Category: News

Home / Category: News

Would have been the same if Elizabeth Olsen had been cast in the now-iconic role of Daenerys Targaryen instead of Emilia Clarke? We’ll never know. But we do know that Clarke has been one of the key cast members who has made the show the cultural phenomenon it has become over the past eight mesmerising seasons.

So perhaps it was for the best that Elizabeth Olsen’s audition for the role of the Mother of Dragons was, as she recently revealed to Vulture, one of her worst — it just wasn’t meant to be. The actress told the publication that 10 years ago she read for the role of Daenerys and it did not go well. “I auditioned for Khaleesi. It was the most awkward audition I’d ever had.”

The actress says she read a monologue from the first season where the character is “making this speech to thousands of people about she’s their queen. They didn’t know if they wanted a British accent or not. So, [I] did it in both. It was terrible. Anytime someone says, ‘Bad audition story.’ That’s one I remember.”

Image credits: Elizabeth Olsen (left) Getty Images, Emilia Clarke as Daenerys Targaryen (right) Foxtel

In a recent roundtable interview with Michelle Williams, Patricia Arquette, Christine Baranski, Danai Gurira and Niecy Nash for , ’s Mother of Dragons, Emilia Clarke, revealed she was almost cast as s Anastasia Steele. 

When asked to name “one of the things you famously did not want to do”, Clarke admitted that while “Sam [Taylor-Johnson, the director] is a magician” and she “thought her vision was beautiful”, she turned down the role of Steele for a very particular reason.

“The last time that I was naked on camera on [] was a long time ago, and yet it is the only question that I ever get asked because I am a woman,” she told the publication. “And it’s annoying as hell and I’m sick and tired of it because I did it for the character — I didn’t do it so some guy could check out my tits, for God’s sake. So, that coming up, I was like, ‘I can’t.’”

“I did a minimal amount and I’m pigeonholed for life,” she continued. “So me saying yes to that, where the entire thing is about sensuality and sex and being naked and all of that stuff, I was just like, ‘No way am I going to voluntarily walk into that situation and then never be able to look someone in the eye and be like, ‘No, you can’t keep asking me this question.’”

Dakota Johnson ended up assuming the character and has played Steele for all three of the film’s installments. 

Image credits: Getty Images

If casting had taken a different path, Cole Sprouse wouldn’t have been Jughead in . It’s almost unimaginable now, because Sprouse seems like he was born for that role, but there was a time during the casting process that the role of Jughead could have gone to breakout star Chance Perdomo.

22-year-old Perdomo—who plays Sabrina’s lovable rogue warlock cousin Ambrose Spellman in —dropped this casting bomb to saying “One of my first auditions actually was for . Did some self-tapes and I got quite a few rounds and I had no idea how close I got. They kept me in mind and I had no idea until later, Roberto [Aguirre-Sacasa, creator of both and ] was like, ‘Brother, do you know how close you got?… It was almost you.’”

Despite missing out on the iconic role of Jughead, Perdomo went onto land the role of Ambrose Spellman in which left him with no hard feelings towards Sprouse.

“I’m not even mad. I grew up watching Cole Sprouse and his brother [Dylan Sprouse], and to have come close and lose it to one of the people I used to watch, it’s good,” Perdomo told .

Cult 1999 teen rom-com a modern retelling of Shakespeare’s could have looked very different with Kate Hudson playing opposite Heath Ledger.

In a recent interview with , casting director Marcia Ross revealed the actress was a leading contender for the role of Kat Stratford that eventually went to Julia Stiles.

The film put many of the cast on the Hollywood map including Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger and Joseph Gordon-Levitt and became one of the most popular movies that year. Even now, 20 years later, it still consistently makes it into the top rom-com movies of all time lists.

According to Ross, although she “loved” Kate Hudson for the role, Hudson’s mum, actress Goldie Hawn, was the reason Hudson didn’t play Kat. Per the interview, Ross says “Her mom [Goldie Hawn] didn’t like the script for her, so she passed.”

Ross dropped further casting bombshell news saying she also loved Katie Holmes, but the actress was about to be offered and they couldn’t make a decision fast enough before she signed onto the teen drama show.

Josh Hartnett and Eliza Dushku were also, according to Ross, screen-tested together for the leads that eventually went to Heath Ledger and Stiles, with Ross saying it came down to chemistry. “Julia [Stiles] and Heath [Ledger] just had the best chemistry.

It’s Tinseltown legend that had the timing worked out, Emma Stone’s Oscar-winning role as Mia in La La Land would have gone to Beauty and the Beast’s Emma Watson. Which seems unimaginable now after watching the chemistry between La La Land’s leads, Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling.

According to an interview Watson gave in 2017, she had already committed to Beauty and the Beast and said “scheduling conflict-wise, it [La La Land] just didn’t work out.” But boy did it work out for Stone.

Who is now—in a way—repaying Watson’s favour by reportedly stepping out of a great role due to scheduling issues, leaving the role clear for Watson, who is in talks for it.

The role in question is Meg March in Greta Gerwig’s all-star Little Women adaptation. Variety reports Stone was attached to the project in the role of Meg, but she is unable to play the role as she’ll be on the promotional trail for her upcoming film, The Favourite. Watson was apparently next in line and talks are happening for the Harry Potter star to join the cast which is rumoured to include Meryl Streep, Laura Dern, Saoirse Ronan and Timothée Chalamet.

Image credits: Getty Images

It seems two other stars could have been born, if things had gone a different route. Revealing that she and Will Smith almost did their own version of, Jennifer Lopez told it just never ended up happening. “Will and I talked about it and talked about developing the script. It just never took off. Projects are like that.”

The iconic role of Jack in Titanic nearly went to Matthew McConaughey.

In an interview on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Kate Winslet admitted she actually auditioned alongside McConaughey. “I auditioned with Matthew, isn’t that weird?” Winslet told Colbert. “Never said that in public before. I auditioned with Matthew, which was completely fantastic. It just wouldn’t have been the whole, Jack and Rose, Kate and Leo thing.”

In a separate interview on ’s podcast, McConaughey revealed how much he wanted the role at the time. “I wanted that. I auditioned with Kate Winslet. Had a good audition. Walked away from there pretty confident that I had it. I didn’t get it. I never got offered that.”

Now of course, we can’t imagine Titanic without Leonardo DiCaprio. 

Image credit: Getty Images

Gwyneth Paltrow revealed on her
podcast that she nearly played the role of Annie Porter in the 1994 film
. The movie is credited to propelling Sandra Bullock to fame, as she was the actress who ended up landing the coveted role. Recently, comedian Ellen Degeneres admitted that the producer of the film told her they wrote the script with Degeneres in mind for the role!

