Mediaboss Marketing

A profound disappointment. The reform-oriented and recently re-elected president, Hassan Rouhani, has capitulated. A member of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, it was he after all who approved the decision not to implement the UNESCO education agenda in Iran.

Many Iranians tweeted comments such as: "Rouhani said: I will forgo many things, but not the Education 2030 agenda. Today, as chairman of the Council of the Cultural Revolution, he definitively scrapped the agenda's action plan."

The global Education 2030 agenda was approved by ministers from all over the world in 2015. The Iranian government, led by President Rouhani, also signed on. Signatories committed themselves to - among other things - guaranteeing access to education for all people, irrespective of age, sex and religion. The Education Agenda is one of the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

For Iran's most senior political and religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this is tantamount to a conspiracy. "What was conceived as sustainable development is merely a plan to spread Western values and culture throughout the world," Khamenei declared abruptly last spring, shortly before the presidential election. He sharply criticized Rouhani for his cooperation with UNESCO. Iran would "not bow" to the UNESCO education agenda, said Khamenei. Rouhani responded that the religious leader had been wrongly informed - the agenda would be adapted to the Islamic culture of Iranian society.

This was the start of a battle between the government and the conservative opposition for and against the UNESCO education agenda, which has ended with the aforementioned defeat for Rouhani. Khamenei, who has the last word on everything in Iran, declared tersely, "We ourselves know best what's good for us!'

Angry Iranians gave free rein to their sarcasm on social media. "The religious leader doesn't like the Education 2030 agenda because it was written in the West. What he's happy to take from the West are ballistic missiles, nuclear energy and cranes for public executions," tweeted one user.

Baha'i banned from studying

For many Iranians, the rejection of the education agenda has tangible consequences. "Our children are not allowed to study. Since the Islamic Revolution in Iran this has been forbidden to all adherents of the Baha'i religion," said Simin Fahandej in an interview with DW. Fahandej is the spokesperson for the international Baha'i community at the UN in Geneva. The Baha'i are one of the biggest religious minorities in Iran. There are no official statistics, but Iranian media estimates that there are between 40,000 and 300,000 Baha'i in the country.

Other religious minorities, such as Zoroastrians, Mandaeans, Jews and Christians, who make up 2 percent of the country's 80 million people, are protected in Iran. However, the Iranian government does not recognize Bahaism as a religion, because its founder, Baha'u'llah, lived after the Prophet Muhammad, whom Muslims believe was the last of the prophets. The Islamic Republic regards Baha'u'llah's followers as apostates, and subjects them to numerous forms of repression.

Unlike the Baha'i people, religious minorities like Jews and Christians are protected in Iran

After the Iranian government rejected the action framework of the Education Agenda, activists posted photos online of Baha'i people who were executed in 1983 on account of their faith. One of the photos shows 17-year-old Mona Mahmudnizhad. She taught children who had had to leave school because they were Baha'i. For this, she was condemned to death.

"In 1993 a secret Iranian government memorandum found its way into the public domain. It said that the Baha'i should be kept illiterate and uneducated. The Iranian authorities don't want to change that," said Fahandej.

Discussion of women's rights is banned

Women are also discriminated against in matters of education. The UNESCO agenda's demand that they be granted equal rights also provoked fierce debate in Iran. The UNESCO Education 2030 Agenda aims to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, and the regime hardliners don't like that one bit.

"As soon as people start talking about women and their rights, all conversations and any kind of cooperation are over," Farideh, a women's rights activist, told DW. "The rulers see any kind of discussion about women's rights as an attack on their culture."

Women are barred from majoring in numerous subjects at Iranian universities

Farideh is one of the activists who started an initiative for women to have equal status under Iranian law - the "One Million Signatures Campaign for Women's Rights." Many of her associates, like the human rights activist and journalist Narges Mohammadi, are now in jail. Many of them also supported President Rouhani in the election, because he promised equal rights for women. He frequently spoke out against segregation of the sexes in universities, giving rise to hope that he would put an end to gender-specific education. Iranian women students are currently excluded from majoring in 77 subjects, such as accountancy and engineering.

"There could be many advantages for us in working with UNESCO," said Farideh. "We don't have to implement every item; the Iranian government isn't obliged to do this, anyway. But we could have greatly improved our education system through this international exchange."

