Mediaboss Marketing

It's been a fiery couple of days on the set of "Tucker Carlson Tonight." The famously combative Fox News host, who also happens to be my former boss, has been engaged in something of a foreign policy royal rumble with Republican foreign policy analysts Ralph Peters and Max Boot.

The fireworks started when Peters compared Carlson to Charles Lindbergh because Tucker questioned whether Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian leader Bashar Assad were really serious threats to the United States. Shockingly, being compared to a Nazi apologist didn't sit well with Tucker and the segment quickly became, shall we say, more lively? The next night, Tucker brought on Boot (who had praised Peters on Twitter) for another entertaining, if not always illuminating, display of verbal fisticuffs.

Who you think won these rather nasty battles likely depends on what your foreign policy worldview is. But whether or not you agree with Carlson's foreign policy worldview which is close to, if not exactly the same as, Rand Paul's non-interventionism he is asking legitimate questions that deserve to be answered and debated.

Why is it in America's interest to stand up to Russia? As vile as Assad is, are we sure he is really worse both morally and for U.S. interests than many of those vying to replace him? Is Iran really a serious threat to the U.S.?

It is the last question I want to attempt to reply to here, because I actually think it is the most important of the three questions, as well as the one with the clearest answer. At one point during Tucker's debate with Boot, Tucker asked: "Tell me how many Americans in the United States have been murdered by terrorists backed by Iran since 9/11? You say Iran is a primary threat to us."

After some name-calling, Boot gave a partial answer to Tucker's question by noting that Iran has killed U.S. troops in Iraq and, through its terror proxy Hezbollah, hundreds of U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983.

But as compelling an answer as this may be for some, it won't satisfy people with Tucker's foreign policy worldview not because they don't care about U.S. soldiers as Boot suggested, but because, as they would be quick to point out, the U.S. would never have been in Iraq and Lebanon if their foreign policy ruled the day.

But there is an answer that could appeal to even those with Tucker's foreign policy orientation. If I were on his show, I would have answered his question this way:

You make a fair point, Tucker, by pointing out that neither Iran nor its terrorist proxies have killed Americans on U.S. soil, like Sunni terror organizations have, though we probably should not forget the Iranian-sponsored plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador at Caf Milano in Georgetown that surely would have also killed Americans if it wasn't foiled. (That one should hit close to home since you occasionally eat there, or at least you once ate there with me.)

But, again, I take your point. Nonetheless, I would still maintain that Iran is an even greater threat to America than Sunni terrorist groups, which is saying something because I believe Sunni terrorist groups pose a serious threat. The difference between Sunni terror groups like al Qaeda and the Islamic State and an Iranian-sponsored Shia terror group like Hezbollah is that there is an actual modern state supporting the latter and states are most capable of producing weapons of mass destruction.

As you know, Iran has a rather sophisticated nuclear weapons program going, even if it may and I emphasize may have been temporarily suspended. Neither al Qaeda nor ISIS can say the same. If Iran were to develop a nuclear bomb, it would be the first theocratic state in history to have such a weapon.

Just take a look at the havoc North Korea is causing in Asia. Imagine a North Korea in the Middle East, but a North Korea with leaders who believe at least they say they believe that cataclysmic war is necessary in order to usher in a heavenly age. That strikes me as a very scary prospect, especially considering Iranian leaders are fond of leading their people in chants of "Death to America."

Even if Iran's mullahs are more rational than we sometimes give them credit for being a risky bet they would still be a serious threat to us. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, many other countries in its region will try to get nuclear weapons to counter it. That doesn't strike me as a stupendous outcome for the stability of the region. Beyond the potential cost to human life in the region if war broke out, as you know as well as anyone, the Middle East has lots of oil, which is kind of important to our economy. I don't think double-digit per gallon gas is a key ingredient in MAGAnomics.

Perhaps most importantly, let's not forget that Iran's terror proxy Hezbollah reportedly has terror cells in the U.S. And as the State Department once noted, Hezbollah is the A-Team of international terror, al-Qaida's just the B-Team. I can't imagine a graver threat than a theocratic regime that affectionately refers to the U.S. as the Great Satan having the means to annihilate a U.S. city with a suitcase nuke, can you?

So, yes, I'd argue Iran poses a very real and potentially grave threat to the United States, especially if it obtains nuclear capability, as many experts seem to think is inevitable. Whether it is really inevitable and how best deal with the Iranian threat are questions for another day.

Jamie Weinstein (@Jamie_Weinstein) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He hosts The Jamie Weinstein Show podcast and is founding partner at JMW Strategies.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

See more here:
Answering Tucker Carlson: Why Iran is a grave threat to the US - Washington Examiner

Last week the Iranian authorities arranged a rare international visit to one of the countrys most infamous places of detention Evin Prison in Tehran.

