Mediaboss Marketing

Sixteen years ago a new president, George W. Bush, focused his attention on domestic issues, especially tax reduction, not on foreign policy. Bill Clinton warned him that al-Qaida planned more terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and the Middle East. Then, on Sept. 11, 2001, New Yorks World Trade Towers were collapsing and the Pentagon was severely damaged by an al-Qaeda hijacked jet.

Now another new president, Donald Trump, focuses on health care and tax reform. But unlike in 2001, his administration is preparing for war.

Three potential flash points are now visible: North Korea, whose missile threats alarmed Japan, South Korea and the United States; Russia, whose military incursions into eastern Ukraine and the Baltic region caused NATO to respond; and Iran, which intends to extend its influence across the Middle East by undermining Arab regimes and installing governments friendly to Tehran.

A military clash in Northeast Asia seems less imminent today than two months ago, following Pyongyangs missile threats against U.S. bases in Japan. Deployment of major U.S. naval and air power to the region and pressure on China to rein in its belligerent Korean ally have cooled tensions.

Similarly, armed conflict with Russia seems less likely than it did earlier, for two reasons: The U.S. and NATO deployed troops to Poland and three Baltic States to warn Moscow that the tactics it used in Crimea and eastern Ukraine would be met with force. Russian planes continue to harass NATO forces in the Baltic Sea, but Moscow recently took steps to avoid accidental clashes.

Iran is a different challenge. And unless Tehran changes course, it may trigger armed confrontation with American forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.

Tehrans Revolutionary Guard has paramilitary units that support Shiite forces in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iraq, work to undermine pro-American governments in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Arab Gulf States and potentially Jordan and Egypt. Revolutionary Guard forces are not under the authority of Irans elected government in Tehran, but instead report to the countrys top clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

America maintains two important overseas air and naval bases in the strategically vital Persian Gulf: a large Navy installation at Bahrain and a major Air Force base in Qatar. Iranian speedboats regularly challenge U.S. warships in the Gulf, and one of them may precipitate a clash that results in armed conflict.

Neighboring Iraq, however, is the most dangerous flash point for conflict between Washington and Tehran. This emerges as ISIS is driven from major cities, including the newly liberated Mosul. Iraqs Shiite militias, bolstered by Iranian Special Forces, plan to fill the political vacuum left in liberated areas and push Iraq into Tehrans embrace. Baghdads moderate prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, will be powerless against this outcome unless Saudi Arabia and other Arab states fully support U.S. actions to back his government and Iraqs new army.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told a congressional committee recently that Irans leadership plans to extend its hegemony in the Persian Gulf at the expense of Saudi Arabia. Our policy toward Iran, he said, is to push back on this hegemony and work toward supporting those elements inside Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government. Some suggested this is a call for regime change in Tehran.

Secretary of Defense James Mattis, a retired Marine general with wide experience in Iraq, called Iran the most destabilizing influence in the Middle East. Most defense experts agree it was a mistake for the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq in 2012. Washington reversed course in 2016 and now has 5,000 advisers, trainers and intelligence specialists in Iraq. They assist Iraqs military in their drive to oust ISIS from remaining strongholds after Mosul was liberated. Mattis thinks more troops may be needed to stabilize Iraqs security and reduce the chances that Tehran will prevail in its quest to gain control.

Is the Trump administration preparing for military action against Iran? If diplomacy does not soon deter Tehran, armed conflict should not be ruled out.

Nuechterlein, a political scientist and author, lives near Charlottesville. He writes an occasional column, focusing on foreign policy and politics, for The News & Advance.

Read more here:
The Next Foreign Crisis? Iran - Lynchburg News and Advance

BEIRUT The lawyer of a Lebanese man held in Iran since 2015 says his client has ended a 33-day hunger strike.

Majed Dimashkiyeh sent The Associated Press a letter from Nizar Zakka announcing an end to his hunger strike following a request from his children.

Zakka, who has permanent US residency, went missing in 2015, during his fifth trip to Iran. Two weeks later, Iranian state TV reported that he was in custody and suspected of having deep links to US intelligence services.

Last September, Zakka was sentenced to 10 years in prison and handed a $4.2 million fine after a security court convicted him of espionage.

Members of the US House of Representatives issued a resolution this week calling for Zakkas release.

Zakka, 50, was rushed to a hospital earlier this month, where he refused an IV, his brother Ziad told The Associated Press. He said his brother was prepared to die if he is not released, and refused to sign documents in Farsi, a language he doesnt understand.

Ziad Zakka, left, brother of Nizar Zakka who is imprisoned in Iran, speaks with his brothers lawyer Majed Dimshkiyeh in Beirut, Lebanon, Tuesday, July 18, 2017. (AP/Bilal Hussein)

Zakkas family denies the allegations against him. His brother said he had been invited to attend a conference at which President Hassan Rouhani spoke of sustainable development and providing more economic opportunities for women.

He showed the AP a letter of invitation for his brother from Iranian Vice President Shahindokht Molaverdi.

