Satellite coverage of Iran protests

I'm glad that President Trump is ordering the army to use satellite to cover the protests in Iran. Everyone should be aware of the people's fight for freedom, even former Secretary of State John Kerry, who apparently lives under a rock, and has been affected by the regime's cutting off Internet services.

Happy New Year! - a reflection on 2017

I never make New Year's Resolutions, and this year won't be an exception.

But I would like to take a moment to reflect on 2017, a year that was tumultuous, eventful, extremely challenging personally and professionally, but at the same time rewarding, filled with delightful surprises, and ultimately leading me in a much more focused and better direction despite all the struggles.

The three themes for this year (completely unplanned) turned out to be travel, writing, and meeting amazing people. I did not expect to travel at all, and yet traveled more than on the average any given year previously. I thought I had nothing to say or write, but ended up returning to blogging and writing, and publishing more than ever before, increasing my reach and audience, and ended up going places I never imagined (and that's with some amazing surprises that are in story for the early 2018, but which were conceived this year). And of all the things I thought I had planned for 2017, none of them included many of the wonderful meetings and friendships that have formed over the course of the year, and that's besides building on the existing ones and taking what I have been working on previously to the next level.

Some of the best and most interesting things that happened to me were not planned, from ending up in the King's palace in Morocco with all the ministers, to meeting President Sisi on a spur-of-the-moment sojourn, to getting in touch with Andrés Roemer, and ending up at La Ciudad de las Ideas, and from then on at a Christmas & Chanukkah party with Robbie George in Princeton... to getting stuck on top of a mountain in Iceland, swimming in the Blue Lagoon during hurricane-like conditions, riding horses, touring haunted Scottish places, and spending more time in DC than I ever thought possible. The year also brought in health and personal challenges, including the loss of our two dearly loved family members (Julie & Jelli), as well as the many obstacles to the goals I did set out to accomplish.

But it also brought growth and determination, a renewed commitment to personal priorities, lots of laughter, learning, and surprising conversations, support from the most unexpected places, and eye-opening and paradigm-shifting experiences. I have come to do and write and accomplish things that I did not think I would ever end up doing or even wanted to do, and yet, when the time was right, they came naturally. I hope much, much more of the same for 2018 - enriching, unusual, experiences and surprises that will take me out of my comfort zone and force me to grow and improve and create impact in defiance of my own fears, insecurities, and boundaries. I hope to become a better person, a better listener, a more courageous advocated for things that matter to me, and a more effective professionals who can be much more helpful in a variety ways. I would love to travel more, to discover at least one new country, to write more and better and to bring in novelty and insight to the table in new places, and I yearn for more surprising meetings that I have no reason on earth to expect at the moment.

And for my family, friends, connections, and audience, I would love to see a very healthy, joyous, and life affirming year, during the course of which you will break your own limitations, find what you are looking for, and discover things you had absolutely no plans for but which will change your life in the best possible way.

Here's to another year of happy warriors, of keeping up the good fight and succeeding, of triumph of good ideas over terrible ones, of human connection over strife and polarization, of adventure over stagnation, and of human spirit over adversity.

Here's to much more of the best 2017 has brought, and here's to surprises that will defy our expectations.

Here's to breaking free of stereotypes, negativity, and pessimism, and to taking first steps for living the kind of life we secretly dream about.

Here's to savouring every moment, and to seeing far beyond horizons.

Here's to the light that we can all give and to the smiles we can all share.

And to life, splendid, unpredictable, crazy, surreal life in all its manifestations and glory.

2018 will be one hell of a ride!

Happy New Year!

Iranian protests and Obama

The ayatollahs bringing Iran to ruin are the enemies of the Iranian people just as much as they are our enemies. And the Iranians demonstrating in the streets, with no protection of the 2nd Amendment, nor support from Europe, which is heavily financially invested in the murderous, expansionist regime, deserve the same freedom that we have learned to take for granted. Time to debunk the myths that the Iranian nuclear deal or the previous administration cared about security or freedom for anybody. If they did, they would have denounced the bellicose regime, instead of supporting it.

I Don't Do Peace

Inspired by another thread, the thrust of which is the old trope that you make peace with enemies, not friends.

Let me make it clear: I don't believe in making peace, and certainly, not for the sake of peace.

I believe in building bridges, overcoming differences, bringing in mutual understanding, connecting through shared values, and creating valuable networks, relationships, and alliances over common issues.

I don't believe in making pointless sacrifices for the sake of the other side agreeing not to kill you in exchange.

None of my work, nothing I do, is ever about making peace. I do not make peace with human rights violations, I do not make peace with the denial of my identity and dignity, I do not make peace with bad ideas.

I am working towards victory of life affirming values over destructive ones, and of good ideas over bad ones.

I am not a peacemaker; there's nothing peaceful about me.

And the people who matter will respect me for my dedication to my goals and to my values and to the identity that makes me strong much more so than they will ever respect me for begging for crumbs of peace on their terms.

Wishful Thinking

Please stop posting quite so much blatant propaganda, and by that I mean, clearly fake or hyperbolized stories, from fringe sources (likely Russian or Macedonian or whatever) that appear to support your POV or give you what you really wish to be true... but that clearly isn't. Also stop falling for agitprop from "anonymous sources", not just from the White House, but from foreign countries about seemingly sensational events. Trump has not yet cut off all foreign aid to the countries that have voted against US on the embassy. Stop reposting that crap! If and when he does it, you will know from reputable sources. And yes, I'm well aware the leftist MSM tends to cover up whatever makes Obama look bad and Trump look good. Do your due diligence; there are great investigative reporters on the right, and their work is worth reposting. No need to stoop to the garbage fed to you by troll factories.