This visit wasnt arranged for an international prison expert or a human rights body. It was for representatives of over forty foreign diplomatic missions from Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. The UK had a representative there.

The foreign delegates were shown around some limited areas of the prison, and there was a roundtable discussion, held outdoors in a lush garden. There are photos in circulation and you can see various countries flags perched on al fresco tables, the Union Jack amongst them. By the standards of diplomatic meetings, it all looks rather idyllic.

Benjamin Netanyahu urges Theresa May to back fresh sanctions for Iran

But what was it all for? For the Iranian authorities it was very clearly a PR exercise. In the days after the visit, Iranian state media outlets were flooded with gushing stories about Evins supposedly state-of-the-art conditions. The excellent facilities were showcased, including an in-house beauty salon, a gym, a library and even a restaurant. And articles featured congratulatory comments from the Indian, Indonesian, Portuguese and South Korean delegates.

What these stories left out was the fact that Evin is a vast prison complex made up of multiple buildings where conditions vary enormously. The visitors saw only a handful of sections in buildings 4 and 7, mostly housing wealthier prisoners convicted of financial crimes. In these areas prisoners have used their own money to improve conditions, buying carpets, curtains, televisions, air-conditioning units and kitchenware. The beauty salon, gym, library and restaurant are only accessible to prisoners held in building 7.

Away from these select parts of Evin, things are much bleaker. Research reveals widespread inhumane and unsanitary conditions. Theres chronic overcrowding, severely limited hot water, poor ventilation, and infestations of cockroaches and mice. Prisoners have described being forced to sleep on the floor because of a shortage of beds and being fed barely edible meals.

Unsurprisingly the visitors didn't see any of this.

Ahead of the visit, some prisoners in building 4 were also transferred to create an illusion of humane living conditions. Walls were freshly repainted and the remaining prisoners warned against approaching the diplomats to voice any concerns they might have.

Meanwhile, the delegation was entirely barred from accessing areas of Evin controlled by the Ministry of Intelligence and Revolutionary Guards, where detainees are routinely held in prolonged solitary confinement and tortured. Similarly, they werent allowed to see where the dozens of prisoners of conscience are held. This includes building 350, where the prominent human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani and severely-ill human rights activist Arash Sadeghi languish; building 8, which holds human rights activist Omid Alishenas; and the women prisoners wing where human rights activists Narges Mohammadi, Golrokh Ebrahimi Iraee and Atena Daemi are serving their sentences.

And neither were they able to meet several dual-nationals jailed on spurious charges, including the British-Iranian charity worker Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe or the British-Iranian businessman Kamal Foroughi. Meanwhile, the Iranian-born Swedish resident Dr Ahmadreza Djalali was transferred to solitary confinement for the entire duration of the visit.

After the delegation had made their Potemkin village-like tour of Evin, Kazem Gharibabadi from Irans High Council of Human Rights said that Evins supposedly comfortable conditions are typical of the countrys high prison standards. With one ludicrous claim after another, he insisted that prisoners in Iran enjoy perfect access to medical care notwithstanding a report from last year showing how Irans political prisoners are denied access to adequate medical care as a particularly cruel form of punishment.

Back in the real world, Gharibabadis remarks are an affront to the hundreds of prisoners peaceful activists, journalists, intellectuals and human rights lawyers whove suffered miserably at Evin throughout its disgraceful history. Every year, scores of prisoners in Evin and other prisons go on hunger strikes in protest at appalling conditions.

The unvarnished, un-PR-able truth about Evin Prison is that its a place of suffering and torment as well as a wider symbol of rampant political repression in Iran.

The foreign delegates may not have known the details of their highly-controlled visit in advance, but it should be clear to them now theyve been used by the Iranian authorities in a piece of propaganda. They ought to speak out against torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners in Iran, as well as the arbitrary detention of human rights activists and other peaceful critics. And they ought to demand that the Iranian authorities open Evin and other Iranian prisons to independent international monitors.

This wasnt a genuine prison visit, it was crude political theatre.

Raha Bahreini is Amnesty Internationals Iran researcher

See original here:
Iran just gave foreign delegates a tour around a 'luxury' part of one of their most notorious prisons - The Independent

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

Big Oil Stays Wary on Iran Wall Street Journal (subscription) At a major energy conference here, Iranian officials said French oil giant Total SA's commitment of $1 billion toward a gas project this month marked a new chapter in the country's energy business since the end of Western sanctions. Iranian officials ... New Iran Commission to Oversee Total Gas DealNew York Times Iran wants Turkish companies for oil projectsDaily Sabah Iran expects to sign more big oil deals 'within weeks'NBC Montana Hurriyet Daily News -Reuters -Anadolu Agency all 33 news articles »

Continue reading here:
Big Oil Stays Wary on Iran - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

After a quiet few months, hardliners in Iran are slowly but surely returning to their traditional attacks on the US. Theyre discovering quite gleefully that their new target a wispy-haired political outsider prone to tweets and temper tantrums is almost too easy to make fun of.

