Mediaboss Marketing

Lena Epstein Published 10:48 p.m. ET Aug. 6, 2017

U.S. policy has essentially boosted Tehrans ability to foment terrorism and threaten American interests, Lena Epstein writes.(Photo: Vahid Salemi / AP)

When Sen. Debbie Stabenow joined 41 of her Democratic Senate colleagues to vote for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, more commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, back in 2015, they made a catastrophic foreign policy mistake that has left the U.S, Israel, and the international community at large much less secure.

As recently as July 27, their mistake once again became painfully obvious when Iran conducted a successful launch of a long-range missile into space: such a blatant pretext for continued advancement of its ICBM program, youd have to be completely naive not to realize it. But, given the terms of the deal negotiated under President Obama, this type of activity isnt a violation of the nuclear deal.

Iran is free to continue testing and perfecting its nuclear delivery systems, just as long as it doesnt enrich uranium or plutonium to dangerous levels. This is not what I consider a comprehensive plan to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the worlds most prolific state sponsor of terror, the same state that has explicitly called for the annihilation of the state of Israel.

As a result of the deal, Iran has experienced a windfall of cash flowing into its coffers. With sanctions eased and foreign assets unfrozen, Iran has had an influx of over $100 billion, which it has used to double down on terrorist activities, and dramatically expand its military budget.

The consequences can be felt throughout the already unstable Middle East as Iran provides support to Hamas and Hezbollah, and actively works to further destabilize Syria by sending thousands of its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to support Bashar al-Assads brutal regime that has slaughtered and displaced millions of Syrians. U.S. policy has essentially bolstered Irans ability to carry out these terrorist activities and threaten American interests in the region, including putting American service members, stationed in the Middle East, at risk.

This cannot continue. A nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to one of our closest allies, Israel, and puts American security in jeopardy. Both of our U.S. senators here in Michigan Stabenow and Gary Peters voted in favor of this reprehensible deal.

Stabenows vote on the Iran deal is one of the key factors that spurred me, an American, a Jewish woman, and a staunch supporter of Israel, to enter the U.S. Senate race and take her on next November. A member of Congress is no friend of Israel if he or she doesnt vote in our close allys best interest when it counts the most when there is a deal on the table that puts the Jewish states very existence in danger.

The American people opposed the Iran deal by a 2 to 1 margin, and yet were in this perilous situation because Stabenow pushed it through anyway. We cant keep sending the same people back to Washington and expect different results.

We need elected officials who support Israel because its a moral obligation, not because its politically expedient.

Lena Epstein is the third-generation owner and general manager of Southfield-based Vesco Oil Corp.

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2ufgmsn

Read more from the original source:
Column: US needs to stand up to Iran - The Detroit News

Since the Iranian regime has been the main source of conflict in the Middle East, countering Irans destabilizing interventions should be the top priority of the U.S. Middle East policy. The recent act passed by Congress and signed by President Trump takes the first step in that direction.

However, the primary reason for accelerated Iranian meddling in the region has been the security guarantees provided by the 2015 nuclear deal. Therefore, to successfully counter Irans destabilizing activities, the U.S. needs to deprive Iran of those undeserved security guarantees by ending the nuclear deal.

To be successful in keeping Iran in check, we need to understand the dynamics of the three main threats originating from the Iranian regime: its nuclear program and the joint missile development; its destabilizing regional activities and its violation of human rights at home.

Tehran is standing on shaky ground. The Iranian regime started its regional interventions shortly after taking power in 1979. It's interventionist approach stemmed from a lack of popular support at home, which was clear during the first presidential election in 1980 whenthe candidate of the Islamic Republic Party followers of Khomeini who are now ruling the country achieved less than 5 percent of the popular vote.

To compensate for its domestic weakness, the regime needed to find or create allies like Hezbollah in the region.

Brutal suppression of dissidents and flagrant violation of human rights is another indication that the regime has a mostly nonexistent popular base. It was less than a month after the establishment of the regime in 1979 that the Iranian people started their anti-regime resistance movement via the demonstration of Iranian women against compulsory veiling or hijab instituted by reactionary mullahs.

Since then, ongoing rule of the regime has been made possible only by the ruthless suppression of all dissident groups by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its affiliate bodies, like Basij.

Deprived of legitimacy at home, the Iranian regime sought to forcibly gain recognition by seeking weapons of mass destruction. It poured tens of billions of dollars into its nuclear and ballistic missile programs instead of investing in the economy, education and the Iranian people's long-term demands. The mullahs want the nuclear capability to dishearten the dissident majority at home and deter foreign actors.

There is, therefore, a clear link between Irans destabilizing activities and its nuclear program. Since, for the mullahs, the nuclear program is vital, and due to their lack of legitimacy at home, the mullahs perceive the threat of military action and sanctions against their nuclear facilities as an existential threat.

