Mediaboss Marketing

In the past five weeks, U.S. forces in Syria have struck directly at the Assad regime and its allies in Syria no less than four times. On May 18, U.S. warplanes struck regime and allied militia forces that breached a 34-mile exclusion zone around a U.S. outpost in southeastern Syria. Then on June 8 and June 20, the United States shot down Iranian-made drones as they approached the outpost.

But the most dramatic event so far was the June 18 downing of a Syrian air force Su-22 by a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet. This took place after regime forces attacked a town held by the U.S.-aligned Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) near Tabqa, in northern Syria. The Su-22 dropped bombs near the SDF fighters, ignored U.S. warnings, and was then shot down.

The downing of the Su-22 threatened to bring Washington and Moscow into conflict in the war-torn country. In the aftermath of the incident, Russia announced the end of deconfliction arrangements with U.S. forces and that it had decided to treat future U.S. flights west of the Euphrates River as hostile.

Syria is quickly devolving into a free-for-all. There is a high possibility of further friction among regional powers, as the Russians, Americans, and their various clients scramble to realize mutually incompatible objectives specifically in the areas of eastern Syria held by the now collapsing caliphate of the Islamic State.

So how did events in Syria reach this pass, in which direct confrontation between United States and Russia is no longer unthinkable? And what might happen next?

Syria has been divided into a number of de facto enclaves since mid-2012. But a series of events over the past 15 months has served to end the stalemate in the country, ushering in this new and dangerous phase.

Russias entry into the conflict in September 2015 ended any possibility of rebel victory and the overthrow by arms of the regime. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad with invaluable help from Russia, as well as Iran and its various militia proxies went on to clear the rebels out of the key cities of Homs and Aleppo. A diplomatic agreement establishing four de-escalation zones then consolidated regime control of western Syria.

This development has enabled the regime to divert forces to the effort to reassert control over the east of the country. As it does so, the regime is encroaching on a conflict from which it had previously been largely absent: the war between the U.S.-supported, Kurdish-dominated SDF along with other, Arab rebel clients further south and the now retreating jihadis of the Islamic State.

The confluence of interests between Damascus and Tehran on this battlefield is clear. Iran, whose proxies form the key ground forces available to the regime, wants to secure a land corridor through eastern Syria and into Iraq. The Assad regime wants to re-establish a presence on Syrias eastern border.

Regime forces are thus now advancing eastward on two axes: one from the town of Palmyra and the second from south of Aleppo. It was friction along the second axis, as regime forces closed up against areas controlled by the SDF, that caused the events leading to the downing of the Syrian Su-22.

A geographically inevitable contest of wills is developing between the regime and its associated forces as they drive east into Islamic State territory and U.S.-associated SDF and Arab rebel fighters, who also seek to control the former Islamic State areas. Moscows forces are an integral part of this regime push east, with Russian air power and Russian-supported ground forces especially present in the Palmyra offensive.

For a while, it seemed as though the United States and its allies had the upper hand. In mid-2016, the United States established a base in the Tanf area at which U.S. and allied special forces personnel have been training the Maghawir al-Thawra (Revolution Commandos) rebel group. This raised the possibility that these Western-supported Arab forces might link up with SDF fighters in the north. Together, they would then clear the Islamic State out of the Euphrates River valley, complete the conquest of Raqqa, and establish that they control the territory in question before regime forces could make an advance.

In order to decisively preempt this possibility, Irans Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah, and Assad regime and Iraqi Shiite militia forces on June 9 made a lunge for the Syria-Iraq border along a line north of Tanf, effectively dividing U.S.-supported elements from one another. Maghawir al-Thawra was trapped south of the new line established by the regime side, as the SDF still engaged the Islamic State far to the north. The rebels, if they wish to progress further, now need to break through regime lines to do so. That would be inconceivable without U.S. help.

