Iran JPOA Titled Executive Agreement Not Treaty
By: Denise Simon
FoundersCode.com
Full text of the Iran deal is here.
Official the Joint Plan of Action with Iran is now complete with several items considered just housekeeping matters are still to be worked out. The Parchin plant MAY have allowed inspections while the other locations are off limits. The Fordo plant continues the enrichment work and Bashir al Assad is dancing at Disney. (sarcasm)
It is unclear if the UK Parliament or France votes on the JPOA but it is likely to occur. China and Russia stand with Iran especially on the arms embargo and sanction relief side.
Israel is sounding the alarms for security not only for Israel but for America and Europe.
Lifted sanctions include these individuals:
For the full text of the JPOA, click here.
As the Senate wraps up debate this week on Iran legislation, expect to hear a lot about “hardliners.”
The Senate’s alleged hardliners have tried to add conditions to a nuclear deal the U.S. is currently negotiating with Iranian moderates, but there is little chance the senators will succeed. The majority leader, Mitch McConnell, is expected to call for an end to debate on their meddling amendments.
According to a certain school of thought, all of this is a good thing. Our hardliners, say cheerleaders for the Iran negotiations, empower Iran’s hardliners, who are also wary of a deal.
President Obama views the politics of the Iran deal in these terms himself. Back in March when Senator Tom Cotton and 46 other Republicans sent a letter to Iran’s leaders, reminding them that any deal signed with Obama could be reversed by Congress or future presidents, the president played the hardliner card: “I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members for Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.”
There is definitely a political logic to pinning this “hardliner” label on the senators. The White House can artfully shift the conversation away from the contents of the deal it is negotiating. Instead the debate is framed as the Americans and Iranians who seek peace (moderates) versus those in both nations who want war (hardliners).
It’s simple, but deceptive. This tactic understates the power of Iran’s hardliners and dramatically overstates the power of U.S. hardliners.
In Iran, the people inside the system who are negotiating a deal, such as Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, must take the agreement to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for approval. In Iran, the hardliner approves the deal.
In the U.S. system it’s the other way around. Senators like Marco Rubio, Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz support amendments that would set new conditions before lifting Congressional sanctions on Iran. But there are not enough votes in the Senate to overturn an Obama veto on the legislation if these amendments are attached. In other words, Obama frames the conversation in the U.S., because he has the power to ignore his hardliners whereas Zarif is obliged to placate his.
Then there is the substance of the amendments themselves. Democrats and Republicans have derided certain Republicans’ amendments to the bill as “poison pills,” aimed at making a deal with Iran impossible. But these amendments would require Iran to end its war against its neighbors, release U.S. citizens who have been jailed and recognize the right of the world’s only Jewish state to exist. Outside the context of Iran negotiations, these are hardly radical views. Obama has expressed support for these positions himself.
Compare those demands with those of the Iranian hardliners. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces on Sunday reiterated the red line that no military installations would be accessible for international inspections. This would pose a problem, given that the U.S. and other great powers have agreed to allow Iran to keep most of its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for tough inspections. The Iranian hardliners appear to be putting back in play something Obama’s team believed was already agreed.
The most important distinction between Iran’s hardliners and America’s hardliners however is their political legitimacy. Iran’s people have supported reform, but nonetheless the country’s Revolutionary Guard Corps and domestic spy agency have tightened the grip on power despite elections when reformers won the presidency.
Contrast their ascent with the plight of Iran’s moderates: In 1997, Iranians elected a reformer president, Mohammed Khatami, who promised to open up Iran’s political system. But throughout his presidency he was unable to stop the arrests of student activists or the shuttering of opposition newspapers. By the end of Khatami’s presidency, some of his closest advisers were tried in public for charges tantamount to treason. In 2013, Iranians elected Hassan Rouhani, who ran as a reformer even though under Khatami he had overseen crackdowns on reformers. Rouhani has not freed the leaders of the 2009 green movement from house arrest or most of the activists who protested elections in 2009.
When Obama talks about his Iran negotiations, he glosses over all of this. He emphasizes instead that Rouhani has a mandate to negotiate and that he is taking advantage of this diplomatic window.
Obama had threatened to veto legislation that would give Congress a chance to review, but not modify, any agreement the administration reaches with Iran and five other world powers. Now the president says he will sign the legislation, but only if it doesn’t include the kinds of amendments favored by the so-called hardliners. After all, those amendments are unacceptable to the hardliners who actually have sway — in Iran.
Weekly Featured Profile – Donna Brazile
Donna Brazile
Donna Brazile…is a leading Democratic Party operative. She is an adjunct professor, author, a syndicated columnist and the Vice Chair of Voter Registration and Participation at the Democratic National Committee.
In the 1990s, Brazile was the communications director for far left Delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). She also ran Al Gore‘s campaign for the White House in 2000.
Brazile is Founder and Managing Director of Brazile & Associates LLC, a general consulting, grassroots advocacy and training firm based in Washington, DC.
In her early 20s, Brazile became actively involved in the United States Student Association, lined up a job as a lobbyist with the National Student Education Fund and moved to Washington, DC.
Brazile attended a Youth Peace and Disarmament Conference in Helsinki, Finland, and learned “firsthand how negatively other peoples viewed nuclear arms. That was one of the factors that hardened her resolve to want to go to Washington to work towards change.” The conference was the Soviet-controlled World Federation of Democratic Youth‘s for peace, detente and disarmament, World Forum of Youth and Students, 19-23, January 1981.
In 2009, Brazile was listed as a member of the Advisory Board of Wellstone Action, a Minnesota based organization built on the political legacy of that state’s late “progressive” and Democratic Socialists of America allied Senator Paul Wellstone.
