# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The government needs to do more: Send them more aid, send them food, and break ties with Myanmar completely," said Noor Hussain Arkani, who leads the Pakistan chapter of a charity in the Rohingya community, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization. "We need world pressure behind us to end this violence, this hell. Just issuing statements isn't enough."

Pakistan was among the earliest and most strident in condemning the Myanmar government for its offensive, which started after Rohingya militants killed members of the security forces. The United Nations said Tuesday that since then, at least 370,000 Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh.

But even as politicians and civil society in Pakistan are up in arms over how members of the Buddhist majority in Myanmar are abusing the Muslim Rohingyas there, hundreds of thousands of Rohingya migrants here continue to live in desperation.

Across the Arkanabad slum - named after the old designation for Myanmar's present-day Rakhine State - decrepit shanties with temporary walls, often with no doors and windows and unsteady corrugated roofs, serve as homes to more than 100,000 Rohingya.

The men mostly work as fishermen, while a small number weave carpets or are employed in garment factories. Malnutrition and diarrhea are common among children who have little access to schools and spend their days playing in rivers of garbage.

Residents said that up to 30 families shared a single tap of water. But even where running water is available, it often flows for less than four hours a day. There are no hospitals in the slums, and at least six women spoke of having a relative die giving birth because she had been denied admission to government hospitals.

Still, what people complained of the most in interviews last week was routine harassment by the police. Many spoke grimly of a "Burma Cell," a special police division responsible for cracking down on Rohingya migrants. (Burma is the former name of Myanmar.)

Many Rohingya have carried Pakistani national ID cards for years but since the authorities started cracking down on fake versions in 2014, many have found it hard to renew their cards. And the second generation is being denied cards altogether, they said.

"Without cards, we are blocked out of jobs, our children can't apply for admission in high schools and we can't access government hospitals," said Mr. Arkani, of the Rohingya Solidarity Organization.

In the slum of Burmi Colony, many residents spoke of being forbidden by the police to leave to fish. Mohammad Younis, a fisherman in his 30s, said he had not worked for half a year and his monthly salary of around $600 had shrunk to less than $60.

"When I try and take my nets and go out, I get stopped by the police, who ask for my ID," said Mr. Younis, whose documents expired six months ago. "I show them documents to prove I am trying to renew my ID card, but they don't even let me leave the colony."

He added, "We will die, trapped here without access to our means of livelihood."

Residents described arrests of people without cards who were then held either on impossible bail or until they paid a bribe directly to officers.

Malik Ishfaque, the station house master at the police station under whose jurisdiction many of the Rohingya-majority slums fall, said that officers were duty-bound to crack down on anyone who did not possess valid documents. And while he acknowledged that the Burma Cell used to exist, he said it had been dismantled.

Asked about instances of harassment and intimidation by the police that some Rohingya had described, Mr. Ishfaque said: "We act against these people because they are a group of thieves," noting that crimes like pick-pocketing and robbery in the surrounding area were mostly committed by the Rohingya.

Despite having little, the Rohingya have been trying to directly help their people back in Myanmar.

Mr. Arkani said the community had raised money to send meat from 30 cows for the new wave of refugees in Bangladesh, as no new refugees were being allowed into Pakistan. The Rohingya Solidarity Organization had also set up a glass donation box, but it was almost empty.

"We are so poor already, but even then we try to raise whatever little money we can among ourselves," he said. "But we need more help from Pakistani people who are rich, who have resources."

Many who live here cannot even officially identify themselves as Rohingya. To avoid persecution and be accepted as naturalized citizens, many pretended to be Bengalis who migrated from East Pakistan before the 1971 war of independence, after which it became Bangladesh.

"You ask if we have enough to eat or drink, but I ask you: What is our condition when we cannot even say we are Burmese?" said Noor Jabbar, a community elder whose ID card expired three months ago but who has not succeeded in renewing it.

For his part, Khalid Saifullah, 70, who migrated from Myanmar four decades ago, described persistent mistreatment. "They won't let me be a citizen, because then they have to give me rights and they won't call me a refugee because then they have to give me aid," said Mr. Saifullah, showing the high school diploma he had received from a school in Karachi. "I am not a citizen or a refugee. I am an illegal alien. I am nothing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Far From Myanmar Violence, Rohingya in Pakistan Are Seething

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The government needs to do more: Send them more aid, send them food, and break ties with Myanmar completely," said Noor Hussain Arkani, who leads the Pakistan chapter of a charity in the Rohingya community, the Rohingya Solidarity Organization. "We need world pressure behind us to end this violence, this hell.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Trump Administration faces an October 15 deadline under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 to certify Iranian compliance and several other aspects of the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). After the State Department twice certified the agreement in order to meet 90-day deadlines earlier this year, President Donald Trump indicated that he was reluctant to do so again-and it is almost impossible to see how he could do so. Iran has proclaimed it will not permit inspections of its military bases, which are permitted-indeed necessary-under the nuclear deal. The Trump Administration should decertify and adopt a strategy to either fix or abrogate the nuclear deal.
The Four Elements of Certification
Every 90 days, the Administration is required by law to certify four conditions related to the JCPOA:

"(i) Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;

"(ii) Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;

"(iii) Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and

"(iv) suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is-

(I) appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and

(II) vital to the national security interests of the United States;"

It is increasingly difficult to argue that it is vital to the national security interest of the United States to continue granting billions of dollars of sanctions relief that will strengthen a rogue regime that leads chants of "Death to America"; exports terrorism; threatens U.S. allies; harasses U.S. Navy warships in the Persian Gulf; defies U.N. Security Council Resolutions on ballistic missile tests, arms imports, and arms exports; and arrests innocent American citizens to hold as hostages. All of these actions violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the JCPOA.
JCPOA Violations and Loophole Exploitations
Iran has not "transparently, verifiably and fully" implemented the letter of the JCPOA. It has been caught cheating at the margins on centrifuge development, heavy water restrictions, technology procurement, and export controls. Tehran exceeded the JCPOA's restrictions on research on advanced centrifuges, and last year sought to acquire illicit carbon fiber material, a key component of advanced centrifuges. It twice violated the 130-metric-ton cap on heavy water. It also shipped excess supplies of heavy water to Oman and retained ownership of it, rather than selling or disposing of it, as originally required under the JCPOA, before the Obama Administration secretly and unwisely agreed to exempt Iranian heavy water held overseas.

Tehran also sought to acquire illicit materials outside the mandatory procurement channel set up by the JCPOA. It was caught red-handed trying to purchase nuclear technology and restricted ballistic-missile technology from German companies.

Perhaps the biggest obstacle to certifying that Iran is fully and verifiably implementing the JCPOA and related agreements is that Tehran has publicly rejected inspections of its military bases. This has prevented the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) from verifying Iranian compliance with prohibitions against nuclear-weapons-related work. To make matters worse, the IAEA has refrained from pushing the issue because it does not want to give the Trump Administration an "excuse" for jettisoning the JCPOA.

IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano dropped a bombshell on September 26 when he was asked if his agency had the means to verify that Iran was not working on a nuclear explosive device. He replied that "[our] tools are limited" and that "[m]ore clarification would be helpful.... Russia has a different view. [It believes] that is not the mandate of the IAEA." This prompted Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., to blast Moscow: "It appears that some countries are attempting to shield Iran from even more inspections. Without inspections, the Iran deal is an empty promise."

U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2231, which endorsed the JCPOA and therefore is another "related agreement" that must be accounted for in the certification process, imposes restrictions on ballistic-missile development and arms transfers to and from Iran. Tehran has repeatedly violated these restrictions. It has conducted multiple ballistic-missile tests, including at least one test of a missile with a message inscribed in Hebrew: "Israel must be wiped off the earth."

Iran has been caught at least twice trying to import illicit weapons, and many more times illegally exporting arms to Iraq and Syria, insurgent groups in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Somalia, and Yemen, as well as to terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestine Islamic Jihad. The U.S. has responded with targeted sanctions on individuals and entities involved in Iran's ballistic missile program, but the U.N. has failed to punish these violations.

Tehran also has violated the travel ban included in UNSCR 2231 on certain Iranian officials, notably including Major General Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who has publicly travelled to Iraq, Russia, and Syria.

