Ayatollah Momen Passes Away at 81
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy
Survival Global Politics and Strategy ISSN: 0039-6338 (Print) 1468-2699 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann To cite this article: Georg Löfflmann (2019) America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy, Survival, 61:6, 115-138, DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2019.1688573 Published online: 19 Nov 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 515 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsur20 America First and the Populist Impact on US Foreign Policy Georg Löfflmann The election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the success of Brexit in the European Union referendum campaign in the United Kingdom are the most prominent examples of the populist disruption of the status quo in international politics. This has led to heightened interest in the phenomenon of populism, both among global media and in academia.1 In the past, most analysts viewed populism as a domestic phenomenon rel- evant to voter mobilisation, with a particular focus on its impact on liberal democratic systems, comparisons among populist movements and leaders, and its development in Europe and Latin America.2 Populism’s impact on foreign policy and national security has garnered relatively little attention, and there has been little crossover between -
The Case for Fort Trump Couldn't Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones
09/10/2018 The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger | Salvatore Babones Unknown date Salvatore Babones The Case For Fort Trump Couldn’t Be Stronger Poland’s President Andrzej Duda met with President Donald Trump at the White House Tuesday to talk defense. Poland’s defense. But then, Poland’s defense is Europe’s defense, and European defense has been a core U.S. foreign-policy mission for more than a century. Poland is crucial to European defense because it is the keystone of a NATO arch that runs from Norway in the Arctic to Turkey in the Caucasus. NATO’s northern ank is secure. NATO’s southern ank is in disarray as Turkey’s commitment to NATO comes under doubt. But it is in the center that any future conict will be won or lost. Germany used to be the bulwark of NATO’s central front, but today Germany’s defense spending is among the lowest in Europe and its operational readiness is abysmal. Just as important, the German public does not support NATO’s mission or America’s role in it. By a 42 percent to 37 percent margin, Germans want U.S. troops out of their country. Even more alarming is the fact that only 40 percent of the German public supports the use of German troops to defend another European country from a Russian invasion. The corresponding gure for both the United States and Poland is 62 percent. That’s right: Americans are more willing to send troops to defend a European ally than Germans are. -
Special Raport
SPECIAL REPORT 02/11/2019 U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Warsaw Institute U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE U.S. Permanent Military Base in Poland: Favorable Solution For the NATO Alliance Publisher: Warsaw Institute Wilcza St. 9 00-538 Warsaw Poland www.warsawinstitute.org [email protected] Authors: Grzegorz Kuczyński - Director of Eurasia Program, Warsaw Institute Krzysztof Kamiński – President, Warsaw Institute Glen E. Howard - President, Jamestown Foundation Laurynas Kasčiūnas - Member of the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania Iulian Chifu – President, Conflict Prevention and Early Warning Center Editor: Agnieszka Nitek - Warsaw Institute Translations & proofreading: Aleksandra Iskra - Warsaw Institute ISBN 978-83-947602-2-9 © Warsaw Institute 2019 The opinions given and the positions held in this publication solely reflects the views of authors. 2 Special Report www.warsawinstitute.org U.S. PERMANENT MILITARY BASE IN POLAND: FAVORABLE SOLUTION FOR THE NATO ALLIANCE Dear Readers, On September 18th, 2018, during a joint press conference of the President of the United States and President of the Republic of Poland, the proposal to increase the involvement of U.S. Army in Central and Eastern Europe was announced. President Donald J. Trump said the U.S. is considering to deploy more U.S. troops and military equipment to Poland. His Polish counterpart, President Andrzej Duda, suggested building a permanent U.S. base in Poland. Poland has openly proposed a permanent U.S. presence since President George W. Bush was in office. All significant political forces in Poland have been supporting this idea for years. -
