Overlooking Corruption and Authoritarianism Among Allies Leads to Abuse Of Our Humanitarian and Counterterrorism Aid

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/12/02/overlooking-corruption-and/

US policy of providing "counterterrorism" funding and humanitarian aid to authoritarian regimes, who claim to be allies, but who utilize that money to suppress criticism, political opposition, and minorities runs counter to its own interests in preventing radicalization in otherwise stable countries and liquidating terrorist groups in the region. We have seen how such misuse of funding worked to perpetuate slavery in Mauritania, where abolitions have been labeled "terrorists" in order to justify the expenditure of US aid to hunt down such critics. 

We are seeing the same pattern in Bangladesh, where the President of the opposition party BJP, Mithun Chowdhury, was just arrested.  The sudden arrest of the leader of the opposition in a country allegedly allied with the United States should be an international scandal, but has not received coverage from the press, no more so than a similar arrest of arrival during the elections in Cambodia. However, unlike Cambodia, which has been shifting in China's direction in months leading up to the elections, Bangladesh's formerly secular Awami Party claims continuous close cooperation with the United States.  In reality, Bangladesh's, Sheikha Hasna is pulling a fast one over the administration, continuing the pattern of the past several years - at the cost to the country's poor population, minorities, and political opposition. 

Human rights attorneys and activists are doing a poor service to the concerns of the most vulnerable in failing to bring to our attention the continuously deteriorating human rights situation in Bangladesh.  As human rights reports produced by such human rights workers who risked their lives inside the country as Shipan Kumer Basu, who have had to flee the country due to threats to their lives show,  under the auspices of the ruling Awami League party, the political opposition has been suffering brutality, facing extrajudicial assassinations and disappearances on a daily basis, has been deprived of due process at show trials, has seen the proliferation of fabricated and forced confessions to spurious charges, has been dealt unspeakable tortures in remand and in prisons, and is being systematically defamed in the press. As such, there is no meaningful alternative or check and balance inside the government, whether with respect to domestic issues or to foreign policy.

The roots of this grave and unsustainable situation go back to the history of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the formation of the Awami League. The Soviet Union has backed this overtly leftist party, which despite the stated secularism, has shown proclivities for violence and chaos more characteristic of totalitarian regimes than liberal democracies. Its historic rivalry with BNP, the leading opposition party, has been marked by mutual violence and distrust. However, the last few years have shown a drastic growth in attacks not merely on the BNP and other rival parties, but the attacks on the parliamentarian model of governance, and thus, on the fabric of the otherwise largely moderate and stable civil society.  The brutal suppression of any criticism under the pretense of counterterrorism, as well as the chaotic situation around the elections two years ago, led to allegations of widespread electoral fraud and BNP’s withdrawal from participation. Arguably, the current government is completely illegitimate, due to the failure of its leading opposition party to participate in the last elections.

However, with the elimination of its chief rival, the Awami League, led by the strongwoman Sheikh Hasina, only intensified its attacks on the opposition and other leaders. Such attacks have been highly damaging to Bangladesh’s claims to democratic governance and participation in respected international organizations alongside the United States. Last year, the then- newly appointed co-secretary of the BNP, Aslam Chowdhury has been arrested and put under remand, which has been extended, under the trumped charges of sedition. His alleged crime? Mr. Chowdhury happened to have been invited to India’s BJP party youth conference, where an Israeli lobbyist also was in attendance. The two interacted with each other, as well as with hundreds of other participants. Bangladesh does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Still, an incidental meeting has been used to accuse BNP, as well as other rival parties, of sedition and conspiracy to overturn the existing government. Several BNP activists and leaders including Mr. Chowdhury have been arrested in a very public manner. Under the remand, the accused, who have recently been officially charged, have no access to lawyers, and their communication with the outside world is extremely limited. They are allowed no visitors, and their condition is quite grave. Torture is a widespread method of extracting false confessions from individuals under remand, as countless accounts of victims have shown.  Already, the Awami League has threatened to utilize Mr. Chowdhury’s alleged comments in remand to arrest his alleged accomplices and to undermine the very existence of BNP, in essence opening a witch hunt against the entirety of Bangladesh’s opposition and leading the country in a very dangerous direction.