Trump and the Grid

Trump and the grid:

As excited as I was about the concept of the grid actually being protected and prioritized in our NSS, I'm not sure that it will actually happen. Because, based on reports from Bloomberg and other sources, the career officials at the Department of Energy, and elsewhere, are still doing everything possible to derail this administration's agenda, and Trump still has not appointed people who would kick the bureaus inside those agencies in gear. Rick Perry may give orders, but enforcement of implementation ends up falling to the career people, who, so far, have shown little gusto for doing the work, and on some things, downright put up obstacles or lied about doing it.

That is why I do not have high hopes for anything infrastructure-related. This would have been the case to some extent with any Republican president, but will be particularly bad with Trump.

Oh well. At least, just like with the embassy, he set an example of what should be a national security priority, and perhaps in the future, someone else will actually get it done.

Voter ID and Crime Prevention

On voter ID fraud:

Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that there is no evidence readily available for truly massive voter ID fraud, likely because voter ID lists are not public.

But it's very easy to see how a system with NO voter ID requirements could be abused.

As with anything else, including cybersecurity, if you know of a vulnerability, why not patch it up, before bad guys take advantage of it and a crime is committed? What is the argument for opposing crime prevention?

Net Neutrality Discussion Fail

I have yet to see a single net neutrality advocate in good faith explain to me how my life as an individual user was seriously affected before 2015 (because the only issue in discussion right now is Obama's order), and why the world will suddenly change to substantially worse than pre-2015 with the current repeal. The arguments by Net Neutralians that have been presented so far have nothing to do with the specifics of the actual regulation being repealed, but are rather theoretical worst-case scenario of the early days of discussion on net neutrality in academic settings. Republicans, by the way, as usual did a terrible job, by and large, presenting a public argument of how the repeal is limited to a very narrow regulation, which had very little with the larger argument of net neutrality to begin with.

Taking One For the Team

In a year fraught with sex scandals, sophomoric election jokes about "pulling it off" and "pulling it out", just write themselves...

That's why I will never be anyone serious in politics.

Alabama: Incredibly Loud and Extremely Close

Alabama: An extremely close race is now called for Doug Jones (D).

It takes real effort for a Republican to lose Alabama, but doggone it, Roy Moore managed this difficult task.

Doug Jones is no better than Moore and I'm not celebrating.

I think it's a loss over all that the state was stuck with two such horrific candidates, and one of them is going to a US senator for the next two years, impeding any good that the Republicans may try to accomplish. And he's a rabid pro-abortion advocate, so in my view, also a deeply immoral person.
The only good news here is that the GOP is not stuck with the extremely awkward choice of what to do with Roy Moore, and will not have that legacy hanging over its head two years from now.
Let's hope Republicans learn a lesson from this and will nominate people who are not so repulsive that they turn off more than half of their own party in the deepest of deep red states.

Why anti-Jerusalem statement protests around the world are fake news

Interestingly, governments in the countries where there are massive protests going on, as well as physical attacks on Jewish sites (here's looking at you, Sweden), have not issued any statements calling for peace and dialogue. That's because such protests against an uncontrollable course of events related to people they have absolutely nothing to do with and living far away, is in the interests of those governments. Rather than refocusing on the needs of their people, they are far happier having the attention diverted elsewhere = as has been the case for decades. Same people who are now protesting over the alleged violation of rights for Palestinians by the mere statement of recognition of an already Jewish portion of Jerusalem with Israeli government in it would not grant Palestinians full citizenship in their own land. (AHEM, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, etc.) So let's see what's really going on:

1. Either this is not about Trump's statement (because Trump did not explicitly recognize any particular Jerusalem borders), and it's all about Israel not having a right to exist, even including specifically Jewish sites)

or

2. No one actually cares about it just as no one cares about the Palestinians, and people just want to let out their generalized rage at life, but they don't have the freedom to protest their own government, so to make themselves feel better, they pretend to be outraged about some distant cause to which they have little connection. Also, when was the last time Palestinians stood up for their rights to anything? Have Palestinians picked up the human rights issue in Egypt? Have they protested against al-Assad in Syria? Taken an issue with Hizbullah's corruption and control in Lebanon? No? And yet all these people are rioting on their behalf.

The Symbolism and The Peace Plan

My concern, unlike the many people paranoid about Palestinians or Saudis acting up, has been with the potential poison pill of the two-state language included in the text. Although President Trump has made it clear, that he will support a mutual decision by the parties involved, that language leaves room for future pressure on Israel by this administration or future others. As was pointed out elsewhere, George W. would make great speeches on Israel, then push for the creation of the Palestinian state. I do believe that the administration will try to make even this small, largely symbolic step with no timeline for a physical follow through (YUGE red flag in my book), which is a repetition of what Bill Clinton has already done by signing the original law, in order to exert pressure on Israel towards Jared Kushner's peace plan. In fact, Kushner's own comments as late as Sunday, signified as much.

So What of the Waiver?

Trump publicly signing the embassy waiver right after his speech is a political move, not a security move.

As I have stated repeatedly in the past, and have yet to be proven wrong, Trump intends to delay the process for the sake of keeping his base, and in particular, funders, and to ensure they will back him against any primary challengers in 2020.

If anything, prolonging this situation will probably result in more security threats. It would be easier to get everything over with at once, and just move the building, get all the riots out of the system and move on. Making this an endless process with an unclear due date will ensure some level of dissatisfaction from everyone concern, and possibly additional riots or other problems whenever the building IS moved.

