After today's terrorist attack in New York (which President Trump called an act of a sick and deranged person), perpetrated by an Uzbeki here on a diversity visa, the president stated that he instructed the Department of Homeland Security to step up extreme vetting.
Uzbekistan has portions of the country that are hotbeds of terrorist activity.
No offense, Mr. President, but our DHS knows zilch, zip, nada about Uzbekistan or other Central Asian countries.
We couldn't find enough Russian language specialists in the State Department to translate one button correctly.
Who are we kidding here?
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Trump Campaign's Best Defense Against Accusations of Collusion Is Lack of Central Planning
So the narrative that George Papandapolous was unimportant, had no connections to anyone important, and was not an authorized member of the campaign is failing. He appears to have been present at a national security briefing with Trump himself in attendance.
On the other hand, the campaign was chaotic, and it sounds like any random idiot could get into national security meetings without a specific authorization, a trend that continued well into the White House, until COS Kelly put a kibosch on that. What this tells you is that
1. Trump's campaign was more incompetent in basic security matters than it was malicious and conspiring
and
2. Current apologists are trying way too hard. Trump's best defense is not the attempt to diminish the significance of GP, but actually the inherent flaws of his campaign.
There was mass miscommunication and disorganization, which we have seen with the rollout of the immigration EO early at the start of administration. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. You can't have a properly masterminded collusion there. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of haphazard opportunistic contacts at various levels and for various reasons.
On the other hand, the campaign was chaotic, and it sounds like any random idiot could get into national security meetings without a specific authorization, a trend that continued well into the White House, until COS Kelly put a kibosch on that. What this tells you is that
1. Trump's campaign was more incompetent in basic security matters than it was malicious and conspiring
and
2. Current apologists are trying way too hard. Trump's best defense is not the attempt to diminish the significance of GP, but actually the inherent flaws of his campaign.
There was mass miscommunication and disorganization, which we have seen with the rollout of the immigration EO early at the start of administration. The right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing. You can't have a properly masterminded collusion there. Rather, it sounds like a bunch of haphazard opportunistic contacts at various levels and for various reasons.
When the Cover-Up Is a Crime, and the Actual Act Being Covered Isn't
I'm of mixed feelings on the George Papadopolous case. On the one hand, it's commendable that the White House is not covering up for obstruction of justice in the form of George P's lies to the FBI, and fully cooperated with the probe, and gave everything that was needed to build the case.
On the other hand, I can't really rid myself of a nagging feeling that George P. may have been lying per the request FROM the White House, and if so, he is being made into a scapegoat for not only the thrust of misguided initial policy towards Putin, but engaging in crime for the sake of the President who is perfectly ok with having someone else commit a crime just to avoid scrutiny of non-criminal but bad policy.
I mean, I wasn't sure what Papadapolous thought would happen as a result of his lies, and it was remarkably stupid and unethical for him to do that, regardless of whether he did that of his own initiative or was asked to do so. But there is something altogether Nixonian about having low-level grunts engage in obstruction of justice to cover up for someone with an enormous ego who is likely not man enough to face the political consequences of strategic mistakes made during his presidential campaign. Again, the irony of this is that none of the initial comments about Putin or even meetings with Russian diplomats are in and of themselves criminal.
It's the cover-up that raises legal questions, and it's unclear why it's even necessary, since it makes the whole thing look significantly worse than it was originally was.
Monday, October 30, 2017
Paul Manafort Plot Thickens
Was the Clinton Foundation involved with the Podesta corruption in Ukraine?
That sort of influence peddling, if it happened while she was SoS, is blatantly illegal and deserving of a separate investigation.
Tucker Carlson: "The chairman of one major presidential campaign colluded with the chairman of the other major presidential campaign to enrich themselves by secretly advancing the interests of a foreign adversary. That happened. That’s the swamp they told you that needed to be drained.”
That sort of influence peddling, if it happened while she was SoS, is blatantly illegal and deserving of a separate investigation.
Tucker Carlson: "The chairman of one major presidential campaign colluded with the chairman of the other major presidential campaign to enrich themselves by secretly advancing the interests of a foreign adversary. That happened. That’s the swamp they told you that needed to be drained.”
Who Is Lying About Kirkuk And Why It Matters
cross-posted in Times of Israel:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/who-is-lying-about-kirkuk-and-why-it-matters/
Among the growing Baghdad-Barzani rift, various claims have been made about who knew what and when, and who said what and why.
The three competing perspectives are as follows:
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
* US betrayed Kurds by failing to stop the invasion by Iraqi forces, Iran-backed Shi'a militias, and the IRGC. Kurds have been strong allies to the US during the fight against ISIS, and have peacefully voted to secede from a state, which is increasingly manipulated by the Islamic Republic of Iran, and thus is not a good fit for the significant Kurdish population. The oil fields can and should be peacefully negotiated by the two governments, but the Iraqi forces have no business invading Kurdish-held territories, which the latter have liberated from the ISIS presence. Moreover, Iraqi Constitution, Article 140, provides for Kurdish independence, and given that the Constitution was comprised with the assistance from US lawyers and the State Department, US is well aware of that provision and should be respectful of it.
* Kurdish leadership new full well from CIA, State Department, and Pentagon statements before the referendum that US was strongly opposed to secession and would not be supportive if Baghdad decided to take back its territory in the aftermath. Barzani blatantly lied to its population, leading them to believe that the US was deceptive about its support for Kurds. There was no reason to believe that the independence referendum had international support. Barzani overstepped his authority in the attempt to distract from his own illegitimate hold on power despite the constitution.
* The well trained Iraqi forces, armed by the United States, had significantly more field experience in long-term operations than Peshmerga. Furthermore, Baghdad was planning to invade Kirkuk regardless of whether or not Kurds held the referendum, so it was only a matter of time before the region was overrun with Iraqi forces coupled with Iran-backed Shi'a militias. Barzani did not necessarily count on the Talabani faction to sell out to the IRGC, but had decided to call the referendum, knowing that they would be taken over regardless, to draw attention to the upcoming takeover, and also to start taking active steps towards the future, knowing that putting that off would likely make it less, not MORE likely to gain international support and recognition with time. Furthermore, regardless of US statements, it was in the US interests to support Kurds and to avoid clashes between allies, so regardless of US statements about the referendum, it was reasonable to expect that they would mediate in a manner that would avoid violent takeover and could help negotiate oil. It's not in the US interests to have IRGC presence regardless of how the US administration feels about Baghdad's claims to Kirkuk, or or other issues complicating Kurdish path to independence.
These three narratives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. And the Kurdish people should have had realistic expectations of the US role in their own story, and had demanded better preparation and organization of troops, clear communications, and an actual plan from the Barzani government, not to mention dealing with the election issue instead of going for populist slogans. However, none of these considerations takes away from the legitimacy of the following concerns:
Whatever the concerns of the US in balancing various interests in the region and preventing further destabilization, failure to take a leadership role in preventing conflict, actually led to the very destabilization it was trying to prevent. Pentagon's denials about the role of IRGC in this avoidable situation are not helping the US credibility, and further, play into the hands of the very actors no one wants to see play a decisive role in the future of Iraq and Kurds. These lies and denials make US look treacherous, deceptive, anti-Kurdish and do nothing to dissuade the Kurds from moving forward with whatever faulty narrative Barzani may be peddling. In fact, it is pushing them into the embrace of the Russians, while IRGC and Baghdad government feel emboldened to disregard Kurdish claims, and act in a matter that is punitive and vindictive, rather than defensive of Baghdad's legitimate claims and interests. As a direct consequence of US failure to intervene, several disturbing developments occurred:
IRGC, dressed as Shi'a militias, and in conjunction with actual Iran-backed militias, have continued plundering and raiding their way through the territory, up to Al-Qosh, increasingly placing minority civilian populations and Jewish and Christian historical sites in danger. Minorities, such as Christians and Yazidis, have been forced to choose among three factions - Kurdish Peshmerga, the PMU units, now linked to Iran, and Iraqi forces, in order to protect their civilians and interests. That does nothing to simplify the situation, as the continuous clashes may force these groups to pick up weapons against each other. Christian militias that run their own defense in Nineveh are paid by PMU, which is troubling to US interests in preventing Iranian financial transactions that benefit the IRGC, recently designated as a terrorist organization. Qasem Soleimani, despite being recognized as a terrorist by the State Department in a recent statement, continues to play an active organizing role in the planning and implementation of the regional takeover.
Second, Turkey and Iraq are moving to cut off Kurdish access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, which will ease the likelihood of future Turkish entry into the area. Turkey views Kirkuk as its own sphere of interests, and considers the prevention of contiguous Kurdish territories between Iraq, a likely Syrian Kurdish federation,and Kurdish territories in Turkey as central to its interests. There is also a growing possibility that Turkey may target the oil pipelines remaining under Kurdish control, which will deprive the Kurds of their essential livelihood and further empower and embolden Erdogan's expansionist neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region. Turkey is becoming an increasing threat to US interests in the region and elsewhere, and this additional step will make that much harder for the US to defend its foothold, access to energy, defense of minorities, or relationships with more stable and less aggressive allies.
For now, however, Iraq is more likely to gain control of that pipeline and has already taken steps to bypass the Kurdish region in providing oil to Turkey. Iraq and Turkey are on the same page with regards to Baghdad's regaining control and dominating Kurdistan, and Turkey has already made a similar security agreement with Iran. This triumvirate will ultimately prove hostile to US interests in the region, and should be broken up by the US, regardless of Barzani's flaws. US needs to prioritize what is at stake. Iran-oriented Iraq is no great ally and will likely prove a hindrance in the US's future battles against Iranian aggression. And Turkey is proving increasingly less of a friend and more of a menace as it opposes US presence in the region, detains US citizens, interferes with US strategy in Syria, and threatens US allies. The more time the US wastes maintaining supposed neutrality that only strengthens our enemies, the more likely we are to find ourselves friendless when our neutrality inevitably backfires.
More Shocking News from Hollywood Coming Soon
Next thing you know, they'll discover that Hollywood people drink alcohol excessively, do drugs, and abuse their spouses and partners... oh wait. Everyone knows, and no one actually cares.
Beware of the Donors
You know who's really driving the GOP? It's not Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. It's the donors. They can't do anything about or to Trump, but they can do a great deal of damage to the House, Senate, and state candidates if they decide to. The issue is that not all of these billionaires are of alike mind about, well, anything, so it's hard to predict whether their money will actually do any good or will go down a black hole.
If they can get their act together and figure out which candidates they can all back in good conscience, we may see some changes = and perhaps a signal to the administration. How the billionaires and their influence lines up with what Trump's base actually wants is a different issue. There is definitely some interloping, but I think the donors will be more likely than the base to criticize Trump himself, as well as members of his administration. Whether Democrats and any future primary candidates will be smart enough to figure out where these difference lie and how to exploit them remains to be seen.
If they can get their act together and figure out which candidates they can all back in good conscience, we may see some changes = and perhaps a signal to the administration. How the billionaires and their influence lines up with what Trump's base actually wants is a different issue. There is definitely some interloping, but I think the donors will be more likely than the base to criticize Trump himself, as well as members of his administration. Whether Democrats and any future primary candidates will be smart enough to figure out where these difference lie and how to exploit them remains to be seen.
