Mediaboss Marketing

Thousands of Iranians gathered in the giant auditorium in Villepente Exhibition Center, just outside in a massive expression of support urging the world to adopt a firm approach toward the Iranian government. The gathering featured an array of speakers from all over the world and across the political spectrum, including Saudi Prince Turki bin Faisal and a large delegation from the Syrian democratic opposition. Irans media outlets, such as Royesh Melat, reacted by criticizing the gathering.

The rally focused on the prospects for democratic change in Iran and condemned repression of human rights and record for regional intervention. Speakers also expressed their support for change and solidarity with the Iranian opposition with the rallying cry of free Iran.

The gathering, held annually near Paris, typically draws hundreds of prominent figures from all over the world, and was a display of the political power of Irans opposition.

The rally captured the growing momentum for change with respect to Iran including changes in policies and attitudes in the Middle East and Washington, and the prospects for a new approach towards the clerical establishment in Iran.

The array of speakers, which included several prominent Americans, including former Democratic party's nominee for Vice President and former US senator, Joe Lieberman, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Homeland Security Secretary, Tom Ridge, former FBI director Louis Freeh, former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani and Congressmen Ted Poe, Robert Pittenger and Tom Garretall, expressed hope that the changes taking place in the international community would culminate in a new approach towards Iran and a strategic partnership with the Iranian opposition.

Giuliani in particular expressed hope that the new administration in the United States would take steps to not only implement a new approach towards the political establishment in Iran, but to embrace the Iranian opposition in tackling a common problem. The ruling regime is in disarray and paralyzed as never before. Iranian society is simmering with discontent and the international community is finally getting closer to the reality that appeasing the ruling theocracy is misguided. said Maryam Rajavi, the President-elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), who struck a hopeful note for democratic change.

Rajavi highlighted the plight of Irans population, and commended Irans political prisoners for supporting the gathering from the depths of the regimes torture chambers. The sun of change is shining on Iran, she added, to an enthusiastic crowd of thousands cheering We are ready.

Rajavi added that the international community must Recognize the resistance of the Iranian people to overthrow the mullahs religious dictatorship and designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and evict it from the entire region. Our people want a constitution based on freedom, democracy, and equality, Rajavi said.

Gingrich praised the Iranian opposition as not only a just and pure movement, praising the leadership of Maryam Rajavi by stating She is persistent in difficult times. She is a great leader. I thank each of you on her behalf to help her make her a truly historic figure.

The rally attempted to offer a clear vision of what change in Iran could look like, and the broad based from all over the world to make this vision come true. The movement believes that given the current political climate and the potential for change within the region, the prospect for a new Iran, and free Iran may be closer than ever.

It appears that Iranian leaders are more concerned about the soft power of Western powers and the opposition than their hard power. Irans Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has frequently warned about the dangers of political and cultural infiltration.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can order Dr. Rafizadehs books on Here. You can sign up for Dr. Rafizadehs newsletter for the latest news and analyses on Here. You can contact him at Dr.rafizadeh@post.harvard.edu or follow him at @Dr_Rafizadeh.

Harvard-educated, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a world-renowned businessman, a leading Iranian-American political scientist, president of the International American Council on the Middle East, and best-selling author. He serves on the advisory board of Harvard International Review.

Dr. Rafizadeh is frequently invited to brief governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as speak, as a featured speaker, at security, business, diplomatic, and social events. He has been recipient of several fellowships and scholarships including from Oxford University, Annenberg, University of California Santa Barbara, Fulbright program, to name few He is regularly quoted and invited to speak on national and international outlets including CNN, BBC World TV and Radio, ABC, Aljazeera English, Fox News, CTV, RT, CCTV America, Skynews, CTV, and France 24 International, to name a few. . He analyses have appeared on academic and non-academic publications including New York Times International, Los Angeles Times, CNN, Fareed zakaria GPS, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The National. Aljazeera, The Daily Beast, The Nation, Jerusalem Post, The Economic Times, USA Today Yale Journal of International Affairs, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, and Harvard International Review. He is a board member of several significant and influential international and governmental institutions, and he is native speaker of couple of languages including Persian, English, and Arabic. He also speaks Dari, and can converse in French, Hebrew. More at Harvard. And You can learn more about Dr. Rafizadeh on HERE. The post was originally published on the Arab News.

