U.S. Customs and Border Protection has detained an Iranian cancer researcher and his family — including a baby — for more than 24 hours at Boston’s Logan International Airport and will force them to leave the country, federal officials and a grass-roots organization said Tuesday. Mohsen Dehnavi, a 32-year-old father of three, was traveling to Massachusetts on an exchange visa to conduct postdoctoral research at Boston Children’s Hospital, a world-renowned facility affiliated with Harvard University. ››read more

It isn’t unusual for Iran hawks to make arguments without any evidence. Almost all of the arguments against the nuclear deal were riddled with bogus claims and distortions. They insisted that Iran couldn’t be trusted to keep its end of the bargain, and yet Iran has been in compliance with its obligations all along. They warned that the deal would be a massive “windfall” for Iran, but the predicted flood of cash never materialized. Hallucinatory warnings about the expanding “Iranian empire” that doesn’t exist have become commonplace over the last few years, and they have also been shown to be false. In the wake of the Green movement protests, Iran hawks repeatedly asserted that the U.S. had missed an “opportunity” for regime change, but that just showed that they badly misunderstood the political realities inside Iran. There was never any chance for regime change then, and there is unlikely to be much chance for it now. If you embrace the opposite of the conclusion that Iran hawks reach, you will be much closer to the truth all the time. The fact that they think Iran’s government is teetering and under great stress suggests that the opposite is the case. ››read more

More than 70 years after the world witnessed the devastating power of nuclear weapons, a global treaty has been approved to ban the bombs, a move that supporters hope will lead to the eventual elimination of all nuclear arms.

The treaty was endorsed by 122 countries at the United Nations headquarters in New York on Friday after months of talks in the face of strong opposition from nuclear-armed states and their allies. Only the Netherlands, which took part in the discussion, despite having US nuclear weapons on its territory, voted against the treaty. ››read more

Gingrich bows to RajaviLet’s be clear: The Trump administration, the Saudis and the Israelis — who have “financed, trained and armed” the MEK in the past, according an NBC News investigation — are all bent on toppling Iran’s clerical rule; they long for a bad sequel to the Iraq war. And Maryam Rajavi’s MEK is auditioning for the role of Ahmed Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress: The group’s 3,000-odd fighters, according to former Democratic senator-turned-MEK-lawyer Robert Torricelli last Saturday, are keen to be the “point of the spear.” ››read more

No War on IranIran hawks suddenly have a new mantra: the Islamic Republic is the Soviet Union in the late 1980s, and the Trump administration should work to hasten the regime’s impending collapse. It’s not clear why this comparison has surfaced so abruptly. Its proponents don’t cite any tangible or concrete evidence that the regime in Tehran is somehow on its last legs. But I’m guessing that months of internal policy debate on Iran has finally reached the top echelons in the policy-making chaos that is the White House these days. And the hawks, encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s rather offhand statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan. Indeed, this comparison is so ahistorical, so ungrounded in anything observable, that it can only be aimed at one person, someone notorious for a lack of curiosity and historical perspective, and a strong attraction to “fake news” that magnifies his ego and sense of destiny. ››read more

US Enemies Ranking in JournalismThe corrections, belated as they were, minimized the defamation of the original articles in a lawyerly manner, conceding only that “it has not been established that Iran sponsored the attacks.” It has also not been established that Israel or Saudi Arabia or the Bush administration sponsored 9/11, but imagine the New York Times framing allegations against those actors this way. It’s unthinkable but, because Iran is an Official Enemy of the United States, it is not subject to the same editorial standards as those in good standing with the US State Department.

Per the North Korea Law of Journalism—which states that “editorial standards are inversely proportional to a country’s enemy status”—the Times can casually smear Iran as sponsoring the deadliest act of terror on US soil, and it’s not taken seriously by anyone. Just thrown into an article, forgotten about and only corrected—with no special note by the paper—almost four years later. ››read more

On the rare occasions the US mainstream media refer to the US shootdown of an Iranian airliner in 1988, they sustain the myth it was simply a "mistake". ››read more

MossadeghThe State Department has finally released a much-awaited volume of internal documents from 1951 to 1954, the period during which Mohammad Mossadeq was prime minister of Iran. The department is obliged to publish 30-year-old documents in its annual series entitled Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS). The original volume for the Mossadeq period, published in 1989, was so skimpy—with long gaps of any communications between the embassy in Tehran and the department in Washington, especially during heightened crises—that many academics, including the American Historical Association, lodged official complaints. ››read more

Giuliani and RajaviDozens of former American officials, ranging from politicians to bureaucrats, have spoken at events organized by Mojahedin supporters. Some received staggering sums — as much as $40,000 — to give an address, and many called for the Mojahedin’s removal from the terrorism list, praising the organization as a viable democratic government in exile of Iran. According to data collected by the Huffington Post, the pro-Mojahedin roster included former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Bush White House chief of staff Andy Card, former Vermont governor Howard Dean and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., among many others. ››read more

In remarks that can be interpreted as directly targeting Saudi Arabia for its alleged role in 9/11, Ghassemi continued, “It is regrettable that the US government is ignoring the major perpetrators of the terrorist acts in the US and gives [the world] a wrong address in pursuit of its shortsighted economic and business goals.” Adopting the same approach as Ghassemi, Heshmatollah Falahatpishe, a member of the Iranian parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, opined June 28, “Iranians have never perpetrated any terrorist attacks against Americans. This is a political decision, and it is a green light to the regional allies of the US, which has negative effects on the JCPOA and are among the policies being done with the aim of preventing Iranians from making use of the advantages of the JCPOA.” ››read more

On Monday night, the White House seemingly laid down its marker. In a surprising statement that seemed to catch even the Pentagon off guard, press secretary Sean Spicer warned that Syria was planning another chemical weapons attack and “would pay a heavy price” if it came to pass. United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley quickly chimed in on Twitter saying that any further attack would “be blamed on Assad, but also on Russia & Iran who support him killing his own people.” ››read more

The Trump administration should ignore calls for pursuing regime change in Iran, and the reasons for this should be obvious. First and foremost, the U.S. has no business trying to change the government of another country. Interference of this kind in the affairs of another country would be deeply wrong. Just by making the attempt the U.S. would once again earn the hostility of tens of millions of Iranians. Iran is one of the few relatively stable states in the region, and seeking to destabilize or topple their government would just add more upheaval to a part of the world that doesn’t need any more. If there is one thing we should all know by now, it is that whatever takes the place of a toppled regime is frequently no better and often even worse than the government that has been overthrown, but that is almost beside the point. It is very unlikely that a U.S.-backed uprising would be successful, not least since it would be perceived to be an illegitimate effort on the part of a foreign government to meddle in Iranian affairs. ››read more

Seymour HershOn April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun. Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon. ››read more

Israel and Washington seem to have been instrumental in the rise of Riyadh's new leader, a hot-headed young royal who leaves a trail of havoc behind him. But can they control him? ››read more

The Western narrative of the Syrian conflict, which began in the Spring of 2011, suggests that the Syrian people began to peacefully protest for an end to the Assad regime, which then responded with brutal oppression; killing, imprisoning and torturing innocent Syrian civilians in an effort to maintain power. In time, Syrian soldiers defected from the army (because they refused orders to shoot peaceful protesters), began to arm themselves, and created the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to fight the regime. The West then began to support the Syrian rebels, in an effort to protect civilians and allow Syrians to realize their aspirations for democracy and freedom.

The Syrian government of course rejects this narrative, claiming instead that it has the support of the majority of Syrians, and is in fact the victim of a “conspiracy” or “plot” by the Western powers to support “terrorists” in an effort to overthrow it. ››read more

The significance of all this is clear: by helping its Sunni allies provide weapons to al Nusra Front and its allies and by funneling into the war zone sophisticated weapons that were bound to fall into al Nusra hands or strengthen their overall military position, U.S. policy has been largely responsible for having extended al Qaeda’s power across a significant part of Syrian territory. The CIA and the Pentagon appear to be ready to tolerate such a betrayal of America’s stated counter-terrorism mission. Unless either Congress or the White House confronts that betrayal explicitly, as Tulsi Gabbard’s legislation would force them to do, U.S. policy will continue to be complicit in the consolidation of power by al Qaeda in Syria, even if the Islamic State is defeated there. ››read more

Muhammad bin SalmanThe new crown prince is known to be both reckless and sloppy. His irrational hatred for Iran could well lead to a military confrontation. His Yemen and Syria policies are in tatters. He has fallen out with Egyptian president Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. He is trying to squash the independence of neighboring Qatar. Some European investment firms are afraid he will upset the world’s apple carts so much it will hurt all our retirement accounts. ››read more

US troops in IraqSeveral administration figures, notably Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey in the National Security Council, are eager to confront Assad and his Iranian backers more aggressively. Mattis, however, has reportedly opposed several of their risky propositions. Regardless of the Pentagon chief’s somewhat more risk-averse behavior, both Iran and the United States are maneuvering to control as much territory as possible in the vacuum created by the collapse of ISIS. Even The Washington Post, which generally supports the JCPOA, is enthusiastic about the U.S. intervening more forcefully in the new great game in Syria. “The United States doesn’t have a strategic reason to control southern and eastern Syria,” The Post editorial board opines, “but it does have a vital interest in preventing Iran from establishing a dominion from Tehran to the Mediterranean with Russia’s support.” ››read more

The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday fired its highly regarded chief foreign affairs correspondent after evidence emerged of his involvement in prospective commercial deals — including one involving arms sales to foreign governments — with an international businessman who was one of his key sources. The reporter, Jay Solomon, was offered a 10 percent stake in a fledgling company, Denx LLC, by Farhad Azima, an Iranian-born aviation magnate who has ferried weapons for the CIA. It was not clear whether Solomon ever received money or formally accepted a stake in the company. “We are dismayed by the actions and poor judgment of Jay Solomon,” Wall Street Journal spokesman Steve Severinghaus wrote in a statement to The Associated Press. “While our own investigation continues, we have concluded that Mr. Solomon violated his ethical obligations as a reporter, as well as our standards.” ››read more

The Washington elite is waking up to the increasingly real possibility that the Trump administration may be moving the country into yet another Middle East war. And much more quickly than anyone had anticipated. And through sheer incompetence and incoherence rather than by design. ››read more