United States Court of Appeals Denies Trump’s Travel Ban

The controversial decree signed by President Donald J. Trump banning refugees and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries to enter in the U.S. was declined by the U.S. Court of Appeals.


President of United States Donald J. Trump

Mr. Trump signed the Executive Order 13769 under the name of “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”resulting in the suspension of this decree on 3rd February. The U.S. Court of Appeals on 9th February unanimously rejected President Trump’s attempt to re-apply it

From this declarations, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

This victory should not lead to complacency. This and other Trump administration orders and policies still pose a threat to communities of color, religious minorities, women, and others.”  

Three judges supported arguments in order to keep the suspension of the traveling ban and Mr. Trump said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

Trump defend his travel ban and accused the judiciary branch of becoming “political” during an address to the Washington, D.C.conference of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. He also made references to his current measures related to the electoral campaign:

“One of the reasons I was elected was because of law, order, and security.”

Mr. Trump talks directly to the American people, Courts of Appeal and to the Opposition:

“You are great men and women, and we have to allow you to do your jobs, and we have to give you the weapons that you need […] they are trying to taking away from you, because of politics, or political views.”

In those statements, he is calling for Americans to understand the travel ban as a tool for increment security and jobs. Then Trump alleged the possibility of the Courts of being influenced by the opposite party in its decisions. 

This article from The Guardian informs about Trump called for surveillance against mosques and support the idea of establishing a database for all Muslims living in the United States. This ideology has led Trump wants to the shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until he was able to figure out how to attack horrendous threats by people who believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life, in his own words.

Trump’s executive order of the travel ban restriction proposed (also applied to permanent US residents, like green-card holders and foreign visitors) the imposition of a 90-day ban on travelers from Syria, Iran, Sudan, Lybia, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq, according to the Telegraph

However, the ban is not applied to Christians of these countries. 

Trump’s executive order has been strongly criticized by many people, as the Court of Appeals alleged that the travel ban has nothing to do with the reach of ‘national security’:

The decision to ban people from seven-Muslim majority countries to enter the United States will give further arguments to extremist groups, such as the Islamic State, and will not guarantee national security.”

By Alejandro Martínez, Marina Barberá and Alba Tissera.

Boehner and Netanyahu’s attempt to undermine Obama concerning the Iran negotiations

On top of the extremely sensitive official negotiations with Iran, internal U.S. political forces have broken up and the Israeli Prime Minister has become involved to make the nuclear issue with Iran even more complex.

President Barack Obama with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office in October 1, 2014  (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office in October 1, 2014 (Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

On January 21, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced that he invited the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of the Congress on March 3 that will deal with nuclear negotiations with Iran. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, but Tehran affirms that its nuclear program is only to produce energy for civilian use. Iran and the U.S. try to find a final deal by June 2015 in order to prevent that this nuclear issue results in a war. Indeed, Obama at a joint press conference with David Cameron at the White House on January 16 declared: “if this diplomatic solution fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened”.

Obama, in his State of the Union’s speech declared that “New sanctions passed by this Congress, at this moment in time, will all but guarantee that diplomacy fails […] That is why I will veto any new sanctions bill that threatens to undo this progress”. At the contrary, Netanyahu supports the Republican’s proposal to put sanctions on Iran. Obama has often disagreed with Netanyahu concerning Iran and Netanyahu will once again attempt to undermine the American President. In May 2011 he publicly criticized Obama during a speech to the Congress, also organized by the Republicans. Furthermore, Netanyahu supports the Republican candidates against Obama, such as during the 2012 elections when he supported Mitt Romney. He will probably also support the Republicans during the presidential elections in 2016.

Netanyahu will not meet the President during his visit because the White House refuses to receive foreign leaders before their elections and Netanyahu’s visit is only two weeks before Israeli’s legislative election. Netanyahu’s speech in front of the Congress may be perceived as an election speech. According to the Guardian, Netanyahu told his cabinet: “As Prime Minister of Israel, I am obligated to make every effort to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weaponry that will be aimed at the state of Israel.” However, it is also a very risky political strategy for the Prime Minister because it could damage Israel’s relationship with the U.S. that is Israel’s most important ally and it can finally lead to an opposite result for his elections.

Boehner invited Netanyahu without informing the Obama administration. It represents a breach of protocol since the foreign policy is supposed to be made only by the President and not by the Congress. Indeed, it would mean that there are two US foreign policies and it would be extremely confusing for foreign States which could misunderstand which of the two institutions is actually making the foreign policy. Moreover, a U.S. political party siding with a foreign country over its own President denotes a major break-up with the usual approach of the international relations.


As a country when it comes to feel threatened by the idea that your neighbor could be looking to obtain a nuclear weapon, you would immediately look to sabotage their plans by imposing dozens of sanctions, taking advantage of your alliance with the super powers, and keep alleging how bad nuclear weapons are and how much instability creates on the whole region, if this doesn’t work neither, then the next step is to achieve by yourself openly atomic warheads and begin to create a nuclear plan to obtain homemade nuclear bombs, without worrying about sanctions from power countries cause they are your allies. As all of this would not have much sense for many of us, it seems to be very logical for the Saudis, who are openly an enemy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is totally against is nuclear energy program, which so far has been proved to be nothing more than an energy program.

King Abdullah

King Abdullah

On November 24, Iran and the United States, China, Russia, France and Britain sealed a six-month deal in Geneva1 for a full resolution of the dispute on the Persian nuclear energy program, resulting on an historic agreement.

As described on the actual Joint Plan of Action (the nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers) ‘‘the goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons’’

As a reaction on this historical agreement, Abdullah al-Askar, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee appointed: “I am afraid Iran will give up something on to get something else from the big powers in terms of regional politics. And I’m worrying about giving Iran more space or a freer hand in the region,” he said.

Based on the records of Reuters, Saudi Arabia has the technology to deliver warheads since 1980. During the same time the Saudis secretly bought dozens of CSS-2 ballistic missiles from China. In 2009, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia warned the US special envoy that if Iran crossed the line, “we will get nuclear weapons”.

For David Albright, the head of the Institute for Science and International Security for Saudi Arabia to acquire nuclear weapons would mean withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Any US military sales would have to stop.





Nuclear Insist

Iran has been facing with economic embargo for 34 years and with the agreement that the government accepted in Geneva, may be cause to new allies come up in Middle East. Middle East was dealing with two important things in the last two weeks. First one is about Egypt and Turkey’s strategic locations and the second one is about the agreement in Geneva. The political broadcaster of Al Jazeera –Mervan Bişara- says that the uzlaşma between Washington and Tahran will cause new allies in the Middle East. On the other hand, according to Shashank Joshi from the Royal United Services Institute rapprochement of Iran and U.S can change the power in Middle East. Joshi also thinks that, in case of any attack from Washington,  Saudi Arabia and other Arabic countries won’t be able to defend themselves.

The International Atomic Energy(IAEA) has been met  and the community agreed that it’s forbidden to have nuclear weapons in the middle east countries.

The President of U.S, Barrack Obama, says about the meeting that it would help Iran to provide against having nuclear weapons.

Key points of the deal have been released by the White House:

  • Iran will stop enriching uranium beyond 5%, and “neutralise” its stockpile of uranium enriched beyond this point
  • Iran will give greater access to inspectors including daily access at Natanz and Fordo nuclear sites
  • There will be no further development of the Arak plant which it is believed could produce plutonium
  • In return, there will be no new nuclear-related sanctions for six months if Iran sticks by the accord
  • Iran will also receive sanctions relief worth about $7bn (£4.3bn) on sectors including precious metals

Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, the right of uranium amplification has discovered. However, Israil thinks that the result of the agreement was a “terrible mistake” because Rouhani thinks that Israel has right to defend themself if it’s necessary. According to the speech of Rouhani, Kerry said that the agreement will be more safier for allies in the Middle East, especially Israel.

What Iran will do:

  • Halt enrichment of uranium above 5% purity. (Uranium enriched to 3.5-5% can be used for nuclear power reactors, 20% for nuclear medicines and 90% for a nuclear bomb.)
  • “Neutralise” its stockpile of near-20%-enriched uranium, either by diluting it to less than 5% or converting it to a form which cannot be further enriched
  • Not install any more centrifuges (the machines used to enrich uranium)
  • Leave half to three-quarters of centrifuges installed in Natanz and Fordo enrichment facilities inoperable (Read our guide to Iran’s nuclear facilities)
  • Not build any more enrichment facilities
  • Not increase its stockpile of 3.5% low-enriched uranium
  • Halt work on the construction of its heavy-water reactor at Arak, not attempt to produce plutonium there (an alternative to highly enriched uranium used for an atomic weapon)
  • Provide daily access to Natanz and Fordo sites to IAEA inspectors and access to other facilities, mines and mills
  • Provide “long-sought” information on the Arak reactor and other data 

What the world’s power do:

  • Provide “limited, temporary, targeted, and reversible [sanctions] relief”. Not impose further nuclear-related sanctions if Iran meets its commitments
  • Suspend certain sanctions on trade in gold and precious metals, Iran’s automotive sector, and its petrochemical exports
  • Licence safety-related repairs and inspections inside Iran for certain Iranian airlines
  • Transfer $4.2bn (£2.6bn) to Iran in instalments from sales of its oil






“DEAL”. Submitted on Sunday 24th, 2.04 a.m.

“DEAL”. Those four letters made the difference at 2.04 a.m. Sunday at Genevra, Switzerland.  After months of diplomatic work since the election of the relative moderate Hassan Rouhani as Iranian President in June, Iran and six powerful countries of the world finally have come to an agreement.

The deal consists on Iran halting their actions to obtain nuclear weapons while those six countries (USA, Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China) will relieveNuclear deal some economical sanctions. The point is that Iran can’t have uranium enriched beyond 5%, which means that they have to dilute the 20% uranium they have. In scientific terms, that didn’t seem to be a great avance, because the most difficult thing is to enriched it to 5%, which is still allowed in this arrangement. 

Of course, apart of the peace reasons there are some business interests involve. The nuclear deal will allow the country to export more crude oil as it will make its transportation less expensive, which is interesting for both sides Iran and the global powers.

Despite almost the whole international community accepts this deal as a first step to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons, Israel thinks that it’s a threat for them. “Israel has many friends and allies, but when they’re mistaken, it is my duty to speak out… the regime in Iran is committed to destroying Israel. And Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself by itself from any threat.” said the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu.

“Ultimately, we understand why Israel is particularly skeptical about Iran. […] This is not simply about trusting the Iranian government. There are strict verification measures.” A senior administration official said. This governments are aware that Israel has some point of reason while being suspicious and they will be apply control measures.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Zarif, said he hopes the nuclear agreement will lead to “concrete steps” to improve relations between Iran and Western powers.” as iranian population are taking this agreement as a huge step towards peace and open-doors.

Now we have six months of trial and during this time experts will have a exhaustive revision of the Iranian nuclear materials and processes. Despite of the fact that this while issue had been treated by some parts of the society as an Obama victory, Obama himself had said that this is just a first step in a long way that will be difficult and full of obstacles. As Bill Nelson said: “It is a choice between a pause or imminent war. I choose a verifiable pause.”

Sam Stein

Syria’s Faith

What would happen if the legit government of Al Assad falls, the following article takes a step forward trying to forecast the most plausible scenarios that the fall of Al Assad could carry on.

For a very long time, Syria has been in religious conflict with a lot of countries and also in oil deals with others. If this should come to an end, what would be the consequences? Positive, negative or both? Even though such prediction will not happen in such a near future, it is of our interest to show some possibilities and the advantages or disadvantages of this hypothetical future.

Part of Golan Heıghts landscape

Part of Golan Heıghts landscape

Syria’s most notable starter was the war against Israel in 1973 in an attempt to retake the Golan Heights with Egypt, which they failed. It led them to sign a disengagement deal. During the war, Syria sent troops to Lebanon to intervene in the civil war, to maintain the minorities in power. Afterwards, riots began uprising in Iran, which led Syria to stress adherence to Iran. But tension rose with the US mostly at the beginning of the 21st century, whom President Bush at the time declared them as ‘’axis of evil’’ states. They were accused of acquiring weapons of mass destruction in Damascus. A year later in 2003 Syria denies having chemical weapons, as well as having Iraqis as fugitives. These accusations and threats led to tension between Syria and US, also with the rest of the world.

