism that the identification cannot come unglued; by characterizing Iran (and Iranians) as medieval religious zealots so as to deny them the humanity we reflexively accord all others; by hyping the threat of apocalypse in the homeland if the United States fails to take the fight to Iran.  It is a mode of argumentation that worked so well in pushing war with Iraq and the broader Middle East; its replication with Iran should be none all too surprising. And ironically, the very same fear mongering is done by hardliners in Iran, though they have largely failed to convince the Iranian public to view the American people as their enemies. Anti-Americanism in Iran is strong within the Iranian government, but not amongst the Iranian public. A decade of messaging like this, though, has now had its payday: Adam Purinton walked into a bar and shot to kill what he believed to be Iranians.  More attacks like this will be inevitable if we confine our protests to President Trump and fail to push back hard against those who have for so long propagated the idea of Iranians as enemies of the American people. Tyler Cull is a Legal Fellow at the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). Trita Parsi is author of Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy, and President of NIAC. -- 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 февраля, 00:08

Weekend Roundup: When Leaders Disinhibit Acting Out Hate

Is an executive order in a secular state like a fatwa in an Islamic theocracy? Of course it is not in the sense that a fatwa, or clerical decree on a given subject, is the last word while a directive from the top in a secular democracy is only the first word. It must stand up to the laws and the Constitution, not to speak of citizen protests. But in the larger sense, if recognized authorities legitimate fear of others unlike them, might the extremist fringe regard such official guidance as the psychological permission to act? Canada’s famous philosopher of secularism and religion, Charles Taylor, approaches the thought in an interview about the attack on a Quebec City mosque earlier this week that killed six people. An ultranationalist is suspected of carrying out that shooting. “Whenever political leaders propose to limit the rights of Muslims,” says Taylor, “they encourage Islamophobic sentiment and disinhibit hostile acts. If highly respected leaders share that hostility, why shouldn’t people who hold the same views act on them? U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent actions to limit travel visas from a list of Muslim-majority countries will ramp this up throughout the Western world. His irresponsibility and unconsciousness of what his action entails is unprecedented.” Rowaida Abdelaziz reports on how American Muslims are troubled over Trump’s total silence and lack of the condolences that the White House would normally issue over a terrorist attack like the one at the Quebec mosque. With respect to the broader issue of immigration, Taylor does note, however, that while Canada is generous in accepting refugees, its immigration laws are much stricter than those of the U.S. or Europe. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the feminist Islamic reformer who was once a refugee from Somalia, agrees with Trump’s views on “radical Islam” but thinks the furor caused by his mishandled travel ban distracts from the real issue of the threat within U.S. borders. Picking up on Canada’s approach, she writes that “contrary to some of the president’s more strident critics, restrictions on foreign immigration are not immoral per se. Canada, for example, accepts only whole families, single women or children from Syria but excludes single men as a possible security threat. Most countries have such rules. Recent terrorist cases suggest that the U.S. could do with tightening its rules or applying them more rigorously.” Over time, she continues, many Muslim immigrants have adapted by adopting the core values of the West. It is those who don’t ― such as the San Bernardino terrorist couple or the Charlie Hebdo attackers in Paris in 2015, who believed it their duty to strike out at apostates and blasphemers ― that worry her most. Dean Obeidallah opines, “It truly seems Trump is trying to create a religious sectarian divide in this country.” U.S. National Security Adviser Michael Flynn is regarded by many as the spearhead of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the White House. As Jack Miles, author of the forthcoming God and the Qu’ran, writes, Flynn sees Iran, whose former supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued the original fatwa against Salman Rushdie, as the “linchpin” of an “international alliance of evil countries and movements” from which America must be defended. Miles fears that, unchecked, Flynn could take the U.S. to war with Iran.  Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who formerly headed the Foreign Affairs Committee of Iran’s National Security Council, strikes back at the Flynn doctrine. He sees the travel ban as “self-defeating” and damaging the potential for cooperation in a “region on the verge of total collapse.” He also warns that the so-called Islamic State, especially in Syria, cannot be defeated without Iran’s help. In his reflections on the renewed tension with Tehran, Trita Parsi points out that “even the most inexperienced commander knows not to escalate without having de-escalatory options at hand.”  Though the flurry of controversial directives and appointments by the new American president makes last week’s headlines about the wall with Mexico almost seem old news, it is just beginning to sink in south of the border. Writing from Mexico City, Hector Aguilar Camin worries that a virulent nationalism is being stoked in his country that could lead to unrest and instability. Further, he says, a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA would backfire by sending more migrants north looking for work. The country’s most sober-minded statesman, former President Ernesto Zedillo, is preparing for the worst. As he has put it forthrightly: “The prudent thing would be to assume that President Trump will kill NAFTA.”  Having already ignited new conflicts with Iran and Mexico, China may be next on the White House agenda. Shi Jiangtao reports from Hong Kong that a “major storm” in U.S.-China relations is rapidly brewing. He quotes one expert as saying that the two countries “are more suspicious of each other than ever before.” Russian relations with the new U.S. administration are uncertain. While Trump has telegraphed warming tones, his U.N. ambassador called out Russia this week for stirring violence in eastern Ukraine. Surveying opinions among Russians, Maria Snegovaya reports that, though doubts still hang in the air, “most Russians at home and in the U.S. support Trump. Russia quite uniformly celebrated the new U.S. president’s inauguration on a grand scale.”  Trump’s travel ban troubles not only Muslims but Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as well who rely on foreign workers to power their engineering prowess. On this subject, Norm Matloff agrees with Trump. Silicon Valley, he says, is using the H1-B program to hire foreign workers at lower wages than they’d have to pay similarly qualified Americans. Hassan Majeed, an international medical graduate from Pakistan working in the U.S., worries that Trump’s ban could result in vulnerable Americans losing access to health care since many international doctors work in underserved communities. Legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky worries that we are headed toward a constitutional crisis if Trump refuses to comply with court orders relating to conflicts of interests over his businesses, the travel ban on immigrants and his declared aim to punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal funding.  In an interview, top Bloomberg editor John Micklethwait discusses how journalists should operate in the Trump era of “alternative facts.” From the point of view of the press, he says, “We should not treat him as different, or set special standards for dealing with him.”  In our Singularity series this week, we look at a startup founded by a Stanford team that is controversially testing young blood as a potential anti-aging therapy. 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. Katie Nelson is News Director at The Huffington Post, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. Rowaida Abdelaziz is World Social Media Editor.   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), Dileep Padgaonkar (Times of India) 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.

