Political personalities in the world sometimes publish their memoirs about the times when they were in office and had political responsibilities. This issue is common in most countries in the world and if I want to enumerate the number of written memoirs of these personalities in numbers and figures, I may point to the number in size of 100,000 volumes of books.

IRAN NEWS POLITICAL DESK

Recently Crown Publishing Group, the publisher of the book “A Promised Land”, which is a part of British Penguin Books, in the first day of release of the book on memoirs of former U.S. President Barack Obama, ‘A Promised Land’”, set a record of sales of 887,000 copies of the book for the first day sales. It is interesting to know that the previous record for the first day sales of book by a resident of the White House belonged to the book “Becoming”, written by the U.S. First Lady, Obama’s wife Michelle Obama, as the book sold 725,000 copies in its first day of release. But the significance of this number of sales is, of the secondary importance, well-reception of the book that one can definitely call it business of memoirs. And in my opinion, the first significance of the book for the world community enthusiasm for obtaining a printed copy of it in the era of digitalism is because of its contents that it has been written by a president mostly on the untold events during his presence and administering in the White House. Of course, the contents have been passed through the filtering of the intelligence bodies and experts of international laws, and it gives a hint of implicit information with adding a little bit of disclosure for creating excitement and attraction to read.

The book “A Promised Land” has been published in English, and in the upcoming weeks experts and publishers for the sake of their own profits will publish it in different languages as well as in Persian and it will be available for the public.

What is important for Iranians is those parts of the book regarding the crimes that the leaders of the White House have committed in the West Asia region and especially in Iraq. Of course, Obama might have written some of his open policies regarding Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA. Although I have not received the book yet, some excerpts of the book have been released on the websites which paint Obama, as our Supreme Leader has said, with velvet gloves on steel claws to us, Iranians.

As all know well, Obama was the U.S. President between 2009 and 2017. He has compiled his memoirs in a two-volume collection whose first volume with the title of “A Promised Land” in 768 pages was released on November 17, 2020 by Crown Publishing Group, affiliated to Penguin Books publishing company. After amazing sale of the book in the opening day of its release, Obama acknowledged that this amazing sale of the book was indebted to Joe Biden’s victory in the presidential election against Donald Trump. His remark indicates that the contents have nothing to do with attractive items for its sales which led to such a volume of sales in Canada and the U.S.

Obama in the very beginning of his book points to the current abnormal condition in the U.S. and writes, “What I never predicted, besides difficulty in putting the words on the paper, has been the trend of events in almost three and a half years since my last flight with Air Force One. Now that I am seating here (and writing the book), the country is still challenging with a global pandemic and its consequent economic crisis; over 178,000 people (currently the number has exceeded 262,000) have lost their lives, businesses have collapsed and millions of people have lost their jobs. People nationwide from all walks of life poured into streets to protest the deaths of black men and women at the hands of police. Maybe the most worrisome issue is that it seems our democracy is tottering on the edge of precipice of crisis; a crisis rooted in a fundamental conflict between two opposite approaches about this point that what is the U.S. and what it must be; a crisis which has caused division, anger and distrust in the political body of the U.S. and caused continuous violations of structural norms, process measures and commitment to the primary truths that once both Republicans and Democrats took it for granted.”

Of course I will not be content with this part of Obama’s remarks and as soon as I get the book, I will quote more interesting parts of it in my articles, but isn’t describing the current condition of the U.S. in just two sentences by a former president whose political party has won the election an evidence to what the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution has said that the U.S. like the Titanic ship will ultimately sink?

  By: Hamid Reza Naghashian

The post Memoirs Business or Disclosing Secrets? appeared first on Iran News Daily.

“We have always believed in talks … if they lift sanctions, end the imposed economic pressure and return to the deal, we are ready to hold talks with America today, right now and anywhere,” Rouhani said in his Sunday speech.