Sunday, October 29, 2017
Why The Usual Suspects Are Silent on the Plight of Afro-Cubans
The Castro regime's outright racism draws no attention from the liberal-minded human rights defenders in the views. Those who were the first to decry (and rightfully so), South Africa's apartheid regime see no reason to raise alarms over Cuba's isolation and exclusion of Afro-Cubans, a narrative that challenges the "conventional wisdom" of equality for all in this Communist paradise. Same people, I'm sure, still believe in the fairy tale of Cuba's "superior" free medical care, oddly accessible only to the top echelons of the regime at the level that goes beyond Potemkin villages presented for tourists, or its "exceptional" free education, which somehow has failed to eradicate the vast poverty in which most Cuban citizens find themselves.
There are no Black Lives Matter demonstrations for the miserable status of the Afro-Cuban, and the staunch defenders of "normalization", two years in, have no comment about the failure to improve the condition of most people, particularly Afro-Cubans, in any perceptible way. Were they so naive as to think that cronyist support of investments into the regime would somehow translate into human rights? Or were they so ideologically married to their support of the Obama administration that the nature of the actual policy and its ramification was irrelevant? If so, some of these "human rights activists" are even more cynical and soulless than I thought.
There are no Black Lives Matter demonstrations for the miserable status of the Afro-Cuban, and the staunch defenders of "normalization", two years in, have no comment about the failure to improve the condition of most people, particularly Afro-Cubans, in any perceptible way. Were they so naive as to think that cronyist support of investments into the regime would somehow translate into human rights? Or were they so ideologically married to their support of the Obama administration that the nature of the actual policy and its ramification was irrelevant? If so, some of these "human rights activists" are even more cynical and soulless than I thought.
Why America First Policy Requires US to Push Back Against Russia
My article published on Daily Mail 24:
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
https://en.dailymail24.com/
The US may very well be perfectly fine with living and letting live. It may very well be entirely happy to let someone take play world policeman for a change and focus on providing for its own citizens and protecting its borders. It might be for the best if other countries sorted out their issues among themselves. But it's all a pipe dream.
Russia is not going to let the United States to live and let live. It's not about Putin's stay in power or pursuit of dominance in the Middle East, or the restoration of the Russian Empire.
It's about the simple fact that we are under our attack within our own borders, and Russia will not stop until it brings the US to ruin.
How would that scenario look? Alarmingly, the picture emerging is not too far from where we are now: a nation, lost in confusion, unable to tell propaganda and fake news from reality, its political leadership torn apart by endless scandals and investigations, with its citizens trusting foreign leaders more than they trust their own.
Russia has proven to be a danger, playing both parties against each other, sowing chaos, confusion, and aggressively attacking US interests internally and externally. Its Kaspersky software has been used as an espionage tool across various government agencies, endangering our information. Hacking into voting machines and attacks on various political entities was a crude attempt to compromise the integrity of our democratic election problems, and to cause months of finger-pointing and social divisioins.
Over the years preceding this election, Russia continued aggressive active measures, which ranged from bribery of nuclear trucking companies, to espionage through highly placed officials in an attempt to get to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to aggressive hacking and propaganda measures which intensified through election. Under the Obama administration, Russia sent its "diplomats" on fishing expeditions around our sensitive infrastructure, even in such unusual vacation destinations as Kansas.
Additionally, Russia has presented a direct threat to our interests and security abroad. Russian intelligence aggressively targeted US diplomats in Moscow and Eastern Europe, which included such unprofessional and belligerent actions, as physical attacks, including one that left a diplomat badly beaten outside the Embassy, and having to be evacuated, poisonings, severe destruction of property, and harassment that went far beyond the expected annoyances from the old Soviet KGB playbook expected in that part of the world.
Strategically, Russia continues to present a threat wherever it goes, directly interfering with US interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In Syria, Russia constructed a base, while supporting Iranian militias, adversarial to US interests, attacking US-backed groups, and presenting a threat to the Straight of Hormuz, a strategically important trade rout for US and her allies. At numerous points throughout its presence in Syria, US and Russia neared a point of direct conflict, while Russia continued provocative actions, involving airplanes and submarines. In Afghanistan, Russia supplies Taliban with fuel and even weapons, despite the fact that NATO, including the US, is actively fighting against Taliban. Thanks to Russia's assistance, the Taliban has made significant territorial gains, even as the US surged its own forces inside the country.
Additionally, Russia continues to supply Iran with weapons, now also selling S-400s to Turkey, a country that also presents a significant challenge to US interests in Syria. And Russian government oil company is moving in on the oil fields taken over by the Iraqi forces, IRGC, and Iran-backed militias from the Kurds in Kirkuk, which endangers vested US business interests. Russia's attacks on Ukraine, including cybersecurity attacks, are widely viewed as potential dry runs for similar attacks on US infrastructure, including the electric grid.
And that's not including the aggressive lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, the cruel adoption ban that forbids dangerously ill Russian children from being taken in by American families, the non-stop brainwashing of the Russian citizenry against Americans, the troll farms, which makes old school Soviet propaganda seem like child's play, and the authoritarian actions against foreign NGOs, as well as government-linked hostile takeovers of US hedge funds and other financial institutions in Russia, well documented by Bill Browder and others.
All of that paints a rather dreary picture of the US-Russia relationship, with only one side systematically pursuing hostility and instilling hatred against not only the government of the other, but against all of it institutions, the fabric of society, and way of life. Russia is not acting like a potential partner, even on a strictly limited and professional level. It's looking to undermine every goal and pursuit of the United States, and to cause an internal collapse. The appeal of hardcore Communism is no longer quite as potent, though to be sure, the Soviet Union's fellow travelers took strong root in the academia, governments, the media, and think tank world. But non-ideological confusion of values and internal social and political divisions are just as destructive, and have met with a deplorable level of success. Intersectionality, radical movements, and fake pseudoright=wing and pseudo-left wing organized groups and violent events all have the classic Soviety-style footprint on them, and a number of articles have come out to show how Russia had duped unwitting Black Lives Matter activists into organizing events that ended up benefiting Russia.
For that reason, placing America First, and American interests first, requires a strong, unequivocal, coordinated, and systematic response to Russia by President Trump, who needs to start enforcing Congressional sanctions he signed into law this summer immediately, members of both parties in Congress, who need to put aside political differences and focus on the common goal of defending US national security and political integrity, our media, who needs to focus on exposing Russian connections wherever they are, and not just to the benefit of one party over another, our institutions, including think tanks, who need to be more alert to the foreign money, lobbyists, and other pro-Russia influences, and finally, US citizens, who need to start learning to spot propaganda that benefits the foreign state, and stop giving in to the divisiveness being sown by bots, trolls, and Russian agents of influence at every opportunity.
We need to keep America great, not make Russia great again.
Trump, Don't Be Obama
My article was published in Israel HaYom, and republished on Instapundit.org
http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/trump-dont-be-obama/
Irina Tsukerman
Trump, don't be Obama
Eight months into the Trump administration, it is time to stop making excuses. The Obama administration holdovers are not exclusively responsible for everything going wrong with U.S. foreign policy. Multiple agencies doubling down on foreign policy are a clear indication that the policy in question comes from the top, not from some rogue employee in one agency.
These actions by the U.S. are doing nothing but damaging its credibility and relationships.
First, the United States contributes free weapons to the Lebanese Air Force, which are then shared with Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a fearsome Iranian proxy that has now grown to the size of a standing army and plays a distinctive and influential role in Lebanese politics. It has also attacked Americans, Israelis, and other targets over the course of the last several decades in a number of locations, and has played a destructive role in Syria. That has not worked out so well with the branch of the Afghani mujahedeen that has grown into the Taliban, and arming Hezbollah is likewise not likely to contribute to peace and stability in the world.
Second, U.S. policy in Syria, which has focused only on ISIS, has essentially allowed Iran to step in uninhibited.
Admittedly, this policy started under former U.S. President Barack Obama; however, no clear explanation has ever been provided as to why the Trump administration should go along with the terrible policies of its predecessor. The White House let Iran build a land corridor to Lebanon, which will facilitate arms and drug trafficking and offer passage for terrorists. All the while, Iran is looking to build bases in Syria and gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has essentially sidelined the U.S.
Third, Trump's capitulation to Iraqi and Turkish demands on opposing Kurdistan independence emboldened Iran in its interventionism policy in Kurdistan. And it's no excuse to say that the U.S. clarified well in advance that it won't support Kurdish aspirations. The Republican-led Congress has failed to repeal the law against directly arming Kurds. As a direct result of the heavy-handed U.S. pressure on the Kurds to postpone their referendum, Iraq's government openly invited the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to plan the takeover of Kirkuk, which, by use of some force, displaced over 170,000 people, murdered over 400 civilians and injured hundreds more. And it did not stop at Kirkuk. Faced with the administration's "neutrality" policy, Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani entered Kirkuk freely on numerous occasions, and opened headquarters and military bases, solidifying Iran's presence in the area.
Iranians and Iraqis continue their punitive march past Kirkuk, placing minorities, such as the Yazidis, in harm's way. The Iraqi army refuses to take control or responsibility for these militias, which are wreaking havoc, and, coupled with Baghdad's harsh, isolationist policies, are ruining the region's economy. Further, Iraq, armed with U.S. weapons, ignored U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's gentle admonition that Iranian militias should go home. Iraq has now found a new, stronger ally, and the U.S. is being pushed out.
Fourth, Tillerson and Trump both said that there was no plan to try to stop America's European partners from doing business in Iran. And despite the positive indication that Trump will not allow a major Boeing deal with Iran to go through, such statements send, at best, a mixed signal. It was the complete isolation of Iran that forced it to seek relief from sanctions by way of the nuclear deal in the first place. Now, not only is Iran flush with money and investments, but continued business with other countries will make U.S. sanctions a mere drop in the bucket. U.S. sanctions alone will not affect Iran's economy, it won't diminish the strength of the Revolutionary Guards, nor will it hamper Iran's geopolitical ambition. Instead, the U.S. will be at a distinct business and economic disadvantage vis-Ã -vis European states. Disunity among allies is sure to be exploited by the Iranian regime, which thrives on the divide-and-conquer approach to dealing with its adversaries.
Fifth, the U.S. is allowing Hamas to do business with Iran, even as it is facilitating Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas and trying to work out a peace deal with Israel. Iran is encouraging the worst possible behavior in Hamas and praises the return to the destructive rhetoric that makes any sort of coexistence with Israel, much less normalization, impossible. Funding from Iran will also serve to nullify any effect from the Taylor Force Act, which would curb U.S. taxpayer funding of the Palestinian Authority in response to its continuous incitement to terrorism.
Separately, each of these policies, continuing under Trump, not Obama, is destructive enough. Together, they create a pattern of paying lip service to decertification and opposing Iran's military expansion across the Middle East and beyond, while tacitly allowing Iran and its proxies to profit from the U.S. defense industry and sacrificing American allies – a familiar pattern from the preceding administration. It is time for the Trump administration to stop finger-wagging while de facto perpetuating Obama's outdated and failed policies and refocus its energy on finding solutions.
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
http://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/trump-dont-be-obama/
Irina Tsukerman
Trump, don't be Obama
Eight months into the Trump administration, it is time to stop making excuses. The Obama administration holdovers are not exclusively responsible for everything going wrong with U.S. foreign policy. Multiple agencies doubling down on foreign policy are a clear indication that the policy in question comes from the top, not from some rogue employee in one agency.