In fact, credible threat of military action and the harm done by sanctions were the main reasons for Irans temporary retreat on the nuclear issue and its return to negotiations in 2011. Accordingly, when Iran achieved the nuclear deal with the U.S. and its allies and was reassured of the practical improbability of military action, the mullahs intensified their destabilizing regional interventions.

One might object that the nuclear deal is working, and scrapping the deal might not be in Americas interest. However, the problem is that most of Iran's nuclear facilities are located in military bases to which the IAEA inspectors do not have any access. Against this backdrop, how can one definitively claim that Iran is not cheating?

Worse yet, who would be able to conclude that Iran is in fact cheating? Under the deal, it is not surprising that Iran "remains in compliance with the deal," as the proponents of the deal claim.

Irans destabilizing regional interventions cannot be addressed with the current security reassurances Iran enjoys as a result of the nuclear deal.

In the end, the regime's greatest security vulnerability is at home. That is why any U.S. policy on Iran must include the indigenous forces within Iran, including the organized opposition, as the primary actors for confronting the threat of the mullahs once and for all.

Ultimately, it is up to the Iranian people to produce fundamental and long-lasting change. The international community should support them by ending the policy of engagement toward Tehran.

Dr. Shahram Ahmadi Nasab Emran, MA, Ph.D., teaches at the Albert Gnaegi Center for Health Care Ethics, Saint Louis University. He has participated in international policy forums, including the Policy Studies Organization's 2016 Middle East Dialogue, and has written for multiple Iranian news outlets.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read the rest here:
Scrap the nuclear deal to make sure Iran sanctions work - The Hill (blog)

Men greet each other in front of Turkish flag and picture of modern Turkey's founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk at Istanbul Ataturk airport, Turkey, following yesterday's blast June 29, 2016. . (photo credit:REUTERS)

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotoveli told Israel's Reshet Bet radio on Monday that the Iranian blogger who was offered asylum in Israel was delayed from coming to the country because of "personal reasons" and would be arriving in "the coming days."

Hotoveli also said that the Israeli consulate was in touch with her.

Israel's foreign ministry was looking into reports that the Turkey-based Iranian blogger who was offered asylum in Israel was arrested at Istanbul Airport Monday morning, according to Reshet Bet radio station. The blogger, Neda Amin was reportedly en route to Tel Aviv.

Times of Israel Editor-in-Chief David Horovitz who's online publication featured Amin's blogs tweeted that the report was false.

Neda Amin faced forcible deportation to Iran, where she would be at risk given her work as a Persian-language blogger at an Israeli news site, before Israel offered her asylum on Sunday. Amin left Iran in 2014 for Turkey, according to The Times of Israel. She has been in a court battle to prevent her repatriation and has sought other countries that might take her in as a refugee, the site said.

Iranians are generally not admitted to Israel, due to hostility between the two countries.

But following appeals by Israel's journalist federations, Interior Minister Aryeh Deri said he would issue 32-year-old Amin with a special visa on Sunday.

"This is a journalist whose life is in real danger," Deri said in a statement. "Given the clear humanitarian circumstances, I authorized her entry without delay."

Reuters contributed to this report.

Share on facebook

Go here to see the original:
Deputy FM says Israel is in touch with Iranian blogger seeking asylum - The Jerusalem Post

President Trump seems determinedto not certifythat Iran is complying with the nuclear deal when that question comes before him this fall. But that would be only the beginning of the story. He could follow such a determination with actions thatrisk blowingup the deal and the U.S.-Iran relationship. Or he could assome of his senior national security advisersprefer adopt a more careful, complicated approach.

Theres a growing push both inside and outside the administration to craft a way to acknowledge what many see as Irans violations of the nuclear agreement without precipitating a crisis. Many worry that provoking the deals collapse would not only risk an unpredictable and dangerous escalation but also hamper the international effort to confront Irans regional expansion, support for terrorism and other mischief.

The question is whether Trumps national security team can persuade him to take a middle approach to a nuclear deal he campaigned against and clearly despises.

In a news conference last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid out his view that the Iran deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), must not dominate the administrations Iran focus. Tillerson admitted he disagrees with the president on whether the agreement can be salvaged.

The JCPOA represents a small slice of the Iranian relationship, he said, adding, We continue to have conversations about the utility of that agreement, whether it has utility, whether it doesnt have utility.

[President Trump] and I have differences of views on things like JCPOA and how we should use it, he said.

Tillerson argued for certifying Irans compliance when it came up in April and July. Both times, Trump yielded to Tillersons view. But in an interview with the Wall Street Journal last week, Trump suggested he wont again.

If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago, Trump said, adding that next time, I think theyll be noncompliant.

The intelligence community believes that Irans violations are minor and do not amount to a material breach. But the presidents view is that Iran is in violation of the spirit of the deal, a senior White House official told me. Under the law Congress passed, the certification is subjective.

Its also unclear what follows non-certification. Trump could continue to waive nuclear sanctions on Iran or stop, effectively reimposing them. The White House admittedly does not know how the Iranian government would react to new sanctions, the official said.