US President Donald Trump will make the final decision for talks with Iran, Pompeo said, adding, “recent remark of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is the same offer that he offered to John F. Kerry and Barack Obama,” referring to the former US secretary of state and president.”

“President Trump will obviously make the final decision. But this is a path that the previous administration had gone down and it led to the (Iran nuclear deal) which this administration, President Trump and I both believe was a disaster,” Pompeo said.

Pompeo’s remarks came at a time that US President Donald Trump has voiced his readiness for unconditional talks with Iran.

The post Pompeo shows reaction to Iran’s precondition for talks with US appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post Cyber-attack against Iran: a failed strategy of U.S. presidents from Bush to Trump appeared first on Iran News Daily.

Overcoming the current president of the United States has turned into the main goal of the Democrats in the United States. American Democrats who have been isolated in the last two years, and lost the White House, the Senate, and many governorates, are now planning to win the presidential election( 2020).On the other hand, the public dissatisfaction raised over the performance of the US President has given hope to the Democrats for winning the next election.

Moreover, former US President Barack Obama challenged the existing policies in the United States during John McCain’s funeral, without naming Trump. Delivering his eulogy, Obama said: “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty, trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage.”

In recent mounts, many of the American Democrats have intensified their verbal and political attacks on President Donald Trump. Former Secretary of State John Kerry implicitly stated that he would not rule out running for president in 2020. Kerry was the Democratic nominee for president in 2004 but ultimately lost the election to former US President George W. Bush. He had also emphasized the critical situation of the United States following the presence of Trump at the White House. Also Al Gore, the former vice president, and Democratic presidential candidate, publicly called for President Donald Trump to resign.

As NPR  reported, Many Democrats are angry. They’re angry with President Trump’s election and what it represents. And they’re angry about the direction of the country, and the inequities in American life. So it would make sense that the person running for the Democratic nomination for president would channel that anger. President Trump did it to win over the Republican base in 2016, saying he gladly carries the “mantle of anger.”Not Joe Biden.

The Democrat tried to put forward a message of unity Saturday at a major campaign rally in Philadelphia before 6,000 people, according to a security official with the campaign, capping off his presidential campaign kickoff.”Some say Democrats don’t want to hear about unity,” Biden said. “That they are angry– and the angrier you are – the better. That’s what they are saying you to have to do to win the Democratic nomination. Well, I don’t believe it. I believe Democrats want to unify this nation. That’s what we’ve always been about. Unity.”

He spoke of choosing “hope over fear, truth over lies and, yes, unity over fear.” He called it a “different path” that can bring together “Democrats, Republicans, and independents.”

For Barack Obama’s vice president, it made sense but lots of liberals aren’t buying it. Rebecca Traister, who authored the book Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger, tweeted that Biden is “deeply wrong” that “Anger at injustice has catalyzed transformative change; ‘unity’ has not.”

Anyway, Biden will face the opportunities and challenges of the upcoming presidential election. But what’s the main constellation of how Barack Obama will play in the presidential election of 2020? Rachel O’Neill wrote in FOXBusiness that Twenty-one Democrats are vying for the chance to face-off against President Trump in the 2020 fight for the White House Opens a New Window. , but it’s a former president who could help determine who gets that chance.

“Obama is gold to Democrats right now,” Democratic strategist and head of research at Bustle Digital Group, Jessica Tarlov, told “WSJ at Large” Opens a New Window.  host Gerry Baker. “Going into the midterms it was the number one thing people were looking for in their candidates… that they had served with Obama in some way or another.”

The Obama connection is seemingly giving former Vice President Joe Biden a leg-up in the race with a recent Hill-HarrisX poll Opens a New Window. showing Biden with a 32-point lead against other Democrats.“Joe Biden presents such an interesting potential threat because he still does seem to be able to speak the language of that Obama-Trump voter,” says Kristen Soltis Anderson, a Republican pollster and founder of research firm Ecehlon Insights. “I think Biden is formidable,” she concluded.

