Mediaboss Marketing

The Drive

US Fighter Jet Shoots Down Syrian Warplane New York Times A handout provided by an official Iranian news site shows a missile launched by the Revolutionary Guards Corps from western Iran, toward Islamic State bases in Syria. Credit Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, via Agence France-Presse Getty Images. Iran Launched An Unprecedented Ballistic Missile Attack On Syrian CityThe Drive Iran's Missile Launch and US Downing a Syrian Jet - ExplainedHaaretz Iran fires missiles at militant groups in eastern SyriaThe Jerusalem Post Fox News -International Business Times all 220 news articles »

More here:
US Fighter Jet Shoots Down Syrian Warplane - New York Times

The threat posed by the Iranian regime was one focus of a recent Academic Exchange (AE) retreat of International Relations specialists and international lawyers. Even with the reelection of President Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian regime poses a two-pronged threat to the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. For one thing, Iran is poised to gain on the ground in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. The need to counter Irans ground game is the catalyst for President Trumps efforts to collaborate with Persian Gulf states. Countering Iran seems even more urgent after news that Iran has sponsored Shia militias in the Syrian Golan Heights, abutting Israel (see report here). Moreover, Iran is also fighting a war of ideas, contesting the Wests legitimacy.

The U.S., Israel, and Persian Gulf states should recognize that countering Iran has two components: 1) gains on the ground from tangible measures, including sanctions and, where necessary, the use of force, and, 2) gaining the moral high ground of legitimacy in the war of ideas. Tensions between these two elements are inevitable, but manageable.

Lets start with the legitimacy tourney. Here, the U.S. and its allies have some work to do. Consider one action that has recently triggered substantial U.S. litigation: President Trumps revised executive order (EO) pausing travel from six countries, including Iran. Ive written before about why I believe the revised EO is legal (see my analysis here and Josh Blackmans New York Times op-ed here), but nevertheless constitutes bad policy. The EOs effects on Iranian nationals vividly demonstrate the policy point. Iranian immigrants to the U.S. confer substantial advantages on the U.S. population, through service as doctors and other professionals (in addition, a significant number of doctors in the U.S. hail from Syria, another one of the six countries listed by the EO, as this New York Times story shows). While Irans moves in the Middle East are indeed troubling, there is no reason to think that Iranians who wish to emigrate to the U.S. endorse those moves. Indeed, a Homeland Security study of terrorist-related crimes committed by foreign-born individuals in the U.S. shows precious little activity in this sphere by persons born in Iran (only three out of approximately ninety cases).

While the policy rationale for pausing admissions from any of the six countries is modest, the weakness of the justification regarding Iran is salient. The Administration may be right as a legal matter that the Iranian regimes role as a state sponsor of terror justifies a pause in admissions to ensure that U.S. immigration authorities are receiving accurate data from Iran. However, the collateral damage of the EO for Iranian people and the U.S. individuals who benefit from services provided by Iranian doctors and other professionals provides a strong basis for rethinking the EOs policy underpinnings. Count the EO as a victory for Iran in the legitimacy tourney.

The U.S. and its allies are heading for another defeat on the legitimacy front in the Saudi intervention against Iran-sponsored Houthi rebels in Yemens civil war. As Mike Newton and Ryan Goodman have rightly indicated, the Saudis have engaged in repeated violations of established law of war norms, including violations of the rule of proportionality. That rule bars attacks with expected harm to civilians that is excessive given the military advantage anticipated, when judged from the perspective of a commander prior to the attack. The U.S. has been trying to rein in Saudi forces for well over a year. I believe the U.S. has been sincere; some of the nations most capable military lawyers have invested substantial time and effort in working with the Saudis on compliance with the law of war. However, the results of this tutelage continue to be disappointing. At some point soon, unless the Saudis substantially improve their compliance, the U.S. may bear both policy and legal responsibility for Saudi violations. Although the jury is still out, score this as a preliminary win for Iran in the legitimacy tourney.