5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges A
5 June 2019 Diego García-Sayán, United Nations Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights United Nations Office at Geneva 8-14 Avenue de la Paix 12-11 Geneva 10, Switzerland Via Email: [email protected] RE: Complaint Against the United States of America: Interference with Judicial Proceedings at the International Criminal Court “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” - U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton1 “…subsequent changes within the relevant political landscape both in Afghanistan and in key States (both parties and non-parties to the Statute), coupled with the complexity and volatility of the political climate still surrounding the Afghan scenario, make it extremely difficult to gauge the prospects of securing meaningful cooperation from relevant authorities for the future.” - ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II, 12 April 2019 Decision2 Dear Special Rapporteur García-Sayán, This complaint and request for a comprehensive investigation is prompted by the well- founded belief that there has been, and likely continues to be, interference with the independence of judicial proceedings at the International Criminal Court (“ICC” or “Court”) by senior officials of the United States, up to and including President Donald Trump. Public statements by U.S. officials make clear that the target of this interference extends not only to personnel of the ICC, including members of the judiciary, but also to Member States of the ICC as well as inter-governmental organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”), and threatens to interfere with the work of lawyers representing victims or otherwise engaging with the ICC. -
National Basketball Association Official
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OFFICIAL SCORER'S REPORT FINAL BOX 12/9/2014 Cedar Park Center, Cedar Park, TX Officials: #39 CJ Washington, #54 Jason Goldenberg, #70 Aaron Smith Time of Game: 10:2 Attendance: 4,525 VISITOR: Texas Legends (6-4) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 15 Damion James F 41:37 9 15 2 6 6 8 2 5 7 2 6 1 0 0 26 10 Ricky Ledo F 40:33 6 12 2 3 3 4 0 4 4 5 3 0 3 0 17 44 Ivan Johnson C 13:57 3 7 0 0 0 3 1 2 3 0 2 0 2 0 6 9 Doron Lamb G 38:16 9 13 1 2 4 5 0 3 3 0 3 3 4 0 23 12 Bubu Palo G 27:16 1 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 1 2 0 1 3 0 6 17 Renaldo Balkman 29:34 3 8 0 1 2 4 0 8 8 1 5 1 2 0 8 20 Justin Jackson 16:53 1 2 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 0 5 0 0 0 3 11 Booker Woodfox 25:45 5 11 3 7 4 4 0 3 3 2 0 1 1 0 17 0 Yuki Togashi 6:09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 24 Jeremy Atkinson DNP - Coach's Decision 21 Eric Griffin DND - Sick 50 Omar Samhan DNP - Coach's Decision TOTALS: 37 70 8 19 24 34 4 27 31 13 24 7 15 0 106 PERCENTAGES: 52.9% 42.1% 70.6% TM REB: 8 TOT TO: 15 (19 PTS) HOME: AUSTIN SPURS (5-3) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 19 Jarell Eddie F 33:28 4 8 2 6 4 5 1 2 3 0 3 2 2 0 14 20 Joshua Davis F 34:25 4 10 0 0 5 6 4 9 13 2 4 1 1 0 13 32 JaMychal Green C 31:01 10 16 0 0 12 12 5 6 11 2 5 2 3 1 32 17 Jonathan Simmons G 40:07 7 13 1 4 2 2 1 3 4 2 3 2 4 0 17 7 Bryce Cotton G 45:59 6 13 2 5 2 3 3 3 6 6 2 0 4 0 16 16 Orlando Johnson 23:37 4 10 0 0 1 1 1 2 3 2 3 0 1 0 9 22 Keith Wright 12:07 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 4 14 Greg Gantt 2:36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 15 Erik Murphy 16:40 2 8 1 6 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 7 9 Devondrick Walker DNP - Coach's Decision TOTALS: 39 82 6 22 28 31 15 29 44 15 24 8 16 1 112 PERCENTAGES: 47.6% 27.3% 90.3% TM REB: 6 TOT TO: 16 (25 PTS) SCORE BY PERIODS 1 2 3 4 FINAL Legends 34 20 31 21 106 SPURS 36 29 25 22 112 Inactive: Spurs - Udofia Technical Fouls - Individual Legends (4): Johnson 3:39 2nd , Najera 2:37 2nd , Johnson 2:37 2nd , Ledo 2:37 2nd SPURS: NONE Pts. -