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read the original post:
Thousands of Iranians and International Figures at Free Iran Gathering - HuffPost

Jim Lobe comments on the bad arguments from Mark Dubowitz and Ray Takeyh Ive addressed in recent posts. He notes that their assumption that the Iranian government is on the verge of collapse doesnt seem to have anything backing it up:

Its not clear why this comparison has surfaced so abruptly. Its proponents dont cite any tangible or concrete evidence that the regime in Tehran is somehow on its last legs. But Im guessing that months of internal policy debate on Iran has finally reached the top echelons in the policy-making chaos that is the White House these days. And the hawks, encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillersons rather offhand statement late last month that Washington favors peaceful regime change in Iran, appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trumps opportunity to be Ronald Reagan. Indeed, this comparison is so ahistorical, so ungrounded in anything observable [bold mine-DL], that it can only be aimed at one person, someone notorious for a lack of curiosity and historical perspective, and a strong attraction to fake news that magnifies his ego and sense of destiny.

It isnt unusual for Iran hawks to make arguments without any evidence. Almost all of the arguments against the nuclear deal were riddled with bogus claims and distortions. They insisted that Iran couldnt be trusted to keep its end of the bargain, and yet Iran has been in compliance with its obligations all along. They warned that the deal would be a massive windfall for Iran, but the predicted flood of cash never materialized. Hallucinatory warnings about the expanding Iranian empire that doesnt exist have become commonplace over the last few years, and they have also been shown to be false. In the wake of the Green movement protests, Iran hawks repeatedly asserted that the U.S. had missed an opportunity for regime change, but that just showed that they badly misunderstood the political realities inside Iran. There was never any chance for regime change then, and there is unlikely to be much chance for it now. If you embrace the opposite of the conclusion that Iran hawks reach, you will be much closer to the truth all the time. The fact that they think Irans government is teetering and under great stress suggests that the opposite is the case.

The funny thing about this is that hard-liners and neoconservatives back in the 1980s were among the most vocal defenders of the view that the USSR was much stronger and more threatening than anyone else believed. They were the least likely to imagine that the Soviet system would collapse on its own, and they were constantly urging more aggressive measures because they assumed that the Soviets were in much better shape than they really were. It is rather comical that their ideological successors are now so convinced of the fragility of Irans regime, and they seem to be accepting it in the hopes that they can dupe the current administration into pursuing a policy of regime change by making it appear relatively easy.

See original here:
Iran Hawks Are Consistently Wrong About Iran - The American Conservative

Iran is targeting German companies in its bid to advance its missile program, in possible violation of an international agreement, and at least on occasion with the aid of a Chinese company, according to a damning recent report from a German intelligence agency.

The 181-page report, published last month and released Tuesday by officials from the heavily industrialized southern German state of Baden-Wrttemberg, warned that Iran is actively seeking products and scientific know-how for the field of developing weapons of mass destruction as well missile technology. The Islamic Republic is targeting German companies through various fronts, according to the report.

[Iran is seeking] products and scientific know-how for the field of developing weapons of mass destruction as well missile technology.

In one case, Iran allegedly worked through a Chinese front company to seek complex metal-producing machines from a German engineering firm. German intelligence officials blocked the sale when they told the engineering firm the merchandise was slated to be unlawfully routed to Iran.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not stopped trying to pair missile and nuclear weapons technology, according to the report (Associated Press)

This case shows that so-called indirect deliveries across third countries is still Irans procurement strategy, wrote the intelligence officials.

Another report, released this week by Germanys Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), found the deal brokered by the Obama administration to limit Irans pursuit of nuclear weapons resulted in little or no decrease in the Islamic Republics efforts to gain technology for missiles capable of carrying warheads. But it noted that the agreement was aimed at restricting nuclear technology, not missile technology.