Iranian and pro-Iranian regional media were quite frank about the intentions behind this sudden move. A report in the IRGC-linked Fars News Agency described the thinking behind it as follows: America wants to link the northeastern part [of Syria, which is controlled by the Kurds] with the southeastern part, which is why it has stepped up its activity in the al-Tanf area. The Syrian army and its allies, the article went on to say, defied American red lines in a military advance designed to thwart this strategy.

This is where the war currently stands. The latest reports suggest that the United States is in the process of beefing up its presence in the Tanf area. A new base is being built at Zakaf, 50 miles northeast of the town, according to pro-U.S. rebels. The United States has moved its High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) into southern Syria for the first time. Capable of firing rockets and missiles to ranges of nearly 200 miles, the system constitutes a significant increase in U.S. firepower on Syrian soil.

So where is it all heading? The downing of the Su-22 may serve, for a while at least, to demarcate the zones of U.S. and Russian air activity over the skies of Syria. But the real contest is the one on the ground. And here, the prize is the eastern governorate of Deir Ezzor, the site of a large part of Syrias oil resources. Does Russian President Vladimir Putins warning about American air activity west of the Euphrates mean that this area will need to be ceded in its entirety to the regime? Will the United States agree to this?

The Russians have no crucial interest of their own causing them to back the ambitions of the Iranians in the east. But for as long as the going is relatively easy, it appears that Putin also feels no special compunction to rein in his allies. Perhaps both Moscow and Tehran simply assume that American interest in the area is limited and hence that Washington will not take risks in order to counter red lines set down by other players.

The crucial missing factor here is a clearly stated U.S. policy. Trump can either acquiesce to the new realities that Russia seeks to impose in the air, and that Iran seeks to impose on the ground, or he can move to defy and reverse these, opening up the risk of potential direct confrontation. There isnt really a third choice.

Fars News Agency concluded its recent report in the following terms: The imbroglio in eastern Syria has only begun, and stormy days are ahead of us. In the face of much uncertainty, this point at least seems crystal clear.

DELIL SOULEIMAN/AFP/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read the original here:
Trump Is Tripping Over Iran and Russia's Red Lines in Syria - Foreign Policy (blog)

In 1979, just as the Shah of Iran was overthrown and the the reign of the ayatollahs began, a former Central Intelligence Agency operative named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, published his first-hand account of the covert operation he had led more than a quarter century earlier. Operation Ajax, as it was called, ousted the elected government in Tehran and put the previously deposed young monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, back on the Peacock Throne.

Roosevelts book, Counter-Coup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, made for compelling reading then and it still does. But, as often is the case with memoirs, its not very reliable history. And as President Donald Trump, many in Congress, a new head of Iran operations at the CIA, and the increasingly aggressive Saudis look for ways to overthrow the government in Tehran, its useful to look closely at what really did happen in the early 1950s.

Interestingly enough, thats precisely what the American government has just done with a project started years ago that came to fruition earlier this month.

Its described in the following report by Arash Azizi was published originally on IranWire.com, a partner of The Daily Beast:

The United States Department of State has published a much-awaited, newly-updated version of its official history of U.S.-Iran relations during the crucial period of 1951-1954, during and after the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup on August 19, 1953.

The U.S. role in the coup is well-established, and 17 years ago then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright issued an official apology.

Additionally, the CIA released some of its declassified documents relating to the coup in 2013, at the same time admitting its official role in the course of events.

The new material, which was made public on June 16, is part of a Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series published by the State Departments Office of the Historian. The publications are legally mandated to portray an accurate picture of U.S. diplomatic history.

The tumultuous U.S.-Iran relations in the early 1950s previously were covered in a volume published in 1989. But that volume, which focused on the U.K.s oil dispute with Iran after the latter moved to nationalize the assets of a British oil company, resulted in so much outrage due to its failure to include documents pertaining to the U.S. and British role in the 1953 coup that it led Congress to take it upon itself to pass new legislation.

As the introduction to the new volume states: In 1991, this reaction prompted the introduction and passage of Congressional legislation, updating the Foreign Relations statute and affirming the requirement that the Foreign Relations series shall be a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of major United States foreign policy decisions and significant United States diplomatic activity.