As to the score on the ground, consider the activities of pro-Iran Shia militias such as Harakat al-Nujaba on the Syrian Golan Heights. As I can testify based on a recent visit to the portion of the Golan Heights now held by Israel, this area presents commanding views of both Syria and Israel. Prior to the 1967 war, Syrian forces regularly shelled Israeli towns from positions on the Golan Heights. For good reasons, Israel is determined not to be put in this vulnerable position again. That is why Israel is intensely concerned about al-Nujabas announcement that it is moving militia units into the portion of the Golan Heights still controlled by Syria. Israel has made it clear that, if necessary, it will take military action to prevent opening up this new front in the Syrian conflict. The militia activities continue, although their precise scope is unclear.

Suppose Israel were to use force to hold the Shia militia at bay. How would Israeli action fare under international law? Three theories could support Israels action. It could be, (1) merely another episode in a continued state of war with Syria since 1967, (2) a response to a material breach by Syria of the 1974 post-Yom Kippur War disengagement agreement, or, (3) a form of self-defense under the U.N. Charter.

Theory (1) receives support from the preeminent international law scholar Yoram Dinstein, who outlined the theory in his essential treatise, War, Aggression and Self-Defence. This theory allows each party to the armed conflict substantial leeway, since no triggering action by one party would be required as a justification for the other partys action. It is logically true that if a state of war continues to exist, Israel would be within its rights in taking military action against Shia militias on Syrias portion of the Golan Heights. The Shia militias commander has made it easier for Israel to situate the militias activities within the Israel-Syria conflict. Speaking of his militia, which has collaborated in Syria with Irans Quds force, al-Nujaba leader Akram al Kabi said earlier this year that the group would undertake to liberate the portion of the Golan annexed by Israel if Syria so requested.

The difficulty with the continued-war theory is its disconnect from facts on the ground. While the relationship between Israel and Syria over the past 43 years has not exactly been harmonious, sustained military encounters have been rare. Against that relatively uneventful backdrop, it seems counterintuitive to insist that a turn toward force does not require some triggering event. While this theory is buttressed by Professor Dinsteins estimable support, it may be another loser in the legitimacy tourney.

Option (2) arguing that Syrian consent to Shia militias activities in the Golan constituted a material breach of the 1974 disengagement agreement suffers from a different problem: its inconsistency with the U.N. Charter framework governing the use of force. Article 2(4) of the Charter bars the use of force against another state. Absent Security Council authorization, the only exception is the use of force in self-defense against an armed attack, pursuant to Article 51. Some distinguished commentators, including Professor Dinstein, have argued that a material breach theory is viable despite the Charter (including in the case of the 2003 Iraq War). However, other experts strongly disagree. (See Sean Murphys rebuttal here.) The U.N. played a substantial role in implementing the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement by providing peacekeepers (including four Austrians who died when a mine exploded in the demilitarized zone created by the agreement; see Robert Morrisss piece [behind pay wall] here). It seems incongruous to accept the U.N.s help, but then reject the U.N. Charters framework governing the use of force. Score another loss in the legitimacy tourney.

On balance, the best option is theory (3): arguing that Israeli action against al-Nujaba would constitute self-defense. International law, going back to then-Secretary of State Daniel Websters 1841-42 correspondence with the British regarding their targeting of the U.S.-owned steamship The Caroline for aiding Canadian rebels, has held that a state can use force to thwart an imminent attack, as long as that force is necessary and proportionate to address the threat. (For current glosses relevant to nonstate actors, see UK Attorney General Jeremy Wrights January 2017 speech, the important 2012 article by Sir Daniel Bethlehem and this insightful piece by the U.S. Naval War College International Law Departments Alan Schuller.)

