Tag Archives: Middle East

International news

Waiting for some language in Iran deal

The Iran nuclear deal is going to require some major salesmanship in the United States.

The “sales team” must be headed by President Obama, who now needs to persuade Americans — notably Republicans in both houses of Congress — that the deal brokered with Iran will prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/iran-nuclear-pact-stirs-hope-%e2%80%94-and-fear-%e2%80%94-of-new-political-order-in-mideast/ar-AAapd0E

But some of us — me included — are waiting for some language to appear in the framework agreement hammered out by U.S. and other nations’ negotiators.

The language should include something like this: “Iran agrees that it will not ‘weaponize’ uranium at any time, ever.”

I haven’t seen such language in all the discussion since the announcement of the framework.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says Iran will abide by the terms of the deal if the other side — meaning much of the rest of the world — lifts the economic sanctions against Iran. He says his leadership isn’t “two-faced” and does not lie.

That’s good enough for me — not!

My understanding of the agreement is that there will be careful monitoring of Iranian intentions as it moves ahead with what’s left of its nuclear program. Iran has said all along it intends to develop nuclear power for domestic energy consumption only.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemns the agreement, saying it “legitimizes” Iran’s nuclear program and poses a grave threat to Middle East and world peace. Netanyahu’s concern is legitimate, given Iran’s stated objective of wiping Israel off the face of the planet.

However, as long as the powers can keep all eyes on Iran to ensure that it complies with the nuts and bolts of the deal — which still have to be worked out — then Netanyahu will have far less to worry about in the future.

Still, I am waiting for some written commitment from Iran that it won’t build a nuclear bomb.

Just, you know, for the record.

 

International news

Forget the 'water's edge' stuff about foreign policy

It’s safe to suggest that the time-honored belief that partisanship ended at “the water’s edge” has now been inundated.

House Speaker John Boehner went to Israel this week and declared that the “world is on fire” and that the United States is doing too little to put it out. He offered a blistering critique of U.S. foreign policy while standing in the capital city of one our nation’s staunchest allies.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/boehner-israel-jerusalem-isil-netanyahu-iran-116600.html?hfp=t1_r

It’s a new day. Or perhaps it’s a continuation of an old way of thinking.

I don’t know which it is.

I do know that wherever he is, the late U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg is spinning in his grave.

It was Vandenberg, R-Mich., who criticized politicians for venturing overseas to criticize U.S. policymakers, coining the “water’s edge” definition of bipartisanship.

I’ve always thought it was wise to speak with a single voice, especially when politicians venture abroad to discuss foreign policy matters. Yes, I know that this affinity to blast presidents of the “other party” goes both ways and that Democratic pols have dissed Republican presidents as well as the other way around.

The speaker of the House, though, speaks with forked tongue when he warns of the world going up in flames and then promises to keep speaking out against the president of the United States — even as the world burns.

“I wouldn’t have believed that I would be involved in as much foreign policy as I am today,” Boehner said in Jerusalem. “And it certainly isn’t by choice. It’s just that the world is on fire. And I don’t think enough Americans or enough people in the administration understand how serious the problems that we’re facing in the world are.”

Is the speaker unaware that he well might be fanning those flames when he says such things?

 

International news

No deal on Iran nukes now looks possible

JUST IN: Parties agree to extend Iran nuclear talks until June.

***

So, what happens if Iran fails to strike a deal with other nations — including the United States — to end its nuclear enrichment program?

Might it be that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was right, that “no deal is better than a bad deal”?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/in-iran-talks-failure-is-an-option-116528.html?hp=rc1_4

The deadline comes at the end this day. There might be a framework for a deal that sets up a new deadline.

If not, well, then more sanctions are due. Perhaps even the “military option” if Iran weaponizes the uranium that other nations want it to surrender.

The prospect of no deal shouldn’t be of grave concern.

U.S. negotiators insist, as they should, that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. No one on Earth trusts a nuclear-powered Islamic Republic of Iran, which has stated its No. 1 mission is to destroy Israel. The Israelis haven’t said it in so many words, but they clearly stand ready to strike Iran if it gets a whiff of a nuclear weapon being on developed. President Obama has refused repeatedly to take a military strike off the table as well.

What constitutes a “bad deal”? It would be one that allows sanctions to be lifted over time, which reportedly is one of the options being considered by U.S. and allied negotiators. It’s the kind of deal that Netanyahu has warned shouldn’t be allowed to occur.

We are dealing with a seriously rogue nation. Let us treat it as such.

 

International news

Barack and Bibi: Let's make peace

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are speaking to each other.

That’s good.

Now it’s time for the next step. Let’s stop squabbling and get back to a public understanding that Israel remains this nation’s most critical Middle East ally and the two heads of government need to return to having each other’s back.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/white-house-to-bibi-israel-your-move-116491.html?hp=t2_r

Netanyahu fanned the flames of anger between Washington and Jerusalem when, during the final days of his parliamentary election, he backed off on his previous support for a Palestinian state. Then his Likud Party won control of the Knesset and Bibi said, in effect, “I didn’t really mean what I said about the Palestinian state.”

As Politico reported, Bibi’s backtracking hasn’t exactly been accepted fully by the White House: “The White House has worked to cool down the rhetoric and public tension. But it’s not letting go. When Netanyahu insisted during the congratulatory phone call Obama waited to make that he was already backtracking and they’d get past this, an unimpressed Obama responded by saying, sure, but you said what you said. He and his aides believe it’s now up to Netanyahu to repair a rift that they stress is only about the peace process, not the larger commitment to Israel.”

Everyone on the planet knows that U.S.-Israeli ties are rock-solid, no matter what President Obama is saying these days about the frayed state of bilateral relations. If the shooting were to start, Bibi knows Barack — or whoever succeeds him in January 2017 — will be there.

It’s time to put this nastiness to rest. Make up in public, gentlemen.

International news

Boehner to visit new best friend, Bibi

Pretend for a moment you’re a fly on the wall in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office in Jerusalem.

His guest is U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, who has just arrived for a visit with his new best friend.

http://news.yahoo.com/house-speaker-boehner-travel-israel-140420738–politics.html

The two of them are discussing U.S.-Israeli relations. How might that conversation go?

Bibi: Thank you for coming, John. I’m glad to see at least one high-ranking U.S. officials is willing to be seen with me.

Boehner: No sweat, Bibi. Glad to be here. If only the president could come to see you.

Bibi: I know, but that’s his problem, not mine. Tell me, how should this rift between us — Barack and me — play out?

Boehner: Well, I get that our countries are traditional allies. We’re as tight as any two countries ever have been. We’ve said we’d have your back if you’re attacked. I think that still stands.

Bibi: I hope so, but I’m beginning to have my doubts.

Boehner: OK, here’s what you do. Pick up the phone right there next to you, and dial the White House. Ask for the president. Tell him your concerns about our alliance.

Bibi: How’s he doing to react?

Boehner: I know the president pretty well, even though I once said I’d never negotiate with him. I think he understands the friendship our countries have and understands the consequences of changing that relationship.

Bibi: Are you saying this is my move?

Boehner: Yes. After all, I invited you to speak to Congress without consulting with the White House. You accepted it, also without consulting the White House. We ticked off the president together, you and me. So, call him.

Bibi: OK, then. I’ll do it. Let’s hope for the best.

***

That’s how it ought to go, in my view. I’m not holding my breath that it will.

 

International news

Bibi changes his tune on Palestinian state

You have to hand it to Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Israeli prime minister had us going for awhile. As the Israeli election drew near, he seemed to suggest that he was pulling back his support for a Palestinian state in the Middle East.

Then what happens? Bibi goes and wins re-election, his Likud Party keeps control of the Knesset and then he said, “Hey, I didn’t mean quite what I seemed to say just the other day.”

And to think some folks thought Bibi had emerged as the world’s premier statesman. It turns out he’s just like most of the rest of the world’s politicians: He’ll say just about anything to get elected.

Frankly, I’m glad he’s softening his tone on Palestine.

Bibi said on MSNBC: “I don’t want a one-state solution; I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution, but for that, circumstances have to change,” he said. “I was talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable. To make it achievable, then you have to have real negotiations with people who are committed to peace.”

Ah, yes. But as the New York Times reported: “The White House and European leaders had expressed alarm over Mr. Netanyahu’s pre-election statement, on the eve of what had seemed like a close race, that there would never be a Palestinian state as long as he remained in office.”

He’s back-pedaling from his pre-election hard line.

The Obama administration still doesn’t seem to trust him fully. The White House doubts his commitment to a two-state solution.

Whatever the case, Bibi shows that even would-be statesmen are capable of saying one thing in public and meaning something else in private.

 

International news

Is Bibi in trouble in Israel?

One of the things I learned about Israel when I visited the country for five weeks in the spring of 2009 is that its political diversity belies what some of us might have perceived about it.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is on the line in a national election this week and it remains within the realm of possibility that he might lose his office to someone from another party.

http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-leader-netanyahu-foreign-powers-want-push-075940929.html

Netanyahu’s Likud Party has cobbled together a governing coalition, which is being challenged even in the wake of imminent threat from neighboring powers — such as Iran.

Netanyahu came to the United States in early March and delivered a speech to a joint congressional session that was meant to rally support for his coalition back home. He spoke of the need to impose greater sanctions on Iran. He did so while the U.S. government is seeking to negotiated a deal that ends Iran’s nuclear program; as such, President Obama opposes new sanctions, right now, while everyone is in the midst of negotiation.

Bibi’s speech didn’t help him back home. Some reports say his coalition is in trouble.

Why is that? Because Israelis are as divided about Netanyahu as Americans are.

During my journey through Israel, I met a wonderful couple in Haifa. I stayed in their home for several days. They are immigrants from South Africa. They moved to Israel when they both were in their early 20s; that was about 50 years ago.

They both implied a belief that Likud’s tough rhetoric doesn’t always necessarily serve Israel well. They suggested a need to be more accommodating to, say, the Palestinians who live in Israel and that Israel should stop rattling its sabers whenever trouble is brewing. In that part of the world, it seems trouble always pops up at the next dawn.

They aren’t hardliners in the mold of Likud. They want a more conciliatory government.

I’ve long supported Israel’s view that it’s best to be prepared for war. Indeed, armed conflict has been thrust on them without warning before. Israel’s enemies reside virtually no distance at all from key cities. There can be no questioning Israel’s need for constant vigilance.

Netanyahu, though, might have overplayed his hand by coming to this country to argue for a policy that doesn’t have the national support he seems to think it does.

Thus, it well might be that he owes House Speaker John Boehner a four-letter word or two for inviting him to speak to Congress without first consulting President Obama.

Then again, Bibi could have declined the invitation.

national news, political news

Sen. Graham: No emails from me

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is appealing to the technologically challenged.

The South Carolina Republican says he’s never sent an email and prefers to talk face to face with his South Carolina constituents. Well, good for him.

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/235040-graham-president-must-be-good-with-people-not-just-technology

Graham said on “Meet the Press” that the next president of the United States — which might be him, although that seems to be among the longest of long shots — should be good with people, not technology.

That’s quaint talk, senator. It’s also meaningless.

The subject came up in a discussion of the email flap that keeps hounding Hillary Rodham Clinton and her use of a private email account while she served as secretary of state. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Darrell Issa of California, suggest Clinton might face “criminal charges.” Oh, brother.

Graham said Sunday: “The way I communicate is that I talk to people face to face, I’ll pick up the phone. I think the best thing is … to go to the Mideast, not email about the Mideast, not be told about the Mideast, but get on the ground.”

Maybe it’s just me, but my strong hunch is that in the remote chance Graham gets elected president next year that he’ll have plenty of staff sitting around waiting to communicate via email with a pertinent foreign leader. Were he climb aboard Air Force One just to talk to someone, say, in the Middle East, well … that could get a little expensive.

And haven’t Republicans been casting stones at the current president, Barack Obama, and his family over their alleged overuse of that big jumbo jet?

 

International news

Terrorist group 'pledges' to Islamic State?

As if Boko Haram needed to state a formal “pledge” to align itself with the Islamic State.

That’s what the Nigerian goons did. They have joined ISIL’s “caliphate” and joined with the monstrous Middle East terror group.

What does that mean, then, for Boko Haram? For my money, it puts them in the crosshairs of U.S. and allied military and intelligence forces.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/boko-haram-declares-allegiance-to-isis/ar-AA9v7oe

We’ve already been bombing the daylights out of ISIL military targets, killing ISIL fighters virtually daily.

The same fate should fall on Boko Haram, who burst into international notoriety by kidnapping those 200-plus young women and girls. They’ve kept their captives hidden for a year, despite reports in recent months about some kind of tentative agreement to release them.

The world already understands that Boko Haram is a serious threat to decent human beings everywhere. This group is the Nigerian version of Islamist extremism that is causing havoc throughout the Middle East.

So, this terror group has pledged its allegiance to ISIL. It also should draw a pledge from the United States and its allies to kill its members on sight.

 

International news

Why the masks, terrorists?

1 Comment

The thought keeps occurring to me: Why do terrorists keep covering their faces when they make these videos intended for international distribution?

Have you ever wondered?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/how-isis-threatens-europe/ar-BBhZurk

The picture on the link here shows an Islamic State goon waving a knife at the camera. All you see are this fellow’s eyes. Why don’t they show themselves to the public? Why don’t they reveal their identity?

Is it because:

* They believe what they’re doing is wrong?

* They don’t want international cops, spooks, commandos, anti-terror analysts to identify them?

* They’re cowards?

Maybe it’s all of the above. I’m going with the coward angle, kind of like the way the Ku Klux Klan goons cover their faces under hoods.

Terrorists don’t comprehend that they commit criminal acts when they behead innocent victims. They don’t seem to have any understanding of “right” and “wrong” the way you and I do. They’ve perverted every single principle, concept and tenet under which civilized human beings live.

They’re surely hiding from the good guys, which might imply they know what they’re doing is wrong. I believe it’s more akin to the last part. They don’t want to get caught because they’re afraid of the consequence they’ll face.

Fear. Cowardice. Get it?

Some of them have deserted from military organizations in their home country, usually somewhere in the Middle East, to join forces with ISIL, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda … whatever. They’re hiding their faces from their former military commanders.

In the end, though, it all seems to smack of cowardly acts. Just as lynchings were the acts of cowards in the United States a century ago, these terrorists have zero sense of honor and courage.