The recently-published material focuses on covert operations carried out by both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations in Iran.

Todays release brings some closure to a long-standing dispute over the completeness of the FRUS volume related to Iran [between] 1951 and 1954, Siavush Randjbar-Daemi, Professor of Iranian History at the University of Manchester, told IranWire.

Get The Beast In Your Inbox!

Start and finish your day with the top stories from The Daily Beast.

A speedy, smart summary of all the news you need to know (and nothing you don't).

Subscribe

Thank You!

You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason.

He said the documents published on June 16 vindicate and confirm the existing research that points out the CIAs overall management and control over the August 16-19 1953 operation.

Coup leader General Fazollah Zahedi ransacked Mossadeghs residence and entered his office, all under the CIAs watch and guidance, according to Randjbar-Daemi.

One of the scholars whose work Randjbar-Daemi cited as confirmation of CIA direct involvement is Malcolm Byrne, a deputy director at the non-governmental National Security Archive and an authority on U.S.-Iran relations.

On the central question raised in recent yearswhether the CIA and the British intelligence played a leading role in organizing the coup or whether it was their Iranian partners who were responsibleByrne told IranWire:

There are some intriguing records of after-the-fact meetings that show both an American appreciation for the actions of various Iranian actors and a reaffirmation of the importance of the U.S. role. In other words, the point some of us have been making for a long time seems mostly to be borne outthat it was both.

Byrne says the newly released documents are very significant and that most of these records have been locked in government vaults for more than 60 years.

Byrne said the new material will likely help clarify some of the persistent ambiguities about the coup and related events. These materials may not have a tremendous amount about the mechanics of the coup [although there are some enlightening items]. But they will likely help to clarify some of the persistent ambiguities. They often take us considerably deeper into the details and allow for a more nuanced interpretation of events. This might even dissolve some myths.

Of special interest is a report on a debriefing session by Kermit Roosevelt in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1953. The colorful U.S. author and secret agent had a key role in leading the U.S. efforts during the coup and went on to publish a definitive first-hand account of it.

The report contains some details which complete previous accounts of the extent of the handling of Zahedi by the CIA, up to the afternoon of August 19, Randjbar-Daemi said.

As has often been the case with this particular account of history, not all documents have been declassified for public view, even after the passing of almost 64 years. The declassification review for the material released on June 16 took 10 years (from 2004 to 2014.) At the end it was decided that 10 documents would be withheld in full, a paragraph or more to be excised from 38 documents and more minor excisions to be made in 82 other documents.

But was there a need to delay publishing these documents for so many years? Byrne doesnt think so.

Looking at these materials, as fascinating as many of them are, it is very hard to conceive of why they needed to be withheld from the public for so long, he said.

He went further, saying that the expectation that they would create temporary awkwardness for U.S. diplomats and policymakers should not come before the larger and long-term national interests of transparency, an informed public (not to mention an informed bureaucracy) and accountability, Byrne said.

The U.S. operation was codenamed TPAJAXwith TP standing for Tudeh Party, referring to the Iranian Moscow-aligned communists that had grown to be a major force in the 1940s and early 1950s. The newly-released documents seems to confirm the U.S. preoccupation with the Tudeh threat.

The primary driver of the American initiative against Mossadegh appears to have been the fear of a communist takeover of Iran, Randjbar-Daemi says.

Even after the coup was over, Frank Wisner, the fabled CIA agent, asked Kermit Roosevelt about measures being taken to further smash the apparatus and the machinery of the Tudeh Party.

Roosevelt reassured his supervisor, saying: Both the shah and Zahedi promised me that very rigorous measures would be taken.

As scholars pore over the documents, the Iranian public is also entering the fray.

One thorny issue is the role of Ayatollah Abolqasem Kashani, a leading political cleric who is revered in the official historiography of the Islamic Republic. Kashani has long been hated by nationalists for changing his allegiance from Mossadegh to the shah and the coup-plotters. Hours after the new documents were released, #Kashani and #Kashani-Coup were already trending on Twitter, with many calling on the Iranian government to change the name of a major Tehran street named after Kashani and some demanding changes in the school curriculum.

