Saudi Arabia gave President Donald Trump the royal treatment over the weekend, lavishing him with pomp and applause during the first stop in his inaugural overseas trip as president. In a 30-minute speech, Trump gave the Kingdom precisely what it wanted–a strong rebuke of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy and its greatest threat to regional hegemony. Trump signaled a tighter embrace of Saudi Arabia and a more forceful rejection of Iran than his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Iran provides terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump said, adding it’s “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.” Trump piled on:

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region…It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

By calling out Iran while delivering a message of “friendship and hope” to Saudi Arabia and leaders from other Gulf Arab nations like Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and the U.A.E., whose leaders were also in attendance on Sunday, Trump is pivoting to a more traditional U.S. approach to the region than Obama’s.

Obama angered Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with a variety of decisions–or non-decisions–that they saw as deferring to Iran. For one, he negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran; the Trump Administration recently admitted to Iran’s compliance with the controversial agreement. Additionally, Obama’s inaction in the conflict in Syria–he never took direct military action against President Bashar al-Assad, and instead provided support to various rebel factions–upset the Saudis as well.

The Trump Administration, after the Syrian government dropped chemical bombs on its citizens in March, launched 59 cruise missiles at a government air strip. Since then, however, Trump has largely followed the Obama playbook by supporting proxy forces in the fight against the Islamic State. Still, the decisive action heartened the Saudi monarchy, which virulently opposes Iran and its various proxy projects, like its support for militias in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq, and its support of Assad in Syria.

Trump was unreserved in his warm embrace for Saudi Arabia, saying the U.S. “is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture, and commerce” with the Kingdom. He announced that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other high-ranking officials pledged billions of dollars in investments for Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. recently provided the Saudis with over $100 billion worth of arms and other defense equipment.

He also used the speech to highlight two initiatives aimed at combating terrorism–the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, and the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Both will be built in Riyadh. “Today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens,” Trump said.

In contrast to the traditional, largely bi-partisan U.S. approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where personal freedom is heavily policed and human rights are consistently trampled upon, Trump made no mention of improving human rights in the country. In fact, he explicitly rejected calling out potential partners in how they choose to govern their countries.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all,” he said.

A safe, secure, and prosperous Middle East, Trump insisted, must be shaped with the help of Iran, which held a presidential election on Friday. Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani to a second term, rejecting the hard-line Islamic cleric Ebrahim Raisi. Still, in his speech on Sunday, Trump pointed to Iran as the primary font for extremist ideologies in the region, ignoring Saudi Arabia’s own agenda that critics say abets terrorism.

“Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve,” Trump said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Embraces Saudi Arabia and Rebukes Iran appeared first on Law Street.

As the House juggled a doomed health care bill on Thursday, lawmakers in the Senate introduced a bipartisan effort to tighten restrictions on Iran–specifically its government and powerful military–through a new round of sanctions. Iran’s ballistic missile program, its material support for foreign terrorist groups, and human rights violations provide the bases for the sanctions, which the Senate has been seeking for over a year.

The last attempt at tightening sanctions on Iran came last July. That bid failed, largely because the Obama Administration was tied up in negotiations for what would become the Iran nuclear deal. Looming over the bill that was introduced Thursday is that Iran deal, which some worry could be violated by stronger sanctions. In contrast to last summer’s attempt however, both Republicans and Democrats that opposed the nuclear deal, and those that supported it, are behind the new effort.

“This legislation demonstrates the strong bipartisan support in Congress for a comprehensive approach to holding Iran accountable by targeting all aspects of the regime’s destabilizing actions,” Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement. “These steps will allow us to regain the initiative on Iran and push back forcefully against this threat to our security and that of our allies.”

More than a dozen Senators joined Corker in supporting the bill, including Marco Rubio (R-FL), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Bob Casey (D-PA), and Chris Coons (D-DE). The legislation will likely hit the Senate floor for a vote. 

Days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Iran tested a ballistic missile. His administration condemned the test, and said it might have violated the Iran deal, which Trump has promised to rip-up (he has since walked that promise back.) Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn put Iran “on notice” soon after its missile launch, and some worried the administration would take military action, or aggressive sanctions that could destabilize the nuclear agreement.

Those fears did not pan out: the nuclear deal remains in place and, so far, “on notice” has amounted to no more than lofty rhetoric. But the bill introduced on Thursday does represent a bipartisan push to punish Iran not only for its missile tests, but for its support of Hezbollah–a U.S.-designated terrorist group–and its abominable human rights record.

“The spirit of bipartisanship of this important legislation underscores our strong belief that the United States must speak with one voice on the issue of holding Iran accountable for its continued nefarious actions across the world as the leading state sponsor of terrorism,” Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), a supporter of the bill, said in a statement. “Iran’s leaders must understand once and for all, that unless they change course their situation will only get worse.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senators Introduce Bill to Slap Further Sanctions on Iran appeared first on Law Street.