As the conflict continues in Syria, the possible scenarios for a close future in the region are getting more and more important to visualize them to avoid many of them due to its implication to increase the number of regional conflicts along the Middle East, just like recently the president of Iraq has, Mr. Maliki warned to the possible consequence if Assad government falls. ‘’The killing or removal of President Bashar in any way will explode into an internal struggle between two groups and this will have an impact on the region,” said Mr. Maliki, talking about the already existing conflict along the middle east between Sunni and the Shia. “It will end with civil war and this civil war will lead to alliances in the region. Because we are a country that suffered from the civil war of a sectarian background, we fear for the future of Syria and the whole region.” Mr. Maliki remarked.
The former president of Iraq has not been the only one concerned over what the plausible scenarios could be if Al

Bashar Al Assad, Presıdent of Syrıa

Bashar Al Assad, Presıdent of Syrıa

Assad’s regimen falls, the current conflict in Syria has been described to be a danger to all minorities that live along the region, this conflict has been nothing but a try out to change the neutral and balanced government to a political Shia extremist governance where whoever doesn’t follow the belief of the Wahhabi/Salafist sect might have just a few options as to become one, to pay a high tax to be able to keep their belief or to be killed as a recent interview held by the widely known Sky News to some western backed up terrorist wrongly called ‘’freedom fighters’’.

The independent news source ‘’National Catholic REPORTER’’ which is a independent newspaper journalistic outlets for Catholics has recently been warning about the deadly consequence that the fall of Al Assad would carry out for the Catholics and minorities in Syria and the region, which they describe as ‘’being worse than anyone could even imagine’’. The most recent interview to a Syrian Christian shows how have they been losing their rights and freedom that they use to be before the extremist Islamists got into Syria soil, as described along the interview held on July 27.

That is the reason we strongly believe that at any alternative scenario that could take place if Al Assad falls would bring just more instability, insecurity, an increase of bloody tribal/sectarian wars leading to civil wars along the region, creating bigger instabilities along the middle east, leading to probably new western invasion to more Arab countries, using the false flag of democracy and freedom.





Iran Nuclear Talks

Iran’s claim for nuclear power has been for very long in their interest. What is interesting to us is the evolution and their reasons for such interest, which for most of the world is for offensive means against other countries, while for some is just a way to grow and develop Iran.

For two decades Iran has been in efforts to acquire capability in building nuclear weapons. uranium enrichment, warhead design, and delivery systems are between the technologies developed by them. They depend on Tehran to make the final decision, who says that the intentions are entirely peaceful.

This kind of discussion has for long being going. Iran stated its first nuclear reactor in 1967, which was supplied by the U.S. with five-megawatt Tehran Research Reactors. In 1974 Iran establishes the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) and the construction of 23 nuclear power plants and the development of a full nuclear fuel cycle.

Afterwards, in 1984 the U.S. Department of State adds Iran to its list of state sponsors of terrorism. Examples like this show the increasing pressure on top of Iran and its attempts at production of nuclear energy.

We can say that division difference for Iran change the whole understanding about nuclear talks. This is mainly because the new government more talkative when it comes to Western relations. Even the talks about nuclear power in Geneva moving at least twice as quickly as previous talks. This situation is mainly because both Abbas Araqchi (Iran’s deputy foreign minister) and Mohammad Javad Zarif (foreign minister) can speak English fluently.

Of course some of the countries don’t back up this ‘’talks’’ between Iran and Western countries. Israel is one of them and the most rejecting state. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he ‘’utterly rejected’’ such a deal with Iran mainly because Iran is long-time enemy of Iran. And officials suspecting that Israel may take military action to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.

This sensitive relationship between Iran and Western countries relies on a trust between each other. Both sides need to trust each other. As EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said; “To get to a comprehensive agreement is very, very difficult with highly technical issues that have to be resolved. We are looking for a confidence-building step that will put some time on the clock,” she said. “The aim is to rebuild trust … to constrain the program and even take it back a notch.”