Saturday, October 21, 2017
Doesn't Add Up
Once again, you cannot maintain that the President is both a brilliant genius who can outsmart anyone at anything and 8 months into the presidency to maintain that he is a helpless hostage of the Deep State (Which he insists on not replacing), while his own appointees refuse to expose the Obama staff's iniquities.
Time for the President to Stop Hiding Behind the Obama Holdovers and to Own His Policies
OK, here's something I don't understand.
An Obama holdover has not only not been replaced, but been allowed to remain the same position, undermining the new Iranian strategy and lying to his boss, to the agency he serves, to the President, and to the entire country.
After he is duly outed, nothing is done, and in fact other agencies, double down on his lies and terrilble advice and pursue the same course of action.
You know how that's possible, that Rex Tillerson, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all going along with the adversarial ideology of one State Department employee?
Because a) they agree with it and b) that's in effect, an order that comes directly from the PResident. That's the only way how all these agencies could continue with their course of action.
Time for the President to stop hiding behind the Obama holdovers and to own his policies.
An Obama holdover has not only not been replaced, but been allowed to remain the same position, undermining the new Iranian strategy and lying to his boss, to the agency he serves, to the President, and to the entire country.
After he is duly outed, nothing is done, and in fact other agencies, double down on his lies and terrilble advice and pursue the same course of action.
You know how that's possible, that Rex Tillerson, the Pentagon, and the CIA are all going along with the adversarial ideology of one State Department employee?
Because a) they agree with it and b) that's in effect, an order that comes directly from the PResident. That's the only way how all these agencies could continue with their course of action.
Time for the President to stop hiding behind the Obama holdovers and to own his policies.
Guess Who Opposed Standing Up To Russia?
Blast from the past: Hillary Clinton vehemently opposed the Magnitsky Act.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
The entire Obama's administration unseemly opposition to that legislation is detailed in Bill Browder's Red Notice.
Unwarranted Hysteria Over George W. Bush's Speech
I hate to say it, but all the Trump apologists who were bashing George W. for allegedly attacking Trumpism have just taken a page out of the leftist playbook. Not in terms of being effective Alinskyites, but in terms of jumping the gun and embarrassing themselves and their leader. You know how insecure leftists get when you read some awful quote and it sounds like it could have been Obama and Hillary but it turns out to be someone else together? Or, you make a general statement condemning corruption or some such and they immediately jump in assuming that you are talking about O.?
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh because such assumptions are generally a sign of the guilty conscience? Well, in this instance, that's exactly what happened. The White House correctly issued a statement that no one there took Bush to be referring to Trump (and in fact, he spent a great deal of his speech bashing the left, and the racist intersectionalists)... but Trump's supporters immediately assumed it was about him.
Why exactly would anyone make comments that Bush was bashing Trump, when the context was clearly about the left unless deep inside you think that if he HAD meant Trump, he may have had a point>? Why are Trump's OWN die-hard supporters giving ammunition to the left? To be sure, Bush is no great example of conservatism. Neither is Trump himself. But what kills me is when allegedly super-conservative elements of the party begin to attack everyone around them as not conservative enough in an attempt to defend their party leader who is not conservative at all, and as a result, make themselves look foolish. Stop it already. You want party unity? Begin with yourself.
And we all laugh and laugh and laugh because such assumptions are generally a sign of the guilty conscience? Well, in this instance, that's exactly what happened. The White House correctly issued a statement that no one there took Bush to be referring to Trump (and in fact, he spent a great deal of his speech bashing the left, and the racist intersectionalists)... but Trump's supporters immediately assumed it was about him.
Why exactly would anyone make comments that Bush was bashing Trump, when the context was clearly about the left unless deep inside you think that if he HAD meant Trump, he may have had a point>? Why are Trump's OWN die-hard supporters giving ammunition to the left? To be sure, Bush is no great example of conservatism. Neither is Trump himself. But what kills me is when allegedly super-conservative elements of the party begin to attack everyone around them as not conservative enough in an attempt to defend their party leader who is not conservative at all, and as a result, make themselves look foolish. Stop it already. You want party unity? Begin with yourself.