These actions by the U.S. are doing nothing but damaging its credibility and relationships.
First, the United States contributes free weapons to the Lebanese Air Force, which are then shared with Hezbollah, a designated terrorist organization. Hezbollah is a fearsome Iranian proxy that has now grown to the size of a standing army and plays a distinctive and influential role in Lebanese politics. It has also attacked Americans, Israelis, and other targets over the course of the last several decades in a number of locations, and has played a destructive role in Syria. That has not worked out so well with the branch of the Afghani mujahedeen that has grown into the Taliban, and arming Hezbollah is likewise not likely to contribute to peace and stability in the world.
Second, U.S. policy in Syria, which has focused only on ISIS, has essentially allowed Iran to step in uninhibited.
Admittedly, this policy started under former U.S. President Barack Obama; however, no clear explanation has ever been provided as to why the Trump administration should go along with the terrible policies of its predecessor. The White House let Iran build a land corridor to Lebanon, which will facilitate arms and drug trafficking and offer passage for terrorists. All the while, Iran is looking to build bases in Syria and gaining control of the Strait of Hormuz, which has essentially sidelined the U.S.
Third, Trump's capitulation to Iraqi and Turkish demands on opposing Kurdistan independence emboldened Iran in its interventionism policy in Kurdistan. And it's no excuse to say that the U.S. clarified well in advance that it won't support Kurdish aspirations. The Republican-led Congress has failed to repeal the law against directly arming Kurds. As a direct result of the heavy-handed U.S. pressure on the Kurds to postpone their referendum, Iraq's government openly invited the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to plan the takeover of Kirkuk, which, by use of some force, displaced over 170,000 people, murdered over 400 civilians and injured hundreds more. And it did not stop at Kirkuk. Faced with the administration's "neutrality" policy, Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Ghasem Soleimani entered Kirkuk freely on numerous occasions, and opened headquarters and military bases, solidifying Iran's presence in the area.
Iranians and Iraqis continue their punitive march past Kirkuk, placing minorities, such as the Yazidis, in harm's way. The Iraqi army refuses to take control or responsibility for these militias, which are wreaking havoc, and, coupled with Baghdad's harsh, isolationist policies, are ruining the region's economy. Further, Iraq, armed with U.S. weapons, ignored U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson's gentle admonition that Iranian militias should go home. Iraq has now found a new, stronger ally, and the U.S. is being pushed out.
Fourth, Tillerson and Trump both said that there was no plan to try to stop America's European partners from doing business in Iran. And despite the positive indication that Trump will not allow a major Boeing deal with Iran to go through, such statements send, at best, a mixed signal. It was the complete isolation of Iran that forced it to seek relief from sanctions by way of the nuclear deal in the first place. Now, not only is Iran flush with money and investments, but continued business with other countries will make U.S. sanctions a mere drop in the bucket. U.S. sanctions alone will not affect Iran's economy, it won't diminish the strength of the Revolutionary Guards, nor will it hamper Iran's geopolitical ambition. Instead, the U.S. will be at a distinct business and economic disadvantage vis-Ã -vis European states. Disunity among allies is sure to be exploited by the Iranian regime, which thrives on the divide-and-conquer approach to dealing with its adversaries.
Fifth, the U.S. is allowing Hamas to do business with Iran, even as it is facilitating Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas and trying to work out a peace deal with Israel. Iran is encouraging the worst possible behavior in Hamas and praises the return to the destructive rhetoric that makes any sort of coexistence with Israel, much less normalization, impossible. Funding from Iran will also serve to nullify any effect from the Taylor Force Act, which would curb U.S. taxpayer funding of the Palestinian Authority in response to its continuous incitement to terrorism.
Separately, each of these policies, continuing under Trump, not Obama, is destructive enough. Together, they create a pattern of paying lip service to decertification and opposing Iran's military expansion across the Middle East and beyond, while tacitly allowing Iran and its proxies to profit from the U.S. defense industry and sacrificing American allies – a familiar pattern from the preceding administration. It is time for the Trump administration to stop finger-wagging while de facto perpetuating Obama's outdated and failed policies and refocus its energy on finding solutions.
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
One of the These Things is Not like the Others
Serious question:
Why were the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia legit, but when Catalonia wants to secede, suddenly everyone cares about Spain's territorial integrity?
Why were the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia legit, but when Catalonia wants to secede, suddenly everyone cares about Spain's territorial integrity?
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
FBI/DNC/CLinton collusion
Speculation:
Is it at all possible that Comey's recommendations re Hillary to DOJ had to with the fact that Steele, the spooky author of the controversial Trump dossier, was already on FBI's payroll, and Clinton Campaign was also in some ways implicated in additional cooperation and research?
I.e. Steele would not have cooperated if Hillary was indicted?
Is it at all possible that Comey's recommendations re Hillary to DOJ had to with the fact that Steele, the spooky author of the controversial Trump dossier, was already on FBI's payroll, and Clinton Campaign was also in some ways implicated in additional cooperation and research?
I.e. Steele would not have cooperated if Hillary was indicted?
Comey's Lies
Back in March, watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with Comey, I was struck at his blatant lies, not just about the facts related to his investigation, but as to the applicable provisions of the Espionage Act, which admittedly, is long and complex.
At the time, I thought that Comey was merely trying to embarrass the senators by taking advantage of the fact that most of them have a very full plate, and unless they have spent many years as prosecutors in the national security arena (out of the whole bunch that might only be applicable to Sen. Blumenthal, but I don't think he practiced in that area, and anyway, as a Democrat, he focused more on the Russia probe anyway), they wouldn't necessarily be familiar with all the nuances of all the applicable charges - and neither would their staffers on the Committee, all fine lawyers, but likely with experience in less exotic areas of law.
In retrospect, it seems that the more likely reason is that Comey, who had failed to conduct a full investigation before drawing his conclusion, simply didn't want to be questioned about how is it that he failed to apply all the relevant charges to the facts.
At the time, I thought that Comey was merely trying to embarrass the senators by taking advantage of the fact that most of them have a very full plate, and unless they have spent many years as prosecutors in the national security arena (out of the whole bunch that might only be applicable to Sen. Blumenthal, but I don't think he practiced in that area, and anyway, as a Democrat, he focused more on the Russia probe anyway), they wouldn't necessarily be familiar with all the nuances of all the applicable charges - and neither would their staffers on the Committee, all fine lawyers, but likely with experience in less exotic areas of law.
In retrospect, it seems that the more likely reason is that Comey, who had failed to conduct a full investigation before drawing his conclusion, simply didn't want to be questioned about how is it that he failed to apply all the relevant charges to the facts.
Who is a Real Republican?
So the latest allegations from some people is that I don't consider anyone a "Republican" if they committed a crime or some impropriety just so I could wash my hands off such people and claim that all Republicans are blameless.
Such aspersions are defamatory in nature, as I'm openly critical of anyone I (not the left or the Trump followers or anyone else, but I personally) consider have done something seriously wrong. James Comey is one such person. If claims of Bill O'Reilly's sexual harassment are true, he also fits that category. One's political registration has absolutely nothing to do with one's moral code, obviously.
And I'd be the last person to question anyone's political affiliation after the hell I've been through last year over my lack of support for either nominee in the presidential election. If you claim you are a registered Republican, you are. I may consider you a RINO on the basis of having beliefs that are overall entirely inconsistent with the Republican platform or for having a poor voting record on central issue, but I will not try to pretend that someone who has committed a crime or done something unethical is not a "real" Republican on the basis of that, any more than I would consider a Jew who has committed a crime, not a "real" Jew. You may be acting completely inappropriately as a Jew, but that doesn't mean you are not Jewish.
And yes, I totally went there, because the NEXT step after these disgusting allegations about how I judge people is this anti-Semitic trope.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Disbarment for Hillary and Comey
The appearance of impropriety regarding Hillary's emails, and Comey's cover-ups and premature comments is so overwhelming that there are sufficient grounds for disbarment for all the lawyers, contributing to this travesty regardless of any criminal charges or other penalties.
How FBI, the Clinton Campaign, and DNC Colluded over the Trump dossier
Money quote from the WaPo bombshell about Clinton Campaign/DNC collusion over the Trump dossier:
"After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports."
Let's translate this: FBI, having relied on the likely compromised report to try to get FISA warrants, continued to rely on the same source even as it became increasingly obvious that something funny was going on and that both his client and his sources had political agendas. And this continued after the election, and McCain found out about it before the president. Not until Trump had taken office did the FBI reveal that they were secretly spying on him via a paid agent of the Democratic party.
Methinks, it's time for a long thorough Congressional investigation of all involved.
"After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports."
Let's translate this: FBI, having relied on the likely compromised report to try to get FISA warrants, continued to rely on the same source even as it became increasingly obvious that something funny was going on and that both his client and his sources had political agendas. And this continued after the election, and McCain found out about it before the president. Not until Trump had taken office did the FBI reveal that they were secretly spying on him via a paid agent of the Democratic party.
Methinks, it's time for a long thorough Congressional investigation of all involved.
US has an interest in justice, freedom, and accountability around the world
We frequently criticize our leadership for failing to take leadership on human rights, particularly on countries that do not come to mind as issues of top priority "strategic importance".
First of all, defending democratic principles and freedom is always of strategic importance. The question only is what is the proper way to do that.
Second, I would sincerely like to commend Senator Ted Cruz for taking a very vocal and assertive stand on behalf of an opposition leader imprisoned for his participation in the election process in Cambodia. Not only did he condemn his act, but he clearly promised to take very specific measures should justice not prevail, in holding the Cambodian government accountable and blacklisting them from coming to the US, an embarrassing and effective step outlined in the Global Magnitsky Act to protect human rights defenders.
Also, kudos on guaranteeing that he would work with other members of Congress and administration - and thus holding our own government accountable on doing the right thing.
I hope to see that this example will start a new foreign policy - one where the US places its interests in justice, freedom, and accountability first.
First of all, defending democratic principles and freedom is always of strategic importance. The question only is what is the proper way to do that.
Second, I would sincerely like to commend Senator Ted Cruz for taking a very vocal and assertive stand on behalf of an opposition leader imprisoned for his participation in the election process in Cambodia. Not only did he condemn his act, but he clearly promised to take very specific measures should justice not prevail, in holding the Cambodian government accountable and blacklisting them from coming to the US, an embarrassing and effective step outlined in the Global Magnitsky Act to protect human rights defenders.
Also, kudos on guaranteeing that he would work with other members of Congress and administration - and thus holding our own government accountable on doing the right thing.
I hope to see that this example will start a new foreign policy - one where the US places its interests in justice, freedom, and accountability first.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Accused of Spying for Refusing to Spy
There's a slew of cases where highly educated Iranians with dual citizenships, upon returning to Iran for lectures or to visit families, are arrested and are forced to engage in espionage. If they refuse, they are tortured, forced to confess to spying for Israel or the United States, and imprisoned or executed. These men and women who refuse to engage in spying for Iran and for promoting its evil agendas deserve our full support. Please be aware that this is a frequent occurrence, and don't go to Iran, even if you receive an official invitation for conferences or other professional engagements.