Katie Holmes was up for the role of Annette in Cruel Intentions, which ended up going to up-and-comer Reese Witherspoon.

The studio wanted Holmes for the role; Dawson’s Creek had just started on television. Screenwriter/director Roger Kumble instead wanted Vinessa Shaw, thinking that Annette needed to be played by someone “with a little more strength of character.” 

Eventually, in Kumble’s words: “And then, literally, I was hanging out with Ryan [Philippe] one night and I was like, ‘What about your girlfriend?’” Witherspoon of course agreed to the role, but only once the character was written: “She wanted to strengthen the character, and she was right. And she and I got together, and we gave Annette more bite so she wasn’t a doormat. And I’m very grateful to her for that.” 

Director and writer Amy Heckerling had her heart set on Alicia Silverstone, but the Fox studios insisted that she meet with other young actresses, including Alicia Witt, Keri Russell and Tiffany Thiessen. 

She was also scheduled to meet Gwyneth Paltrow: “Then they go, ‘You’ve got to see the girl in [Flesh and Bone].’ I never got to see her. I guess she was off on other things. That turned out to be Gwyneth Paltrow,” Heckerling told Vanity Fair. 

Angelina Jolie was also suggested for the role of Cher. Says Carrie Frazier, the then casting director of the film who worked on its initial stages: “But she was too knowing for what was needed for Clueless. Angelina never came in [to audition] for the project. I was just looking at her tape. I remember an agent pitching her, and I’m going, “No, no, no, this is exactly the opposite of what I need for this.” 

Frazier also suggested Reese Witherspoon to Heckerling. “But I did see some scenes of her and went: Wow. She’s amazing. But Alicia is Cher,” says Heckerling.

Ben Affleck and Zach Braff were also considered for the role of Josh, which ended up going to Paul Rudd and Sarah Michelle Gellar was offered the part of Amber, but they couldn’t come to an agreement with the television series she was on at the time,
All My Children

Jennifer Lawrence originally auditioned for Twilight’s Bella Swan but the role went to Kristen Stewart. 

Molly Ringwald was the first choice for Pretty Woman. When she turned it down, Julia Roberts was cast. But Julia Roberts passed up on The Blind Side, which won her replacement Sandra Bullock an Academy Award.

Neither Sandra Bullock nor George Clooney was the first option for Gravity. The original leads were Angelina Jolie and Robert Downey Jr. When Jolie passed it up, it went to Natalie Portman before Bullock. 

It was meant to be for Johnny Depp and Captain Jack Sparrow. Jim Carrey turned down the lead role in Pirates of the Caribbean because filming clashed with Bruce Almighty

Nicole Kidman pulled out of Mr and Mrs Smith and Brad Pitt reportedly demanded Angelina Jolie to replace her. And to think we may never have had Brangelina. 

Gwyneth Paltrow was James Cameron’s original choice for Rose DeWitt Bukater in Titanic. Until he found Kate Winslet. A year after Titanic’s release, Paltrow starred in Shakespeare in Love, for which she won an Oscar, but her role was initially offered to Winslet. 

Lindsay Lohan declined the role of Jade, the stripper, in The Hangover, because she thought the film ‘had no potential’. Heather Graham scored the part instead. Lohan also almost played Regina George in Mean Girls but it was recast with Lohan as Cady Heron and Rachel McAdams as George. Amanda Seyfried also auditioned for the role of Regina George. 

 

What’s more, McAdams won the part of Allie in The Notebook over Jessica Biel, Reese Witherspoon and Britney Spears, who all auditioned. Yes, we’re thankful it turned out the way it did too. Lohan and Cara Delevingne both picketed for the lead role in Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which went to Vogue cover model Mia Wasikowska.

Hilary Swank was first attached to Dallas Buyers Club until Jennifer Garner was hired. Brad Pitt and Ryan Gosling had both considered the role that scored Matthew McConaughey an Oscar nomination. Swank was more lucky when she scored the lead in Million Dollar Baby after Sandra Bullock left when production was delayed. The title role earned her her second Best Actress Oscar. 

Before Rooney Mara landed the role of Lisbeth Salander, Natalie Portman, Ellen Page, Carey Mulligan and Scarlett Johansson auditioned to be The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Director David Fincher said Johansson was brilliant but ‘the thing with Scarlett is, you can’t wait for her to take her clothes off’. 

 

While Mulligan won the coveted role of Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby, competition was stiff; it reportedly included Blake Lively (who was in a relationship with Leonardo DiCaprio during the audition process), Keira Knightley, Michelle Williams, Abbie Cornish, Amanda Seyfried, Natalie Portman, Rebecca Hall and Johansson – the latter turned it down for We Bought A Zoo

Anne Hathaway won the part of Alison Scott in Knocked Up but abandoned the project due to creative differences. Apparently, Christina Aguilera refused the second offer because she wanted to focus on her music. Then came along the perfectly-suited Katherine Heigl. 

Will Smith snubbed both Neo in The Matrix and Django in Django Unchained, roles that ultimately went to Keanu Reeves and Jamie Foxx, respectively. 

Helen Mirren pulled out of Precious so Mariah Carey stepped in just days before filming. 

Toni Collette declined the role of Bridget Jones because she was performing on Broadway and Renee Zellweger was cast after a two-year search. 

Click Here:

Breakfast at Tiffany’s author Truman Capote envisaged Marilyn Monroe as Holly Golightly for the screen adaptation but she turned down the part because her acting coach said playing a call-girl was not good for her image. Her replacement Audrey Hepburn won multiple acting nominations.   

Although now we can hardly distinguish Sarah Jessica Parker from her character in Sex and the City, Carrie Bradshaw was first offered to Dana Delany, who turned it down. 

Her brother’s rule-breaking marriage to a woman with a complex past paved the way for Princess Märtha Louise of Norway to marry author Ari Behn one year later. Her brother having subverted protocol, Princess Märtha Louise didn’t hesitate when Behn proposed to her, despite the media’s critical view of the writer.

They united at Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim, Norway, in a wedding attended by both European and British royalty. Princess Märtha Louise arrived with her father, King Harald V of Norway, in a simple sleeveless gown layered with a Swarovski crystal-encrusted coat by Norwegian designer Wenche Lyche. The bride also wore a sparkling headpiece – Queen Maud’s pearl and diamond tiara. After a kiss on the balcony of the Stiftsgården Palace in Norway, the couple hosted a private reception at the palace where the bride removed her coat for the evening reception.

Although they’ve since divorced, Princess Märtha Louise and Ari Behn’s wedding was one for the history books. Scroll through to look back on these royal nuptials.