European Army Or Fort Trump? the Case of Polish Participation in Headquarters Eurocorps in the Issue of Multinational Military Echelons in the 21St Century
Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive DSpace Repository Theses and Dissertations 1. Thesis and Dissertation Collection, all items 2019-06 EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY Bohnsack, Heiko Monterey, CA; Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/62796 Downloaded from NPS Archive: Calhoun NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA THESIS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY by Heiko Bohnsack June 2019 Thesis Advisor: Donald Abenheim Second Reader: Uwe Hartmann Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Form Approved OMB REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED (Leave blank) June 2019 Master's thesis 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS EUROPEAN ARMY OR FORT TRUMP? THE CASE OF POLISH PARTICIPATION IN HEADQUARTERS EUROCORPS IN THE ISSUE OF MULTINATIONAL MILITARY ECHELONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY 6. -
I V the Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown
The Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Kyle Beardsley, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Joseph Grieco ___________________________ Daniel Bolger Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 i v ABSTRACT The Politics of Foreign Military Bases by J. Wellington Brown Department of Political Science Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Kyle Beardsley, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver, Co-Advisor ___________________________ Joseph Grieco ___________________________ Daniel Bolger An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Political Science in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 i v Copyright by J. Wellington Brown 2020 Abstract Foreign military bases are anomalies in a world of sovereign states. Why do major powers station their finite military forces to protect other countries and how does the distribution of these bases relate to a country’s grand strategy? Why do host-nations give up their sovereignty and allow foreign forces, capable of existential violence, to deploy within their borders? This dissertation takes a mixed method approach to each of these questions. For the first, I combine descriptive case studies relating the basing postures of five major powers and to their respective grand strategies with a quantitative analysis of the correlates of the US military basing network. To answer the second, I test the role of host-nation security conditions on US military access and then conduct an in-depth process tracing of US-Philippine basing relations. -
A Minefield of Opportunity
REPORT — SPRING 2020 A minefield of opportunity Transatlantic defence in the Trump era The authors in this discussion paper contribute in their personal capacities, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of the organisations they represent, nor of Friends of Europe and its board of trustees, members or partners. Reproduction on whole or in part is permitted, provided that full credit is given to Friends of Europe, and that any such reproduction, whether in whole or in part, is not sold unless incorporated in other works. The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Co-funded by the Europe for Citizens Programme of the European Union Publisher: Geert Cami Director: Nathalie Furrer, Dharmendra Kanani Programme Manager: Raphaël Danglade Programme Assistant: Clara Casert Editor: Robert Arenella, Arnaud Bodet, Eleanor Doorley, Angela Pauly Design: Elza Lőw, Lucien Leyh © Friends of Europe - July 2019 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visits the United States, April 2017 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg visits the United States, April 2017 This report is part of Friends of Europe’s Peace, Security and Defence programme. Written by Paul Taylor, it brings together the views of scholars, policymakers and senior defence and security stakeholders. Unless otherwise indicated, this report reflects the writer’s understanding of the views expressed by the interviewees and participants of survey. The author and the participants contributed in their personal capacities, and their views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions they represent, or of Friends of Europe and its board of trustees, members or partners. -