In the self-defense context, the uneventful climate of the past 40-plus years on the Golan would favor Israel. Dropped into this atmosphere of relative calm, the presence of a powerful Shia militia would itself be a marked departure from the status quo. Since Israel has not signaled any aggressive designs on Syrian territory, the mere presence of the militia suggests the kind of massing of troops that is consistent with the early phases of an attack. Intelligence information obtained by Israel that is consistent with this apparent hostile intent would reinforce the case, already strengthened by al-Nujaba leader Akram al Kabis stated plan to liberate the portion of the Golan controlled by Israel (which annexed that portion in 1981). The combination of forces massed on the ground and specific manifestations of hostile intent moves the current situation in the Syrian Golan Heights closer to the situation that prevailed just prior to Israels Six Day War fifty years ago, when Egypts President Gamal Abdel Nasser massed troops in the Sinai, instructed U.N. peacekeepers to quit the area, and blockaded the Straits of Tiran.

Of course, the reading of imminence outlined here is not free from controversy. (See the recent post by Charlie Dunlap here on alleged Israeli airstrikes in Syria targeting Hezbollah arms shipments and Kevin Jon Hellers response here). However, relying on a self-defense justification would acknowledge the primacy of the U.N. Charter and put Israel on solid footing along with the U.S. and United Kingdom. Score this as the West holding its own in the legitimacy tourney.

In sum, containing Iran requires both action on the ground and maintaining legitimacy under international norms. In some areas, such as the inclusion of Iranian nationals in President Trumps revised refugee EO and U.S. assistance to Saudi efforts in Yemen, the West has suffered blows to its legitimacy. Israels response to Shia militias in the Syrian Golan Heights presents another test. Careful attention to the justification for the use of force will be central to containing the Iranian regimes regional ambitions and recouping ground on the legitimacy front.

Read more:
Containing Iran and Maintaining Legitimacy - Lawfare (blog)

Trump Tower stands along 5th Avenue in Manhattan.

Manhattans Fifth Avenue packs a world of intrigue into a few blocks. Trump Tower at 57th Street was the launch pad for Donald Trumps run to the White House. Four blocks south, 666 Fifth Ave. is a white elephant that has pushed owner Jared Kushner, Trumps son-and-law and adviser, into a well-scrutinized hunt for rich investors.

Then theres the nearly decade-long legal melodrama over a 36-story building across the street from Kushners tower. U.S. prosecutors are in the home stretch of an attempt to seize 650 Fifth Ave. and related assets from a charity that owns it, alleging the organization is a front for Irans government and that it violated economic sanctions against Iran since 1995.

In a trial entering its fourth week in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors say the buildings primary owner, the Alavi Foundation, has illegally funneled millions of dollars to Iran under cover of its charitable activities. They hope to recapture more than $500 million with the proceeds going to victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

Alavis lawyers maintain that the foundation is independent of Irans government and spends its money on schools, health care and higher education, as well as promoting Persian culture and supporting interfaith studies.

Prosecutors first moved in 2008 to seize 650 Fifth Ave. Five years later, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest granted the governments request, but she was slapped down by appellate judgeslast year who sent the case back to her for trial. The case has unfolded as the U.S. relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran has gone from axis of evil territory during the administration of President George W. Bush, through a period of dtente under President Barack Obama, and back to a state of hostility under Trump.

The likelihood of getting a jury sympathetic to Iran in New York is pretty slim, said Barbara Slavin, acting director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council. Assuming this case goes against the foundation, it will be yet another brick in the wall that this administration is trying to rebuild with Iran.

The trial may prove be a further irritant to U.S.-Iranian relations as prosecutors dredge up the acts of current Iranian officials. Prosecutors are expected to argue that a $4 million legal settlement paid by Alavi in 2004 was hush money designed to keep a former charity official from revealing the true nature of the organization.

That payment was allegedly ordered by Mohammad Javad Zarif, who was then Irans UN ambassador in New York. Zarif was the lead negotiator who worked with John Kerry,Obamas Secretary of State, on the 2015 agreement limiting Irans nuclear capabilities in return for lifting of some economic sanctions.

