• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди42
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы41
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации13
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
25 июня, 14:06

Trump allies push White House to consider regime change in Tehran

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

09 июня, 00:02

Inside Story - Is Iran now under attack by ISIL? - Inside Story

Iran is vowing revenge following twin attacks that killed at least 13 people and injured dozens of others in Tehran on Wednesday. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group says its responsible and is promising more Iranian attacks. Iran's intelligence agency said the attackers were Iranian citizens commited to "acts of terror". Iran's Revolutionary Guard blames Saudi Arabia and the United States. Whoever is to blame, it ramps up the tension in a region already on edge. US President Donald Trump warned states which sponsor terrorism "risk falling victim to the evil they promote". Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Trump's reaction is "repugnant". With all the finger pointing around the Middle East, what hope for a peaceful solution? Presenter: Jane Dutton Guests: Hassan Ahmadian - professor of Middle East studies at University of Tehran Andreas Krieg - assistant professor at the defence studies department of King's College London Trita Parsi - Georgetown University professor and author of Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy - 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/

26 мая, 02:03

Cancer With Political Clout

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

Выбор редакции
17 мая, 19:08

Upcoming Presidential Vote in Iran Tight Race Between Conservative and Moderate Incumbent

The sluggish Iranian economy is the main issue for President Rouhani's reelection says Trita Parsi, author of "Losing an Enemy" Visit http://therealnews.com for more stories and help support our work by donating at http://therealnews.com/donate.