A hostage exchange with Iran in January depended on a U.S. payment of $400 million, State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Thursday. While “we don’t pay ransom,” Kirby said, the U.S. sought “maximum leverage” because “Iran has not proved completely trustworthy in the past.” He added: “There were opportunities we took advantage of, and as a result we got American citizens back home.”

When the cash element of the exchange was reported a few weeks ago, President Obama and the State Department denied any link between securing the hostages–a Washington Post reporter, a marine, and a pastor–and the payment. Thursday represents the first time the administration addressed the hostages’ return as being contingent on the $400 million. But while Republicans in Congress who oppose the softened stance the U.S. has taken with Iran viewed Kirby’s admission as proof the payment was a ransom, Kirby stopped short of labeling it as such, referring to it only as “leverage.”

Reporter to John Kirby: “It seems like such a ridiculous explanation it shocks me that you’re actually providing it”https://t.co/typHndIq1Q

— CSPAN (@cspan) August 18, 2016

“If it quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. If a cash payment is contingent on a hostage release, it’s a ransom. The truth matters and the president owes the American people an explanation,” said Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) on Thursday.

Kirby maintains the cash payment–which was part of a $1.3 billion sum the U.S. owed Iran from a botched arms deal in the 1970s–was negotiated separately from the hostage negotiations. The day the exchange took place at an airport in Tehran, January 17, was also the same day the Iran nuclear deal was officially implemented. All three negotiations–the $400 million, the nuclear deal, the prisoner return–were separate, according to Kirby, but it was convenient to carry them all out on the same day.

Obama and the State Department issued statements after the Wall Street Journal first reported the cash element in early August that seem to contradict what Kirby said on Thursday. “This wasn’t some nefarious deal,” Obama said on August 4, the day after the report came to light. “We do not pay ransom for hostages,” he added. And Kirby sent out a tweet the same day that said: “Reports of link between prisoner release & payment to Iran are completely false.”

But the way things shook out that day in January, there seemed to be a link between the hostages being released and the payment being made, a point Kirby made on Thursday. The $400 million–denominated in foreign bills like Swiss Francs and Euros–sat on a plane in Geneva as the American hostages boarded a plane in Tehran. State Department officials did not green light the plane with the cash to takeoff for Tehran until the prisoners were confirmed to have departed. Kirby, in front of a group of prodding, aghast reporters, refused to label the transaction as a ransom while admitting the payment was “contingent” upon the prisoner release.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post $400 Million Payment to Iran Connected to Hostage Release, State Dept. Says appeared first on Law Street.

A new detail has been drudged up regarding the January prisoner swap between the United States and Iran: as the U.S. hostages boarded their planes, $400 million dollars–divvied into euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currencies–was passed to the Iranians. The cash drop, reported on Wednesday by The Wall Street Journal, drew ire from Republicans opposed to the Iran deal–in which the U.S. lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for reduced nuclear capacity and increased tolerance for outside inspectors–and used it as evidence of why President Obama’s diplomatic handshake with Iran is ill-advised.

“This report makes plain what the administration can no longer deny: this was a ransom payment to Iran for U.S. hostages,” said Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.). House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) cautioned those who were gnashing their teeth at the report–which he said was still unconfirmed–but said if true, amounted to “another chapter in the ongoing saga of misleading the American people to sell this dangerous nuclear deal.”

Obama administration sent plan load of cash to #Iran as ransom as part of deal on hostages. Just unreal. https://t.co/UHfdK4BEyN

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) August 3, 2016

The $400 million cash delivery also reportedly included $1.3 billion in accrued interest. The money dates back to the 1970s, according to U.S. officials involved in the transfer. They said it was a belated return of funds Iran paid for U.S. weapons before the 1979 revolution. At some point during the seventies, Iran paid $400 million for a cache of weapons, but the Iranian government was overthrown by revolutionaries in 1979, and American hostages were taken at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The weapons deal never went through. But the U.S.–until January 2016–had yet to return the $400 million to Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday defended the cash drop, saying it “saved the American taxpayers potentially billions of dollars.” He added: “There was no benefit to the United States of America to drag this out.”

January’s exchange was primarily a prisoner swap. Iran held five hostages–including a Washington Post journalist, a marine veteran and a Christian pastor–and the U.S. held seven Iranians, six of whom have dual U.S. citizenship. All of those men were held, some already convicted, others awaiting trial, on charges of exporting activities that violated sanctions in place on Iran. All were released in exchange for the U.S. prisoners.

But the timing of the cash drop, which happened at the same time as the prisoner exchange, and as the Iran nuclear deal was being finalized, was enough to prompt outrage from congressional Republicans and a fresh round of tweets from Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, who implicated Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent:

Our incompetent Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was the one who started talks to give 400 million dollars, in cash, to Iran. Scandal!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 3, 2016

The White House refuted the ransom claims, and portrayed the Republican backlash as no more than an attempt to justify their position against the Iran nuclear deal. John Earnest, White House press secretary, said the Republican response was “an indication of just how badly opponents of the Iran deal are struggling to justify their opposition to a successful deal.” He also reiterated the U.S. policy to not engage in ransom exchanges, adding: “Let me be clear, the United States does not pay ransom for hostages.”

But, what is the official policy regarding securing U.S. hostages?

In June 2015, President Obama announced an executive order that clarified the language on assisting families in negotiating with terrorists who might harbor their loved one. Obama’s order created a new team based at FBI headquarters called the Hostage Response Team, but said the U.S. “will not make concessions, such as paying ransom, to terrorist groups holding American hostages.” Instead, the new team would be “responsible for ensuring that our hostage policies are consistent and coordinated and implemented rapidly and effectively.”

The executive order was designed to shape the rules regarding negotiating with terrorist groups. And while Iran is known to fund terrorist groups, it is a functioning government state. It’s unclear whether the Obama administration’s stance extends to governments, but on Thursday Kerry seemed to insinuate the policy applies to every hostage-taking body: “The United States does not pay ransom and does not negotiate ransoms,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Pays Iran $400 Million: Ransom or Routine? appeared first on Law Street.

Despite passionate and zealous opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress, the Iran deal, negotiated by the P5+1 nations (U.S, China, Russia, France, United Kingdom, and Germany), has survived and will begin to be implemented by the Obama administration. President Obama, having already secured enough Democratic votes in the Senate to sustain what was considered a prospective resolution of disapproval, also managed to garner enough votes to constitute a viable filibuster, which effectively removed the need of a presidential veto. Although the nuclear deal with Iran is perceived by many as being President Obama’s most significant foreign policy achievement, the opposition and debate surrounding the deal has not been toned down but instead magnified as the 2016 presidential candidates have made this deal a key area of debate and discord.

Since the next man or woman to occupy the Oval Office will directly decide whether to comply and continue implementation or derail it, the fate of the deal in the United States is not yet secure in the long term. Arguments for and against the Iran nuclear deal will continue to permeate politics and media from now until election day, and beyond. Read on to learn about the major arguments against the Iran deal and their counter-points–arguments that we’ll be sure to see continued as we move toward 2016.

Iranian Theocracy and Extremism

Argument Against the Deal

For those who oppose the deal, perhaps the biggest objection to entering into this agreement with Iran is the despotic nature of Iran’s regime. Critics of the deal believe that such a regime cannot be dealt with through traditional diplomatic channels. They argue that a country without a democratic grounding, mainly run by religious and ideological extremists who have vowed to destroy the United States and its allies, namely Israel, cannot be trusted and that any agreement is annulled by virtue of the extremism and radicalism of the regime.

Proponents of this view have argued that as a requisite for any deal, the U.S should demand certain concessions that alter the fundamental makeup of the regime. These concessions include the recognition of the right of Israel to exist as a state, or perhaps a change in the perennial “Great Satan” chants, which occur occasionally in Iran and disparage America. Former New York Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani agrees with this position, arguing,

You can’t negotiate with a man who is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, death to Americans…the only thing they understand, because they are insane, really, is the exercise of power.

Ruhollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader of Iran, and a symbol of Iranian theocracy and anti-Americanism.

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this position, which has been put forth by supporters of the deal, is tri-faceted. First, they argue that it is unrealistic and overly demanding to expect Iran to suddenly and abruptly change such core aspects of its government. Anti-Americanism, and to a lesser extent anti-semitism, are political norms in Iran which have been guiding principles since the Islamic revolution in 1979 and have continuously shaped the evolution of the regime. Therefore, such demands would be completely unpalatable for a political elite in Iran.

Secondly, they point out that despotic regimes with interests in direct conflict with our own should not be precluded from diplomatic relations with the U.S for those reasons alone. The U.S has in the past negotiated with the communist Soviet Union, for example, and achieved detente and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Yet, the Soviet Union was arguably far more tyrannical, anti-American, and actually posed an existential threat to the U.S. Why should the U.S resist negotiating with Iran because of its political make up, if it did negotiate with the USSR?  

Lastly, they argue that these core complaints are in some senses non-threatening and toothless anyways, as Iran is more of a rational state actor than we give it credit for, and that its ideological fervor is subordinated by a recognition of its weakness relative to the United States. Iran surely understands that any attack on Israel or the U.S would provoke a military response that would depose its government and do irreparable harm to the country. Some argue that self preservation is not beyond Iran, and the chants of death to America are perhaps nothing more than political posturing.

Sanction Relief and Economics

Argument Against the Deal 

Another major criticism of the Iran nuclear deal is a natural extension of the previous criticism. Critics argue that if Iran is a theocratic despotic regime then we should expect the money that will flood into Iran upon sanction relief to be allocated to causes that are against our interests and the interests of our allies in the middle east, such as Israel.

Indeed, Iran, according to the U.S State Department, is one of only three countries in the world to sponsor terrorism and clearly pursues destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. According to a 2010 report released by the Pentagon Iran allocates between $100-200 million dollars a year to funding Hezbollah, a subversive terrorist militia based mainly in Lebanon which has caused many problems for the U.S and Israel.

All parties also agree, including the administration, that a sizable amount of the money received through sanctions relief could be channeled towards these terroristic, destabilizing pursuits. If all recognize this is true, then why should we consent to releasing this money to Iran, when we know they will use it to hurt us and some of our closest allies? Presidential contender Senator Ted Cruz argues this quite emphatically, by suggesting the Obama administration will become the world’s number one sponsor of terrorism:

Counter Argument

The counter argument to this objection is also multi-faceted. First, supporters of the deal point out that irrespective of U.S decision making, Iran will get a significant amount of money through sanction relief from the rest of the international community. The rest of the P5+1  will relieve sanctions regardless of what the U.S. does. These countries have have said so publicly to American leaders and as Michael Birnbaum from the Washington Post points out, the global community has already sent delegations. Birnbaum writes,

Congress is still deciding whether to approve the landmark nuclear deal with Iran, but European political and business leaders aren’t waiting for the outcome. Germany got in on the action first, with a government jet touching down at Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport just five days after the deal was signed. Since then, a representative from every major European power has visited or announced plans to do so.

The global community will not follow suit with American unilateralism when it comes to this Iran deal, and so Iran will receive sanction relief either way, some of which will most likely be channeled to its destabilizing activities. Indeed, in the scenario of an American rejection of the deal, Iran will still receive the influx of money.

A second point that serves to rebut the previous objection is that the current president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, was elected on a largely domestic economic platform. Therefore it would be unrealistic for the most moderate Iranian president in recent times to simply ignore his promises of economic reform, and not appropriate a good portion of the money coming in to domestic economic causes. President Obama expressed this point clearly in an interview with NPR when he stated the following in reference to the funds:

Their economy has been severely weakened. It would slowly and gradually improve. But a lot of that would have to be devoted to improving the lives of the people inside of Iran.

The final portion of the counter argument touted by supporters has to do with a recent historical juxtaposition of President George H. W. Bush and his son, President George W. Bush. President George H.W Bush conducted what many perceive as being one of the more successful military operations in U.S history: the Gulf War. The Gulf War was a multilateral effort through the United Nations and other great powers which successfully protected the sovereignty of Kuwait against Iraqi expansionism and belligerence under Saddam Hussein. The global community through almost universal consensus defended Kuwait from Iraq, defeating the Iraqi army.

A decade or so later, his son President George W. Bush, took a different approach to Iraq and unilaterally and in defiance to the U.N invaded and deposed the Iraqi regime and Hussein, orchestrating what many consider to be one of the least advisable, and catastrophic foreign policy initiatives since the Vietnam War. With that history in mind, those who disagree with unilaterally subverting the global community when it comes to Iran see that choice as a potential repeat of the mistake of Bush 43. America may not be able to act alone anymore. 

Conclusion

Regardless of which position is taken, the conversation regarding the deal is noteworthy and intriguing in and of itself. There has been little diplomatic or meaningful contact between Iran and the United States since the Islamic revolution, and Iran radically and indelibly pronounced its seemingly permanent departure and defiance to the United States, Europe, and Western civilization. Regardless of what transpires between now and November 2016, when the next president will either uphold or dismantle the agreement,  the United States and the global community are entering a definitive juncture in which a new relationship is forming. 

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of State: State Sponsors of Terrorism

Additional

Federation of American Scientists: Unclassified Report on Military Power of Iran

NY Daily News: Diplomacy With Iran is Doomed Because Terrorists ‘Only Understand the Exercise of Power,’ says Rudy Giuliani

NPR: Transcript: President Obama’s Full NPR Interview On Iran Nuclear Deal

Washington Post: These European Leaders and Businesses are Rushing to Do Deals with Iran

Bloomberg Business: Iran Gives Weapons to Re-Arm Hezbollah, Pentagon Says

Haaretz: Republicans Continue to Push Against Iran Nuclear Deal Despite Setbacks

PBS Frontline: The Structure of Power in Iran

John Phillips

John Phillips studied political science at the George Washington University. His interest are vast, but pertain mostly to politics, both international and domestic, philosophy, and law. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Iran Nuclear Deal: America Remains Divided appeared first on Law Street.