Friday, October 20, 2017
My article on the Iran decertification published in JPost
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Trumps-Iran-policy-shift-should-be-the-first-step-of-a-more-aggressive-approach-507777
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Jerusalem Post Opinion
TRUMP’S IRAN POLICY SHIFT SHOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A MORE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH
> 'Decertifying' Iran deal, Trump to propose new, unilateral terms
BY IRINA TSUKERMAN OCTOBER 18, 2017 20:56
Trump's recent 'decertification' of the nuclear deal signals the possibility of a new era of American foreign policy.
Trump’s Iran policy shift should be the first step of a more aggressive approach
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump speaks about Iran and the nuclear accord at the White House on Friday. (photo credit:REUTERS)
US President Donald Trump’s speech on the shift in Iran policy last Friday was a welcome relief from the Obama administration’s apologetic and self-serving rhetoric, as well as its series of foreign policy steps leading up to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which allowed for chaos in Syria, ignored as long as possible the fate of American prisoners in Iran and left the world, and the United States, more vulnerable to terrorism and ballistic missile attacks than ever before.
Trump condemned the extensive Iranian malfeasance in strong, unequivocal terms and vowed to move away from the policy of appeasement that only played into the hands of the ruthless regime that demands respect for its national sovereignty while contributing to violent uprisings and civil wars in a number of nations in the neighborhood.
It is a good first step, and psychologically important for both the US and its allies alike. Moral leadership is of the essence in a world increasingly plagued by a lack of clarity and courage. That said, and as Senator Ted Cruz has put it, all economic, diplomatic and if necessary, military options must be explored with regard to Iran.
The current shift in policy, while a promising beginning, is neither entirely new nor sufficient, and we should not be misled into believing that it will solve all problems. In reality, the White House’s designation of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, crackdown on human rights abuses, and other steps delineated in the speech were all parts of the policy shift outlined in this summer’s sanctions package passed by Congress and signed into law by President Trump.
What is left unstated in the numerous analyses of the speech provided by the full spectrum of pundits and journalists is that the “new” policy is merely a commitment to reinforcing existing law. The lawmakers who came out with positive statements with regard to the new speech are quite familiar with the legal provisions. No doubt they want to be supportive of the executive decision to finally do the right thing, but the question as to why it has taken so long to utilize the authority provided by Congress and enforce the mandatory provisions outlined in the law signed in July remains open. For that reason, it is hard to view this shift as anything particularly radical.
Furthermore, the enforcement of the anti-IRGC provisions, while a necessary step for security is by no means sufficient. It would allow the killing or arrest of such figures as Qasem Soleimani, and perhaps a greater focus on cracking down on entities that fund IRGC companies.
However, the US acting in isolation against Iran, where many Western countries are already heavily invested, would be an economic drop in the ocean.
And some of the worst violators of human rights may not be affiliated with IRGC. The prison wardens, guards, judges, doctors, and other non-military enablers of the regime remain beyond the reach of the law. And the non-IRGC intelligence agencies and military apparatus will continue to benefit from the sanctions relief and unfrozen assets provided by the terms of the JCPOA.
What’s worse, President Trump has asked Congress not to impose the new sanctions, which, as a public statement, will have unfavorable consequences for his own plan of actions. His comments signal that the administration has not yet recognized the full extent of the regime’s duplicity, providing it yet another opportunity to realign priorities and shift whatever illicit materials it may possess during an unspecified time period, while the US is cracking down on the IRGC, a step that Iran was already fully prepared for given the months of discussion and public statements in that regard. What’s missing from the new policy is an element of surprise vital to keeping the adversary off-balance. Congress recognizes the limitations of just focusing on terrorism, while ignoring other central concerns of the JCPOA.
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois) is already set to craft a new bill which would address this missing piece.
The bill would reimpose the original sanctions if Iran does not comply with the terms within six months: give access to inspects its military sites, stop all work on ballistic missiles. It would kill the rightfully maligned “sunset clauses.”
The trouble is, six months (providing the bill even passes, and passes quickly) is more than enough time for Iran to take further deceptive action. Time is the regime’s greatest friend and our worst enemy.
And for all we know, the military sites we have in mind are not even the sites where the bulk of illegal nuclear activity is taking place. The exiled Iranian People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran recently came out with a bold claim that this entire time, IRGC has been operating four new military sites where this work has been taking place. Whether or not this is “fake news,” the fact that the claim was made should be publicly acknowledged and discussed, and at the very least, investigation of such statements should be demanded. Yet, there was no mention of the likelihood of continuous nuclear proliferation in the new policy, with the brunt of the focus on the IRGC.
While we continue trying to placate the staunch supporters of the JCPOA, Iran is likely continuing to acquire the very capabilities JCPOA sought to prevent.
While we continue to focus our efforts on lists of terrorists, which will likely take many months to compile, and which will shift again and again as the clever IRGC members will suddenly leave the organization and to everyone’s surprise join up with other intelligence agencies or newly created organizations, the many non-IRGC terrorists, military personnel and civilian enforcers will continue to get away with murder. What we should be doing instead:
1. Reimpose sanctions immediately and lift them only after full inspection of all available military sites and investigation of suspected secret sites.
2. Create a set of sanctions that would focus less on particular organizational membership and more on the harmful/aggressive activity.
3. Engage in a much more efficient listing and enforcement of existing sanctions.
4. Penalize individuals and entities responsible for specific violations against US nationals, such as arbitrary detentions and imprisonment.
5. Reengage with our allies in bilateral and multilateral trade deals that would make their financial withdrawal from the risky and unsavory investments in Iran worth their while.
Unless we focus on Iran’s activity as a mutlifaceted problem that requires a holistic approach, the Islamic Republic will continue playing games, reaping the benefits of time extensions and breaks, while also growing increasingly stronger as a threat to our national security interests, and the well-being of our allies and the entire region.
The author is a human rights and national security lawyer based in New York.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Known Knowns
It's very interesting how some people during the Obama administration believed that unless you are basically advising the president you have no right to have an opinion as you obviously can't possibly be informed enough to critique or assess what's going on unless your opinion is supportive of the administration. Needless to say, on the polar opposite end were the people who'd applaud anything you say as long as it's critical of the Obama and the leftists. The moment Trump took office, something interesting happened.
You are no longer allowed to have an opinion unless 1. You approve of everything Trump does AND 2. If you do criticize anything out of this administration it has to come from a very specific angle that is dictated by the former Obama/Hillary people. So literally, the past two administrations you cannot express an opinion without getting a) either viciously attacked b) dismissed as an ignoramus or c) personally insulting somebody by the mere fact of having a different opinion.
Here's a thought: You don't have to be in any administration to have a valid assessment and critique of the events as they unfold. Curious and open-minded people of all backgrounds can and should ask questions, analyze, learn, and strive to be as informed as they can. No, you can't possibly know everything, and yes, a lot of the time, you won't find out the full story until much later, if ever. But that does not preclude you from having an opinion based on the information you have; and frankly, even with very limited information, it's sometimes fairly obvious that a particular course of action is simply not a good idea. Furthermore, people who are familiar with particular regions, and their history, and US history can sometimes be more well informed than people who are serving a political purpose and know nothing but the talking points they are told to regurgitate.
Also, "I know better than you simply because I have my sources, and you don't" is never a convincing argument. Not just because relying on ambiguous and unknown authorities is a logical fallacy, but because you don't always know what I know and how. :) I see this time and time again come up both on my own and other people's pages, and in private conversations where when I expressed a concurrence with a particular policy decision, I was told that I can't possibly know better than "employees of agency X", even though the issue had to do with a completely different agency, and no staff of any agency is ever completely unified in its opinion anyway. Basically, when people , instead of putting forth a logical argument as to why your position is incorrect, tell you "You know nothing, JOn Snow", it's the first sign that their own access to information is actually very limited and they are grasping at straws. People who really know and know better than you will
1. Either simply tell you what they know
2. Break down your own argument if they are not in a position to offer in public their own information
3. Ask questions that make you think
4. Say nothing.
99% of the time people who really KNOW will go with # 4.
And 99% of the time people who are in the best possible position to know are not the ones chatting on FB. :)
You are no longer allowed to have an opinion unless 1. You approve of everything Trump does AND 2. If you do criticize anything out of this administration it has to come from a very specific angle that is dictated by the former Obama/Hillary people. So literally, the past two administrations you cannot express an opinion without getting a) either viciously attacked b) dismissed as an ignoramus or c) personally insulting somebody by the mere fact of having a different opinion.
Here's a thought: You don't have to be in any administration to have a valid assessment and critique of the events as they unfold. Curious and open-minded people of all backgrounds can and should ask questions, analyze, learn, and strive to be as informed as they can. No, you can't possibly know everything, and yes, a lot of the time, you won't find out the full story until much later, if ever. But that does not preclude you from having an opinion based on the information you have; and frankly, even with very limited information, it's sometimes fairly obvious that a particular course of action is simply not a good idea. Furthermore, people who are familiar with particular regions, and their history, and US history can sometimes be more well informed than people who are serving a political purpose and know nothing but the talking points they are told to regurgitate.
Also, "I know better than you simply because I have my sources, and you don't" is never a convincing argument. Not just because relying on ambiguous and unknown authorities is a logical fallacy, but because you don't always know what I know and how. :) I see this time and time again come up both on my own and other people's pages, and in private conversations where when I expressed a concurrence with a particular policy decision, I was told that I can't possibly know better than "employees of agency X", even though the issue had to do with a completely different agency, and no staff of any agency is ever completely unified in its opinion anyway. Basically, when people , instead of putting forth a logical argument as to why your position is incorrect, tell you "You know nothing, JOn Snow", it's the first sign that their own access to information is actually very limited and they are grasping at straws. People who really know and know better than you will
1. Either simply tell you what they know
2. Break down your own argument if they are not in a position to offer in public their own information
3. Ask questions that make you think
4. Say nothing.
99% of the time people who really KNOW will go with # 4.
And 99% of the time people who are in the best possible position to know are not the ones chatting on FB. :)
Western Feminists Should Learn from Moroccan Ministry of Education
Congratulations to Morocco for banning the degrading niqab from classrooms.
People can express themselves however they wish on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't cause security problems, but the only signal of having women have their faces closed off in an educational environment is disparagement on the basis of simply being a woman. This is not about modesty, good behavior, or propriety. It's treatment of a woman as nothing but a sex object, whose very face is provocative and unworthy of being seen. It's dehumanizing and simply bad for society.
I am glad that the Moroccan government is looking to promote a focus on education, not on external matters, that were brought into the country by religious extremists from abroad. Kudos! And I hope this thoughtful step will signal to the "feminists" and "human rights activists" in the West that it's ok to make education about education, and that men and women should be treated equally as human beings. Protecting inherent humanity of both men and women is not Islamphobic.
People can express themselves however they wish on the streets and in the privacy of their homes, so long as it doesn't cause security problems, but the only signal of having women have their faces closed off in an educational environment is disparagement on the basis of simply being a woman. This is not about modesty, good behavior, or propriety. It's treatment of a woman as nothing but a sex object, whose very face is provocative and unworthy of being seen. It's dehumanizing and simply bad for society.
I am glad that the Moroccan government is looking to promote a focus on education, not on external matters, that were brought into the country by religious extremists from abroad. Kudos! And I hope this thoughtful step will signal to the "feminists" and "human rights activists" in the West that it's ok to make education about education, and that men and women should be treated equally as human beings. Protecting inherent humanity of both men and women is not Islamphobic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)