03 февраля, 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...

01 февраля, 22:43

White House puts Iran ‘on notice,’ won’t rule out military force

Senior officials cite Iran’s 'highly provocative' behavior.

29 января, 10:35

Из-за указа Трампа режиссёр-номинант из Ирана не сможет приехать на "Оскар"

Об этом сообщил в "Твиттере" глава Ирано-американского совета Трита Парси. Он написал: "Подтверждено, что Асгара Фархади из Ирана не пустят в США, чтобы присутствовать на "Оскаре"".   Сам Фархади не прокомментировал возможность запрета на въезд в США. 26 января иранская актриса Таране Алидусти, сыгравшая главную роль в "Коммивояжёре", заявила, что не приедет на церемонию вручения премии в знак протеста против политики Дональда Трампа. "Запрет Трампа на выдачу виз жителям Ирана — расистский. Неважно, культурное это мероприятие или нет, я не поеду на вручение премии киноакадемии в 2017 году в знак протеста", — написала актриса в "Твиттере". Напомним, 27 января Трамп подписал указ об ужесточении миграционной политики, который распространяется на граждан семи стран с преимущественно мусульманским населением. Санкции коснутся граждан Ирана, Ирака, Йемена, Ливии, Сирии, Сомали и Судана. В США уже приступили к выполнению нового распоряжения президента и начали разворачивать выходцев из стран Ближнего Востока на границе, даже если у них есть виза. При этом премьер-министр Канады Джастин Трюдо написал в своём "твиттере", что страна готова принять беженцев, которым отказали во въезде в США.

