Mediaboss Marketing

When Europes top diplomat arrived at the Iranian presidents inauguration on Saturday, it was a clear sign of commitment to better relations, even as the Trump White House has urged allies to isolate Iran.

But by the end of the ceremony, Federica Mogherini, the European Unions foreign policy chief, would land at the center of a much different controversy, one that involved selfies?

As attendees filed out of the parliament building, where President Hassan Rouhani had been sworn in for a second term, a crowd formed around Mogherini on the floor of the assembly. Dressed in suits and clerical robes and nearly all wielding cellphones more than a dozen Iranian lawmakers cheerfully snapped photos of the Italian Mogherini, who was wearing a checkered headscarf. One parliamentarian, giddy in a blue suit, leaned over the seats for the perfect angle for his selfie.

[Iran calls new U.S. sanctions a violation of nuclear deal]

It was a lighthearted moment and one that spoke to Mogherinis local celebrity as a diplomat who has forged ties with Rouhanis government and helped open Iran up to the world.

But photos of the incident soon hit the local press, and then came the condemnations and the ridicule.

Dear MPs, thank you for disgracing 80 million people, one Twitter user wrote, referring to the Iranian population.

Most of the criticism centered on the lack of decorum behavior that is normally frowned upon in Irans conservative society.But the countrys hardliners also saw something more nefarious: Iranians humiliating themselves in front of the West, which for them remains an archenemy.

Those who are supposed to defend the rights of the nation against the enemy queue up to snap photos in a humiliating way with the violators, the conservative Kayhan newspaper wrote in an editorial Monday, AFP reported.

The semi-official Fars News Agency also tweeted that the photo-snappingincident was strange. Lawmaker Alireza Salimi called the episode self-surrender to the West, the BBC reported, and others called for an inquiry into the parliamentarians behavior.

But while officials fretted over the incident, Iranians on social media saw the humor in it all.

One Twitter user posted a photo comparing the parliamentarians' rush to snap picturesof Mogherini with a scene from the movie "Malena," in whichmobs of men clamor to light actress Monica Beluccis cigarette.

Close enough, the user said of the similarities.

Another meme juxtaposed the lawmakers around Mogherini with an image of the seven dwarves from the Walt Disney animation "Snow White, crowding around Snow'sbed.

Others showed lawmakers photo-shopped onto motorcycles, doing stunts to impress the diplomat. One showed an image of a lawmaker pleading for a selfie for his Telegram profile photo. Telegram, an encrypted messaging app, is extremely popular in Iran, including among government officials.

MP Ahmad Mazani tried to explain his colleagues'enthusiasm for Mogherini, who was also there for bilateral talks with Irans foreign minister.The attendees, the reformist cleric said on Twitter, had been banned from interacting with special guests during the ceremony.

Shame and embarrassment, another user replied.

Read the original post:
In Iran, selfies with EU diplomat land lawmakers in hot water - Washington Post

The Democrats are consumed by in-fighting, though this is masked by endless expressions of anxiety over their opponents policies. To the extent that Democrats have identified a way to recover from an election that saw so many of their core voters defect or decline to cast a ballot, it has been to again appeal to the labor voter who couldnt care less about the American lefts addiction to identity politics. But the liberal activist class is ready to bolt if Democrats become a party that welcomesyuck!social conservatives again. Bernie Sanders and his semi-socialist wing is trying to excise centrism from the party by making support for government-run health insurance programs a litmus test, much to the consternation of Democrats tasked with winning back control of Congress.

Among the few things Democrats seem to agree upon is that their core message must be an anti-Trump message. Its the execution thats been the problem. Democrats are pretty sure that they will benefit from frustration with an unpopular executive and his partys failure to govern effectively. Beyond the broadest strokes, however, there is confusion among Democrats as to how they should go about making themselves an anti-Trump vehicle. The opposition party is occasionally guilty of leaving observers with the impression that they resent even having to make an effort.