The princess leaves the royal residence with her father King Harald V for her wedding.

The couple wave to crowds as they walk to Stiftsgården Palace after their wedding ceremony.

Emerging on the balcony of Stiftsgården Palace to greet the crowds below.

The bride wore a coat dress by Norwegian designer Wenche Lyche and Queen Maud’s pearl and diamond tiara.

The couple share their first kiss as husband and wife.

The couple wave to crowds of well-wishes as the royal family looks on.

The bride and groom at their official evening reception where Princess Märtha Louise removed her coat to reveal a simple slip dress underneath.Click Here:

Share

24th May 2019

When it comes to making money from a “family business” the Kardashian-Jenner crew are certainly one of the most high-profile families succeeding in this area. 

Matriarch Kris Jenner took her second-born daughter’s, Kim Kardashian West, five minutes of fame and turned it into a multi-million dollar empire in large part via their long-running reality TV show Keeping Up with the Kardashians, now in its sixteenth season.

This is one woman who knows how to build a business from their existing family “assets” and the rest of the Kardashian-Jenner girls — Kourtney, Kim, Khloé, Kylie and Kendall — have all taken their cues from their business-savvy mum, building successful businesses in their own right. Kim Kardashian West and Kylie Jenner with their rival beauty brands, Khloé Kardashian with her denim label, Good American, Kendall Jenner with her modelling career and Kourtney Kardashian with her executive producing on their reality show and also all the endorsement deals she has thanks to her famous last name.

Indeed in this family, no family member is not a potential revenue stream, including the next generation of Kardashian-Jenners. According to US Weekly, Kylie Jenner, Kim Kardashian West and Khloé Kardashian have reportedly filed to trade mark the names of their children for “multiple business purposes including a clothing line, toys and skincare products.”

Kylie Jenner, 21, has a one-year-old daughter, Stormi Webster, with rapper Travis Scott and her name is reportedly on the trade mark documents along with the theme name of the tot’s out-of-this-world first birthday party, Stormiworld, which references her dad’s, Travis Scott, Astroworld album and tour. 

Three of 38-year-old Kim Kardashian West’s children with Kanye West — North West, 5, Saint West, 3, and Chicago West, 1, — are also on the trade mark application. As is True Thompson, 10 months, who is Khloé Kardashian’s daughter with Tristan Thompson. 

No news if Kourtney Kardashian’s three children with ex, Scott Disick, are also included.

Per Us Weekly back in 2015, Kylie Jenner tried to trade mark her first name but was rejected when our very own Kylie Minogue took her to court over it and successfully had the trade mark application rejected. Will history repeat itself with this trade mark? Only time will tell if any other Stormis, Chicagos, Norths, Saints and Trues of the world decide to take on the might of the Kardashian-Jenner crew.

Updated May 24, 2019: Following the birth via surrogate of Kim Kardashian West and Kanye West’s fourth child, Psalm West, on May 9, E! News reports the couple have filed a trade mark application for their new family member. The trade mark application was reportedly filed on May 19, one day after Kardashian West announced her son’s name to the world via Instagram.

Click Here:

Image credit: Getty Images. 

Modern ways of working have seen us wear our busyness as if it were a badge. We’re overleveraged, overworked, over-tired, and quite honestly, over it (or is that just me?). And while success, like a pair of vintage Levi’s, is not one size fits all, it’s no lie that so many of us are burning the candle at both ends in order to hit certain inconceivable pressures: get promoted, increase your bank balance, improve your home life, achieve an inbox at zero – we could go on for days.

Jeannie Bourke, owner of Venustus salon in Sydney’s leafy suburb of Paddington, is one who knows this narrative all too well. She treats a string of CEOs, celebrities, mothers and high-powered executives (sometimes a combination) all suffering the 2019 health conundrum that is burnout. You might be familiar with it yourself: tiredness, mental exhaustion, and your shoulders reside somewhat around your ears, rather than the southern end of your neck, as nature intended.

Regardless, it’s not for everyone to pack up shop and relocate to an organic compound in the Byron Bay hinterland. A burgeoning career or busy-but-beautiful home life might be the reason you get out of bed every day, but that’s not to say you can’t inject moments of respite into your life. As the experts say, you’re no good to others until you’ve affixed your own oxygen mask first, right? Bourke is an advocate for these little moments – things you can incorporate into your day to keep your cortisol at a reasonable level – in this modern era, anyway. Read on for all her wisdom.  

Have a plan for moments of intense stress

Alanis Morissette got it absolutely right when she proclaimed that traffic jams are commonplace when you’re running late. However that was 14 years ago. Now, you’re running late to an important meeting while your phone rings, your inbox buzzes, and your mum keeps texting you about the dog. Bad days at work, family issues – whatever it is, have a plan in place for moments of intense stress or panic, especially if you’re prone to losing your cool. Bourke recommends essential oils as a ritualistic way of calming down. A few drops of her S.O.S roll on blend is designed for exactly this. Pop it on your wrist, and take a few deep breaths. You’ll calm down and make much more logical decisions than if you just spiral.

Practice gratitude

Sounds woo-woo, but the truth is that being able to work, or live a busy life is an incredible privilege that many don’t have. When you wake up in the morning, Bourke recommends writing down, or verbally stating a few things you are grateful for. If you’re stuck, here are some thought-staters, courtesy of Bourke: “I am grateful I have a healthy body that works, eyes that can see, and ears that can hear.”

Run a hot bath 

Gwyneth Paltrow knows the restorative powers of a good bath, and frankly, so do we. Add whatever you like to yours – Epsom salts, bubbles, or essential oils are a nice touch. If you don’t have a bath, a few drops of essential oil in your shower will still turn the experience into something a little more luxurious. Eucalyptus is zingy and fresh, while lavender is warm and soothing  before bed. Be sure to follow it up with the Venustus Belief Organic Body Serum, and a spritz of Muscular Spray mist if you’re neck and shoulders are desk-job collateral.

Carve out some time for yourself

In following on with the oxygen mask analogy, sometimes it’s essential to block out two hours on a Saturday for strictly yourself – we’re a few weeks out from half-way through the year, so no doubt you deserve it. Venustus is Bourke’s Sydney salon, and it’s the closest place we’ve found to heaven on Earth. If you’re a sceptic, be open to the crystals and sage upon arrival. But these aside, her Om Massage is one of the most luxurious treatments available – think intuitive therapists who know exactly where the knots are, heavenly organic oils worked in to tired limbs, and a feeling of bliss post-treatment.

While small, half an hour, or even a few minutes to decompress each day can be worth it’s weight in gold. Trust us. 