Rep. Karen Bass traveled to Havana, Cuba on June 5th, 2011, accompanied by Donna Brazile, former Congresswoman Jane Harman and Sara Stephens of the the pro-Cuban Center for Democracy in the Americas, as a “Women’s Leadership Delegation.”
The delegates participating in the Cuba fact-finding trip attended meetings with “Cuban academics, policymakers, journalists and NGO representatives.”
Donna Brazile, Karen Bass, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez, Jane Harman
(more…)
Pro-Kremlin Machine Right in Front of YOU
By: Denise Simon
FoundersCode.com
Vladimir Putin has his propaganda machine working in full speed. We are being sucked into it and not recognizing the clues much less asking harder questions against his agenda.
There is a two part series on the Pro-Kremlin operation. Part 1 video is here. Part 2 video is here.
Now, the movement behind the machine is something called ‘The Agency’ which is a location in St. Petersberg, Russia called the Internet Research Agency.
From DenisonForum: The Agency’s origins can be traced to the 2011 anti-government protests, organized because of the growing evidence of fraud in the Parliamentary elections that year. The protests had been organized largely via Facebook, Twitter, and LiveJournal and the government wanted to ensure that similar protests were far more difficult to put together in the future. So the next year, Vyascheslav Volodin was named the new deputy head of Putin’s administration and given the task of gaining better control over the internet. In addition to starting the Agency, laws were passed that required bloggers to register with the state and the government was allowed to censor websites without a court order. Putin justified the new laws “by calling the Internet a ‘C.I.A. project,’ one that Russia needed to be protected from.”
The full background investigation on the Internet Research Agency, or rather the Kremlin troll factory is found here.
For the software and internet geeks out there, below is the proof of the machine where evidence was peeled back by using open source analytic tools.
From Global Voices Online: In April of this year, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Guardian reported on the website вштабе.рф, a large photo gallery of pro-Russian memes and “demotivator” graphics. Most of these crude caricatures ridicule US, Western, and Ukrainian leaders, whilst portraying Vladimir Putin as strong and heroic.
The site gives no credit or attribution for its design, and offers no indication as to who might be behind it. Intrigued by this anonymity, I used Maltego open-source intelligence software to gather any publicly-available information that might provide clues.
The Secrets of Google Analytics
My use of Maltego revealed that the site was running Google Analytics, a commonly used online analytics tool that allows a website owner to gather statistics on visitors, such as their country, browser, and operating system. For convenience, multiple sites can be managed under a single Google analytics account. This account has a unique identifying “UA” number, contained in the Analytics script embedded in the website’s code. Google provides a detailed guide to the system’s structure.
Whilst investigating the network of sites tied to account UA-53176102, I discovered that one, news-region.ru, had also been linked to a second Analytics account: UA-53159797 (archive).
This number, in turn, was associated with a further cluster of nineteen pro-Kremlin websites. Subsequent examinations of these webpages revealed three more Analytics accounts, with additional sites connected to them. Below is a network diagram of the relationships I have established to date.
Most notably, Podgorny is listed in the leaked employee list of St. Petersburg’s Internet Research Agency, the pro-Kremlin troll farm featured in numerous news reports and investigations, including RuNet Echo’s own reports.
Podgorny’s date of birth, given on his public VK profile, is an exact match for that shown in the leaked document.
Podgorny is also VK friends with Igor Osadchy, who is named as a fellow employee in the same list. Osadchy has denied working for the Internet Reseach Agency, calling the leaks an “unsuccessful provocation.”
*** This internet researcher will continue the investigation and report more. For expanded details on the first cut of the investigation, click here.
How Vladimir Putin Came to Power [FULL Documentary]
By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet
The story of Russia’s El Presidente for Life (apparently), Vladimir Putin, is intriguing, to say the least. For over 15 years, Vladimir Putin has been the de facto supreme leader of the Russian Federation.
Via WikiPedia:
Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has been the President of Russia since 7 May 2012, succeeding Dmitry Medvedev. Putin previously served as President from 2000 to 2008, and as Prime Minister of Russia from 1999 to 2000 and again from 2008 to 2012.
The people (i.e. “the family”) behind Putin’s rise to power remain in the shadows, and are a mystery to many.
At around the 43:30 min. mark is a clip of Vladimir Putin stating he will ask the Duma to “reinstate Aleksandrov’s music”—meaning, he asked the Russian Parliament to reinstate the national anthem of the Soviet Union, originally written for Josef Stalin.
One Russian political party that put its support behind Putin was known as the “Fatherland” party. An interesting twist (i.e. dialectic), considering the “former” Soviet Union has long been known as the “Motherland.”
Via SnipView.com (emphasis added):
[OBP] was formed from the movement Fatherland, chaired by the Mayor of Moscow, Yuri Luzhkov, and the movement All Russia, chaired by regional Presidents of the Republics of Tatarstan, Mintimer Shaimiev, of Bashkortostan, Murtaza Rakhimov, of Ingushetia, Ruslan Aushev, and the Governor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Yakovlev. In his founding Congress, that took place on 28 August 1999, their first chairman elected were Yevgeny Primakov and Yury Luzhkov.
The party took part in the 1999 State Duma election, being led by Yevgeny Primakov, Yury Luzhkov and Vladimir Yakovlev. During the pre-election debates, the block suffered from ‘black public relations’ campaign in Boris Berezovsky-controlled media and competition with the rival conservative Unity Party of Russia. ‘Fatherland’ supported the election of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia in 2000.
In 1 December 2001 a joint congress of rival party Unity and Fatherland-All Russia decided to merge both parties into a single new political party, United Russia. In the IV Congress of Fatherland, at 9 April 2002, it was decided to disband the organization.
Who would’ve ever thunk that the gay rights movement and the “Fatherland” have something in common?
Well, if anything, it makes for a colorful tale … does it not?