29 января, 04:46

Academy Calls Possible Effect Of Trump's Ban On Foreign Nominees 'Extremely Troubling'

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, responding on Saturday to reports that filmmaker Asghar Farhadi could miss the the 89th Academy Awards due to President Donald Trump’s executive order blocking millions of people from several majority-Muslim countries, called Farhadi’s possible absence “extremely troubling.” Farhadi, who won an Oscar in 2012 for his film “A Separation,” was born and lives in Iran, one of seven nations from which Trump has barred immigrants and visitors to the U.S. for at least 90 days. The Academy Awards air Feb. 26.  In a statement provided to The Huffington Post on Saturday, an Academy spokesperson said that the group stands for the “human rights of all people” regardless of borders or religion. Farhadi, meanwhile, has yet to comment on the matter. “The Academy celebrates achievement in the art of filmmaking, which seeks to transcend borders and speak to audiences around the world, regardless of national, ethnic, or religious differences,” the statement reads. “As supporters of filmmakers ― and the human rights of all people ― around the globe, we find it extremely troubling that Asghar Farhadi, the director of the Oscar-winning film from Iran ‘A Separation,’ along with the cast and crew of this year’s Oscar-nominated film ‘The Salesman,’ could be barred from entering the country because of their religion or country of origin.” Farhadi is nominated again this year in the best foreign language film category for “The Salesman,” which follows an Iranian couple starring in a local production of Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman.” Trita Parsi, the president of the National Iranian American Council, a nonprofit that promotes diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Iran, was the first to speak out on Farhadi’s possible banning. The Tribeca Film Festival, which awarded Farhadi Best Narrative Feature in 2009 for his film “About Elly,” issued a similar statement, calling the situation “heartbreaking and unacceptable.” Oscar nominee Asghar Farhadi has been banned from entry into the U.S. to attend the ceremony in Feb. This is heartbreaking and unacceptable. pic.twitter.com/2PrwZWyBdw— Tribeca (@Tribeca) January 28, 2017 One of the stars of “The Salesman,” Iranian actress Taraneh Alidoosti, spoke out earlier this week in anticipation of Trump’s executive order about boycotting this year’s ceremony. “Trump’s visa ban for Iranians and others is a racist move and unacceptable,” she wrote on social media in Arabic and English. “Whether this will include a cultural event or not, I won’t attend the #AcademyAwards 2017 in protest.” In his 2012 Oscar acceptance speech for “A Separation,” Farhadi emphasized that the divide between the U.S. and Iran is fueled by politicians, not the people. He spoke about what the Academy’s recognition meant to Iranians watching at home.  “At this time, many Iranians all over the world are watching us and I imagine them to be very happy,” he said. “They are happy not just because of an important award or a film or a filmmaker, but because at the time when talk of war, intimidation and aggression is exchanged between politicians, the name of their country Iran is spoken here through her glorious culture, a rich and ancient culture that has been hidden under the heavy dust of politics.” “I proudly offer this award to the people of my country,” he went on, “a people who respect all cultures and civilizations despite hostility and resentment.” In response to Trump’s executive order, the Iranian Foreign Ministry released a statement on Saturday that prohibits U.S. citizens from entering the country. Calling Trump’s ban an “open affront against the Muslim world and the Iranian nation in particular,” the action signals a further deterioration of ties between the two nations.  The Huffington Post has reached out to Farhadi’s representatives and will update this post accordingly.  -- 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.