Take, for example, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuels attempt to crystallize Democratic antipathy toward the Trump administrations illegal immigration policies into some sort of coherent and actionable prescription. The city is suing the Justice Department in the effort to prevent law-enforcement officials from withholding federal grant money as a result of its status as a sanctuary city.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions attempt to compel sanctuary citiesmunicipalities in which illegal immigrants have some reassurance about their status as residents so that they can maintain a cooperative relationship with local law enforcementhas encountered resistance in the courts. But the Trump administration is its own worst enemy on this matter, as well as most others. Democrats barely register as a nuisance, and they only have themselves to blame for that condition.

Democrats have yet to find a smart way to concisely explain why cities that dont fully cooperate with federal law enforcement should still expect to get federal grant money, wrote Axios reporter Jonathan Swan. Emanuel is trying to lead the way here.

Is there a good messenger for this message? Its certainly not Rahm Emanuel, who is under fire for overseeing a police force mired in accusations of corruption and anti-minority bias. Maybe its not the messenger; maybe its the message. Perhaps Democrats have failed to craft a compelling case against the GOPs antipathy toward sanctuary cities because they resent having to make an argument at all.

It is a welcome mat to racism, said Democratic Rep. Pramila Jayapal when an anti-sanctuary cities measure went before the House earlier this year. Amid debate in the House, Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch insisted that the GOPs proposed immigration plans were inhumane and un-American and merited no debate.

Surely these Democrats speak for many of their grassroots compatriots. If your opponents position is racist, it is also unthinking and, therefore, illegitimate. Why should anyone devote their time to crafting a compelling argument designed to counter a claim that is rooted in abject bigotry?

The idea that there is only one legitimate opinion on an issue is liberating. For those who convince themselves that theirs is the only righteous point of view, engaging their opponents would mean giving unacceptable opinions a platform they dont deserve.

There are not two sides of the issue of same-sex marriage rights, said BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith when defending his publications attack on two popular HGTV hosts on the mere suspicion they may harbor unspeakable opinions.

[T]here are some stories which do not have two sides, wrote former CNN producer Hardy Spire. The climate change debate is one of them.This claim, written in 2014, was made to reinforce the notion that Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn had no business debating with scientist Bill Nye. Nye now hosts a ludicrous Netflix program promoting multifarious notions of social justice while Blackburn chairs the U.S. House Energy Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.

The condescension that is now in vogue on the left that Trump voters must be convinced not to cast ballots against their interest (presuming their interests are best served by an ever-expanding welfare state and a crippling tax burden on their prospective employers) frees liberals from having to engage Trump supporters honestly. They have convinced themselves that anyone who doesnt share their point of view is the electoral equivalent of a pack mule.

For the left, this comforting contrivance has become a security blanket. Liberals have grown more convinced of the singular legitimacy of their beliefs even as they watch their works crumbling around them at an accelerating pace. Assuming bad faith in your political opponents is, though, a relatively painless way to go through life. Maybe thats all that really matters.

Follow this link:
The Olympics Should Investigate Iran - Commentary Magazine

Three weeks ago, on July 17, I postedin The Corner concerning a startling statement by National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster during a phone conference on the Trump administrations decision to certify to Congress, for the second time this year, that Iran is complying with the 2015 nuclear deal(the JCPOA) and that this agreement is in the interests of the United States. Click here and here to read why this certification decision was a serious mistake.

McMaster conceded the JCPOA is a bad agreement that has not improved Iranian behavior but argued that the Trump administration planned to certify Irans compliance because it had not violated the accord. I wrote last month that McMaster said in response to a question during the July 17 phone conference that Iran was in default of the spirit of the agreement and we need to take a closer look at whether it is violating the letter of the deal. McMaster also said Iran has been walking up to violating the letter of the JCPOA.

This statement was baffling not only because many experts and four leading Republican senators believe there is clear evidence that Iran has violated the deal, but also because of the absurdity of claiming six months into the Trump administration that the presidents team has not yet determined whether Iran violated the agreement.

During an August 5 MSNBC interview with Hugh Hewitt, McMaster adjusted his arguments on Iranian compliance with the JCPOA when he told Hewitt that Iran has violated the spirit of the JCPOA and, when it occasionally violated the letter of the agreement, the U.S. went to the IAEA to get it to take remedial measures.