He is completely losing hope in life, and this is the most difficult period a human being might reach, Zakka said in an interview in Beirut earlier this month, adding that he had urged his brother to end the hunger strike when he spoke to him by phone.

The family has urged Lebanese President Michel Aoun to raise Zakkas case when he visits Iran in August. Aoun is a close ally of Hezbollah, a powerful Iranian-backed Lebanese group.

We hope that President Aoun will reach a happy ending in this matter, said Majed Dimashkiyeh, a lawyer for the family who has sent an official letter to Aoun asking him to intervene with Iranian authorities.

Zakka, who used to live in Washington, leads the Arab ICT Organization, or IJMA3, an industry consortium from 13 countries that advocates for information technology in the region.

The Associated Press reported in May last year that IJMA3 had received at least $730,000 in contracts and grants since 2009 from both the State Department and the US Agency for International Development, USAID.

Ziad Zakka said their mother passed away last July. He said she had sent a letter to Irans Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Rouhani through the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, telling them that my dream is to see Nizar.

Read the rest here:
Lebanese 'spy' held in Iran ends hunger strike - The Times of Israel

President Donald Trump said he would sign a series of bills that will impose stiff financial sanctions on Russia.

The announcement comes after Congress this week overwhelmingly approved packages to punish Moscow for allegedly meddling in U.S. elections.

After Congress approved the sanctions, Moscow said it was reducing the number of U.S. diplomats in Russia in retaliation.

In a statement late Friday, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said Trump had "reviewed the final version and, based on its responsiveness to his negotiations, approves the bill and intends to sign it."

The legislation is aimed at punishing Moscow for interfering in the 2016 presidential election and for its military aggression in Ukraine and Syria, where the Kremlin has backed President Bashar Assad. It also imposes financial sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

Before Trump's decision to sign the bill into law, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the bill's passage was long overdue, a jab at Trump and the GOP-controlled Congress. McCain, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has called Putin a murderer and a thug.

"Over the last eight months what price has Russia paid for attacking our elections?" McCain asked. "Very little."

Russia's Foreign Ministry on Friday said it is ordering the U.S. Embassy in Russia to reduce the number of its diplomats by Sept. 1. Russia will also close down the embassy's recreational retreat on the outskirts of Moscow as well as warehouse facilities.

Meanwhile, some European countries expressed concerns that the measures targeting Russia's energy sector would harm its businesses involved in piping Russian natural gas. Germany's foreign minister said his country wouldn't accept the U.S. sanctions against Russia being applied to European companies.

A spokesman for the European Commission said Friday that European officials will be watching the U.S. effort closely, vowing to "remain vigilant."

The North Korea sanctions are intended to thwart Pyongyang's ambition for nuclear weapons by cutting off access to the cash the reclusive nation needs to follow through with its plans. The bill prohibits ships owned by North Korea or by countries that refuse to comply with U.N. resolutions against it from operating in American waters or docking at U.S. ports.

Goods produced by North Korea's forced labor would be prohibited from entering the United States, according to the bill.

The sanctions package imposes mandatory penalties on people involved in Iran's ballistic missile program and anyone who does business with them. The measure would apply terrorism sanctions to the country's Revolutionary Guards and enforce an arms embargo.

Includes reporting by The Associated Press.

Go here to see the original:
Trump will sign bill imposing stiff sanctions on Russia, Iran and North Korea - Fox News

Mr. Trump had expected to be presented with options for how to get out of the deal, according to two officials, and in the words of one of them, he had a bit of a meltdown when that wasnt one of the choices.

Mr. Trump himself made it clear he does not plan to let that happen again.

Were doing very detailed studies, he told The Wall Street Journal in an interview this week. Later, he added that when the next 90-day review of the deal comes around mandated by Congress two years ago I think theyll be noncompliant.

His aides say they are not so sure of the outcome, and they described the studies Mr. Trump referred to as evenhanded efforts to evaluate the costs and benefits of staying inside the deal with its sharp limitations on Irans ability to produce nuclear fuel for at least the next nine years versus abandoning it.

Some concede that the diplomatic cost of abandoning the agreement would be high. The other parties to the agreement Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia do not share Mr. Trumps objections. If the United States withdraws support for the accord, it will be isolated on the issue, much as it is on the climate change agreement.

But the presidents mind seems made up. Look, I have a lot of respect for Rex and his people, good relationship, he said of Mr. Tillerson. Its easier to say they comply. Its a lot easier. But its the wrong thing. They dont comply.

Even longtime critics of the deal in Congress have their doubts about the wisdom of abandoning it. In an interview this week with David Ignatius of The Washington Post, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, strongly suggested that this is not the moment to abandon something that is largely working.

What I say to the president, and this is what Tillerson, Mattis and McMaster say, said Mr. Corker, referring to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, is that you can only tear the agreement up one time.

Right now, he added, its not like a nuclear weapon is getting ready to be developed.

Absent any urgency, he argued for a more nuanced approach. Radically enforce it, he said of the deal, demanding access to various facilities in Iran.

