Mediaboss Marketing

Before she was appointed as Irans vice president for legal affairs, law expert and college professor Laya Joneydi followed the obligatory Islamic dress code by covering her hair with a scarf and wearing a coat and pants to cover her body.

In announcing her appointment to the cabinet, the Iranian government website posted a statement and a photo of Joneydi wearing the chador, which covers women from head to toe and leaves only the face exposed.

Social-media users were quick to point out that Joneydi had overnight become a so-called chadori, an expression used in Iran to refer to women who choose to wear the chador promoted by conservatives as the "superior hijab" and the best protection for women.

Many posted Joneydis before and after pictures while criticizing her decision to wear a chador as hypocritical.

Joneydi later told the reformist Sharq daily that President Hassan Rohani had asked her to wear the chador, saying that it is the cabinets protocol.

The respected president, who was elected with 24 million votes, asked me to work with the government. He said my service was needed [and] he also said that the cabinets protocol is such [that a woman wears a chador], Joneydi said.

She added that she respected the demand of Rohani, whom we all voted for.

Many blasted Rohanis decision to impose the chador on Joneydi as a step backward following his appointment of three women, including Joneydi, as vice presidents. The appointments only came after criticism of Rohanis original all-male cabinet.

Joneydi was also criticized for not standing up for her rights to appear in public with the Islamic clothing of her choice.

The chador has been declared as the protocol for the presence of a qualified lawyer in the cabinet. Is this anything other than promoting hypocrisy?" asked Mohammad Taghi Karrubi, the son of opposition cleric Mehdi Karrubi, who's been under house arrest since running for president in 2011.

Rohani talks of citizens rights. He says hes a lawyer, but he doesnt respect the most basic rights of a woman, which is the right to decide about her clothing, journalist Sepehr Khorami wrote on Twitter.

The alleged protocol appears to be a reference to a nonwritten rule in the Islamic republic that only very conservatively dressed women can serve in state bodies.

Women who dont fully respect the hijab that became compulsory following the 1979 Islamic Revolution are often criticized in Iran for allegedly spreading corruption in society and endangering the countrys interests and values. They often face a state crackdown and pressure over their appearance.

The two other women serving as presidential assistant and vice president -- Shahindokht Molaverdi and Massoumeh Ebtekar -- are both chadoris. They both served in Rohanis previous government.

Like Joneydi, Ebtekar, a former spokeswoman for hard-line students who took dozens of U.S. diplomats hostage following the 1979 revolution, reportedly became a chadori after being appointed by former reformist President Mohammad Khatami to oversee Irans Environment Department.

Senior ayatollahs had reportedly criticized her appointment and warned that a nonchadori woman should not serve in the government.

Zahra Shojaei, who served under Khatami as an adviser on womens affairs, recalled in a recent interview the pressure that was put on the president.

[Khatamis] appointment of [Ebtekar] had been criticized by some religious officials. We heard later that there had been threats but that he had resisted, Shojaei said.

She added that one of the criticisms against Ebtekar was that she was not wearing the chador.

When Ebtekar was told, she said she will [start wearing] the chador. Shes said she's not opposed to it, Shojaei said.

It is not clear whether Rohani has faced pressure over Joneydis appearance or had asked her to wear a chador to avoid receiving criticism from hard-liners.

The Iranian president hinted he had been pressured by conservatives when he said on August 15 that he intended to name three women as ministers, saying the candidates had been chosen but that it wasnt possible [to add them to his cabinet].

Rohani didnt elaborate.

He has not publicly commented on the controversy over Joneydi's chador.

Last month, popular Iranian television personality Azadeh Namdari, a chadori, was accused of hypocrisy and attacked on social media after leaked photos from a trip to Switzerland showed her in public not only without the chador but with her hair exposed while wearing a jumpsuit.

Read the original here:
In Controversial Move, Iran's New Female Vice President Ordered To Wear Chador - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

Its a sad commentary on mainstream media bias that the tumult over what President Trump had to say about Charlottesville seems largely to have pushed aside the confrontation one with possible nuclear consequences between North Korea and the United States.

Just imagine the ginned-up concern over whether the president tried to coddle white supremacist and neo-Nazis has come to eclipse what, for very good and obvious reasons, had almost everyone on the edge of their seats. And its not just that things seem to have calmed down somewhat. The unpredictability of North Koreas Kim Il Jung means that its really not over until its over.

Some attribute the sudden lack of media focus on North Korea to a desire to embarrass Mr. Trump on the one hand and to deny him any credit for apparently defusing such an ominous situation on the other. Perhaps. Given how the president is treated by the media, that sounds plausible. But the North Korea situation brings to mind the significantly different approaches pursued by Presidents Obama andTrump on the issue of nuclear proliferation.