Even if Tehran halted its cheating and rigorously complied with the text of the JCPOA, the flawed structure of the agreement only postpones the potential threat of an Iranian nuclear breakout by allowing Iran to ramp up its uranium-enrichment capabilities to the point where it could quickly make a final sprint to a nuclear weapon capability. For all of these reasons, the State Department should decertify the JCPOA.
The Key Issue: Try to Fix the JCPOA or Walk Away?
Decertification would not automatically trigger the collapse of the nuclear deal, but would set the stage for reviewing the terms and results of the JCPOA. Congress would have 60 days to debate whether to restore nuclear-related sanctions lifted by the JCPOA. Before that debate begins, the Trump Administration must decide whether to abrogate the deal unilaterally or seek to correct the flaws of the JCPOA through further negotiations.

Walking away from the JCPOA could allow Iran to have its cake and eat it, too. Tehran would be relieved of future obligations under the JCPOA, after pocketing its benefits in terms of front-loaded sanctions relief. Washington could unilaterally re-impose sanctions, but could not count on the U.N. Security Council to re-impose and enforce U.N. sanctions unless Iran was found to be in material breach of the JCPOA.

Alternatively, the Administration could try to correct the flaws of the agreement. It could request that Congress hold off on re-imposing nuclear-related sanctions for a defined period until it became clear whether fixing the nuclear deal is possible. This clearly would be a difficult task. Tehran has refused to consider any renegotiation.

But, once the Administration has decertified the deal and Congress is poised to re-apply sanctions, Tehran may reconsider its refusal to renegotiate.To further enhance its diplomatic bargaining leverage, the Administration could ask Congress to authorize the use of military force as a last resort if necessary to prevent an Iranian nuclear breakout. The Administration should also push for an inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran was suspected of conducting illicit work to advance a nuclear weapons program. If Iran refused, U.N. sanctions would snap back.

The prospect of new sanctions would give Washington renewed leverage over Iran and over European signatories of the JCPOA. Although they allhave opposed renegotiating the agreement, they may drop their objections when it becomes clear that would be tantamount to letting the deal die.

But renegotiating the JCPOA would only be worthwhile if it permanently barred Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. At a minimum, this would require:

Banning Iran from uranium-enrichment and plutonium-production activities;

Dismantling substantial portions of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, particularly the Fordow and Natanz uranium-enrichment facilities and Arak heavy water reactor;

Performing robust inspections on an "anytime anywhere" basis and real-time monitoring of Iranian nuclear facilities;

Ensuring that Iran comes clean on its past weaponization efforts; and

Determining a clear and rapid process for re-imposing all sanctions if Iran is caught cheating.

Decertification Is Necessary to Hold Iran Accountable
The JCPOA is a risky and fundamentally flawed agreement that gave Tehran massive sanctions relief up-front, while only requiring it to make temporary and easily reversible concessions. Contrary to the promises of the Obama Administration, the nuclear deal has not moderated Iran's foreign policy. In fact, Tehran has stepped up its malign activities in the region since 2015, and the nuclear agreement has made a bad situation worse by boosting Iran's dictatorship in the economic, military, and geopolitical spheres. Decertification is the necessary first step in holding Iran accountable for its aggressive foreign policy, and permanently blocking its path to a nuclear weapon. It gives European allies an incentive to seek a better nuclear deal, and signals Iran that it will pay a rising priceif it continues its hostile policies and nuclear weapons ambitions.
Five Heritage Foundation Analyses of JCPOA Key Issues State Department Confirms Iran Compliant with Nuclear Deal, But Warns Tehran Still on Notice
James Phillips

Commentary, April 20, 2017
http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/state-department-confirms-iran-compliant-nuclear-deal-warns-tehran-still
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, in a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, wrote that Iran remained compliant with the agreement, but that the Administration was concerned about Tehran's support for terrorism and is reviewing whether to continue suspending sanctions, as required under the deal. Congress mandated that the State Department must notify it every 90 days about Iran's compliance with its nuclear obligations.
Trump Administration Slaps Sanctions on Iran for Missile Test and Other Provocations
James Phillips