The trial will cap a range of investigations that have already cost European banks more than $18 billion in fines, penalties and forfeitures. When Alavi was originally investigated by the office of then-Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, a young attorney determined that many of Wall Streets largest European-based banks removed the names of Iranian clients from transactions. This allowed the banks to wire money in and out of the U.S. through correspondent bank accounts in violation of U.S. sanctions, prosecutors said.

The District Attorneys office used that evidence to launch cases against such banks as Lloyds Banking Group Plc, Credit Suisse Group Plc, Barclays Plc, Standard Chartered and others, culminating in an $8.9 billion settlement with BNP Paribas SA in 2014.

The Alavi Foundation has assembled a legal team that is top-flight as well as top-priced, from the firms Debevoise & Plimpton and Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler. The Debevoise team features Matthew Fishbein, Sean Hecker and John Gleeson, a former federal judge who oversaw the Justice Departments $1.9 billion deferred prosecution agreement with HSBC in 2012, a settlement that involved violations of Iran sanctions.

Another set of lawyers in the courtroom is representing the victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran. If the government prevails, victims of the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon and other attacks tied to Iran stand to benefit from a share of the forfeiture proceeds.

The most important market news of the day.

Get our markets daily newsletter.

To convince the jury that Alavi is controlled by political leadership in Tehran, prosecutors have laid out the history of the foundation, which serves as a time capsule of American-Iranian relations during the past 40 years. Elements of spy-thriller intrigue include government agents who recovered relevant records from a trash bin at a Yonkers, New York, strip mall and hidden in the attic of a Mineola, New York, townhouse.

It began as the Pahlavi Foundation in the 1970s, created on behalf of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, a staunch American ally. Funded by $42 million in loans from Tehran-based Bank Melli in 1975, the foundation erected a tower at the corner of 52nd St. and Fifth Avenue, kitty-corner from St. Patricks Cathedral and near Rockefeller Center.

After the shah was deposed in 1979, Irans next supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, created the Mostazafan Foundation in Tehran, which took control of assets and businesses seized from the Shah and his allies.

The charity struggled financially in its early years. It was sitting on a valuable asset, but because it needed office rent to make payments on its mortgage, the foundation owed more than $1 million in taxes each year, ensuring years of red ink.

The Iranian government, which essentially controlled Bank Melli, approved the creation of a company, Assa Corp., which would eventually be given 40 percent of the building as a way of removing the mortgage. The restructuring created the 650 Fifth Avenue Partnership, which owned and operated the building.

Assa was a front company for the government of Iran, Assistant U.S. Attorney Martin Bell said in his opening statement, noting that in 1995, President Bill Clinton imposed wide-ranging sanctions against Iran. When the law changed and providing services to the government of Iran became illegal, the 650 Fifth Avenue Partnership kept on sending rental income to Bank Melli Iran, Bell said.

Prosecutors showed dozens of documents to the jury suggesting that from 1980 onward, the foundation was largely controlled or guided by Irans ambassador to the United Nations in New York.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Lockard, who has been on this case since its inception, read from a letter writtenin 1991 by anAlavi director affirming that he would step down from his position in line with a directive from the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989.

Under the worst and most sensitive of political conditions between America and Iran, we have succeeded in fully protecting and expanding the foundations interests, which in truth belongs to the people of Iran, the director wrote. We were also able to successfully carry out cultural and Islamic activities in the country of the Great Satan.

The jury is expected to get the case later this week. If the government prevails, it would be in the position to sell Alavis 60 percent stake of the building. That job would presumably fall to U.S. marshals, a branch of the Justice Department that reports to the owner of the other Fifth Avenue tower a few blocks away, President Trump.

The case is 650 Fifth Avenue and related properties, 08-cv-10934, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Read more from the original source:
Fifth Avenue Highrise Trial Pulls Iran Standoff Into Trump Era - Bloomberg

Zumba exercises classes have been effectively banned in Iran after the countrys authorities declared that the dance contravenes Islamic ideology.