The Tax Reform Is Guaranteed to Fail
Here's why I think tax reform/tax cuts will not really work without spending cuts:
Spending right now is not capped. It's growing. So if spending keeps growing, you can't really cut taxes and not go further into debt. Now, let's suppose that you have very low interest and for a while it won't matter. What this means, however, is that people will come up with new programs because they will feel liberated by tax cuts IN ADDITION to the already uncapped spending. Some of these programs will inevitably require the raising of taxes to pay for them. And so this will never end, UNLESS:
1. You cut entitlement programs - severely
2. You cut the pork from defense budget - and there's a lot of garbage to cut without going into anything that would actually harm our military capabilities
3. You cap spending.
Unless you do all of these things at least to some degree, no tax cut in the world is going to work, or at least won't work in the long run. It may still provide a temporary relief and help individuals on some level. But eventually, the taxes will inevitably be raised.
Congress All Talk, No Action On Iran's Growing Strength In the Middle East
Sen. Cotton correctly highlighted the dangers of Iran's growing presence in the Shi'a Crescent.
You know what would have been even better?
Calling on the President to take action in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. I'm not entirely sure why Congress is sitting pretty and watching calmly while the enemy forces are spreading everywhere.
You know what would have been even better?
Calling on the President to take action in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere. I'm not entirely sure why Congress is sitting pretty and watching calmly while the enemy forces are spreading everywhere.
US is grasping defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq
Two disturbing developments:
Hashd, an Iran-backed militia, basically told US forces in Iraq to get lost.
So if the US has been supporting Abadi vis-a-vis Kurds in hopes that Abadi is going to be better than someone more pro-Iranian leader, they are in for a disappointment. Iraq now has much more powerful buddies - Iran and Russia, which is seeking to widen its business operations in Iraq, and particularly, Iraqi Kurdistan, and increasingly doesn't need the US.
US is losing out not only with Kurds but with Iraq as well entirely due to its show of weakness. That's an important cultural point that the administration simply doesn't get, because it thinks only in terms of short-term military tactics, without understanding the tribal nature of the societies it's dealing with. Furthermore, US is endangering the local minorities. Iraqi military has made it clear that it doesn't have control over Iranian militias and what they choose to do to Yazidis, Christians, and others.
Second, Iraq is seeking to not only control 100% of oil fields in Iraqi Kurdistan, but to block important passages to Syria and Turkey.
That will prevent freedom of movements for Kurds who have passed back and forth unrestricted since the beginning of life in that area.
It's actually very, very dangerous and will enable Turkey to potentially enter the area in the future. It will also prevent Peshmerga from assisting with fight against ISIS or other terrorists in Syria.
Inconvenient Truths
What's on my mind? Electric grid vulnerabilities, North Korean biological weapons programs, and IRGC expansionism in Iraqi Kurdistan.
What's on everyone else's mind? Harvey Weinstein. Hillary. And more Harvey Weinstein. WIth an occasional distraction in the general direction of Mueller (but never too far, or too deep).
There's no wonder I've been feeling so out of sync the last few weeks. Everyone is happy discussing the same topics ad nauseum or else vocalizing banalities regarding the hot topics of the day without proposing any concrete way of getting to the intended result. And the moment, you go beyond the surface niceties, you become an inconvenient bore.
We don't need some greater forces to keep us divided and distracted. We are doing a fine job of it ourselves.
What's on everyone else's mind? Harvey Weinstein. Hillary. And more Harvey Weinstein. WIth an occasional distraction in the general direction of Mueller (but never too far, or too deep).
There's no wonder I've been feeling so out of sync the last few weeks. Everyone is happy discussing the same topics ad nauseum or else vocalizing banalities regarding the hot topics of the day without proposing any concrete way of getting to the intended result. And the moment, you go beyond the surface niceties, you become an inconvenient bore.
We don't need some greater forces to keep us divided and distracted. We are doing a fine job of it ourselves.
Sunday, October 22, 2017
No Such Thing As Coincidences
I doubt that Bill Browder's visa revocation is an accident.
More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.
Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.
More likely, it was ordered by someone who is either directly sympathetic to Putin's goals or wants to make the administration look bad.
Regardless, Secretary Tillerson should make a personal apology on behalf of the agency to Mr. Browder, who, instead, should be lauded for his heroic efforts on behalf of human rights and anti-corruption.
How US Emboldens Iran Through Inept Foreign Policy
Hamas pays Tehran a visit. Again.
Could it have ANYTHING to do with the fact that IRGC is traveling everywhere unrestricted and the president just gave Europe permission to do business in Iran?
Nah, couldn't possibly be.
We're Living An Old Joke About the Nazis
Rex Tillerson: It's time for Iranian militias to go home.
IRGC + Iranian militias immediately picked up their marbles and went home.
Or not. No, they actually didn't even blink.
IRGC + Iranian militias immediately picked up their marbles and went home.
Or not. No, they actually didn't even blink.
Article Published on JerusalemOnline
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/blogs/irina-tsukerman/op-ed-when-allies-fight-america-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place-31888
Op-Ed: When allies fight - America between a rock and a hard place
Irina Tsukerman explains how the Iraqi incursion into the Kirkuk province has sparked a problematic situation for the US. However, she argues that the Iranian aid that Baghdad is receiving should have triggered the Trump administration to end its “hands-off approach” to the issue.
Iraqi forces in Kirkuk Photo Credit: EPA-EFE
The current standoff between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's national sovereignty claims in taking over the Kirkuk province and gaining control of the oil-rich fields has placed the US in a difficult position of having to mediate between allies in an attempt to preserve a semblance of stability in a region already plagued by diverse and persistent conflicts. Another NATO ally, Turkey, is likewise placing pressure in an already complicated situation. The US is bound by the terms of a defense treaty to defend other NATO members from all attacks, but Turkey sees even countries outside its own borders as its spheres of influence and has been increasingly aggressive in intervening in the course of events in areas it claims as its territory or potential for future conflicts.
Whether such an expansive interpretation of national interests merits support from other NATO members certainly merits reexamination, but in the instant case, the predicament is directly contributing to further complications and forces the US to have to juggle competing claims of legitimacy in a way that is inching closer to being unresolvable. However, Baghdad's incursion into Kirkuk has crossed the lines of discussion and created a situation where discussing the conflicting interests of various parties in a diplomatic setting is becoming increasingly moot.
Reports of Kurds being forcibly displaced, coupled with actions that caused the Kirkuk's Kurdish governor to flee the area altogether, defy Baghdad's claim that the operation is in place merely to prevent the dissolution of the country. Likewise, Vice President Al-Maliki's comments placing the blame for the creation of ISIS on Erbil in order to break up the country add disturbing and disingenuous undertones to this course of events.
Through it all, the US continues to issue statements claiming that it's "closely monitoring the situation" and trying to mediate among all sides. Without a question, it's in the US' interests to avoid any action that would lead to deterioration of any possibility of returning to a diplomatic track or further destabilizing the region. However, the current hands-off approach not only plays into the hands of its enemies but emboldens action that goes far beyond the securing of Baghdad's perceived interest in preserving its territorial integrity.
How should, then, the US act in situations where its allies - one, a state armed directly with US weaponry, and another, a courageous nation that has been an important asset in the war against ISIS - are in a state of conflict? I would posit that the resolution of the instant scenario should be guided by the same norms the US utilizes in evaluating any situation where its allies come to a head.
First, how does the situation affect US national interests, in particular, any security considerations?
Second, does the US have binding defense treaties with either of the allies and what are the terms of those treaties? In the event that there is no such agreement, or where the agreement amounts to little more than arms trade or promises of assistance in the event of an invasion by outside forces, what is the nature of the relationship between the US and that ally?
Third, has either party involved in the conflict been the aggressor or violated any international laws, norms, or committed any acts deemed unconscionable during the course of the conflict?
Fourth, what role can the US constructively play in order to preserve good relations with both sides, and to mitigate possible damages, including minimizing the number of any casualties, property damage, population displacement and political and economic complications?
Fifth, are there any other factors to be taken into consideration, such as involvement of third parties, such as state and non-state actors, and their role in this conflict, and goals with respect to the US’ own interests and agendas?
Sixth, how are this situation and the US action or inaction affect US relations with other allies, who are likely to be affected by the conflict?
In the past, the US has tried to keep its involvement to a minimum or even stay completely neutral during wars between Pakistan and India, even when those wars took place during the Cold War and Pakistan was largely US-oriented while India had a far stronger relationship with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the nature of the US outlook on the matter was affected by the fact that the US-Pakistani relationship at the time was largely governed by the view that Pakistan played a role as part of buffer states and that US interests included backing any state that could either potentially fall under Soviet influence or could be helpful in preventing Soviet expansionism.
At the moment, however, the situation in the Middle East is in flux, and our stated goals and unarticulated considerations are far from black and white. Our limited goal of defeating ISIS in the area has been largely met with the help of both Baghdad and the Kurds. The next issue looming large on the minds of the administration and policy experts alike has been the containment of Iran's aggression. Whether containment is the best way to characterize the current stand on Iran, whether it's feasible, or the best possible course of action in the current climate are all questions deserving of independent evaluation. However, there is no doubt that Iran's aggressive actions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere have given cause to concern in the White House, so much so that just a week ago, Trump placed the IRGC on the list of global terrorists.
Balancing respect for the right to peaceful self-determination with the national sovereignty and territorial integrity rights of others would be a complicated matter under the best of circumstances, but there is one factor that shifts the tenor of the discussion altogether - the role of Iran and the IRGC in Baghdad's forcible takeover of the Kirkuk province.
Baghdad had invited Iran's tanks to its borders days prior to the invasion, so Iran's involvement in the matter should come as no surprise. Those who have been following the events closely should be well aware that Iran's interest in the matter is preventing similar secessionism from taking root among its own minorities, including the Kurds, who have grown restless and have had long-standing conflicts with the Iranian regime.
A joint operation between Iran and Iraq in this matter would be concerning enough, but the fact that Iran sent the IRGC, rather than its military or police forces, to participate in this operation should have been the red line for the US, changing the calculus of conflict. Baghdad's invitation of the IRGC and continued involvement with Qasem Soleimani after the US had designated the IRGC a terrorist organization is an act of betrayal of whatever defense interests we have with Baghdad. It is indisputably a strike to our national security interests - because the US President has deemed that it is so and because the executive branch has taken decisive action in making clear that IRGC is a security threat. Admittedly, the administration sent some mixed signals with respect to the level of seriousness as to the enforcement of the new policy.
For instance, the administration seems to disregard the fact that the IRGC, as all other entities in Iran, get their marching orders directly from the Supreme Leader-guided regime. The IRGC is not an independent entity. It's not a non-state terrorist organization. It is a central part of the Islamic Republic. So when Secretary of State Tillerson makes comments that the US will not interfere in the European trade with Iran, he is, in essence, saying that despite the fact that the US finds that Iran directly sponsors terrorism, it is okay for its allies to trade with Iran and that somehow it's possible to separate trade and investment, from Iran's other activities. The argument that has not worked in the designation of all of Hezbollah (interestingly, an Iranian proxy) as a terrorist entity is somehow still being applied to the Islamic Republic. It's not helpful.