One can easily envision President Obama dispatching Secretary of State John Kerry with authorization to offer Kim Il Jung multiple millions of dollars if he would only rein in his nuclear aspirations. (President Clinton reportedly traded millions in aid money for such a promise from Kim Il Jungs father and predecessor in an aborted effort to get North Korea out of the nuclear weapons game.)

Of course, Mr.Obama turned over nearly $2 billion to Iran and granted the Iranians a sweetheart nuclear deal to induce them to delay their development of nuclear weapons. President Obama touted his negotiating tactic as an effective alternative to a military approach in dealing with Iranian nuclear proliferation. The bottom line, of course, is that Irans nuclear aspirations have only been delayed for at best 15 years.

Consider, though, that North Korea has assisted Iran with its nuclear program and is at this point far more advanced than Iran was at the time it cut its nuclear deal with President Obama and the West.

In fact, North Korea now actually possesses nuclear weapons and a delivery system to boot. Yet President Trump eschewed any compromise approach and declared in no uncertain terms what would happen to North Korea if it embarked on nuclear adventurism. Makes us wonder what would have happened had President Obama taken advantage of Irans weakness at the time and forced certain conditions rather than giving away the store.

Read the rest here:
North Korea, Iran, And The Bomb - The Jewish Press - JewishPress.com

Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) has denied a claim by Turkey that the two countries were planning to conduct joint military operations against Kurdish rebel groups beyond the countrys borders.

"We have not planned any operations across the borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the IRGC said in an August 22 statement published by Iranian news agencies.

"But as always we will strongly confront any group, team, or person who wants to penetrate into Iran's territory for antisecurity or terrorist operations," the statement added.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was quoted on August 21 by Reuters as saying that his country and Iran have discussed possible joint military action against Kurdish militant groups.

Erdogan said the issue had been discussed in Ankara last week between the chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, General Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, and Turkish leaders. Bagheri's visit to Turkey was seen as a sign of warming ties between the two countries.

"Joint action against terrorist groups that have become a threat is always on the agenda. This issue has been discussed between the two military chiefs, and I discussed more broadly how this should be carried out," Erdogan was quoted as telling reporters.

He said Turkey and Iran can work together against the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) whose affiliate, the Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), has staged attacks on Iranian targets.

As you know, the PKK terror organization has a foot in Iran. It has always caused harm to Iran and to us. We work together because we believe that if the two countries cooperate, we can get results in a much shorter period of time, Erdogan said.

The IRGC denied that any specific operation was planned while warning terrorist groups against taking actions on Irans borders.

"Although Iran has no plan to take widespread operational actions outside its borders, if any terrorist group...aims to take the slightest measure to create insecurity on our borders, they will be faced with our intensive and fierce response, and their remnants will be targeted wherever they are," the IRGC said.

Read more here:
Iran Denies Joint Operation Against Kurds With Turkey - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty

The Islamic State has taken another hostage and he was reading to America from a teleprompter in an expensive suit and blue tie Monday evening at the Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall near Arlington National Cemetery. Apparently there are some things that simply are more powerful than the president of the United States namely, the military-industrial complex, the original sponsor of the Islamic State and now the sponsor of U.S. President Donald Trump's planned troop surge in Afghanistan.

"We are not nation-building again," Mr. Trump proclaimed near the end of his Monday-night address. "We are killing terrorists."

Back in 2001, I might have believed that. Actually, I did believe it when the U.S. launched a war against the Afghanistan-ruling Taliban in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But that was 16 years ago. Mr. Trump had the right idea when he tweeted on January 11, 2013: "Let's get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA."

While indeed there are still jihadists in Afghanistan, that's hardly shocking no more shocking than the fact that wildebeests and lions roam the Serengeti. There are terrorists in Europe, too, and they're mowing down citizens with cars on a regular basis. Terrorists are everywhere these days. We have to ask ourselves whether the 16-year fight against terrorism has made America and its allies any safer.

Afghanistan is back to square one, with the Taliban increasingly running the country, backed by its traditional sponsors: Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Most of the terrorists who attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001, were from Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan was where the mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden, found safe haven until he was killed by U.S. Navy SEALs.

Dick Locher, Chicago Tribune

Dick Locher, Chicago Tribune

The Taliban's military activities are also funded by the black market opium trade. Russia bailed on counterterrorism cooperation with the NATO alliance in Afghanistan because of frustration over the lack of interest in cutting this source of revenue, which grew by 43 percent last year, according to United Nations officials.

If you're not going to touch the opium trafficking, and you're not going to penalize Saudi Arabia for sponsoring jihadism and interfering with its neighbors, then you're wasting your time sending soldiers back into that bottomless black hole of conflict.