Cartoons of President Donald Trump in various forms, from a toddler to a pig, are flooding Irans websites and streets, reflecting a gradual shift in the countrys attitudes toward the president. While Irans leaders were previously apprehensive or even a little afraid of Trump who had repeatedly promised during his campaign to go after Iran for its nuclear program and support for sectarian militias around the region many in Tehran are now realizing they have little to worry about when it comes to Trump following through on hyperbolic threats.

Immediately after Trump was elected, we saw a dip in the volume of anti-American language, says Ayelet Savyon, who has been monitoring the issue closely as the director of the Iran Media Project at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). But now theyre back on track with the inflammatory rhetoric.

MEMRI research shows that for about three months following Trumps inauguration, the popular Iranian hate slogan "death to America" disappeared almost entirely from official discourse, as did public burning of the American flag. Iranian officials seemed particularly anxious about Trumps threats to dismantle the Obama administrations landmark 2015 nuclear deal, which he has called a disaster and the worst deal ever.

Those fears have now largely been dispelled by Trumps performance in office, and specifically his flip-flopping on the nuclear deal, to which Iranian leaders have paid close attention. In other words, Iran is back with its anti-US jokes and is coming after an easy and obvious target: Trump.

Take the Iranian government-linked group that recently organized a Trumpism cartoon and caricature contest where more than 1,500 illustrators were asked to submit images mocking the US president.

The contest concluded with a gallery exhibition of the images in Tehran that was held quite purposefully, Savyon says on July 3, just a day before America celebrated Independence Day.

This competition was organized by a group that presents itself as an independent NGO but actually receives funds from the Iranian government and maintains close relations with senior government officials, Savyon says.

The group is known internationally for organizing an annual Holocaust-themed cartoon contest that insults the history of the genocide and gives a platform for Holocaust deniers in the country. Masoud Shojaei Tabatabaei, one of the leaders of this group, said in April last year that the organization he heads "cooperates with the Ministry of Culture."

His latest venture, this International Trumpism Cartoon and Caricature Contest, was pitched as a creative opportunity for international artists to showcase their political satire, but later seemed to some participants like a glorified platform for state-sponsored propaganda.

Ed Wexler and Clay Jones, the two American cartoonists who were awarded prizes in the competition, said they rejected the citation from the group when they learned about its tradition of organizing cartoon competitions that both deny and mock the Holocaust.

Accounts from both Jones and Wexler suggest that the way the Trumpism competition was carried out was ... sketchy to say the least. Organizers reached out to Jones via Facebook, explaining the theme and inviting him to submit a piece of artwork over email. They didnt mention any of the other competitions they had organized before, or the fact that they were based in Iran.

It was extremely simple to enter the competition, Jones said in an interview. There was no entrance fee, no paperwork. You just attached some files to an email.

When the contest ended and winners were announced, Jones and Wexler werent notified even though they had both won prizes. The two cartoonists found out about the results and about the group only when American news agencies started running articles on the contest.

They didnt notify me of anything. I feel exploited, Wexler told me.

I think the competition was held to justify their stances they hold, Jones says. They like to criticize America, and what better way to do that than to have someone agree with you whos an American.

Jones adds that he doesnt think its a coincidence that out of the 1,600 cartoonists who (organizers claimed) participated, the winner of the contest was an Iranian, Hadi Asadi. Asadi won $1,500 for his cartoon of Trump dressed in a suit of money, orange hair ablaze and face crumpled in anger with saliva dripping from his mouth.

Asadi told the Associated Press he wanted to show the money-mindedness and warmonger nature of Trump. I wanted to show Trump while trampling symbols of culture, he said.

Despite government statements otherwise, research institutions like MEMRI have known for years now that this group has definite links to the Iranian government. This contest, and the images it produced, suggests that the event was less a celebration of political satire or creativity than it was a state-sponsored platform for Trump-bashing.

Trump is not the first US president to be targeted by Iran, which has made effigies and caricatures of every president since Jimmy Carter, according the New York Times. In fact, according to Savyon, anti-US rhetoric was more severe during the Obama administration, which Iranian leaders typically derided as weak.

Whats distinct this time is that Trump, who worried some Iranian leaders with his braggadocio during the campaign, is now proving to be an exceptionally easy US president to skewer.

He isnt welcomed in certain circles in the US, so its easier for [Iran] to say look, its not what we say, its what you say, Savyon explains. Iran is no different from any other place in the world they see how Trump is treated in the US, by the press and other major elements, and they only echo it. They only imitate it.

Read more from the original source:
Iran's cartoonists are finding it almost too easy to mock Trump - Vox

I just travelled to Iran where was I was invited to speak at the University of Tehran about human rights and humanitarian intervention. I put this term in quotes because Ive rarely ever seen any intervention that was truly humanitarian or that produced humane results, but more on that later.