This disturbing series of events threatens the stability of Bangladesh and its neighbors, and places strain on the development of future relations between Bangladesh and the United States. Bangladesh participates in such institutions as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and World Trade Organization. The countries engage in a strong trade relationship. Bangladesh is the beneficiary the largest assistance by the United States in Asia outside Afghanistan and Pakistan. The current predicament puts the wisdom of such assistance in question.  Deterioration of human rights, suppression of political opposition, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary detentions and arrests point in the direction of increased political risk in investment and trade. Much of the assistance that is meant to go towards the development of the country and counterextremism measures is likely being misused towards mass arrests of political opponents and critics of the government’s harsh measures and failure to observe the minimal due process. Rather than fighting terrorism, the Awami League fights the critics that keep its own foreign and domestic policy excesses in check. Governments that are largely authoritarian are not reliable partners in security, in trade, or in political processes. The increasing centralization of power in Bangladesh is a threat to U.S. interests in the region, be they opposition to extremism, peaceful development of relations with India, which is increasingly concerned by Sheikh Hasina’s erratic actions, and the stabilization and strengthening of the region vis-à-vis aggressive overtures from China. 

Furthermore, by engaging in public and widespread conspiracy theories against U.S. allies, such as Israel and India, the Awami League betrays the trust the U.S. government is placing into its growing partnership with this allegedly West-oriented party. The Awami League’s fearmongering and defamation against outside scapegoats can only lead to internal destabilization, ethnic clashes, and deterioration in diplomatic relations with other allies and partners.  Whether this current development is merely a natural succession to the last few years’ increase in centralization and Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial tendencies, or whether the current witch hunt against the opposition is a concerted attempt to distract from other, more disturbing developments, leaving such developments to continue unchecked will lead to further disrespect for the U.S. position, assistance, and diplomatic involvement in the country and the region.

I speak for 160 million Bangladeshis who surely deserve better than this untenable political situation when I call on  Congress and the administration to utilize their  collective strength, respect, and wisdom to exert influence on the course of events, before the Awami League’s disastrous actions render irreversible damage on Bangladesh-U.S. relations, and turn Bangladesh from a stable, developing, and moderate country into the Syria of South Asia, an outcome we simply cannot afford.  

 Please consider engaging in applying appropriate political pressures on the Awami League to

demand the immediate and unconditional release of Mr. Aslam Chowdhury . Mr. Miltun Chowdhury,and other political prisoners. demand that the government of Bangladesh cease and desist from any further politically motivated arrests, arbitrary detentions, conspiratorial statements and comments to the press, extrajudicial killings and assaults, and other unconscionable attacks on individual and political freedom

demand the review of any funding or other forms of assistance that go towards Bangladesh’s alleged counterextremism efforts and hold the ruling party accountable for any misuse of the U.S. goodwill, trust, and assistance.

Also, speaking on behalf of all the unjustly detained, all the tortured, all the disappeared and murdered individuals, I ask you to hold a public hearing focused on the increasingly authoritarian situation in Bangladesh, and the potential for Awami League to become a regional security threat and a force of aggression and destabilization in the area.

A an U.S. human rights lawyer,  I surely speak with reason when I say that the U.S. taxpayers deserve better than to subsidize an illegitimate authoritarian government which defames our allies, tortures and murders opposition, and misuses the funding that should be going towards the fight against terrorist groups to go after legitimate critics of its policies.

Obama, Trump, foreign policy, and the Amazing Party Support Switcheroo

Obama and the Iran Deal.

The left: Obama is playing the long game.

The Right: Obama is endangering US national security, Israel, and world stability.

Trump ignoring Iran as it makes progress throughout the Middle East; Hamas and Hizbullah making deals.

The left: Trump has no idea what he's doing; this is a disaster.

The right: Trump is playing the long game; he knows what he's doing, you just don't have all the information. He'll first take out ISIS, and then he'll deal with Iran.

ISIS is taken out.

The left: So what about Iran and all the oil

The Right: Don't worry about it; Trump will take care of everything.

This sort of "logic" didn't work for me under Obama, and it doesn't work for me now.

I see no reason to trust the government, when the government is clearly being short-sighted and/or incompetent.