Reform Jews Are No Shtetl Jews

To call today's left-wing, largely Reform and Conservative Jews, "shtetl Jews" would be a tragic misnomer. I come from shtetl Jews; they are no shtetl Jews. Most shtetl Jews and their offspring, who did not join the Communist party in the Soviet Union, retained a very strong sense of identity if by force, as well as a clear awareness of threats and danger. Those of them who were HOlocaust survivors, in many cases went to Palestine, and fought for the creation of the State of Israel. They did not wait for anyone's permission to do so. Weizmann and the rest, men who came from humble roots, rather than from elitist stock, (Weizmann, a biochemist, came from a village), lobbied President Truman to do the right thing and to recognize the nascent state, in spite of his own State Department, and threats from high level foreign policy officials, which he eventually did.

Violence preceded the creation of the State of Israel, not the least to the spread of propaganda by the Nazis in the Middle East, and ensued once again immediately upon the recognition of Israel as a sovereign state. It then followed the young state through its history, and at each turning point, including the reunification of Jerusalem, there were surely some American Jewish "leaders" who clamored for "sha, shtill!" mentality, claiming that innocent people will die if Israel asserts her rights, and that surely sooner or later the right time will come and Israel can reclaim what's rightfully hers peacefully. My friends, such time will never come.

If you want what's yours, you have to fight for it, sometimes through aggressive lobbying and diplomatic work, and sometimes, upon meeting with blind hatred, corruption, and instigation, with overwhelming force, if that's the only thing your enemy recognizes. Israel is now positioned better than at any time in her history. Many countries find blessing in conducting relations with Israel, and care far more about the advantages such an alliance brings to their people than about empty rhetoric from far-away corrupt politicos, who care nothing about them or their countries and cultures. Let us find courage and wisdom in the lessons of the past, and stand behind President Trump's decision to finally do the right thing that we have been waiting for 70 years, and stop treating ISrael like a pariah among sovereign states by recognizing its own chosen political capital as such. I think it's idiotic to pretend that Israel does not have its entire government in Jerusalem. Being blind to the facts on the ground will not somehow strengthen the claims of the Muslims to the Al Aqsa mosque.

On the contrary, readiness to engage in unprovoked violence against their neighbors, readiness to slaughter civilians to show their displeasure with political moves, weakens their claim of desire for peace, and their claim for spiritual connection with the Holy City. Israel is in a tough neighborhood, where strength, not weakness, is respected and recognized. Saudi Arabia is drawing closer with ISrael not out of desire to protect her, but because she sees ISrael as a strong country, a potentially useful ally against a mutual threat. Don't be under illusion that things would be different if somehow Israel grew softer on any point. The demands would be greater, the violence more intense. Israel should stand up for her basic rights, being treated as an equal among sovereign nations, and the United States should act out of position of strength and pursue an independent foreign policy, based on its own interests, not on empty threats from greedy corrupt illegitimate thugs, who also demand money from US taxpayers to avoid inciting their own abused and manipulated populations towards terrorism and misery.

Enough With the Threats About Jerusalem

If, as a result of any White House Jerusalem-related announcements, mass violence occurs, the full blame will be with the rioters and their corrupt instigators, not with the President of the United States for conducting reasonable and fair foreign policy in doing nothing more than recognizing the political capital of a sovereign state and declaring intent to move the US embassy there. Particularly unwelcome are riots from people who have been on the US taxpayer dole for many decades and have paid us back with the murders of our citizens.

NIAC Is The Propaganda Arm of Iran, Not a Human Rights Organization’

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/06/niac-is-the-propaganda-arm-of/

They wine and dine members of Congress at monthly dinners. Their members serve on the boards of successful, well-respected organizations run by Iranian-Americans. They claim to be the voice of moderation and friendship.

In reality, NIAC is the propaganda arm of Iran, strengthening its position inside the United States through outreach, propaganda, disinformation articles, character assassination attacks against critics, and intimidation of dissenters through lawsuits.

The Department of Justice should investigation this lobby group for its failure to register under Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), expose their frauds and destructive role in the US, and inform Congress and the administration about their destructive roles as agents of influence for Iran's intelligence.

Challenge

NIAC claims to be dedicated to strengthening the voice of the Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between Americans and Iranian people. In fact, NIAC has been acting as a de facto lobbyist for the Islamic Republic of Iran, in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act ((22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.)  This law requires agents representing interests of foreign powers in a political or semi-political capacity to disclose their relationship with the foreign government, as well as related activities and finances. NIAC, led by the Swedish-born activist Trita Parsi, is likely in violation of the relevant provision. As a key and overtly pro-Iranian voice advising the Obama administration on the nuclear deal  with the Islamic Republic, NIAC consistently voiced the interests and point of view of the "Reformist" faction of the regime, represented, in part, by the current president Hassan Rouhani.   

While in Lausanne during the JCPOA negotiations, Trita Parsi put himself forward as a member of the Iranian negotiating team, and repeatedly boasts of his access to Iranian regime leaders. He has dined with Iran's former hardliner president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met with the brother of the current president Hassan Rouhani, corresponded and maintained close ties with  Foreign Minister Zarif, dating from Zarif's previous position as Iran's Permanent Representative to the United States in New York. That level of access suggests trust on the part of the normally suspicious regime. Furthermore, a shady family that had financed NIAC,  started by Parsi in 2002, stood to gain financially from the sanctions relief, as they openly backed the deal.  The Namazis, who peddled influence between the White House and Teheran, ultimately overstepped the boundaries and have been arrested by the regime.  Parsi continued pro-regime fabrications through the years since NIAC's inception.  Most recently, Trita Parsi fabricated (in allegation) that green card holders from the seven countries designated by the most recent immigration suspension were being asked about their views on President Trump upon entering the airport.  He then doubled down on this mendacious claim.  

