Mediaboss Marketing

President Trump answers questions about impeachment and Iran during an event at the White House in Washington, D.C., January 9, 2020. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)

On Sunday, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman suggested that it was hypocritical of President Trump to criticize the Iranian governments treatment of journalists, given the way that he himself talks about the American press.

Earlier that day, Trump tweeted:

Haberman then replied, saying: Let reporters roam free says the president, who routinely refers to the US press as enemy of the people, to Iranian leaders, according to Fox News.

In other words: In Habermans mind, it is absurd for Trump to criticize the Iranian governments treatment of journalists which includes, you know, jailing, torturing, and sometimes even killing them when he himself speaks negatively of the American press.

Anyone with a functioning brain, of course, could quite clearly see that her comparison is whats absurd; saying bad things about a group of people is hardly the same as murdering them.

Now, I am certainly not saying that I agree with the way that Trump has treated the press throughout his time in politics. Far from it. In fact, I myself have criticized him on this; its been the subject of more than one of my columns. For example: In October of 2017, I slammed Trump when he called for television programs to give equal time to positive coverage of him and his viewpoints, calling it unsettling for him to suggest that the government has anything to say about our medias coverage of it, pointing how our press having the freedom to criticize the people in power over us without any constraints serves as an important check on that power becoming unbridled.

Later that month after Trump stated that he thought it was frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write I became so frustrated with supposedly small-government conservatives neglecting or refusing to condemn the way that the president speaks about the media, in a column titled: Conservatives, Get Real with Yourselves and Denounce Trumps Attacks on the Press.

Heres the thing, though: Its exactly comments like Habermans that make it more likely, not less, that Trumps supporters will continue to fail to see anything wrong with the way that the president speaks about the press in this country. After all, when you say something as objectively outlandish as she did, all youre doing is making it far less likely that people will be willing to take any of your legitimate criticisms seriously.

This is a trap that we see people on the Left fall into fairly often their penchant for comparing Trump to Hitler, for example, is one that immediately comes to mind. Unfortunately for them, however, this doesnt do them any favors. I understand that they hate Trump; I understand that they believe he is a total, irredeemable disaster for the country, and that they want him out of office. The thing is, though, if your goal is to change peoples minds about Trump, you should do your best to avoid weakening your own credibility by stooping to objectively ridiculous arguments.

Read more:
NYTs Haberman Comparing Trumps Treatment of the Press to Irans Weakens Her Argument - National Review

As a barrage of missiles rained down on two Iraqi bases housing thousands of U.S. troops, a stealthier form of warfare was striking on another front: Online information operations linked to the Iranian regime were blastingout messages to swaypublic opinion in Tehran and abroad.

Campaigns on Instagram, Twitter and elsewhere tapped into an outpouring of grief and rage at the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani. Aviolent image of President Trumps head being ripped from his body. A photo of a child running among flag-draped caskets with the words: Prepare the coffins.Social media posts urging retaliation bore hashtags like#HardRevenge and #DeathToAmerica.

These shadowyoperations which escalated with the hostilitiesbetween Iran and the United States have not yet been turned on full blast, security experts say.

Iran disinformation: These are the liberal memes Iran used to target Americans on Facebook

Influence operations uncovered: Facebook foils political influence campaigns originating in Iran, Russia ahead of U.S. midterms

We are seeing some aspects of Irans information operations apparatus being used, but theres so much more capacity it has, says Lee Foster, senior manager of information operations analysis at security firm FireEye. Its important to remember that its early days. Both sides here are trying to feel out what the next steps are. So its entirely plausible that we could see more activity of this nature going forward."

Online information warfare has been part of Tehrans arsenal for about a decade as a covertalternative to military confrontation. State-sponsored campaigns use social media to spread pro-Iranian talking points in the Middle East and in the west.

Where it would be extremely difficult or escalatory for Iran to continue to carry out missile strikes at various U.S. assets, it is a lot easier and it flies way more under the radar to carry out influence operations, says Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab. We should have our guard up even if the situation deescalates.

Iran has engaged in influence operations since the Islamic Revolution. These operations gravitated online as Tehran looked to harness the growing power of social media. It shutoff Twitter during anti-government protests in 2009, and in recent years amplifiedpro-Iranian propaganda critical of the U.S., Israel and Saudi Arabia through a shadowy network of phony online personas and a flurry of fake articles on websites designed to look like real news outlets.