How US Unequivocal Support for Iraqi Nationalism Will Lead to Radicalization and Extremism

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/how-us-unequivocal-support-for-iraqi-nationalism-will-lead-to-radicalization-and-extremism/

Seth Frantzman, in a recent article, analyzes US position of neutrality on Baghdad takeover of Kirkuk, and further silence on the alleged human rights violations, and punitive actions such as the shut down of Kurdish press, Kurdistan24 and Rudaw. In sum, the thinking is that encouraging Iraqi nationalism, which is based in substantial part in anti-Kurdish sentiment, US will turn Iraq away from Iranian influence, and unify the country under the Saudi Arabia aegis against the spread of Iranian influence. The idea there is that if the Shi'a Iraqi government aligns with the Sunni KSA, together they can counter Iran. And indeed, Iraq has signed a corresponding defense treaty with KSA. However, that is not a meaningful agreement for two reasons: first, Iraq will do just about anything to play all sides, including the US, which has been arming its army. Second, KSA is far away, and Iran is close. Abadi and the Islamic Republic has been getting along quite nicely, and Abadi invited Iran to participate in takeover of Kirkuk. It clearly does not see Iran as a threat, though KSA does. And when forced to choose between its Shi'a neighbor, which has helped Iraq with the Kurdish issue and the Sunni Saudi Arabia, which is known to sympathize with Iraq's Sunni population, tribal and religious considerations will prevail over piece of paper.

The fact that the United States does not realize that shows the extent of ignorance of our foreign policy leaders of the cultures, which they are now trying to bring together through fictitious borders and imaginary alliances. The British, when they did the same, at least cynically imposed divisions to perpetuate their own power. The US leaders actually believe that this policy is going to work and that it's in the best interests of the Middle East and the United States. It is quite amazing.  This vision of a Baghdad-Riyadh alliance puts aside the dream of a free and democratic Kurdistan. The reason for this groupthink at top levels may be deeply rooted in the underlying psychological need to stay consistent. In other words, the US has already invested so heavily into Baghdad, that having realign its policy now would be equivalent to conceding defeat. In other words, the excuse that this is all about American interests is rational, but the reasoning behind is not. Otherwise, the weight that the US would be giving to other considerations would be at least equal to its own wishful thinking to see this implausible alliance of Iraq and Saudi Arabia to work for more than five minutes, until Iran decides that it should be otherwise.

Much has already been said and written about the potential boons of an independent Kurdistan for the United States - a trading partner with a vibrant economy, a buffer state against Iran's and Turkey's expansionist ambitions, a new model of indigenous evolutionary liberalization, a friendly state, open to Western values and partnership with Israel. All of these potential benefits, in the eyes of the generals, who are spearheading US foreign policy in the Fertile Crescent, is of less interest than having Iraq not be quite-so-pro-Iran.  There is no official analysis on how such calculations are figured, but there is also a darker side of this conversation that likewise does not appear to figure into the equation: the potential for the radicalization of the Kurdish region. Neither friends nor critics are particularly interested in touching on this sensitive topics. Those, who favor independent Kurdistan focus the bulk of their attention on the perceived betrayal by the US - in other words, a valid, but largely emotional talking point, whereas the critics cite the dubious benefits of yet another tribal Muslim state at the cost of weakening another ally - Iraq. The underlying working assumption, however, is that the US decisionmakers are correct in one way: Kurdish independence will bring greater instability than Kurdish "remain", at least in the short term.

Such position relies on the erroneous assumption that Iraq is open to various potential positions, and will pivot in the desirable direction if only the United States will do what Baghdad claims needs to be done to earn its favor - return the oil fields to Abadi's forces without a question, stay moot on the Kurds, encourage peace talks through gentle rhetoric, and ignore the Iran-backed militias and IRGC presence in the vicinity. If only the US does all these things, at some point, all will be well. IRGC will not do much damage beyond security the territory for Iraq and ensuring that the rebellious Kurds will not tempt its own Kurdish population; Turkey is all talk; ISIS has been taken care of, and US can reap the boons of its cynical wisdom. Such wishful thinking is no more practical than believing that Kurdish independence will come without a bloody fight against a variety of regional forces. That's not a commentary on the morality or benefits or likelihood of such a move; that's just a statement of logical observation based in the Middle Eastern dynamics. You get what you are willing to fight for, and only if you win with overwhelming force. In the meantime, US is so focused on its own line of reasoning that it ignores major red flags that undermine its position.

