Tehran's Advantage in a Turbulent Middle East

From Vali Nasr, at Foreign Affairs, "Iran Among the Ruins":

A must read:
Iran among the ruins: @vali_nasr on Iran’s regional strategic calculus. https://t.co/WbZyJ6N0YZ

— Rula Jebreal (@rulajebreal) February 17, 2018

Over the last seven years, social upheavals and civil wars have torn apart the political order that had defined the Middle East ever since World War I. Once solid autocracies have fallen by the wayside, their state institutions battered and broken, and their national borders compromised. Syria and Yemen have descended into bloody civil wars worsened by foreign military interventions. A terrorist group, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), seized vast areas of Iraq and Syria before being pushed back by an international coalition led by the United States.

In the eyes of the Trump administration, and those of a range of other observers and officials in Washington and the region, there is one overriding culprit behind the chaos: Iran. They point out that the country has funded terrorist groups, propped up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and aided the anti-Saudi Houthi rebels in Yemen. U.S. President Donald Trump has branded Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” with a “sinister vision of the future,” and dismissed the nuclear agreement reached by it, the United States, and five other world powers in 2015 as “the worst deal ever” (and refused to certify that Iran is complying with its terms). U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has described Iran as “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.” And Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has charged that “Iran is on a rampage.”

Washington seems to believe that rolling back Iranian influence would restore order to the Middle East. But that expectation rests on a faulty understanding of what caused it to break down in the first place. Iran did not cause the collapse, and containing Iran will not bring back stability. There is no question that many aspects of Iran’s behavior pose serious challenges to the United States. Nor is there any doubt that Iran has benefited from the collapse of the old order in the Arab world, which used to contain it. Yet its foreign policy is far more pragmatic than many in the West comprehend. As Iran’s willingness to engage with the United States over its nuclear program showed, it is driven by hardheaded calculations of national interest, not a desire to spread its Islamic Revolution abroad. The Middle East will regain stability only if the United States does more to manage conflict and restore balance there. That will require a nuanced approach, including working with Iran, not reflexively confronting it.

You can see why leftists love this article, heh.

More.

Leftists Freak Out at the Appointment of 'Über Hawk' John Bolton as National Security Adviser

I of course am delighted with Bolton's appointment, not the least because of how it freaks out the retarded leftist progs, lol.

At Foreign Policy, via Memeorandum, "John Bolton Is a National Security Threat":

Three weeks ago, I said if John Bolton replaces H.R. McMaster, “we are going to die.” This new piece with @JBWolfsthal via @ForeignPolicy explains why 👇 https://t.co/ftTNTc5GDX

— Colin Kahl (@ColinKahl) March 23, 2018

Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster is out as Trump’s national security adviser and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (and current Fox News contributor) John Bolton is in. This is no mere rotation of on-screen personalities in the latest episode of “The Trump Show.” It is a move with potentially profound implications for the direction of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, Bolton’s ascendance increases the risk of not one, but two wars — with North Korea and Iran.

McMaster was no dove. But Bolton falls into an entirely different category of dangerous uber-hawk. Fifteen years ago, Bolton championed the Iraq war and, to this day, he continues to believe the most disastrous foreign policy decision in a generation was a good idea. Bolton’s position on Iraq was no anomaly. Shortly before the 2003 invasion, he reportedly told Israeli officials that once Saddam Hussein was deposed, it would be necessary to deal with Syria, Iran, and North Korea. He has essentially maintained this position ever since. Put plainly: for Bolton, there are few international problems where war is not the answer...

More.

At at NYT, lol:

John Bolton is considered too extreme for any position requiring Senate confirmation. Just the kind of man the president likes. https://t.co/1PqTIYZn2I

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) March 23, 2018

Iran's Revolution of National Dignity

From Sohrab Ahmari and Peter Kohanloo, at Commentary, "An Iranian Revolution of National Dignity":

“After nearly four decades of plunderous and fanatical Islamist rule, Iranians are desperate to become a normal nation-state once more, and they refuse to be exploited for an ideological cause that long ago lost its luster.” https://t.co/zTJ2UZe8Ju pic.twitter.com/mSfhaEM1Bp

— Peter Kohanloo (@PeterKohanloo) January 1, 2018

Iran is convulsing with the largest mass uprising since the 2009 Green Movement. Demonstrations that began last week in the city of Mashhad, home to the shrine of the eighth Shiite imam, have now spread to dozens of cities. And while the slogans initially addressed inflation, joblessness, and graft, they soon morphed into outright opposition to the mullahs. As we write, the authorities have blocked access to popular social-media sites and closed off subway stations in the capital, Tehran, to prevent crowd sizes from growing. At least 12 people have been killed in clashes with security forces.