According to Randjbar-Daemi, the new documents actually shed little light on the large unknowns of the coup, particularly the role therein of Ayatollah Kashani, who is dedicated as a wily politician who remains at the center of the political scene before and after the coup, but who despised Mossadegh and Zahedi in equal measure.

He said the newly-released material does little to help clear up his exact role. The information on his agency and decision-making [during] August 16 to 19 remains scant and inconclusive, he said.

As always with historical narratives, the struggles and the fierce disagreements will continue, long after all the documents and material have finally all been released.

POST-SCRIPT: Kermit Roosevelt concluded his memoir by reporting a conversation he had in late 1953 with then-Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles. If we, the CIA, are ever going to try something like this again, said Roosevelt, we must be absolutely sure that people and army want what we want. If not, you had better give the job to the Marines! But Dulles wouldnt listen. The Agency embarked on multiple coups, many with bad or disastrous long-term results. It has also sent in Marines and massive American military forces to impose U.S. policies on countries as diverse as the Dominican Republic and Panama, Lebanon and Iraq. And indeed, Roosevelts triumphant reinstallation of the shah created a regime that barely lasted 25 yearsthe blink of an eye in the history of Iran and the Middle East.

Christopher Dickey

Visit link:
Oblivious to History, Trump's Turning Up the Heat on Iran. He Should Look at the 1953 CIA Coup. - Daily Beast

From Zurich to Rome, there is striking new evidence that foreign investors are growing spooked by the risks of doing business with Iran. And they should be.

I was in Zurich last year after the signing of the nuclear deal sparked a gold rush by European governments and investors to cash in on the bonanza in Tehran.

At the time, organizers of the 2016 Europe-Iran Forum were brimming with much excitement about the post-sanctions opportunity laid out before them. Would-be-investors I talked to on the sidelines of the event were feeling bullish lured by the promise of a large and lucrative market and eighty million potential new customers.

Daily Emails and Alerts- Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

How much has changed in one year. At this years Europe-Iran Forum, slated for October, the admonition from organizers is prudence.

The unsettling reality in Iran is bringing some investors back down to earth because Iran isn't simply an emerging market with untapped potential. It's also the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Even Iranian media are increasingly acknowledging the cloud of caution and uncertainty that looms over the global investment conferences that have served as the main vehicle for the regimes global road show.

The largest annual convention in Iran's petroleum industry, known as the Iran Oil Show, opened in Tehran last month without big names such as BP and Total present. The director of public relations at the National Iranian Oil Company noted that many top-flight oil companies, including BP and Total, did not want to participate in the 22 nd Iran oil exhibition this year and will only send their representatives to assess investment opportunities.

Empty and disused Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL Group) containers are seen at Malta Freeport in the Port of Marsaxlokk outside Valletta February 10, 2012. Darrin Zammit Lupi/reuters

One Iranian news report noted that the event was the antithesis of last year's exhibit, when oil giants visited post-sanctions Iran with high hopes for investment and collaborationA walk through the halls of the 22nd oil exhibition gives the uneasy impression that barely in one year, the international companies have grown noticeably reserved and reticent.

Examples of this dynamic abound:

A breakfast session at an upcoming conference on June 20 th in London, Investing in Iran: challenges and opportunities, promises to tackle challenges that remain sanctions, compliance, [and] on the ground practicalities noting that some sixteen months following the roll back of international sanctions, Irans investment potential is still to be fully realised.

The 2nd Iranian Consumer Summit in Paris, slated for September, will walk through Investment Guarantees: How to protect your investments if things go wrong?

At the Iran International Oil, Gas & Petrochemical Summit in Rome this July, topics will include 1) Avoiding common pitfalls and red tape, 2) ensuring compliance with US and international banking restrictions and 3) Conducting a risk assessment.

At issue is the invisible hand of sanctioned organizations like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and its vast economic footprint.