Want more tips to help you keep up with your busy life? Vogue Codes 2019 is around the corner. Head to vogue.com.au/vogue-codes for the program schedule, and ticket sales.  

Click Here:

Share

24th May 2019

Marissa Cooper dying in Ryan Atwood’s arms on The O.C. was a heart-wrenching moment. The scene played out in a typical-but-entertaining fashion: the troubled teen lovers were run off the road by Cooper’s drunken ex, Kevin Volchok, while on the way to the airport. Atwood pulled Cooper’s body from the wreckage before the car burst into flames, and then proceeded to hold her tenderly until she died in his arms – cue the sobs. It was an iconic moment in television, but apparently, it wasn’t originally meant to be so tragic.

Actress Mischa Barton, who played Marissa Cooper for the duration of the show, has spoken out this week about her part in the ending. In an interview with the New York Times, Barton explained that she felt her character had endured enough, and killing her off was the only viable option. “She’s one of those burnout characters where I don’t know how much more we could have done with her anyway,” Barton told the New York Times.

As per the publication, Barton fought “tooth and nail” for Cooper’s fate, in part because she lacked approval for the alternate ending: that Cooper would ride off into the sunset (or escape Orange County to live with her dad on a boat in Greece, for those who missed it). “I just don’t think that’s Marissa Cooper. I just don’t think sailing off into the sunset’s the proper goodbye,” the actress explained.

She also noted that it was in her interest to shut down the possibility of her character returning in a later season, due to the fact that she wanted the freedom to pursue other projects at the time. “I was getting no time to do any of the other offers that were out there,” she explained.

Barton’s had a few minor roles since The O.C., but has mostly taken a step back to focus on her health after a DUI charge, a legal battle with an ex-partner, and reportedly being treated as a suicide risk. But now, the actress is set to star in the reboot of the reality TV series, The Hills.

Barton will work alongside veterans like Audrina Partridge, Heidi and Spencer Pratt, and Whitney Port, as the show details their evolved lives, and sometimes fractured relationships.

While she wasn’t part of the original reality series, it’s been said that The Hills served as inspiration for The O.C. characters and various plot lines. The Hills: New Beginnings reboot is set to air June 24, 2019. 

Click Here:

Skincare trends come and go, but it’s the creams, balms and lotions that we turn to year after year that paint the clearest picture of our collective beauty needs. And it seems our skin is having a bit of a hard time. According to Mintel’s Global New Products Database, 23 per cent of skincare products launched in South Korea between January and October 2017 were designed specifically for sensitive skin, compared with 11 per cent in 2014.

Meanwhile, UK e-commerce platform Look Fantastic has seen a 71 per cent rise in searches for sensitive skin and sensitive skin products since this time last year, and Google searches for “sensitive skin” have more than doubled in the last five years worldwide. But when did we all get so sensitive?

What is classified as sensitive skin?

The defining features of sensitive skin may look similar – think redness, discomfort and inflammation – but the reasons behind these conditions can vary enormously. “I’m seeing more and more patients in my clinic who consider themselves to have sensitive skin,” says cosmetic dermatologist Dr Sam Bunting. “The hallmark of skin sensitivity is inflammation. It can be a feature of a number of different skin conditions including acne, rosacea and eczema, or it can be associated with ‘normal’ skin that burns and stings in response to common triggers like certain skincare ingredients.”

Identifying the source of your skin sensitivity is crucial when it comes to treating it, according to Dr Stefanie Williams, dermatologist and founder of London-based clinic Eudelo. “‘Sensitive skin’ is actually not a defined entity, as it can have different underlying causes which need very different therapeutic approaches,” she says. “The best option is always to see a cosmetic dermatologist, if possible, to get diagnosed properly.”

What are the contributing factors to sensitive skin?

Dr Bunting points the finger at our increasingly complicated, multi-step skincare routines for putting our skin into a spin. “So many women complain of having a cupboard full ofcreams they’ve used once. Or else they’re so scared of changing their routine, they have been using the same regime for a decade, despite their skin’s changing appearance and needs,” she says. “What’s important to remember is that skincare is not an exact science because individuals are just that: individual. What works for your friend or that blogger/model/actress you follow on Instagram has almost no bearing on what will work for you.”

Dr Howard Murad, board-certified dermatologist and founder of Murad skincare, adds that the environmental aggressors of daily life only worsen the problem. “Our modern lifestyle means we are surrounded by skin aggressors daily, from car exhausts, smoke, pollution, free radicals, sun exposure, even devices such as mobile phones,” he warns. “Sensitive skin concerns such as inflammation and irritation can easily be triggered by stress, medication, environment, hormones and overstimulating the skin, and this can be worsened with inappropriate skincare.”

Of course, the source of your sensitivity makes a big difference. Dr Williams says that while issues in rosacea-type sensitive skin can be triggered by overly rich skincare, atopic-type (eczema-prone) sensitive skin can actually benefit from the same lipid-rich creams. Similarly, hot weather can exacerbate the former, while sunshine might improve matters for the latter. Just as the triggers differ, so should the treatment.

How can you identify the correct products for treating sensitive skin?

When choosing the best products to treat sensitive skin, it’s best to go back to basics. It then becomes easier to identify the products that are exacerbating the problem. Start with a gentle cleanser and moisturiser, free from potentially irritating fragrance – search for the term non-comedogenic. Korea-born cica creams have also recently gained popularity among those with stressed-out skin. Then start to incorporate other products.

“An all-physical SPF is best if your skin is super-reactive, so look at those formulated with titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. Wait a week and if all is well, it’s time to consider your actives. There is one key message here: one at a time,” advises Dr Bunting, who suggests niacinamide as a good starting place as it’s known to improve skin’s protective barrier function. “Start using smaller amounts less frequently (applied over moisturiser, if you’re worried) and build up the amount and frequency gradually, until you’re at your skin’s limit, or you’re using it daily.”

And whatever new products you’re trialling, Dr Murad has one useful tip to ensure you avoid a skincare disaster. “If you have sensitive skin, I recommend spot-testing any topical agent to the inside of your upper arm first before applying it to your face,” he says. “This area mimics the skin on the face in terms of sensitivity, but it can also be discreetly hidden if there is some sort of a visible reaction.”

Discover some of ’s favourite products for treating sensitive skin:

Avène Skin Recovery Cream. 

Kiehl’s Centella Sensitive Cica-Cream. 

La Roche-Posay Toleriane Dermo-Cleanser. 

Murad City Skin Broad Spectrum SPF 50. 

SkinCeuticals Phyto Corrective Mask. 