How to Negotiate with Iran While Avoiding the Pitfalls of 2015 The
Selected articles concerning Israel, published weekly by Suburban Orthodox Toras Chaim’s (Baltimore) Israel Action Committee Edited by Jerry Appelbaum ( [email protected] ) | Founding editor: Sheldon J. Berman Z”L Issue 8 7 5 Volume 2 1 , Number 6 Parshias Yisro | Shabbos Mevarchim February 6 , 20 2 1 How to Negotiate with Iran While Avoiding the Pitfalls of 2015 By Amos Yadlin and Ebtesam al - Ketb foreignaffairs.com January 27, 2021 The U.S. must maintain constant military and would be advantageous to withdraw from the agreement, economic pressure. despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s “maximum The new administration of U.S. President Joe Biden pressure” sanctions campaign. Should the Unite d States has proposed for Iran and the United States to return to prove unable to conclude a new and improved nuclear deal full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, also known as with Iran after returning to the JCPOA, then it will have the Joint Comprehen sive Plan of Action. But this prospect revived an arms control agreement shortly before the poses considerable risks to regional and even global second half of its 15 - year timeline, during which the security. A better approach, in our view, would be one that nuclear restrictions grad ually expire. aims to reach a modest interim agreement, or “JCPOA Some nonproliferation experts argue that returning to minus,” after which talks would focus on achieving a more the deal will reserve U.S. leverage to strike follow - on restrictive nuclear deal than the original, or “JCPOA plus.” agreements. Tehran might continue negotiating after the If, however, the Biden administration remains deal is reinstated, these proponents suggest, in the hope of determined to revive the previous agreement, it should further sanctio ns relief. -
National Basketball Association Official
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OFFICIAL SCORER'S REPORT FINAL BOX 1/18/2015 Kaiser Permanente Arena, Santa Cruz, CA Officials: #37 Matt Myers, #54 Jason Goldenberg, #67 Ray Acosta Time of Game: 2:21 Attendance: 346 VISITOR: Texas Legends (12-10) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 13 Mike James F 37:30 6 13 1 3 1 2 0 6 6 3 5 1 2 2 14 15 Damion James F 26:15 6 10 1 2 3 9 1 7 8 3 6 1 1 2 16 21 Eric Griffin C 22:43 3 9 1 2 1 3 2 2 4 0 6 1 5 2 8 10 Ricky Ledo G 34:31 8 12 0 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 1 3 0 17 9 Doron Lamb G 44:35 8 13 3 5 3 4 2 3 5 4 4 2 3 0 22 17 Renaldo Balkman 33:55 6 13 0 0 7 8 3 7 10 3 2 2 1 4 19 24 William Buford 15:46 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 5 6 1 1 2 2 0 2 0 Yuki Togashi 2:16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 11 Booker Woodfox 15:41 1 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 3 20 Justin Jackson 6:48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 50 Omar Samhan DNP - Coach's Decision TOTALS: 39 77 7 16 16 28 10 35 45 17 28 11 20 11 101 PERCENTAGES: 50.6% 43.8% 57.1% TM REB: 10 TOT TO: 20 (21 PTS) HOME: MAINE RED CLAWS (17-5) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 14 Chris Babb F 32:42 6 11 4 7 4 7 1 9 10 2 1 2 1 0 20 21 Christian Watford F 26:36 5 12 1 4 3 4 2 3 5 3 2 0 3 0 14 50 Ralph Sampson C 17:02 1 4 0 0 3 4 2 1 3 0 3 0 3 2 5 12 Jermaine Taylor G 21:50 4 10 2 6 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 0 4 0 13 10 Tim Frazier G 38:51 4 14 1 3 0 1 1 4 5 7 3 3 3 0 9 42 Asauhn Dixon-Tatum 18:08 4 6 0 0 0 2 6 3 9 0 3 0 0 0 8 24 Omari Johnson 21:24 3 9 0 6 2 3 0 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 8 20 Rodney McGruder 22:09 3 12 2 2 3 4 2 3 5 4 2 0 0 0 11 7 Jason Calliste 27:20 5 9 4 6 4 4 0 2 2 4 5 4 3 0 18 15 Sherwood Brown 13:58 0 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 11 Andre Stringer DND - Coach's Decision TOTALS: 35 91 14 36 22 32 16 32 48 23 23 10 17 3 106 PERCENTAGES: 38.5% 38.9% 68.8% TM REB: 13 TOT TO: 17 (25 PTS) SCORE BY PERIODS 1 2 3 4 FINAL Legends 29 26 30 16 101 RED CLAWS 28 23 22 33 106 Inactive: Legends - Johnson Technical Fouls - Individual Legends (1): Najera 6:44 4th RED CLAWS (1): Morrison 2:10 3rd Pts. -