Nevertheless, the new policy is what it is, and as such, requires some level of intervention if the IRGC directly and opens threatens US national security interests, which is exactly what it is doing at the moment. That becomes an overarching consideration. If other allies, including Turkey and Baghdad, refuse to recognize why the IRGC involvement is such a central concern to the United States and ignore this issue, their status as allies comes into question. Any actor that openly cooperates with the US enemies and aids and abets activity by US-designated terrorist organizations in a way that will likely directly impact US interests and security is not acting as a friend.
All other questions, under such circumstances, fade into the background. The first and foremost concern should be: how does this affect the US? The answer is simple: it is harmful to the US, the presence of its troops in the region, its relationship with other allies, and it's most certainly detrimental to its new policy and the goals of countering Iranian aggression. The news that the IRGC, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose forces pressured PUK into giving up control of Kirkuk behind KRG leader Barzani's back, has now established five military bases and headquarters in Kirkuk is both a disaster and an embarrassment. Continuing to deny Iran's involvement will not make it so. Rather, by taking no action to deter the IRGC from spreading its influence in the area, we are openly contradicting our own policy, violating our own laws, betraying our own constituents who are relying on the US government for protection against enemies, and emboldening the openly adversarial Iranian regime. And that is all before we even get to our practical and moral obligations to the Kurds, our other important relationships in the region, or any other considerations.
JOL Blogger | Irina Tsukerman
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. Her focus of interests ranges from assisting liberal dissidents and persecuted minorities to international geopolitics to relationship-and coalition building between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New York and internationally. In addition to Jerusalem Online, her articles have appeared in a range of publications including PJ Media, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and Morocco World News. She has also appeared on Moroccan media and Fox Business.
Click Here for more reports by Irina Tsukerman
Op-Ed: When allies fight - America between a rock and a hard place
Irina Tsukerman explains how the Iraqi incursion into the Kirkuk province has sparked a problematic situation for the US. However, she argues that the Iranian aid that Baghdad is receiving should have triggered the Trump administration to end its “hands-off approach” to the issue.
Iraqi forces in Kirkuk Photo Credit: EPA-EFE
The current standoff between Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's national sovereignty claims in taking over the Kirkuk province and gaining control of the oil-rich fields has placed the US in a difficult position of having to mediate between allies in an attempt to preserve a semblance of stability in a region already plagued by diverse and persistent conflicts. Another NATO ally, Turkey, is likewise placing pressure in an already complicated situation. The US is bound by the terms of a defense treaty to defend other NATO members from all attacks, but Turkey sees even countries outside its own borders as its spheres of influence and has been increasingly aggressive in intervening in the course of events in areas it claims as its territory or potential for future conflicts.
Whether such an expansive interpretation of national interests merits support from other NATO members certainly merits reexamination, but in the instant case, the predicament is directly contributing to further complications and forces the US to have to juggle competing claims of legitimacy in a way that is inching closer to being unresolvable. However, Baghdad's incursion into Kirkuk has crossed the lines of discussion and created a situation where discussing the conflicting interests of various parties in a diplomatic setting is becoming increasingly moot.
Reports of Kurds being forcibly displaced, coupled with actions that caused the Kirkuk's Kurdish governor to flee the area altogether, defy Baghdad's claim that the operation is in place merely to prevent the dissolution of the country. Likewise, Vice President Al-Maliki's comments placing the blame for the creation of ISIS on Erbil in order to break up the country add disturbing and disingenuous undertones to this course of events.
Through it all, the US continues to issue statements claiming that it's "closely monitoring the situation" and trying to mediate among all sides. Without a question, it's in the US' interests to avoid any action that would lead to deterioration of any possibility of returning to a diplomatic track or further destabilizing the region. However, the current hands-off approach not only plays into the hands of its enemies but emboldens action that goes far beyond the securing of Baghdad's perceived interest in preserving its territorial integrity.
How should, then, the US act in situations where its allies - one, a state armed directly with US weaponry, and another, a courageous nation that has been an important asset in the war against ISIS - are in a state of conflict? I would posit that the resolution of the instant scenario should be guided by the same norms the US utilizes in evaluating any situation where its allies come to a head.
First, how does the situation affect US national interests, in particular, any security considerations?
Second, does the US have binding defense treaties with either of the allies and what are the terms of those treaties? In the event that there is no such agreement, or where the agreement amounts to little more than arms trade or promises of assistance in the event of an invasion by outside forces, what is the nature of the relationship between the US and that ally?
Third, has either party involved in the conflict been the aggressor or violated any international laws, norms, or committed any acts deemed unconscionable during the course of the conflict?
Fourth, what role can the US constructively play in order to preserve good relations with both sides, and to mitigate possible damages, including minimizing the number of any casualties, property damage, population displacement and political and economic complications?
Fifth, are there any other factors to be taken into consideration, such as involvement of third parties, such as state and non-state actors, and their role in this conflict, and goals with respect to the US’ own interests and agendas?
Sixth, how are this situation and the US action or inaction affect US relations with other allies, who are likely to be affected by the conflict?
In the past, the US has tried to keep its involvement to a minimum or even stay completely neutral during wars between Pakistan and India, even when those wars took place during the Cold War and Pakistan was largely US-oriented while India had a far stronger relationship with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the nature of the US outlook on the matter was affected by the fact that the US-Pakistani relationship at the time was largely governed by the view that Pakistan played a role as part of buffer states and that US interests included backing any state that could either potentially fall under Soviet influence or could be helpful in preventing Soviet expansionism.
At the moment, however, the situation in the Middle East is in flux, and our stated goals and unarticulated considerations are far from black and white. Our limited goal of defeating ISIS in the area has been largely met with the help of both Baghdad and the Kurds. The next issue looming large on the minds of the administration and policy experts alike has been the containment of Iran's aggression. Whether containment is the best way to characterize the current stand on Iran, whether it's feasible, or the best possible course of action in the current climate are all questions deserving of independent evaluation. However, there is no doubt that Iran's aggressive actions in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere have given cause to concern in the White House, so much so that just a week ago, Trump placed the IRGC on the list of global terrorists.
Balancing respect for the right to peaceful self-determination with the national sovereignty and territorial integrity rights of others would be a complicated matter under the best of circumstances, but there is one factor that shifts the tenor of the discussion altogether - the role of Iran and the IRGC in Baghdad's forcible takeover of the Kirkuk province.
Baghdad had invited Iran's tanks to its borders days prior to the invasion, so Iran's involvement in the matter should come as no surprise. Those who have been following the events closely should be well aware that Iran's interest in the matter is preventing similar secessionism from taking root among its own minorities, including the Kurds, who have grown restless and have had long-standing conflicts with the Iranian regime.
A joint operation between Iran and Iraq in this matter would be concerning enough, but the fact that Iran sent the IRGC, rather than its military or police forces, to participate in this operation should have been the red line for the US, changing the calculus of conflict. Baghdad's invitation of the IRGC and continued involvement with Qasem Soleimani after the US had designated the IRGC a terrorist organization is an act of betrayal of whatever defense interests we have with Baghdad. It is indisputably a strike to our national security interests - because the US President has deemed that it is so and because the executive branch has taken decisive action in making clear that IRGC is a security threat. Admittedly, the administration sent some mixed signals with respect to the level of seriousness as to the enforcement of the new policy.
For instance, the administration seems to disregard the fact that the IRGC, as all other entities in Iran, get their marching orders directly from the Supreme Leader-guided regime. The IRGC is not an independent entity. It's not a non-state terrorist organization. It is a central part of the Islamic Republic. So when Secretary of State Tillerson makes comments that the US will not interfere in the European trade with Iran, he is, in essence, saying that despite the fact that the US finds that Iran directly sponsors terrorism, it is okay for its allies to trade with Iran and that somehow it's possible to separate trade and investment, from Iran's other activities. The argument that has not worked in the designation of all of Hezbollah (interestingly, an Iranian proxy) as a terrorist entity is somehow still being applied to the Islamic Republic. It's not helpful.
Nevertheless, the new policy is what it is, and as such, requires some level of intervention if the IRGC directly and opens threatens US national security interests, which is exactly what it is doing at the moment. That becomes an overarching consideration. If other allies, including Turkey and Baghdad, refuse to recognize why the IRGC involvement is such a central concern to the United States and ignore this issue, their status as allies comes into question. Any actor that openly cooperates with the US enemies and aids and abets activity by US-designated terrorist organizations in a way that will likely directly impact US interests and security is not acting as a friend.
All other questions, under such circumstances, fade into the background. The first and foremost concern should be: how does this affect the US? The answer is simple: it is harmful to the US, the presence of its troops in the region, its relationship with other allies, and it's most certainly detrimental to its new policy and the goals of countering Iranian aggression. The news that the IRGC, led by Qasem Soleimani, whose forces pressured PUK into giving up control of Kirkuk behind KRG leader Barzani's back, has now established five military bases and headquarters in Kirkuk is both a disaster and an embarrassment. Continuing to deny Iran's involvement will not make it so. Rather, by taking no action to deter the IRGC from spreading its influence in the area, we are openly contradicting our own policy, violating our own laws, betraying our own constituents who are relying on the US government for protection against enemies, and emboldening the openly adversarial Iranian regime. And that is all before we even get to our practical and moral obligations to the Kurds, our other important relationships in the region, or any other considerations.
We are showing ourselves to have no principles, to be a lawless nation, that is incapable of consistently enforcing its own national security strategies, and by failing to stop the incursion of the IRGC into the Kirkuk province, we are opening ourselves to future attacks
JOL Blogger | Irina Tsukerman
Irina Tsukerman is a human rights and national security attorney based in New York. Her focus of interests ranges from assisting liberal dissidents and persecuted minorities to international geopolitics to relationship-and coalition building between Jewish and non-Jewish communities in New York and internationally. In addition to Jerusalem Online, her articles have appeared in a range of publications including PJ Media, Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel and Morocco World News. She has also appeared on Moroccan media and Fox Business.
Click Here for more reports by Irina Tsukerman
Saturday, October 21, 2017
Just a Game
I hear something about Houston beating NYC.
I look up.
It's a baseball game.
I put my interest back on the shelf for the time something like that happens when it matters to more than just sports fans. :)
I look up.
It's a baseball game.
I put my interest back on the shelf for the time something like that happens when it matters to more than just sports fans. :)
Cuba Bans Dissidents and Independent Journalists from Travel
So Cuba is engaged in the Soviet-era tactics of preventing dissidents and independent journalists from traveling abroad.
Possible reasons may include fear of defections, as well as possible truthtelling about the evils of the Castro regimes.
Just a guess, but if Cuba were the idyllic place of wonderful free healthcare, top notch medicine, and free education unparalleled in quality, the regime would have had nothing to worry about.
And for those of you who still think that normalization with Cuba have somehow improved the conditions inside the country or will lead to liberalization, get your heads out of the sand.
The only people who have benefited are the people directly connected to the regime.
Everyone else continues to suffer deprivation and a worse human rights crackdown than before the normalization.
Possible reasons may include fear of defections, as well as possible truthtelling about the evils of the Castro regimes.
Just a guess, but if Cuba were the idyllic place of wonderful free healthcare, top notch medicine, and free education unparalleled in quality, the regime would have had nothing to worry about.
And for those of you who still think that normalization with Cuba have somehow improved the conditions inside the country or will lead to liberalization, get your heads out of the sand.
The only people who have benefited are the people directly connected to the regime.
Everyone else continues to suffer deprivation and a worse human rights crackdown than before the normalization.
