Mediaboss Marketing

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (R) and Iranian parliament speaker's special advisor on international affairs, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, meet in Damascus on January 26, 2016. (Photo by SANA news agency)

Damascus and Tehran have reaffirmed their support for a country-wide cessation of hostilities that has been largely holding in Syria for almost a month now.

During a meeting in Damascus on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian parliament speakers special advisor on international affairs, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, said a successful ceasefire would pave the way for the restoration of permanent peace and stability to Syria.

Under the truce, the anti-terror fight will continue and conditions willbe prepared for launching intra-Syrian dialogue, enabling the nation to decide its future, the two sides stressed.

Mediated by Russia and Turkey with the support of Iran, the Syria ceasefire took effect on December 30, 2016, following an agreement between Syrias warring parties.

The truce is the first of its kind that has been largely holding in Syria for nearly a month. Earlier attempts by the US to broker such a long-lasting ceasefire hadfailed.

Read more

During the Thursday talks, the Syrian leader hailed Irans constructive role in backing the Syrian peoplein the face of terrorism as well as in efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Syria crisis.

Amir-Abdollahian, for his part, said the Islamic Republics support for Syria is rooted in the strategic relations between the two nations.

He further empathized that Tehran believes terrorism in Syria poses an imminent threat to the entire region.

Earlier on Thursday, the Iranian official met with Syrian Foreign MinisterWalidal-Muallem to discuss bilateral ties and the latest developments in the Arab country.

They underlined the need for continued the trilateral Syrian-Iranian-Russian cooperation to settle the Syria conflict based on the outcome of the latest round of the peace talks held in Kazakhstan earlier this week.

Read more

On Wednesday, Amir-Abdollahian sat down with Syrias Parliament Speaker HadiyehKhalafAbbas.

Iran has been offering military advisory support to the Syrian military, which has been battling foreign-backed militancy since 2011.

Follow this link:
Syria, Iran call for nationwide truce consolidation - Press TV

In the post-Obama era, leading Americanpoliticians are again playing up the threat emanating from Iran. During James Mattiss confirmation hearing for secretary of defense, Sen. John McCain warned that Iran continues to remake the region in its image from Syria, to Iraq, to Yemen.Mattis, who supports the Iran nuclear deal, has described Iranas a revolutionary cause devoted to mayhem and the single-most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East. The hyperbole on Iran is complemented by silence on Saudi Arabias role in promoting global Salafi-inspired terrorism.

Although Iranian hard-liners relish this aggrandizement by the Washington establishment, a closer look at Irans activities in the Mideast reveals that it is hardly the military or ideological giant it is made out to be, and not only because itsmilitary spendingis dwarfed by that of its neighbors. Any assumption that the regions Shiite communities are subservient to Tehran, and cooperating with it to further Irans power, involves a grave misreading of Mideast history and politics.

The Iranian Revolution was matched by Shiite unrest in Saudi Arabias Eastern Province in 1979 and the continuing rise in prominence of the Lebanese Amal and Hezbollah movements. Iran explored the idea of exporting its revolution by establishing the Office of Islamic Liberation Movements (OILM) in 1981. Overseen by Ayatollah Montazeri, who at the time was the closest confidant of Ayatollah-Ali Khomeini, it fell completely under the umbrella of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps but over time transitioned into a department of the Foreign Ministry.

During the 1980s, the OILM was allied closely with Saudi students of Ayatollah Shirazi, an Iranian-born cleric who ran a religious seminary in Kuwait. It was here that Saudi Shiite activists would form theShiraziyyun movement and advocate for greater Shiite autonomy in the country. Long ignored by Mideast scholars, this movement was brought to the Wests attention in Toby Matthiesens 2014 bookThe Other Saudis. It was during this period that the kingdom began to view its Shiites as an Iranian fifth column, just as their Ottoman predecessors had viewed the Gulf Shiites with suspicion as possible agents of the Safavid dynasty.

In Lebanon, Shiite resistance movements predated the Islamic Republic altogether. The Amal (hope) movement was founded in 1974 by the Iranian cleric Musa al-Sadr. Rather than promulgate a revolutionary ideology, he mainly focused on raising Lebanons Shiite community out of their crippling poverty under the rule of Maronite and Sunni elites. His vision for Iran and Lebanon diverged greatly from Ayatollah Khomeinis. Historian Andrew Scott Coopers recent biography of the shah,The Fall of Heaven, even made the provocative claim that this may have led to Sadrs demise in Libya just before the revolution. Despite a split between Hezbollah and Amal, Musa al-Sadr remains an ideological father of both movements. Thus, it is a common misconception dually perpetuated by Tehran and Washington that Hezbollah is a fruit of the Islamic Republic. This myth serves Tehrans desire to take credit for Shiite empowerment and jihad against Israel, while in Washington it makes for a simple scapegoat for the problems endemic to Lebanons system of confessional politics.