"The amount of evidence found for attempts to acquire proliferation-sensitive material for missile technology/the missile program, which is not covered by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, remained about the same," the report said.

The U.S. and other world powers -- including France, China, Russia and the United Kingdom -- reached an agreement with Iran in July 2015, the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), to restrict Tehrans nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

Benjamin Weinthal reports on human rights in the Middle East and is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow him on Twitter @BenWeinthal

Originally posted here:
Iran illegally seeking weapons tech from German firms, according to report - Fox News

The intercontinental ballistic missile Hwasong-14 is seen during its test in this undated photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang, July 5 2017.. (photo credit:REUTERS)

Was North Koreas missile test on Monday a game-changer for Iranian nuclear weapons capabilities?

The word is already out on the test: North Koreas missile test on Monday was an ICBM, an intercontinental ballistic missile.

That means, according to most estimates, North Koreas missile could hit Alaska and a much wider swath of the world than it could have hit before.

What if North Korea transfers this technology to Iran?

In June, ex-US ambassador to the UN John Bolton told The Jerusalem Post that it is only a matter of time before North Korea successfully places miniaturized nuclear warheads on missiles. Plenty of people have already done it and the day North Korea gets nuclear weapons, Iran could have it the next day by wire transfer.

In February, two ex-Israeli intelligence officers wrote an analysis for the Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies arguing that there are massive transfers of nuclear-related technology and know-how between North Korea and Iran.

In late June, top analyst and frequent US government adviser Anthony Cordesman summarized decades of analysis on the North Korea-Iran nuclear connection, concluding that even if evidence of the connection should be scrutinized and there were other proliferators in play, it seems highly likely that Iranian and North Korean cooperation continues at some level.

And Irans state-run news agency issued a statement about expediting Iran-North Korea cooperation and a joint visit of high-level officials the day after the North Korea missile test even if the word nuclear was not explicitly in the press release.

So most of the debate is not about whether nuclear advances for one rogue state assist the other, but in which nuclear areas, since there are many obstacles to overcome, and about how direct is the assistance.

While this is debatable, assume for one moment that North Korea transfers its ICBM technology to Iran tomorrow. There is still another obstacle to a full-blown North Korean or Iranian nuclear ICBM threat.

North Korea has not yet perfected miniaturizing a nuclear warhead to be placed on one of its ICBMs. But some had thought it might take North Korea years to move from launching short-range missiles to ICBMs, which at a certain stage can hit anywhere on the planet.

The US defense establishment has appeared genuinely surprised that Pyongyang pulled off a successful ICBM launch, only admitting that it was an ICBM after initial skepticism.

If top analysts are saying North Korea is still likely a few years away from miniaturizing a nuclear device, what if North Korea surprises them again by outperforming scientific expectations?

Or maybe North Korea takes a few years, but on-schedule around 2020 pulls off miniaturizing a nuclear bomb to be placed on an ICBM that can hit anywhere.

What will stop North Korea from transferring the technology to Iran? In some ways this is more a special US-European issue than an Israeli issue.

Iran has had missiles that could hit Israel for years. So North Korea developing an ICBM does not necessarily up the threat level to any worse than it already is.

Yet, North Korea achieving miniaturization and passing that on to Iran would get Iran over the greatest major obstacle it has not solved for firing a nuclear missile, as opposed to a conventional missile.

All Iran might need to do at that point would be to start enriching uranium again. Presuming it has improved its centrifuges, which it is allowed to do under the 2015 nuclear deal with the West, some say it might be able to break out in a few months or even a few weeks.

All of this is speculative. North Korea and Iran have both gotten stuck before. Without advances in its centrifuges, Iran may need up to a year to produce enough uranium for a nuclear weapon and it may avoid the risk of breaking the nuclear deal. North Korea may transfer some things to Iran, but choose not to transfer technology to place a nuclear weapon on an ICBM.

