Mediaboss Marketing

Foreign Policy (blog)

In Venezuela's Toxic Brew, Failed Narco-State Meets Iran-Backed Terrorism Foreign Policy (blog) Of no less concern is Venezuela's long history of collaboration with Iran, including sanctions evasion, terror finance, and ideological subversion. During the presidencies of Hugo Chvez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Caracas was a key facilitator of Tehran ...

See the article here:
In Venezuela's Toxic Brew, Failed Narco-State Meets Iran-Backed Terrorism - Foreign Policy (blog)

Leaders in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Washington, DClong argued, without muchevidence,that Yemen's Houthi rebels are puppets of Tehran. Those arguments, which many saw as exaggerated, are now beginning to ring true.

The notion of a proxy war in Yemen is not new. Saudi Arabia and the US State Departmentcited theIran/Houthi connection to justify the launch of a massive military operation designed to drive the group from power. They argued that Iran would turn Yemen into a Shiitestronghold on Saudi Arabia's southern border, enabling Tehran to exert influence there as it does inLebanon, Syria and Iraq.

The Houthis, known in Yemen as Ansar Allah, usethe"Death to America"slogan which originated in Iran and is frequently invokedby the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. But beyond the shared rhetoric, there is scant evidence that the Houthis aimto project Iranian power on the Arabian Peninsula.

The Houthis are homegrown. Their name comes from the Houthi family, who launched a religious revival in northern Yemen. In the 1990s, when Salafists began preaching the Saudi brand of Wahhabi Islam on what was essentially Houthi turf, the head of the family, Hussein al-Houthi, led a movement to reaffirm Zaidi Shiitetraditions that had guided Yemeni culture for centuries.

Yemens central government saw Houthi'sgrowing influence as a security threat.Under the leadership of then-President Ali Abdullah Saleh, Yemeni armed forces launched a series of wars to beat back the Houthis. In 2009, Saudi Arabia sent its own troops to join in the fight to subdue the Houthis.

By 2011, as populist fervor was coursing through the Arab world, the Houthis had joined with other anti-government groups in Yemen to hasten the downfall of President Saleh. They argued that his leadership had become corrupt, and they called for his ouster.

In 2012, Saleh was forced to transfer executive power to his vice president, Abdo Monsuer Hadi. The same year, the Houthis came to the negotiating table to help draft a power-sharing agreement with other Yemeni factions through a UN-sponsored National Dialogue Conference.

But the NDC came up with recommendations that would have provided the Houthis with less than complete control of their historic lands in the north.

The Houthis were having none of that, and in a political move that continues to confuse observers, they formed a political alliance with their longtime nemesis, the deposed Saleh, who was already seeking to regain power in 2013.

Reporter Iona Craig, who was then living in Sanaa, recalls that the Houthis, with Salehs formidable political and military connections, were able in 2014 to gain control of northern Yemeni cities including the capital, Sanaa. Certainly at the beginning of this war it was Saleh who was really the driving force behind the Houthis and, yes, they were politically aligned to Iran but there was very little evidence, really, of the Iranians supporting the Houthis.

There was no need for Iranian weapons in 2014. Saleh may have been out of office, but he still controlled much of the well-stocked, American-supplied Yemeni arsenal.

By March 2015, the Houthi/Saleh forces had conquered most of Yemens major cities anddrivenout the caretaker government of President Hadi, thoroughly alarming the Saudi government that supported him.

On March 26, 2015, Saudi Arabia leda bombing campaign to take out the Houthi military and its weapons. The Saudis also instituted a naval blockade aimed at preventing Iranian weapons from entering Yemen. Both the air and sea operations continue as of this writing.

And while claims of Iranian weapons deliveries were seen to be groundless in the opening months of the Yemen war, there is evidence now that the Iranians are assisting the Houthis militarily.

In the last few months as you know we're going into the third year of war now in Yemen there has been growing evidence of Iranian involvement on the weapons front, says reporter Craig. Ballistic missiles have clearly been modified, and new missiles have been built in Yemen to fire over the Saudi border long-range missiles that did not exist in the Yemeni arsenal before this warhave been used.

If Irans influence in Yemen was hard to detect before, it is unmistakeablenow. In the first months of 2017, the Houthis and Tehran have boasted of a newfound ability to attack Saudi Arabia. And as the war drags on, Iranian influence may grow.

This is the risk and this is the danger, says Craig. The longer this war goes on, the likelihood is of more Iranian involvement rather than less. That, says Craig, could drive Washington to step up its already significant material and logistical support of the Saudi-led military coalition.

And, Craig adds, it might even inspire the US to assume a more active role in Yemen. The Trump Administration[could start] their own proxy war with Iran by bombing the Houthis, she says, and that's the real danger now.

Continue reading here:
If Yemen's Houthis weren't Iranian proxies before, they could be soon - PRI

Iran policy has been one of the most divisive foreign policy issues in recent years. The Obama administrations nuclear deal passed Congress without a single Republican vote, and Donald TrumpDonald TrumpUS probes Manaforts banking: report America must improve defense against Russia's information warfare London mayor won't respond to Donald Trump Jr.'s tweet: 'Ive been doing more important things' MORE campaigned on a pledge to get tougher on Tehran. And with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference in Washington next week, we may see this issue once again near the top of the agenda as Congress is expected to introduce a slew of new initiatives.

For all the divisions, today it is on Iran policy that Congress can lead, joining forces across parties and even with the new administration.

A Congressional approach to Iran should include several core components.

First, legislators should signal their intent to carefully oversee compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Members disagreed bitterly about the wisdom and terms of the agreement, but a consensus is emerging both on Capitol Hill and in the Trump administration that the best course now is to vigorously enforce the deal and hold Iran to account for any violations.

Tillerson: '"I didn't want this job" https://t.co/V14UHlvCKM pic.twitter.com/abNW61Pcwo

Efforts to enforce the agreement should include establishing a bipartisan Congressional panel to oversee JCPOA implementation, ensuring the State Department office responsible for overseeing the agreement remains in place, and holding hearings that will keep the issue on the broader foreign policy agenda. Congress should also deter Iran from cheating by raising the costs of potential violations. This means outlining tough new sanctions, beyond reinstating the previous ones, that would only be triggered if the agreement collapses.

Second, Congress should encourage a new campaign of military and intelligence actions, weapons interdiction, law enforcement activity, and sanctions to blunt Iranian support for surrogates in the Middle East. Limited, low visibility action directed at the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Qods Force and other proxies combined with clear messages about Americas willingness to push back against them can help blunt the expansion of Iranian influence in countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Third, Congress should push the new administration to improve ties with Arab Gulf partners and approve weapons sales and other forms of cooperation with them. The emphasis should be on special operations and low intensity conflict, which is the real challenge Iran poses to them.

"Iran is testing President Trump: Heres what he should do." https://t.co/JzCMsjv9kl pic.twitter.com/1GYtYC276f

The United States should look at establishing a multinational task force with our Gulf partners that would deepen intelligence sharing, training, exercises and joint operations that could be employed as necessary against targets including Iranian proxies, ISIS, and al Qaeda.

Fourth, Congress can promote deeper military and intelligence cooperation with Israel to counter the Iranian challenge. The Israelis intelligence resources are particularly useful, and a high level dialogue should aim to monitor Irans nuclear program while jointly planning for scenarios in which Iran violates the JCPOA. Helping Israel to counter the threat posed on its northern border by Hezbollah should represent another element of this effort.

Finally, Congress can offer leadership on maintaining diplomatic and people-to-people contacts between Iran and the United States. Former Secretary of State John KerryJohn KerryCongress, Trump need a united front to face down Iran One year ago today we declared ISIS atrocities as genocide Trumps realism toward Iran is stabilizing force for Middle East MORE and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were able to establish a consistent high level communication channel between Iran and the United States for the first time since the Islamic Revolution. Members of Congress can keep that dialogue going by continuing quiet meetings with Iranian counterparts, as many have done in the past.