In light of activities such as Zumba, performing rhythmic movements or dancing in any form is not legal in any shape or title and the prohibition of movements such as this is requested, Ali Majdara, the head of Irans General Sports Federation, wrote in a public letter to the ministry of youth affairs earlier this month.

The federation went on to urge the development of athletics for everyone in the framework of supreme Islamic ideology.

Iranian station crudely Photoshop clothes on Charlize Theron at Oscars

Mr Majdaras position means that Zumba has in effect already been banned, with classes in locations around the country already cancelled. Similar announcements have led to the curtailment of other sports - especially those for women - in the past.

The energetic Colombian dance style has become popular in recent years, with gyms and sport centres around the world offering instruction.

In Iran, where women still face opposition from the Islamic Republics Revolutionary Guard over dress codes and activities which the religious authorities fear may encourage revealing clothing or mixing of the sexes, it had been taught under names such as body rhythm or advanced aerobics.

Dancing is technically illegal, but in recent years, instructors and gyms had become bolder, openly advertising classes as Zumba lessons.

The move was met with fury by female fitness enthusiasts across the country, many of whom took to social media to vent their frustrations.

Iran officials banned Zumba classes. Why? because it encourages ppl to dance and this is against 'our' cultural norms!, one person tweeted.

Iran bans Zumba from all gyms because it's un-Islamic. When regime meddles in every aspect of personal life, another post read.

Several gyms told media outlets they planned to continue the classes under different names because of its popularity - and the possible dents in profits.

Zohre Safavizadeh, a Zumba student, told the Los Angeles Times the ban is being viewed as a reaction to the greater freedoms promised by Irans moderate President Hassan Rouhani, who was reelected in May.

The hardliners want to undo what was promised by President Rouhani, she said, and thus We as women are deprived small happiness.

Go here to read the rest:
Iran bans Zumba classes for being 'un-Islamic' - The Independent

BEIRUT Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei lashed out on Sunday at U.S. President Donald Trump's administration and what he characterized as its hostility to the Islamic Republic.

"This inexperienced group has not recognized the people and leaders of Iran," he said, according to the website for state TV. "When they get hit in the mouth, at that time they'll know what's going on."

Khamenei and other senior Iranian officials have ramped up their criticism of the United States in recent weeks after Trump went on an official visit last month to Saudi Arabia, Iran's main regional rival.

During that visit, Trump singled out Iran as a key source of funding and support for militant groups. He has also criticized the nuclear deal between Iran and six major powers, including the United States, that led to the lifting of most sanctions against Iran, in return for curbs on its nuclear programme. Trump has said Washington would review the deal but stopped short of pledging to scrap it.

Iran and the United States cut diplomatic ties shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution and enmity to Washington has long been a rallying point for hardline supporters of Khamenei in Iran.

Khamenei has accused the United States and its regional ally Saudi Arabia of funding hardline Sunni militants, including Islamic State, which carried out its first attack in Iran earlier this month, killing 17 people.

Riyadh has denied involvement in the suicide bombings and gun attacks on Iran's parliament and the mausoleum of the Islamic Republic's founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Khamenei said in his speech on Sunday that any efforts to destabilize the Islamic Republic would not succeed.

"In the past 38 years, when has there been a time when you haven't wanted to change the Islamic system?" Khamenei said, according to Fars News. "Your head has hit the rock each time and always will."

(Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; Editing by Peter Cooney)

PARIS President Emmanuel Macron's government on Monday promised to reshape France's political landscape as final results showed he had won the commanding parliamentary majority he wanted to push through far-reaching pro-growth reforms.

LONDON London police said 79 people were dead or missing presumed dead after a devastating tower block blaze last week.

Read more here:
Iran's supreme leader criticizes US policies toward Tehran - Reuters