But what if it does?

Share on facebook

See the rest here:
Will North Korea's long-range missile success help Iran? - The Jerusalem Post

One of the articles in which the New York Times claimed Iran sponsored 9/11.

In its reporting on a dubious lawsuit alleging Iranian meta-involvement in 9/11, the New York Times badly misunderstood the case and maintained for more than three years, in the paper of record, that the government of Iran sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks. The belated correction, issued late Wednesday night on two widely spaced articles on the topic, unceremoniously noted that Iran did not, in fact, help commit the 9/11 attacks.

The correction came after a report about a lawsuit last week mistakenly claimed that Iran sponsored 9/11, something that had not been alleged in the suit. The article (6/29/17, archived) originally read:

The government has agreed to distribute proceeds from the buildings sale, which could bring as much as $1 billion, to the families of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorist attacks, including the September 11 attacks.

That 9/11 was an Iranian-sponsored terrorist attack is a spectacular claim, and one that would radically alter the official narrative of 9/11, just casually thrown into an article by the Times. In fact, it isnt even something the lawsuit alleged. The case in question was a class action lawsuit for families of all terrorism victims, and since Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, they were held generically responsible. (The US State Department maintains that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism chiefly because of its support for militant groups like Hezbollah and Iraqs Kataib Hizballah, whose attacks have been mainly directed at other combatants.)

Even if this had been what the lawsuit was alleging, its remarkable that reporter Vivian Wang simply took this as fact: No alleged, no lawsuit claimsIrans guilt was simply asserted. And that assertion stood for a week until someone, evidently, got word it was grossly wrong. Late Wednesday night (6/29/17, correction updated 7/5/17), the Times quietly added this correction to the piece:

Correction: July 6, 2017 An article on Friday about a jurys decision to let the federal government seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Irans responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda. (A similar error occurred in a September 25, 2013, article in the Times.)

Its as if the editors at the Times just got the memo about who was responsible for 9/11. But the week it took to correct this massive error was nothing compared to the close to four years it took to update the very same claim the paper made in September 2013. The original article, by Julie Satow (9/26/13, original archived), read:

Proceeds from a sale would probably be used to pay some of the $6 billion in damages claimed by family members of victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, including victims of the 9/11 attacks.

This article, published in the first year of Obamas second term, finally got corrected this week (9/26/13, correction updated 7/5/17), with basically the same correction that ran on last weeks story:

Correction: July 5, 2017 An article on Sept. 25, 2013, about the federal governments efforts to seize a Midtown Manhattan skyscraper it says is controlled by Iran overstated Irans responsibility for the September 11 attacks. While a federal court found that Iran had some culpability for the September 11 attacks as a state sponsor of terrorism, it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks, which were planned and executed by Al Qaeda.

The corrections, belated as they were, minimized the defamation of the original articles in a lawyerly manner, conceding only that it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks. It has also not been established that Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Bush administration sponsored 9/11, but imagine the New York Times framing allegations against those actors this way. Its unthinkable but, because Iran is an Official Enemy of the United States, it is not subject to the same editorial standards as those in good standing with the US State Department.

The North Korea Law of Journalism

Per the North Korea Law of Journalismwhich states that editorial standards are inversely proportional to a countrys enemy statusthe Times can casually smear Iran as sponsoring the deadliest act of terror on US soil, and its not taken seriously by anyone. Just thrown into an article, forgotten about and only correctedwith no special note by the paperalmost four years later.

One would be curious what the New York Times public editor would say about such a glaring error but the paper eliminated the position a month ago (FAIR.org, 6/1/17). Perhaps the Times in-house media analyst, Jim Rutenberg, who spends much of his time hand-wringing over fake news and RT, could spare a column on how this happened. This is unlikely, since with an Official Enemy, no amount of libelno matter how egregiousmerits a meaningful response from the paper of record.

See the article here:
After 1379 Days, NYT Corrects Bogus Claim Iran 'Sponsored' 9/11 - FAIR