Contrary to the popular view, the Reformists are no more moderate than the hard-liners such as the previous president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and are yet another group of people played by the ayatollah-led regime. NIAC was consistently deceptive in advocating the potential consequences of the nuclear deal, and attacked critics of the deal, such as the well-known dissident and journalist Ahmad Batebi, for their public concern. NIAC-affiliated public figures, such as Muhammad Sahimi, had attacked critics of the deal as right-wing pawns and pillars of the Israel lobby in the U.S., an argument that directly reflected the rhetoric of the regime itself and furthered its interests through a character assassination campaign. Trita Parsi himself had visited President Obama at least 33 times, and remained his leading adviser.

There is evidence to believe than rather than being an organization and an individual sympathetic to the Regime, NIAC and Parsi actively aided Iranian intelligence. For instance, a report from Iranian American Forum, based in London, claims that a secret message delivered by Trita Parsi to their office in September 2011 was identical to a secret message delivered to Washington in 2007 by the regime's envoy Salman Savafi. Both messages warned against designating the IRGC (The Iranian Revolutionary Guards) as a terrorist organization because it would wreak havoc in Iraq, and also jeopardize the possibility of improving relations with Iran.  Separately, an unclassified Pentagon report described NIAC's collaboration with two Iranian intelligence agents, who were invited to give a Congressional briefing (links to report included). Meanwhile, most recently, a number of senior defense and intelligence officials have come forward  against designating IRGC as a terrorist organization, in a language similar to the two messages cited above, particularly warning that such designation could endanger US troops in Iraq and endanger the fight against ISIS. Given the close connection between NIAC and the previous administration, one can easily surmise NIAC's role in making that impression and continuing to play the role of the regime's lobbyist in preventing unfavorable policies.

Above-mentioned Trita Parsi unsuccessfully sued a noted Iranian American journalist Hassan Daioleslam for defamation, where Mr. Daioleslam argued in his articles that NIAC is an unregistered lobby group. A treasure trove of documents on Mr. Daioleslam's website unveil the intricate web of deeply rooted and personal relationships between NIAC members and regime families. More recently, they demonstrate how NIAC is deceitfully trying to divorce the West's view of Iran from its obvious connections with North Korea.  Furthermore, NIAC appears to be the only widely known group representing interests of Iranian-Americans, and has gained renowned in the US educational and cultural institutions. For that reason, perhaps, only Reformists in Iranian prisons are promoted in the NIAC-sponsored English language press, and for the same reason the voices of the NIAC-sponsored “dissidents” drown out and shut down the voices of legitimate anti-regime critics throughout the United States.  

. Prior to the lawsuit, NIAC was registered as a (501) ( c) (3). Despite the fact that NIAC spent only about 5% of their activity on human rights advocacy and the remainder on lobbying activities in violation of their status, the State Department did not require them to register as foreign agency and did not refer them to the Department of Justice.  In court, NIAC and Trita Parsi were both sanctioned for systematic abuse of discovery process and repeated false and misleading declarations to court. Interestingly, this abuse of process included the altering of 1400 emails referencing the word "lobby".  In fact, Parsi himself used the word "lobby" to describe NIAC in documents obtained by Eli Lake. Additionally, NIAC and Parsi withheld vital documents on numerous occasions and made false comments before the court.

The sanctions were upheld on appeal.  Many Iranian Americans, as well as the governmental press in Iran, consider NIAC to be the"Iran lobby".  This organization, and its director Trita Parsi, pretend to be the leading voice of the Iranian Americans in the United States, in reality representing the interests of a state that promotes terrorism, ignores sanctions, engages in systematic and widespread human rights abuses, and has utilized the money released by the Obama administration towards developing its illegal ballistic missile program.  NIAC-affiliated entities have engaged in a pattern of shutting down the dissent by Iranian dissidents and other critics who have come out against the regime and who have criticized the Reformists.  NIAC and its individual members release deceptive missives, which paint a distorted portrait of the Islamic Republic's regime and excuse away its anti-Western, anti-Israel rhetoric.

Suggested Response

NIAC, rather than representing the interests of Iranian Americans, promotes the interests of an openly adversarial and threatening regime, all tax-free. Its duplicity and intentions should be unmasked and exposed.

In fact, after the oral argument in the above-cited case,  Judge Wilkins states:

“I got to tell you that your client is lucky that I was not the District Judge, because you will be here appealing much more severe and higher sanctions, because I think he (the District Court judge) had extreme patience in dealing with lots of misleading and false representations and countless times when your client was trying to slice the baloney very thin, as far as trying to parse what their obligations were.”

Given the strong signal from the judiciary, the Department of Justice and Congress should launch an investigation into NIAC's and Trita Parsi's deceptive and insidious activities in violation of the United States law, and contrary to U.S. interests.  A hearing examining its pattern of duplicity, character assassination attacks on critics, and self-serving agendas that in no way help the interests of the Iranian American community will bring to light its many instances of violations, and likely, tax evasion. It may reveal the illicit funding of its pro-Iran agendas by figures within the regime itself. Finally, it may give grounds for a recommendation that the State Department should require NIAC be designated as a foreign agent, and that the Department of Justice should investigate NIAC, Trita Parsi, and other relevant subsidiary groups and individuals for fraudulent activities, tax evasion, and other violations.

The Department of Justice should investigate NIAC's and Tria Parsi's failure to register under FARA and require them to do so immediately, while strictly enforcing the periodic reporting requirement in the interests of national security. Likewise both NIAC and Trita Parsi should be charged with perjury and obstruction of justice and investigated for their lies under oath and tempering with evidence during the course of the trial.  