First, Iraq has already and openly pivoted to Iran. The actions of the last few weeks demonstrate it amply. US reasoning that by sacrificing Kurdistan it can stop Iraq from growing closer to Iran is not only mistaken; it is nothing short of appeasement.  Iran's interest is regional dominance. Abadi, if he wants to stay in power in the region, needs to abide by Iran's decisionmaking. It will, therefore, cooperate to whatever extent necessary that it is seen as a fully ally, reliable in supporting Iran's ambitions.  Iran will not stop at building IRGC military basis and headquarters in Kirkuk, nor does it make it any sense to stop when there is no resistance from anyone.

Second, Iran's presence in the Kurdistan area far exceeds what can be gauged from the coverage, especially after Kurdistan24 and Rudaw were shut down. According to one source, Iran has as many as 700 secret houses in Suleimanya alone. If that's accurate, it's quite plausible that Iran has extensive presence, both overt and clandestine, in every corner of Kurdistan. And it is there to stay, long-term.  From disputed territory between Baghdad and Erbil, Kirkuk province are becoming occupied territories, essentially colonized by Iran. If Iran continues to grow its military presence in the area, and there's every reason to believe that without a war, Iran is not going anywhere, the next step is indoctrination of the local population - ranging from forced conversions to political brainwashing.

It may already be building schools, whereas Western educational opportunities in the region are woefully missing. Furthermore, with Baghdad banning all commercial flights in and out of  Erbil, and potentially cutting off access to Syrian and Turkish overpasses, Kurds are not only economically isolated, but become wholly dependent on Baghdad and Tehran for humanitarian aid, educational maintenance, and even the news.And Iran is likely to radicalize the local Shi'a population through joint educational programming.  The religious element may prevail over tribal concerns, if Iran is seen as an economic benefactor, rather than an oppressor to the Iraqi majority. Meanwhile, it is taking every step to show who's the boss. Iran is opening up its border with Kurdistan - that is a sign that the regime has achieved a decisive military and psychological victory. It has nothing to fear from the Kurds.

At the same time, however, the support of nationalist sentiments among Iraqis is taking a turn less towards unity and more into anti-Kurdish xenophobia. Already, a Kurdish journalist was stabbed to death in Kirkuk. Iranian militias, not Iraqi forces, arrested dozens of young Kurds in a cafe in Kirkuk. Their fate is unenviable, as anyone, familiar with the brutality of the regime and its treatment of rebellious ethnic minorities will testify. And religious minorities all over the Kurdish region are threatened by the IRGC and the Iran=backed militias. Jewish and Christian sites near Al Qosh are in danger. Multiple Christian and Yazidi groups have expressed concern.  Militias are on full alert protecting civilians, yet they are outnumbered and outgunned by the well-equipped Iraqi forces, and the Iran=backed militias that are not answerable to Abadi's command.  This destabilization is precisely what US support for national unity was supposed to prevent. Instead, it is turning into the scapegoating and vendetta against the Kurds.

Third, these divisions are likely to be exploited by Sunni extremist groups, like Al Qaeda and remnants of ISIS and their ilk. Seemingly defeated, these groups await opportunity for strife in order to make a triumphant comeback, sow discord, and take advantage of other violent situations.  And ideological extremists will surely take the opportunity to appeal to the disenfranchised groups, proselytize among embittered and marginalized Kurdish peripheral regions, and go after every resentful person or group left hopeless after the takeover of Kirkuk.

Worse still, if Iraq continues to try to destroy Kurdish nationalism and sense of identity, as it's doing now, the resistance that will arise will become increasingly radical and violent, and the potential for militant action, all the way to terrorism against civilians is not to be ruled out. We have seen the way the Soviet Union had sown chaos among Turkish Kurds, eliminating all nationalist groups except for the PKK, and turning PKK into a Soviet terrorist group (which after several decades finally reformed, but not before costing many lives of innocent civilians in the process). Interestingly, Russia is moving back into Kurdistan, and is seeking a closer relationship with the Kurds. It's also looking to utilize them more in Syria.  That Russia will use this opportunity to play on the anti-American backlash through what is widely perceived as betrayal is quite obvious.