Ren Evercalm Anti-Redness Serum. 

The Ordinary Hyaluronic Acid 2% +B5. 

Click Here:

Image credits: Courtesy of Moët & Chandon

Fireworks, lavish music, and glittering pyramids of champagne glasses: these were the sights and sounds that decorated the French night sky as Moët & Chandon threw an exclusive soirée in celebration of the 150th anniversary of its signature champagne, the Moët Impérial. At the newly-restored Château de Saran, nestled in the heart of the province of Champagne, celebrities and VIPs alike gathered amongst its lush vineyards to toast the maison’s historic milestone.

The brilliance of the party’s location was mirrored in the sparkling presence of some of Hollywood’s brightest stars. Actress Natalie Portman was a vision, wearing an elegant, sleeveless gown of white lace (above), while fellow actress Uma Thurman wore a sophisticated all-black ensemble, with a bardot neckline and tulle skirt. British actor Douglas Booth looked striking in a navy suit and mustard tie, and supermodel Kate Moss donned a cream, tie-waist jumpsuit with a plunging neckline for the evening’s festivities (above). Australia’s own modelling talent, Jessica Gomes, also made an appearance.

Renowned tennis legend Roger Federer, who has been the brand’s ambassador since 2012, was also present to pay homage to the iconic champagne and its legacy of elegance. “I am thrilled to be here in Champagne to toast Moët Impérial, a symbol of global success,” he siad. “At this splendid family château, a grand new symbol for Moët & Chandon whose ‘family’ I am honoured to be a part of.”

Renovations of the Château de Saran, a property of the maison since 1801, have been four years in the making. While its origins as a hunting lodge speak to its verdant surroundings, its eventual transformation into a family residence has shaped its rebirth as the ‘Château de Famille’, a building the brand hopes will foster an atmosphere of hospitality, luxury and relaxation.

After a cocktail party held inside, guests moved to the house’s vineyards to partake in a seated dinner. The meal was prepared by three Michelin-starred French chef Yannick Alléno, who has been a brand ambassador since 2014, and guided by chef Dominique Crenn, owner of the three Michelin-starred restaurant Atelier Crenn in San Francisco. Throughout the evening, Moët & Chandon also served its celebrated champagne to guests from limited-edition anniversary bottles. As fireworks illuminated the sky, a live musical performance from British singer-songwriter Freya Ridings marked the close of the evening. Scroll through to see pictures from inside the event below.

The Château de Saran

Natalie Portman

Kate Moss

Uma Thurman

Derek Blasberg

Rocky Barnes

Pelayo Diaz

Douglas Booth

Xin Wang

Freya Ridings

Eleonora Carisi

Jessica Gomes

Roger Federer

Benoit Gouez

Stephane Baschiera

Philippe Schaus

Kate Moss, Uma Thurman, Roger Federer and Natalie Portman

Roger Federer, Uma Thurman and Natalie Portman

The Château de Saran

Natalie Portman

Natalie Portman

Jessica Gomes and Rocky Barnes

Freya Ridings performing at the Château de Saran

Fireworks above the Château de Saran

Fireworks above the Château de Saran

Barry Blitt’s “The Shining”

May 24, 2019 | News | No Comments

The cover for the June 3, 2019, issue, by Barry Blitt, portrays three men who have been enormously helpful to President Trump: Lindsey Graham, William Barr, and Mitch McConnell. “Assembling an image with the President’s enablers presented a problem: Who to include, who to leave out?” Blitt said. “I barely had enough room for the President himself. In any case, I expect there will be other opportunities to draw Devin Nunes, Matt Gaetz, Jim Jordan, Sean Hannity, etc., etc., etc.”

Read John Cassidy, Margaret Talbot, and Susan B. Glasser for analysis of how the President’s men burnished his reputation.

For more of Blitt’s covers, see below:

Click Here:

Earlier this spring, Karl Rove, the veteran Republican strategist, was making the rounds in Congress to talk up Rivada Networks, a telecommunications company with a 5G business model predicated on partnering with the Department of Defense. Rove, who is not a registered lobbyist but is an investor in Rivada, met with staff members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and had a phone call with his old friend, John Cornyn, a Republican Senator from Texas who is a co-author of the Secure 5G and Beyond Act. As the broadband system is structured now, the F.C.C. allocates radio spectrum through periodic auctions where the highest bidder—typically one of the major telecom companies—wins control over bandwidth for a fixed number of years, setting prices and choosing where to invest in infrastructure. The D.O.D. spectrum, which is set aside by the government for classified, unclassified, and emergency communications, blankets the country but is often unused. Rivada wants to monetize it—minute by minute, hour by hour, as needed, to telecom and other companies—and share the proceeds with the government. (If the military needs the airwaves, Rivada’s software would automatically bounce commercial users.) “Its technology has the coolest name,” Rove told me. “Ruthless preëmption.”

The Rivada system, Rove explained, would bring 5G cellular services to rural America, which has largely been left behind by the big telecom companies. “We’re becoming a country divided between those that have access to high-quality broadband and those who don’t,” Rove said. “And it used to be that that divide was perhaps more between rich and poor, and that still remains, to some degree, but it’s more urban and suburban versus the rest of America.” The former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and the 2020 Trump campaign manager, Brad Parscale, have been making a similar case, in editorials and tweets. (Both say that they have no financial stake in Rivada, which is privately held, and have not been paid by the company or its associates.) Bypassing the auction process, the Rivada argument goes, will allow less-well-resourced companies to enter the market at a lower cost, which will spur development of cellular services in underserved areas. “We’re an advanced developed country, but we are paying among the highest prices in the world for broadband,” Rove said. “Economically, we’re entering a world in which the use of spectrum is going to become an important tool for economic growth and vitality.”

Aside from Rove, the only other known investor is Peter Thiel, the Silicon Valley billionaire, self-avowed libertarian, and early Trump supporter. In a recent essay, Jonathan Lee, a telecom attorney, wondered, “What is it about Rivada’s plan/service that requires lifelong ‘free market’ defenders to embrace the heavy hand of government?” To Scott Wallsten, the president of the Technology Policy Institute, the answer is obvious. “They’re hoping to get access to spectrum without having to pay for it,” he said. “And, I mean, it’s this hugely valuable commodity, worth billions and billions. If someone is just given it, that’s just a gigantic subsidy.” If Rivada’s proposal were to be adopted, it would create a new asset class—bandwidth—that could be traded on the commodities market, like oil or soybeans. And it would make Rivada, which holds patents to run this market (a process known as dynamic spectrum arbitrage), an extremely lucrative company. Charles Duan, the director of technology and innovation at the R Street Institute, a D.C. think tank, recently wrote in Fortune, “The company would be able to extract payments from potentially every player on the network.”