Anticipated Outcome

The Islamic Republic's aggression against the Western, and particularly U.S. interests, takes many forms, but not the least of them is "lawfare" against critics, information warfare, the shutdown of popular dissent at home and abroad, institutionalized espionage, and high-positioned agents of influence. Not-for-profit cultural organizations purporting to represent intercultural understanding and the interests of particular communities are an excellent vehicle to promote these active measures of swaying public opinion, influencing decisionmakers, and dictating pro-Iran policy to the U.S. government and institutions. Exposing these instruments of the Islamic Republic for what they are will shred their credibility, and give opportunity to pro-freedom, pro-Western institutions to arise among Iranian-Americans, and will give voice to the Iranians that are looking to defend the interests of the United States, rather than its adversary.

No Coherent Strategy Without Core Principles in Foreign Policy

Contrary to conventional wisdom and widely embraced foreign policy dogma, strategic defense of national interests is not possible without adoption of certain core principles. Saying that “United States doesn’t have allies, it has interests” really misses the mark with regards to carrying out the tasks that secures those interests , which include the safety of  our borders, our cyber domain, our troops, and strategically important sites, such as bases and embassies, abroad. Our interests, beyond security objectives, may include regional stability, preservation and growth of important relationships and alliances, resolution of trade deficit, and various internal economic goals.  Those are interests, which are not to be confused with strategy, or a set of long-term steps in securing particular objectives with regards to those interests. If our interest, for instance, is border protection, the securing that interest would be lowering the number of known actionable threats in sensitive border areas from X to Y.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email
and never miss our top stories   FREE SIGN UP!

A strategic objective towards that end would include identifying those threads, recognizing those threats as they come in, and developing standard operating procedures towards eliminating them, which may include working closely with allies on surveillance of the areas, toughening border patrol or immigration procedures, building security fences in areas known to be vulnerable in order to slow down the path of the would-be interlopers, and creating additional electronic surveillance and means of interception. The tactical steps would be the procedures towards the identification, recognition, interception, and elimination of those threats including developing of better situational awareness, purchase of more sensitive technology, and funding for the construction of fences, border patrol watch towers, and creating a successful communications and messaging system that allows for better interaction among border patrol areas.

None of these steps, however, are possible without core values that guide us in the process. For instance, we have to abide by Constitutional restraints on our side of the border, whatever those restraints happen to be and however applicable they are in any given situation. We can debate the limits of those restraints, and specific factual scenarios in which they do or do not apply, but no one will argue against the understanding that our Constitution provides a guiding set of considerations with respect to the way we can implement certain internal security procedures. The balance of individual security and freedoms from government intervention are examples of such principles. And because of our vigorous checks-and-balance systems, despite various disagreements over how the system is applied, we overall enjoy relative internal stability, and few would argue that such principles are of little value in insuring the kind of environment that is overall beneficial.

Furthermore, the aims of most domestic policy initiatives are clear, even if the execution frequently falls short of the promise. With foreign policy, however, we seem to have lost our way, despite the general sense of where it is that we wish to end up with. And that sense comes more by way of generic slogans: “Greatness, respect by other countries, security, stability, economic victories, and peace”, than through specific visions compatible with current realities, reasonable timelines, and offsetting past mistakes. There has been no shortage of recent criticism of seeming lack of strategy in the Middle East,  Southeast Asia, and elsewhere.  Our inability to develop a serious response to Russia in Syria is rivaled only by our circuitous meanderings over 16 years of failed and stagnated policies in Afghanistan.  I won’t go into the missed opportunities with regards to TPP/trade with a number of Latin American countries, which since then, joined in to make China great again or our failure of imagination with regards to the 54 vastly different African countries, an entire continent we have dismissed but with one naval base, partially controlled by the French, and a few perfunctory visits in recent years, while other countries, such as China, are engaging in aggressive neo-colonialist policies, defensive and business buildups (such as Saudis and Turkey, building all along the Gulf of Horn, and investing in Somalia), or strengthening relationships through joint ventures, green energy investments, and personal attention, such as what Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has been doing in a series of highly successful diplomatic overtures and a barnstorming tour.

There is more to our anemic foreign policy than Obama’s legacy of failure, takeover of the agencies by career officials in strong disagreement with President Trump’s paradigm and aiming to derail his success, or even the tunnel vision obsession with eliminating ISIS at the expense of every other threat and concern by the generals in charge of our military policy. Sure, those are all important and challenging factors, but our history of poor strategic decisionmaking dates back to the Cold War, when, through the decades of perceiving the Communist threat as our main ideological adversary, we focused on its containment (mistake # 1) to the exclusion of everything else (mistake # 2) and yet once the Soviet Union fell did not finish off the remnants of these ideological proclivities at home and abroad (mistake # 3). Despite Reaganesque rhetoric of freedom, it wasn’t the freedom or long-term security of our society that was the driving force behind our action, but rather fear of a seemingly existential threat to our own way of life on a very limited immediate level. Had it been motivated by freedom, containment would not have sufficed, and all other ideologies that could be an obstacle to freedom due to their anti-individualist worldviews would have been likewise seen as threats. Our actions were entirely reactive; and though the successful Star Wars response, the first time we finally decided to act from a position of strength, finally doomed the Soviet Union’s economic paper tiger, that was merely a successful conclusion of one battle, and a defensive rather than affirmative and forward-looking one at that.