To make a long story short, the downside to the chimeric US strategy involving the one-sided coddling of Baghdad to the exclusion of all other interested parties, is that instead of building bulwarks against extremists, including Iran, which is the whole goal of this exercise, the US is actually making active enemies out of absolutely everyone in the region, strengthening the potential for extremism, and allowing radical actors to assume the vacuum of leadership, all in the name of unity and the US interests. But the region united by extremism is not in the US interests at all, and neither is giving up opportunities for economic investments and partnerships fall into the hands of Russia and Iran, which have not done anything positive with any place they have ever been involved in.

The administration should snap out of this dangerous delusion quickly, and start drawing and enforcing boundaries for its "ally" Baghdad, which include, first and foremost, getting Iran and out of the picture completely, and only then creating positive bilateral and equanimeous conditions for further negotiations. It should send a clear signal to Kurds that their identity is recognized and respected, and to all other actors, that US has a central role to play in the region, and that chaos and extremism of any sort is not an option and will not be tolerated - not after all the lives the US has sacrificed to get to where we are today. Most importantly, the US should remember that alliances among former enemies are temporary, and for that reason Iraqi-Saudi alliance cannot be relied upon to last.

But strong long-term relationship among groups of people who have a baseline of common interests, values, and a history of fighting together for common goals can endure and move in the most positive direction. We should not continue following the same failed policy of putting all our eggs in one basket (in this case, Abadi), only to be bitterly disappointed and face new crisis yet again.  We have the luxury of hindsight to make better, more informed decisions, and the richness of our experience to build a better, more secure future for ourselves, and the world that we want to live in.

Talking About Islamophobia

So I've had this conversation with various people about ten thousand times for the last few years, as to what extent American/Western Muslims should be expected to speak out after each Islamist terrorist attack. Needless to say, most reasonable people don't expect every person to go out in public with condemnations, for obvious reasons. However, this is something that hasn't been said: to the extent that Muslim ORGANIZATIONS or individuals who take it upon themselves to claim to speak for any particular segment of the American Muslim population (or even for all of them), which is... odd, but whatever, choose to make statements on this issue on their own, what really comes off as fake sorrow if they equivocate about condemning the terrorism, by referencing either Israel, US public policy, events in other countries, or in some other way minimize the nature of this occurrence. And a big red flag for me is whenever ANYONE talks about Islamophobia or backlash immediately following the condemnation of the attack. 

The immediate question here is: "What is your real agenda, and who are you actually worried about?". I've seen this all the time. Even if you have any sort of evidence that leads you to believe that there MAY be this sort of backlash, hold that thought until, you know, the day after. Most of the time, however, there is zero evidence pointing towards mass anti-Muslim rampages in this country following such events. It just doesn't happen. So such comments make it clear that the speaker simply tries to divert from the issues by making Americans seem as bad as the terrorist. By the way, non-Muslims who do that, come across exactly the same way. And I see such people as facilitators of extremely dangerous trends. And also, I have yet to see any of these human rights defenders express any strong sentiments concerns after terrorist attacks happen in Muslim countries, and target minority mosques or other central locations. There is no concern about "backlash". Does that mean that only Americans are so hateful and biased that they could be suspected of hating on people they associate with the terrorist? This is sthe sort of thing that deserves the most vocal condemnation, but instead our media, poltiicians, and non-profits encourage this type of utterly hypocritical and unhelpful discourse.

Extreme Vetting? Not If You Don't Have Specialists

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

The Anti-Climactic Defeat of ISIS

The defeat of ISIS in Raqqa, Mosul, and other places, has been oddly anti-climactic for several reasons:

1. We in the West are not the ones who received the majority of suffering in the hands of these vicious brutes.

2. Media coverage had largely focused on the graphic coverage of the atrocities, much less on the battles that forced ISIS to cede territory inch by inch.

3. Domestic afffairs and trepidation over the Iran deal next steps takes up the majority of time and space in the US in particular.