But with Biden having been in politics for a half of century, “there’s certainly a lot of footage of [him] making mistakes on the trail” argued Tarlov. “He’s lost running for president twice before.”Biden came out swinging in his presidential campaign, attacking President Trump’s character in his first ad.  That is the “smartest way for Joe Biden to have entered this race,” Tarlov said. “Make [the race] squarely about him versus Donald Trump… But [Biden] is definitely beatable.”

But the question every Democrat wants to know is, is President Trump beatable? Despite the declining unemployment, accelerating economic growth Opens a New Window. , and rising wages under President Trump, there is “plenty of reason to think this president will be defeated” in the 2020 elections, Tarlov said.“It’s not ‘just the economy, stupid’,” she argued. “It’s healthcare, stupid.”

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll Opens a New Window.  showed healthcare ranking as the number one issue for voters heading into the next election at 24 percent. Immigration coming in second at 18 percent. And the economy and jobs in third place with 14 percent.“There are people that don’t love [Trump] as president but give him credit for the economy,” said Anderson. The NBC/WSJ poll showed President Trump at an overall approval rating of 46 percent, but that number jumps to 51 percent in his dealing with the economy.

However, Anderson warned: “you can be a victim of your own success…the economy is no longer the number one issue.”Republicans have now owned some of the healthcare mess with the actions that they’ve taken over the last 2 1/2 years.  And that remains a really big politician liability for the GOP,” she explained.

Ultimately, Barack Obama will play an active role in the final stages of the presidential election in the United States. This may not be good for Republican politicians, and especially for Trump!

The post Obama’s role in the upcoming U.S. presidential election appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The post Biden’s key weapon against the Trump appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The main theme was the familiar one that U.S. policy before the Trump presidency was uniformly awful and, since then, the current administration has spectacularly turned everything around for the good. Another familiar theme is that nearly everything in U.S. foreign policy ought to be subordinated to confronting Iran. Whatever the speech may have accomplished for Pompeo back home, as a statement to Middle Eastern listeners it was remarkably tone-deaf.

The speech invited comparison with the speech Barack Obama delivered in the same city during the first year of his presidency and that was carefully crafted for Middle Eastern ears. Obama’s main message was that the Muslim world and the West can enjoy better relations than their history would suggest, but that improvement will require frank recognition of both the positive attributes and the shortcomings that each side brings to the relationship. While respectful toward Islam, Obama, as veteran Al-Arabiya journalist Hisham Melhem observed at the time, “boldly discussed some thorny, tough, sensitive issues that sometimes Muslim leaders and Arab leaders don’t like to hear.” Obama made a strong statement of the positive values that America has brought to Middle Eastern affairs while honestly acknowledging mistakes the West has made in its encounter with the Muslim world, from conduct during the Crusades to present-day Islamophobia. He also laid out a comprehensive positive agenda for a better relationship, covering topics from control of nuclear weapons to expansion of democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights, and economic development. Obama’s speech was favorably received and widely recognized as an important statement.

Pompeo himself explicitly invited comparison with the Obama speech—evidently believing that 10 years is enough time for people to have forgotten what Obama said—and denigrated it as filled with “fundamental misunderstandings” that have had “dire” results. According to Pompeo, Obama “told you that radical Islamist terrorism does not stem from an ideology.” No, Obama didn’t say that. He did discuss the main factors, such as political oppression and some of the economic consequences of globalization, that help to build an audience for such ideologies. As Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution commented after Obama’s address, one of the most important aspects of the speech was “to attack directly the narrative and ideology of al Qaeda. For too long the war of ideas was ceded to al Qaeda. By explaining his view of Islam, his vision of Arab-Israeli peace and other key issues the President took on al Qaeda’s argument for terror.”

Also, according to Pompeo, before the current administration took office the United States “grossly underestimated the tenacity and viciousness of radical Islamism.” That assertion certainly does not reflect the Obama speech in Cairo, in which Obama expressed determination to “relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security.”

Erroneous Claims

Like typical campaign rhetoric, Pompeo’s speech baselessly claimed credit for any positive result that has been achieved by anyone, even before the current administration took office. Referring to the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), for example, Pompeo talked about what has been done “just last year” in the same breath as a reference to 99 percent of IS territory having been liberated, without mentioning that most of that liberation occurred during the previous administration.

Pompeo made multiple references to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, contrasting a previous approach of doing “nothing” in response with how “President Trump unleashed the fury of the U.S. military not once, but twice, with allied support. And he’s willing to do it again, although we do hope that he does not have to.” The secretary will need to keep hoping, because the very fact that the Assad regime has kept doing what it was doing despite the U.S. military strikes indicates that the strikes are not working. By the measure of how much time transpires between chemical weapons incidents, the strikes have worked less well than the diplomacy-centered approach used earlier.

The speech’s lengthy excoriation of Iran also was written in a tone suggesting great accomplishment, even though nothing has been accomplished in the last two years. Despite all the pressure the Trump administration has exerted on Iran, there is still no sign of any “better deal” on nuclear matters or anything else to replace the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and Security Council Resolution 2231, of which the United States is in material breach following Trump’s reneging on U.S. obligations. Pompeo tried to claim accomplishment by asserting that the pressure campaign had “cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world,” but such assertions do not reflect any positive results. As recent analyses by both the International Crisis Group and the Congressional Research Service have concluded, there has been no correlation between more sanctions being imposed on Iran and any retrenchment in Iran’s regional activities.

Some passages of Pompeo’s speech that supposedly describe past policies can only be met with a bemused shaking of the head and the question, “Where did he get this?” One such passage is “Our eagerness to address only Muslims and not nations ignored the rich diversity of the Middle East and frayed old bonds. It undermined the concept of the nation-state, the building block of international stability.” Previous administrations did not “address nations”?

There will be similar head-shaking among most Arabs and most Muslims who heard or read the speech. They will see almost nothing positive in it, from the standpoint of undercutting radical agendas, resolving conflicts within the region, or anything else. It is almost all negative and all about conflict and confrontation, especially with a military emphasis. Many will interpret the speech as a combination of domestic U.S. political combat overlaid on the Trump administration’s penchant for drawing rigid lines of conflict within the Middle East, of which the obsession with stoking hostility to Iran is a part.

 Significant Omissions

Most listeners in the Middle East will be struck by the omission of some major current regional concerns. Yemen, for example, is mentioned primarily as a supposed front for confronting Iran, with no mention of how the Saudi-led war has generated the humanitarian disaster there.

Or consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Obama’s speech included a significant and carefully balanced segment on this subject, which paired a strong defense of the “unbreakable” U.S. bonds with Israel (and a review of the history of persecution of Jews) with a recognition that Palestinians “have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

Pompeo offered just a single line promising to “press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians” and made no reference at all to any rights for Palestinians. He instead spent several lines defending the moving of the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, saying that this honored “a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago,” not addressing why several presidents of both parties wisely did not try to implement this congressional gesture.

In an even lengthier passage, Pompeo talked about how an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates and how the Israeli sports and culture minister shed tears of joy over Israeli participation in the meet. Don’t expect the average Middle Eastern man in the street to get as overcome with emotion about this as the minister did.

Pompeo referred to “truth” at both the beginning and end of his speech, which is enough to raise eyebrows coming from a senior official working for a president as truth-challenged as Donald Trump. A major credibility deficit exists for this administration on the issues the speech addressed, and the speech itself did nothing to reduce the deficit.

(Source: Lobelog)

The post Pompeo in Cairo: Anti-Obama, anti-Iran, and little else appeared first on Iran News Daily.