Importantly, they should also support programs that deepen educational and civil society contacts between Americans and Iranians as well as broadcasting and other information efforts.

By pressing this agenda, Congress can simultaneously send three messages. To Iran, it would signal resolve and a willingness to help Americas friends as they strive to limit Tehrans malign activities in the Middle East. To the Trump administration, it would demonstrate that there are areas in which the legislature and executive can find common ground. And to the American people, it would suggest that Republicans and Democrats can come together around a key foreign policy priority, even in todays divided Congress.

The challenge Iran poses, both to American interests and to what remains of the Middle East order, is urgent. To let it fall prey to partisan bickering would harm our national security. It would also represent a missed opportunity.

Congressional leadership on Iran policy could give both parties and both the legislative and executive branch a political win at a moment when all could use it. Better to face Tehran with a unified front than allow our divisions to create opportunities for it.

Richard Fontaine is the President of the Center for a New American Security where Elizabeth Rosenberg directs the Energy Economics and Security Program and Ilan Goldenberg directs the Middle East Security Program.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Follow this link:
Congress, Trump need a united front to face down Iran - The Hill (blog)

Iranian protestors burn an Israeli flag during a demonstration in Tehran on July 25, 2014 to mark the Quds Day. (photo credit:BEHROUZ MEHRI /AFP)

Labor MP Joan Ryan said that Iran is attempting to pose a new threat on Israel by funding Hezbollah terrorists and creating a "second front in southern Syria with which to threaten Israel."

The British parliament member made the comment about Iran's on-going aggression against Israel as part of a parliamentary debate on Iran's influence in the Middle East that took place earlier this week.

According to the Jewish Chronicle, Ryan went on to add that Iran's position on Israel is "utterly malign." She explained that Iranian threats on Israel are not just limited to its nuclear activity but that have now received a new form, with Tehran's funding of Hezbollah's military wing serving as an attempt to undermine Israel's security "through support for terrorism."

While most of her speech was related to Iran's affiliation to terror groups in the Middle East and the indirect threat it tries to pose on Israel through these ties, she also mentioned that Iran has a history of calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

Ryan, who chairs the Labor Friends of Israel, the parliamentary group that seeks to promote bilateral connections between Britain and Israel, cautioned against Iran's capabilities and their possibly destructive repercussions in the already volatile Middle East. The international nuclear deal had "done nothing to satisfy Iran's appetite to establish regional hegemony in the Middle East," she stated.

In her statements Ryan also urged British as well as European leaders to stand by Israel's side and not to turn a blind eye to Iran's alignment with Hezbollah and other terror groups in the region nor to its more than problematic human rights record. "Iran wants to foment conflict, not peace. It is an oppressive regime at home and abroad."

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

More:
British MP: Iran is trying to threaten Israel by establishing a second front in Syria - Jerusalem Post Israel News

The United Nations accuses Israel of being an apartheid state, then quickly retracts itdamage done.

On March 15, the United Nations published a report in which scholarly inquiry claimed to prove with overwhelming evidence that Israel was in fact an apartheid state. It was a breathtaking, heavy claim and one that got the attention of UN Secretary General Antnio Guterres. By Friday, two days later, the report was removed from the UNs official website and disavowed by the secretary general.

Condemnation of the report from the United States and Israel came swiftly. Daniel Danon, Israels UN ambassador, said, The attempt to smear and falsely label the only true democracy in the Middle East by creating a false analogy is despicable and constitutes a blatant lie. Nikki Halley, Americas ambassador, called it anti-Israel propaganda.

And yet, in the two days while the report remained on the UNs website, it caused significant damage.

The Washington Post picked up the story and ran the headline Is Israel an Apartheid State? The answer, apparently dogmatic, was that This UN Report Says Yes. The Independent told its readers that Israel is imposing apartheid regime on Palestinians, according to a UN agency. Al Jazeera gloated that although the report was removed, the questions raised will become impossible to avoid.