4. The Defeat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq frees its prisoners, but does not affect matters in Libya and other parts of the world where iSIS still has a foothold or is actually growing; Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are making a comeback; evil state actors are taking advantage of the chaos to assert themselves in the region. Russia's and Iran's growing control of Syria is at least as troubling as ISIS presence there. Destroying ISIS was a matter of political will. Getting rid of state actors, which are building naval basis and gaining control and even fealty of entire populations would be much harder.

Furthermore, ISIS was much better at bad-boy PR. Practically everyone in the West perceived that group as an extreme threat and a top priority to destroy; large swaths of Westerners do not care about Syria at all, as long as Syria doesn't come to the US in the form of ISIS or refugees; and most people don't seem to care all that much that Russia is in control in Syria, even when people perceive it as antithetical to our own goals in the region. Furthermore, Turkey's encroachment into that space bothers very few people, because that whole region seems far away, and largely irrelevant except to the extent that it gives us more opportunity to waste money on inept operations.

5. I doubt much will change when Iran builds a base in Syria and completes the land corridor to Lebanon. Unless people perceive an immediate threat to their personal interests or unless the visuals are gruesome and shocking, most people will care a lot more about what's going on at home than in a country that is barely even a country anymore.

I find all of this disheartening because so many people sacrificed so much standing up to ISIS, while barely receiving any aid from the United States. Now that they've cleared up the mess that US has allowed to take root through incompetent policies and dithering by the Obama administration, they once again will be abandoned, because the US has been focused so single-mindedly on the defeat of ISIS, even though it was clear from the start that the state actors operating in the region are more powerful, more dangerous, better trained & equipped, and will be around for far longer. I think our problems are actually just getting started.

Terrorists of the World, Unite!

Now that Hamas and Fatah formed a unity government, how will the US government in good conscience continue justifying paying money to terrorists?

And how will the political hacks in Israeli intelligence circles continue making the claim that having these terrorists on the dole somehow promotes peace? 

Bibi is not Putin, and Hamas isn't Chechnya. You cannot buy them off, as we have seen time and time again.

Decertification is Not Enough; We Must Declaw and Defang Iran to Prevent Greater Bloodshed

Let me spell it out: whether you recertify or decertify, stay or go, unless Iran is completely and utterly isolated, all this running commentary are merely pinpricks and distractions.

Iran has ALREADY secured major investments from European firms and has strong commitments from China, its top trading partner.

Russia is providing Iran with weapons.

North Korea is likewise cooperating on ballistic missiles.

Unless US ALSO gets China on board, our own sanctions will have very limited effect.

The reasons any sanctions were working against Iran before the nuclear deal was precisely because Iran was basically brought to its knees and treated as an international pariah.

Going after IRGC would, in this context, have to mean more than just shallow designations and rhetoric. It would mean: "shoot on sight". IRGC and ALL OTHER militant Iranian entities and proxies would have to be regarded as adversaries, not just annoyances.

Our entire strategy would have to be reoriented not merely towards fighting Hezbullah and other Shi'a groups in the battlefields in Syria but going after them everywhere with the goal of obliterating them entirely.

Nothing in what Trump or any of his associates are saying shows any such determination.

Throwing the issue back to Congress means that MAYBE the administration would be willing to sign off on some of the sanctions bills (provided they are not lost among unrelated pork and watered down by leftist interests - which they are likely to be).

Congress can fund and defund programs related to our mechanisms of war or impose sanctions and recommend entities for blacklisting. Congress cannot by itself redirect all of foreign policy.

Unlike many who are giddy with excitement about the upcoming and belated decertification, I view this discussion as a waste of time along the lines of the 'too little-too late" department.

If we are serious about this, we are going to have to do A LOT MORE than pat ourselves on the back for largely symbolic gestures. We are going to have to drag our allies on board; we are going to have to push the president's national security team towards reorganizing against all things Iran, we are going to have to view what's coming as a non-lethal total war.

How I learned to stay calm and love the Taliban

The new administration's strategy in Afghanistan is basically to bomb the Taliban until their will is broken and they come to negotiating table. All of that will require several thousand more US troops and likely years of engagement.

