WarSclerotic

Source: Iran: Where’s the ‘revolution’ headed? – Middle East – Jerusalem Post

 A WOMAN chants slogans during a protest against the visit of Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, outside the European Union Council in Brussels. (Francois Lenoir/Reuters). (photo credit: REUTERS/FRANCOIS LENOIR)

The protests in Iran appear, for now at least, to be subsiding. The key moment was the decision to task the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with security in the three provinces that formed the center of the unrest – Hamadan, Isfahan and Lorestan.

It is still too soon to say that the wave has entirely spent itself. Demonstrations are still taking place, despite the IRGC’s announcement on Monday of an end to the unrest. In the cities of Sanandaj, Zahedan, Meybod, Abarkuh, Kordkuy, Aqqala, Alvand and Buin Zahra, among other centers, rallies were held. But the number of those attending the demonstrations is decreasing.

The wave of unrest was the most intensive to hit the country since 2009. Its details constitute evidence of broad alienation from the regime of a significant section of Iran’s youthful population. The unrest at its height spread to over 80 cities and towns. The average age among those arrested was 25. Demonstrators chanted anti-regime slogans and attacked facilities of the Basij paramilitaries and other regime-associated institutions.

Notably, Tehran’s costly policy of regional interference formed a focus for the protesters’ rage. Slogans such as “Leave Syria, think about us!” and “Death to Hezbollah!” were heard. More general anti-regime slogans, including “We don’t want an Islamic Republic” and “Death to the dictator” were also chanted by demonstrators.

The protests began in the pro-regime, conservative city of Mashhad. Their initial focus was new austerity measures introduced by President Hassan Rouhani. There is evidence that the initial instigators of the demonstrations were themselves from among the hard-line “principalist” opponents of Rouhani.

But these elements did not anticipate the rapid growth of the demonstrations or their intensity. The regime, clearly taken by surprise, reacted in the only way it knows – with a strong hand. Twenty-two people are dead. Hundreds more are wounded.

A NUMBER of conclusions can be drawn from the direction of events so far.

1. For those hoping for the downfall of the Islamist regime, a major absence in the Iranian context is that of a revolutionary “party.” This does not necessarily mean a formal political party but, rather, a revolutionary trend with a level of organization and popular appeal, a vision for the future and a broad strategy for defeating the Islamist regime. At present, nothing of this type exists in the Iranian context – neither as a network inside the country, nor as a widely respected focus on the outside.

Because of this absence, the 2009 protests, which were concerned with the apparently rigged reelection of then-president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were diverted through the election of the “moderate” Rouhani.

The current protests, meanwhile, which are economic in nature, may well be similarly diverted by a combination of a strong hand, some cosmetic concessions, and probably, ironically, also by the scapegoating of the “moderate” president.

Such diversionary moves are possible because of the dispersed and divided nature of the opposition. As long as no nucleus of political (and, probably, military) opposition to the regime emerges, it is difficult to see a way that a wave of unrest can smash the edifice of the Islamic Republic.

2. The regime has been keen, naturally, to blame the unrest on foreign agitators. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s Twitter feed suggested that a “pattern activating these events” was apparent. According to the supreme leader, a “scheme by the US and Zionists” with money from a “wealthy government near the Persian Gulf” (obviously Saudi Arabia) was responsible.

Given the Iranian regime’s penchant for interference in neighboring countries – with Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen chief among them – it is tempting to hope that the supreme leader’s fears are justified. There is, however, no actual evidence to support such a claim.

In US President Donald Trump’s recent speech outlining his national security strategy, he referred to Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism” and identified the need to “neutralize Iranian malign influence.”

One way to help the achievement of the latter goal would be to keep the Iranian home fires burning. Tehran foments unrest in neighboring countries in order to keep neighbors weak. There is now an opportunity to return the compliment. There are a variety of ways that this might be achieved – from ensuring that protesters and demonstrators remain organized and in communication with one another, to punitive means to disincentivize those countries and individuals assisting the regime in acquiring the means of repression.

3. Among the most difficult type of people to unseat from power through revolution are revolutionaries themselves – at least as long as the revolutionary elite does not begin to crumble from within. There are as yet no signs of this in Iran. Rather, the rising force within the elite is precisely that force most committed to the values of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 (and to spreading its influence into neighboring lands) – namely, the IRGC and associated hard-line figures.

The rising, militant elements within the regime were themselves participants as young men in the revolution of 1979. Even if there were a similarly determined and organized leadership seeking to make revolution against the Islamic Republic, it would find this cadre a tough nut to crack. And as we have seen above, currently there is not.