UN Under-Secretary General Rima Khalaf, who led the report, resigned after it was disavowed, saying she felt it was her duty to stick by her personal views. We expected, of course, that Israel and its allies would put huge pressure on the secretary general of the UN so that he would disavow the report, she told Agency France-Presse. In recognition of her courage and support of his people, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas awarded her with the Medal of the Highest Honor.

The report was commissioned by the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (escwa), which represents 18 countries in the region. To those unfamiliar with the process, it would seem to be very official, weighty, representative of the entire region, and (with the most effective adjective of all) scholarly.

You can find scholarly treatises proving the necessity of using eugenics, that the Holocaust never happened, that the Earth is flat, that communism would have irresistible benefits, or pretty much anything else. Nevertheless, we turn to Commentarys Jonathan S. Tobin for a defence, who argued that:

[The report] dismisses the obvious differences between what happened in South Africawhere a tiny white majority denied all rights to the black majorityand Israel, a Jewish-majority country where the Arab minority has full rights, including suffrage, representation, and equality under the law. It similarly considers irrelevant the fact that the standoff over the disputed territory of the West Bank is the result of Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israels right to exist within any borders, stubbornly maintained through repeated refusals of peace offers that would have created a Palestinian state.

In reality, the report is merely the opinions of the two people who wrote it. Yes, two people. They also happen to be Americans: Richard Falk, a Princeton law professor emeritus, and Virginia Tilley, from the University of Southern Illinois. Falk is a 9/11 truther and was one of the many duped by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, where he wrote that Khomeinis entourage was uniformly composed of moderate, progressive individuals. Tilleys book The One-State Solution suggests that Israel should give up its commitment to maintaining a Jewish-majority state.

When Democracy Now! interviewed Mr. Falk on the report, it brought up the fact that it had been commissioned by a number of overtly anti-Israel nations:

NERMEEN SHAIKH: The membership of this agency, there are 18 Arab members, a number of whom dont recognize Israel. So, do you think that that might raise questions about the legitimacy of the report?

RICHARD FALK: Well, all thethese Arab members of escwa did was to ask that such a report be prepared. And Virginia Tilley, professor at the University of Southern Illinois, and myself were asked to prepare this report on a contract basis. And there is a kind of disclaimer that the UNthis UN commission made, that the report doesnt necessarily represent even escwas views. It is the views of the two of us who prepared the report.

Thus, what looks like a comprehensive UN report (and dont expect journalists to explain the disclaimer) was instead the escwa appointing two scholars, wholly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, to smear Israel with the accusation of apartheid. Even Falk admits it was just the views of the two of us who prepared it.

In the meantime, prestigious newspapers like the Washington Post run pieces that take the UN report at its word, and Palestinian propagandists gather more ammunition, accusing those who demanded that the report be taken down of covering up the truth.

Tobin continued, predicting the future uses of the report:

[Palestinians] unwillingness to make compromises will only be strengthened by a report that encourages them to regard Israel as having no rights whatsoever. They are likely to make Falks and Tilleys findings the basis for renewed efforts to sue Israel in the International Criminal Court, as well as for renewed provocations in other UN bodies such as the Human Rights Council or even unesco, which in the past year has taken up measures that denied the historical Jewish ties to Jerusalem and some of Judaisms holiest sites.

At the end of the day, a UN report that was pulled wont be the straw that breaks Israels back. The UN, which is not an institution the Trumpet has praised much in the past, did the right thing in withdrawing it from its website. However, the damage is done. Al-Jazeera is right to suggest the false analogy of Israel and South Africa will continue to haunt the Jews. Falk and Tilleys research gives Israels enemies another bullet in their magazine.

In the March issue of the Trumpet magazine, we posed the question, As united Jerusalem turns 50 will it make it to 51? See our answer from our Jerusalem correspondent in City of Pieces.

View original post here:
Iran's Miracle Economic Recovery - theTrumpet.com