Soldiers with the 82nd Airborne Division board a bus to be taken to a flight line as they deploy to the Middle East on Saturday, Jan. 4, 2020 at Fort Bragg, N.C.(Photo: Melissa Sue Gerrits, The Fayetteville Observer via AP)

Iran is a persistent, sophisticated and well-resourced actor which has been active in the online disinformation space for years, saysBen Nimmo, director of investigations for social media monitoring company Graphika.

In 2018, Iran was caught for the first time running a stealthy online disinformation campaign targeting the U.S. Facebook, Google and Twitter shuttered hundreds of accounts and channels set up by people with ties to Iranian state media.

Social media accounts with fake names tried to infiltrate liberal groups, such as supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., in the U.S. andScottish separatists in the U.K., a USA TODAY review of the social media posts showed.

They then tapped into resentment on such heated topics as the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, immigration and Britain's vote to leave the European Union, pushing pro-Iranian messages alongside anti-Trump messages or posts backing Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britains opposition Labour Party.

Iran busted: Google, YouTube targeted by Iran influence operation, shut down dozens of accounts

Russian election manipulation: We read every one of the 3,517 Facebook ads bought by Russians. Here's what we found

The objective was different from Russias campaignto sow discord and chaos during and after the 2016 presidential election. Iran was attemptingto hijack the political conversation to promote pro-Iranian talking points on Israel, Saudi Arabia and other interests around the globe, appealing to people who are more inclined to consider America to be a bad actor on the world stage, Brookie says. At the time Iran denied any involvement.

The revelation underscored the growing scale and frequency of disinformation operations by nation states threatening the United States.

President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the ballistic missile strike that Iran launched against Iraqi air bases housing U.S. troops, Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2020, in Washington, as Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and military leaders, look on.(Photo: Alex Brandon, AP)

With intensifying U.S. pressure and international sanctions, Iran has shown a growing willingness to carry out these online influence campaigns. More campaigns originating from Iran were discovered last year, security experts say.

Iran has also targeted American officials.In February, Iranian accounts carried out a spam attack on Secretary of State Mike Pompeos Instagram page to protest his post on the unrest in Venezuela at the time and urge support for the Nicols Maduro regime, the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab says.

Beware disinformation: False images and facts are being shared on the internet following Iran attacks

Social media is full of lies: The Iran attacks show how easily they spread

Still, genuine grassroots fervor can be confused withcoordinatedinauthentic state-sponsored propaganda on social media, Nimmo says.

Following the Jan. 2 American strike that killed Soleimani, social media saw a flood of reaction, much of it coming from real people. But some accounts on Instagram and Twitter targeting the U.S. government showed signs of coordinated and inauthentic behavior intendedto propel the online conversation.

Whenever there's a security escalation, you tend to see an escalation in rhetoric," Nimmo says. "We've already seen this from both sides, for example with both national leaders issuing threats, and we've seen apparent supporters of both sides joining in with what looks like organic engagement."

The conflict in the real world plays out online, too.

It's important to remember that security escalations can drive genuine traffic too," Nimmo said. "Real people get angry about them and start posting in a way they might not have done before."

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/01/10/iran-influence-operations-target-americans-after-soleimani-killing/4422491002/

Read more from the original source:
Facebook information warfare: Inside Iran's shadowy operations to target you on social media - USA TODAY

AIN AL-ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq (AP) American troops were informed of an impending missile barrage hours before their air base in Iraq was struck by Iran, U.S. military officials said Monday, days after the attack that marked a major escalation between the longtime foes.

At 11 p.m. on Jan. 7, U.S. Lt. Col. Antoinette Chase gave the order for American troops at Ain al-Asad air base in western Iraq, to go on lockdown. Military movements froze as her team, responsible for emergency response at the base, sent out alerts about the threat. At 11:30 p.m., she gave the order to take cover in bunkers.

The first strike landed sometime after 1:35 a.m. on Jan. 8 and the barrage continued for nearly two hours. Half way through the attack, Chase learned the missiles were being launched from Iran.

No American soldiers were killed or wounded, the U.S. has said, although several troops were treated for concussions from the blast and are being assessed, said Col. Myles Caggins, a spokesman at the base for the U.S. coalition fighting the Islamic State group.