Let me translate that for you: it means that after 16 years of trying to destroy the Taliban, the US now believes that it's not only OK but desirable to negotiate with Taliban, and that after all the lives lost, US would be ok with the Taliban being potentially part of the Afghani government.

That was the part of President Trump's big speech on Afghanistan that I found most disturbing, and as I now see, my fears bore out.  We spent years trying to liberate Afghanistan from an entity that was no better than Al Qaeda, but regional, and which turned Afghanistan into an oppressive quagmire after the Soviet Union left.  We were first against them before we were for them. Being ok with Taliban as part of Afghanistan is completely incompatible with our other stated goals for continuing to stay in Afghanistan: stability, democracy, and security. First off, Taliban is already backed by Russia and Iran.  We are then stating that depending on how negotiations go (and Taliban without a question will want some permanent role in the government - or they will continue to recruit and die trying, because that's what mujahedeen are trained to do), we are ok with Russia and Iran playing a central role in that country. Why don't we just skip the fighting part, engage in direct negotiations with these two states over the future of Aghanistan, and ask them to help us with Taliban in exchange for playing a direct and stabilizing role in the government? That's essentially what's actually happening.

China and India will not be ok with each other or with this turn of events. China is interested in mining opportunities, and Afghanistan's role in the regional network of roads that is part of its geopolitical ambitions. India sees China as a major threat. Having these two states engaged in Afghanistan simultaneously guarantees tensions. Mattis claims that he will put pressure on Pakistan to stop supporting terrorists, such as Taliban and Al Qaeda that are flowing in and out of Afghanistan and finding a safe haven in Pakistan. But at the hearing he himself stated that the Pakistani government is ready to play ball, but the ISI, Pakistan, secretive and scary spy agency, is playing its own game. And ISI cares little about sanctions, and appears out of control significantly more so than the government. To complicate matters, Pakistan is significantly more dependent on China than it is on the United States, which means we must get China on the same page. China may not necessarily want to support a failed states run by terrorist organizations because it threatens regional stability and its own economic ambitions,, but so far, it's been perfectly ok with having Pakistan on the dole as is.  And if China agrees to be helpful, that will likely be in exchange for having us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

As for democracy and liberalization, those two concepts are foreign to Afghanistan. It was for a time more liberal under Soviet occupation, but the Soviet occupation would have proved short-lived even without our backing of the mujahedeen, because for a variety of historical and geographic fctors, it's extremely difficult to occupy a country such as Afghanistan, highly tribal, surrounded by mountains, and strongly opposed to foreign occupants. No empire had lasted very long, and neither would have the Soviets. Without substantially changing the culture and mindset of the locals, democracy and liberal values are just not going to stick. Security and stability can only be guaranteed when various types of terrorists, drug lords, and state actors are done fighting it out over this piece of territory and passages to the outside world. THat is the bitter reality Mattis was not acknowledging. If the only goal here is to diminish the influence of Taliban as such, he should have said so. However, implying that Taliban alone is the root of all evil is naive and disingenuous. Multiple terrorist organizations are finding Afghanistan a safe haven, the drugs flowing out of the country are funding international terrorism, not just Taliban, and Iran is using Afghanistan as a drug supply route for its own reasons. Furthermore, Iran is recruiting Afghan children to fight in Syria, further radicalizing the population.    Plus some of the state actors involved believe in maintaining a perpetual state of war for reasons of facilitating arms trade, distracting from their own activity elsewhere, and utilizing it to weaken the United States and other countries they see as opposing their own geopolitical ambitions.

At this rate, it won't take 3000 people and several more years. It will take many tens of thousands of people and decades to achieve even what is stated to be the goal. Taliban is not going anywhere without a bloody fight, and will try to drag as many people with them in the process as possible. And having Taliban as part of the government is implicitly legitimizing them anyway. If US is basically saying that they want Taliban to be viewed as a negotiating partner, they are implicitly undermining whatever limited authority the Afghani government already has. It's big schtick with the population was that it's fighting the Taliban. If it cannot even be seen as strong enough to destroy the Taliban as an entity even with all the US help, then what legitimacy does it have, and how is it preferable to the Taliban that is NOT giving up on its ultimate goal of domination? And the US is also undermining its own moral case for being involved in Afghanistan in the first place, without, by the way, in any way guaranteeing that none of this will eventually come back to bite US in other places around the world.

Jewish museum threatened for screening a film in support of Peshmerga

The Museum of Jewish Heritage, which screened Bernard-Henri Levi's documentary about Peshmerga, received terrorist threats. Levi just managed to get out before the airplane ban was implemented by Iraq, and barely made it on the last plane out of Erbil. Just to receive threats in NYC.

Let this sink in.

We're becoming THAT kind of a society.

Paddock: A Selfish Loon or a Terrorist?

Terrorists are counting on their actions to have mass effect.

They are looking to maximize the number of victims and to spread  panic among the public.

Whatever Stephen Paddock's affiliation, political background, or underlying views, there is no question that he was looking to facilitate the greatest number of victims. The issue is whether he was merely seeking revenge on the world for some perceived personal wrong or whether he was politically motivated.

I tend to doubt that it was some professional grievance, such as a firing, that set him off, because this action was not taken against his past employers. Either there was some deeply personal issue no one knows about involving country music, Las Vegas, or some group of people he had a grievance with, or there was some underlying social or political point he was trying to make, and I think the latter is more likely based on how much care he appears to have taken to hide his motivations.

Many mass shooters who are not politically motivated have a history of aggressive self-expression, rhetoric, drawings, or odd behavior that catches attention along the way but is not analyzed and processed in good time. It's indeed possible that Paddock's family and close associates simply ignored what should have been obvious red flags.

But even careful planners of mass shootings generally give away some level of grievance over time. If Paddock's brother is accurate, and the murderer was so secretive that no one knew what he was up to nor had any reason to believe that something extraordinary was going on, he was likely involved in some social or political cause.

Active Shooter Training Saves Lives

I hate to say it, but IF there was just one guy (the one who killed himself - Paddock), who had ten guns, then at some point he would have had to reload or change his guns. If only someone had shot him or a group of people jumped him at that time, many lives may have been saved. There should be active shooter training in every city.

Turkey's Extortionism Pays Off

Turkey is holding an evangelical US pastor hostage. Erdogan is trying to extort the US into giving up his political enemy, Fetullah Gullen, in exchange for the American. Yet President Trump continues to do business as usual with this terrorist regime, that is holding a US citizen on trumped-up charges, and recently cut an airplane deal with the Erdogan regime. That's called negotiating from a position of weakness. Where's that in the "Art of the Deal", Mr. President? How can you consider a country that is detaining your citizens for no reason an ally or a business partner? Are there no other non-terrorist states that would be willing to buy our planes? Are we so desperate for Erdogan's "friendship"? In addition to attacking peaceful protesters on US soil, detaining US citizens on trumped-up charges should be considered an act of aggression, punishable by sanctions against everyone involved.

Global Magnitsky Act, A Valuable Tool, Woefully Underutilized

Question for the masses:

Global Magnitsky Act has been signed into law in 2016, yet is only starting to get implemented now. Despite a potentially infinite number of candidates, it is not being used all that much. Most of the sanctions against truly bad actors is based off of their terrorist activity, illicit military action, or nuclear proliferation.

Why do you suppose we don't utilize available actions for enforcement to the full extent? By the way, if there are any specific entities or individuals from any country you would like to "nominate" for consideration, please feel free to send to me publicly or privately. I'm also posting this on the blog.

Normalization of Terrorism in Israel

Of the three Israeli soldiers who were murdered by the terrorist, one was of Ethiopian background, one was Arab, and one was a light-skinned guy.

Terror does not discriminate by race, religion, or origin.

Palestinian attacks against Israel have killed Jews, Christians, Muslims, Druze, civilians, soldiers, citizens, tourists, visitors, foreign workers, men, women, children, people of all ages and all backgrounds.

The Western press barely covers these bloody and terrible murders, unless the terror attack is of such numerical magnitude as to attract mass attention.

Terror against Israelis has been normalized. We hardly pay attention, same as we hardly pay attention to slave trade in Libya, or terrorist explosions in Afghanistan.

This is what normalization of hatred, evil Islamist ideology, and terror looks like.