If they dont let us in, Mr. Corker said, boom.

He added: You want the breakup of this deal to be about Iran. You dont want it to be about the U.S., because we want our allies with us. Mr. Tillerson, he said, ultimately wanted to renegotiate a deal that would stop Iran from enriching uranium forever a concession it is hard to imagine Iran ever making.

Some version of Mr. Corkers radical enforcement is essentially the strategy that national security officials have described in recent days. They deny they are trying to provoke the Iranians. Instead, they say they are testing the utility of the accord so they can report back to Mr. Trump about whether Irans interpretation of the provisions of the agreement, and its separate commitments to the International Atomic Energy Agency, would pave the way for international inspectors to go anywhere in the country.

That probably sets the stage for some kind of standoff.

Iran has long said that its most sensitive military locations are off limits. That issue came to a head in 2015 when international inspectors demanded access to Parchin, a military base near Tehran where there was evidence of past nuclear work. A compromise was worked out in which Iran took environmental samples itself, under surveillance by agency inspectors. The inspectors found little, but the precedent of how the inspection was carried out was cited by critics of the deal as evidence that the Iranians could hide work on uranium enrichment or other technology in off-limits military facilities.

It is unclear whether American intelligence agencies possess evidence of potential violations that go beyond suspicions. Several senior intelligence officials have warned there are risks involved in directing the international agency to specific locations, only to discover nothing nefarious. Such an outcome would have echoes, they caution, of the failed effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003.

One of Mr. Trumps complaints about the 2015 deal is that it covers only nuclear activity, not support for terrorism, or missile testing, or Irans activities in Syria and Iraq. The State Department complained that an Iranian launch of a missile into space on Thursday violated the spirit of the nuclear accord.

The missile test was the first by Iran since Mr. Trump took office. But such tests of what are essentially carrier rockets are not prohibited.

The missile that was launched is known as a Simorgh, or Phoenix, which experts said was a copy of North Koreas Unha space launch vehicle. Irans national news channel said the rocket was capable of placing satellites weighing up to 250 kilograms, or about 550 pounds, into a low earth orbit of 500 kilometers, or about 300 miles.

Nader Karimi Joni, a journalist close to the government of Irans president, Hassan Rouhani, said Thursdays launch was a reaction to the House of Representatives vote on Tuesday approving a new round of sanctions against Iran. The Senate approved the bill Thursday night.

Iran is boosting its missile capabilities in order to increase the accuracy, preciseness and range, Mr. Joni said. Iran will not stop the missile projects.

In a sign of continuing struggles over Iran policy, the White House confirmed that Derek Harvey, the head of Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, was removed from his post on Thursday. No explanation was given, but Mr. Harvey was known to be especially hawkish about Irans role in the region, and he was appointed by the previous national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn. Mr. Harvey was widely reported to have been at odds with General McMaster, the current national security adviser, on Middle East policy.

Follow David E. Sanger on Twitter @SangerNYT.

Thomas Erdbrink contributed reporting.

A version of this article appears in print on July 28, 2017, on Page A6 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Looks for Way to Find Iran in Violation of Accord.

Originally posted here:
Trump Seeks Way to Declare Iran in Violation of Nuclear Deal - New York Times

The State Department said Thursday that Irans launch of a space satellite was a provocative action that violates a U.N. resolution on ballistic missiles as well as the spirit of the landmark 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Thursday that reports that Iran had launched a rocket carrying a satellite into space violated U.N. Security Council resolution 2231, which calls on Iran not to conduct any activity involving ballistic missiles that are designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

Nauert said the United States regards the launch as continued ballistic missile development that is discouraged in the U.N. resolution.

We consider this to be a provocative action, and a provocative action that undermines the security, the prosperity of those in the region and around the world as well.

We believe that what happened overnight in the early morning hours here in Washington is inconsistent with the Security Council resolutions, she added. We believe that what happened overnight and into the morning is in violation of the spirit of the nuclear agreement.

[U.S. slaps new sanctions on Iran, after certifying its compliance with nuclear deal]

The launch of a satellite-carrying rocket was reported by Iranian state media on Thursday, but it was unclear exactly when the launch occurred. Officials in Israel and the United States fear Iran could use the technology to produce long-range missiles that could pose a threat to the region, and beyond, if they help Iran develop intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Irans defense ministry denies that its space program is a vehicle for weapons development, and the head of its space agency has even offered to cooperate with NASA and share its data with other countries.

The Trump administration has been highly critical of Irans ballistic missile tests. This month, the White House certified that Iran was in compliance with its commitments under the nuclear agreement. But while the language on Irans nuclear program is precise and extensive, the language involving missiles is ambiguous.

Resolution 2231 was passed in 2015 to endorse the deal in which six world powers, including the United States, agreed to ease nuclear-related economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program. The agreement is officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

The language on ballistic missiles replaced a resolution dating from 2010 that said Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons. The 2015 version merely calls on Iran not to conduct such activity.

Originally posted here:
US calls Iranian satellite launch 'provocative' - Washington Post