The Rise of Political Hackery on the Right
Where is the outrage of the Trump supporters over the disastrous position his administration took over the course of this week, and the inane statements by the State Department, that are no different in tone or in substance from what we would have gotten from (and did) from the Obama administration?
There has been nary a word from the usual suspects, who've dedicated their precious time not to pushing their movement's leader to do better, but to discuss three subject matters: Harvey Weinsteing, NFL nonsense, and bashing anyone who is not a Trump groupie. Yes, I'm using this word deliberately, because rational people, no matter how much they support whoever they support, have something of substance to contribute to the discussion other than bashing critics and dwelling on the failures of others. Instead, I see my entire feed deteriorate into schadenfreude about the leftists and hatred aimed at George W., Bill Krystol, and anyone who dares say a word against Bannon, Trump himself (of course), or any of the policies that are worth at least discussing.
Being a yes-man does not make you any more loyal to the country, t he party, or for that matter, the president, than someone who is genuinely trying to ways of improving things that need to be fixed. Notice that you won't find me complaining about the administration's regulatory policies, judiciary appointments, or anything that I think they get right. I give praise where it's due. Likewise, I have praised Democrats, in the admittedly rare instances where they demonstrated rational thinking, moral clarity, or for whatever reason said and did the right thing. ((Here's loooking at you, Sen. Blumenthal, Schumer, & Menendez & Joe Biden).
I find it disheartening and infuriating to see people I once respected even when I disagreed with their political choices turn into unpleasant, bitter, political hacks who take on the worst aspects of the very things they once hated without blinking an eye, without realizing how much damage they are doing to their own purported causes.
There has been nary a word from the usual suspects, who've dedicated their precious time not to pushing their movement's leader to do better, but to discuss three subject matters: Harvey Weinsteing, NFL nonsense, and bashing anyone who is not a Trump groupie. Yes, I'm using this word deliberately, because rational people, no matter how much they support whoever they support, have something of substance to contribute to the discussion other than bashing critics and dwelling on the failures of others. Instead, I see my entire feed deteriorate into schadenfreude about the leftists and hatred aimed at George W., Bill Krystol, and anyone who dares say a word against Bannon, Trump himself (of course), or any of the policies that are worth at least discussing.
Being a yes-man does not make you any more loyal to the country, t he party, or for that matter, the president, than someone who is genuinely trying to ways of improving things that need to be fixed. Notice that you won't find me complaining about the administration's regulatory policies, judiciary appointments, or anything that I think they get right. I give praise where it's due. Likewise, I have praised Democrats, in the admittedly rare instances where they demonstrated rational thinking, moral clarity, or for whatever reason said and did the right thing. ((Here's loooking at you, Sen. Blumenthal, Schumer, & Menendez & Joe Biden).
I find it disheartening and infuriating to see people I once respected even when I disagreed with their political choices turn into unpleasant, bitter, political hacks who take on the worst aspects of the very things they once hated without blinking an eye, without realizing how much damage they are doing to their own purported causes.
No Friends But the Mountains
Couldn't agree more with this statement on Kurdistan by Bernard-Henry Levy:
"As for the others, it is an unmitigated disaster. For the United States, in particular, it is one more step in the discrediting of an administration that has become incapable of the elementary political act of distinguishing friends from enemies".
"As for the others, it is an unmitigated disaster. For the United States, in particular, it is one more step in the discrediting of an administration that has become incapable of the elementary political act of distinguishing friends from enemies".
Doesn't Add Up
Once again, you cannot maintain that the President is both a brilliant genius who can outsmart anyone at anything and 8 months into the presidency to maintain that he is a helpless hostage of the Deep State (Which he insists on not replacing), while his own appointees refuse to expose the Obama staff's iniquities.
Time for the President to Stop Hiding Behind the Obama Holdovers and to Own His Policies
OK, here's something I don't understand.
An Obama holdover has not only not been replaced, but been allowed to remain the same position, undermining the new Iranian strategy and lying to his boss, to the agency he serves, to the President, and to the entire country.
After he is duly outed, nothing is done, and in fact other agencies, double down on his lies and terrilble advice and pursue the same course of action.
You know how that's possible, that Rex Tillerson, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all going along with the adversarial ideology of one State Department employee?
Because a) they agree with it and b) that's in effect, an order that comes directly from the PResident. That's the only way how all these agencies could continue with their course of action.
Time for the President to stop hiding behind the Obama holdovers and to own his policies.
An Obama holdover has not only not been replaced, but been allowed to remain the same position, undermining the new Iranian strategy and lying to his boss, to the agency he serves, to the President, and to the entire country.
After he is duly outed, nothing is done, and in fact other agencies, double down on his lies and terrilble advice and pursue the same course of action.
You know how that's possible, that Rex Tillerson, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all going along with the adversarial ideology of one State Department employee?
Because a) they agree with it and b) that's in effect, an order that comes directly from the PResident. That's the only way how all these agencies could continue with their course of action.
Time for the President to stop hiding behind the Obama holdovers and to own his policies.
Guess Who Opposed Standing Up To Russia?
Blast from the past: Hillary Clinton vehemently opposed the Magnitsky Act.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
Unwarranted Hysteria Over George W. Bush's Speech
I hate to say it, but all the Trump apologists who were bashing George W. for allegedly attacking Trumpism have just taken a page out of the leftist playbook. Not in terms of being effective Alinskyites, but in terms of jumping the gun and embarrassing themselves and their leader. You know how insecure leftists get when you read some awful quote and it sounds like it could have been Obama and Hillary but it turns out to be someone else together? Or, you make a general statement condemning corruption or some such and they immediately jump in assuming that you are talking about O.?
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh because such assumptions are generally a sign of the guilty conscience? Well, in this instance, that's exactly what happened. The White House correctly issued a statement that no one there took Bush to be referring to Trump (and in fact, he spent a great deal of his speech bashing the left, and the racist intersectionalists)... but Trump's supporters immediately assumed it was about him.
Why exactly would anyone make comments that Bush was bashing Trump, when the context was clearly about the left unless deep inside you think that if he HAD meant Trump, he may have had a point>? Why are Trump's OWN die-hard supporters giving ammunition to the left? To be sure, Bush is no great example of conservatism. Neither is Trump himself. But what kills me is when allegedly super-conservative elements of the party begin to attack everyone around them as not conservative enough in an attempt to defend their party leader who is not conservative at all, and as a result, make themselves look foolish. Stop it already. You want party unity? Begin with yourself.
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh because such assumptions are generally a sign of the guilty conscience? Well, in this instance, that's exactly what happened. The White House correctly issued a statement that no one there took Bush to be referring to Trump (and in fact, he spent a great deal of his speech bashing the left, and the racist intersectionalists)... but Trump's supporters immediately assumed it was about him.
Why exactly would anyone make comments that Bush was bashing Trump, when the context was clearly about the left unless deep inside you think that if he HAD meant Trump, he may have had a point>? Why are Trump's OWN die-hard supporters giving ammunition to the left? To be sure, Bush is no great example of conservatism. Neither is Trump himself. But what kills me is when allegedly super-conservative elements of the party begin to attack everyone around them as not conservative enough in an attempt to defend their party leader who is not conservative at all, and as a result, make themselves look foolish. Stop it already. You want party unity? Begin with yourself.
Friday, October 20, 2017
My article on the Iran decertification published in JPost
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trumps-Iran-policy-shift-should-be-the-first-step-of-a-more-aggressive-approach-507777
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Known Knowns
It's very interesting how some people during the Obama administration believed that unless you are basically advising the president you have no right to have an opinion as you obviously can't possibly be informed enough to critique or assess what's going on unless your opinion is supportive of the administration. Needless to say, on the polar opposite end were the people who'd applaud anything you say as long as it's critical of the Obama and the leftists. The moment Trump took office, something interesting happened.
You are no longer allowed to have an opinion unless 1. You approve of everything Trump does AND 2. If you do criticize anything out of this administration it has to come from a very specific angle that is dictated by the former Obama/Hillary people. So literally, the past two administrations you cannot express an opinion without getting a) either viciously attacked b) dismissed as an ignoramus or c) personally insulting somebody by the mere fact of having a different opinion.
Here's a thought: You don't have to be in any administration to have a valid assessment and critique of the events as they unfold. Curious and open-minded people of all backgrounds can and should ask questions, analyze, learn, and strive to be as informed as they can. No, you can't possibly know everything, and yes, a lot of the time, you won't find out the full story until much later, if ever. But that does not preclude you from having an opinion based on the information you have; and frankly, even with very limited information, it's sometimes fairly obvious that a particular course of action is simply not a good idea. Furthermore, people who are familiar with particular regions, and their history, and US history can sometimes be more well informed than people who are serving a political purpose and know nothing but the talking points they are told to regurgitate.
Also, "I know better than you simply because I have my sources, and you don't" is never a convincing argument. Not just because relying on ambiguous and unknown authorities is a logical fallacy, but because you don't always know what I know and how. :) I see this time and time again come up both on my own and other people's pages, and in private conversations where when I expressed a concurrence with a particular policy decision, I was told that I can't possibly know better than "employees of agency X", even though the issue had to do with a completely different agency, and no staff of any agency is ever completely unified in its opinion anyway. Basically, when people , instead of putting forth a logical argument as to why your position is incorrect, tell you "You know nothing, JOn Snow", it's the first sign that their own access to information is actually very limited and they are grasping at straws. People who really know and know better than you will
1. Either simply tell you what they know
2. Break down your own argument if they are not in a position to offer in public their own information
3. Ask questions that make you think
4. Say nothing.
99% of the time people who really KNOW will go with # 4.
And 99% of the time people who are in the best possible position to know are not the ones chatting on FB. :)
You are no longer allowed to have an opinion unless 1. You approve of everything Trump does AND 2. If you do criticize anything out of this administration it has to come from a very specific angle that is dictated by the former Obama/Hillary people. So literally, the past two administrations you cannot express an opinion without getting a) either viciously attacked b) dismissed as an ignoramus or c) personally insulting somebody by the mere fact of having a different opinion.
Here's a thought: You don't have to be in any administration to have a valid assessment and critique of the events as they unfold. Curious and open-minded people of all backgrounds can and should ask questions, analyze, learn, and strive to be as informed as they can. No, you can't possibly know everything, and yes, a lot of the time, you won't find out the full story until much later, if ever. But that does not preclude you from having an opinion based on the information you have; and frankly, even with very limited information, it's sometimes fairly obvious that a particular course of action is simply not a good idea. Furthermore, people who are familiar with particular regions, and their history, and US history can sometimes be more well informed than people who are serving a political purpose and know nothing but the talking points they are told to regurgitate.
Also, "I know better than you simply because I have my sources, and you don't" is never a convincing argument. Not just because relying on ambiguous and unknown authorities is a logical fallacy, but because you don't always know what I know and how. :) I see this time and time again come up both on my own and other people's pages, and in private conversations where when I expressed a concurrence with a particular policy decision, I was told that I can't possibly know better than "employees of agency X", even though the issue had to do with a completely different agency, and no staff of any agency is ever completely unified in its opinion anyway. Basically, when people , instead of putting forth a logical argument as to why your position is incorrect, tell you "You know nothing, JOn Snow", it's the first sign that their own access to information is actually very limited and they are grasping at straws. People who really know and know better than you will
1. Either simply tell you what they know
2. Break down your own argument if they are not in a position to offer in public their own information
3. Ask questions that make you think
4. Say nothing.
99% of the time people who really KNOW will go with # 4.