Read more:
Education for all? Not in Iran - Deutsche Welle

Irans atomic energy chief Ali Akbar Salehi, who helped forge the 2015 nuclear agreement, warned the United States on June 23 against upsetting the balance of power in the Middle East by siding with arch-rival Saudi Arabia.

Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Salehi said Tehran views a lavish" deal U.S. President Donald Trump's administration recently announced to sell Saudi Arabia $110 billion in weapons as "provocative."

"This is especially the case if the national defense efforts of Iran...are simultaneously opposed and undermined," he said, alluding to steps the Trump administration has taken to increase U.S. sanctions on Iran for developing ballistic missiles even as it has ramped up arms sales to Riyadh and its allies.

"It would be unrealistic to expect Iran to remain indifferent to the destabilizing impact of such conduct," said Salehi, an MIT graduate who has also served as Iran's foreign minister and was a senior negotiator on the nuclear deal.

Salehi stressed that Washington's strong tilt toward Tehran's rivals in the Middle East not only risks setting off a regional arms race and "further tension and conflict" in the region, but it imperils the "hard-won" nuclear deal, which took two years to negotiate.

If the nuclear deal is to survive, he said the West must change course. "The moment of truth has arrived."

Trump, who visited Saudi Arabia on his first trip as president earlier this month, seems largely unconcerned that his showy support for the kingdom threatens to blow up the nuclear accord or set off a renewed arms race in the Middle East. He has openly shown disdain both for Iran's leaders and the nuclear deal.

Trump and the Saudis frequently blame Iran for wars ranging from Yemen to Syria, as well as for restive minority Shi'ite populations within the borders of the kingdom and other Persian Gulf states ruled by Sunni Muslims.

The Saudis, like Trump, were strongly opposed to the nuclear deal. But while Trump has promised to dismantle the disastrous deal, he has not so far taken any concrete steps to do so.

His administration has indicated it will adhere to the deal, which requires Iran to curb its nuclear activities in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions, as long as Tehran continues to do so.

But Salehi's article in the Guardian suggested that Iran's so far strict honoring of the deal may come into doubt in the future if the United States continues to disregard Irans "genuine security concerns" and "stokes Iranophobia" in the region.

Salehi urged the United States and its Western partners to "save" the nuclear deal with "reciprocal gestures" showing a commitment to engagement with Iran.

Iranian voters recently showed their preference for engagement with the West by re-electing President Hassan Rohani with his pro-Western platform, but engagement is simply not a one-way street and we cannot go it alone," Salehi said.

"Unfortunately, as things stand at the moment in the region, reaching a new state of equilibrium might simply be beyond reach for the foreseeable future, he said.

Read the original:
Iran's Nuclear Chief Warns US Against Tilting Power Balance In Middle East - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

The tests are not prohibited under the landmark 2015 nuclear agreement between Iran and six major powers, which eased economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for its verifiable promises of peaceful nuclear work.

But Security Council Resolution 2231, which put the agreement into effect, called on Iran not to test ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

When Iran conducted missile tests in March 2016, critics led by the United States and Israel were infuriated, calling the countrys behavior a violation of the Security Council resolution and a sign that it would not honor provisions of the nuclear accord. Iran rejected the accusation.

In a report to the Security Council last July on compliance with Resolution 2231, Ban Ki-moon, then the secretary general, said he was concerned that the missile tests might not be consistent with the constructive spirit demonstrated by the nuclear accord. He called on Iran to refrain from conducting such launches, given that they have the potential to increase tensions in the region.

Mr. Guterress report, his first on Irans compliance with the resolution, also called on the country to refrain from missile tests. But it did not echo Mr. Bans broader concerns about them.

A spokesman for Mr. Guterres, Stphane Dujarric, did not immediately respond to a query about the difference.

Iran has long contended that the missiles are its defensive bulwark in an increasingly hostile region. Since it has already promised not to make nuclear weapons, its leaders have said, the missiles by definition cannot carry them. Iran has also argued that Resolution 2231s language does not ban missile tests.

Some disarmament experts suggested that Mr. Guterress report decreased the possibility of United Nations penalties against Iran over its missile development.

Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based group, said the difference between Mr. Bans and Mr. Guterress reports was subtle.

Mr. Guterres may have adjusted the language in the report out of recognition that further sanctions of Iranian entities tied to missile development or production will not likely succeed in reducing, or even slowing, Irans ballistic missile program, Mr. Kimball said.

Sanctions intended as punishment for missile tests, he said, could even strengthen hard-liners in Iran who want to accelerate the program in response to U.S. pressure.

A version of this article appears in print on June 22, 2017, on Page A11 of the New York edition with the headline: U.N. Leader Softens Predecessors Criticism of Iran Missile Tests.

More:
UN Leader Softens His Predecessor's Criticism of Iran Missile Tests - New York Times

House Speaker Paul Ryan addressed the Senate Republicans plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act today, including sanctions against Iran and Russia. Watch his remarks in the player above.

WASHINGTON House Speaker Paul Ryan is expressing support for a popular bill to hit Iran and Russia with sanctions. He says work is underway to resolve a procedural snag.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, the Wisconsin Republican says we want to get moving on the sanctions bill.

The measure was written by the Senate, where it passed last week on a 98-2 vote. Now the House must act.

At issue is a constitutional requirement that requires legislation involving revenue to come from the House.

Ryan says the House Foreign Affairs Committee is examining the legislation to make sure that the bill is written the right way.

Democrats have accused Republicans of stalling the bill at the behest of the Trump administration, which they say wants it weakened.

WATCH: What we learned from GOP victories in Georgia and South Carolina

Here is the original post:
WATCH: Ryan says House wants to move on Iran, Russia sanctions bill - PBS NewsHour

Trump administration officials, anticipating the defeat of the Islamic State in its de facto Syrian capital of Raqqa, are planning for what they see as the next stage of the war, a complex fight that will bring them into direct conflict with Syrian government and Iranian forces contesting control of a vast desert stretch in the eastern part of the country.

To some extent, that clash has already begun. Unprecedented recent U.S. strikes against regime and Iranian-backed militia forces have been intended as warnings to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Tehran that they will not be allowed to confront or impede the Americans and their local proxy forces.

[U.S. risks further battles as it steps deeper into Syrian quagmire ]

As regime and militia forces have begun advancing eastward, senior White House officials have been pushing the Pentagon to establish outposts in the desert region. The goal would be to prevent a Syrian or Iranian military presence that would interfere with the U.S. militarys ability to break the Islamic States hold on the Euphrates River valley south of Raqqa and into Iraq a sparsely populated area where the militants could regroup and continue to plan terrorist operations against the West.

Officials said Syrian government claims on the area would also undermine progress toward a political settlement in the long-separate rebel war against Assad, intended to stabilize the country by limiting his control and eventually driving him from power.

The wisdom and need for such a strategy effectively inserting the United States in Syrias civil war, after years of trying to stay out of it, and risking direct confrontation with Iran and Russia, Assads other main backer has been a subject of intense debate between the White House and the Pentagon.

Some in the Pentagon have resisted the move, amid concern about distractions from the campaign against the Islamic State and whether U.S. troops put in isolated positions in Syria, or those in proximity to Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, could be protected. European allies in the anti-Islamic State coalition have also questioned whether U.S.-trained Syrians, now being recruited and trained to serve as a southern ground-force vanguard, are sufficient in number or capability to succeed.

One White House official, among several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss Syria planning, dismissed such concerns, saying: If youre worried that any incident anywhere could cause Iran to take advantage of vulnerable U.S. forces ... if you dont think America has real interests that are worth fighting for, then fine.

The official said the expanded U.S. role would not require more troops, comparing it to The Rat Patrol, the 1960s television series about small, allied desert forces deployed against the Germans in northern Africa during World War II.

With our ability with air power ... youre not talking about a lot of requirements to do that, the official said. ... You dont need a lot of forces to go out and actually have a presence.

This official and others played down reports of tensions over Syria strategy. No one disagrees about the strategy or the objectives, said a second White House official. The question is how best to operationalize it.