In essence, the idea that any country can subsists on interests alone, without developing strong long-term relationships based in shared values and shared visions of the future, is pure nonsense. Furthermore, any country’s basic interests – internal and external security, strong economy, its citizens’ ability to travel and do business, is heavily interdependent with the analagous interests of other states, and to some extent, every country has identical interests. Where they differ is how they interpret those interests, and what actions they are willing to take in defense of these concepts, as well as in furtherance of their vision of their own country’s prosperity, regional and global role, and cultural contributions to the outside world.  Just as Rules of Engagement drive our military approach out of concern for the lives of civilians, as well as reciprocity in the treatment of our troops, certain basic principles of civilized behavior drive (or ought to drive) foreign policy, and when some country fails to abide by such norms, conflicts and mayhem may ensue. US is no different from others in that respect. Arguing over semantics whether “friends” or “allies” are one and the same or largely different brings us no closer to understanding how it is that we have gotten ourselves into such a confusing mess in so many places simultaneously. We have had a number of very stable, largely dependable long-term relationships with the countries that share the most with us in terms of common vision, goals for regional and global roles, and dedication to pursuit of prosperity through peaceful means; our relationships with countries which have had less in common have shifted from time to time or focused on the limited number of common approaches and issues.

Nevertheless, each relationship has focused on the observation of certain norm. If our partner in that relationship violates those norms to the extent that it impedes on our own interests in a significant way, we are forced to revaluate our relationship and set appropriate boundaries. And to the extent our partners have taken care to maintain good relationship, be responsive to our needs, and show utility and interest in forging stronger bond, over time, we respond in kind, to the extent it is helpful in addressing our own needs and other interests. Seems simple and straight-forward enough, but over time we seem to have lost track of these very basic driving factors in policymaking, and rather, have reverted to reactionary approaches predicated on attempting to utilize relational variables to resolve complex geopolitical situations.  Instead, we get our further and further flummoxed by competing demands and pressures from various actors, making it difficult to decide how to react to various parties tugging us in different directions, without alienating vital partnerships or blowing up delicate sand castles of assorted relational contingencies. This confusion is driven not just by the fact that there are too many factors to be considered but by the fact that we forget  that a paradigm of basic expected behavior should be our driving force, not simple reaction to what others believe that behavior ought to be.

Let’s take a hypothetical and abstract scenario of a military operation, in the course of which we are involved in a coalition with partners from UK, and a number of countries from EU. Let’s suppose that as the operation is winding down, with the task appearing largely accomplished, several UK troops are captured by the enemy. What would we do in such a situation? Common sense would surely bring us to try to free the hostages to the extent we are able to do so. And most likely, other coalition partners would do the same, despite the acrimony between UK and EU over Brexit. Let’s take it a step further, and imagine that it is not UK, but Spain that is the coalition partner, whose soldiers are captured, and those soldiers happen to be Catalan. They have supported the recent independence move, but have remained committed to finishing off the operation. What do you suppose would happen? The prediction is not too difficult here: Spain, the US, and everybody else would do whatever is practicable to free the hostages, and deal with the political differences at some other point in time and away from the field.  The underlying principle driving this understanding is that first, you have certain obligations to your partners, both in terms of existing defense treaties, and in terms of basic ethical considerations that makes it worth everyone’s while to fight together, and second, in the future, you want to know that someone has your back if in this instance you’ve had his. That’s a basic guarantee of mutual survival and the long term survival of your societies.  And even if you happen to have some political differences at the moment, they are presumably of lesser importance that whatever task united you to fight together.

But let’s say, you are fighting with a new partner you’ve never worked with before, and an inherently untrustworthy one at that, liable to switch side on you at any given moment. You are in that situation because that partner knows local condition better than anyone else, and frankly, the risk is worth it, considering that the enemy is quite formidable and your options are limited. What do you do? You watch your back, exercise caution, keep your options open, do your due diligence in terms of keeping yourself informed about your partner’s current and potential actions, and otherwise do exactly what you would have done with a long-standing ally. If nothing goes wrong, and your task is complete, you can choose to try to build trust and additional ties with that partner, or just peacefully part your ways. And if the partner betrays you during the course of the operation, you can always start treating it as an adversary. None of that seems terribly complicated, but we have failed on several fronts:

1. Keeping ourselves sufficiently informed about the intents and nature of our friends and enemies
2. Separating various actors into enemies, friends, short-term partners, and other temporary categories that make sense according to the situation.
3. Distinguishing potential and current long-term partners who have proven trustworthy from those partners, where the relationships are not yet at that level, where the visions of the future are not shared, approach to developing interests do not coincide, and where, in fact, there is potential for friction and conflict.
4. Treating each category according to what makes sense for that level of partnership in that situation if you take propaganda, social pressures, and past habits out of the equation.

How could we have made such basic errors in judgments? Because we have confused terms – we have mixed goals, strategic objectives, strategy in pursuit of those objectives, tactics, and underlying principles of engagement into an incoherent mishmash of incoherent concepts that merely obfuscate the situation. Somehow, using the terms “morality” and “foreign policy” in the same sentence has become taboo, even laughable. And yet it is morality that has allowed humans to survive, because at the end of the day, morality is based in pragmatic evolutionary considerations, that has kept everyone from eliminating everyone else to the point of extinction at the very outset of our sentience. I would posit that contemporary theories of international relations – idealism and realism – have failed where policies based in some underlying and focused principles likely would have helped us remain focus and develop coherent paradigms appropriate for the long-time pursuit of strategies in defense of our interests. Realism has been based in short-term reactionism, which of course, caused us to ignore long-term implications of unwise decisions. Idealism forces us to ignore realities on the ground and to try to force facts to feet our vision of what should be. It’s bound to fail, and it has failed us, again and again. We have exercised various combinations of these competing extremes to some degree for many decades, resulting in further problems, repetition of the same approach, and a self-perpetuating cycle of overlooking threats and underutilizing valuable tools and relationships.