Commentary, February 7, 2017
http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/trump-administration-slaps-sanctions-iran-missile-test-and-other
The Trump Administration followed through with a new round of sanctions on Iran, two days after National Security Advisor Michael Flynn announced that it was "officially putting Iran on notice" for a missile test and its hostile regional policies. The sanctions were targeted at 13 individuals and 12 entities for their support for Iran's ballistic-missile program or for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, which has been designated under an executive order for providing material support to various terrorist groups, including Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran Is Wrong: Trump Can Absolutely Overturn the Nuclear Deal
James Phillips

Commentary, November 9, 2016
http://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/iran-wrong-trump-can-absolutely-overturn-the-nuclear-deal
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani claimed that there is "no possibility" for the Obama Administration's nuclear deal with Iran to be overturned by President Trump, despite Trump's threat to do so. This is an outright lie. President Obama purposely structured the deal as an executive agreement to make an end-run around Congress, which he knew would oppose the flawed and risky deal.
The Nuclear Deal Has Not Changed Iran
James Phillips

Commentary, May 20, 2016
http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/commentary/the-nuclear-deal-hasnt-changed-iran
Under the Iran nuclear agreement, key restrictions on Tehran's nuclear operations will be lifted in 10 to 15 years. This makes no sense. The Obama Administration hinted that the nuclear deal itself makes transformation possible by somehow helping Iranian "moderates" in their power struggle with hard-liners. But the outcome of Iran's opaque internal power struggle is wholly unpredictable. Washington would be wise not to overestimate its ability to shape Iranian politics.
The Dangerous Regional Implications of the Iran Nuclear Agreement
James Phillips

Backgrounder No. 3124, May 9, 2016
http://www.heritage.org/middle-east/report/the-dangerous-regional-implications-the-iran-nuclear-agreement
The Obama White House treated Iran's hostile regime with kid gloves. In the process of courting Iran, the White House was perceived to be abandoning traditional Arab allies, without establishing a credible security architecture in the region to contain and roll back Iran. It is now up to the Trump Administration to mitigate the dangerous Middle East legacy bequeathed by the Obama Administration. Congress can play a helpful role by convincing Tehran and U.S. allies that Iran does not have a free pass to establish regional hegemony. Washington must impose clear and mounting costs on Iran for its hostile policies.
-James Phillips is a Senior Research Fellow in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy, of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy, at The Heritage Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Time to Decertify the Iran Nuclear Agreement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Trump Administration faces an October 15 deadline under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 to certify Iranian compliance and several other aspects of the nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why is Silicon Valley So Awful to Women?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign - evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky - is to cast the phrase "Black Lives Matter" as an inflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has no legitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this view when he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., were he alive today, would be "appalled" by the movement's focus on the skin color of the unarmed people who are disproportionately killed in encounters with the police. This argument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profound ignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement in particular. From the very beginning, the movement focused unapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violence against African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very much like the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress and Americans confront the fact that African-Americans were being killed with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had the right to life and to equal protection under the law. The movement sought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way used expressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction that was visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documented cases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after being turned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched - which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered - in front of enormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. - the most heinous act of that period - which occurred at the height of the early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murdered that Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away from the fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, by monstrous men whose leaders fed them "the stale bread of hatred and the spoiled meat of racism." He said that the dead "have something to say" to a complacent federal government that cut back-room deals with Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to "every Negro who has passively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stood on the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice." Shock over the bombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the following year.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rights activists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to be beaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in the South so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality and meaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma, Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rights demonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress to acknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, and to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there was never a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securing citizenship rights for black people who had long been denied them.

The "Black Lives Matter" movement focuses on the fact that black citizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police, and is of a piece with this history. Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declaration that voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-century ago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious than white lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact - that the lives of black citizens in this country historically have not mattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who are unacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortable with the language of the movement. But politicians who know better and seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context are acting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasant truth and asking the country to collude with them.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: The Truth of 'Black Lives Matter'. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Truth of 'Black Lives Matter'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media are trying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up in response to the all-too-common police killings of unarmed African-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign - evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Gov.