The reason why we pushed it at 2330 is because at that point in time all indications pointed to something coming, she told reporters touring the base. Worst case scenario we were told was its probably going to be a missile attack. So we were informed of that.

The Iranian attack was in retaliation for the U.S. drone strike near Baghdad airport that killed top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani on Jan. 3.

An Associated Press crew touring the Ain al-Asad base saw large craters and damaged military trailers. Forklifts lifted rubble and loaded it onto trucks from an area the size of a football stadium. U.S. soldiers inspected portable housing units destroyed in the attack.

The sprawling complex in western Anbar province is about 180 kilometers (110 miles) west of Baghdad and is shared with the Iraqi military. It houses about 1,500 members of the U.S. military and the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State militant group.

The Iranian attack the most direct assault on America since the 1979 seizing of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran raised fears of a wider conflict although both sides have since indicated that they wont seek further retaliation, at least in the short term.

There were more than 10 large missiles fired and the impact hit several areas along the airfield, Caggins said. At least 15-30 minutes passed between successive strikes, Chase said.

The attack destroyed facilities that house dozens of soldiers and one missile hit near an airstrip where six drones were parked but caused no damage, he said.

The base received a notification that the missiles were on their way, thanks to early warning systems, Caggins said, and troops were moved out of harms way. He described soldiers who lived through the attack as warriors.

Because of the long intervals between barrages, a few curious soldiers peered out to inspect the damage.

After the first boom, I was confused and so I stuck my head out to see what it was, said Capt. Jeffrey Hansen, 30, from North Carolina. The second boom blew a bunch of debris on my face.

The Ain al-Asad air base was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein. Facilities at the base were split with Iraqi forces when U.S. troops returned in 2014 leading a multi-national coalition to defeat IS militants.

President Donald Trump went to the air base in December 2018, making his first presidential visit to troops in the region. Vice President Mike Pence has also visited.

On Monday, most soldiers walked around the base without any body armor, amid large tents and street signs written mostly in English. The base was ringed by large concrete barriers blackened by the bombardment.

Chase said troops had conducted a drill the week before the attack and that they had received some warnings earlier in the day that had prompted them to move troops around the base.

I had zero casualties and everybody is alive to tell the tale. So as far as Im concerned, I couldnt be happier and I couldnt be prouder of the actions that the soldiers and the coalition forces took that night, she added.

____

This corrects dates of warning and attack to Jan. 7 and Jan. 8 respectively, not Jan. 6 and Jan. 7.

Continued here:
US troops in Iraq got warning hours before Iranian attack - The Associated Press

Tom Nichols: Irans smart strategy

A few years in, the Obama administration took a major gamble. Seeing promise in less hostile relations with Iran, Obama decided to cut a deal with the mullahs. The nuclear deal of 2015 dismantled the regime of U.N. sanctions that had all but ruined the Iranian economy, in exchange for temporary limits on the key facilities of Irans nuclear weapons program and vague commitments never to develop nuclear weapons.

At the White House press conference where he unveiled the deal, Obama was asked whether it would allow the U.S. to more forcefully counter Iran's destabilizing actions in the region, quite aside from the nuclear question. In other words, would the deal buttress or undermine the containment of Iran? Among the points Obama made in response was this: It'll be a lot easier for us to check Iran's nefarious activities, to push back against the other areas where they operate contrary to our interests or our allies interests if they don't have the bomb.

There were some problems with this answer. Just a few years earlier, Obama had withdrawn U.S. forces from Iraq, in effect delivering Americas Iraqi allies to Iran on a silver platter. Iran would now have a land bridge all the way across Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon to the Israeli border, and could hardly be expected not to take advantage it. Moreover, while it was no doubt true that dealing with Iran would be less difficult if it didnt have the bomb, the nuclear deal didnt exactly solve that problem, because it left Iran with all the basic elements of both a plutonium- and uranium-pathway serial production capability for nuclear warheads, which it could activate in a matter of months. Third, the deal itself was seen by many in Tehran as a surrender on Americas part, not entirely without justice, considering the U.S. had caved on the key demands in U.N. Security Council resolutions going back nearly a decade. For all these reasons, Obamas well-wishes notwithstanding, the baseline presumption had to be that Iran would feel emboldened, and it would be more, not less, difficult to deal with Irans other nefarious activities.

And so it proved. In Iraq, Iranian support for Shiite militias translated into influence over the Iraqi government itself. In Syria, Obama acquiesced to Russias and Irans entry into the civil war, making Assads eventual victory a foregone conclusion. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has all but completed its takeover of the state. The rise of ISIS brought the U.S. back to Iraq after a brief interregnum, but under a dispensation which left Iran free to continue its subjugation of Iraq. As such, the U.S. arguably served as Irans proxy air force in Irans fight against ISIS, further helping to cement Irans regional hegemony.

Though it was surely not his intention, Obamas strategy in many ways boiled down to appeasement. When President Trump came to office, Republicans saw an opportunity to undo the hated deal. They put relentless pressure on the president to withdraw from it, which he eventually did. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a return to withering sanctions, tied to maximalist demands that exceeded even those of the Bush administration.

See the original post here:
Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

As the U.S. looks to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan, recent tensions coupled with Irans history of meddling in the country could jeopardize talks between the U.S. and the Taliban to end the 18-year long conflict.

U.S. military intelligence assessments dating back to 2010 suggest Irans elite paramilitary unit, the Quds Force, has track record of providing training and lethal arms to the Taliban. The list includes portable shoulder-fired air-defense systems known as MANPADS.

While the level of that support from Tehran does not appear to be a game changer on the battlefield, the recent succession of the former head of Irans Quds Force branch in Afghanistan, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ghaani, to be the top commander of the elite Iranian unit could amplify Irans destabilization efforts in Afghanistan.

Ghaani was chosen by Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to lead the Quds force following a Jan. 2 airstrike by the U.S. that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Phillip Smyth, a research fellow with the Washington Institute, told Military Times that the new Quds Force commander could be a spoiler for peace prospects in Afghanistan.

Following Soleimanis killing, Iran is looking to send a signal to say we are going to look eastward," Smyth said.

Flanked by flags of its various proxy forces, a recent IRGC press conference included the banners of Fatemiyoun Division, an Iran-backed Afghan Shia group fighting in Syria, and the emblem for Liwa Zainebiyoun a Shia Pakistani Iran proxy.

Get the military's most comprehensive news and information every morning.

(please select a country) United States United Kingdom Afghanistan Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, The Democratic Republic of The Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote D'ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guinea Guinea-bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and The Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe

Subscribe

By giving us your email, you are opting in to the Early Bird Brief.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has also for years trained and recruited from Afghanistans Shia Hazara population for use in its nebulous network of militant and proxy forces across the region.

Analysts and national security experts have expressed concern over the Taliban peace talks following the U.S. strike that killed Soleimani, and Irans retaliatory ballistic missile strike against U.S. forces at two air bases in Iraq.

But Irans sway over the Taliban is minimal. A Taliban spokesman told Voice of America that he did not expect recent tensions between Tehran and Washington to impact the negotiations.

The developments will not have negative impact on the peace process because the (U.S.-Taliban) peace agreement is finalized and only remains to be signed (by the two sides), Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Talibans negotiating team, told VOA.

In January, Reuters reported that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran without providing evidence of undermining U.S. talks with the Taliban.

The Talibans entanglement in Irans dirty work will only harm the Afghanistan peace process," Pompeo said, according to Reuters.

Iran has provided military aid to the Taliban, but U.S. intelligence reports, obtained by Military Times through a government records request, displays mixed reviews on the level and severity of that aid.

The majority of the intelligence reports and assessments spanned 2010 to 2012, at a time when the U.S. had nearly 100,000 troops on the ground. The reports provide a glimpse into Irans shadowy dealings with the Taliban a militant group that has long been at odds with Tehran.

Irans support to the Taliban is minimal, often aimed at harassing coalition forces and as an effort to stymie progress in Afghanistan. But the underlying relationship between Tehran and the Taliban is not enough to sway the balance of power in Afghanistan in favor of the militants.

Iranian support to the Taliban is tempered by their realization that Taliban control of Afghanistan is not in Irans best long term interest due to a history of ideological differences. Instead, lethal aid and training are used as a balancing force to counteract increased Western influence, a 2012 U.S. military intelligence assessment reads.

U.S. military intelligence assessments detailed that Irans Quds Force shelled out cash for every American soldier killed or for every U.S. military vehicle destroyed.