The division of the American political community into the scene of the opponents and proponents of Trump

What distinguishes Congressional elections from the last election is the division of American society into the bipartisan opponents and supporters of Donald Trump in this election. In fact, in the new situation, the rivalry of the two main US parties has become more or less a controversial scene based on opposition or alignment with the Trump, rather than on the basis of traditional competition between the two parties. This led to a less pronounced party and rivalry between the two political currents, but the critique of the actions and the character of Donald Trump were centered on Democrats.

In support of this, former US President Barack Obama’s remarks can be seen after two years of silence against his tangled attacks. Obama’s Democrats ‘Democrats’ campaign, and with several releases, has directly targeted Donald Tramp. Obama says in his most remarkable remarks: “We are witnessing unprecedented behaviors in the White House, which has violated custom and common habits among Democrats and Republicans. If you are young voters worried about what happened over the past two years at the White House, the only way to monitor this behavior is to have congresses and positions that are emerging for the values and ideals of the United States. “In another move, he released a video message asking the youth to participate in November’s mid-term elections. Obama also said in a speech at the University of Illinois with a direct attack on the White House chairman: “The tramp is a disease itself, not a sign, and now we have the chance to bring wisdom back to the political scene of the country.”

In addition, the bipolar society of Donald Trump’s opponents and opponents is now in a position that some political experts talk about the possibility of a civil war in the United States. In the same vein, Professor Nil Ferguson, a professor at Harvard University, says: “Lately, internal disputes in the United States are intensifying and cultural conflicts are proud. On the Internet, there has long been a kind of civil war in the United States, and this war is getting hotter as the congressional election approaches. Sending a bomb to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will pave the ground for predicting the civil war in the United States. “Also, Emily Wylan, a science fiction candidate from the University of Texas in an article comparing the civil war in Lebanon and the United States, pointed out that Jonathan Randall had not paid attention to it in his time. “There is a common ground between Lebanon in 1975 and the United States in 2018,” he wrote. Washington believes that Washington has powerful and uncompromising allies that have their own interests and are, in fact, an “ineffective cartoon state”. Meanwhile, the Republican Party of America reminds Lebanon’s conservative forces on the brink of civil war, and Democrats, like the Lebanese advanced parties, are decentralized and dispersed. ”

The November 6 decisive election 

In spite of the apparent political divide and political divide within the political community of America between its two main parties, Republicans and Democrats, on the axis of the problem called “Trumpism,” prominent members of the Democratic Party or supporters of the Democratic Party in all electoral campaigns, and sometimes even prominent American figures of art Opponents of Tramp have emphasized the decisive importance of the inter-period election and the need for its participation, and since November 6th, it has been remembered as a historic moment to restore rationality to the American political scene.

Indeed, mid-term congressional elections are important for Democrats, which if they win, the two final years of the presidency of Donald Tramp can turn into a nightmare and a nightmare for him and his government members until the 2020 election. The symbol of this can be seen in 2014, as a result of the Republican victory in the inter-congressional election, a large level of tensions between the Obama administration and the congress was formed, and even the level of conflict was so advanced that, at a time when President Barack Obama was forced to The federal government closed its 16th day.

Now, if Democrats win the mid-term election, they are considered vital for three reasons. On the first level, if the Democrats win the congress and take over the majority, they can stop most of the Tramp government’s approvals that they argue against US national interests. On the second level, a Democratic majority congress can provide grounds for plotting against Donald Tramp for engaging in several issues, such as secret relations with Russia, illegal sexual relations and lying. In the event of approval of the problem in the House of Representatives and bringing the matter to the Senate, the Democrats can still be successful in raising the maximum pressure and stopping Tramp in his most recent extremism. The third dimension, the decisive outcome of the November 6 Congressional election for Democrats, is that they will create a psychological environment for a grand victory against Tramp in the presidential election of 2020, if they win in the recent election. Political facts in American history indicate that victory in inter-parliamentary elections has always had a serious and massive impact on the election of the next American president in the next two years.