This contradicts what McMaster said during the July 17 phone conference. This argument also is false since it ignores Irans refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect military sites and German intelligence reports of Iranian cheating. Moreover, as I explained in a September 2, 2016,NRO article, the IAEA has been faulted for being less than a straight shooter when it comes to monitoring Irans compliance with the JCPOA.

McMaster probably adjusted his arguments because he is trying to find a way to keep the United States in the JCPOA despite strong evidence of Iranian cheating and a growing belief by Americans that this agreement is not in their countrys national security interests. I also believe the general thinks the president is unlikely to agree to a third certification of the JCPOA to Congress in October and is looking for ways to prevent this by papering over Irans violations and the dangers of this pact.

It is my sincere hope that President Trump will dismiss the many misleading arguments being made in defense of the JCPOA by its supporters and repudiate this disastrous agreement as soon as possible.

Link:
HR McMaster Adjusts His Arguments to Keep the US in Iran Nuclear Deal - National Review

If, as he has clearly signaled, President Donald Trump chooses in the coming months to hold Iran in noncompliance of the nuclear accord, the impact will be felt in Tehran and the already volatile Middle East.

But the more serious casualty could be both more widespread and more distantthousands of miles away, on the Korean peninsula. And the Trump administration needs to begin connecting the dots now.

Story Continued Below

The United States has few options for dealing with the North Korean nuclear challenge, and no good ones. A pre-emptive strike risks an unspeakable catastrophe. Sanctions have not worked, and tightening them further is no more likely to. Diplomatic talks will be difficult for the United States because an agreement would involve a compromise that would allow North Korea to keep its nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, if the goal is to prevent Pyongyang from developing an accurate nuclear-tipped ICBM, then negotiating with Pyongyang may well be the only way to try to defuse a looming crisis.

Even under current conditions, such talks would be fraught, the odds tilted against success. But if the U.S. thrusts aside the nuclear deal with Iranand uses contrived evidence to do sothe message to North Korea and others will be that Americas word is disposable and the U.S. cannot be trusted to honor its commitments. This would deal a possibly fatal blow to any chance of a diplomatic effort to, if not halt or reverse, at a minimum slow down North Koreas nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

Indeed, walking away from the Iran deal, or contriving circumstances that force Iran to do so, will not only open up a now dormant nuclear crisis with Tehran, it will also close down perhaps the only option that might prevent a far more dangerous crisis with North Korea.

North Korea already harbors heightened suspicion and mistrust of Washingtons motives, fearing that the U.S.s real objective is removal of the Kim regime and reunification of the Korean peninsula under South Korean leadership. U.S. abandonment, without just cause, of the Iran deal would both validate and exacerbate those beliefs; to Pyongyang, the lesson would be that Washington saw diplomacy merely as a prelude to efforts to isolate, pressure and seek to remove the Iranian regime. Why would Kim Jung-un even begin negotiations if he is convinced that Washington would then look for excuses to unravel an agreement, should one be reached?

The message from Washington, of course, would not be heard in Pyongyang alone. The administrations too-clever-by-half strategy of messing around with the Iranian nuclear accorddoing just enough to tempt Tehran to walk away from the deal after Trump publicly acknowledged that his goal is to undo italmost certainly would undermine its credibility with nations whose cooperation it desperately needs to deal with the North Korean nuclear challenge. The recent unanimous U.N. Security Council resolution imposing tougher sanctions on North Korea demonstrates two things: first, that a unilateral U.S. approach is impracticable; and second, that China and Russia can be useful partners in pressing Pyongyang on its ballistic missile and nuclear programs. If anything, the Trump administration is banking too heavily on Beijing to somehow solve the problem on our behalf.

But consider Chinas reaction should the U.S. treat the nuclear agreement with Iran in a slapdash, dismissive manner. Beijing might well be angered given its interests in buying Irans oil and investing in its infrastructure. But it would be positively alarmed at the implications for North Korea, which presents China with a major security headache on its doorstep. China long has maintained that diplomacy with Pyongyang is the only viable answer to the North Korean nuclear problem, and it believes in the six-party format, which, not entirely unlike the seven-party format of the Iran negotiations, includes both China and the U.S. The precedent of the U.S. effectively dismissing an accord negotiated by a team of countries and ratified by the U.N. Security Council would give China considerable pause, raise serious questions in its mind about whether the U.S. can be trusted not to act similarly with North Korea, and make it virtually impossible for Beijing to vouch for Washingtons good faith vis--vis Pyongyang.