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, the IRGC is Irans most powerful economic actor. It represents around one-sixth of the countrys gross domestic product and controls hundreds of front companies that mask its involvement in huge swaths of the economy.

Just consider the case of Taiwans Yang Ming, one of the largest cargo shipping lines in the world. In March, it confirmed to United Against Nuclear Iran, an advocacy group where I serve as an advisory board member, that it would stop its work at Irans largest container port by the end of April.

The layers of ownership are endlessly complex: One IRGC-controlled entity, the Tidewater Middle East Co., is blacklisted by the Treasury Department and operates in six of Irans ports and terminals: Assaluyeh Port, Bandar Anzali, Bandar Imam Khomeini Grain Terminal, Aprin Port, Amir Abad Port Complex, and Khorramshar Port.

That means foreign shipping companies could unwittingly become entangled by IRGC-controlled entities that have successfully masked their involvement in the industry paying loading, docking and other port fees to an internationally-sanctioned terrorist group.

Now, other companies operating at Iranian ports are in the crosshairs, including Evergreen Marine (Taiwan), Pacific International Lines (Singapore), Regional Container Lines (Thailand), Maersk (Denmark), Ignazio Messina (Italy), and Hyundai (Korea).

If Yang Mings announcement triggers a broader exodus, it could potentially deprive the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism of a critical economic lifeline since they provide access to global markets, especially oil.

As a result, foreign investors risk enriching an internationally sanctioned terrorist group. Its risky business.

Giulio Terzi served as Italys Foreign Minister 2011-2013, and serves as an advisory board member of United Against Nuclear Iran.

Link:
Foreign Shipping Companies are Key to Iran's Prosperity - Newsweek

In recent years, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the global standard setter for anti-money laundering and counterterrorist finance (AML/CTF), has been increasingly deployed as a response to global threats. Barely a high-level summit passes without FATF being called upon to react to terrorist financing, financial inclusion, human trafficking and scandals such as the Panama Papers. For policymakers, FATF has become a sort of figurative sonic screwdriver' the tool to which Dr Who turns to deal with the toughest of challenges as they seek to strengthen the integrity of the financial system.

Perhaps the toughest of all challenges FATF has taken on thus far is seeking to foster conditions that encourage international financial institutions to re-engage with Iran following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions in January 2016. In June last year, FATF entered into the spirit of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (the P5+1). The JCPOA endeavoured to grant economic benefits to Iran in return for the suspension, control and monitoring of its nuclear programme by reintegrating its economy into the global financial system via the lifting of sanctions. Restoring banking relations severed for many years by the previous sanctions regimes is critical to Iran securing a tangible financial dividend in return for its respect of the JCPOA provisions.

Since Implementation Day on 16 January last year, the challenge of re-establishing these ties has been evident as banks, particularly the large global banks that facilitate international trade, have resisted political pressure to reintegrate Iran fully into the international financial system by providing financing and payment services to those international companies wishing to trade with the formerly sanctioned state.

While sanctions were clearly the major impediment to Irans economic activity, other barriers to reintegration remained, including the outdated nature of the governance and standards of Irans banks. But perhaps the most significant hurdle faced by Tehran was its standing with FATF, an organisation that continued to include Iran on its blacklist alongside North Korea. FATFs Public Statement following its February 2016 plenary noted that it remained particularly and exceptionally concerned about Irans failure to address the risk of terrorist financing and the serious threat this poses to the integrity of the international financial system. Irrespective of whether Iran is sanctioned, no credible financial institution would choose to deal with a country with such a record. As the International Monetary Fund had noted in December 2015 shortly before Implementation Day, bolstering the countrys AML/CTF framework would facilitate the re-integration of the domestic financial system into the global economy.

Nevertheless, and moving beyond its traditional technical work of raising standards and assessing effective implementation around the world, FATF chose in June last year to suspend counter-measures for example the need to conduct additional in-depth due diligence, limiting business relationships or prohibiting the establishment of financial subsidiaries in the country in question against Iran for twelve months despite AML/CTF deficiencies including continued concerns about terrorist financing risks emanating from the country. For some, this action was consistent with the spirit of the JCPOA; for others, it was a politically motivated move from a task force that should, at all costs, remain apolitical and objective in its efforts to maintain the integrity of the financial system.