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OFFICIAL SCORER's REPORT FINAL BOX 12/5/2014 the Dr
NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION OFFICIAL SCORER'S REPORT FINAL BOX 12/5/2014 The Dr. Pepper Arena, Frisco, TX Officials: #26 Brett Nansel, #77 Bharat Ramanan, #78 Kyle Regetz Time of Game: 3:04 Attendance: 5,944 VISITOR: Oklahoma City Blue (3-4) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 23 Mario Little F 25:54 4 11 2 7 6 6 0 3 3 2 4 0 1 0 16 21 Talib Zanna F 32:10 7 11 0 0 8 11 7 6 13 0 4 1 1 0 22 33 Mitch McGary C 28:04 7 16 0 1 1 4 3 1 4 0 4 0 1 1 15 11 Michael Jenkins G 23:34 4 6 3 3 3 4 1 4 5 3 2 0 3 0 14 10 Marquis Teague G 18:54 4 7 0 1 8 10 1 2 3 6 5 0 3 0 16 22 Semaj Christon 22:17 4 15 0 3 2 4 1 0 1 7 3 1 4 0 10 14 Josh Huestis 25:11 2 8 0 1 0 0 4 6 10 1 5 0 0 1 4 32 Richard Solomon 35:39 5 8 0 0 6 6 2 8 10 0 2 3 1 0 16 24 Maurice Sutton 6:24 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 15 Xavier Alexander 19:23 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 0 2 34 Ron Anderson DNP - Coach's Decision TOTALS: 39 86 5 17 34 47 20 35 55 20 33 6 16 2 117 PERCENTAGES: 45.3% 29.4% 72.3% TM REB: 11 TOT TO: 17 (21 PTS) HOME: TEXAS LEGENDS (5-3) NO PLAYER MIN FG FGA 3P 3PA FT FTA OR DR TOT A PF ST TO BS PTS 21 Eric Griffin F 38:34 11 20 4 8 5 6 4 5 9 2 6 1 5 5 31 5 Damion James F 39:31 4 9 2 5 6 8 1 4 5 5 3 1 3 2 16 23 Ivan Johnson C 20:45 1 7 1 3 0 0 1 5 6 1 6 1 2 1 3 12 Bubu Palo G 19:34 0 3 0 1 3 4 0 2 2 2 3 0 3 0 3 8 Doron Lamb G 39:05 7 17 4 9 7 7 1 1 2 2 3 2 0 0 25 7 Ricky Ledo 37:28 5 13 1 3 3 4 2 3 5 3 3 3 2 0 14 32 Renaldo Balkman 32:34 6 8 0 1 4 6 1 2 3 0 6 1 1 1 16 17 Justin Jackson 4:56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 24 Jeremy Atkinson 4:23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yuki Togashi 7:12 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 5 11 Booker Woodfox NWT - Illness TOTALS: 35 79 13 31 30 37 11 24 35 16 34 9 16 11 113 PERCENTAGES: 44.3% 41.9% 81.1% TM REB: 10 TOT TO: 16 (14 PTS) SCORE BY PERIODS 1 2 3 4 FINAL Blue 25 32 30 30 117 LEGENDS 26 20 30 37 113 Inactive: Blue - Beamon, Motley Legends - Samhan Technical Fouls - Individual Blue (1): Christon 2:17 4th LEGENDS (1): Lamb 2:17 4th Technical Fouls - Defensive Three Second Blue (1): 11:44 1st LEGENDS: NONE Pts. -
Understanding Iran's Assembly of Experts Vote | the Washington Institute
MENU Policy Analysis / PolicyWatch 2558 Understanding Iran's Assembly of Experts Vote by Patrick Schmidt Feb 16, 2016 Also available in Arabic ABOUT THE AUTHORS Patrick Schmidt Patrick Schmidt is a U.S. naval officer stationed in Washington; he previously served in Bahrain and onboard the USS Ronald Reagan. Brief Analysis The victors, winnowed from an especially large field, will serve until 2024 and therefore may play a role in choosing a new Supreme Leader. n February 11, campaigning began for the February 26 elections for Iran's Assembly of Experts, held on the O same day as the vote for parliament (Majlis). The assembly is charged with selecting the Supreme Leader in case the current leader dies or becomes incapacitated, although it is not clear how large a role the assembly would in practice play (see "Choosing Iran's Next Supreme Leader," PolicyWatch 2553). Given Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's advancing age and uncertain health -- he turns seventy-seven this year -- many in Iran assume a new leader or leadership council will be selected during the assembly's next term. Indeed, the current race has attracted a record number of candidates and disqualifications by the Guardian Council. On February 10, the Ministry of Information released the final list of 161 candidates as approved by the Guardian Council. COLLEGE OF CLERICS T he Assembly of Experts consists of eighty-eight Islamic jurists elected to eight-year terms. Tehran is the largest of the Experts Assembly electoral districts -- which are based on province and demographics -- with sixteen seats; the provinces of Razavi Khorasan and Khuzestan are the two next largest districts, with six seats each.