Mediaboss Marketing

The death in a helicopter crash of the Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, on May 19 has triggered a presidential election one year earlier than expected. Its a consequential moment in Iranian politics as many believed that Raisi was being groomed to take over as supreme leader on the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is 85.

The constitution states that an election must be held within 50 days of a presidents death in office. So the election, which was originally scheduled for June 2025, will take place on June 28 this year. When registrations closed on June 3, 80 candidates had come forward including, for the first time, a small number of women.

This long list tells us that, at this point, the supreme leaders office and its allies are keeping their options open on how to manage this election. The regime is in a difficult position. It wants to ensure that, as with the late president Ebrahim Raisi, it has a successor who will dutifully follow Ayatollah Ali Khameneis directions.

However, the regime needs a shroud of legitimacy. Having suppressed public expression since the mass protests after the disputed presidential election of 2009, it is enduring the lowest turnouts in the history of the Islamic Republic. Only 48.5% of eligible voters turned out for the 2021 presidential election and even fewer 41% in the parliamentary elections this year.

Among the candidates is Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the parliamentary speaker and former head of the Revolutionary Guards. He has registered, despite failing in three previous campaigns and in the face of opposition from hardline figures in the regime.

Other prominent candidates include Ali Larijani a former parliamentary speaker who was disqualified by the Guardian Council 2021 to ensure a clear path for eventual winner Ebrahim Raisi.

From the more moderate wing of the political spectrum, Eshaq Jahangiri, who was the first vice-president in the government of reformist president Hassan Rouhani from 2013 to 2021, and centrist Abbas Akhoundi, another minister in Rouhanis government, have also applied to be candidates.

From the hardline conservative end of the spectrum, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was president from 2005 to 2013 has also registered. But it is likely that the regime, which disqualified him in 2021, will do so again, given the tension between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad during his second four-year term.

Read more: Iran: president's death has set hardliners jostling for position to replace ageing supreme leader

Saeed Jalili is likely to be a favourite of many hardliners. A former lead Iranian nuclear negotiator, he is now a fervent opponent of any interaction with the US. Hell talk tough about Irans international position and about the crackdown on womens rights and the enforcement of compulsory hijab at home.

But most of the 80 candidates whose applications have advanced are across a range beyond the hardline. Ghalibaf, a former mayor of Tehran, is more of a traditional conservative or principlist. Larijani, also a principlist rather than a hardliner, may attract centrist support. And Jahangiri is there as a representative for the reformists.

What matters is whom the Guardian Council decides is an appropriate candidate. The 12 members six clerics named by the supreme leader, and six jurists named by the parliament have consummate veto power. Their decisions on disqualification cannot be appealed.

In 2013 the supreme leaders office and thus the Guardian Council miscalculated. The council disqualified two-term former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, seeing him as a threat to the regimes crackdown on dissent. As a consolation, it allowed Rafsanjanis protg Rouhani to run, thinking he had no hope. But when the three conservative candidates approved by the council split the vote of the bloc, Rouhani won a first-round majority.

In 2021, the Council avoided that error by not only disqualifying prominent centrists and reformists, but also by removing conservatives such as Larijani and Ahmadinejad who might take votes from Raisi.

They could pursue the same tactic this time. But the risk is that, by denying any apparent choice to voters, they depress the turnout.

The advance of applications by four women notably hardline former MP, Zohreh Elahian poses a historic question for the Guardian Council. Until now, the Council has disqualified all female applicants on the grounds that candidates must be from among political or religious rijal which has tradiitonally been interpreted narrowly to mean men in politics.

But some constitutional experts and politicians have interpreted rijal to mean figures or persons irrespective of gender. And Elahian is a fierce supporter of the compulsory hijab so fierce that she has been sanctioned by Canada for endorsing the death penalty for participants in the recent woman, life, freedom protests.

Under pressure from those protests, spurred by the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini detained and beaten for inappropriate attire the regime may decide to allow the right type of woman to run.

How the early election will affect the political dynamic in Iran remains unclear. The supreme leader, who is 85 and without a clear successor, called Raisi a devoted servant and he would like the same in a successor.

Jalili will undoubtedly be running, probably as a favoured hardliner. But will both Ghalibaf and Larijani be blocked, or will one even both be permitted to stand to ensure the semblance of a contest? Will that facade also include a prominent reformist such as Jahangiri?

And an even bigger question is whether the regimes chosen tactic work with an Iranian population, most of whom have been ground down by 15 years of political turbulence and repression. The regime must tread a careful line between controlling the election and risking its legitimacy in an election where few people bother to turn out.