Still, at the latest plenary meeting FATF decided that In light of Irans demonstration of its political commitment and the relevant steps it has taken in line with its Action Plan [it will] continue the suspension of counter-measures. Yet despite these encouraging words, Irans actions have not been sufficient to remove it from the blacklist alongside North Korea. Could FATF have done otherwise? Moving Iran off the blacklist while FATF remained concerned with the terrorist financing risk emanating from Iran and the threat this poses to the international financial system would have made a mockery of FATFs system. But, conversely, recommending the reimposition of countermeasures would have confirmed the suspicions of those in Tehran who criticise Iranian President Hassan Rouhanis governments engagement with FATF. One can only imagine how President Donald Trump would have exploited such a decision to support his hard-line rhetoric against Tehran; the perceived snapback of sanctions, FATF-style, is surely something the US president would have applauded.

So, where does this leave the prospect of further financial sector integration for the Iranian economy? FATF has wisely removed the time limit it applied in June last year on progress it expects Iran to make, an unhelpful deadline that only encouraged financial institutions to adopt a wait and see attitude to re-engagement with Iran and therefore served no constructive purpose. Still, the enduring double-speak in FATFs recent statement seems unlikely to enhance Irans access to the international financial system. It is hard to overlook the strong warnings FATF continues to make to states to advise their financial institutions to apply enhanced due diligence to business relationships and transactions with Iran given the ongoing deficiencies in its AML/CTF framework.

Any progress that Iran has made in improving the integrity of its financial system is to be welcomed. However, against a background of combative messages from Washington, continued concern of banks that they may inadvertently fall foul of remaining non-nuclear-related sanctions, the ongoing and largely unhelpful Iranian involvement in Syria and Tehrans decision to take sides in the current spat between Qatar and its neighbours, it seems doubtful that FATFs latest announcement will make any difference to the caution displayed by banks worldwide when faced with Iranian business opportunities.

BANNER IMAGE: Tehran's financial district. Courtesy of ninara/Flickr

Read the original post:
Judgement Postponed: The Financial Action Task Force Extends Iran's Lifeline - RUSI Analysis

Anti-Israel protesters in Iran unveiled a digital countdown showing 8,411 days to what they said would be the "destruction of Israel", as part of an annual rally in support of the Palestinian Territories.

The time frame appears to stem from comments made in 2015 by Iran's supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said there would be "nothing" left of Israel by the year 2040.

Demonstrators chanted death to Israel as crowds assembled on Friday forAl-Quds day (Arabic for Jerusalem), whilepeople touted placards condemning Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US. The Revolutionary Guard took the opportunity to display its ballistic missiles, including the type which was used in Syria where the government claimed it killed a "large number of terrorists, although agencies could not verify the report.

The display was in Tehran's PalestineSquare, and state media claimed that more than one million people participated in the demonstrations.

Similar protests popped up across Iran, with protesters condemning Israelis occupation of Palestinian territories and burning the Israeli and American flags.

President Hassan Rouhani and Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani were amongst the officials who attended the demonstration.

In a speech to marching people who were going to Friday prayers at the Tehran University grounds, IranianTasnim News Agency reportsMr Larijani said: Israel is the most malignant terrorist in history.

Iranian Protesters unveil a digital countdown showing 8411 days until Israel is destroyed (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)

[Israel is the] mother of terrorism, he added.

Iran is fiercely critical of the country for its allegedhuman rights violations, and President Rouhani told the IRNA news agency that Israel supports terrorists in the region.

Tensions between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran have intensified as of late, in part due to theological disagreements, as well as Donald Trump'sincreasing support of the former, and condemnation of the latter.

Last month Saudis King Salman called Iran the spearhead of global terrorism.

Continued here:
Iranian protesters unveil countdown showing 8411 days 'to the destruction of Israel' - The Independent