Dan Kovalik, 2017

Before I traveled to Iran, a number of friends and family members expressed shock that I would go there, feared for my safety and well-being, with some urging me not to go at all. Of course, this is not surprising given the antipathy of the U.S. towards Iran and how that country is portrayed in the mainstream press.

We in the U.S. are constantly told that Iran is our enemy; that it is indeed part of some axis of evil that must be sanctioned, fought against and even subject to regime change. In terms of the first assertion that Iran is our enemy we are usually told that this is so because Iran is allegedly a state sponsor of terrorism. This is a quite curious claim given that Iran is a sworn enemy of Isis and Al-Qaida, and indeed was set to help fight Al-Qaida and the Taliban after the 911 attacks until Donald Rumsfeld intervened. Meanwhile, the U.S.s close ally Saudi Arabia a country we just sold $110 billion of arms to has been covertly and overtly supporting Isis and Al-Qaida for years. Recall that fifteen of the nineteen 911 attackers were indeed from Saudi Arabia and that Saudi Arabia aided and abetted some of the 911 attackers.

The claim about Iran sponsoring terrorism is also ironic given the U.S.s support for the cultish Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) organization which itself wants to topple the Iranian government, despite its unpopularity in Iran, and which was actually designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization from 1997 to 2012. As the London Guardian notes, the MEK has claimed responsibility for murdering thousands of Iranians since 1981 (my friends in Iran put the figure of those killed at 17,000); supported the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran in 1979 and the holding of the American hostages; joined Saddam Hussein in fighting Iran during the Iran-Iraq war; and killed at least six Americans during the 1970s. Yet, the MEK, which was holding a conference in Paris while I was in Iran, is now a darling of such U.S. political bigwigs as John Bolton, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Howard Dean and Rudy Giuliani.

Another claim that is made about Iran is that it is a despotic, sexist theocracy which is offensive to our Western values and sensibilities (as if those are the gold standard). Again, given that the U.S. is in lock-step with the retrograde, misogynistic monarchy of Saudi Arabia, this claim rings hollow. Moreover, as any visitor to Iran will tell you, Iran is actually a quite modern, Western country where many people speak English. It is also a country where women, though certainly not as liberated as they should be, for the most part wear minimal head coverings, such as colorful silk scarves (which nearly all of the women on my flight from Frankfurt began to put on their heads as we descended toward the Tehran airport); freely drive cars and are found in every sector of public and commercial life.

Most importantly, though, talk about regime change begs the question of what the regime will be changed to and how it will be changed. In the case of one of the most notable recent acts of regime change the West has effected Libya we see that the West is content to topple a government , doing great damage to the people, civilian infrastructure and ancient antiquities in the process, and leave nothing but chaos in its wake. In my view, the West seems to have the same plans for Syria where it has aimed at toppling the Assad government while claiming to support moderate rebels who do not seem to exist. The regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan have not produced much better results with tens of thousands being killed, the countries being laid to ruin, and at best weak governments resulting from the ashes.

As I walked through the beautiful streets of Tehran and Isfahan, was warmly greeted by the beautiful people of Iran who actually love Americans as I came to find; and witnessed Irans wealth of ancient architecture, including functioning Armenian Christian Churches and Jewish synagogues, I couldnt help but feel pangs of fear and even anger at the thought of but another humanitarian intervention which would surely lay waste to many of the people and antiquities I was encountering.

Dan Kovalik, 2017

And, I wondered what the plan would be for Iran if the U.S. were to seek regime change. Would the U.S. put in power the unpopular and bizarre MEK? Or, maybe the U.S. would put in power the son of the last Shah (i.e., King) who apparently is making noises of wishing to return. Recall that the U.S. installed the Shah in 1953 after overthrowing the democratically-elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadeqh because Mossadeqh wished to nationalize Irans oil fields and use the oil revenue for the benefit of the Iranian people an unforgiveable offense. The Shah was kept in power until the 1979 revolution through the help of the SAVAK a brutal security apparatus which the CIA helped to set up and train in torture techniques to prevent democracy from breaking out in Iran. I had the chance to tour the main SAVAK prison and torture center now a museum and see the rows and rows of photos of those imprisoned, tortured and killed by the SAVAK. Is the U.S. interested in again handing over Iran to this terrible regime?

The truth is that Iran is a society which is progressing, if slowly and in its own way. It has a democratically-elected president and legislature and a vibrant civil society which is pushing for ever greater freedoms and reforms. If we havent learned by now, it is up to the Iranian people to decide their own fate and what type of government they will have. I am confident the Iranian people will find their way, in their own manner and in their own time, if we just allow them to do so.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Originally posted here:
US Hands Off Iran - HuffPost