Nevertheless, the protests of the past two weeks are significant. They point to the sharp fissures within Iranian society and the extent to which the regime is detached from large sections of the population and its wants and needs.

The guardians of the Islamic Republic of Iran have in recent years proved masters at identifying and exploiting the fissures in neighboring societies. The field is now ripe for this process to turn into a two-way street, depending on the will and the ability of Iran’s opponents to recognize the opportunity and make use of it.

Reuters

BY: Reuters
January 12, 2018 4:54 pm

Trump Issues Ultimatum to ‘Fix’ Iran Nuclear Deal

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday gave the Iran nuclear deal a final reprieve but warned European allies and Congress they had to work with him to “fix the terrible flaws” of the pact or face U.S. withdrawal.

Trump said he would waive sanctions against Iran lifted as part of the deal but only as a “last chance” and would not do so again. The ultimatum puts pressure on Europeans – key backers and parties to the 2015 international agreement – to satisfy Trump, who has called the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program “the worst ever.”

Trump wants the deal strengthened with a separate agreement within 120 days or the United States will unilaterally withdraw from the international pact, warning: “No one should doubt my word.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif responded on Twitter that the deal was not renegotiable and that Trump’s stance “amounts to desperate attempts to undermine a solid multilateral agreement.”

Trump, who has sharply criticized the deal reached during Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency, had privately chafed at having to once again waive sanctions on a country he sees as a rising threat in the Middle East.

“This is a last chance,” Trump said in a statement. “In the absence of such an agreement, the United States will not again waive sanctions in order to stay in the Iran nuclear deal. And if at any time I judge that such an agreement is not within reach, I will withdraw from the deal immediately.”

Underscoring the difficulty now facing Europeans, a European diplomat, speaking under condition of anonymity, said: “It’s going to be complicated to save the deal after this.”

While Trump approved the sanctions waiver, the Treasury Department announced new, targeted sanctions against 14 entities and people, including the head of Iran’s judiciary.

Trump now will work with European partners on a follow-on agreement that enshrines certain triggers that the Iranian regime cannot exceed related to ballistic missiles, said a senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the decision.

One official said Trump would be open to remaining in a modified deal if it was made permanent.

“I hereby call on key European countries to join with the United States in fixing significant flaws in the deal, countering Iranian aggression, and supporting the Iranian people,” Trump said in the statement. “If other nations fail to act during this time, I will terminate our deal with Iran.”

Republican Senator Bob Corker said “significant progress” had been made on bipartisan congressional legislation to “address the flaws in the agreement without violating U.S. commitments.”

SEVERAL CONDITIONS

Trump laid out several conditions to keep the United States in the deal. Iran must allow “immediate inspections at all sites requested by international inspectors,” he said, and that provisions preventing Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon must not expire. Trump said U.S. law must tie long-range missile and nuclear weapons programs together, making any missile testing by Iran subject to “severe sanctions.”

Trump wants the U.S. Congress to modify a law that reviews U.S. participation in the nuclear deal to include “trigger points” that if violated would lead to the United States reimposing its sanctions, the official said.

This would not entail negotiations with Iran, the official said, but rather would be the result of talks between the United States and its European allies. Work already has begun on this front, the official said.

Analyst Richard Nephew said whether Trump’s conditions could be met depended on whether he wants a face-saving way to live with the nuclear deal with the political cover of tough-sounding U.S. legislation, or whether he really wants the deal rewritten.

Nephew, a former White House and State Department Iran sanctions expert, said legislation could be drafted that might appear to assuage Trump’s concerns but that getting Iran to agree to allow unfettered international inspections or to no time limits on the nuclear deal’s restrictions was impossible.

He said Trump appeared to be looking for the deal to be rewritten in Congress.

“That’s not going to happen,” Nephew said. “If we were walking on a ledge before, now we are on a tightrope.”

Trump has argued behind the scenes that the nuclear deal makes the United States look weak, a senior U.S. official said. The argument for staying in, the official said, was to allow time to toughen the terms of the agreements.

A decision to withhold a waiver would have effectively ended the deal between Iran, the United States, China, France, Russia, Britain, Germany and the European Union. Those countries would have been unlikely to join the United States in reimposing sanctions.

Hailed by Obama as key to stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb, the deal lifted economic sanctions in exchange for Tehran limiting its nuclear program but Trump has argued that Obama negotiated a bad deal.

PRESSURE FROM EUROPE

Britain, France and Germany called on Trump on Thursday to uphold the pact.

Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes and that it will stick to the accord as long as the other signatories respect it but will “shred” the deal if Washington pulls out.

Two EU diplomats said EU foreign ministers will discuss what to do now at their next regular meeting, scheduled for Monday Jan. 22 in Brussels.