28 января, 18:33

Trump's Executive Order Is Already Hurting Refugees, Muslims And Families

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); WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting Muslims and refugees led to chaos in the hours after he signed it, as refugees and immigrants arrived at U.S. airports only to be detained or told they couldn’t enter the country and businesses had to scramble to adjust to the new policy. “We are hearing that last night a lot of people were turned away,” said Abed Ayoub, legal director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. “It’s had a direct impact on a lot of people.” The order, which Trump signed Friday afternoon, bans Syrian refugee resettlement in the U.S. indefinitely, shuts down the entire refugee program for 120 days and bars all immigrants and visitors from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days. ProPublica reports that the order’s language could lead to 500,000 green card holders, also called legal permanent residents, being unable to enter the United States to return to their homes. In a statement obtained by The Wall Street Journal on Saturday, the U.S. State Department indicated that the ban also applies to people from the seven countries who hold dual citizenship and are not U.S. citizens. This means that people of both French and Yemeni nationality, for example, would be denied entry. Coming in the late hours of Friday, and with little apparent consultation with other agencies and groups prior to its publication, the president’s order has created havoc and confusion among those tasked with overseeing entry into the country, to say nothing of the people actually trying to enter the U.S. In the hours after Trump signed the order, government authorities detained two Iraqis at New York’s Kennedy Airport, The New York Times reported. One of the men, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, worked for the U.S. government for 10 years as an interpreter. He was detained upon landing at Kennedy on Friday night, but his wife and children were let through, a former colleague of Darweesh’s told The Huffington Post. Darweesh was released the following day. The other detained man, Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was coming to the country to join his child and wife, who had worked for a U.S. government contractor, The Washington Post reported. Lawyers for the two men told CNN they have filed a lawsuit against the president and the government over their detention. The action in federal court seeks a writ of habeas corpus — an order declaring their detention illegal — and the certification of a class action covering any immigrants and refugees denied admission at ports of entry across the country, according to the complaint filed in New York. Google, meanwhile, told traveling staff members to come back to the U.S., BBC News reported. And refugee organizations began notifying volunteers that the families they planned to help were no longer on their way. Alisa Wartick, 36, said she and a group of 38 people in her neighborhood had co-sponsored a Syrian refugee family through the organization Refugee One in Chicago. The family ― a mother, father and 16-month-old daughter ― was supposed to arrive on Monday to join the woman’s parents and siblings. The co-sponsorship group had already furnished their apartment, and met the family via FaceTIme so they could see their new home, which they now may never see again. “Just imagining raising a child in a refugee camp environment and then being told you could see your family again, you could be reunited with your mom and your daughter’s grandma and being told ‘No, sorry, you’re three days too late for that’ ― I can’t imagine what that’s like,” Wartick said. Church World Service, one of the organizations that handles refugee resettlement, had been planning to welcome 212 refugees next week, 164 of them joining family members already in the United States, according to a spokeswoman. Those 212 refugees are no longer expected to arrive. Though Trump, on the campaign trail, had pledged to stop refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, there was some skepticism that he would actually follow through on the proposal. Business groups had warned against it, as did religious organizations, including some with traditionally conservative political leanings. Moreover, congressional Republicans spoke out over the summer against any policy that would bar people from entering the United States based on their religion. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was one of those critics. But on Friday evening, he offered a statement of support for Trump’s proposal. The ripple effects of the executive order make clear the difficulty in taking a blunt campaign promise and applying it to real-world governance, with seemingly unforeseen outcomes and immediate, frightening disruption in people’s lives. People took to Twitter to share the uncertainty now surrounding their Syrian colleagues and friends. Just hearing from my Syrian refugee friends: There are Syrians who were at the airport, visa and ticket in hand. They sold everything, /1— Jessica Goudeau (@jessica_goudeau) January 28, 2017 This was the talented Iraqi guy who helped run @latimes in Baghdad during worst years of war. Now in US. No words. https://t.co/FFRvQjnm8E pic.twitter.com/SdHtELNVav— Borzou Daragahi (@borzou) January 28, 2017 In other cases, people who made it to safety in the United States are now having trouble meeting family members from their home countries. Mohammed Al Rawi, who risked his life working for the Los Angeles Times bureau in Baghdad, moved to Long Beach, California, in 2010. His 71-year-old father was leaving Qatar to fly to Los Angeles to visit him Friday night when a U.S. official stopped him and informed him that Trump had “canceled all visas,” Al Rawi wrote on Facebook. U.S. officials then detained Al Rawi’s father in an unknown location and confiscated his passport, making it impossible for Al Rawi to book him a hotel in Qatar to sleep for the night, he said. His father’s phone died, so he has not been able to get in touch. Meathaq, 45, and Mahmoud, 49, of Baghdad just arrived in Knoxville, Tennessee, in August with their 5-year-old son and 15-year-old daughter. But they have twin 18-year-old daughters still living in Iraq. Thanks to Mahmoud’s work as a translator for the U.S. Army, they were able to get a special immigrant visa. The process for approving their visas took four years, beginning when they first applied in 2012. By that time their daughters were over 18, which meant the U.S. government required greater processing. Now the twins are stuck in Baghdad, and their parents fear they will not be able to reunite with them. (Both Meathaq and Mahmoud withheld their last names out of concern for their twin daughters’ safety.) “I am crying all the time, especially after the new law from President Trump,” Meathaq said. “I miss them and the situation in Iraq is so bad and I don’t know what to do to help.” Even the film industry has felt the impact. The executive order will prevent Iranian film director Asghar Farhadi from traveling to the Oscars ceremony next month. Farhadi’s “The Salesman” was nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category this year. Farhadi became the first Iranian director to win an Oscar in that category in 2012. Iranian actress Taraneh Alidoosti, a co-lead in “The Salesman,” said this week that she would boycott the Oscars over the visa ban. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, shared several stories on Twitter of individuals affected by the ban, including people with green cards to be in the U.S. The Huffington Post is working to verify those stories. Zane Shami, a naturalized U.S. citizen who has lived in the U.S. for over two decades, said he’d been expecting his mother, who is 67, to arrive to live with him on Feb. 7. Shami’s mother was born in Syria but has been living in Kuwait, where Shami was born and where his siblings live, since the civil war in her native country leveled her town. She was approved to come to the U.S. as a refugee after extensive vetting, Shami said. But now she’s unable to move here as planned, or even to visit. “I’ve done everything right. I did the checklist,” Shami said. “There’s no reason my mom can’t come here. It’s very un-American to say that we’re going to ban her just because she has a Syrian passport. That doesn’t sound American to me.” Here's another sad case of an Iranian green card holder being denied entry to the United States...[email protected] @ASE @rezaaslan pic.twitter.com/W3ycAYqTym— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) January 28, 2017 NBC Philadelphia reported that two Syrian families were blocked from entering the United States in Philadelphia and were sent back on a flight home. Ayoub said there has been confusion over whether the executive order applies to people who hold green cards, and that some have been detained for hours before being released. Nashwan Abdullah, 25, of Damascus, Syria, is on track to finish his master’s degree in music performance at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in May. Now that Trump has banned immigration from Syria, Abdullah’s not sure if he’ll be able to stay. He had been hoping to apply for a 12-month work visa available to foreign students, but does not know if this is possible any longer. Abdullah is sure, however, that he will not return to Syria. He does not want to be drafted into the Syrian military, or deal with the danger and scarcities of basic necessities in the Syrian capital. “Of course I am afraid to go back. It’s a war zone. It’s an unsafe, bad situation,” he said. There is one glimmer of hope for Abdullah: He is Catholic, so he is not sure if the ban is “going to include me or not.” This story will be updated as more information becomes available. Willa Frej, Daniel Marans, Sam Stein and Travis Waldron contributed reporting. -- 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.

25 ноября 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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 2016, 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)  

03 февраля, 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...

06 апреля 2016, 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)