By sending more troops to Afghanistan, the U.S. is actually worsening the national-security interests of the Western world, just as it did with attempts at regime change in Syria and Libya, where both conflicts caused jihadist blowback in Europe. As the noose tightens in the Middle East, terror attacks have ramped up. And such attacks have become easier to pull off as European borders have opened in the interests of humanitarianism, exposing a lethal loophole in Western benevolence.

Make no mistake: This is still all about regime change for the military-industrial complex, particularly as hopes of overthrowing the Syrian government dissipate. What do Syria and Afghanistan have in common? Proximity to Iran. This is hardly a coincidence.

Mr. Trump's secretary of defense, General James Mattis, has done little to hide his animosity toward the Iranian regime, telling a high school journalist in a June interview that "[Iran] is the only reason Assad has been able to stay in power." Mattis added: "Iran is certainly the most destabilizing influence in the Middle East, and when I would travel to Cairo or Tel Aviv or Riyadh ... from Arabs from Jews, all the people in the region, that is their view of Iran."

What Mr. Mattis failed to mention is that nearly all those entities are on the same side, along with the U.S. military-industrial complex. Russia and Iran are on the other side the one that's constantly treated like an enemy for having competing economic interests.

In Monday's speech, Mr. Trump admonished Pakistan but not Saudi Arabia. "We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond."

Why not just cut off the head of the snake? What will it take for this administration to sanction and condemn Saudi Arabia?

Notably, Mr. Trump didn't mention Iran. Heaven forbid that anyone put two and two together and figure out the real reason behind this new incursion: regime change in Tehran.

Can we please just take a break from failed regime changes already? If this is all really about long-term foreign economic interests and it always is there are far more intelligent ways to achieve success. As an international businessman, Mr. Trump should know that bombing the competition isn't exactly the best foundation for a long-term business strategy.

Rachel Marsden (www.rachelmarsden.com) is a columnist, political strategist and former Fox News host based in Paris.

Read more from the original source:
Afghanistan surge is about regime change in Iran - Baltimore Sun

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he will discuss with Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 23 his concerns about Iran's military presence in Syria.

Netanyahu will meet Putin at the Black Sea resort city of Sochi. Both Russia and Iran back Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his six-year civil war against armed Syrian rebels.

"I will raise the problem of Iran trying to establish a military presence in Syria," Netanyahu said on August 22.

"This proves that Iran's aggression has not diminished since the nuclear agreement, which has become a problem not only for Israel, but for all the countries of the Middle East and the entire world."

Iran, an avowed enemy of Israel, has not responded to Netanyahu's repeated allegations that it seeks to bolster its military presence on the Jewish state's borders.

Recent Israeli media reports have featured satellite photos purportedly showing weapons factories that Iran is helping to build in both Syria and Lebanon.

Israeli officials said Netanyahu will tell Putin that despite tensions between Moscow and Washington, Russia and the United States need to cooperate to reach an arrangement in Syria that will ensure Tehran does not strengthen its presence there.

The Sochi meeting will be the sixth between the two leaders since September 2015. The head of Israeli spy agency Mossad, Yossi Cohen, and Netanyahu's new national security chief, Meir Ben-Shabbat, will join Netanyahu and Putin in Sochi.

Israeli officials said Netanyahu opposes a southwest Syria cease-fire recently announced by Russia and the United States, saying he believes it will enable Iran and its ally, the Lebanese Hizballah militia, to solidify their presence in the country.

Russia and the United States maintain that they protected Israel's interests in establishing the cease-fire.

Israels main concern is that with both Moscow and Washington distracted by other matters, the Russians and the Americans will make do with such piecemeal cease-fire agreements and will not try to reach broader arrangements that determine how Syria will look after the civil war is over, Israeli officials said.

With no broad agreement in place, it would easier for Iran, Hizballah, and the Shiite militias brought to Syria by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to augment their presence in the country, the officials said.

Israel believes that after the civil war is over, Russia and the United States must ensure that anyone who is not Syrian leaves the country, the officials said.

As in previous meetings between Netanyahu and Putin, Netanyahu is expected to express Israels concern that weapons supplied by Russia to Iran and Syria are being given to Hizballah.

Over the years Israel has raised similar allegations, but Russia has repeatedly denied them.

Beyond concerns about Iran, Netanyahu's talks with Putin are also likely to involve coordinating their military actions in Syria.

Russia and Israel have established a "hotline" to avoid accidental clashes in the country.

Israel has sought to avoid being dragged into Syrian conflict, but has acknowledged carrying out strikes to stop advanced weapons deliveries to Hizballah.

Excerpt from:
Israeli Leader To Raise Concern About Iran's Military In Syria With Putin - RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty