#iran election 2013
Text
Events 2.28
202 BC – Liu Bang is enthroned as the Emperor of China, beginning four centuries of rule by the Han dynasty.
870 – The Fourth Council of Constantinople closes.
1525 – Aztec king Cuauhtémoc is executed on the order of conquistador Hernán Cortés.
1638 – The Scottish National Covenant is signed in Edinburgh.
1835 – Elias Lönnrot signed and dated the first version of the Kalevala, the so-called foreword to the Old Kalevala.
1844 – A gun explodes on board the steam warship USS Princeton during a pleasure cruise down the Potomac River, killing six, including Secretary of State Abel Upshur. President John Tyler, who was also on board, was not injured from the blast.
1922 – The United Kingdom ends its protectorate over Egypt through a Unilateral Declaration of Independence.
1925 – The Charlevoix-Kamouraska earthquake strikes northeastern North America.
1947 – February 28 Incident: In Taiwan, civil disorder is put down with the death of an estimated 28,000 civilians.
1958 – A school bus in Floyd County, Kentucky hits a wrecker truck and plunges down an embankment into the rain-swollen Levisa Fork river. The driver and 26 children die in one of the worst school bus accidents in U.S. history.
1959 – Discoverer 1, an American spy satellite that is the first object intended to achieve a polar orbit, is launched but fails to achieve orbit.
1966 – A NASA T-38 Talon crashes into the McDonnell Aircraft factory while attempting a poor-visibility landing at Lambert Field, St. Louis, killing astronauts Elliot See and Charles Bassett.
1969 – The 1969 Portugal earthquake hits Portugal, Spain and Morocco.
1974 – The British election ended in a hung parliament after the Jeremy Thorpe-led Liberal Party achieved their biggest vote.
1975 – In London, an underground train fails to stop at Moorgate terminus station and crashes into the end of the tunnel, killing 43 people.
1983 – The final episode of MAS*H airs, with almost 110 million viewers.
1985 – The Provisional Irish Republican Army carries out a mortar attack on the Royal Ulster Constabulary police station at Newry, killing nine officers.
1986 – Olof Palme, 26th Prime Minister of Sweden, is assassinated in Stockholm.
1993 – Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) agents raid the Branch Davidian church in Waco, Texas with a warrant to arrest the group's leader David Koresh starting a 51-day standoff.
1997 – An earthquake in northern Iran is responsible for about 1,100 deaths.
1997 – A Turkish military memorandum resulted with collapse of the government in Turkey.
2001 – The 2001 Nisqually earthquake, having a moment magnitude of 6.8, with epicenter in the southern Puget Sound, damages Seattle metropolitan area.
2002 – During the religious violence in Gujarat, 97 people are killed in the Naroda Patiya massacre and 69 in the Gulbarg Society massacre.
2013 – Pope Benedict XVI resigns as the pope of the Catholic Church, becoming the first pope to do so since Pope Gregory XII, in 1415.
2023 – Two trains collide south of the Vale of Tempe in Greece, leading to the deaths of at least 57 people and leaving 58 missing and 85 injured.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
In the fall of 2012, I took part in an open discussion at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Russia’s role in the Middle East. In her presentation, an experienced American diplomat focused on how Russia was a spent force that would never be able to recapture the Soviet Union’s prominence in the region. With few dissenting voices, the discussion was remarkable for how off-base it was: It was exactly then that Moscow was starting to reemerge as a major player in Syria and across the entire region.
Today, Russia’s influence in the Middle East is at another inflection point. Hobbled by its disastrous invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s declining relevance in the region has been thrown into sharp relief by Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel. Whereas Moscow was central to the diplomacy surrounding the civil war in Syria 10 years ago, Russia’s push in the U.N. Security Council for a cease-fire in Gaza gained little traction. The contrast is emblematic for the end of Moscow’s decade-long comeback in the region.
Even before regaining the Russian presidency in May 2012, Vladimir Putin was determined to return Russia to a prominent role in the Middle East, which he likely believed was necessary for Russia to be a great power. Criticizing then-President Dmitry Medvedev’s decision to abstain on the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya, which Putin likened to the medieval crusades, he appeared bent on preventing the West from ever having a free hand again. And as the Syrian civil war broke out in 2011 and intensified in 2012, the Kremlin took a hard line opposing any U.N. action, fearing a replay of events in Libya.
It was amid the Syrian war that Moscow charted its course to renewed significance in the Middle East. Putin made his first major move there in September 2013. With the United States preparing for an armed intervention after the Syrian regime crossed the “red line” publicly announced by then-President Barack Obama and used chemical weapons on its own people, Putin devised a diplomatic compromise, whereby Russia promised to help eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal.
Two years later, Russia cemented its renewed position in the region by militarily intervening in Syria. In less than a year, Moscow’s forces turned the tide of the war and secured Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s rule—a success Putin would parlay into influence across the region. With its firm hold in Syria, Russia became central to regional diplomacy from Ankara to Riyadh to Cairo. Working with Iran and Hezbollah on the battlefield in Syria, Moscow’s relations with Tehran began to warm. Forced to take account of Russian military forces next door—especially the Russian air defense units that could potentially ground the Israeli air force—Israel increasingly engaged Moscow. Iraq and Egypt sought Russian intelligence and counterterrorism cooperation. Soon, Russia-backed forces began to arrive in Libya to intervene in that civil war as well.
Moscow used its new entree in the region to posture itself as an alternative to the United States, leveraging discontent with Washington to boost its influence. In Turkey, Moscow capitalized on perceptions of Western support for the failed coup against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2016 as well as persistent clashes over U.S. cooperation with Kurdish forces in Syria that Ankara considers terrorist groups. In Egypt, Putin used the Obama administration’s concerns after the overthrow of the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood-led government by the Egyptian military in 2013 to develop warm relations with new Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In Israel, Putin took advantage of the icy relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to further boost ties with Israel. In Saudi Arabia, Putin made an early bet on the ambitious crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, demonstratively shaking his hand at the G-20 summit in 2018, just a month after journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by Saudi government operatives.
Moscow’s interest-based approach and skillful diplomacy helped it successfully navigate regional cleavages. Russian policy has been pragmatic and even cynical, unmoored to ideology or values such as democracy. Russia was able to simultaneously improve ties with Iran, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. It managed to engage the Turkish government and Kurdish groups in Syria, deftly avoiding the criticisms that Ankara levied at Washington.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, however, initiated a gradual unraveling of the Kremlin’s influence in the Middle East. First, Russia’s unprovoked attack tarnished its international standing, making it a less appealing alternative to play off against Washington. Cairo, for example, facing pressure from Washington, agreed to halt planned shipments of weapons to Russia that would have supported its war in Ukraine. Ankara has reportedly eschewed purchasing another batch of Russia’s S-400 air defense system, likely concluding that playing the Russia card with Washington is now less credible and effective.
Moscow’s leverage in its relationships with key states in the region has also been reversed. Whereas Russia was able to impose painful sanctions on Turkey in response to the latter’s downing of a Russian fighter jet in 2015 and eventually force Erdogan to apologize, Russia is now reliant on Turkey as a conduit for the transshipment of goods to circumvent Western sanctions. Russian aircraft are now routed through Istanbul and Dubai to avoid European airspace restrictions. Moscow is buying Iranian-made armed drones and even building a factory to produce Iran-licensed drones in Russia.
Finally, Moscow has weakened its military and security presence in the Middle East. While Russia still maintains a key naval and air base in Syria, it has reduced some of its forces and equipment there to support military operations in Ukraine. To feed its struggling war machine, Russia has even recruited Syrian fighters. Although Russia maintains a presence in Libya through what was the Wagner paramilitary group, it has reportedly also redeployed forces from the group to help fight in Ukraine. Russia’s ability to project power in the region is also hamstrung by the fact that Moscow would be hard-pressed to reinforce its presence in a crisis or should its forces there be challenged, given Russia’s commitments in Ukraine.
Hamas’s vicious attack against Israeli civilians and Israel’s sharp response are likely to mark a point of no return for Russia’s waning influence in the Middle East. Russia-Israel ties had already been strained by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but Putin’s response to the crisis in Gaza has likely made things worse. Blaming U.S. policy, Moscow has refrained from explicitly condemning Hamas’s attack. Moscow’s reticence to weigh in on Israel’s side has not gone unnoticed, with a politician from Netanyahu’s party going on Russian state TV to lambaste Russia’s response. While Putin has likely damaged his personal ties with Netanyahu, bilateral relations would likely deteriorate even further if the latter were to leave office as a result of the crisis in Gaza.
Moscow’s past importance as a mediator among Palestinian groups is also likely to dissipate. Russia has refrained from recognizing Hamas as a terrorist group and sought to facilitate reconciliation among Palestinian groups as a key step toward peace and the creation of a Palestinian state. Hamas officials have visited Moscow several times during the past decade, including just last month. But even if Hamas manages to survive Israel’s ongoing ground invasion of Gaza, intra-Palestinian reconciliation may not be a priority for the Middle East peace process in the foreseeable future.
The Israel-Hamas war is also likely to make it more difficult for Russia to navigate regional rivalries, particularly given its warming ties with Tehran. While Moscow would probably prefer to avoid picking a side between Israel and Iran, attempts to maintain neutrality amid sharpening conflict would probably just create friction with both. If forced to choose, Moscow would probably decide based on its view of the impact on the war in Ukraine, the frame through which Putin is viewing all international challenges now. The Kremlin would need to decide whether Iranian weapons are more critical for Russia—or whether the priority is maintaining influence with Israel in order to dissuade it from providing arms to Ukraine.
An escalation of the crisis to a broader regional fight directly involving Iran—which seems unlikely now but remains possible—would make Russia’s impotence obvious to all. Despite its bases in Syria, Russia’s military presence is insufficient to shape events. When challenged in the past, Russia has chosen to back down, as it did in 2018 when the United States launched punitive airstrikes against Syrian targets. Russia simply does not have the leverage to forge a compromise or lead negotiations. Even with states with which Moscow has good relations—Iran and Saudi Arabia—it was Beijing that brokered the normalization of relations between the two.
Certainly, the Israel-Hamas war is a welcome development for Moscow, distracting international attention from Russia’s own war in Ukraine and potentially forcing the United States to make decisions about prioritizing security assistance to Israel or Ukraine. Washington’s full-throated support for Israeli military operations has also created some uncomfortable comparisons with Russia’s own attacks in Ukraine. But Washington’s own-goals with the Arab world or the broader global south do not necessarily accrue to Moscow’s account.
Ultimately, the crisis precipitated by Hamas’s large-scale attack on Israel could help determine the future of the Middle East. Moscow, however, is unlikely to have much of a role in shaping it—if it has any at all. There is not likely to be another Madrid Conference. Whereas Russia was central to the discussions around the Syrian civil war a decade ago, the future trajectory of the Middle East is likely to emerge from the Gaza crisis without any significant input from Moscow.
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
Iranian Society to Support Individuals with Gender Identity Disorder
Type : Non-profit
Founder : Maryam Khatoonpour Molkara
Mission : Providing support for individuals with gender dysphoria, raising public awareness on GID/gender dysphoria, educating people about medical healthcare for trans community
Office : Tehran
Year of Foundation : 2007
Website : web.archive.org/web/ 20150419071221/http://gid.org.ir/
Iranian Society to Support Individuals with Gender Identity Disorder (Farsi: حمایت از بیماران مبتلا به اختلالات هویت جنسی ایران) is Iran's first & only legally registered organization for trans women,trans men & transsexuals. Iranian Society to Support Gender Identity Disorder was founded by Maryam Khatoonpour Molkara in 2007. The org. has clinicians, psychiatrists, psychologists & advocates . It's aim is to help those who faces legal and social challenges for their gender identity. However Association of Iranian Society to Support Individuals with Gender Identity Disorder does not acknowledge the transgender spectrum. They don't work with non-binary & gender non-confirming folks.
The org was registered for the first time in 2016 with the abbreviation GID with registration number 21996 in the form of a non-governmental organization (NGO) with the efforts of the late Maryam Khatun Molkara with the motivation of helping and supporting trans people. According to the articles of association, the members of the board of directors of this association are elected every 2 years from among the members of the target community and related professionals. Accordingly, in 2013 a regular general assembly was held and a new board of directors was elected, and the association restarted its work based on support, education and culture for the trans community and cis-people.
According to Iran's reference book (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Diseases) DSM IV TR, transsexuality was known as gender identity disorder.According to the revision of this book, it was renamed with the new title of gender dysphoria or gender confusion or gender boredom. Since this change was applied after the date of registration of the official gazette of the organization.
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Is social media a threat to traditional Asian government?
What are some examples of countries with traditional Asian governments? Some examples include North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Indian, Vietnam, and Iran. However, I am going to focus on the three Asian countries with how social media has an effect on the Asian country’s governments, which are China, Saudi Arabia and Japan.
China
China is mostly known for its traditional governments which are more bent towards cultural values with harmony being the fundamental value. Harmony is defined as “proper and balanced coordination between things” and this includes propriety, compatibility, and logic (Zhang 2013). According to (Zhang 2013), the main goal of contemporary Chinese society is to preserve harmony between the mind and body, between people and society, and between diverse cultures. This is one of the more traditional mindsets of China’s government, which still follows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). There have not been any signs of any online candidacy for China because most of the independent candidates end up losing the election due to it being rigged while some others were defrauded of the chance (Elizabeth C. Economy 2011). (Elizabeth C. Economy 2011) also stated that Beijing is under even more pressure to change its policies in response to the fact that the country’s citizens are increasingly supporting these independent candidates.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia still uses olden ways of running the country as it still uses monarchy which is the main system rule of the countries (GOV.SA 2023). Arabs make up the bulk of the population, who are mostly descended from the nomadic tribes who have historically roamed the area and fundamentally traditional and conservative is in the Saudi culture (Evason 2019). According to (Evason 2019), Islam has a significant impact on society, influencing how people live in terms of social, familial, political, and legal matters. There has been no evidence of online candidacies in Saudi Arabia thus far because there are only certain types of elections that the citizens are allowed to participate in, for example the ‘Municipal council elections’ (GOV.SA 2023). As for the monarchy, the nation’s rulers have to be a descendant of the founding monarchy, King Abdul-Aziz Al-Saud, the most upright among them will be obligated to submit the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, and Allah’s book, the Quran.
Japan
In Japan, the emperor only has little authority in its constitutional monarchy, which restricts his role to mostly ceremonial functions (Sawe 2019). The executive, legislative and judicial branches make up the three parts of the government (Sawe 2019). Consequently, the prime minister serves as the government’s leader and since it was enacted in 1947, the Japanese constitution has not been altered (Sawe 2019). With the rising of people going online, it is still apparent that Japan still does most of the technical things like polling is still done face to face is so that there would be a lower level of voter polarization in Japan (Swope 2021). There however a voting conducted by The Asahi Shimbun and a team led by a professor of political science at the University of Tokyo, Masaki Taniguchi, which shows that majority of the candidates that consist of 96% of Komeito’s candidates for the junior coalition partner still preferring face to face meetings for the party (Ogi 2022). Even though the rest of the world is evolving and letting the internet take over most of the functions, it is apparent that Japan still stands firmly on the fact that face-to-face meetings are the best approach to the polling system because that way there would be no false votes or there would not be any rigged votes.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, it is rather problematic for those traditional Asian governments to face the modern era of using social media. This is because there will be a lot of problems in the long run as the politicians or rulers in these countries continue their traditional governments. The most common reason why these ancient-believing governments would choose to take political matters face-to-face is mainly to avoid any rigged votes or other problems such as people trying to rule over the country’s political matters. Even though these traditional Asian governments are not taking matters like voting to online platforms, I think that it wouldn’t be an issue even though they do not use social media because most platforms can easily be hacked.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
Israel sends formal request to the US for 25 F-15EX advanced fighters
The IAF would need the powerful warplanes to transport ammunition in a possible attack on Iran's heavily defended nuclear facilities
Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 01/21/2013 - 12:30 In Military
0
Views
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Israel sent a formal request to the United States to buy 25 F-15IA (F-15EX) advanced fighters with the aim of increasing their capabilities to attack Iran, but the jets should only arrive in 2028.
The Ministry of Defense sent an official Letter of Request (LOR) to the U.S. last week, a Breaking Defense site report said on Thursday, citing industry sources. The LOR is the first step in the process that will now see Israel and the U.S. negotiate the exact number of jets and the price of warplanes manufactured by Boeing.
The Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem did not comment on the report.
According to the report, Israel had made the decision in 2020 to strengthen both its F-35 stealth fleet and its F-15 fleet, but due to recent political instability, only the F-35 decision was made. Now, after the election of the new government last month, the decision has been made to move forward with the F-15 forward business.
The military is now seeking to increase and upgrade its existing F-15 fleet, which can carry the kind of heavy weapons Israel would need to penetrate Iran's nuclear facilities, most of which are buried underground.
According to Boeing, the F15-EX “loads more weapons than any other fighter in its class and can launch hypersonic weapons up to 7 meters in length and weigh up to 7,000 pounds”.
The U.S. Air Force received its first version of the F-15EX in 2021 and this week said that, after two years of testing, the jet exceeded expectations in terms of number and tonnage of weapons transported.
The IAF wants 25 F-15EX and, in parallel, upgrade its 25 F-15I variants to the same avian configuration as the F-15EX, except for the fly-by-wire system. The Israeli defense source said that budget limitations may affect the "scope" of the planned F-15I update. The IAF currently operates 50 variants F-15 A/B/C/D and 25 F-15I.
Sources told Breaking Defense that Israel would probably receive the new jets in 2028, but that Israel would push for faster delivery. He also said that Israel could choose to double the initial request for 25 aircraft.
The report also said that Israel's decision has become more urgent due to the growing defense ties between Iran and Russia and fears that Moscow may provide Iran with Iran with the advanced S-400 anti-aircraft defense system.
He also said that Israel relies on the F-15 to hit the hundreds of thousands of rockets operated by the terrorist group Hezbollah, supported by Iran, in Lebanon.
Many of Israel's F-15 fighters - known in Hebrew as "Baz" or "Falcão" - were first built and delivered in the 1970s, although they were updated and reformed in the mid-decades.
If the agreement is approved and Israel buys the F-15s again, this will mark the first acquisition of Boeing fighters by the Israeli Air Force in two decades. In the following years, Israel bought 100 F-16 jets and another 50 stealth F-35 jets from Boeing's main competitor, Lockheed Martin.
In a series of farewell interviews last week, IDF chief of staff, Aviv Kohavi, reiterated that Iran was the main focus of the Israeli armed forces, which were working to ensure that they had the ability to act alone, if necessary, to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Kohavi told the Walla news website that a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities was the “main task” faced by the army and promised that “the IDF would be ready to fulfill its mission on the day of the order”.
In light of the growing uncertainty regarding Iran's return to the 2015 nuclear agreement with Western powers, the last two years have seen the IDF increase efforts to prepare a credible military threat against Tehran's nuclear facilities.
Israel has been pressuring the U.S. to prepare military contingency plans to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. U.S. President Joe Biden said he was prepared to use military force if necessary, but still prefers to exhaust the diplomatic route first.
Asked what would happen if the U.S. did not join Israel in such an attack, Kohavi said that “Israel must have the ability to carry out this operation, even if it means we act alone.”
Source: Times of Israel
Tags: Military AviationBoeing F-15EXIAF - Israeli Air Force/Israel Air Force
Sharing
tweet
Pin
Fernando Valduga
Fernando Valduga
Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.
Related news
WAR ZONES
The Netherlands considers supplying its F-16 fighters to Ukraine
21/01/2023 - 17:32
HELICOPTERS
Sikorsky delivers the 5,000th number UH-60 and the Black Hawk story should not end anytime soon
21/01/2023 - 16:29
BRAZILIAN AIR FORCE
FAB interested in Cessna 408 SkyCourier?
21/01/2023 - 11:35
MILITARY
Jordan completes the purchase of 12 US F-16 fighters
21/01/2023 - 09:39
WAR ZONES
China's J-20 "Mighty Dragon" jets would have overflew Taiwan's airspace without being detected
20/01/2023 - 21:07
MILITARY
Lockheed partners with Australian industry for maintenance of F-35 fighters
20/01/2023 - 16:00
homeMain PageEditorialsINFORMATIONeventsCooperateSpecialitiesadvertiseabout
Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation
Commercial
Executive
Helicopters
HISTORY
Military
Brazilian Air Force
Space
Specialities
Cavok Brazil - Digital Tchê Web Creation
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
On this day in Wikipedia: Friday, 24th November
Welcome, 你好, Bienvenida, Benvenuto 🤗
What does @Wikipedia say about 24th November through the years 🏛️📜🗓️?
24th November 2022 🗓️ : Event - 2022 Malaysian general election
Five days after the general elections which resulted in a hung parliament, opposition leader and former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim is officially named as the 10th prime minister of Malaysia.
"General elections were held in Malaysia on Saturday, 19 November 2022. The prospect of snap elections had been considered high due to the political crisis that had been ongoing since 2020; political instability caused by coalition or party switching among members of Parliament, combined with the..."
Image licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0? by Twotwofourtysix, 沁水湾, original work by Derkommander0916 under CC BY-SA 4.0
24th November 2017 🗓️ : Event - 2017 Sinai mosque attack
A terrorist attack on a Mosque in Al-Rawda, North Sinai, Egypt kills 311 people and injures 128.
"At 1:50 PM EET on 24 November 2017, the al-Rawda mosque was attacked by roughly 40 gunmen during Friday prayers. The mosque is located in the village of Al-Rawda east of the town of Bir al-Abed in Egypt's North Sinai Governorate. It is one of the main mosques associated with the Jaririya Sufi order,..."
24th November 2013 🗓️ : Event - Iran
Iran signs an interim agreement with the P5+1 countries, limiting its nuclear program in exchange for reduced sanctions.
"Iran, also known as Persia and officially the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), is a country in West Asia. It is bordered by Iraq to the west and Turkey to the northwest, Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Caspian Sea and Turkmenistan to the north, Afghanistan to the east, Pakistan to the southeast, the Gulf of..."
Image by See File history below for details.
24th November 1973 🗓️ : Event - Autobahn
A national speed limit is imposed on the Autobahn in Germany because of the 1973 oil crisis. The speed limit lasts only four months.
"The Autobahn (IPA: [ˈaʊtoˌbaːn] ; German plural Autobahnen, pronounced [ˈaʊ̯toˌbaːnən] ) is the federal controlled-access highway system in Germany. The official German term is Bundesautobahn (abbreviated BAB), which translates as 'federal motorway'. The literal meaning of the word Bundesautobahn is..."
Image by Qualle, Xavax and Mediatus
24th November 1922 🗓️ : Event - Irish Civil War
Irish Civil War: Irish nationalist author Erskine Childers was executed by the Irish Free State for illegally carrying a semi-automatic pistol.
"The Irish Civil War (Irish: Cogadh Cathartha na hÉireann; 28 June 1922 – 24 May 1923) was a conflict that followed the Irish War of Independence and accompanied the establishment of the Irish Free State, an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire. The civil war was..."
Image by National Library of Ireland on The Commons
24th November 1812 🗓️ : Birth - Xavier Hommaire de Hell
Xavier Hommaire de Hell, French geographer and engineer (d. 1848)
"Ignace Xavier Morand Hommaire de Hell, often known as Xavier Hommaire de Hell, (24 November 1812 in Altkirch – 29 August 1848 in Isfahan) was a French geographer, engineer and traveller who carried out research in Turkey, southern Russia and Persia...."
Image by Jules Laurens
24th November 🗓️ : Holiday - Earliest day on which Mother's Day can fall, while November 30 is the latest; celebrated on the last Sunday in November. (Russia)
"Mother's Day is a celebration honoring the mother of the family or individual, as well as motherhood, maternal bonds, and the influence of mothers in society. It is celebrated on different days in many parts of the world, most commonly in the months of March or May. It complements similar..."
Image by William-Adolphe Bouguereau
0 notes
Text
Newsweek
SUBSCRIBE FOR $1
Show more
Woman explains how she carries 52-lb dog in backpack on subway: The "rule"
Woman explains how she carries 52-lb dog in backpack on subway: The "rule"
Florida man finds himself surrounded by alligators: "They're everywhere"
Florida man finds himself surrounded by alligators: "They're everywhere"
POLITICS
Does TikTok Ban Allow for 20 Year Prison Sentence?
BY KATHERINE FUNG ON 3/28/23 AT 3:04 PM EDT
SHARE
POLITICS TIKTOK BAN BILLS BIPARTISANSHIP
Asweeping bill introduced by a group of bipartisan senators earlier this month has caught national attention as Americans await to see whether TikTok has a future in the U.S. and what that might look like for everyday social media users.
Congress appears to be moving unanimously towards the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act, or RESTRICT Act, which would give broad regulative power to the secretary of commerce over tech produced in China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela—countries that all have adversarial relations with the U.S.
Last week, TikTok CEO Shou Chew testified in front of lawmakers that TikTok had never received a request from the Chinese government to hand over data on American users and that the company would never comply with one. But Washington remains on alert about the national security threats that the Chinese-owned app poses.
While the RESTRICT Act doesn't cite TikTok or its owner, ByteDance, by name, the senators who introduced the bill have repeatedly pointed to the surveillance fears that the app raises and the legislation has already been referred to as a so-called TikTok ban.
The ban's criminal penalties, which include a fine up to a million dollar and/or imprisonment of up to 20 years, has caused some alarm among the bill's observers, who have questioned whether some TikTok fanatics might face jail time for using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to get around the ban and access the app.
But a spokesperson for Senator Mark Warner, the bill's sponsor, told Newsweek that it would not apply to individual users.
A prisoner's hands inside a punishment cell wing at Angola prison on October 14, 2013. Inset: In this photo illustration, the download page for the TikTok app is displayed on an Apple iPhone on August 7, 2020 in Washington, DC.
GILES CLARK/DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES
"Under the terms of the bill, someone must be engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S., causing 'catastrophic effects' on U.S. critical infrastructure, or 'interfering in, or altering the result' of a federal election in order for criminal penalties to apply," Warner's communications director, Rachel Cohen, said.
NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
"The bill is squarely aimed at companies like Kaspersky, Huawei and TikTok that create systemic risks to the United States' national security, not individual users," she clarified.
While the RESTRICT Act seems widely supported across party lines, there is a small group of progressive critics in Congress, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who made her first TikTok to address her opposition.
"If we want to make a decision as significant as banning TikTok, and we believe, or someone believes, that there is really important information that the public deserves to know about why such a decision would be justified, that information should be shared," the congresswoman said in the video.
READ MORE
TikTok ban seems likely for this surprising reason
TikTok CEO draws rare bipartisan fire
Who is Shou Chew? TikTok CEO who doesn't let his kids use app
The legislation, which has been proposed but not voted on yet, could also potentially thwart another bill introduced by Senator Josh Hawley.
In January, the Republican senator introduced the No TikTok on United States Devices Act, which specifically names TikTok and ByteDance, which would implement a nationwide TikTok ban. It also follows his No TikTok on Government Devices Act, which unanimously passed the Senate and became law on December 29.
But because the RESTRICT Act is being backed by a number of GOP senators, it could put them at odds against Hawley, who was hoping to see unanimous consent again. Among the Republican names listed as co-sponsors of the RESTRICT Act are Senators John Thune, Deb Fischer, Jerry Moran, Dan Sullivan, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney.
The sponsors of the RESTRICT Act have also argued that a more "comprehensive" approach needs to be taken in respect to foreign technology, whereas Hawley's bill targets TikTok in particular.
"We need a comprehensive, risk-based approach that proactively tackles sources of potentially dangerous technology before they gain a foothold in America, so we aren't playing Whac-A-Mole and scrambling to catch up once they're already ubiquitous," Warner said in a statement.
"Congress needs to stop taking a piecemeal approach when it comes to technology from adversarial nations that pose national security risks," Thune added. "Our country needs a process in place to address these risks, which is why I'm pleased to work with Senator Warner to establish a holistic, methodical approach to address the threats posed by technology platforms—like TikTok—from foreign adversaries."
Nonetheless, Hawley plans to bring his bill to the Senate floor this week in hopes of getting it passed unanimously, Punchbowl News reported on Tuesday.
Do you have a tip on a world news story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about China? Let us know via [email protected].
REQUEST REPRINT & LICENSING OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES
CHOOSE YOUR SUBSCRIPTION
PREMIUM
Newsweek magazine delivered to your door
Unlimited access to Newsweek.com
Ad free Newsweek.com experience
iOS and Android app access
All newsletters + podcasts
FROM $9.99
DIGITAL+ AD FREE
Unlimited access to Newsweek.com
Ad free Newsweek.com experience
iOS and Android app access
All newsletters + podcasts
FROM $1
© 2023 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC
0 notes
Note
tell me about obama
Barack Hussein Obama II (/bəˈrɑːk huːˈseɪn oʊˈbɑːmə/ (listen) bə-RAHK hoo-SAYN oh-BAH-mə;[1] born August 4, 1961) is an American retired politician who served as the 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the first African-American president of the United States.[2] Obama previously served as a U.S. senator from Illinois from 2005 to 2008 and as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004, and previously worked as a civil rights lawyer before entering politics.
Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. After graduating from Columbia University in 1983, he worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In 1988, he enrolled in Harvard Law School, where he was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. After graduating, he became a civil rights attorney and an academic, teaching constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Turning to elective politics, he represented the 13th district in the Illinois Senate from 1997 until 2004, when he ran for the U.S. Senate. Obama received national attention in 2004 with his March Senate primary win, his well-received keynote address at the July Democratic National Convention, and his landslide November election to the Senate. In 2008, after a close primary campaign against Hillary Clinton, he was nominated by the Democratic Party for president and chose Joe Biden as his running mate. Obama was elected over Republican nominee John McCain in the presidential election and was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. Nine months later, he was named the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, a decision that drew a mixture of praise and criticism.
Obama's first-term actions addressed the global financial crisis and included a major stimulus package, a partial extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts, legislation to reform health care, a major financial regulation reform bill, and the end of a major US military presence in Iraq. Obama also appointed Supreme Court justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, the former being the first Hispanic American on the Supreme Court. He ordered the counterterrorism raid which killed Osama bin Laden and downplayed Bush's counterinsurgency model, expanding air strikes and making extensive use of special forces while encouraging greater reliance on host-government militaries.
After winning re-election by defeating Republican opponent Mitt Romney, Obama was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2013. In his second term, Obama took steps to combat climate change, signing a major international climate agreement and an executive order to limit carbon emissions. Obama also presided over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and other legislation passed in his first term, and he negotiated a nuclear agreement with Iran and normalized relations with Cuba. The number of American soldiers in Afghanistan fell dramatically during Obama's second term, though U.S. soldiers remained in Afghanistan throughout Obama's presidency.
During Obama's terms as president, the United States' reputation abroad and the American economy improved significantly, although the country experienced high levels of partisan divide. Obama left office on January 20, 2017, and continues to reside in Washington, D.C. His presidential library in Chicago began construction in 2021. Since leaving office, Obama has remained active in Democratic politics, including campaigning for candidates in various American elections. Outside of politics, Obama has published three bestselling books: Dreams from My Father (1995), The Audacity of Hope (2006) and A Promised Land (2020).
Rankings by scholars and historians, in which he has been featured since 2010, place him in the middle to upper tier of American presidents.
1 note
·
View note
Text
The foreign stakes of the United States are more critical than ever today as the US is on the verge of ending its everlasting war on terror, which was launched by G.W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
While Trump is ready to make some hasty decisions regarding the US foreign interests in Afghanistan and Iran, the role of the Biden Secretary of Defense will be mammoth, as only a sane mind in Pentagon can tackle the imminent crisis.
Unlike other administrative positions, the competition for Biden Secretary of Defense is low. Who can be the Biden Secretary of Defense, and who will serve the interests of the United States best while sitting in the Pentagon? Let's have a look.
Biden Secretary of Defense Contenders:
Michèle Flournoy:
In his bid to make a diverse administration, Michèle Flournoy is one of the top contenders for Biden Secretary of Defense. She has the experience of dealing with tough assignments that make her a great fit for the most important position in the Pentagon.
Currently, she is serving as the co-founder of WestExec Advisors, along with her service as a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Apart from that, she has served the US in the following capacities
Under Bill Clinton's administration:
Principal Deputy Assistant Defense for Strategy and Threat Reduction in the US Defense Department.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy in the US Defense Department.
Service Under Obama's Administration:
She has also served the United States under the Barack Obama administration in the following capacities.
Crafting counter-insurgency policy for Afghanistan
Persuaded Obama to take military action in Libya
Miscellaneous:
Co-founder of the Center of a New American Security, a platform for national security issues of the United States.
Served as a senior advisor of the Boston Security Group
Worked in the Booz Allen Hamilton organization to deal with cybersecurity
She always remains in the limelight to be Biden Secretary of Defense due to her recent approaches of being too vocal regarding the current issues. In one of her recent essays, "How to Prevent a War in Asia; The Erosion of American Deterrence Raises the Risk of Chinese Miscalculation," she provided insights into how the USA can improve military strategies in the world by adapting to modern technologies.
However, she has some major policy differences with Biden over key countries, including Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. If she becomes Biden Secretary of Defense, Biden can face some resistance in implementing his policies worldwide.
Senator Tammy Duckworth:
If Biden somehow decides not to have a tough time with the Secretary of Defense, he will have to think outside the box. Sen. Tammy Duckworth is one of the contenders with Michèle Flournoy for Biden Secretary of Defense.
Although she has low chances to be the one compared to Michèle Flournoy, adding her to the cabinet will make the cabinet more diverse, as she is the first-ever Thai woman elected to the US Senate. She has served the United States in the following capacities.
Incumbent Senator since 2017
Member of the House of Representative from Illinois from January 2013 to January 2017
Served in the United States military from 1992-2014
Director of the Illinois Department of Veteran Affairs from November 2006 to February 2009.
Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs from April 2009 to June 2011
Owing to her on-ground service in the United States military, especially in the Iraq war, she has superior insights to anyone else, and her addition to the Pentagon can help the Biden administration in the long run.
Jack Reed:
Just like Tammy Duckworth, he is also a soldier turned politician who knows the ground realties and can serve on the seat of Biden Secretary of Defense. He retired with the rank of major from the US military. His contributions to the Uni
ted States include:
Serving in the US military from 1971 to 1991 (Active service from 1971-1979, reserve service from 1979-1991)
Serving in the US Senate from 1985 to date.
The challenges and duties associated with the seat of the Biden Secretary of Defense are huge, and a little bit of mistake in this regard can push the United States into chaos.
Biden is ready to make some tough decisions regarding the foreign policy of the United States soon after his inauguration in the White House, and the presence of a resilient person on the seat of Biden Secretary of Defense will be crucial in driving his approaches.
Whether it is the decision regarding the Iran nuclear deal, military withdrawal from Afghanistan, US involvement in the wars of Yemen and Syria, the approach towards Israel, or the North Korea nuclear program, the days of Biden Secretary of Defense will be tough ones ahead.
Read more about the Biden potential administration: Who can be the Biden Secretary of State?
0 notes
Text
The United States Couldn’t Stop Being Stupid if It Wanted To! For Washington, Self-imposed Restraint Will Always Be a Contradiction in Terms.
— Foreign Policy | December 13, 2022 | Argument: An Expert's Point of View on a Current Event.
Sen. Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden laugh during the National Prayer Breakfast at the Washington Hilton February 7, 2013 in Washington. Chris Kleponis-Pool/Getty Images
Defenders of U.S. “global leadership” sometimes concede that Washington has overextended itself, pursued foolish policies, failed to achieve its stated foreign-policy aims, and violated its avowed political principles. They see such actions as regrettable aberrations, however, and believe the United States will learn from these (rare) mistakes and act more wisely in the future. Ten years ago, for example, political scientists Stephen Brooks, John Ikenberry, and William Wohlforth acknowledged that the Iraq War was a mistake but insisted that their preferred policy of “deep engagement” was still the right option for U.S. grand strategy. In their view, all the United States had to do to preserve a benign world order was maintain its existing commitments and not invade Iraq again. As former U.S. President Barack Obama liked to say, we just need to stop doing “stupid shit.”
George Packer’s recent defense of U.S. power in the Atlantic is the latest version of this well-worn line of argument. Packer opens his essay with a revealingly false comparison, claiming that Americans “overdo our foreign crusades, and then we overdo our retrenchments, never pausing in between, where an ordinary country would try to reach a fine balance.” But a country that still has more than 700 military installations worldwide; carrier battle groups in most of the world’s oceans; formal alliances with dozens of countries; and that is currently waging a proxy war against Russia, an economic war against China, counterterror operations in Africa, along with an open-ended effort to weaken and someday topple the governments in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc., can hardly be accused of excessive “retrenchment.” Packer’s idea of that “fine balance”—a foreign policy that is not too hot, not too cold, but just right—would still have the United States tackling ambitious objectives in nearly every corner of the world.
Unfortunately, Packer and other defenders of U.S. primacy underestimate how hard it is for a powerful liberal country like the United States to limit its foreign-policy ambitions. I like the United States’ liberal values as much as anyone, but the combination of liberal values and vast power makes it nearly inevitable that the United States will try to do too much rather than too little. If Packer favors a fine balance, he needs to worry more about directing the interventionist impulse and less about those who are trying to restrain it.
Why is it so hard for the United States to act with restraint? The first problem is liberalism itself. Liberalism begins with the claim that all human beings possess certain natural rights (e.g., “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”). For liberals, the core political challenge is to create political institutions strong enough to protect us from each other but not so strong or unchecked as to deprive us of these rights. However imperfectly, liberal states accomplish this balancing act by dividing political power; holding leaders accountable through elections; enshrining the rule of law; protecting freedom of thought, speech, and association; and emphasizing norms of tolerance. For true liberals, therefore, the only legitimate governments are those that possess these features and use them to safeguard each citizen’s natural rights.
But take note: Because these principles begin with the claim that all human beings possess identical rights, liberalism cannot be confined to a single state or even a subset of humanity and remain consistent with its own premises. No genuine liberal can declare that Americans, Danes, Australians, Spaniards, or South Koreans are entitled to these rights but people who happen to live in Belarus, Russia, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, the West Bank, and any number of other places are not. For this reason, liberal states are strongly inclined to what John Mearsheimer terms the “crusader impulse”—the desire to spread liberal principles as far as their power permits. The same problem bedevils other universalist ideologies, by the way, whether in the form of Marxism-Leninism or the various religious movements that believe it is their duty to bring all humans under the sway of a particular faith. When a country and its leaders genuinely believe that their ideals offer the only proper formula for organizing and governing society, they will try to convince or compel others to embrace them. At a minimum, doing so will guarantee friction with those who have a different view.
Second, the United States finds it hard to act with restraint because it possesses a remarkable amount of power. As former U.S. Sen. Richard B. Russell, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and no dove, put it back in the 1960s, “[I]f it is easy for us to go anywhere and do anything, we will always be going somewhere and doing something.” When a problem arises nearly anywhere in the world, there is always something the United States could try to do about it; weaker states do not have the same latitude and thus do not face the same temptations. New Zealand is a healthy liberal democracy with many admirable qualities, but nobody expects the Kiwis to take the lead in dealing with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran’s nuclear program, or Chinese incursions in the South China Sea.
By contrast, whoever sits in the Oval Office commands a bevy of options whenever trouble arises or an opportunity beckons. A president can impose sanctions, order a blockade, threaten the use of force (or use it directly), and any number of other actions, and almost always without placing the United States at serious risk (at least in the short term). Under these circumstances, resisting the temptation to act will be extremely difficult, especially when a chorus of critics stands ready to denounce any act of restraint as a failure of will, an act of appeasement, or a fatal blow to U.S. credibility.
Third, because the United States has occupied the commanding heights of global power for more than 70 years, there are now powerful bureaucratic and corporate forces with a vested interest in maintaining its outsized global role. As former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his farewell address in 1961, the emergence of a powerful “military-industrial complex” during World War II and the early Cold War was a profound development that would permanently skew U.S. foreign policy in a more militarized and interventionist direction. That influence is especially evident throughout the world of foreign-policy think tanks, the vast majority of which are devoted to promoting U.S. engagement and defending a U.S.-centered world order. The result, as Zack Beauchamp observed a few years ago, is that “Washington’s foreign policy debate tends to be mostly conducted between the center and the right. The issue is typically how much force America should use rather than whether it should use it at all.”
Fourth, as I’ve noted before, the liberal United States is open to foreign influences in ways that many other countries are not. Foreign governments can hire lobbying firms to advance their case inside Washington and especially on Capitol Hill, or in some cases they can rely on domestic groups to press for action on their behalf. They can give generous donations to think tanks that will promote their cause, and foreign leaders can publish op-eds and articles in influential U.S. publications to sway elite and mass opinion. Such efforts won’t always succeed, of course, but the net effect will tend to encourage the U.S. to do more rather than less.
Moreover, the number of foreign voices whispering in the American ear grows every time the United States adds a new ally, “partner,” or “special relationship.” We used to have 11 NATO allies trying to shape U.S. policy toward Europe; we now have 29. Some of these states contribute significant resources to collective defense, but some of the others are weak and vulnerable and are more properly seen as protectorates than equal partners. Not surprisingly, these states are among the loudest voices insisting that the United States live up to its commitments and protect them, warning that U.S. credibility as a global power is at risk and any hope for a more benign world order depends on taking their advice. According to our many clients, the more deeply engaged the United States becomes, the more deeply engaged it must remain.
Make no mistake: I am not arguing for ignoring allies’ concerns or rejecting their advice out of hand. Allied leaders often have smart things to say about contemporary global issues, and it is easy to think of examples (Iraq, anyone?) where the United States would have been better off had it listened to French or German warnings instead of relying solely on its own counsel. But there can still be an unhealthy symbiosis between the interventionist impulse of much of the foreign-policy “Blob” and the self-interested advice that countries hoping for U.S. protection and assistance are eager to insert into debates on foreign policy. Not surprisingly, the United States’ foreign partners usually want Uncle Sam to do more on their behalf, and rarely recommend that the United States cut back a little.
Put these various elements together, and one can see why it is so hard for the United States to stop doing stupid stuff. Ideology, power, bureaucratic momentum, and other states’ desires to use U.S. power for their own ends combine to create a powerful predisposition to do something and a concomitant inability to set clear priorities and stick to them when temptation arises. To achieve the fine balance that Packer and others seem to want, more needs to be done to counter this predisposition instead of trying to defend or reinforce it.
— Stephen M. Walt: A columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
0 notes
Text
Events 1.29 (after 1960)
1973 – EgyptAir Flight 741 crashes into the Kyrenia Mountains in Cyprus, killing 37 people.
1983 – Singapore cable car crash: Panamanian-registered oil rig, Eniwetok, strikes the cables of the Singapore Cable Car system linking the mainland and Sentosa Island, causing two cabins to fall into the water and killing seven people and leaving thirteen others trapped for hours.
1989 – Cold War: Hungary establishes diplomatic relations with South Korea, making it the first Eastern Bloc nation to do so.
1991 – Gulf War: The Battle of Khafji, the first major ground engagement of the war, as well as its deadliest, begins between Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
1996 – President Jacques Chirac announces a "definitive end" to French nuclear weapons testing.
2001 – Thousands of student protesters in Indonesia storm parliament and demand that President Abdurrahman Wahid resign due to alleged involvement in corruption scandals.
2002 – In his State of the Union address, President George W. Bush describes "regimes that sponsor terror" as an Axis of evil, in which he includes Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
2005 – The first direct commercial flights from mainland China (from Guangzhou) to Taiwan since 1949 arrived in Taipei. Shortly afterwards, a China Airlines flight lands in Beijing.
2008 – An Egyptian court rules that people who do not adhere to one of the three government-recognised religions, while not allowed to list any belief outside of those three, are still eligible to receive government identity documents.
2009 – Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich is removed from office following his conviction of several corruption charges, including solicitation of personal benefit in exchange for an appointment to the United States Senate as a replacement for then-U.S. president-elect Barack Obama.
2013 – SCAT Airlines Flight 760 crashes near the Kazakh city of Almaty, killing 21 people.
2014 – Rojava conflict: The Afrin Canton declares its autonomy from the Syrian Arab Republic.
2017 – A gunman opens fire at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City, killing six and wounding 19 others in a spree shooting.
2020 – COVID-19 pandemic: The Trump administration establishes the White House Coronavirus Task Force under Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar.
0 notes
Text
Turkey Combats Jihadi Expansion on Syria Border
Foreign Policy: 21 October 2022
By Jeremy Hodge and Hussein Nasser
AZAZ, Syria, and GAZIANTEP, Turkey—On Oct. 14, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a Syrian jihadi alliance led by former factions of al Qaeda, took over the large city of Afrin in northern Syria from an alliance of moderate rebels led by the internationally recognized Syrian Interim Government (SIG). Founded in March 2013, when Syria’s opposition seemed on the verge of overthrowing President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian Interim Government served as the nominal authority governing the northern half of the country, then-controlled by a collection of rebel groups.
However, following the rise of the Islamic State and its defeat by a U.S.-led coalition, along with major gains by both Kurdish and regime forces—the latter aided by Russia and Iran—the SIG was reduced to a rump state limited to divided pockets of the Aleppo, Raqqa, and Hasakah countryside along the Turkish border.
In Idlib, Syria, another rebel-held province south of Afrin, HTS set up a parallel Syrian Salvation Government to rival the SIG in November 2017. Since then, both entities have mostly avoided intervening in the other’s affairs. Viewed as more moderate, SIG territories have mostly been spared attacks by regime forces since 2016.
However, the latest move by HTS threatened to upset this balance. Within hours of its capture of Afrin, HTS convoys moved east toward Kafr Jana, a town six miles west of the SIG capital of Azaz, where dozens of people were killed in six days of clashes to halt the jihadis’ advance. Two moderate rebel groups in the area that HTS had cultivated as allies over the previous year assisted by shelling positions of the Levant Front, the main group defending Azaz, in other cities nearby.
After several failed cease-fires, HTS seized Kafr Jana on Oct. 18 and appeared ready to enter the SIG capital; however, it was stopped by the last-minute deployment of a large contingent of Turkish troops, thousands of whom occupy the area.
After seven days of uncertainty—including the first Russian airstrike carried out in the region in years, which killed 10 people—by Wednesday night, news emerged that HTS had withdrawn from Afrin under intense pressure from the Turkish military.
Nevertheless, its entry represented the first major penetration of jihadi groups into the region since Turkish-backed rebels liberated the countryside east of Azaz from the Islamic State in 2016. The fact that several moderate groups affiliated with the SIG aided in its assault is cause for concern—and the HTS’s withdrawal does not necessarily signal loss.
In the six years since the Islamic State’s expulsion from the north Aleppo countryside, Turkish troops occupying the area worked hard to rebuild the SIG’s authority and unite the several dozen rebel groups within it under the banner of the Syrian National Army.
Turkish government ministries have taken responsibility for some education and utility services in the area while branches of Ankara’s PTT postal service can be found in some of the area’s larger cities, such as Azaz, Marea, and Bab.
Most importantly, Turkish cooperation with Russia has been key to preventing regime forces from attacking the area since 2016, sparing the region the type of violence seen elsewhere throughout the country over the last 11 years.
The north Aleppo countryside in turn has become a testing ground for Turkey’s state- and institution-building capacities that it may seek to replicate as its armed forces become more involved in other theaters further abroad, including Libya, Somalia, and Iraq. It is also a key buffer zone between Turkey and regime-held parts of Syria, where millions of internally displaced Syrian opponents of the Assad regime can live without seeking to flee across Turkey’s borders.
Preventing new migrants from entering Turkey is a top priority for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who faces low approval ratings ahead of elections in 2023, caused in part by hostility toward the nearly 4 million Syrians already in the country who many voters blame for the nation’s economic downturn.
However the weeklong takeover of Afrin by HTS—recognized by Turkey as a terrorist group in 2018—and its attempt to overthrow the SIG risked sabotaging this stable arrangement.
A de-escalation agreement signed by Moscow and Ankara in September 2018 required that Turkey limit HTS and other jihadis’ expansion in Idlib province as a condition to halting regime attacks on the area.
In January 2019, these agreements fell apart when HTS took total control of Idlib after 10 days of clashes with rival rebel groups.
In response, both Russia and Iran—which have sent thousands of advisors, troops, and military contractors to prop up the Assad regime—launched two ground campaigns over the course of the next year that killed thousands of people and risked pushing millions of refugees into Turkey. The threat of new migrants sparked an international crisis in early 2020 when Ankara threatened to allow refugees to cross European Union borders unless the latter pressured Russia to stop its assault.
As fighting drew to a close in March 2020, the amount of territory controlled by HTS and its allies in Idlib had been cut in half, with the roughly 4 million civilians living under its control packed into an ever-narrower strip.
Had HTS remained in Afrin, the prospect of Russia responding with new waves of strikes—as it did on Oct. 16 just outside Azaz, killing 10 people—would have been likely, in turn provoking more refugees to cross into Turkey.
HTS territory in Idlib sits 35 miles northeast of Hmeimim, Russia’s command and control center in Latakia province, itself less than 40 miles from the Tartus port, where Russia has docked 11 warships, including some that are nuclear equipped.
Protecting this base was a top motivation for Moscow’s September 2015 intervention in Syria. Just months before, a successful campaign led by HTS’s predecessor organization, the Nusra Front, put jihadis within firing range of Latakia city, threatening both the city’s Alawite majority and the Tartus port.
Limiting HTS’s expansion in northwest Syria has since been a key Russian goal, as the group operates largely independently of Turkey, which Moscow can rely on to control moderate groups. On the contrary, its control of over 4 million Syrians living along large swaths of the Syrian-Turkish border has given HTS key leverage over Turkey.
Any expansion in its remit of control would increase that leverage and make the group more dangerous. This is particularly the case as Russia is now fully preoccupied with the war in Ukraine and does not have the resources or attention to lead new campaigns in Syria.
Turkey’s entanglement with HTS is further complicated by the fact that the Hamza Division and Suleiman Shah Brigades—the moderate groups that fought alongside HTS in Afrin—are two of its top proxies in Syria.
In 2020, commanders from both factions recruited thousands of mercenaries to fight in support of Turkish-led military operations in Libya and Azerbaijan, making them favorites in the eyes of Turkish military and intelligence forces in the area.
Furthermore, like HTS, Turkey has had a troublesome relationship with the Levant Front, whose control of fuel smuggling has granted its leaders a great deal of independence from Ankara, creating tensions on both sides. Following its withdrawal from Afrin, control of these smuggling routes shifted to a collection of rival factions with whom HTS has closer ties, a major win for the group.
The shifting balance of power within rebel-held areas does not bode well for future stability in Syria nor for the prospect of continued cease-fires between Syria’s regime and opposition forces. Although Moscow has withdrawn significant ground forces and equipment from Syria—including an S-300 surface-to-air missile system—since the launch of its war in Ukraine in March, this has not led to a significant weakening of the pro-Assad coalition or its ability to wage war.
Rather, it created a series of gaps that Assad’s other, more hard-line patron, Iran, has managed to fill. Since March, thousands of Iranian-backed Lebanese, Iraqi, Afghan, and Syrian Shiite militia fighters have replaced outgoing Russian forces at hundreds of bases and military positions across the country, a significant step toward achieving Tehran’s broader aims.
Unlike Russia, which seeks to protect its naval infrastructure on Syria’s narrow coast, Iran seeks to preserve a friendly Alawite-Shiite regime in Damascus that it can rely on to grant its proxies full freedom to move across the country by land. Land access is critical for Iran to supply weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and project power against regional rivals, including Israel, Jordan, and the Persian Gulf states.
Iran’s reliance on networks of foreign Shiite militias over Syria’s armed forces originally served as a long-term hedge against the overthrow of the regime: In the event that Syria’s opposition removed Assad, militias loyal to Tehran could still lead an insurgency against a new government and carry out covert weapons deliveries.
That said, when hundreds of Russian Wagner Group private military contractors withdrew from the Muhin arms depot in southern Homs in April, Iranian-backed units reportedly raided the facility’s large warehouses, transporting large numbers of weapons to new front-line positions across the country.
Obtaining land access in Syria is also key for Iran’s economic agenda. Iran hopes to link the much-discussed Shalamcheh-Basra-Damascus rail to the port of Latakia on Syria’s coast to gain access to the Mediterranean Sea for Iranian exports, including oil and gas, should sanctions be lifted.
Iranian officials have proposed linking sections of its rail network already built in Iraq to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a tangible possibility in light of a $400 billion economic partnership agreement signed by both countries in 2020. After many years of seeking to do so itself, Syria’s government also joined the BRI In January of this year.
Russia’s withdrawal and Iran’s expansion may therefore facilitate rather than discourage conflict. Unlike Moscow, which has sought accommodations with Turkey to reach a political solution to the conflict that helps lift sanctions and opens up investment in Syria, Iran opposes any denouement that would see elements of the opposition hostile to its agenda obtain a role in government.
As a result, its proxies have been keener than Moscow to recapture all territory seized by Syria’s armed opposition since 2011.
Already, there are signs that Iran has become bolder and more aggressive since Russia’s disengagement. Speaking to the Hoover Institution in May as part of a broader lobbying effort in Washington to address Iran’s expansion throughout southern Syria, Jordan’s King Abdullah II stated that: “We’re seeing border attacks on a regular basis, and we know who’s behind that. … The presence of the Russians … was a source of calm because they were making sure we could de-conflict. … That vacuum will be filled by the Iranians and their proxies, so unfortunately, maybe we’re looking at an escalation of problems on our borders.”
All this comes as Turkey prepares for a presidential election in June 2023, in which opposition to the presence of Syrian migrants will likely be one of the few issues uniting voters of all stripes. Since the nation’s economic downturn in 2018, many voices from the far left and far right, including in Erdogan’s own Justice and Development Party, have blamed refugees for Turkey’s 83 percent inflation rate and demanded that the millions of people already in the country be deported.
After years of unwavering support for migrants and Syria’s battered opposition, Erdogan’s attitudes toward both were forced to change beginning in 2016, when domestic turmoil forced the president to seek new partners both in parliament and the military.
Among the first to benefit was Dogu Perincek, leader of the far-left Patriotic Party and promoter of Turkey’s “Eurasianist” movement that seeks to distance Ankara from NATO in exchange for closer ties with Russia and China.
Perincek has demanded Turkey abandon Syria’s opposition and work with Assad to both fight the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and repatriate the millions of refugees already in the country, once telling Erdogan to “cooperate with Syria or resign.”
Despite holding no seats in parliament, large numbers of Patriotic Party ideologues were promoted to high ranks in the military after the failed 2016 coup attempt in Turkey, to the extent that Perincek has since been dubbed by some as the country’s “shadow defense minister.”
Erdogan’s next embrace of anti-migrant forces came in 2017, when leaders of the ultranationalist National Movement Party (MHP) supported a “yes” vote in a controversial referendum that weakened Turkey’s parliamentary system, limited separation of powers, and concentrated power in the hands of the presidency.
Umit Ozdag, the MHP’s former deputy chairman who was expelled from the party in 2016, formed his own ultranationalist Victory Party in 2021 that is even more focused on refugee deportations—to the exclusion of most all other issues. If given power, Ozdag has pledged to repatriate all refugees in Turkey within one year.
Although the true extent of his appeal is unknown, Ozdag’s radical message and attention-grabbing headlines have made him one of the most visible political figures in the country.
With an approval rating hovering at just over 40 percent, Erdogan has already begun echoing claims that his government will seek to repatriate upward of 1 million refugees in the near future. The Turkish president’s sensitivity and weakness in the lead-up to this election represents a key point of leverage that Russia and its allies can exploit by threatening to attack the north Aleppo countryside following HTS’s expansion, potentially sending more refugees across the border.
Turkey, Russia, and what’s left of the country’s moderate opposition, find themselves in a sensitive position, unable to adequately take steps to protect what they view as existential to their interests.
A volatile situation exists in northern Syria for all parties involved. After a period of relative calm, the region’s most radical actors—Iran and jihadis linked to al Qaeda—are more active and bolder than they have been in years.
0 notes
Photo
Cory Anthony Booker (born April 27, 1969) is a politician, attorney, and author who has served as a Senator from New Jersey since 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he is the first African-American US Senator from New Jersey. He was the 36th Mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013. He served on the Municipal Council of Newark for the Central Ward. He attended Stanford University, where he received a BA in 1991 and then a MA. He studied abroad at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship, before attending Yale Law School. He won an upset victory for a seat on the Municipal Council of Newark, where he staged a 10-day hunger strike and briefly lived in a tent to draw attention to urban development issues in the city. He ran for mayor in 2002, but lost to incumbent Sharpe James; he ran again in 2006 and won against deputy mayor Ronald Rice. His first term saw the doubling of affordable housing under development and the reduction of the city budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million. He was re-elected in 2010. He ran against Steve Lonegan in the 2013 Senate special election and subsequently won reelection in 2014 against Jeff Bell. An advocate of social liberalism, he supports women's rights, affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and single-payer healthcare. He co-sponsored and voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, tougher sanctions against Iran, the Bipartisan Budget Act, the National Defense Authorization Act, co-sponsored the Respect for Marriage Act and led the successful push to pass the First Step Act. He became the first sitting senator to testify against another when he testified against Attorney General nominee Jeff Sessions. He was a candidate for the Democratic nomination for POTUS in the 2020 presidential election. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence @corybooker https://www.instagram.com/p/Cc2cATVrpuKT3aY_-KD4L7zLJTPITvlOWZz_-o0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=
0 notes
Text
sometimes I just can’t take some of the hot takes on ukraine. It’s honestly nauseating to see people in privileged positions make comments where they honestly think that they know best.
#disappointing#i have seen more empathy for the Russian govt on this app > Russian people#which is weird bc tiktok is completely different but that’s my fyp most likely#it’s just disturbing to people have a hard on for Shit talking the U.S. when we can do that AND talk shit about the Russian govt lol#but some posts have really pushed the west is ignorant#the west is persecuting russia - the us is the only reason why this is happening#and people who say the latter only point to Obama in 2013/2014 in ukraine but fail to forget the ENTIRETY OF THE COLD WAR!#AND THE FACT THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVT HACKED + INFLUENCED THE 2016 ELECTION!!! and went after more of our voting systems in 2020#it’s like you can criticize that act or have a different opinion but that’s not the sole & only cause of Ukrainian civilians being bombed#along with nuclear facilities and holding the Ukrainian engineers at gun point#I have a lot of friends who are Iranian and I used to study russia in depth as my major as an undergrad & as a life long history fanatic…#I have a very different view on sanctions from what I’ve not only studied but for the economic turmoil that my friends have endured under#the US sanctions placed on Iran#I do think there are a particular few that go after oil/has only but that still has any effect on their economy#but just bc I do f want the Russian citizens to suffer doesn’t mean I think we as an int community do nothing#that’s not me being an imperialist or a neo liberal here not at all#but in having this discussion and trying to tease out solutions to uncomfortable questions/problems/etc. is so much more helpful >#than saying sanctions 👎 / west 👎 / imperialism 👎/ U.S. military / NATO intervention 👎 👎👎#i see all that type of rhetoric which when you start to break down#I could see some of these points & often times agree but nowhere in these type of posts that I’m referencing does there ever make mention#of how brutal the attack has been on Ukrainians particularly civilians who have been targeted - how the U.S. didn’t force anyone to shoot#at a nuclear facility or how putin is using his own people including his military to incur mass bloodshed#or even if everyone was like 👎👎👎 to some of these criticisms of the United States or the west more broadly how come these same ppl cannot#provide solutions & ideas on how to proceed and/or help? seriously idc how practical or utopian it is at least give something#I say that to the posts that sound like Russian bots when in fact it’s yt anarchist leftists who make fun of other leftists all the time#i just cannot imagine how awful this must be for my fellow Slavs#if people applied this same thinking to the Yugoslav wars and even the Holocaust (if NATO was a thing along w/ anti imperialism sentiment)#would people want direct military presence or to ~help~ these people
4 notes
·
View notes
Text
Brazil’s Far-Right Disinformation Pushers Find a Safe Space on Telegram
In a social media ecosystem facing mounting pressure to combat fake news and polarization, Telegram is the most permissive disseminator of content — and disinformation.
[Image description: supporters of President Jair Bolsonaro at a rally.]
Shortly after President Donald J. Trump was banned from Twitter early this year, Brazil’s like-minded leader made a plea to his millions of followers on the site.
“Sign up for my official channel on Telegram,” President Jair Bolsonaro requested.
Since then, Telegram, an encrypted messaging and social media platform run by an elusive Russian exile, has racked up tens of millions of new users in Brazil.
Its growing popularity in Brazil and elsewhere is being fueled by conservative politicians and commentators for whom it has become the most permissive disseminator of problematic content — including disinformation — in a social media ecosystem facing mounting pressure to combat fake news and polarization.
While WhatsApp remains by far the dominant messaging platform in Brazil, Telegram is making inroads fast. By August, it had been installed in 53 percent of all smartphones in Brazil, up from 15 percent two years earlier, according to a report.
Founded in 2013, Telegram has become a tool coveted by activists, dissidents and politicians — many in repressive nations like Iran and Cuba — to communicate privately.
But Brazilian government officials and experts worry the app could become a powerful vector for lies and vitriol before next year���s presidential elections — a tense political moment in the country.
Continue reading.
#brazil#politics#democracy#technology#free speech#brazilian politics#jair bolsonaro#telegram#digital rights#mod nise da silveira
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
World War Z was published in 2006, but takes place in 2009 at the earliest. Late in the book, astronaut Terry Knox states that the International Space Station took over 10 years to complete; it started construction in November 1998, and Chief of Staff Karl Rove Grover Carlson says that the Republican party barely eked back into power after a disastrous 2-termer who started a “brush fire war” in the Middle East (George W. Bush). He mentions an election year, but he doesn’t specify if it was the new president’s first or second term, so it’s either set right after 2008 or 2012. This was written before the Nintendo Wii was announced, but one chapter mentions that people brought their GameCubes with them as they fled their homes in search of safety in the frozen Canadian wilderness. This same chapter also mentions that they didn’t know how to pick survival gear; a park ranger finds a SpongeBob SquarePants sleeping bag frozen in the mud because its owner didn’t know the difference between a child’s indoor sleeping bag for slumber parties and a real insulated survival bag for camping.
The new president is never named, he’s just told be be pro-big business and anti-regulation, pushing a placebo zombie vaccine through the FDA to jumpstart the economy. When shit hits the fan, he is “sedated” and his vice president takes power; we’re never told what happened to the president, whether he was bitten or had a stroke, just that he was “sedated.” His Vice President is directly implied to be Colin Powell; he’s former military with family in Jamaica and black. He appoints Howard Dean to be his vice president to form a bipartisan coalition; he is never referred to by name, but it is clearly supposed to be Howard Dean. He was a rising star in the Democratic party from Vermont whose wife is a doctor and whose career imploded after he had a passionate outburst. In 2004, Howard Dean gave a speech where he started passinately screaming about how he was gonna start sweeping state primaries and ride a wave into the White House, punctuating his point by going “HHEEUEAHHGH!!” This was political suicide in 2004, and he was laughed out of the race. In the book, he is referred to only as “the Whacko” because of this. It is implied that he was Powell’s second choice for VP, his first being Barack Obama; the Whacko says that the Democrats wanted somebody else, somebody of the same skin color as the president, but that the country wasn’t ready for that. In 2004, Obama was a candidate for senate in Illinois, so popular and so well spoken that he gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention before he even won his seat; then and there, pundits already had him pegged as the first black president, they could see the writing on the walls. The Whacko becomes president when Powell dies of stress, but he is consistently referred to only as the wartime Vice President, out of respect for his boss.
Also, the Attorney General is implied to be Rudy Giuliani; all that is said about him was that he was the mayor of New York and once tried to give himself emergency powers to stay in office after his term. Giuliani did exactly that after 9/11.
Other real life figures mentioned in the book
Fidel Castro; a ton of Cuban Americans flee the continent and return to the island during the zombie war, and he jumpstarts the economy by putting them to work as cheap laborers and slowly integrating them back into Cuban society. He rehabilitates his image by stepping down as dictator and democratizing the country, voting himself out of office before the “nortecubanos” could hang him for decades of war crimes.
Nelson Mendela, referred to by his birth name Rolihlahla, the father of modern South Africa, he personally invites Paul Redekker, a former apartheid era political analyst, to solve the zombie problem; in the 80s, Redekker created a plan for the white minority government in case the black majority ever rose up against them. In real life, Mandela lowered the temperature when he was elected president, saying that revenge against the apartheid government would do more harm than good. In the story, Mandela uses this as justification to reuse the apartheid era plan to handle the zombie outbreak instead. Redekker is so overcome by his compassion and forgiveness that he has a mental episode and dissociates, believing himself to be a black South African.
Kim Jong-il, the dictator of North Korea, he withdraws all troops from the DMZ and shuts the entire country down. After months of radio silence, it is revealed that the entire country’s population has vanished; all satellite imagery shows a desolate wasteland, no zombies, but no humans either. He presumably moved everyone into subterranean bunker systems where he not only control their lives as on the surface, but now their access to food, water, and air. He presumably became the god emperor he always wanted to be; either that, or the entire tunnel complex has been overrun, turning every man woman and child in North Korea into zombies. The South Korean government refuses to send a expedition into the North to figure out what happened, lest they open up one of the tunnels and unleash millions of zombies onto the surface.
Martin Scorsese, mentioned in passing only as “Marty,” a friend of world famous film director Roy Elliot, who himself is a thinly veiled pastiche of Steven Spielberg. Interestingly enough, the audio book features Martin Scorsese doing the voice of the conartist who created the placebo vaccine
One chapter has a ton of vapid celebrities hole together in a fortified mansion on Long Island, and takes great care to show each of them getting torn apart not by zombies but by regular people who storm the facility because they were stupid enough to broadcast their location on reality television. A redneck with a “Get’er Done” hat (Larry the Cable Guy) and some bald guy with diamond earrings (Howie Mandel) blow themselves up with a grenade. Rival political commentators, an annoying guy who talks about feminization of western society and a leathery blonde (Bill Maher and Ann Coulter) have end-of-the-world viking sex as the facility burns to the ground. A dumb starlet (Paris Hilton) is killed by one of her handlers and her little rat dog escapes on foot. A radio shock jock (Howard Stern) actually survives the war and restarts his show.
Michael Stipe of REM joins the army to fight the zombies
Another war veteran mentions how his brother used to have a bunch of Mel Brooks’ old comedy skits on vinyl record, and how he and his squad acted out the “Boy meets Girl” puppet skit with some human skulls. Mel Brooks is author and narrator Max Brooks’ father.
Queen Elizabeth II, refuses to evacuate England when the island is overrun by zombies. She intends to remain in Buckingham Palace “for the duration,” mirroring the fact that her parents refused to evacuate to Canada during World War II.
Vladimir Putin declares himself Tsar of the Holy Russian Empire, an ultra-orthodox religious state that has armed priests execute political dissidents under the guise of mercy killing people who have been bitten by zombies.
Yang Liwei, the first “taikonaut” (Chinese astronaut) has a space station named after him
While the main conflict is about government responses to the zombie pandemic, we see glimpses of a greater war torn planet.
A major plot line involves a Chinese Civil War which sees the entire communist politburo nuked out of existence by a rebel sub commander, as well as an attempted “scorched space policy” where the government planned to blow up their space station with scuttling charges to cause a cascade of space debris to encircle the Earth and prevent any other countries from launching missions in the future (this is known as Kessler Syndrome in real life, and was featured as the inciting incident of the 2013 movie Gravity). The People’s Republic becomes the United Federation.
Iran and Pakistan destroy each other in nuclear war; everyone thought it would be India and Pakistan, but they had very close diplomatic infrastructure in place to prevent such a catastrophe; Pakistan helped Iran build a nuclear arsenal, but as millions of refugees fled from India through Pakistan to the east, Iran had to blow up some Pakistani bridges to stem the flow of zombies, which led to a border war and eventually total nuclear retaliation.
Floridians flee to Cuba, Wisconsinites flee to Canada, the federal government flees to Hawaii. Everything east of the Rockies is abandoned and ruled by warlords until the government sorts itself out and mounts an expedition to clear the continent of zombies by literally marching an unbroken line of soldiers stretching from Canada to Mexico across the wasteland to the Atlantic.
Israel withdraws from Gaza and the West Bank to become super isolationist, building a wall around the entire country to stop the zombies getting in (they were the first country to respond to the pandemic, and the most successful), but the religious right rebels against the secular left in a civil war that sees Jerusalem ceded to a unified Palestine.
It is an amazing, multifaceted story with so much going on that nobody recognizes. It was written as a response to the end of the Cold War and the start of the War on Terror. It’s about a geopolitical shift, a change in the status quo, a disaster from which the world never recovers; America before 9/11 was a very different place than American after 9/11. Iraq and Afghanistan changed everything, and we’re still feeling their effects to this day; the story uses the zombie apocalypse as the next big international disaster the world must adapt to. World War Z is World War III with zombies, and I think it would do a lot better if it were published today, now that we’ve had several decades to respond to the fall of the Soviet Union and the endless wars in the Middle East and a global pandemic.
136 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
simplymonaaa
M O N A A
i-wanna-due
I Wanna Due
starfishbug
StarfishBug
ssodakick
dystopia.
humblbee
WHAT ARE FROGS