Declan Ganley, the Rivada chairman and C.E.O., is an enigmatic Irish businessman with an uncanny ability to spot markets before they materialize. He began building his fortune in his early twenties, trading forestry holdings in Russia and aluminum in Latvia after the fall of the Soviet Union. In Albania, Ganley and his associates established the Anglo-Adriatic Investment Fund to collect the privatization vouchers that the Albanian government was handing out to its citizens. (It failed when the government changed the rules.) In the late nineties, Ganley began buying wireless-spectrum licenses throughout Europe, eventually selling them to Comcast. In 2001, he put together a consortium of investors to create Cable Bulgaria, the country’s first private cable-television company. “It is a cash cow, not just for the next two years but for the next 80 years,” Ganley told the Wall Street Journal at the time, calling Bulgaria the Silicon Valley of the Eastern Bloc. (He no longer owns it.)

When the Coalition Provisional Authority (C.P.A.) took over governance of Iraq, in 2003, Ganley tried to capture some of the billions of dollars allocated for reconstruction by bidding to build the country’s cellular-phone system. When that proposal was rejected, he endeavored to set up and run its emergency-communications system. Defense contracts are typically awarded on a competitive basis. But Jack Shaw, the U.S. Deputy Under-Secretary of Defense for International Technology Security at the time, helped Rivada partner with a Native Alaskan company, Nana Pacific, to take advantage of a provision in federal contracting law that allows small, minority-owned businesses to obtain government contracts without having to bid for them. That law also exempts Native American companies from a three-million-dollar contract cap, as well as from having to be minority-run. But the plan went sideways when the C.P.A. discovered that a clause had been surreptitiously inserted into the contract that opened a back door for Ganley’s group to build the Iraqi commercial cellular network after all. According to a report in the Irish Times, it was Ganley who instructed Shaw to add the clause that let Rivada circumvent the telecommunications bid; Ganley denies the assertion, claiming instead that he—Ganley—was a whistle-blower who was “raising questions about being encouraged to purchase expensive equipment that was not needed for his project.” In any case, the D.O.D.’s inspector general, and then the F.B.I., got involved. Shaw, who had served in the Ford, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush Administrations, was eventually fired, and Nana Pacific lost the contract.

But, in the years since, Rivada has continued to partner with a number of Native Alaskan corporations to obtain government telecommunication projects without having to go through the bidding or review process. It is a scheme that has scored Rivada hundreds of millions of dollars of defense contracts, as well as contracts from the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (Companies that partner with Indian-owned businesses also get a five per cent incentive from the D.O.D.) Over the years, Ganley has developed deep ties to the American military and the Republican Party establishments, as well. Since 2007, Rivada has donated nearly half a million dollars to the Republican Governors Association; one of its board members is Edwin Feulner, the founder and former president of the Heritage Foundation.

A few years ago, the First Responder Network Authority, which is also known as FirstNet, was created by Congress to establish “a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network.” The Department of the Interior sought proposals for the project, which was worth $6.5 billion, and Ganley made a push for it. According to Rivada’s spokesperson, Brian Carney, the company was proposing “a network for first responders that was allowed to monetize any excess capacity that the first responders weren’t using. We’d provide free service to first responders, and any time they weren’t using the network we would sell that on a wholesale basis to the highest bidder, on a dynamic basis where the market sets the price and we share that revenue with the government.” In the run-up to the request for FirstNet proposals, Rivada added the former governors Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley to its board. Even so, the company’s application to submit a bid was denied by the Department of Interior after the reviewers rated Rivada’s business management, leadership and program management, architecture and infrastructure, and, perhaps most crucially, security, to be unacceptable. The “substantial number of significant weaknesses and deficiencies” in Rivada’s proposal, they wrote, “introduce excessive, increased risks” that might “result in [its] inability to perform.” They also determined that Rivada “did not adequately demonstrate that its proposed wholesale marketplace . . . would be adopted by potential customers,” creating “a significant risk of unsuccessful performance.”

MORE FROM

Annals of Communications

The Terrifying Potential of 5G Technology

By Sue Halpern

How the Math Men Overthrew the Mad Men

By Ken Auletta

The Hillary Show

By Ken Auletta

The Red-Envelope Revolution

By Ken Auletta

Freedom of Information

Click Here:

By Ken Auletta

Business Outsider

By Ken Auletta

Ganley, who is notoriously litigious—having sued the government of Albania for the failure of the Anglo-Albanian Investment Fund, the government of Mexico for disqualifying Rivada from a contract bidding process, the Irish broadcaster RTE for its portrayal of him in a forty-minute-long television documentary, and an Irish blogger for a defamatory tweet—turned around and sued the U.S. government. In her decision denying Rivada’s claims, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims judge Elaine Kaplan noted that, among many other deficiencies, Rivada “lacked relevant experience managing subcontractors in ordinary settings, let alone in completing projects of this size and complexity.”

Rivada’s FirstNet plan differs from its 5G plan primarily in terms of which government agency would be sharing its spectrum. According to the retired brigadier general Robert Spalding, who worked on cybersecurity for 5G networks at the National Security Council, the D.O.D. is unlikely “to give up its spectrum voluntarily,” since “conventional wisdom in D.O.D. says you never give up spectrum.” Although Rivada is asking the Pentagon to share, not cede, its airwaves, Spalding said that “right now, at least, D.O.D. doesn’t distinguish between the two.” But Rivada, which boasts retired generals, a retired admiral, a former D.H.S. deputy secretary, and a former director of foreign policy for Donald Trump’s transition team on its board, is well positioned to navigate the military and national-security bureaucracy. Earlier this month, the National Spectrum Consortium, a trade organization with ties to both the Pentagon and the White House, put out a call for a “technical concept” paper on spectrum sharing, which suggests that Rivada may yet find a willing partner in the D.O.D. “The National Spectrum Consortium is talking about making awards by September,” Carney, the Rivada spokesperson, said. “One of the things they’ve called for is proposals for dynamic spectrum sharing in a 5G context.”