The Pentagon, not the White House, made the decision to shoot down Iranian drones and a Syrian fighter jet in response to their approaches to or attacks against U.S. forces and their Syrian allies, this official said. They shot down an enemy aircraft for the first time in more than a decade. Thats accepting a high level of risk, the official said. ... Weve done quite a lot since April that the previous administration said was impossible without the conflict spiraling.

Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior Pentagon official now in charge of the Center for a New American Securitys Middle East program, agreed that the Obama administration over-agonized about every decision in Syria.

But Goldenberg faulted the Trump administration with failing to articulate its strategy. It has been the worst of all worlds, he said. A vagueness on strategy, but a willingness to deploy force. They are totally muddying the waters, and now you have significant risk of escalation.

I know the president is fond of secret plans, Goldenberg said. But this situation requires clarity about our objectives and what we will or wont tolerate.

Trump promised during his campaign to announce within his first month in office a new strategy for defeating the Islamic State. That strategy remains unrevealed, and for several months Trump appeared to be following President Barack Obamas lead in avoiding Assad, Iran and Russia and continuing a punishing assault on Islamic State strongholds elsewhere in Syria, as well as in Iraq.

In April, Trump broke that mold with a cruise missile attack on regime forces after their use of chemical weapons against civilians. Assad and his allies protested but did little else.

More recently, however, there have been direct clashes between the United States and the regime. Trumps campaign calls to join forces with Russia against the Islamic State have largely disappeared amid increased estrangement between Washington and Moscow and investigations of Trump associates contacts with Russian officials.

Despite U.S. warnings, regime and militia forces have moved toward the Syrian town of Tanf, near the Iraq border, where U.S. advisers are training Syrian proxies to head northeast toward Deir al-Zour, the regions largest city, controlled by the regime and surrounded by the Islamic State. It is a prize that the regime also wants to claim.

At the end of May, Syrian and Iranian-backed forces pushed southward to the Iraq border, between Tanf and Bukamal, where the Euphrates crosses into Iraq. In Iraq, Iranian-backed militias have, in small but concerning numbers, left the anti-Islamic State fight and headed closer to the border, near where regime forces were approaching.

On at least three occasions in May and June, U.S. forces have bombed Iranian-supported militia forces approaching the Tanf garrison. Twice this month, they have shot down what they called pro-regime armed drones, including one on June 8 that fired on Syrian fighters and their American advisers.

On Sunday, two days before the most recent drone shoot-down near Tanf, a U.S. F/A-18 shot down a Syrian air force jet southwest of Raqqa.

In response, Russia said it would train its powerful antiaircraft defense system in western Syria on farther areas where U.S. aircraft are operating and shut down the communications line that the two militaries have used to avoid each other in the crowded Syrian airspace.

The only actions we have taken against pro-regime forces in Syria ... have been in self-defense, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this week.

Dunford also made clear that victory against the Islamic State in Raqqa, and in Mosul, where the U.S.-led coalition and Iraqi forces are in the last stages of a months-long offensive, will not mark the end of the war.

Raqqa is tactical. Mosul is tactical, Dunford said. We ought not to confuse success in Raqqa and Mosul as something that means its the end of the fight. I think we should all be braced for a long fight.

In a report Wednesday, the Institute for the Study of War, referring to intelligence and expert sources, said that the Islamic State in Raqqa had already relocated the majority of its leadership, media, chemical weapons, and external attack cells south to the town of Mayadin in Deir al-Zour province.

Neither the U.S.-led coalition and its local allies nor what the institute called the Russo-Iranian coalition can easily access this terrain located deep along the Euphrates River Valley with their current force posture, it said.

At the White House, senior officials involved in Syria policy see whats happening through a lens focused as much on Iran as on the Islamic State. The Iranian goal, said one, seems to be focused on making that link-up with Iran-friendly forces on the other side of the border, to control lines of communication and try to block us from doing what our commanders and planners have judged all along is necessary to complete the ISIS campaign. ISIS is another name for the Islamic State.

If it impacts your political outcome, if it further enables Iran to solidify its position as the dominant force in Syria for the long haul, the official said, that threatens other things, including the defeat-ISIS strategy and the ability to get to political reconciliation efforts.

For us, the official said, thats the biggest concern.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff contributed to this report.

Read more:

Link:
US on collision course with Syria and Iran once de facto Islamic State capital falls - Washington Post