A report dated Oct. 15, 2010, from the Theater Intelligence Group based out of Bagram Air Base, said that Irans Quds Force was paying $1,000 for every U.S. soldier killed and $6,000 for American vehicles destroyed.

The report also highlighted that Iran was funneling small arms and SA-7 shoulder fired air-defense systems to the Taliban through a former Afghan security official.

In some instances, IRGC officials helped transport groups of 10 to 20 Taliban fighters to various locations in Iran for training on MANPADS, according to an Oct. 2010 report.

The Quds Force usually asks the Taliban commanders to send their best fighters for the training, likely due to the more advanced training involved in learning MANPADS systems or possibly to allow these fighters to become future trainers of other Taliban fighters inside Afghanistan, the Oct. 2010 report reads.

Many of the assessments appeared to conclude that Irans lethal aid was limited in nature to prevent a Taliban return to power, but also an effort by Tehran to not ratchet up tensions between the U.S. and Iran.

Reports also were contradictory at times. Some reports said Iran was directly supplying the highly lethal aid such as MANPADS and deadly explosively formed penetrators, or EFPs. Other reports suggested such deadly aid was notional and that Iran had yet to provide the support.

However, Iran has not provided more dangerous lethal aid, such as MANPADS and Explosively Formed Projectile (EFP). The introduction of this type of lethal aid would most likely signify an increase in hostilities between Iran and the United States, reads a Feb. 2012 report from Regional Command Southwest.

EFPs in Iraq and Afghanistan have a bloody and infamous track record.

A U.S. State Department report estimated that Irans IRGC was responsible for 17 percent of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 roughly 603 casualties. Many of those casualties were the result of EFPs that ripped through U.S. armored vehicles.

An intelligence briefing on Iranian facilitation in Afghanistan noted that between April 2007 and November 2009, four shipments of weapons and explosives of Iranian origin were interdicted that included EFPs, MANPADs.

An Aug. 2009 indirect fire attack against Camp Stone, located in Herat, Afghanistan, used 107 mm rockets that included lot numbers and dates of a previously interdicted Iranian weapons shipment, the intelligence brief said.

The brief explained that the IRGC supplied the Taliban with weapons and personnel through the western border region between Iran and Afghanistan, mostly prominently near the Iranian cities of Zabol and Zahedan.

Although CFs [coalition forces] have interdicted IRGC-QF shipments in the past, the infrequency of shipments makes interdiction operations difficult , yielding limited results, the brief reads.

Although Iranian weaponry has been used against CFs multiple times, the attacks cannot be linked back to Iranian transfer of aid, the brief stated.

The extent of Irans support of MANPADS training and systems to the Taliban is unknown. Officials from Resolute Support and the Pentagon did not immediately reply to requests for comment.

A number of reports suggested Iran had the capability to provide MANPADS, but actual material support of the systems either was so infrequent or the systems were in such disrepair that the threat was minimal.

Also in August, a Farah-based Taliban commander claimed to be in possession of six MANPADS and claimed the systems as well as the training were provided by Iran, an Oct. 2010 report reads.

The portable air-defense systems seemed to be lacking the trigger assembly and possibly the battery pack which is consistent with reporting from...previous recoveries in Afghanistan, the Oct. 2010 report said.

The U.S. and Taliban are currently amid talks to end the 18-year war and bring American troops home.

The U.S. has been pushing the Taliban for a cease-fire to jump start intra-Afghan negotiations.

The Taliban has thus far refused even a temporary cease-fire, and has stuck to its offer of a reduction of violence across the country.

Sediq Sediqqi, a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, tweeted Jan. 12 that the Afghan government wants a cease-fire before the start of inter-Afghan negotiations.

The Afghan governments plan to launch peace talks is to secure a ceasefire. Reducing violence does not have an exact military, legal or practical meaning, Sediqqi tweeted.

Our goal of a cease-fire is like the cease-fire that was established two years ago during Eid in the country and had a clear definition, he said.

The Taliban agreed to a three-day cease-fire in June 2019 over the Eid holiday.

There are roughly 13,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

President Donald Trump and the Pentagon are considering reducing the American footprint in the country to 8,600 troops.

The rest is here:
Iran's support to the Taliban, which has included MANPADS and a bounty on US troops, could be a spoiler for peace in Afghanistan - Military Times