And 99% of the time people who are in the best possible position to know are not the ones chatting on FB. :)
Western Feminists Should Learn from Moroccan Ministry of Education
Congratulations to Morocco for banning the degrading niqab from classrooms.
People can express themselves however they wish on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't cause security problems, but the only signal of having women have their faces closed off in an educational environment is disparagement on the basis of simply being a woman. This is not about modesty, good behavior, or propriety. It's treatment of a woman as nothing but a sex object, whose very face is provocative and unworthy of being seen. It's dehumanizing and simply bad for society.
I am glad that the Moroccan government is looking to promote a focus on education, not on external matters, that were brought into the country by religious extremists from abroad. Kudos! And I hope this thoughtful step will signal to the "feminists" and "human rights activists" in the West that it's ok to make education about education, and that men and women should be treated equally as human beings. Protecting inherent humanity of both men and women is not Islamphobic.
People can express themselves however they wish on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't cause security problems, but the only signal of having women have their faces closed off in an educational environment is disparagement on the basis of simply being a woman. This is not about modesty, good behavior, or propriety. It's treatment of a woman as nothing but a sex object, whose very face is provocative and unworthy of being seen. It's dehumanizing and simply bad for society.
I am glad that the Moroccan government is looking to promote a focus on education, not on external matters, that were brought into the country by religious extremists from abroad. Kudos! And I hope this thoughtful step will signal to the "feminists" and "human rights activists" in the West that it's ok to make education about education, and that men and women should be treated equally as human beings. Protecting inherent humanity of both men and women is not Islamphobic.
New Strategy in Afghanistan Already a Bust
With Taliban continuing to gain ground in Afghanistan, not without assistance from Russia, and taking over 3 districts in the past 2 days, our "new" strategy in Afghanistan seems to be flawed.
First of all, we cannot really achieve victory without cutting off the source of fuel and other resources (i.e. Russia) from the enemy. However, that does not appear to be the goal. Our "surge" of several thousand people is aimed at providing additional training and counsel to the local police. However, this tactic seems little to do with the stated goal, which is to back the Taliban into a corner and force them to the negotiating table. Without a significant realignment of strategy, human resources, and capabilities, actions by the Afghan forces are not likely to change, and all of that will take significant time, during which period, the Taliban will continue gaining ground, making the consequent push back that much harder.
So basically, Taliban right now has the momentum. We added more troops for counseling, but did not otherwise significantly shift the situation on the ground. And we have no specific stated measurement of success, but without any military education whatsoever, I can tell you want one such measurement logically should be: How much ground our allies have regained from the enemy. I sure hope that there is some secret plan that will emerge like deus ex machina at the last minute, and we will see an immediate reversal of fortunes for everyone involved. Right now, however, we are off to an inauspicious start.
Lame Excuses from the Pentagon
The Pentagon is claiming ignorance about the blitz takeover of Kirkuk by IRGC and Iraqi forces.
If so, one of the three things is true:
1. Our own "allies" just stabbed us in the back by failing to inform us about an attack on another ally - and we are perfectly ok with that.
2. Our intelligence capabilities are at an all-time low.
3. Someone's lying, and we actually knew all along, but didn't want to get involved, and now, after international criticism for inaction, are trying to make ourselves look somewhat better by claiming incompetence and victimhood over malice.
Either way, shame on DoD.
If so, one of the three things is true:
1. Our own "allies" just stabbed us in the back by failing to inform us about an attack on another ally - and we are perfectly ok with that.
2. Our intelligence capabilities are at an all-time low.
3. Someone's lying, and we actually knew all along, but didn't want to get involved, and now, after international criticism for inaction, are trying to make ourselves look somewhat better by claiming incompetence and victimhood over malice.
Either way, shame on DoD.
The futility of the War on ISIS
The US forces are attacking ISIS in Yemen.
While that in itself is not a bad thing, I get the sense that the Pentagon, as with Syria, is missing the big picture. Much of the ruin in Yemen is the result of a proxy war between Iranian-backed Houthis and other groups backed by the Saudis. Radicalization which is leading people straight to ISIS is certainly not helpful, but overall, the conflict between state actors is a much more significant reflection of the geopolitical reality in the region.
And the fact that we are, once again, focusing our efforts on eradicating a terrorist group, that will come back in some other form in a matter of time, ignoring the factors that lead to proliferation of extremists, shows clearly that after all this time, after 16 years of fighting the War on Terrorism, we still don't get it.
Shooting at ISIS without trying to get bigger conflicts in the area resolved will not do anything to stabilize the reason. Syria will soon fall prey to terrorist attacks by other groups who have made their homes in the ground, and Iranian presence and the inflow of Shi'a militias into the area will create additional hostilities. We have not fixed a damn thing. We put a band aid, patted ourselves on the back, and moved on to the next sideshow.
While that in itself is not a bad thing, I get the sense that the Pentagon, as with Syria, is missing the big picture. Much of the ruin in Yemen is the result of a proxy war between Iranian-backed Houthis and other groups backed by the Saudis. Radicalization which is leading people straight to ISIS is certainly not helpful, but overall, the conflict between state actors is a much more significant reflection of the geopolitical reality in the region.
And the fact that we are, once again, focusing our efforts on eradicating a terrorist group, that will come back in some other form in a matter of time, ignoring the factors that lead to proliferation of extremists, shows clearly that after all this time, after 16 years of fighting the War on Terrorism, we still don't get it.
Shooting at ISIS without trying to get bigger conflicts in the area resolved will not do anything to stabilize the reason. Syria will soon fall prey to terrorist attacks by other groups who have made their homes in the ground, and Iranian presence and the inflow of Shi'a militias into the area will create additional hostilities. We have not fixed a damn thing. We put a band aid, patted ourselves on the back, and moved on to the next sideshow.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
On the Harvey Weinstein Kerfuffle and Victimhood
Teaching would-be victims how to defend themselves and not be victims is not victim-shaming or victim-blaming. It's a way to prevent dangerous situations and potentially save people from traumatic experiences. No one is taking moral culpability off the offender. But would you rather have to survive sexual assault or exploitation and then get to talk how evil the attacker was or prevent sexual assault or exploitation was and talk about how evil the attempted attacker was? And frankly, if stopping the attacker first time around is going to deter him/her from future assaults, it's well worth it.
Refighting the Cold War in Afghanistan
The current US Afghanistan strategy is to destroy ISIS and to force Taliban to the negotiating table.
Russia's strategy is to arm Taliban and to give it free stuff, like fuel, in order to strengthen it vis-a-vis ISIS (at least, that's what it says).
By arming the very terrorist organization, NATO forces are fighting, Russia is engaging in a proxy war with the US.
Wait a second, haven't we done this before? And haven't we learned anything?
Only now we have American boots on the ground. Why is the new strategy not addressing this macro issue of having to contend with Russia?
Dangerous Words Lead to Dangerous Actions
In an earlier post, I surmised that dehumanization of Kurds and other minorities in Turkey can eventually lead to the justification of mass atrocities against them, just as in 1915, the Ottomans used political enmity to justify the massacre of over a million Armenian men, women, and children.
However, the US ally Erdogan is not the only one capable of riling up the masses into an extreme nationalistic (and also religious) fervor. Our other ally, supported, supplied, and strengthened by the United States, Iraqi VP Nouri Al-Maliki, recently stated that ISIS was created in Erbil in order to lead to the partition of Iraq. This level of political propaganda, and there is no doubt that's what this is, is aimed to manipulate tribal, deeply divided, and in many cases, largely uninformed public to shift the blame for lack of unity inside the country from the people who drew the maps with the purpose of creating internal divisions and thus minimizing the possibility of rebellion against the British Empire to the Kurds, who are seeking a peaceful separation.
There is no question that in an unstable region fraught with tensions, such comments are inherently incendiary and can be interpreted as an incitement to hatred, if not to outright violence. The people of Iraq who have suffered greatly in the hands of ISIS are now being pointed in the directions of the Kurdish region, which played a significant part in the fight against the common enemy, as a perpetrator. The idea that Kurds created ISIS is as preposterous as comparing right-wing Jews to Nazis, and yet, this comment was made by the Vice President of the country. This is the government the United States supports and considers a legitimate democratic representation of all of the people of Iraq. Despite President Trump's comments that the United States is not taking sides in any tensions between Baghdad and Erbil, the State Department stated otherwise, specifically calling for joint administration of all regions, and claiming that separation might be exploited by ISIS, and likewise referring to all parties involved as Iraqi partners, despite the fact that the recent independence referendum established that at the very least, the Kurds no longer think of themselves as such, nor wish to stay in this dubious union.
However, even such commitment to the chimeric idea of Iraqi national unity does not justify excusing and ignoring blatantly provocative comments from top level officials, who are maliciously and deliberately encouraging strife and violence against a particular group of people. US should pressure Al-Maliki into disavowing his comments, issuing an official apology to the Kurds, and explaining that Kurds were equal partners in the fight against ISIS and can in no way be blamed for its creation. What makes these comments particularly dangerous is that they complemented by action. Specifically, despite earlier claims from the Pentagon that the invasion of Kirkuk was due to a misunderstanding of the official instructions, the Iraqi forces, backed by IRGC and Iran-supported militias, are on the march for the second day and have now entered Sinjar.
Sinjar is an area that is home to a large number of Yazidis, who have also formed their own forces. IRGC is not known for being particularly welcoming to minorities, and Iran and Shi'a militias have threatened Yazidis in the past. Despite tensions with the Barzani government, Yazidis are better off under Kurdish control of the area than should the likes of Soleimani and Al-Maliki be left in charge. Barzani, meanwhile, issued a non-commital statement expressing an unspecified hope for the creation of an independent Kurdistan one day in the future. With PUK reportedly having abandoned Barzani's coalition due to an agreement with or perhaps pressure from the IRGC forces, Kurdish unity is likewise in question. As they quarrel and point fingers, Baghdad's agents continue to gain control of essential oil fields, leaving the Kurds with not much to go on at this juncture. The visuals of the Iraqi forces on the march with their Iranian partners while the Vice President is making comments blaming the Kurds for the creation of ISIS are striking and horrific. Kirkuk was largely empty and for now the troops are under control, focusing on their military targets, but it takes but a match to light the fires of enmity, fear, and nationalist fervor that could lead to bloody attacks against the locals. Such reprisals may indeed be planned by the Iraqi government in order to ensure complete control and kill off the Kurdish dream altogether. The Pentagon threatened the cessation of armament and supply of the Iraqi troops in the event they attack and cause harm to the Kurds, but it's unclear that this will either actually happen or, even if it does, will in any way undermine the Iraqi determination to subdue the Kurds, in thought as well as in deed.
What should Barzani do now? Regrouping... and planning a more strategic response that will not, in the future, rely on untrustworthy groups. Including leaders of other tribes and factions into the decisionmaking process regarding further plans may ensure the groups remaining on the same page and being less likely to be divided by IRGC or anyone else. Kurdish democracy is imperfect, and an adversary can easily pick off different parties one by one by promising them future leadership, threatening that particular group, or bad-mouthing Barzani's leadership. There's nothing new to exploitation of internal divisions. In fact, to provide a historical comparison, Israel went through much the same in the early stages of the formation of the state. However, at the end of the day, the leadership managed to summon just enough unity and agreement to do what was needed to be done to achieve independence (and then happily continued to fight and backstab each other from the day Israel was created until now).