See more here:
Iran: meet the men and women lining up to contest the early presidential election - The Conversation Indonesia

When I started researching my book, Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, the law review literature asserted that racial classification, in practice, was almost entirely a matter of self-identification. While federal law specified the classifications and their definitions, in practice people could check whatever box they wanted, and no one ever checked. In fact, according to the relevant literature, there was only one case, ever, in which an individual's self-identification was questioned. This was an infamous case involving two Irish-American firefighters in Boston who claimed to be African American to take advantage of the fire department's affirmative action policies.

I was confident that there were more such cases, in part because Eugene Volokh once blogged about such a case involving whether New York State could constitutionally decide that a contractor of Spanish descent was not Hispanic for state purposes, even though he was Hispanic for federal purposes. In the end, I found a couple of dozen such cases, mostly involving minority business enterprise preferences, and mostly involving the Hispanic classification, though also others involving claims of American Indian, African American, and Asian American identity. Many of those cases wound up being cited in Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in SFSA v. Harvard.

I assumed that these were just the tip of the iceberg, as I relied on publicly available judicial or administrative rulings, or media coverage. Most disputes, I figured, were decided within the bowels of government bureaucracies, and the only way to find them would be to comb through thousands of unpublished records, if you could first figure out where those records were located. It wasn't sufficiently important to my book to undertake such an efforts.

That said, I did just happen upon another such dispute over identity, discussed briefly in a 1989 GAO report on fraud in disadvantaged business enterprise programs. As background, at the time Iranian Americans were classified as white, and thus not "minorities" eligible for DBE preferences, while Indian Americans were classified as Asian American and therefore were eligible.

An anonymous letter alleged that the president of an engineering DBE did not oversee the firm's day-to-day management and that the firm was controlled by the vice president, who was a white male. It was also alleged that the president was Iranian-born and thus not eligible to participate in the program. The investigation disclosed that there was no apparent problem with control since the president drew the largest sal- ary, signed all company checks, and was the only person in the firm with an engineering degree. It was also determined that the DBE president was raised in Iran and held Iranian citizenship, but that his parents were of Indian descent. During the reassessment process, the state transportation agency requested an advisory opinion from DOT concerning whether a person born in Iran to Indian parents is Iranian or Indian for purposes of DBE program participation. The state agency eventually recertified the DBE based on the DOT ruling that the controlling factor was a person's heritage not citizenship.

This decision seems correct, as Asian American is defined under federal law as someone descended from one of the original peoples of Asia. But it does raise the question of how far one can take that principal. Are Parsi Indians, descendants of Zoroastrians who fled Iran hundreds of years ago to escape Muslim persecution Indian, or Iranian? How about Baghdadi Jews from India whose ancestors moved to India from Iraq in the 19th century? Is there any statute of limitations here? In practice, though, I suspect that so long as an individual's ancestors had Indian citizenship, it's very unlikely anyone will question whether they are "really" Indian and thus Asian American.

Anyway, the existence of this case reinforces my suspicion that there are many more such cases reported somewhere in bowels of government archives.

More here:
Is an American of Indian Descent Raised in Iran and Who Held Iranian Citizenship Indian or Iranian for Affirmative ... - Reason

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi delivering his opening statement to the IAEA Board of Governors. Photo: IAEA

China, Russia and Iran, three of the seven original signatories of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran nuclear deal, issued a joint statement on Wednesday, June 5, asking the European signatories to take efforts to restore the deal.

The Peoples Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Russian Federation are convinced that it is time for Western Countries to demonstrate political will, stop the continued cycle of escalation that has been going on for almost two years and take the necessary steps towards the revival of the JCPOA. This can still be done, the statement reads.

The statement was delivered to the ongoing quarterly board of governors meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. The meeting which started on Monday will continue till June 6. Irans nuclear program is one of the main points on the agenda of the meeting.

The three countries believe that a fully operational nuclear deal would help reduce tensions at the international level and would benefit all the parties involved, the statement claimed. It also underlined that the international community must recognize Irans right to have a peaceful nuclear program like any other signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi claimed during the inaugural briefing of the meeting on Monday that, nuclear non-proliferation regime requires our constant efforts and determination to make sure that the legitimate nuclear activities are carried out in a peaceful manner.

However, the European signatories of the JCPOA and close US allies, the UK, France and Germany pushed through a resolution in the IAEA board meeting censuring Iran for allegedly not cooperating with its inspectors. The resolution was supported by the United States.

On Tuesday, US ambassador to the IAEA Laura S H Holgate presented her countrys position in the meeting accusing Iran of not cooperating with the IAEA and rejecting all attempts to revive the deal by calling it absurd.

JCPOA was signed by Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany in 2015. The deal allows Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program under certain restrictions and strict international observation. In return all international sanctions on Iran were lifted.

However, in May 2018, the US decided to unilaterally withdraw from the deal claiming its provisions were insufficient. The Donald Trump administration imposed numerous unilateral sanctions against Iran as well. Its European allies have also imposed sanctions against Iran.

During his electoral campaign, Joe Biden had promised to return to the deal if elected. A talk was initiated to revive the deal in April 2021 in Vienna. However, it has remained inconclusive as the US has refused to withdraw all sanctions before full restoration of Iranian compliance to the provisions of the deal.

The Biden administration has since broadened the sanctions regime against Iran. It has also leveled allegations that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and has pointed out Irans non-compliance with the provisions of the deal.

Iran has claimed that it has stopped complying with the provisions of the deal as per the rules of the JCPOA and blames the US for the failure of the deal. It has maintained that once the JCPOA is restored it will go back to full compliance.

The joint statement of China, Russia and Iran on Wednesday called both the US unilateral withdrawal and sanctions against Iran illegal.

See the article here:
China, Russia and Iran call on the West to restore nuclear deal - Peoples Dispatch

Addressing the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Director General Rafael Grossi indicated no progress had been made in resolving outstanding issues.

He mentioned that Iran is still not implementing provisions of the nuclear safeguards agreement, and that withdrawal of designations for several IAEA inspectors are yet to be reversed.

These outstanding safeguards issuesneed to be resolved for [IAEA] to be in a position to provide assurance that Irans nuclear programme is exclusively peaceful, Mr. Grossi emphasized.

He also voiced concerns about public statements made in Iran regarding its technical capabilities to produce nuclear weapons and potential changes to its nuclear doctrine, which only deepen apprehensions about the correctness and completeness of the countrys safeguards declarations.

Nuclear Safety, Security and Safeguards in Ukraine.

Turning to Ukraine, the IAEA chief warned the situation at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant remains precarious and that all seven Pillars of Nuclear Safety and Security have been fully or partially compromised.

These include physical integrity; functional safety and security systems and equipment; radiation monitoring and emergency response; secure and reliable off-site power supply; trained staff; an uninterrupted logistic supply chain; and open communication.

The attacks and the frequent disconnection of the off-site power lines due to military activity are creating a grave situation, Mr. Grossi said.

All six reactor units at the plant have been in cold shutdown since April, a safety measure long recommended by the IAEA. Despite this, the agencys ability to ensure the plants safety and security remains compromised due to restricted access, he added.

He further reported that Ukraines other four nuclear power plants continue to face compromised supply chains for spare parts and high levels of stress among staff.

Mr. Grossi also voiced concern over the continued and further development of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Koreas (DPRK) nuclear programme.

The IAEA has observed intermittent cooling water discharge, consistent with the operation of the Light Water Reactor (LWR) at Yongbyon, along with ongoing activities at the reported centrifuge enrichment facility.

The Nuclear Test Site at Punggye-ri remains occupied and prepared to support a new test.

The continuation and further development of the DPRKs nuclear programme is a clear violation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions and is deeply regrettable, Mr. Grossi said, urging the country to comply fully with its obligations and to cooperate promptly with IAEA.

Rafael Mariano Grossi (right), IAEA Director General, delivers his opening statement at the 1717th Board of Governors meeting held at the IAEA Headquarters, in Vienna.

In Japan, IAEA continues to monitor the discharge of Advanced Liquid Processing System)-treated water from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, which suffered a meltdown 13 years ago, he reported.

Mr. Grossi confirmed that the discharge is progressing in accordance with the safety plan approved by Japans Nuclear Regulation Authority.

Expert independent analysis of the six batches released so far have confirmed the tritium concentration in each batch of ALPS-treated water released to date is far below Japans operational limit.

In his concluding remarks, the head of IAEA underscored the agencys key role in promoting sustainable development.

The IAEA is a crucially important vehicle for advancing sustainable development and international peace and security, he said, urging member states to continue their support for the agencys indispensable work.