What is happening in the Islamic Republic?

After nearly four decades of plunderous and fanatical Islamist rule, Iranians are desperate to become a normal nation-state once more, and they refuse to be exploited for an ideological cause that long ago lost its luster. It is a watershed moment in Iran’s history: The illusion of reform within the current theocratic system has finally been shattered. Iranians, you might say, are determined to make Iran great again.

Their movement is attuned to the worldwide spirit of nationalist renewal. From the U.S. to India, and from South Africa to Britain, political leaders and the voters who elect them are reaffirming the enduring value of the nation-state. Iran hasn’t been immured from these developments, as the slogans of the current protests indicate. No longer using the rights-based lexicon of votes and recounts, Iranians are instead demanding national dignity from a regime that for too long has subjugated Iranian-ness to its Shiite, revolutionary mission.

It’s notable, for example, that protestors chant “We Will Die to Get Iran Back,” “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon, My Life Only for Iran,” and “Let Syria Be, Do Something for Me.” Put another way: The people are tired of paying the price for the regime’s efforts to remake the region in its own image and challenge U.S. “hegemony.” Some have even taken to chanting “Reza Shah, Bless Your Soul,” expressing gratitude and nostalgia for the Pahlavi era, which saw the modern, pro-Western nation-state of Iran emerge from the shambles of the Persian Empire.

Iran’s Islamist rulers have never had a comfortable relationship with Iranian nationalism. In the early post-revolutionary days, Ayatollah Khomeini’s followers set out to rip the pre-Islamic threads that formed the tapestry of national identity: pride in the Persian New Year, the architectural glories of Persepolis, and the epic poetry that has long shaped the national soul–all these things were deemphasized if not altogether forbidden.

More recently, however, the regime has sought to harness its ideological and regional ambitions to national pride and memory. Qassem Soleimani, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander spearheading the war effort in Syria and Iraq, was increasingly presented as a latter-day Cyrus the Great. The regime claimed that it had to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq lest Iran be forced to defend itself at home, and the idea even gained currency among many secular, middle-class Iranians. Meanwhile, some regime figures, such as former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tried to present an idea of “Iranian Islam” that was both pure and consistent with a nationalistic vision.

But as the uprising underway now suggests, that project has utterly failed. No amount of propaganda and revisionism could mask the regime’s constitutional hostility to talk of nationalism and nationhood. Nor could it mollify Iranians who saw their national wealth squandered on adventures in Arab lands that didn’t concern them; “Gaza” was an abstraction to the vast majority. Nor, finally, could this regime-led nationalist push uplift Iranians, whose daily lives were marked by poverty, repression, and isolation from the rest of the world.

The current uprising, then, poses a far more potent threat to mullah power than its previous iterations, because nationalism is a far more potent force than liberal-democratic aspiration. If enough Iranians come to view their regime as an obstacle to national greatness, the Islamic Republic’s days will be over–an outcome that is squarely in the U.S. national-security interest.

The new Iran that could emerge from such an uprising may not be a liberal state, as the West understands the concept. But its calculations about the country’s place in the region and the world are far more likely to be driven by normal, nation-state priorities. The people who are making the revolution, after all, are tired of serving someone else’s messianic cause...

More.

Josh Meyer Gets an Echo Chamber Beat-Down

This is really good:

Twitter mob attacks by a name-calling scrum of mid-level bureaucrats, “security correspondents” for instant news outfits like Buzzfeed, interns at various NGOs and their self-credentialed “expert” bosses, partisan bot herders, and their Lord of the Flies puppet-masters are part of the price of doing journalism these days. Write something negative, and you’ll get dirtied up—and maybe some of the dirt will stick, who knows. These attacks are intended to be punitive. Brave or foolhardy reporters who deviate from the party line—the party in question being the Democrats, of course, since the representation of conservatives in newsrooms is generally reported to be somewhere in the single digits—and especially their colleagues watching from the sidelines, are meant to absorb a simple but all-important lesson: Get on the team, or else shut up. Watching even seasoned pros succumb to this kind of adolescent pressure game and publicly suck up to bullying flacks while throwing shade on members of their own profession is a depressingly normal occurrence, which shows that the two once-separate professions—partisan flackery, and reporting the news—have merged into a single, mindless borg.

Obama derailed secret fight against Hezbollah for Iran Deal... https://t.co/XZglS6kSNx

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) December 18, 2017

That's the thing @Tvietor08 your echo chamber keeps saying my @politico piece is wrong but offer zero specifics. I'm gonna take the high road and not respond further until you do. Meantime, happy holidays y'all. Btw, don't you supporters of Iran Deal also have "an obvious POV"? https://t.co/suI1dxnr2G

— Josh Meyer (@JoshMeyerDC) December 21, 2017

Why journalists joined a Twittermob of former mid-level Obama bureaucrats and intel officers to attack a journalist for doing journalism @tabletmag https://t.co/sYKeovN7fF

— Lee Smith (@LeeSmithDC) December 27, 2017

Valerie Plame Apologizes for Tweeting Anti-Semitic Article Blaming Jewish Neocons for America's Wars

I'm not linking directly to the vile Unz Review. You can click through at Memeorandum if you want, "America's Jews Are Driving America's Wars."

No one would have seen this except loads of Jew-hating leftists if it weren't for the idiot Valerie Plame tweeting it. She's apologized now, after taking enormous flak.

At the Daily Caller, "Valerie Plame Wants to Warn You About the Jews."

And at Mediaite, "Ex-CIA Officer Valerie Plame Apologizes for Promoting Article Blaming ‘America’s Jews’ for War."

OK folks, look, I messed up. I skimmed this piece, zeroed in on the neocon criticism, and shared it without seeing and considering the rest.

— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) September 21, 2017

I’m not perfect and make mistakes. This was a doozy. All I can do is admit them, try to be better, and read more thoroughly next time. Ugh.

— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) September 21, 2017

Apologies all. There is so much there that’s problematic AF and I should have recognized it sooner. Thank you for pushing me to look again.

— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) September 21, 2017

I missed gross undercurrents to this article & didn’t do my homework on the platform this piece came from. Now that I see it, it’s obvious.

— Valerie Plame Wilson (@ValeriePlame) September 21, 2017

Afshon Ostovar, Vanguard of the Imam

I can't get to this one right away, but for me this is must reading. I'm not as up on Iran as I should be.

At Amazon, Afshon Ostovar, Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics, and Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Iran's Revolutionary Guards are one of the most important forces in the Middle East today. As the appointed defender of Iran's revolution, the Guards have evolved into a pillar of the Islamic Republic and the spearhead of its influence. Their sway has spread across the Middle East, where the Guards have overseen loyalist support to Bashar al-Assad in Syria and been a staunch backer in Iraq's war against ISIS-bringing its own troops, Lebanon's Hezbollah, and Shiite militias to the fight. Links to terrorism, human rights abuses, and the suppression of popular democracy have shrouded the Revolutionary Guards in controversy.

In spite of their prominence, the Guards remain poorly understood to outside observers. In Vanguard of the Imam, Afshon Ostovar has written the first comprehensive history of the organization. Situating the rise of the Guards in the larger contexts of Shiite Islam, modern Iranian history, and international affairs, Ostovar takes a multifaceted approach in demystifying the organization and detailing its evolution since 1979. Politics, power, and religion collide in this story, wherein the Revolutionary Guards transform from a rag-tag militia established in the midst of revolutionary upheaval into a military and covert force with a global reach.

The Guards have been fundamental to the success of the Islamic revolution. The symbiotic relationship between them and Iran's clerical rulers underpins the regime's nearly unshakeable system of power. The Guards have used their privileged position at home to export Iran's revolution beyond its borders, establishing client armies in their image and extending Iran's strategic footprint in the process. Ostovar tenaciously documents the Guards' transformation into a power-player and explores why the group matters now more than ever to regional and global affairs. The book simultaneously serves as a history of modern Iran, and provides a crucial and engrossing entryway into the complex world of war, politics, and identity in the Middle East.

U.S. Risks Escalation in the Middle East

I'm not that worried about it. I'd say the paleocon obsession with isolationism is bad for American vital interests.

And I'm pleased by Trump's foreign policy approach thus far, as it's not tied down to alt-right dogmas (to the everlasting condemnation of the alt-right idiots).

At the Los Angeles Times, "'The closer we get, the more complex it gets.' White House struggles on strategy as Islamic State nears defeat in Iraq and Syria":

With American-backed ground forces poised to recapture Mosul in Iraq and Raqqah in Syria, Islamic State’s de facto capitals, U.S. commanders are confident they soon will vanquish the militant group from its self-declared caliphate after three years of fighting.

But the White House has yet to define strategy for the next step in the struggle to restore stability in the region, including key decisions about safe zones, reconstruction, nascent governance, easing sectarian tensions and commitment of U.S. troops.

Nor has the Trump administration set policy for how it will confront forces from Iran and Russia, the two outside powers that arguably gained the most in the bitter conflict — and that now are hoping to collect the spoils and expand their influence.

Iran, in particular, is pushing to secure a land corridor from its western border across Iraq and Syria and up to Lebanon, where it supports Hezbollah militants, giving it a far larger foothold in the turbulent region.

“Right now everyone is positioned” for routing Islamic State “without having the rules of the road,” said Michael Yaffe, a former State Department envoy for the Middle East who is now vice president of the Middle East and Africa center at the U.S. Institute of Peace. “That’s a dangerous situation.”

The risk of a broader confrontation was clear in recent weeks when a U.S. F/A-18 shot down a Syrian fighter jet for the first time in the multi-sided six-year war, provoking an angry response from Russia, which supports Syrian President Bashar Assad.

U.S. warplanes also destroyed two Iranian-made drone aircraft, although it’s not clear who was flying them. The Pentagon said all the attacks were in self-defense as the aircraft approached or fired on American forces or U.S.-backed Syrian fighters.

“What I worry about is the muddled mess scenario,” said Ilan Goldenberg, a former senior State Department official who now heads the Middle East program at the nonpartisan Center for a New American Security. “When you start shooting down planes and running into each other, it quickly goes up the escalation ladder.”

The clashes occurred in eastern Syria, where Russian-backed Syrian and Iranian forces are pushing against U.S. special operations forces and U.S.-backed Syrian opposition fighters trying to break Islamic State’s hold on the Euphrates River valley south of Raqqah and into Iraq.

Except for a few towns, Islamic State still controls the remote area, and U.S. officials fear the militants could regroup there and plan future attacks. Many of the group’s leaders and operatives have taken shelter in Dair Alzour province...

Still more.

Islamic State Claims Deadly Attacks on Iranian Parliament and Khomeini Shrine (VIDEO)

Now this is some kind of development!

At the Guardian U.K., "Iran: 12 dead as Islamic State claims attacks on parliament and shrine":

At least 12 people have been killed and dozens more injured in Tehran after gunmen and suicide bombers attacked the Iranian parliament and the mausoleum of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attacks on the highly symbolic sites, publishing a brief video that purported to show the assailants inside the parliament. If an Isis role is confirmed, this would be the first attack conducted by the terror group inside Iran.

The parliament assault began when four gunmen armed with rifles burst into the building complex. One of the attackers reportedly blew himself up inside as police surrounded the building.

Gunfire could be heard from outside as police helicopters circled overhead, entrance and exit gates were closed, and mobile phone lines from inside were disconnected.

“I was inside the parliament when shooting happened. Everyone was shocked and scared. I saw two men shooting randomly,” one journalist at the scene, who asked not to be named, told Reuters.

*****"

ran’s leaders sought to play down the attacks, with neither President Hassan Rouhani nor supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei making a statement by early evening.

Attacks are highly rare in Tehran and other major Iranian cities, although a Sunni militant group named Jundallah and its splinter group, Ansar al Furqan, have been waging a deadly insurgency, mostly in more remote areas, for almost a decade.

Isis, which adheres to a puritanical strain of Sunni Islam, considers Shias heretics and has carried out numerous attacks against Shia civilians, in Iraq in particular. But this assault, which appeared to have a higher degree of coordination and planning than recent Isis-claimed attacks in Europe, would be a significant escalation...

New York Times Defends Decision to Identify Undercover CIA Agent

Heh.

Of course they do.

At Instapundit, "I’M OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN MENTIONING VALERIE PLAME — WHO WAS NEITHER UNDERCOVER NOR AN AGENT — WAS TREASON OF THE FIRST ORDER: New York Times defends decision to identify undercover CIA agent."

And here it is, so casually reported:

In the @CIA he decimated core Al Qaeda. Now he'll run Iranian operations. https://t.co/xe6mWnXhky

— Adam Goldman (@adamgoldmanNYT) June 2, 2017

Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — Dead at 82

Rafsanjani was a so-called moderate.

A lot of good he did, pfft.

From Austin Bay, at Instapundit, "SHED NO TEARS: Iran’s Rafsanjani is dead. He died of a heart attack."

And FWIW, at NYT:

The NYT obituary for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani https://t.co/PUsrefuYnJ

— The New York Times (@nytimes) January 8, 2017

Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Isn't Reckless or Radical

From Edward Luttwak, at Foreign Policy, "Enough Hysterics. Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Isn't Reckless or Radical":

The global funk over President-elect Donald Trump’s nascent foreign policy — from Sen. John McCain’s declaration that his Russia policy is “unacceptable” to hysterical over-interpretations of his intentions regarding China and trade — will not last long. On Nov. 17, when Trump meets with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the inevitable “normalization” of the new U.S. administration will start in earnest. Trump has declared that Japan should spend more on defense to share the burden of containing China more evenly, but there will be no rude demands. At the very most, at the next summit, or the one after that, Trump might suggest that a greater Japanese effort would be welcome. Because Abe has actually done much to strengthen Japan and do more for the alliance, the two leaders will find an understanding easily enough.

As for China and its maritime expansionism, Trump’s other policies matter more than his China policy in and of itself. Disengagement from Afghanistan and Iraq — no more troops will go in and those there will soon return home — and a deal with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine would release U.S. military resources for the containment of China. That will facilitate a more muscular response to China’s island-grabbing in the Philippines, aggressive patrolling around Japan’s southernmost islands, and periodic intrusions into Vietnamese waters. President Barack Obama’s White House staff kept refusing U.S. Pacific Command suggestions for “freedom of navigation” patrols through the South China Sea in the hope that verbal persuasion alone would stop Chinese incursions. In diplomatic circles, it was reported that National Security Advisor Susan Rice opined that Beijing was “shapeable,” as if China were a very small country with not much of a history. Trump is unlikely to share such illusions, and he appears not likely to stop Pacific Command from doing its job of “keeping the sea lanes open” — the polite expression for denying Chinese territorial claims over coral reefs, rocks, and shoals.

If Trump’s Russia policy is successful, it will reduce tensions and thus the need to send more U.S. forces to Europe to strengthen the NATO alliance. But subject to that, Trump has said many times that he will press for more fairness in alliance burden-sharing, especially by NATO’s richer members. Some in Europe have already said any such attempt by Trump would instead prompt the establishment of Europe’s own united armed forces, finally overcoming objections from all sides. That would indeed be a curious response, because it would mean spending very much more than Trump would ask for. The more likely outcome is that Trump will get his increases — perhaps to the agreed-upon 2 percent of GDP.

That said, no distinctive Europe policy is likely to come from Trump. His vocal support for Brexit clearly showed his Euroskepticism. Like an increasing number of Europeans, he appears to view the European Union as a failed experiment devoured by its own bureaucracy and the euro monetary system as destructive to economic growth. On the other hand, no American president can say much on the subject once he is in office, and he can do even less, because the United States has no say in Europe’s own institutions. Yet even a silent Trump will encourage Euroskeptic politicians everywhere, perhaps tipping the balance in some countries, incidentally keeping the argument focused on liberty versus bureaucracy, as opposed to authoritarian or racist arguments. When it comes to Saudi Arabia, one might think that matters must go from very bad — its bitter quarrel with Obama over the Iran nuclear deal — to worse, given that Trump has said many times that he views “radical Islam” as a hostile ideology. Saudi Arabia has been the main source of this brand of Islam worldwide, followed by India (yes, secular India gives a tax exemption to the enormous Deobandi seminary that spawned the Taliban). But the Trump administration will not start religious quarrels and is not likely to abandon established diplomatic doctrine on sovereign immunity — despite it having been violated by the “Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act,” passed in late September over Obama’s veto, that allows civil lawsuits against Saudi Arabia.

Against all this, there is something much more important: In his eagerness to reach a nuclear accord with Iran, Obama disregarded Israeli and Saudi security concerns — they are under attack by Iran every day — and treated their objections with icy contempt. By contrast, Obama’s officials acted like excited teenagers with their Iranian counterparts. The Saudis took it personally as a betrayal — Washington consorting with its enemies against its friends. Although Trump will not repudiate the Iran accords he so loudly criticized (he can’t do so alone, as it’s a multilateral agreement), he will stand strong against Tehran. His officials will not tolerate any deviations from the nuclear deal, will not move toward lifting the ballistic missile and terrorism sanctions, and if Iran’s Revolutionary Guards try to humiliate Trump with naval provocations as they did with Obama, the U.S. Navy will sink a small boat or two, and U.S.-Saudi relations will be splendid once more...

Keep reading.

From Yemen to Turtle Bay

From Caroline Glick:

Off the coast of Yemen and at the U.N. Security Council we are seeing the strategic endgame of Barack Obama’s administration. And it isn’t pretty.

Since Sunday, Iran’s Houthi proxies in Yemen have attacked US naval craft three times in the Bab al Mandab, the narrow straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. The Bab al Mandab controls maritime traffic in the Red Sea, and ultimately control the Suez Canal.

Whether the Iranians directed these assaults or simply greenlighted them is really beside the point. The point is that these are Iranian strikes on the US. The Houthis would never have exposed themselves to US military retaliation if they hadn’t been ordered to do so by their Iranian overlords.

The question is why has Iran chosen to open up an assault on the U.S.?

The simple answer is that Iran has challenged US power at the mouth of the Red Sea because it believes that doing so advances its strategic aims in the region...

Keep reading.

Ilan Berman, Iran’s Deadly Ambition

At Amazon, Iran’s Deadly Ambition: The Islamic Republic’s Quest for Global Power.

Islamic State's Abu Muhammad al-Adnani Killed in Syria (VIDEO)

Holly Williams reports, for CBS This Morning:

In Syria Strikes, Russia Deploys Bombers from Iran (VIDEO)

This is major.

Seen earlier at Hot Air, "Great Game Over: Russia launching attacks from Iran to defend Assad regime."

And see the New York Times, "Russia Sends Bombers to Syria Using Base in Iran":

MOSCOW — Russia launched a fleet of bombers bound for Syria on Tuesday from an Iranian air base, becoming the first foreign military to operate from Iran’s soil since at least World War II.

Russian use of the base, with Iran’s obvious support, appeared to set back or at least further complicate Russia’s troubled relations with the United States, which has been working with Russia over how to end the Syria conflict.

While American officials said they were not surprised by the Russia-Iran military collaboration, it appeared to catch them off guard, with no solid information on the Kremlin’s intentions. “I think we’re still trying to assess exactly what they’re doing,” a State Department deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, told reporters in Washington.

The arrangement, permanent or not, enables Russia to bring more firepower to the Syrian conflict, and far greater military flexibility. Analysts said the new arrangement could also expand Moscow’s political influence in the Middle East and speed the growing convergence of interests between Moscow and Tehran.

Continue reading the main story

From the air base, in Hamadan, northwest Iran, the Russian bombers destroyed ammunition dumps and a variety of targets linked to the Islamic State and other groups that had been used to support militants battling in Aleppo, the Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement.

Historians and American officials said Tuesday that the Iranian decision to let Russia base its planes and support operations in Iran — even temporarily — was a historic one.

“This didn’t even happen under the shah,” said John Limbert, a former American foreign service officer who was stationed in Iran, referring to the reign of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi...

More.

You have to remember the convoluted politics of the conflict. First the U.S. wanted Assad "to go." But when Islamic State gained a stronghold, the Obama administration put Assad's ouster on the back burner, to focus on the jihad threat. But Russia and Iran both work to prop up the Syrian regime, so the Russian strikes on Islamic State aren't really designed as helping U.S. interests in some kind of U.S. entente with Moscow. Russia's helping Iran prop up Assad.

And it's Putin who's driving the current dynamics of international politics. Weird, actually.

Iran Executes Nuclear Scientist Who Hillary Clinton Had Discussed in Communications on Her Illegal Home-Brewed Private Email Server

This story was at the Los Angeles Times earlier, "Spy saga comes to a close as Iran executes a nuclear scientist accused of giving info to the U.S."

And now at Blazing Cat Fur, "Clinton’s private server held emails about nuclear ‘spy’ executed in Iran: Aides discussed scientist ‘friend’ and his decision to return home after defecting to the U.S. for $5m."

Obama Administration Secretly Shipped $400 Million in Cash to Iran as Hostages Were Released

And this was the same weekend that the administration concluded the nuclear disarmament accord with Tehran.

So, the U.S. paid ransom, in cold-hard cash, which just happened to grease the palms of Iranian arms negotiators.

The Wall Street Journal has the bombshell story, "U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed":

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

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration secretly organized an airlift of $400 million worth of cash to Iran that coincided with the January release of four Americans detained in Tehran, according to U.S. and European officials and congressional staff briefed on the operation afterward.

Wooden pallets stacked with euros, Swiss francs and other currencies were flown into Iran on an unmarked cargo plane, according to these officials. The U.S. procured the money from the central banks of the Netherlands and Switzerland, they said.

The money represented the first installment of a $1.7 billion settlement the Obama administration reached with Iran to resolve a decades-old dispute over a failed arms deal signed just before the 1979 fall of Iran’s last monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

The settlement, which resolved claims before an international tribunal in The Hague, also coincided with the formal implementation that same weekend of the landmark nuclear agreement reached between Tehran, the U.S. and other global powers the summer before.

“With the nuclear deal done, prisoners released, the time was right to resolve this dispute as well,” President Barack Obama said at the White House on Jan. 17—without disclosing the $400 million cash payment.

Senior U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange. They say the way the various strands came together simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.

“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

But U.S. officials also acknowledge that Iranian negotiators on the prisoner exchange said they wanted the cash to show they had gained something tangible.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas and a fierce foe of the Iran nuclear deal, accused President Barack Obama of paying “a $1.7 billion ransom to the ayatollahs for U.S. hostages.”

“This break with longstanding U.S. policy put a price on the head of Americans, and has led Iran to continue its illegal seizures” of Americans, he said.

Since the cash shipment, the intelligence arm of the Revolutionary Guard has arrested two more Iranian-Americans. Tehran has also detained dual-nationals from France, Canada and the U.K. in recent months...

Keep reading.

Megyn Kelly's been covering this, with Marc Thiessen on right now laughing at the administration's denials of a quid pro quo.

I'll have updates, because this should be a blockbuster story with lots of staying power, but with the leftist Democrat media complex, it's practically crickets with stuff like this.

Out Now: Robert Spencer, The Complete Infidel's Guide to Iran [BUMPED]

Robert's a tireless fighter for American freedom.

Here's his new book, just out yesterday, at Amazon, The Complete Infidel's Guide to Iran.

White House Press Corps Asks Obama Three Questions About Trump, None About Ben Rhodes.

From Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit, "JUST THINK OF THEM AS DEMOCRAT OPERATIVES WITH BYLINES, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE."

Also, from Dan Nexon, at Duck of Minerva, "The White House Pushes for its Policies, and Other Surprises from Ben Rhodes."

Postmodern foreign policy.

FWIW, Samuels' appears to be walking a very fine line in the piece. /1

— Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016

Here's his inference from the 'grand deception' of focusing on the 2013-2015 round & critics are seizing upon: 2/ pic.twitter.com/HZeUSEoggj

— Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016

Here's the *only* supporting evidence he offers from Rhodes — which is not actually from the interview: 3/ pic.twitter.com/CIyRwOEzvC

— Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016

These are NOT the same argument. One is about trying to 'end cycles of conflict,' the other is about unravelling US alliances 4/

— Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016

This is basically just Samuels offering his own theory and wrapping it in orthogonal statements and evidence 5/

— Daniel Nexon (@dhnexon) May 6, 2016

Iran Fires Missiles Marked with 'Israel Must Be Wiped Out' (VIDEO)

Obama's nuclear peace partner.

Video via the Telegraph UK.

And at AP, "Iran fires 2 missiles marked with 'Israel must be wiped out'."