01 мая, 15:44

Much Ado About Nothing: Politico's Iran Deal Investigation Debunked

It is a sign of the times that when we need to march in defense of facts, of women deserving equal rights, and of science not being a Chinese conspiracy, we also have to defend something as self-evident as the undeniable value of the nuclear deal with Iran from 2015. But in a post-fact era, even diplomatic triumphs that saved the United States from both the threat of nuclear weapons and another endless war in the Middle East face perpetual relitigation. The latest example is Josh Meyer’s article in the Politico claiming to reveal that the Obama administration gave previously undisclosed concessions to the government in Tehran as part of the nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The article is not news, but comes across as yet another hit piece against the nuclear deal, promoted and celebrated by those in Washington who are unrelenting in their commitment to killing it. Meyer argues, based largely on interviews with what appears to be disgruntled, mid-level officials at the Department of Justice and Homeland Security, that the Obama administration slow-walked investigations against alleged Iranian smugglers serving Tehran’s nuclear program and dropped charges against other Iranian operatives. And Obama apparently did this all behind the back of his own Justice Department. ... to the extent any concessions were made, they were made to win the release of Americans held in Iranian jails. From the outset, Meyer commits a critical error: He insinuates that any concessions in terms of dropping charges against potential Iranian smugglers were made as part of the nuclear deal. In reality, to the extent any concessions were made, they were made to win the release of Americans held in Iranian jails. The convolution appears intentional, as an article revealing additional concessions to win the release of innocent Americans lingering in Iranian jails would only receive a fraction of the attention of an article claiming those alleged concessions were made to secure the embattled nuclear deal. Few would like to adopt the line that the Obama administration shouldn’t have done what it took to win the release of journalist Jason Rezaian, Marine Corps and Iraq war veteran Amir Hekmati, and the other Americans held in Iran. Spinning the story to create a false link between these alleged concessions and the nuclear deal resolves that problem. The chronology of events and the mechanisms of the nuclear talks clarifies this. The nuclear negotiations concluded on July 14, 2015. Under the deal, the Iranians agreed to take the first steps to answer remaining questions by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in regard to their nuclear program by October 18. Once this was completed and verified by the IAEA, two simultaneous decisions were made: The Iranians began dismantling parts of their nuclear program, and the EU and the U.S. made a legally binding decision to lift or waive sanctions on Iran once the IAEA confirmed that Iran had fulfilled its commitments.  This is a critical point: After October 18, the U.S. was obliged to lift sanctions as long as Iran implemented the final phase of the JCPOA roadmap. Meaning, having done all it was supposed to do, Iran had no remaining nuclear leverage to press the U.S. to give additional concessions on the prisoner issue. Indeed, even if the U.S. and Iran had not come to an agreement on a prisoner swap, the nuclear deal would have still proceeded as it was solely dependent upon the IAEA certifying Iran’s completion of the roadmap. This was formally done on January 16, 2016 ― Implementation Day ― after which the U.S. began waiving sanctions on Iran. Meyer writes that “administration representatives weren’t telling the whole story on Jan. 17, 2016, in their highly choreographed rollout of the prisoner swap and simultaneous implementation of the six-party nuclear deal.” In reality, the swap was more chaotic than it was choreographed. Just days before Implementation Day, 10 American sailors accidentally wandered into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf and were apprehended by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Navy. The incident risked jeopardizing the prisoner swap, but was quickly resolved within just 16 hours. But contrary to the Politico article’s claim that the Iranians persistently extracted more concessions from the Obama administration, the Iranians released the American sailors without even demanding a single concession from the U.S. side. If the Iranian modus operandi was to link the prisoner swap with the nuclear issue and force Obama to give more and more to Iran since “the deal was sacrosanct [to Obama], and the Iranians knew it from the start,” as former Bush administration deputy national security adviser Juan Zarate told Politico, then why didn’t they use the 10 captured American sailors to bring Obama to his knees? In fact, as I describe in Losing An Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy, the prisoner swap was scheduled to take place earlier but ended up getting delayed as the negotiations proved difficult. And it was the Iranians who originally opposed ― for their own domestic political reasons ― having the swap coincide with Implementation Day. Eventually, though, that is what happened. But this begs a more important question: What if the Obama administration did drop charges against a few alleged Iranian smugglers in order to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons option? Why would such a trade-off cause a scandal in Washington? After all, for more than two decades, American and Israeli hawks claimed the Iranian nuclear program was an existential threat and that the heavens would fall if it wasn’t stopped. Yet, after the Obama administration put a lid on the Iranian program, the very same hawks now decry the nuclear deal on the (false) basis that as part of neutralizing this supposedly existential threat, charges were dropped against Iranian smugglers that the U.S. had no way of getting extradited anyway. One critic of the nuclear deal even told Politico that closing the investigations on these alleged smugglers did “significant and lasting damage” to America’s nonproliferation effort. Apparently, keeping hopeless procurement investigations open is more important to America’s credibility than blocking all of Iran’s paths to a nuclear weapon. Even if the nuclear talks were the reason for the closing of the investigations, who wouldn’t trade several likely hopeless procurement investigations for an agreement that cuts off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon and forces Iran’s nuclear procurement into an official channel subject to the approval of the U.S. and other international powers? The Politico article... gives a glimpse into the real reason some in Washington obsessively oppose the [Iran deal]. Still, the Politico article is very valuable. Not because it reveals anything nefarious about the nuclear talks, but because it gives a glimpse into the real reason some in Washington obsessively oppose the JCPOA. On the one hand, they oppose the very principle on which deal-making is based: That in order to get something, you have to give something. In their purist maximalist world, the United States should not have to offer any concessions to get concessions in return. Particularly not to a mid-size power such as Iran. To paraphrase arch-neoconservative Richard Perle, the only carrot the U.S. should provide is to offer not to bomb countries as long as they comply with American demands. If one approaches the rest of the world with such a bully-mentality, then closing investigations on alleged Iranian smugglers is unacceptable regardless of what the U.S. would gain in return. By definition, priorities cannot be established, because everything is equally important. Therefore, securing the freedom of American citizens does not take precedence over a procurement investigation ― not even blocking Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon would. Meyer’s investigation claims that “many participants [in counter-intelligence operations] said the way forward is still sufficiently unclear that they can’t, or won’t, proceed.” But who are these participants? Is the off-the-record testimony of mid-level operatives in the Justice Department ― who might only see their own small piece of the picture ― on par with the assessment of senior administration officials with higher security clearances who have the benefit of seeing the larger picture? If you are ideologically opposed to the idea of give-and-take, then yes. The Politico investigation also sheds light on another point: To large parts of the Washington foreign policy establishment the details of the deal is unimportant. If Iran’s nuclear program truly was the existential threat they had claimed all along, they should be celebrating the nuclear deal ― as parts of Israel’s security establishment does today. Refusing to do so suggests that what these hawks really oppose is the very idea of striking a deal ― any deal ― with the government in Tehran. To them, losing Iran as an enemy is the existential threat ― not Iran’s nuclear program. So much for the decades old U.S.-Iran enmity solely being an ideological obsession of Iran’s notorious hardliners.  Trita Parsi is the author of Losing an Enemy - Obama, Iran and the Triumph of Diplomacy. -- 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.

23 апреля, 09:24

США: ещё один шаг к опасной конфронтации с Ираном

Ужесточая позицию в отношении Тегерана под надуманными предлогами, администрация США имеет в виду не борьбу с терроризмом и даже не остановку иранских ракетных программ, а недопущение военного союза России и Ирана. Именно это нужно Соединённым Штатам для свержения Асада в Сирии с целью ограничения россиЛогика противников ядерного соглашения с Тегераном проста: жёсткие санкции вынудили иранское правительство пойти на переговоры по ядерной программе, поэтому продолжение давления на Иран может позволить добиться от иранцев уступок и в других вопросах. Давая поручение своим советникам разобраться, соответствует ли возвращение санкций против Исламской Республики национальным интересам США, президент явно рассчитывает на положительный ответ. йского влияния на Ближнем Востоке.

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.

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


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)  

15 июня 2013, 13:05

В мире: Озвучены предварительные итоги выборов в Иране

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