See more here:
Iran's uranium stockpile grows following three years of denied access - UN News

The virulently anti-Israel news website The Grayzonereceived funds from Iran and Russia, sparking calls for congressional action against the conspiratorial outlet for possible violations of Iran sanctions and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

The revelations about The Grayzone's finances were first disclosed in The Washington Post this week. Critics have long suspected that it received foreign funding, as the outlet has spread the talking points of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

According to The Washington Post, Hacked emails and other documents from the Iranian government-funded Press TV show payments of thousands of dollars to a writer who is now Washington-based editor for Grayzone." The article went on to mention that the website's founder, Max Blumenthal, "regularly appears on Russian television and once accepted a trip to Moscow for a celebration of Russian state-controlled video network RT that featured Vladimir Putin.

Ellie Cohanim, the former U.S. Deputy Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism and first Iranian-born envoy, commented on the revelations on X: As Ive stated, @HouseGOP must investigate this is a National Security threat.

Press TV is an Iranian state-owned outlet which was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2021 in an effort to combat Iranian regime propaganda and disinformation.

The Washington Postexplained that the files from Press TVwere mostly in Persian and had been released back in 2022 on Telegram by a hacktivist group called Black Reward. WaPocredited anactivist disinformation researcher, Neal Rauhauser, for converting them into a more usable format that was then provided to the paper.

The Washington Postwrote, The files appear to show that the Iranian broadcaster paid a Washington-based reporter for occasional contributions to its programming in 2020 and 2021 while he was working as a correspondent for Russias Sputnik news outlet. The paper continued, That reporter, Wyatt Reed, had nine bylines in the online publication Grayzone in 2019 and 2020, followed by a gap of two-and-a-half years. He has had 24 more Grayzone bylines since mid-2023, when he was identified as managing editor.

Reed and Grayzone did not respond to numerous i24NEWS press queries and messages via X.

The Grayzone describes itself as an "independent news website producing original investigative journalism on politics and empire." Recent article headlines include "Columbia crackdown led by university prof doubling as NYPD spook," and "'Israeli soldier' from notorious unit confesses to U.S. citizens killing."

The Washington Postalso cited an article written by its founder and editor-in-chief Max Blumenthal whichdevoted thousands of words to allege widespread Israeli attacks against its own citizens on October 7 while saying that Hamas treated hostages well and used clever tactics."

Published on October 27, the article manipulated Israeli eyewitness accounts from the attacks, and selectively edited and mistranslated Hebrew media reporting to provide "proof" for the conspiracy. The article served as the basis for the conspiracy that went on to be widely spread in fringe circles that the IDF fired indiscriminately at Israelis near Hamas targets and was therefore responsible for the majority of the 1,200 Israelis killed on October 7.

The article also misrepresentedi24NEWS reporting from the immediate aftermath.Blumenthal wrote: Much of the shelling in Beeri was carried out by Israeli tank crews. As a reporter for the Israeli Foreign Ministry-sponsored outlet i24 noted during a visit to Beeri, 'small and quaint homes [were] bombarded or destroyed,' and 'well-maintained lawns [were] ripped up by the tracks of an armored vehicle, perhaps a tank.'

i24NEWSis an independently-owned channel not affiliated with any government branch or organization. The original video report by i24NEWS'Middle East correspondent Ariel Oseran was made on October 26 to document the devastation in Kibbutz Be'eri, one of the most notorious sites of the Hamas massacre, and which details terrorists setting homes on fire andshooting civilians at point-blank range.

According to their critics, Blumenthal and Reed both worked to advance the agendas of the Iranian regime and the Russian state. Neither appear to have registered as foreign agents under FARA. Numerous i24NEWSpress queries to Blumenthal were not returned.

Rabbi Cooper told i24NEWS that The Washington Post report raises important questions that need to be addressed by relevant agencies of the government and maybe bi-partisan hearings on the Hill.

American rabbi, author, and media personality Rabbi Shmuley Boteach told i24NEWS that Max Blumenthal is a twisted, deranged, and unhinged antisemite. I am not all surprised that he and his website and his writers are now facing serious allegations from top-tiered news organizations like The Washington Post of having taken money from Iran and Russia. There must be a thorough investigation and if Blumenthal is guilty, he must be arrested and imprisoned for FARA violations.

According to WaPo, Attorneys who deal regularly with Iran sanctions issues said U.S. journalists who were paid by sanctioned Iranian media entities could be in legal jeopardy unless they were granted waivers by the U.S. Treasury Department.

More:
Operating In The 'Grayzone': The Pro-Hamas Outlet Being Funded By Iran And Russia - I24NEWS - i24NEWS