Last week, a reporter for the Verge tested out Samsung’s new 5G phone on Verizon’s service in Chicago. The result illustrated everything that is wrong about the way the two major American telecom companies, Verizon and A.T. & T., are deploying 5G. While standing near a 5G node, the reporter was able to get phenomenally fast Internet speeds that allowed him to download an episode of “The Office” in eight seconds. But, once he moved away from the node, the speed dropped precipitously and ceased to exist when there was no longer a sight line. Verizon, like A.T. & T., is building its 5G system on a millimetre-wave spectrum, which has tremendous capacity—hence its speed—but extremely limited range. Much of the rest of the world has chosen to forgo the blazing speeds of millimetre-wave technology, opting instead for 5G systems that operate on mid-band spectrums that, while not as fast, have greater range and reliability. According to Jessica Rosenworcel, the senior Democratic commissioner at the F.C.C., “if we want to serve everywhere in the country—and not create communities of 5G haves and have-nots—we need to pivot fast to an auction of mid-band spectrum. It’s especially important for rural America, where the challenging economics of service do not support the high cost of high-band infrastructure for mobile use.”

The D.O.D. spectrum that Rivada wants to share—again, without going through the F.C.C.’s auction system—operates on the mid-band. Rove’s argument that Rivada’s wholesale open-access system will bring 5G cellular services to rural America is appealing to those of us who live in places where those services don’t currently exist. Whether or not it would actually come to fruition is anyone’s guess. Mexico’s wholesale open-access system has been a bust. And CoverageCo, a company that Rivada’s spokesperson, Brian Carney, pointed to as an example of an innovative rural-service provider, went out of business last year. Its goal was to provide coverage in my home state, Vermont. According to a report at the time, “a key revenue stream—customers of major cellular carriers connecting to cellular networks through CoverageCo’s antennas, allowing the company to collect fees from those carriers—didn’t bring in enough proceeds to make the business viable, simply because call volumes in many areas weren’t high enough.” Rosenworcel, at the F.C.C., told me, that although the Rivada effort “diagnoses the right problem,” its system “is not the cure we need.”

Ganley has also been pitching the Rivada plan as a way to “destroy the Chinese business model,” because “it drops the price of capacity” and gives carriers an incentive to bypass equipment made in China that might pose strategic threats to individuals and infrastructure. (This argument has less valence now that the Trump Administration has blocked U.S. companies from using technology made or designed in countries deemed to be a national-security threat.) Cybersecurity is crucial for the coming 5G network, which promises to connect almost all human activities and industrial control systems to the Internet. That is one reason that the government is banning equipment manufactured by Huawei and other companies with ties to the Chinese government and its intelligence services from American telecom networks. But it isn’t clear that a nationwide system run by Rivada would be secure. Though sharing spectrum with the Department of Defense is not inherently risky, a single company running a nationwide spectrum-allocation system may prove vulnerable to attack. “If there’s one point of entry then, presumably, if you breach that one point, you’ve got access to the whole network,” Wallsten, at the Technology Policy Institute, told me.

Four years ago, when Rivada was pursuing the FirstNet contract, the company projected revenues of twenty billion dollars over seven years. With its nationwide 5G system, it hopes to claim a sizable share of a market projected to be worth $3.5 trillion. Even if Rivada fails to deliver 5G service to rural communities, or challenge Chinese dominance, gaining access to the Defense Department spectrum could still earn the company an enormous amount of money. “There are lots of people who have studied spectrum and know that it’s becoming increasingly valuable, and they look at a wholesale network and see it as a very viable and strong commercial enterprise,” Rove said. “The downside is, if the wholesale market doesn’t emerge, they still have a very valuable nationwide 5G network that could be sold off, if need be in parts, which is pretty good collateral.”

So far, the Trump Administration has not taken up the Rivada gambit, though it offers the President a way to appeal to his rural base while also seeming to take action in the race with China for 5G supremacy. But, as Thomas Hazlett, a professor at Clemson University, who specializes in the information economy, told me, “Trump is a target of opportunity on this. Certainly, his predilections for overturning normal processes are known. The idea is that you have this kind of special project, and it goes against the liberalization trend at the F.C.C., and you tie it to national security and all these other issues. The political system would seem to be ripe for that.”

Does Trump Have an Off-Ramp on Iran?

May 24, 2019 | News | No Comments

The Trump Administration’s pronouncements on Iran have gyrated at a vertiginous pace in recent days. On Sunday, after a golf game at his club outside Washington, D.C., the President returned to the White House and unleashed his fury on Twitter. “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran,” he vowed. “Never threaten the United States again!” On Monday, a calmer Trump told reporters that Washington had “no indication that anything’s happened or will happen.” Any provocation would be met with “great force,” he added, yet he would also “certainly negotiate” if Iran called. Then, on Tuesday, the acting Defense Secretary, Pat Shanahan, declared that the (still unspecified) threat from Tehran had been contained. “We’ve put on hold the potential for attacks on Americans,” Shanahan told reporters. “Our posture is for deterrence. I just hope Iran is listening. We’re in the region to address many things, but it is not to go to war.”

A showdown may seem less imminent, but the dangers still lurk. Americans are nervous. The majority now believes that the two nations will go to war within the next few years, a new poll by Reuters/Ipsos reported this week. It’s up eight per cent from a similar poll a year ago. The numbers may reflect the rhetorical drumbeats of war more than a real understanding of the threat on the ground, since the Administration has refused to explain it. Fears may well rise further. On Thursday, the Pentagon reportedly proposed to deploy a military surge of five thousand to ten thousand U.S. troops to the Middle East, as well as more warships and Patriot missiles, to deter Iran. They would join a growing array of American military might—a battleship-carrier strike group led by the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a bomber task force including B-52s, and marines who specialize in “expeditionary warfare”—now being deployed off the Iranian coast. It’s no longer a slow creep.

“President Trump will insure that we have all the resources necessary to respond in the event that the Islamic Republic of Iran should decide to attack Americans or American interests or some of our great soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, who are serving in that region, or the diplomats serving in Iraq or elsewhere,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on “Fox & Friends,” on Thursday. “The exact force posture, the President is looking at every day.” The President, Pompeo said, “is determined to change the course of that regime.”

Iran has countered with its own provocative rhetoric. On Monday, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, responded to Trump on Twitter. “@realdonaldTrump hopes to achieve what Alexander, Genghis & other aggressors failed to do. Iranians have stood tall for millennia while aggressors all gone,” he wrote. “#EconomicTerrorism & genocidal taunts won’t ‘end Iran.’ #NeverThreatenAnIranian. Try respect—it works!” On Tuesday, President Hassan Rouhani distanced Iran from engagement. “Today’s situation is not suitable for talks. Our choice is resistance only,” he said. And, on Wednesday, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed that Iran’s youth “will witness the demise of the enemies of humanity, meaning the degenerate American civilization, and the demise of Israel.” He also publicly criticized his own President and foreign minister—a rarity in Tehran—about how they handled the 2015 nuclear deal, produced after two years of tortuous talks with the world’s six major powers. Iran seems as divided as Washington at a critical time. Meanwhile, Tehran still has its own array of troops and proxy militias across the Middle East; many are positioned in the same arenas as U.S. troops.