The U.S. Congress requires the president to decide periodically whether to certify Iran’s compliance with the deal and issue a waiver to allow U.S sanctions to remain suspended.

Trump in October chose not to certify compliance and warned he might ultimately terminate the accord. He accused Iran of “not living up to the spirit” of the agreement even though the International Atomic Energy Agency says Tehran is complying.

Hard-liners on Iran in the U.S. Congress have called for the reimposition of the suspended sanctions and an end to the nuclear deal, while some liberal Democrats want to pass legislation that would make it harder for Trump to pull Washington out without congressional consent.

Trump and his top advisers have been negotiating with U.S. lawmakers on Capitol Hill to try to change sanctions legislation so that he does not face a deadline on whether to recertify Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal every 90 days.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason, Doina Chiacu and David Alexander and Arshad Mohammed in Washington; Robin Emmott in Brussels, John Irish in Paris and Parisa Hafezi in Ankara; Editing by Yara Bayoumy and Bill Trott)

By Pamela Geller – on January 12, 2018

https://pamelageller.com/2018/01/plo-withdraw-recognition.html/

When did the PLO ever recognize the Jewish state? Never. Back in 1993, the PLO recognized “the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.” That is all that they recognized. That doesn’t say anything about Israel existing in peace and security as a Jewish state. It doesn’t indicate any renunciation of the PLO’s jihad imperative to conquer Israel “from the river to the sea” and transform it into a vastly different kind of state. At this point, should they succeed, it would be an Islamic state. So the withdrawal of this “recognition” is as meaningless as the recognition itself.

But if they’re going to withdraw it, since it has been the linchpin of the spurious “peace process,” can we get the trillions of US taxpayer dollars that we have paid to this terror organization back now?

“PLO moves to withdraw recognition of, cut ties to Israel,” by Dimu Abumaria, Jerusalem Post, January 11, 2018 (thanks to Mark):

The Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the umbrella organization that is internationally-recognized as the representative of the Palestinian people, will push to withdraw formal recognition of Israel and end Washington’s longstanding role as mediator of the peace process. Instead, the PLO will pursue an “international formula” for achieving statehood. The developments were outlined in a report that aims to redefine not only the parameters for future relations with Israel and the Unites States, but also change the status of the Palestinian Authority from a “transitional authority” to a “state under occupation.” The details are intended to be finalized in a follow-up meeting of the PLO mid-month.

The PA was formed as an interim governing body by the 1993 Oslo Accords—signed by then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and previous PLO chief Yasser Arafat—and was meant to be dissolved after no later than five years as part of a final peace agreement.

Two-and-a-half decades later, the PLO is now threatening to do just that, which, in its view, would release the Palestinians from political obligations stipulated in agreements with Israel.

According to PLO Executive Committee member Ahmed Majdalani, Israel “didn’t commit to any of the terms,” thereby effectively absolving the PA of its responsibilities. “I believe we are late in making these decisions and implementing them,” he told The Media Line, “which has created a gap between the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people.”

In this respect, there does, indeed, appear to be a growing chasm between the PA and the Palestinian “Street,” with a number of individuals expressing to The Media Line a distrust of Ramallah, the administrative capital of the Palestinian Authority. One businessman, who spoke to The Media Line on condition of anonymity, called on PA leaders to resign, as they are no longer “qualified” to make decisions “that have no impact on the ground.”

Another Palestinian, Bashar, noted that PLO leaders have made similar threats numerous times in the past, yet cooperation with Israel, security coordination foremost, remains intact. “They practice double standards,” he exclaimed, whereas another person, who asked not to be identified, went so far as to suggest that the PA shares “mutual interests” with “the [Israeli] occupation” and thus cannot be expected to advance the Palestinian cause.

Even those supportive of the PLO’s newly stated goals do not believe that they will be implemented. “These decisions might be good for Palestine,” one Ramallah resident told The Media Line, “as they could potentially change the [negative] situation caused by the Oslo Accords.” Nevertheless, she qualified, “I don’t think the PA is capable of forging a better agreement, unless they focus on a national agenda to support the Palestinian public.” Many other Palestinians echoed these sentiments, calling on the PA to change course after years of failed negotiations.

To this end, Saeb Erekat, Secretary General of the PLO Executive Committee and chief Palestinian negotiator, reiterated on Tuesday the PA’s refusal to engage in any peace initiative sponsored by the US unless the Trump administration retracts its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. This comes after Erekat earlier this month slammed American threats to cut aid to the Palestinians, describing the prospect as tantamount to “starving refugees…in support of Israeli positions.”…