Allies also might lose faith. Throughout the long-simmering nuclear crisis with North Korea, the Bush and Obama administrations managed to preserve solidarity with South Korea and Japan. Going forward, any sustainable solution to this crisis will require implementation of a joint U.S.-South Korea strategy backed by Japan. Moon Jae-In, South Koreas newly elected president, is a strong proponent of engagement with the North, and both Seoul and Tokyo are desperate to contain the Norths nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Its hardly an exaggeration to suggest that both would be apoplectic if, by repudiating the nuclear accord with Iran, the U.S. effectively cut off the path to a diplomatic solution on the peninsula.

The odds against a negotiated agreement with North Korea are preternaturally long, but it would be the height of irresponsibility not to test its possibility. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently offered the welcome suggestion that the U.S. is open to diplomacy and reassurance to Pyongyang that the U.S. is not intent on regime change. Surely, both he and others in the administrationGenerals James Mattis, H.R. McMaster and John Kelly in particular, all of whom reportedly lobbied for Trump to certify Iranian compliance with the nuclear accord the last time aroundunderstand how hollow those words will ring if, the next time certification is in play, they fail to persuade the president. The least one can hope is that they will see the linkage, because its a pretty good bet that this president wont. And its just as good a bet that, by failing to peek just around the corner, he would be creating the prospect of a two-front nuclear crisis that America and the world can ill afford.

Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations.

Richard Sokolsky is a non-resident senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 2005-2015, he served as a member of the Secretary of State's Office of Policy Planning.

Robert Malley is vice president for policy at the international crisis group. He served as White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf region in the Obama administration.

Go here to see the original:
How Trump's Iran Threats Could Backfirein North Korea - Politico

An Iranian woman holds a placard showing a caricature of President Donald Trump at a rally marking the anniversary of the 1979 revolution on Feb. 10 in Tehran.

AFP/Getty Images

If youre feeling generous, you could say the one organizing principle of Donald Trumps foreign policy is that Iranian influence must be contained and rolled back. Though the president doesnt seem to agree on much with senior members of his national security team, like H.R. McMaster and James Mattis, these days, theyre on the same page when it comes to the threat posed by Tehrans regional ambitions. But far from being rolled back, Iranian influence appears to be spreading. And far from being united, the international community is deeply divided over how to respond. Some of the Trump administrations policies may even ultimately bolster the Islamic Republics growing clout.

Want to listen to this article out loud? Hear it on Slate Voice.

Listen to an audio recording of this article

Get Slate Voice, the spoken edition of the magazine, made exclusively for Slate Plus members. In addition to this article, youll hear a daily selection of our best stories, handpicked by our editors and voiced by professional narrators.

Your Slate Voice podcast feed

To listen to an audio recording of this article, copy this link and add it to your podcast app:

For full instructions see the Slate Plus podcasts FAQ.

Carlotta Gall of the New York Times reported over the weekend on Irans growing influence in Afghanistan. Iran is providing local Taliban insurgents with weapons, money and training. It has offered Taliban commanders sanctuary and fuel for their trucks. It has padded Taliban ranks by recruiting among Afghan Sunni refugees in Iran, according to Afghan and Western officials. Afghans also fear that Iran is working to subvert plans in Afghanistan for upstream dams that could threaten its water supply. Iranian influence has grown as the U.S. presence in Afghanistan has waned. From that perspective, the current debate within the U.S. administration over troop levels in the country presents something of a win-win for Iran: Washington will either commit more troops and financial resources to a fight it has little hope of winning (whatever winning means at this point) or it will draw down further and leave a power vacuum behind.