Congress could also reimpose sanctions if Trump does not certify compliance. For many Republicans, having new negotiations with Iran would be nice but is not necessary. They agree with Trump that the deal is probably not worth saving.

I dont think we get much benefit from the deal, so it collapsing doesnt trouble me all that much, said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). The presidents instincts on Iran are sound.

Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster argue that if Trump decides not to certify Iranian compliance, rather than scuttle the deal he can work to improve it and increase pressure on Iran in other ways, according to sources involved in the discussions.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo agrees with Tillerson and McMaster that Irans regional threats are the near-term priority. Unlike Tillerson, Pompeo has never supported certifying compliance.

McMasters team is leading an interagency policy review that is sure to call for expanding confrontation with Iran in places such as Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. The Iran deal, if in place, could be used as a pressure point while upping the ante on those fronts, experts argue.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and David Albright of Institute for Science and International Security have offered a middle approach they describe as waive and slap, recommending that Trump not certify compliance but continue to waive nuclear sanctions while imposing new sanctions on nonnuclear issues.

Skeptics doubt the Trump team can thread the needle, considering that once Trump declares noncompliance, theres no way to predict what Iran will do. Also, tinkering with the deal or reimposing sanctions could cause new disputes with European allies and other partners, such as Russia and China.

Even if they did a great job, its serious risks, said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. And for what gain?

If Trump is determined to get the United States out of the Iran deal, nobody can stop him. But if the majority of his national security team gets its way, Trump will repeat what he did with Cuba: make minimal changes to the policy, then declare he has undone Obamas terrible deal and fulfilled a campaign promise.

And if Trump cant bring himself to certify Irans compliance anymore, he should at least minimize the chances his decision will cause a diplomatic crisis and distract the United States from the mission of combating Irans other nefarious activities.

Read more from Josh Rogins archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook.

View original post here:
How Trump can confront Iran without blowing up the nuclear deal - Washington Post

HARI SREENIVASAN, PBS NEWSHOUR WEEKEND ANCHOR: Were now in the 16th year of U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan. The numbers are less than they were, and it is reported that the Trump administration is looking at political and military options there. The president has also reportedly weighed personnel changes overseeing the American effort, and is frustrated by what he sees as a losing position in the war.

And, as The New York Times reported this weekend, Iran has gained influence in Afghanistan, conducting covert activities and supporting their one-time enemy, the Taliban. According to The Times report, quote: As the NATO mission in Afghanistan expanded, the Iranians quietly began supporting the Taliban, to bleed the Americans and their allies by raising the cost of the intervention so that they would leave.

Joining me now via Skype from Istanbul, Turkey, is Carlotta Gall, who wrote the story.

Carlotta, Iranians and the Taliban are on opposite sides of the Sunni/Shia divide. Why are they working together here?

CARLOTTA GALL, REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Thats what amazes me, and this is where we found last year when the Taliban leader Mullah Mansour was killed, he was actually returning from a very high-level visit in Iran. And it wasnt his first. Hed done at least three trips.

Theyre calculating that the American drawdown is going to continue, and that they want to have proxies that they can influence, on, along their especially along their border. And so, the Taliban were the ones who were in play. And so, they reached out to them, and amazingly, they even connected them with Russia and helped get weapons to the Taliban.

So, its a turnabout from when the Taliban was really, almost at war with Iran. Now, they seem to think, you know, a lesser enemy would be each other, and get to work.

SREENIVASAN: Whats financing all this?

GALL: The Taliban, as you probably know, have always been financed by Pakistan and the Gulf Arab states really as a Sunni force. And they are, actually, have been just trying to diversify under Mansour. He was keen to reach out to Iran for money, but also weapons, training. And he also gets a lot of money from the drugs, but it seems that also how he had connections with Iran, because a lot of narcotics that are grown in Afghanistan go out through Iran.

SREENIVASAN: And youre saying that theres evidence of Iranian involvement even in some of the Taliban raids that are happening in Afghanistan?

GALL: We went down to Farah, which is a very remote province on the western Afghanistans western border, with Iran. And they had a very big assault last year, last October. They had big air strikes. And they have discovered that through Iranian commanders, whod been killed in that operation. So, Iranians had been involved on a high level.

SREENIVASAN: So, is the goal then for Iran to sow instability in the region, or just specifically in Afghanistan, knowing that, even if they dont particularly control it, this is an opportunity for them to get the Americans out?

GALL: They really dont want American troops and influence in Afghanistan. They see it as their backyard. But they are also calculating, they want proxy forces that are loyal to them or at least controlled by them, that they have some leverage over. So, thats the calculation to help some of the Taliban that are local along their area.

They also really want to hurt America, and thats their ultimate aim to bleed them, as we wrote, and to push them out eventually.

SREENIVASAN: All right. Carlotta Gall of The New York Times joining us via Skype from Istanbul, thanks so much.

Originally posted here:
Iran gains influence in Afghanistan as war continues - PBS NewsHour