Disunity is not an impediment to creation of the state, just so long as there is enough commitment among the core group to make a strategic victory possible. Barzani should take lesson from this experience, and not leave major cities or other sites in the hands of small groups of people. Additionally, this is the time to come to an agreement with Kurds in Syria and Turkey, and start forming and organizing a real army, strong, numerous, and committed enough to stand up to Iraq and its militias, with or without support from the United States, Israel, or anyone else. There will be help, but in the beginning it will be clandestine, limited, and highly dependent on circumstances. Once the Kurds show their commitment to victory through strengths, even the United States will start coming around. But for now, hard times lie ahead, and the Kurds should look inwards for solution, while receiving consultation and limited supported from a few early enthusiasts until such time as they start showing signs of clear success and military superiority.
However, the US ally Erdogan is not the only one capable of riling up the masses into an extreme nationalistic (and also religious) fervor. Our other ally, supported, supplied, and strengthened by the United States, Iraqi VP Nouri Al-Maliki, recently stated that ISIS was created in Erbil in order to lead to the partition of Iraq. This level of political propaganda, and there is no doubt that's what this is, is aimed to manipulate tribal, deeply divided, and in many cases, largely uninformed public to shift the blame for lack of unity inside the country from the people who drew the maps with the purpose of creating internal divisions and thus minimizing the possibility of rebellion against the British Empire to the Kurds, who are seeking a peaceful separation.
There is no question that in an unstable region fraught with tensions, such comments are inherently incendiary and can be interpreted as an incitement to hatred, if not to outright violence. The people of Iraq who have suffered greatly in the hands of ISIS are now being pointed in the directions of the Kurdish region, which played a significant part in the fight against the common enemy, as a perpetrator. The idea that Kurds created ISIS is as preposterous as comparing right-wing Jews to Nazis, and yet, this comment was made by the Vice President of the country. This is the government the United States supports and considers a legitimate democratic representation of all of the people of Iraq. Despite President Trump's comments that the United States is not taking sides in any tensions between Baghdad and Erbil, the State Department stated otherwise, specifically calling for joint administration of all regions, and claiming that separation might be exploited by ISIS, and likewise referring to all parties involved as Iraqi partners, despite the fact that the recent independence referendum established that at the very least, the Kurds no longer think of themselves as such, nor wish to stay in this dubious union.
However, even such commitment to the chimeric idea of Iraqi national unity does not justify excusing and ignoring blatantly provocative comments from top level officials, who are maliciously and deliberately encouraging strife and violence against a particular group of people. US should pressure Al-Maliki into disavowing his comments, issuing an official apology to the Kurds, and explaining that Kurds were equal partners in the fight against ISIS and can in no way be blamed for its creation. What makes these comments particularly dangerous is that they complemented by action. Specifically, despite earlier claims from the Pentagon that the invasion of Kirkuk was due to a misunderstanding of the official instructions, the Iraqi forces, backed by IRGC and Iran-supported militias, are on the march for the second day and have now entered Sinjar.
Sinjar is an area that is home to a large number of Yazidis, who have also formed their own forces. IRGC is not known for being particularly welcoming to minorities, and Iran and Shi'a militias have threatened Yazidis in the past. Despite tensions with the Barzani government, Yazidis are better off under Kurdish control of the area than should the likes of Soleimani and Al-Maliki be left in charge. Barzani, meanwhile, issued a non-commital statement expressing an unspecified hope for the creation of an independent Kurdistan one day in the future. With PUK reportedly having abandoned Barzani's coalition due to an agreement with or perhaps pressure from the IRGC forces, Kurdish unity is likewise in question. As they quarrel and point fingers, Baghdad's agents continue to gain control of essential oil fields, leaving the Kurds with not much to go on at this juncture. The visuals of the Iraqi forces on the march with their Iranian partners while the Vice President is making comments blaming the Kurds for the creation of ISIS are striking and horrific. Kirkuk was largely empty and for now the troops are under control, focusing on their military targets, but it takes but a match to light the fires of enmity, fear, and nationalist fervor that could lead to bloody attacks against the locals. Such reprisals may indeed be planned by the Iraqi government in order to ensure complete control and kill off the Kurdish dream altogether. The Pentagon threatened the cessation of armament and supply of the Iraqi troops in the event they attack and cause harm to the Kurds, but it's unclear that this will either actually happen or, even if it does, will in any way undermine the Iraqi determination to subdue the Kurds, in thought as well as in deed.
What should Barzani do now? Regrouping... and planning a more strategic response that will not, in the future, rely on untrustworthy groups. Including leaders of other tribes and factions into the decisionmaking process regarding further plans may ensure the groups remaining on the same page and being less likely to be divided by IRGC or anyone else. Kurdish democracy is imperfect, and an adversary can easily pick off different parties one by one by promising them future leadership, threatening that particular group, or bad-mouthing Barzani's leadership. There's nothing new to exploitation of internal divisions. In fact, to provide a historical comparison, Israel went through much the same in the early stages of the formation of the state. However, at the end of the day, the leadership managed to summon just enough unity and agreement to do what was needed to be done to achieve independence (and then happily continued to fight and backstab each other from the day Israel was created until now).
Disunity is not an impediment to creation of the state, just so long as there is enough commitment among the core group to make a strategic victory possible. Barzani should take lesson from this experience, and not leave major cities or other sites in the hands of small groups of people. Additionally, this is the time to come to an agreement with Kurds in Syria and Turkey, and start forming and organizing a real army, strong, numerous, and committed enough to stand up to Iraq and its militias, with or without support from the United States, Israel, or anyone else. There will be help, but in the beginning it will be clandestine, limited, and highly dependent on circumstances. Once the Kurds show their commitment to victory through strengths, even the United States will start coming around. But for now, hard times lie ahead, and the Kurds should look inwards for solution, while receiving consultation and limited supported from a few early enthusiasts until such time as they start showing signs of clear success and military superiority.
What US Neutrality on Iraq's Invasion of Kirkuk Means for Our Interests in the Region
Cross-Posted:
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-us-neutrality-on-iraqs-invasion-of-kirkuk-means-for-our-interests-in-the-region/
President Trump responded to the entrance of the Iraqi forces and Iran-based militias into Kirkuk this morning by stating that US is not taking sides between Kurds and the Iraqi government and is engaged in encouraging all sides to avoid clashes and continue dialogue.
However, in the context of the current tensions, US neutrality and commitment to non-intervention is taken as betrayal by the Kurds and as tacit approval by Iraq, Iran, and even Turkey. Qassem Soleimani's role in the fall of Kirkuk was the first test of the White House's new policy on Iran, which includes designating IRGC as a terrorist organization and opposing Iranian expansionism in the Middle east. Nevertheless, thus far, the administration has failed to show commitment to upholding US law and going after the terrorist leader, despite an opportunity to do so in the course of this operation.
From the perspective of tribal Middle Eastern societies, no matter what President Trump's actual intentions are, he has chosen sides by failing to stop the Iraqi forces from entering Kirkuk, raising the Iraqi flag, lowering the Kurdish flag, seizing the oil field in the area, and in every respect asserting dominion and control over the area. That is a sign of not only a political betrayal, but of a strategic choice that will have long-term repercussion for the region. Despite the lofty rhetoric about stopping Iran, the United States cannot overlook the alliance about the Abadi forces, trained and supplied by the United States, and Iran-backed Shi'a militias, that in the past, have pressured the Kurds, threatened religious minorities in the area, including Yazidis and Christians, and despite some limited cooperation with the United States on the issues of fighting ISIS (mainly out of self-interest), have otherwise acted as agents of the ayatollah-led Iranian regime. Both indecisiveness and conscious choice to allow Baghdad and Iranian agents to do as they wish with the Kurdish areas, send the same signals to all involve, and make the United States both unwelcome with the allies, and irrelevant with the adversaries in the region.
Strategic withdrawal from an active role in the region may have its place, but only if it's done on our terms, to our advantage, and in a way that signals a well-thought out foreign policy and defense of interests, rather than weakness, inability to make decisive move, or a choice of undemocratic regimes and bad allies over dependable allies whose help will be needed many times over in the future. Indeed, however, many are not convinced that the position of the administration on this issue is sincere. For instance, Turkey's position on the matter of Kurdish independence may have been the lodestar in this decisionmaking process. Turkey has recently come to an agreement with Iran on a variety of matters, which included increased military cooperation and the issue of Kurdistan's independence referendum. After the fall of Kirkuk, Ankara issued its approval of the invasion.
The administration has been careful in maintaining good relations with Turkey. It had previously pressured Barzani to postpone the referendum, after both Abadi and Erdogan expressed strong opposition. President Trump, despite major policy differences, recently called Erdogan a friend, and Turkey and the US recently concluded a deal over Boeing airplanes. Turkish lobby has been strong in the US. Michael Flynn, President Trump's former national security adviser, had worked for Turkish interests. In fact, shortly before being removed from his position, Flynn had reportedly blocked a military move in Syria that Turkey had opposed. Moreover, as we now know, Turkey had paid off a number of major think tanks that had advised President Trump shortly prior to Erdogan's visit to the White House in May of this year. President Trump is likely getting very bad advise from the Secretary of State, who views the independence referendum as illegitimate, and from an assortment of sources, who are taken in by the extensive Turkish lobby in the United States.
None of it changes matters. The current calculus throws the Kurds into the arms of Russia, which has already ascended to power along with Iran in Syria, pushing the United States out of a position of significant influence altogether due to our short-sighted focus on only dealing with ISIS. Furthermore, Russia has stayed away from publicly condemning the referendum, and in fact, acted as the biggest financial backer of KRG. Although the Kurdish leadership is generally distrustful of Russia, Russia has proven itself to be a stalwart ally to Assad, and has deftly advocated for the Kurds in Turkey when it suited her interests. Putin's backing of the Kurds in Iraq is not sentimental; rather, he is shrewdly taking advantage of the US inaction to establish Kurdistan as Russia's sphere of influence and rise to power in the Middle East, all without having to expend significant power or resources.
As our influence diminishes and our presence becomes marginal, the US is likely to miss significant opportunities for business and educational investment in Kurdistan; infrastructure projects with potential for job growth for American workers; creation of a stable buffer state in the Middle East that would likely protect our security interests vis-a-vis Iran and Turkey, and spread elements of democracy and liberalization naturally through the people indigineous to the region rather than through conquest, occupation, or or other policies likely to be viewed as colonialist. What we are losing, however, Russia, Turkey, and Iran are gaining. Sooner or later, the imperial ambitions of these three aggressive states will come to a head in the oil-rich region; however, either one of the three belligerent actors prevails, which will not benefit the region, or the three countries come to a power-sharing agreement, in which case minorities, Israel, and the US will all lose out, or the situation deteriorates to the point of chaos, with civil war, strife, and new waves of refugees repeating the tragic events in Syria. In all cases excepting the instance where US rises to the occasion, shows moral and strategic leadership, and backs Kurdish aspiration to independence, we are looking at some very dismal scenarios that will place America dead last not only in the Middle East, but in the international arena as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)