Weve seen this movie beforein Iraq, where Irans economic, political, and military influence is stronger than ever. Just days after the U.S. passed new sanctions on Iran last month, Baghdad signed a deal to boost military cooperation with Tehran. During his campaign, Trump often accused Barack Obama of handing the country over to Iran by withdrawing troops, but that die was probably cast in 2003, when the U.S. toppled the anti-Iranian government of a country that borders Iran and has a majority Shiite population. When the Iraqi military collapsed in the face of ISIS in 2014, Iranian-backed Shiite militias stepped in, doing much of the fighting against the group. Now that ISIS has been mostly ousted from the country after the fall of Mosul, those militias dont seem to be in a hurry to disband.

As reporter Borzou Daragahi recently reported in a lengthy investigative piece for BuzzFeed, militias, overseen by the secretive Quds force of Irans Revolutionary Guards, are an increasingly dominant force throughout the region. This is particularly true in Syria, where, in recent years, Iranian-backed militias have done the bulk of the on-the-ground fighting on behalf of Bashar al-Assads embattled regime. The Revolutionary Guards have reportedly also found ways to continue to supply covert arms shipments to their Houthi allies in Yemen, despite a U.S.-backed embargo.

President Trump noted these developments in his speech at a regional summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May, arguing that nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve. (The last part was a bit rich for a speech delivered to an audience primarily of monarchs and dictators.) To this end, the administration has supported new sanctions on Irans ballistic missile program, increased support for the brutal Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen, and may yet cancel the 2015 nuclear deal.

But U.S. moves have not been consistently anti-Iranian. The recent reports that the CIA is dropping its support for anti-Assad rebels in Syria is the clearest signal yet that the U.S. plans to leave the Syrian strongman in power, giving Iran an unblocked string of allies through Iran and Syria to the Mediterranean. At one point last spring, the U.S. military was actually firing on Iranian-backed militias to protect a group of rebels being trained by U.S. special forces in Southern Syria, but CNN reported recently that those rebels have left the U.S. coalition after they were told they were only to fight ISIS, not Assad. Some have even been recruited by the regime to switch sides. And while American diplomats have reportedly worked to ensure that Iranian-backed foreign fighters wont be the ones on the ground enforcing the recent U.S.-Russia cease-fire deal, that hasnt mollified the Israeli government, which opposes the cease-fire on the grounds that it will ensure a long-term Iranian presence in Syria.

Iran has also benefited at times from the confusion and mixed signals coming out of Washington. In June, Saudi Arabia and its allies cut off diplomatic relations with neighboring Qatar and imposed a blockade, demandingamong other thingsthat it cease its relatively friendly relations with Iran. The Saudis maximalist position was no doubt encouraged by Trumps fighting words in Riyadh, and indeed the president took credit for the situation on Twitter. But Secretary of State Rex Tillerson took a neutral approach to the situation, and the U.S. continued to move forward on an arms deal with Qatar, undermining the Saudi position. Qatar hasnt backed down, and ironically the blockades main impact has been to deepen Qatars economic ties to Iran.

The new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran may have an impact on some high-ranking members of the Revolutionary Guards, but its overall impact on Irans policies will probably be limited, as other countries seem unlikely to follow suit. China has been investing heavily in Irans infrastructure as part of its global One Belt, One Road trade initiative. European companies have also been investing in Iran since the lifting of nuclear sanctions: Just Monday, French carmaker Renault signed a $780 million deal to increase vehicle production in Iran. EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherinis attendance over the weekend at President Hassan Rouhanis inauguration for a second term was another sign that European governments arent heeding Washingtons calls to isolate Iran.

Thats going to be a problem if Trump follows through on his tweets to blow up the nuclear deal entirely: The U.S. can reimpose its own sanctions, but they wont have the same bite they did before 2015 if other countries dont join the push. Trump has made matters worse by signaling that he plans to certify Iran as noncompliant with the deal, whether or not his intelligence agencies conclude that it is. This makes it patently obvious that the U.S. administration wants to kill the deal no matter what and has no serious intention of giving diplomacy a chance. If Trump goes through with it, Iran could end up with something it almost never has: widespread international support.

It would be ironic if this deeply anti-Iranian administration ended up increasing Irans regional clout and global influence. Of course, this assumes the Trump administration doesnt follow its current Iran policies to their logical endpoint: armed conflict. Thats not a good outcome for anyone.

See the original post:
Iran Is Just Loving the Trump Era So Far - Slate Magazine (blog)