We are doing so yet again, in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Southeast Asia. Leaving aside emotionally loaded terms such as “friends” and “allies” to describe our joint actions in some of these places, we have clearly forgotten that we need to do what makes sense for us, rather than what makes sense to assorted other parties pushing their demands on us. The largely theoretical construction that if we let Baghdad do what they will in Kurdistan, along with our clearly designated adversary, Iran, they will eventually go along with our vision of stability in the Middle East, is ludicrous. No country will place US interests above its own vision; it’s up to US to enforce what it has in mind through effective negotiations and utilizing partnerships to achieve specific results in the mutually beneficial directions. US is not benefiting from the instant scenario; on the contrary, we are losing respect, losing money, losing other potential partners, losing resources, wasting time, and seeing undesirable strategies of our adversaries successfully unfold before eyes.

There is no practical reason why we should not be treating our Peshmerga partners captured by adversarial Iran-backed militias the same way we would have treated our British or French or German partners under similar circumstances – if possible in the field, conducting operations to release them. Theoretical constructs about what Baghdad would possibly do if we did that are irrelevant if we abide by basic principles – we want our goals to be respected, and therefore we cannot allow the partners that have proven trustworthy be captured with no response. If our other partners are unwilling to assist in the matter, we have to act on our own, and if they interfere – well, that makes it clear where their loyalties are, doens’t it? Our partners should be able to settle political differences among themselves, but if we want our own interests to meet with success, we need to ensure that the principles that make our strategies successful prevail. If we lose one partner to another, we have actually lost both.  And then we are on our own against an enemy. And we have lost one partner to the enemy, and our partner is siding with that enemy, we have two enemies instead of one, and it makes sense to strengthen our relationship with our one existing partner for our own sake. It’s in our self-interest to be in a position of strength in any given conflict to the extent possible. That’s a basic principle, just as it’s a basic principle to protect those partners that are helpful in a particular scenario and that can be just as helpful in the future.

We cannot have a strategy if we do not have basic guides by which we operate.

The reason why the world seems messy and confusing is because we ourselves choose to view it as such and because we act in a haphazard way, instead of utilizing a specific lens that would help us guide us to where we actually want to be – in a position when we can make a positive impact towards clearly identified desirable results, and in a relationship with partners, who, by nature of sharing similar objectives, are bound to stick with the same principles and strategies, rather than switch back and forth among various sides depending on which way the wind blows. No, we want to have a system. The system works like a compass and guides us safely through whatever storms come our way, because if you know the direction you’re going in, even if you have to adjust for various obstacles along the way, you are bound to get where you need to be sooner or later. And conversely, if you are wondering from place to place with no direction and no plan to find direction and no tools to help with finding direction, you are very likely to spend your time perpetually lost. The only way to have a successful journey is to have a system for determining your location and adjusting accordingly until you get back on track to where you need to be.

The only way to have a successful foreign policy is to have a principled one, firmly based in foundations that will give you a system for formulating coherent responses, no matter what the circumstances or changes in circumstances appear to be, flexible in adjusting to reality, but strong enough to move you past all obstacle in the direction where you, and not the wind, or the sunset, or other people who likely have no idea where they are going, are trying to get you to go.

How Republicans Are Digging Their Own Grave By Being Overly Defensive

(Un)Popular Statement of the day: By defending Flynn on unrelated personal misdeeds, the conservatives helped perpetuate conspiracy theories and false narratives.

Frankly, by ceding moral ground on various issues in the course of last year's elections, Republicans have made both the president and the party as a whole more vulnerable to baseless attacks. Had more of them been willing to stick by issues, while calling out various officials when they warranted it, instead of adopting the head-in-the-sand approach with regards to every accusation from the left, we would not be wasting our money on an investigation into obstruction of justice claims by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and giving free ammunition to Mueller.

Why Baghdad's Move on Kirkuk Is Not About the Independence Referendum

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/11/22/why-baghdads-move-on-kirkuk-is-not-about-the-independence-referendum/

By now, it should be abundantly obvious that  Baghdad's move to take over Kirkuk has been pre-planned and would have advanced with or without the independence referendum. Iraqi forces and Peshmerga were allied against ISIS in the liberation of the territories, yet Iraq's ultimate priority has always been in retaining the control over the oil fields and revenue from the Kurdish-held territories.  And with Barzani's resignation as KRG President, we now know that whatever criticisms could be made about the latter's hold on power well beyond the constitutional provisions, his concerns about Kurdish security and move for independence were a great deal more than just power play. Further proof of Baghdad's disingenuous bluster about territorial integrity and "unity" (carved out by the British under the Sykes-Picot agreement, that would intentionally keep different nations with disparate identities cobbled together, foster divisions, and allow the British Empire to maintain control) are Abadi's actions with respect to the Kurdish citizens the moment the Baghdad-Iran alliance assumed control of much of the disputed territories and the oil fields, which were, in fact the central concern.

The legitimacy of Baghdad's concern for its national sovereignty is undermined by the unnecessary assault on the Kurdish autonomy, which can only make the Kurds yearn for independence more, not less. Though Middle East is all about overpowering and crushing your enemy to make him respect you, the excessively vindictive actions by Baghdad, and its welcoming of a foreign regime (IRGC) into this punitive takeover is likely to have the opposite effect. Baghdad's reimposition of power began with a crackown on Kurdish media - the banning of Kurdistan24 and Rudaw, two of the major local outlets, which have been providing detailed information about both the military action of the past few weeks and internal Kurdish matters of interest to their families in Syria, Turkey, and Europe, and enhancing the understanding of world leaders who would otherwise be uninformed about the alphabet soup of Kurdish parties and factions in the region.