The congressional election meets the general satisfaction of the trump

In the midst of the turbulent state of the mid-term elections in the United States, Donald Tramp’s premature runaway escapes from accepting Republican defeats. According to the results of the polls, the Republicans’ defeat to a certain extent seems to be necessary; as a result, Donald Trump as a senior Republican party can be the first factor in this defeat; in other words, early election results for measuring public policy satisfaction He will be in the past two years.

In the analysis of the disappointment of the Republicans and the Trump on the victory over the inter-congressional elections, it is possible to look at Trump’s performance at two levels of domestic politics and foreign policy. On the one hand, at the internal level, Tramp faces numerous problems at the individual and moral levels, and his moral scandals, economic activities, and his relations with the Russians during the electoral campaign have reduced American confidence and, on the other hand, his domestic policies It is mostly based on racism and even fascism; it has placed non-white Americans in front of him. Meanwhile, immigration policies, his opposition to the colorful people, as well as Tramp’s opposition to the general insurance plan introducing Obama walker, have created a backdrop of dissent and disgust of American citizens from Tramp.

At the foreign policy level, Tramp’s catastrophic performance in partnering with traditional US allies and his efforts to get close to Russia has put a lot of criticism into the White House’s performance. In fact, Tramp has frustrated US voters by importing America into a war of commerce with all the world powers, including China, Russia and even European countries as traditional allies. Also, Tramp’s action in support of the Yemeni war that killed thousands of innocent people, and in particular the silence in the savage murder case, the Saudi-critic’s journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul, has disappointed the Republican Party’s supporters of the Trump performance. Taken together, these two levels can be said that Donald Tramp’s two-year performance at the domestic and foreign levels has turned into Republican Achilles heels in the mid-term elections.

The post The position of Trump in the American people appeared first on Iran News Daily.

In a rare and lengthy statement following the end of his tenure, the first African American president described Trump’s move as “wrong,” “self-defeating” and “cruel.”

“To target these young people is wrong — because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating — because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel… It’s a political decision, and a moral question,” Obama wrote on Tuesday. “Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us.”

His vice president, Joe Biden, has also reacted to the move by taking to Twitter.

“Brought by parents, these children had no choice in coming here. Now they’ll be sent to countries they’ve never known. Cruel. Not America,” he tweeted.

Obama had previously said that he would rarely speak out after the end of his term, yet warning that revoking the program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), would be among actions that would make him react.

“The notion that we would just arbitrarily or because of politics punish those kids, when they didn’t do anything wrong themselves, I think would be something that would merit me speaking out,” he said ahead of leaving office in January.

The program, Obama’s chief legacy item in immigration, was aimed at shielding the children of undocumented immigrants from deportation, but Trump decided to end it, arguing that it was legally flawed, and that native-born Americans must be prioritized.

“Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally,” said the former president. “It’s up to members of Congress to protect these young people and our future.”

Trump ended the program, introduced during Obama’s first term in 2012, but called on Republican-controlled Congress to pass legislation aimed at letting the so-called “Dreamers” stay in the US.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the president’s decision earlier in the day, calling the program an “open-ended circumvention of immigration laws.”

“The program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama administration is being rescinded,” Sessions told reporters. “The policy was implemented unilaterally, to great controversy and legal concern.”

He added that “the executive branch through DACA deliberately sought to achieve what the legislative branch specifically refused to authorize on multiple occasions.”

The decision has caused outraged among activists, leading to protests in some cities, including Washington, DC, and New York.

Trump himself released a statement, saying that he does not support “punishing children, most of whom are now adults, for the actions of their parents. But we must also recognize that we are nation of opportunity because we are a nation of laws.”

“I have advised the Department of Homeland Security that DACA recipients are not enforcement priorities unless they are criminals, are involved in criminal activity, or are members of a gang,” he added.

The Republican president has vowed to crack down on immigration but has failed to get his complete agenda through so far.

The post Obama makes rare re-entry into politics for ‘Dreamers’ appeared first on Iran News Daily.