The OILM initially had strong ambitions to foment regional revolution until 1987, when it was restrained by Khomeini in favor of political pragmatism. Iran was engrossed in a brutal war with Iraq and learned the consequences of adopting a radical foreign policy as every Arab nation except Syria sided with Saddam Hussein. The OILMs leadership, including Montazeri, was tainted by revelations of their direct involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal by soliciting the release of American hostages from Hezbollah on behalf of Washington. Ultimately, the Islamic Republic chose survival over an entropic revolutionary policy.

Today, Iran is complicit in serious crimes committed by Syrias Assad regime. But to interpret Irans actions in Syria as an aggressive expansion of power is misguided. Rather, Iran is trying to maintain its place in the region as well as contribute its share to an old alliance formed when Saddam was using chemical weapons against Iran. In Yemen, the Houthi rebels may welcome the patronage of Iran in the form of material support, but to paint believers in the Zaidi Shiite a faith a different sect from the one practiced in Iran as subservient to the Supreme Leader is incorrect, apoint the U.S. intelligence community is well aware of.

The same rings true for Iran-sponsored Hashd and Sadrist militias in Iraq that remain checked by the Iraqi Army and Najafs leading cleric, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Although he holds no political position, al-Sistani is a marja-e taqlid a religious figure worthy of emulation which is the highest rank attainable within the informal world of Shiite seminaries. Khamenei also claims this title but enjoys less doctrinal authority. For his part, al-Sistani tacitly rejected the export of an Iranian-style Islamic Revolution and strongly supports a parliamentary democracy.

Current Shiite activists in Saudi Arabia maintain only symbolic relations with Iran, and most adhere to the edicts of Sistani rather than Khamenei. Even theShiraziyyunrejected Khomeinis concept of the guardianship of the jurist and therefore the essence of the Islamic Republic. The single exception to this trend the Hezbollah al-Hijaz is now defunct.The Saudi Shiites have taken every opportunity to display their loyalty to the Kingdom. During the Gulf War, Saddam urged them to rise up in the Eastern Province, but this was rejected even before it was obvious that Iraq would lose. Even the radical Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr displayed that he was not a pawn of Iranian ambitions when in a speech he implored God to destroy the Assad regime in contradiction with the position of Iran. Meanwhile, Shiite dissent in Saudi Arabia has shifted almost entirely to a human rights discourse.

In contrast with the largely forgotten Shiites of Saudi Arabia, Lebanons Hezbollah has strategic ties to Tehran. Its leader, Hassan Nasrallah,calledfor an Islamic Republic in Lebanon throughout the 1980s. South Beirut remains saturated with symbols of Iranian influence, from murals of Khamenei to new construction that resembles a postcard from Tehran.

However, to depict present-day Hezbollah as a puppet of Iran or even a revolutionary movement is inaccurate. Ever since Hezbollah adopted a policy ofinfitah,or openness, it has become entrenched in Lebanese politics and even buried the hatchet with the Amal Movement led by Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri. Today, Hezbollah serves as an extension of Iranian foreign policy in exchange for military support as long as that policy does not conflict with its domestic goals. Hezbollah is reliant on, but not beholden to, Iran.

Many segments of Lebanese society detest Hezbollahs high-handed presence in Lebanese politics and its overshadowing of the Lebanese Armed Forces. The absence of a president in Lebanon from 2014-2016 until the pro-Hezbollah Michel Aoun was chosen in the 46th round of parliamentary elections is one such example of its influence. Nevertheless, large swaths of Lebanese society view Hezbollah as a savior rather than a puppet to a foreign state, and it enjoys support from many Lebanese Christians who argue that in its absence, much of the country would unravel into a failed state.

All in all, it is a dangerous mistake to give Tehran more credit than is due for the rise of Shiite movements across the region. It is only natural that these movements would gain prominence in Iraq and Lebanon because of demographic realities. Iran has also avoided stoking unrest in Saudi Arabia and proven unwilling to escalate hostilities in Yemen. Meanwhile, anti-Western terrorist groups, ranging from the Islamic State in Syria to Lashkar-e Taiba in Pakistan, are ideologically inspired by Gulf-funded madrasas. They have their ranks swelled by Gulf-born recruits, and in some cases receive state sponsorship for their terrorism from so-called Gulf allies.

Exaggerating the military or ideological power of Iran may serve the goal of pushing the United States to take military action against Iran. But a singular focus on Iran while deliberately ignoring the role of Saudi Arabia and Qatar and their spread of Salafism will neither provide stability for the Middle East nor further any of Washingtons other interests in the region.

Photo credit:MAJID/Getty Images

Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit

Read more from the original source:
Iran's Proxy Wars Are a Figment of America's Imagination - Foreign Policy

Turkey, Russia and Iran have agreed to set up a process to help enforce a partial ceasefire in Syria.

Negotiators for the three sides met for two days of talks with Syrian government and rebel representatives in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan.

The three also agreed to support efforts to find a political solution to the Syrian civil war.

Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said Wednesday that the meetings were, in his words, a serious diplomatic success.

Yildirim said that any resolution of the conflict should involve a new Syrian government that represents all factions.

A major point of disagreement in earlier talks has been the influence of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in any new government. Turkey supports the Syrian rebels. They want Assad to leave power. But Assads supporters, including Russia, want him to remain as president.

A statement released at the end of the talks said the Syrian government and opposition should meet next month in Geneva, Switzerland.

After the talks in Astana, opposition groups expressed concern about the plan developed by Turkey, Russia and Iran to ensure all sides obey the ceasefire.

Mohammad Alloush (center), the head of the Syrian opposition delegation, attends Syria peace talks in Astana.

Issam Alrayyes represents the Free Syrian Armys Southern Front. He said his group has always expressed concern about promises made by foreign governments. He added, We hope this time that Russia is taking a different role.

The leader of the Syrian opposition delegation, Muhammad Alloush, said he gave Russia a detailed proposal for a peace deal. He said he expects an answer within a week.

Syrian government and opposition did not talk directly

The Syrian government, Russia and Iran all welcomed the trilateral plan. However, the government said its forces would push forward with an offensive against rebels close to Damascus. Syrian officials said the military is fighting terrorist groups allied with al Qaida.

The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar al-Jaafari, also was the governments negotiator at the Astana talks. He said all sides had agreed on the final declaration.

However, any major agreement remains unlikely because the Syrian rebel delegation refused to talk directly to the government. Also, some rebel groups were not invited to the talks because of their links to Jihadist groups.

The U.N.s special diplomat for Syria, Staffan de Mistura, said there are many groups, including extremists, fighting in Syria. Making progress between the government and rebels, he said, is difficult.

Russia, Iran and Turkey negotiated the current ceasefire in Syria in late December. However, the Syrian government and rebels have repeatedly broken the truce, which does not cover the whole country.

The talks in Astana were the first negotiations organized by Iran, Russia and Turkey. Some observers are concerned the peace effort may overtake Syrian negotiations that have taken place in Geneva.

However, Syrian expert Noah Bonsey says the new negotiations are more likely, in his words, something in-between. Bonsey is with the International Crisis Group. He said the Astana talks offer something different from the Geneva peace talks, but also provide new energy to negotiations there.

The rebel groups in Astana said they will not attend the next meeting in Geneva if the current ceasefire fails. The next meeting is expected to take place on February 8.

Syrian opposition representatives met in Kazakhstan in 2015. U.N. diplomats organized peace talks involving other nations including the United States. They resulted in earlier, unsuccessful ceasefires.

Russia and Turkey invited the U.S. government to the Astana talks. But the State Department said new President Donald Trump was setting up his administration. The U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan did attend the talks as an observer.

Im Mario Ritter.

Daniel Schearf and Chris Hannas reported this story for VOANews.com. Mario Ritter adapted their report for Learning English. George Grow was the editor.

____________________________________________________________

faction n. group that has different ideas or opinions that those of the larger group of which it is a part

role n. the part someone plays in a situation or system

jihadist adj. describing someone or something linked to religious war mainly against non-Muslims

trilateral adj. involving three people or groups

Follow this link:
Turkey, Russia and Iran Hold Syrian Peace Talks - Voice of America

Officially in office for less than a week, US President Donald Trump keeps using executive orders to dismantle or overturn policies put in place by his predecessor Barack Obama.

Yet what Trump once considered his No. 1 priority on his to-undo-list, the Iran nuclear agreement, seems to be more difficult to scrap than the self-declared uber-dealmaker initially thought.

Fresh evidence of this reality is expected to arrive at the White House on Friday, when British Prime Minister Theresa May will be the carrier of an important message: The Iran nuclear deal is here to stay!

Previewing Mays trip to Washington, her spokesperson said that she will stress the British strong support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, concluded between Tehran and six world powers.

During the campaign, candidate Trump called the Islamic Republic the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism, a threat across the Middle East, and a country that has covert cells ready to inflict carnage around the globe.

Allowing Iran access to billions of dollars in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program, Trump argued, was not in Americas or the worlds interests.

But during their Senate confirmation hearings Trumps own national security cabinet picks acknowledged the diplomatic reality and avoided the term re-negotiation altogether.

Signs that there is no appetite for a new round of grueling negotiations are not only coming from London, but also from Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran, the other signatories of the agreement.

The other P5+1 are not going to support an effort to re-negotiate a deal, if they think its just a clever way to destroy it, says Gary Samore, Executive Director for Research at Harvard Universitys Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

Even if Trump were to engage Iran in new bilateral negotiations given the unlikelihood of multilateral talks, he would need to offer more sanctions relief to lure Tehran back to the table. Yet, Trumps natural instincts will be to pressure and threaten Iran with new sanctions, Samore says.

Probably Trumps best option, likely to be favored by Washingtons foreign policy establishment, would be to abide by the nuclear deal and to focus instead on other non-nuclear threats from Iran in the region, Samore says.

Likely topics could be Irans non-nuclear armament, Tehrans support of various violent extremist groups in the region and its role in destabilising regional governments. But will Trump follow such a path?

In Tehran, the biggest concerns are Trumps general unpredictability, the Iranophobia of his cabinet appointees, and that pressure from Congress could derail the deal, writes Arthur MacMillan in Foreign Policy.

The Iranian government isnt sanguine about Trump, and both supreme leader Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani have become increasingly bellicose about the United States since November.

The reason is that there remains a way Trump could single-handedly renege on the agreement by simply allowing waivers of past sanctions to lapse. That would derail the deal at least on the American side, but it is unclear whether it would have Trumps desired general effect, given that the Europeans, Russians and Chinese have no intention of re-instating sanctions.

Trump, a newcomer to international diplomacy, should recognise the new global strategic reality involving Iran, says Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council. In its quest for formulating a viable Middle East strategy, the US needs to look eastward and rethink American interests.

Instead of being bogged down in endless conflicts by questionable allies who only want the US to fight their wars, maintaining the Iran deal would allow the United States to gain more maneuverability and become less dependent on traditional allies from Israel to Saudi Arabia to the Gulf states, Parsi says.

So far, Trump has given no hint of what his Middle East policy would look like. But his America first mantra may lead his administration to re-assess future involvements in that troubled region as well.

See more here:
Why the Iran nuclear deal will likely survive President Trump - euronews

If mainstream media truly wishes to repair itsimage with the general public, these outlets must recognize they do not merely suffer from a "bubble" reinforced by overwhelmingly liberal staffing, or from supposedly insufficient outreach to working class communities.

The mainstream's issues are apparentin their content choices, suggesting an intractableproblem. Following decades of allowing the Democratic Party to select the day'snarrative, they possess no measure of professional competence for objectively judging the importance of information.

The media's remarkablydifferent responses to the following two stories offer a definitive example:

2. Per the Washington Free Beacon: "Two high-level Iranian government backers, including a former Islamic Republic official and another accused of lobbying on Tehrans behalf, were hosted at the Obama White House for more than 30 meetings with top officials atkey junctures in the former administrations contested diplomacy with Iran ...

"Sources familiar with the nature of the meetings told the Washington Free Beacon that both Parsi and Mousavian helped the White House craft its pro-Iran messaging and talking points that helped lead to the nuclear agreement with Iran. These efforts were part of a larger pro-Iran deal 'echo chamber' led by senior Obama administration officials who were tasked with misleading Congress about the nature of the deal ..."

Just about every mainstream outlet has covered the Michael Flynn story with multiplearticles: Newsweek, CNN, Daily Beast, CBS News, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and others -- a thorough search returnsdozens of high-profile sources that publishedhighly trafficked pieces.

Several pundits demanded answers, pointing to the calls as further evidence of Donald Trump having aligned himself with Vladimir Putin's dictatorial regime, and having allowed Putin to direct elements of his campaign and his coming presidency. Later, these same outlets announced that an "FBI investigation" into Flynn'scalls and texts had commenced.

But this week, we learn the hysteria about Flynn and the FBI appears to have been unwarranted. The outlets which had previously inflated the story have since backed down.

As you read their follow-up stories below, note the cause of their initial hysteria: you knowof the Mike Flynn story simply due tojournalistic ineptitude -- specifically, the journalists' ignorance of diplomatic practices -- combined with their predetermined acceptance of the Trump/Russia narrative.

Yesterday, per NBC News:

The FBI eavesdropped on telephone calls between President Donald Trump's national security adviser and the Russian ambassador but found nothing improper, a U.S. intelligence official said.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, said late Monday that there was never a formal "investigation" of the calls in December between retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and Sergei Kislyak, Russia's ambassador in Washington.

According to the source, who was confirming a Washington Post report earlier Monday, intelligence officials merely listened in as part of routine eavesdropping on Kislyak.

...

The former official, who requested anonymity to speak about sensitive information, said it was not uncommon for diplomats or other U.S. officials to garner such attention to if they are recorded talking to foreign counterparts. Rarely anything comes of this, however, because U.S. officials have wide latitude in how they communicate as part of their jobs.

Originally posted here:
Media Covers Fake Mike Flynn Story, Ignores Bombshell on Secret Obama/Iran Meetings - PJ Media