This move signals illegitimacy of having a separate Kurdish identity, a bitter point for a nation of approximately 30 million people with distinct languages, culture, and indigenous roots in the region, but to this day without an independent state.  Second, it is an insurance policy that the international community will have no access to real-time information on the ground, and certainly not the English-language Kurdish take on it. There is a small coterie of Western journalists presence, but as the Israeli journalist Seth Frantzman has pointed out, they tend to rely on other Western journalists for information, and thus likely miss a great deal of internal dynamics and the full spectrum of regional narratives.  Lack of alternative information will go a long way towards creating an appearance of only one perspective: Baghdad's position, made public through official channels and formal meetings.  Whatever public support the Kurds are currently getting is largely fueled by the unrestricted access to their voices. The legitimacy of Baghdad's own actions are severely undermined by its move to squash down criticism from the significant portion of its population, and its ally in the war against ISIS.

Second, Baghdad has moved to pay salaries directly to the Kurdish civil servants, bypassing the KRG. This undermines the authority of the Kurdish leadership, and makes the Kurdish infrastructure heavily depended on, and thus potentially loyal to, Baghdad. For sure, even if the bulk of the Kurdish civilian forces grow resentful of this deprivation of a sense of autonomy, others will cling to security for their immediate situation, and Baghdad thus far successfully divides-and-conquers the already splintered Kurdish groups.  For the same reason, Abadi's forces are seeking to cut off Peshmerga access to the pipeline that delivers oil to Turkey, and to provide all oil to Turkey, bypassing the KRG. It's just another way of undermining Kurdistan, weakening its economy, undermining its business relationship with Turkey, and ensuring that Iraq is viewed as the central authority, whereas Kurdistan is merely a province with no independent power to make deals or provide anything of value to the region.

Third, Baghdad is seeking to undermine the use of Kurdish languages in the region, in order to weaken the sense of a national identity and common destiny among the Kurds in Iraq, as well as a sense of unity with the Kurds in other countries. The first sign of this cultural crackdown is the attack against a Kurdish official, who used his own language rather than Arabic, in a formal media setting. While Baghdad has not yet made this move an official policy, this disturbing incident is a sign of what it could do, and what it will likely do, following the example of Turkey, if Kurds continue to resist. Suppression of national culture is the best way to weaken a potentially rebellious or troublesome population. The Soviet Union has done that systematically to the Jews; Iran has persisted in its tactics against a whole host of national minorities; and Turkey before and during Erdogan has imposed fascist policies to ensure cultural conformity.

Fourth, Baghdad is looking to divide the minorities living in Kurdish area, and has already done so, in that various groups have associated themselves with Peshmerga, PMU (connected to Iran), or with Iraqi forces, that have been trained and armed by Americans.  At the same time, Iraqi forces claimed to have no control over the Iran-backed militias, that are retaking the territories, and have opened up civilians and minorities to potential exploitation and destruction by the militias.  Having gone as far as Al Qosh, these groups have threatened a Jewish historical site, and the Christian sites in the area.  And Christian groups have reached out to the international community to complain of threats directed at them by Hashd. Yet the forces have not stopped at the borders of areas that are of strategic and geopolitical importance to the Iraqi government. They have pushed out outwards, and have been repelled by Peshmerga in multiple places, and have made way in others. Although strictly speaking there has been a ceasefire, between Iraqis and Peshmerga, that has not affected non=Peshmerga Kurdish forces protecting civilians and minorities, and who are still under threat of Iran-backed militias and IRGC. At the same time, these moves are a clear indication that Baghdad is not seeking a truce. It is seeking domination and full control of the Kurdish population, a repressive and punitive one at that.

Thus far, the response from the international community, particularly from the United States, has consisted of calls for peace and agreement, support for Iraq's unity, and proposals of mediation to the tune of "why can't we just all get along". None of that was aimed at curbing Iraq's abusive behavior or at seriously reassuring our Kurdish allies as to the commitment of the US to their security, cultural preservation, and autonomy, even under our official position of preserving Iraq as a cohesive state - quite ironic, given that there is nothing indigenous about the Sykes-Picot treaty imposed on Iraq by the British. Furthermore, there is radio silence from the US administration as to the article 140 of the Iraqi constitution, assembled with the help of US State Department and top American lawyers, which provides for Kurdish independence. Certainly, such a provision would at the very least provide a level of recognition and provision for Kurdish rights.

And ironically, it is this potential suppression of Kurdish autonomy that provides the greatest justification to independence under international law. (The Katanga case). At the end of the day, however, any nation that feels oppressed or that is otherwise dedicated to independence and pursuit of its own destiny must come to terms of having to organize its forces into strong cohesive units, making at least temporary alliances with its factions abroad, procuring whatever is needed for strong offensive and defensive fronts, through subterfuge, if necessary, and being prepared for a military triumph and complete capitulation of its opponents. In other words, if Kurds want their own state, they are going to have to fight for it, and international support will emerge only once it becomes clear that they can actually win, and have the wherewithal to support their own state without anyone's help. It's not pretty, but this is how it worked out for Israel, which likewise was surrounded by overwhelming enemy forces, had very limited access to inferior weapons, and no international recognition - yet there she is, nearly 70 years later, small but independent.  I hope that the US administration will see that the Baghdad government is losing its own legitimacy with each oppressive step that it takes, that its direction comes from the Iranian ayatollahs and will do the only right and practical thing under the circumstances - change its policy to fully backing the Kurds and keeping the worst of Baghdad's actions at bay. But I wouldn't hold my breath or rely on that.  I would also not remain passive, waiting for miracles to happen or for these problems to resolve themselves. Time may very well be ripe for a Kurdish state - but are the Kurds themselves ready?