The question amid the buildup and rhetorical flames is how to prevent a showdown either soon or a few years down the road, and how to eventually de-escalate. As tensions flared between the two nations, I called on John Limbert, one of the fifty-two diplomats taken hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution. We’ve had a running conversation about the Islamic Republic since I covered his four hundred and forty-four days in captivity. Limbert is a scholar of Iranian politics, history, and culture; he often invokes lines from the great Persian poets—Hafez, Rumi, and Sa’adi—in his elegant Farsi. I asked him how we ended up in yet another Iran crisis—and why Washington and Tehran have still not figured out a way to deal with each other.

“Part of it is that we haven’t engaged much for forty years,” he told me. “We assume the worst about the ‘other,’ and our assumptions become self-fulfilling prophecies.” One of the core unanswered questions in Washington, he noted, is whether Iran’s bad behavior is any different or worse than its targeting of U.S. facilities, personnel, interests, or allies over the past four decades. And are Iran’s recent military moves—reportedly deploying short-range missiles in the Gulf and proxies in Iraq and Syria, or attacking four oil tankers—offensive or defensive? Might Tehran be responding to America’s pledge to cut off all Iranian oil exports, its designation of the entire Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization, and its withdrawal from a nuclear deal that had been endorsed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council?

Before Trump, six U.S. Presidents struggled to read Iran, Limbert noted. Estrangement produced misreading, mixed signals, missed opportunities, and outright blunders. Without formal contact, the state of play often swung between hostile actions and diplomatic overtures. The two governments were perpetually out of synch. The pattern, the former hostage said, reminded him of a line from the twentieth-century Iranian poet Shahriyar: “You came to me at last, O love of my life. But why now?”

The Reagan Administration engaged in a secret arms-for-hostages swap—trading weapons that Iran needed to fight Iraq in their eight-year war, in exchange for Iran’s help freeing Americans seized by Hezbollah, an Iranian proxy in Lebanon. Top U.S. and Iranian officials travelled to each other’s capitals to negotiate. But tensions flared, too. Iran’s allies bombed two U.S. embassies and marine peacekeepers in Beirut, killing hundreds, and Iran’s navy dropped mines in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. Navy shot up Iranian naval vessels and downed a passenger plane, killing hundreds.

In his Inaugural Address, President George H. W. Bush made an offer to Iran. “There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands. . . . Assistance can be shown here and will be long remembered. Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on,” he said. President Hashemi Rafsanjani orchestrated the release of the remaining U.S. hostages in Lebanon. Iran later complained that the good will was never reciprocated.

During the Clinton Administration, Iran offered Conoco, an American company, the largest oil contract ever tendered, a move to open a commercial channel with a country still publicly dubbed “the Great Satan.” President Bill Clinton, under congressional pressure, responded by imposing an embargo on all oil imports, trade, and investment. In 1998, President Mohammad Khatami called for a “dialogue among civilizations” to bring down “the wall of mistrust.” Two years later, Clinton lifted sanctions on Iranian carpets, pistachios, and caviar. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressed regret for the C.I.A.’s role in the 1953 coup in Iran that had ousted a democratically elected Prime Minister and allowed the Shah to return to the Peacock Throne from temporary exile. Politically, the timing was off on both countries’ overtures.

After the 9/11 attacks, in 2001, the George W. Bush Administration worked closely with Iran on Afghanistan. They even shared intelligence. Tehran was pivotal in convincing its local ally, which had led the fight against the Taliban, to accept the U.S. candidate in a new government. Months later, in his State of the Union address, in 2002, the President labelled Iran as one of three nations in an “axis of evil.” In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran offered a “grand bargain” to resolve all differences. The White House did not respond. In 2004, the American and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad were authorized to meet, but nothing came of it. Iran provided war matériel to proxy militias in Iraq that were linked to the deaths of more than six hundred U.S. troops between 2003 and 2011.

In an address during the Persian holiday of Nowruz, in 2009, President Barack Obama said that his Administration “is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran, and the international community.” He achieved the biggest breakthrough of any President, during two years of direct talks that produced the Iran nuclear deal, in 2015. The deal limits various parts of Iran’s controversial program for between ten and twenty-five years. It’s still in effect, despite Trump’s withdrawal, a year ago. The other five major powers—Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia—still support it, and Iran has complied, according to more than a dozen reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Obama’s calculation was that removing the most dangerous flash point and establishing a diplomatic channel would open the way for talks on other issues: Iran’s missiles, support for extremist movements, human-rights violations, and meddling in the Middle East. Yet he didn’t make further inroads in his last few months in office.

At the U.N. last fall, both Trump and Rouhani signalled, albeit from different positions, that the diplomatic door was still ajar. Rouhani offered talks based on the original nuclear deal; Trump offered talks based on a new and different pact to include all issues between the two nations. Nothing happened. The President has since accelerated his “maximum pressure” campaign. The irony in Trump’s recent Twitter tantrums is that, years ago, he predicted that Obama would be the one to attack Iran. In 2011, he tweeted, “In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.” In 2012, he wrote, “Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin—watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.” On September 16, 2013, he tweeted, “I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!” On September 25, 2013, he rubbed it in. “Remember what I previously said—Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.” Instead, two days later, Obama telephoned Rouhani while he was attending the opening of the U.N. General Assembly, in New York. It was the first direct contact between Presidents of their respective countries since the Revolution.

One of the many tragedies in the tortured situation today, Limbert noted, is the two countries’ common history. For all their differences, the United States and the Islamic Republic are both the products of revolutions steeped in religious values that ousted long-standing monarchies. In 1946, President Harry Truman issued an ultimatum to Joseph Stalin that forced the Soviet Union to end its occupation of Iran after the Second World War. It was the first crisis of the then new United Nations. It helped Tehran reassert its sovereignty. For decades afterward, Tehran and Washington remained pillars of each other’s foreign policies.

After the Islamic Revolution, in 1979, relations started off well, too. The country’s first leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote to President Jimmy Carter five days before returning to Tehran from fourteen years in exile, “You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans.” The U.S. continued selling arms to Iran until the takeover of the American Embassy, ten months later, after Washington agreed to take in the ailing former Shah. The revolutionaries feared that the United States intended to restore the monarchy a second time.

Forty years later, relations are still haunted by those ghosts, Limbert told me. “There’s an obliviousness to each other’s history—and to what the other may think,” he said. The current suspicion, distance, and disdain make the prospect of finding an off-ramp in the current crisis seem more remote than ever.

Click Here: