We talk about the recent peace deals in the Middle East, in particular the deals between Israel and UAE and Bahrain. We also discuss the Hayes Production code and how that is similar to a recent dust up with JK Rowling. We end by talking about John Barton, a California dad who said CPS took his three year old son under dubious circumstances and it appears his son may be being abused in care.
Finally we talk about the new recordings in the Rucki case; they shed light on how the local Fox affiliate reporter Trish Van Pilsum scored an interview with the Rucki girls days after they went missing on April 19, 2013.
My cohort in the Watcher of Weasels, Bookworm room, wrote what I thought was an excellent introduction, but it was the whole post. She did, however, give me carte blanche to use that intro and turn it into a full commentary. So, alas...
Reading the news today about, among other things, the Gulf oil spill, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Euro collapse, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the economy, the border, and illegal immigration, I’ve had two phrases that stuck in my brain and refuse to leave. The first is Janet Napolitano’s near-deathless bit of bureaucratese, “man-caused disasters,” one that she and her minions created to obscure the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is the common denominator binding together those mass killings around the world that involve guns, airplanes, tractors, rocket launches, beheadings, beatings, hangings, etc.
The second phrase is Obama’s statement, one with which I fully agree, that “elections have consequences.”
Combine those two phrases — “elections have consequences” and “man-caused disaster” — and you end up with this, the ultimate man-caused disaster:
This man caused disaster wasted no time. The chief of staff boldly proclaimed that we can't let a crisis go to waste, and the man caused disaster wasted no time. Not two months into his term, this man caused disaster spent $787 billion. That was supposed to keep our unemployment rate below 8% but of course it's hit 10% and hovers near there since. This man caused disaster told us we must spend this money. After all, the solution to a crisis in which families and banks took on too much debt could only be solved by the government taking on too much debt. Voila. Now, the government does have too much debt. This man caused disaster didn't create debts and deficits. Instead, the man caused disaster created debts and deficits 2.0. Now, we have deficits way north of $1 trillion as far as the eye can see. Our debt is nearing in on 100% of our GDP and Moody's is threatening to cut our bond ratings. They're only threatening but these threats haven't changed the mind of this man caused disaster. So, sometime in the next few months, a year, or a few years those threats will be a reality. Then, this man caused disaster will cause a disaster to anyone that wants to borrow for a car, a house, a credit card, or even a student loan.
So far, the only man caused disaster of this man caused disaster's notorious health care bill will be the man caused disaster at the ballot box for Democrats this November. Soon, though, everyone will feel the effects of this man caused disaster. We recently learned that about half of those that have health insurance will lose it. We've learned that health care costs will increase 20% more than they would have without the bill, and we've learned that about 15% of hospitals will go out of business trying to comply with this man caused disaster all caused by the man caused disaster known as Obamacare.
The border is so porous that Phoenix now only trails Mexico City in kidnappings. The state of Arizona is so desperate that they passed their own law to enforce federal immigration laws. The key difference will be that Arizona will actually enforce this law. How does the man caused disaster respond? He won't enforce any immigration laws until we all agree to grant amnesty to up to 20 million folks that entered the country illegally. Oh, and, he'll sue the state of Arizona for having the gall to do the job he refuses to do.
This man caused disaster spent the entire campaign telling Americans that Afghanistan was the good war (as opposed to Iraq which would then be the bad war) So, he escalated the war in Afghanistan. The man caused disaster couldn't leave well enough alone and so as he was announcing an increase in troops he also announced an end to the war. The analysts say this second pronouncement is for "domestic consumption" but our Afghan partner, Hamid Karzai, didn't get the memo. He seems to think that this pronouncement could be a man caused disaster to his own neck. So, he's hedging his bet and he's playing footsy with our enemies all while pledging allegiance to us. Since the closest this man caused disaster came to war policy was an especially rowdy night at the local coffee shop in Hyde Park, he may not realize that it's much more difficult to win a war when our partner is simultaneously partnering up with our enemies.
Of course, our so called ally in Afghanistan must feel in good company. After all, lots of our allies must feel like enemies by the way they're treated by this man caused disaster. Our only true ally in the Middle East, and the only true Democracy, has been disrespected, strong armed, threatened, all while the same man caused disaster has reached to most of her enemies with deference due a nobel laureate. Then again, Israel is in good company. Alvaro Uribe may wind up being Colombia's George Washington, but in the view of this man caused disaster, he takes a second seat to leftist Daniel Ortega. Then, there's the Brits. They've been our partners in war and peace since they were our enemies in war and peace. Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair partnered with FDR, Reagan and Bush to free Western Europe, then Eastern Europe and finally Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny. Those accomplishments are insignificant in the mind of this man caused disaster. First, he sent the bust of Churchill back, then he gave Gordon Brown some DVD's that didn't work, but finally he sided with a leftist over Britain in a dispute over the Falkland Islands.
Meanwhile, our enemies are stronger and more ferocious. North Korea was feeling bold and so they shot up a South Korean ship. Iran laughs every time a limp Security Council resolution against it is passed, and soon China will own everyone's debt. The answer from this man made disaster appears to be to ask for more limp Security Council resolutions and to borrow even more from China.
Then, there's the ultimate man caused disaster, the oil spill. No one blames the man caused disaster for causing this man caused disaster. Instead, this man caused disaster made that man caused disaster exponentially worse. How much worse...no one knows. Maybe, if this man caused disaster had scratched the numerous White House concerts, fundraisers, and golf outings, the other man caused disaster would have been under more control. Instead, the oil spews, the pelicans choke, and millions watch their livelihoods evaporate. One man caused disaster meets another man caused disaster.
A team of U.S. geologists and Pentagon officials has discovered vast mineral wealth in Afghanistan, conceivably enough to turn the scarred and impoverished country into one of the world's most lucrative mining centers, a senior military official told Fox News on Monday.
"There is stunning potential here," Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the United States Central Command, told the New York Times in a report published Monday. "There are a lot of ifs, of course, but I think potentially it is hugely significant."
Anyone that has seen Blood Diamonds knows that a vast amount of natural resources doesn't necessarily lead to wealth and prosperity. That said, Afghanistan has had nothing but poppy and it's in desperate need of natural resources that can be turned into wealth.
A door has been closed. But amid the roar, the creak of an opening window was faintly audible. This window, a gigantic deposit of natural gas called Leviathan, 6.5 times the size of Tel Aviv, was found, roughly 100 nautical miles from where the flotilla fiasco took place and well within Israel's extended territorial waters. This discovery may provide Israel with security in terms of its supply of electricity, turn it into an important natural gas exporter and provide a shot in the arm of some $300 billion over the life of the field - one-and-a-half times the national GDP - to the Israeli economy, already one of the most resilient in the world.
At the beginning of 2009, Israel made a major natural gas discovery that immediately made it a player in the natural gas market. This may be twice the size of that discovery. With Israel a major exporter of natural gas, the geopolitical environment in the Middle East.
Helen Thomas, who I used to consider a close friend and who I used to respect, has showed herself to be an anti-Semitic bigot, this is not about her disagreement about her criticisms of Israel. She has a right to criticize Israel and that is not the same as being an anti-Semite.
...
If she had asked all Blacks to go back to Africa, what would White House Correspondents Association position be as to whether she deserved White House press room credentials - much less a privileged honorary seat?
Thomas tried to walk her explosive statement caught on videotape back with this statement...
I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians.They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon.
But that hasn't quieted the firestorm. Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League responded like this.
Helen Thomas’s statement of regret does not go far enough. Her remarks were outrageous, offensive and inappropriate, especially since she uttered them on a day the White House had set aside to celebrate the extraordinary accomplishments of American Jews during Jewish America Heritage Month.
Her suggestion that Israelis should go back to Poland and Germany is bigoted and shows a profound ignorance of history. We believe Thomas needs to make a more forceful and sincere apology for the pain her remarks have caused.
So far, Thomas' employers, the Hearst Newspapers, have been silent but that won't last long.
UPDATE: The Hearst Newspapers have just announced that Helen Thomas is retiring.
Everyone seems to have reverted to form with regards to Israel's raid on the flotilla. It took the anti Israeli forces less than a day to protest.
He called for a "thorough investigation."
Tuesday afternoon outside the Israeli consulate, the second such protest in as many days. The demonstration is in response to an Israeli raid on an international civilian aid mission to Gaza in which at nine people were killed and dozens more injured. Several Bay Area activists were part of the Freedom Flotilla, a six-ship fleet that set sail last week from Greece to bring medical equipment and other supplies to the Gaza Strip.
The condemnation has been near and wide. The Turks, the French, and the Spanish have been leading the charge along with the usual suspects in the Middle East. It took Ban Ki Moon just a couple hours more than the protesters. The list of usual suspects of pundits has also come to condemn Israel's actions.
Most important, the event is likely to force the international community, including the United States, to open a dialogue with Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist group that rules Gaza. The blockade of Gaza can no longer be sustained politically. Today, Egypt opened the border with Gaza for passage of aid and people, and world pressure on Israel to undo the blockade is likely to be overwhelming. In that, the Free Gaza Movement and its allies have succeeded, though at the cost of many dead and wounded.
Protests are building worldwide, and even Israeli apologists are admitting that the attack on the flotilla was a catastrophic blunder.
Martin Indyk, the head of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a longtime ally of Israel, told the New York Times that it’s now the responsibility of the United States to extricate Israel from the mess it’s created in Gaza, and he proposed what is likely to be a workable solution: the lifting of the Israeli blockade, a ceasefire by Hamas, and the exchange of political prisoners held on either side. (Hamas hold Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier.)
What you have not heard is the truth from the mainstream media.
Here is the truth:Israel cannot allow ships to go directly to Gaza for security reasons. Innocent Israeli families are threatened daily with missile attacks launched from Gaza, and Israel must make sure weapons are not being smuggled into Gaza in "humanitarian" cargoes.
The effort to destroy the Jewish state has many fronts. One front is in Iran, where the maniacal regime that has repeatedly promised to “wipe Israel off the map” marches inexorably toward a nuclear bomb. Another is in Gaza, from which Hamas has lobbed 10,000 missiles into Israeli cities. Yet another front, the most insidious, is comprised of the propaganda arm of the Palestinian movement. And this front thrives for only one reason — the complicity of the world press and the so-called “international community.”
I doubt either side waited to finish hearing the news to decide that their side was right. The truth to most folks is nothing more than a by product in all this. Here's what's clear to me. Most of those that today condemn Israel take a lot longer time, if they ever do, to condemn Hamas' rockets into Israel. They rarely, if ever, make Israel's enemies to account for their international crimes.
Israel is the only functioning democracy in the Middle East, and, ironically enough, it is the country that gives Muslims the most rights in the Middle East. The blockade and embargo were put into effect in order to protect its citizens from a series of rocket attacks that all originated from Gaza. Those inconvenient facts seem to be missed by those quick to rush to condemn Israel now. The Israelis weren't itching for a fight on that flotilla. Instead, their soldiers were attacked and they defended themselves.
That said, all those rushing to defend Israel as though it is faultless in this situation also miss a very important point. These were commandos on that ship. They are the best of the best. Ten civilians died. That's a royal military screw up. Period!!! To say anything else is to ignore facts. These soldiers are trained to make sure that exactly these sorts of situations are diffused without death on either side. That's why only a few can become commandos. That didn't happen and that's a screw up.
Were the folks on the ship savages? Probably. Were they tied to terrorists? Almost certainly. Is the world outrage totally hypocritical. Almost certainly. Boo hoo. None of that matters. Now, Israel's enemies revel in righteous indignation and they do it because this military operation was royally screwed up.
Whatever you think of Israel's right to defend herself, you also must expect that the best of the best can and will finish this operation without any bloodshed. They must do it because 1) they're the best of the best and 2) because when there's bloodshed this happens.
This video shows the confrontation between Israeli commandos and the so called activists was very complicated, despite near universal condemnation. There are some lingering questions. What were the planners thinking sending these commandos into what appears to be something akin to a suicide mission. Some of these guys didn't even reach the ground before being attacked.
Netanyahu, Barak and Ya'alon have neither vision nor charisma, but they once seemed to have good judgment. The sole promise made by their cabinet was not to make hasty decisions like the one that led its predecessor into the Second Lebanon War. It was supposed to handle Israel's strategic interests with utmost seriousness and responsibility. On the night of May 30th the cabinet broke its promise, demonstrating extreme, unforgivable lack of judgment in the face of the Palestinian flotilla.
Pro-Palestinian activists sent another boat to challenge Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip on Tuesday and Egypt declared it was temporarily opening a crossing into the Palestinian territory after a raid on an aid flotilla that ended with Israeli soldiers killing nine activists.
The raid provoked ferocious international condemnation of Israel, raised questions at home, and appeared likely to increase pressure to end the blockade that has deepened the poverty of the 1.5 million Palestinians in the strip.
Israeli commandos on Monday stormed six ships carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists on an aid mission to the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens after encountering unexpected resistance as the forces boarded the vessels.
The operation in international waters off the Gaza coast was a nightmare scenario for Israel that looked certain to further damage its international standing, strain already tense relations with Turkey -- the unofficial sponsor of the mission -- and draw unwanted attention to Gaza's plight.
The tough Israeli response drew condemnations from Turkey, France and the U.N.'s Mideast envoy, while Greece suspended a military exercise with Israel and postponed a visit by Israel's air force chief.
This incident occurred hours ago. It's unclear how bad this will be but it looks bad. More coverage here.
Officials estimated that passengers will show slight resistance, and possibly minor violence; for that reason, the operation’s commander decided to bring the helicopter directly above the top deck. The first rope that soldiers used in order to descend down to the ship was wrested away by activists, most of them Turks, and tied to an antenna with the hopes of bringing the chopper down. However, Flotilla 13 fighters decided to carry on.
Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.
However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday he would not restrict construction in east Jerusalem, a step requested by the U.S., but would upgrade upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians to include the main issues dividing them.
Netanyahu originally had wanted to put off a discussion of issues like the status of contested east Jerusalem, final borders and the fate of Palestinian refugees until direct talks are launched.
It was not clear what Netanyahu's declared refusal to budge on east Jerusalem -- the territory that lies at the crux of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- would mean for future relations with Washington and the rest of the international community.
Netanyahu's moves go nowhere near the U.S. demand to cancel a major new housing project at the heart of the row, but apparently he has offered enough to prompt U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to call them "useful and productive" and dispatch an envoy back to the region this week.
U.S.-Israeli relations have hit a 35-year low over a contentious east Jerusalem building project that threatens to derail peacemaking efforts with the Palestinians, Israel's envoy to Washington was quoted as saying Monday.
Ambassador Michael Oren's remarks clashed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assurances that the political turmoil resulting from the settlement
announcement, which the Obama administration slammed as "an insult," was under
control.
"Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis of historic proportions," the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper quoted Oren as saying to Israeli diplomats in a phone briefing over the weekend.
This spat has showed just how far relationships have deteriorated. Without taking sides, it's remarkable that such a disagreement would be characterized as a crisis.
Joe Biden was in the region when some yet unnamed bureaucrat in the interior department announced the approval for zoning of new construction of apartment buildings in a contentious part of Jerusalem.
That lead to a public rebuke by Biden. It then lead to a screaming match by phone by Hillary Clinton and her counterpart which was then leaked to the press and hyperanalyzed.
Now, the entire relationship appears on the brink. Yet, unconfirmed reports have the U.S. demanding this of Israel.
They also reported that the U.S. wants Israel to make a significant confidence-building gesture toward the Palestinians. Suggestions included releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails; turning over additional areas of the West Bank to Palestinian control; removing some of the roadblocks hampering the movement of Palestinians and goods in the West Bank; and easing the blockade on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, media reported.
That's a request that Israel is unlikely to accept. Relations between the two nations have been contentious since the U.S. made a pet project out of ending their (Israel's) expansion of settlements. Obama's approval was once down in the single digits in Israel. The Israeli Ambassador is calling this " Worst crisis with US since '75"
Israel’s ambassador to Washington Michael Oren convened Foreign Ministry consuls for an emergency briefing, and told them the crisis between Israel and the US is the worst since 1975, Army Radio reported.
Oren was referring to a crisis that evolved when Israel refused to sign a treaty to withdraw forces from Sinai in 1975.
In an unusual move, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made a public call on the White House to tone down the rhetoric. The lobby said statements made by senior officials in US President Barack Obama’s administration were “very worrying.”
The comparison in crises is interesting. The last included a war and this includes a zoning approval. That's how far we've come.
Garry Kasparov has a theory about Vladimir Putin that I have repeated on numerous occasions. I will repeat it again. Putin does everything with an eye toward artificially making oil prices as high as possible. At the same time, he also makes sure that he creates a situation he can control.
That would explain Russia's insistence on protecting Iran from sanctions as they build up their nuclear capabilities. The threat of a nuclear Iran increases the price of oil. At the same time, if Iran were nuclear, that would also be a situation that Russia could no longer control. That might explain Russia's more aggressive tone.
Iran should improve its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's spokeswoman says.
"On the subject of sanctions, Russia's position remains unchanged. Russia still believes that Iran should more actively and broadly cooperate with the IAEA and other countries," spokeswoman Natalia Timakova told reporters on Tuesday.
"If these obligations are not fulfilled, no one can exclude the application of sanctions," AFP quoted Timakova as saying.
Russia has made such threats before. They've never followed through when push came to shove. Still, no one understands Vladimir Putin better than Garry Kasparov. If Kasparov is right, a nuclear Iran is not in Russia's interest. As such, if you follow Kasparov's theory, they will stop Iran from getting a nuke before it is too late. Such a move would serve all their purposes and be very shrewd as it would also mean they'd have that much more geopolitical leverage as well.
Mideast envoy George Mitchell has threatened that the U.S. could freeze aid to Israel if the country fails to advance peace talks, YNetNews.com reported.
Mitchell said the U.S. can legally cut its support for aid to Israel and that all options must remain open, YNet reports, though he clarified on PBS that the U.S. wants to put pressure on both sides in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.
The remarks come on the eve of his trip to Israel, aiming to bolster a peace process that failed to get back off the ground during the first year of the Obama administration...
Try and put this into perspective. The Israelis are going to be forced to negotiate with folks that have no use for peace with them. Now, the Obama administration is telling them that unless there is progress, their own aid will be cut.
So, Israel is bullied into negotiating with people that have no use for peace with them. Now, they're bullied into making progress.
I know that Obama wants to be an objective arbitor in all this. Some of us have a problem with that, however this isn't objective at all. All the pressure is being applied to the Israelis. None of the pressure is being applied to the Palestinians. That's not objective. That's favoring the Palestinians.
The suicide bomber who killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan last week was a Jordanian informant who lured intelligence officers into a trap by promising new information about al-Qaeda's top leadership, former U.S. government officials said Monday.
Here's the story in a nutshell. Jordanian intelligence recruited this individual to infiltrate Al Qaeda. The CIA began to work with him. He gained their trust. So, he was able to bypass security in Afghanistan. He walked into an area in which 7 CIA members were located and blew himself up. He was in fact an Al Qaeda double agent.
The ramifications are huge. First, these were seven top CIA agents. They're dead. Second, someone in the Jordanian intelligence recruited them and so they vetted them. What does this do to our relationship with them? Third, this was some plot. This guy passes himself off as an informant all while actually working with Al Qaeda.
We're all fixated on the airport plot meanwhile, this guy infiltrates the CIA and kills seven. Who knows how much intelligence he gave to Al Qaeda. Yet, this story is buried while we hyperanalyze the airport bombing.
Gilat Shalit was captured in a cross border raid by Hamas in 2006. Now, that naked act of aggression appears to be about to pay off for the terrorist group.
Israel's cabinet has handed its response to a proposed prisoner exchange deal with Hamas to a German mediator, following lengthy debate between ministers.
No details of the Israeli response, which could see hundreds of Palestinian prisoners swapped for an Israeli soldier held in the Gaza Strip, were immediately available on Tuesday.
Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier at the centre of the exchange, was captured in a cross-border raid by Palestinian fighters in June 2006 and has been held by Hamas ever since.
If you're a believer in Pavlov's theories, like me, then you can see that such an exchange will do more harm than good. In fact, I am of the opinion that Shalit was captured, in part at least, because the Israelis had agreed to similar exchanges in previous years.
A few days back the IAEA approved a strongly worded censure of Iran over its nuclear program. The Politico had a story that called this censure a "vindication", at least according to the White House.
The resolution was hailed by the White House and won praise from the Israeli government, which has previously expressed skepticism that much can be gained from trying to engage Iran.
"Today's overwhelming vote at the IAEA's Board of Governors demonstrates the resolve and unity of the international community with regard to Iran's nuclear program," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said in a statement. "Indeed, the fact that 25 countries from all parts of the world cast their votes in favor shows the urgent need for Iran to address the growing international deficit of confidence in its intentions."
Not two days later, the same Politico, along with most media, is reporting that Iran is thumbing its nose at the censure by no longer working with the same IAEA.
Iran will no longer voluntarily cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency after its vote last week to rebuke the nation, the Tehran Times is reporting.
As Laura noted, the IAEA vote was a big win for Obama in that China and Russia, the two powers that have been most resistant to taking a harder line, both signed on to the resolution.
Thus, we continue this diplomatic dance that has played out in front of the world and it's a dance that Iran has manipulated perfectly to their benefit. So far the world community is patting itself on the back over a strongly worded letter that was rebuked publicly by Iran two days later. That's sum total of the diplomatic accomplishments of the Obama administration.
Listening to politicians from all parties and from all countries, none have a clue what to do. Everyone must understand that if nothing happens Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Even Israel itself wants to avoid this outcome. In fact, even Iran's chief defenders, China and Russia, have no clue.
No one wants Israel to bomb Iran, not even China and Russia. The price of oil would go to some unheard of level if that happened. That's not what China wants. That's what Russia wants but they also want a situation they can manage. A nuclear strike would very likely create a regional if not an all out war. Plenty of terrorist groups near Russia would take advantage of said situation.
Yet, both insist on stopping any significant sanctions giving Iran carte blanche to create a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the U.S. and our allies are acting like high school kids with a major research paper due. They'd all rather procrastinate with a series of meaningless diplomatic gestures and actions rather than making the difficult decisions necessary to actually stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon diplomatically.
If you ever listen to any politician from either side of the aisle talk about what we should do to stop Iran from getting the bomb all you get is a series of platitudes designed to make a nice sounding sound bite not to have any meaningful practical plan. It will be things like working with our allies, getting Russia on board, and show strength. No politicians really have a clue.
There's only a limited number of options short of war. We can encourage all our allies to pull their ambassadors. All internal investment funds can make it clear to all companies that do business in Iran: they'll divest if the business continues. Most meaningful sanctions are unlikely because of Russia and Iran. Finally, we can engage in a Naval blockade, an act of war. That's it.
Yet, every politician from both sides offers nothing but platitudes. Platitudes won't get it done. Soon, we'll have to have real solutions and so far no one has shown they have any.
Two days ago, there were indications that Russia was leaning toward supporting the U.S. in dealing with Iran. Hillary Clinton proclaimed that Russia might be coming around to the U.S. position on sanctions. Clinton, meanwhile, also said that the U.S. didn't ask the Russians for any firm commitments. Then, yesterday the Russians poured cold water on any idea that they would support sanctions.
Russia pushed back Tuesday at U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, a setback to the Obama administration's desire to present a united front with Moscow.
After meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed that such threats would not persuade Iran to comply and that negotiations should continue to be pursued.
The Russians aren't merely against any new sanctions at this moment. Instead, the Russians wouldn't even favor the U.S. threatening Iran with sanctions. In other words, the Russians want the U.S. to meet with Iran and not even mention sanctions as a possible punishment for continued non compliance regarding their nuclear program.
The Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, would have the U.S. negotiate with Iran but not threaten the Iranians with any punishment. This of course is a recipe for disaster.
Let's face it, a recipe for disaster is exactly how the Russians want this. This has been their geopolitical dance for as long as I remember on this issue. They will make some statement that makes it appear as though they are coming around to confronting Iran. Then, when push comes to shove, or really long before that, they make another statement making it clear that they have no intention of confronting Iran. Since they have a veto vote on the Security Council, Russia can single handedly stop any action against Iran. That's what they've done and in fact they've been supported by China the entire time.
Russia wants artificially increased oil prices. Oil is one of their single biggest sources of wealth. Any confrontation between Iran and the West would only help oil prices. In fact, even the perception of a confrontation helps oil prices. Russia is looking for chaos on this front and a united front hurts that effort.
Of course, this is exactly what's been happening since the beginning of the Bush administration. Bush completely misread the intentions of Russia and its leader. Now, the Obama administration is continuing that mistake. They are not our friends. They don't have our best interest at heart. They don't have peace in the world as their intention. High oil prices are predicated on choas. We have set the so called "reset button" and the only ones resetting their relationship is our side. The Russians have continued to move forward with their own agenda.
What should be clear to all is that any action through the UN is not an option. The Russians will never allow it. Confronting Iran will take some creativity and work through channels outside of that body. Let's hope the administration will realize that before it's too late.
It was only a week ago that President Obama stood with President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Brown as each of the three in very sober terms first detailed the discovery of a secret nuclear site and then called this a "moment of truth" for Iran. A week later the Security Council plus Germany is currently meeting with Iran. Iran has stated that these talks won't include their nuclear program. The U.S. promises to confront Iran on the program anyway. Even the most promising prognostication for these talks believe that they will lead to more talks. The Obama administration itself says that even if Iran doesn't immediately halt their nuclear ambitions that won't immediately lead to sanctions. In fact, even if Iran doesn't allow the IAEA to visit its newly discovered site, the administration won't immediately seek sanctions. Instead, the administration wants to give Iran until the end of the year until they try and impose sanctions. Frankly, their hands would be tied anyway. Russia has said that sanctions would currently be unhelpful, and China has indicated much the same. Without them, there are no UN sactions. There are of course other ways to impose sanctions but there hasn't been a president nearly creative enough for such things in decades.
So, instead, the sides met. There was a breakthrough. The multi party talks lead directly to direct U.S./Iran talks.
The U.S. and Iran had significant talks on Tehran's nuclear program in a rare one-on-one meeting Thursday.
William Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state, and Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, held the bilateral discussion in a sign of President Obama's commitment to engage the Islamic Republicn directly on nuclear and other issues, a sharp break with the previous Bush administration.
Diplomats and officials disclosed no details of the meeting but said ahead of the Geneva negotiations that such an encounter was possible, if Burns decided it would move along U.S. objectives.
The outcome of this meeting is not yet known, but no one is expecting much. If you didn't know that the substance of all of this was a ruthless nation on the brink of a nuclear weapon, you might think that the two sides are talking about a merger or labor and management are discussing a new contract. The kind of expectations and language we have from these meetings is fitting the negotiation of a potential merger or labor contract more than it is a ruthless country on the brink of a nuclear weapon.
In reality, if these lead diplomats to say that progress has been made and both sides have agreed to meet again, that is a huge victory for Iran. Iran has a limited amount of time, three months, six months, a year, and likely no more. At that point, they will have a nuclear weapon. Having talks go on in which the only tangible progress is more talks is perfect from their side. Iran is simply looking to run out the clock until a weapon is created. These talks are perfect. Iran would love to meet with the entire Security Council and then meet with each country separately. They only need to do that two or three times and their nuclear weapon will be created.
These talks are a farce. All talks with Iran are a farce. The leaders of Iran believe it is their religious duty to destroy the Jews. A nuclear weapon is the best way to do that. The only way they'll give up their weapons is if they have to. If their economy is halted and their citizens are on the brink of revolt, they may give them up. They aren't going to give them up because our diplomats make a strong case for giving them up. We are dealing with religious extremists that believe it is their holy duty to destroy Israel. The West simply refuses to acknowledge their religious and philosophical beliefs. Those aren't going to be reversed by talking. It will only be stopped by all out war or diplomatic pressure so strong that it leads to an internal revolt. That's it. The sooner we realize the better.
This morning the president, along with the leaders of France and Britain, "stunned" the world with this news.
President Obama, along with the leaders of Britain and France, demanded Friday that Iran immediately allow international weapons monitors to inspect a nuclear facility the Islamic Republic acknowledges it has been secretly building for years.
Obama, joined by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the opening of the G-20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, warned Iran that it will be "held accountable" to an impatient world community if it does not fully disclose its nuclear ambitions.
So, it appears that Iran has had a secret nuclear plant and has been developing uranium there for years. I say the news was "shocking" because you'd have to have been really gullible to believe that Iran had disclosed its nuclear ambitions fully.
This is, according to President Obama, the third violation of UN resolutions related its nuclear ambitions. What's also not surprising was that all three leaders said that Iran "must be held accountable" and that this a moment of truth, yet again.
The language following this announcement was frankly no different from what we heard from President Bush over and over again regarding Iran. The former president proceeded to do little but talk tough toward Iran. He was able to orchestrate a few meaningless sanctions and did little beyond that.
Any sanctions that go through the UN would face a roadblock with both Russia and China. Earlier in the week some said that there was a breakthrough with Russia when its "leader" Dmitri Medvedev said that sanctions toward Iran were "inevitable". Some called this the first sign that the president's outreach was working. Now, that will have its first test. Most astute observers of Russia know that Vladimir Putin is the real leader of Russia, and it's unclear what Putin will do.
Garry Kasparov, the main opposition leader in Russia, believes that Putin makes every move with a desire to artificially raise oil prices. That's dropped precipitously since its highs about two years ago. A confrontation between Iran and the rest of the world would certainly push oil prices up in the short term, and so it's unclear that sanctions would benefit Putin.
I expect the world to talk tough for a few weeks. I expect some meaningless sanctions and then everyone will forget about it for the time being. Israel, however, has no such options. So, maybe, the threat of a regional war in the Middle East will force some to act. We'll all have to wait and see.
The speech given earlier today by Benjamin Netanyahu to the United Nations was one of the best I've heard a politician given in all the years I've been following politics. While I have no doubt the speech will be universally lauded for its excellence, the question remains just how much of a difference it will make. That remains an open question. Netanyahu delivered a powerful indictment over holocaust denial, Iranian aggression, and the UN's utter apathy in the face of it all.
Netanyahu began by countering the absurd and vicious assertions by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the Holocaust didn't happen. Netanyahu actually pulled out a copy of Hitler's final solution as proof that the Holocaust happened. If that wasn't enough, he then recounted how most of his wife's family died in the Holocaust. By allowing Ahmadinejad to speak, the UN legitimizes him and his hateful rhetoric. Netanyahu congratulated all those nation that left before and during Ahmadinejad's speech as standing up for humanity and moral clarity. To all who stayed, he delivered this pithy thought.
To those who gave this Holocaust denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people. ... Have you no shame? Have you no decency.
Netanyahu detailed Iran's aggressive behavior toward Israel including calling for its destruction, supporting Hamas and supporting Hezbollah. Netanyahu pointed out that Iran is not merely a threat to Israel but to the rest of the world. He pointed out that all throughout history tyrants that targeted Jews eventually targeted the rest of the world.
Netanyahu went through the history of the creation of Israel. He pointed out that the words of Isaiah are printed on the entrance of the United Nations. Netanyahu pointed out that Isaiah, himself a Jew, said those from Judea in what is now Israel. That was all part of Netanyahu's reminder of the UN that Jews didn't just happen to find their way to Israel in 1948 but have historic ties to that land for several thousand years.
He pointed out that in 1947 the UN issued a charter that would create two states, one a Jewish state and the other an Arab state. He pointed out that the Jewish people accepted this charter while the Arabs rejected it and then attacked the newly formed Israeli nation in 1948.
Netanyahu left his most blunt and direct attack for UN's current policy. In righteous indignation, he condemned the UN's recent condemnation of Israel for its offensive in Gaza last January.
What a travesty, Israel justly defended itself against terror. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?
Netanyahu pointed out that Hamas has used Gaza as the launching point for rocket attacks on nearby Israeli cities for the last eight years. In fact, Netanyahu made a historical comparison. He said only once in history had one nation targeted the civilian population of another and that was Germany's carpet bombing of London. By that logic, Netanyahu said, the UN would have written a report of condemnation of FDR and Winston Churchill had they been around in the early 1940's.
Netanyahu pointed out that the UN has never once written a report condemning Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran for their systematic targeting of civilians. They've never written one report condemning those three for launching attacks from schools, homes, and Mosques. Never once has the UN written a report of condemnation for any of the three hiding among civilians all while launching rockets haphazardly into Israeli civilian population.
In the irony of ironies, he called for two states living peacefully side by side just as the camera moved to a rep of Palestine leaving the hall. At one point, a representative of Nigeria could be seen with arms crossed leaning back in his seat, body language that indicates deep distrust and disfavor.
He called this a moment of truth and the jury being out on the UN. Will the UN continue to draw a moral equivalence between the democratic nation of Israel and the terrorists of Hamas?
Netanyahu's speech was powerful because it identified several simple truths. Ahmadinejad is a madman and a Holocaust denier, and yet, the UN, and the world community for that matter, refuses to confront him. If he gets nuclear weapons, that will be devastating for the world. Yet, the UN which is supposed to confront such evil fails to confront him all the while using every opportunity to condemn Israel.
While this speech was powerful, I don't know that it will ultimately make much of a difference. In my final senior speech in front of my fraternity, I called out all the racists in my fraternity, and there were many. Here's how I concluded my speech.
One last thing, when I first arrived here, many of you made comments about me being Jewish. At first, I figured it wasn't that big a deal because you weren't that mature, but since its been four years and you still haven't gotten over it. The only thing I can see is that to you I'm just another K%^E, just like Macias is just another S^&C, and Arnold's just another Ni$$er.
I became a bit of a rock star in the fraternity for the next week. Many of my frat brothers were genuinely sorry for what they had said. That said, none ultimately stopped being racist and most were ultimately left unchanged by the speech. If someone is weak and rotten that's how they'll be. That's how I see the UN and while this was a great speech I don't think that many in the UN will now see the light.
There's a saying that goes "death by a thousand paper cuts". This means that one individual makes a bunch of little mistakes that ultimately turn into a big mistake that they can't fix. The president is doing something similar but his mistakes aren't small individually but rather huge and taken together he's experiencing death by a thousand machetes.
1) Health Care
There are mistakes on top of mistakes. We're a day away from his make or break speech and it's clear that he won't commit one way or another on the public option. Without a commitment on the public option, he has no plan. No one can judge the plan without knowing if it's in there or not. Of course, the president can't commit because commitment means that he loses too many votes to get it done. There aren't enough votes in the Senate to include the public option and there aren't enough votes in the House if you take it out.
Because he can't commit on the public option, he's left with a disjointed message. Last week, Nancy Pelosi went from saying without a public option there is no bill. Then, she said maybe there is. Then, she said if there's a trigger it will be a very robust trigger that will lead to a robust public option. So, which way is it? No one knows.
Just think about that for a minute. We're in the seventh month of this debate and we still don't know if the President is making the public option a make or break. We're in the seventh month of this thing and there are no less than four bills, and the president is putting out feelers for him to craft a bill. So, we'll soon have five competing bills. Yet, one of the biggest problems with health care reform is that the folks are confused. They should be. Four different committees have passed a version. The House bill is 1000 plus pages. The Senate bill is 600 plus pages, and no one will commit to anything beyond that. Now, the president wants to add another bill on top of this. That's just slicing his own hands.
2) Van Jones and the Czars
This really couldn't have come at a worse time. With the resignation of Van Jones, the flood gates have opened. The White House stipulated that Jones wasn't vetted properly. So, questions will be asked about who else wasn't vetted properly. It raises questions both about the number of czars and the number of radicals.
Of course, in the Obama administration, there's a plethora of both. So, folks like Glenn Beck will have a field day for months hyperanalyzing everyone from Cass Sunstein to Jon Holdren to Dr. Zek Emanuel and everyone in between. Here, Obama has two problems. First, it's of dubious Constitutional mustard to have czars to begin with, and 33 czars is simply out of control. So, the entire czar system is going to be under the microscope. He also has a lot of radicals in his administration. So, soon we're going to have a new radical to talk about nearly everyday.
So, think about that for a minute. At the same time he is trying to pass health care reform, a segment of the media will be asking questions about dozens of people that had no Congressional hearings, had no vetting, and are in nebulous positions of power in his administration. That's not exactly going to curry favor with the public.
3) GITMO
Could he screw this up any worse? Just imagine a weak and beaten President Obama with no health care reform, no energy reform, and no financial overhaul in January of next year. He'll have no power to do anything and yet his own self imposed deadline will come due. So, of course, he'll have to go back on his own statement that GITMO will be closed. He makes it worse every single day by sticking steadfast to his commitment to shut it down. There's no way he's going to shut it down. He's going to tell his supporters it will be closed and then come the end of next January, it will still be open.
3) The CIA investigation
Does he really need yet another head ache? Well, he's about to get one. Soon, a special prosecutor will investigate Bush era CIA agents about potential misconduct. These cases, as we all know, have already been investigated twice by two different administrations. No charges were filed yet. Yet, AG Eric Holder feels the need to investigate some more and he named a special prosecutor. Well, this is obviously going to get partisan. Most of the public wants no part of it. The CIA is obviously unhappy. On top of it, Obama is moving for most interrogations to be done out of the White House itself. If there's an attack anytime in his administration, this will all be used to bludgeon him. Even now, it's so simple to paint him as weak and against the military.
4)Obama versus the voters
This is just stunning. Obama has consistently down played the tea parties. He dismisses them and acts as though they aren't even happening. Then, he dismissed the town halls. He implied that those that attended were part of nefarious organizations, they weren't speaking their true beliefs, and that they are extremists. All of these people vote, and it's simply stunning to have a politician demean a class of voters like this. He didn't stop there. When some parents objected to parts of his speech, the administration called the complaints "silly". They did this all while changing part of the lesson plan in response to the complaints. It goes without saying that taking on the voters is simply stupid. To do it systematically like this is stunningly stupid.
5) Obama Vs. Fox News
It's no less stunning to have a politician, a President at that, single out one media and try and demonize them. He's done it over and over. Fox News gets exponentially higher ratings than any other news outlet. So, why would you attack the station so systematically? All you're doing is alienating all the viewers. President Obama may think that it's all right wing nuts that watch Fox News but there's simply too many people watching for them all to be in one political ideology.
6) Iran and the Middle East
While Obama's administration is in total chaos domestically, foreign policy is not being addressed at all. Little movement is being done on Iran. We're about to lose in Afghanistan and we're even starting to lose again in Iraq. Obama isn't even paying attention. At some point before his first term ends, Iran will need to be confronted. If nothing is done soon, that confrontation will get violent, and that will be laid at the feet of Obama. If we lose in Afghanistan, that is also on his watch. It was candidate Obama that called Afghanistan the good war and promised commitment to victory. He hasn't shown that commitment yet and in the meantime, things are deteriorating quickly. It's clear there is no plan yet. It's clear that there's no plan for the GWOT entirely. This is all playing out and soon enough, the consequences of having no plan will be felt by all.
In the hoopla over health care reform, this geopolitical story went largely unnoticed.
Israeli President Shimon Peres said Wednesday that the Kremlin has promised to reconsider the planned delivery of powerful air defense missiles to Iran.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made the pledge during their talks Tuesday in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Peres said.
"President Medvedev gave a promise he will reconsider the sales of S-300s because it affects the delicate balance which exists in the Middle East," Peres told reporters via video link from Sochi.
The most important unreported business and geopolitical story of the year was this one.
On Jan. 18, just hours after a cease-fire began in the Gaza Strip, Israel announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off its northern Mediterranean coast.
The news sent the Tel Aviv stock market sharply higher on Sunday as the size of the find appeared to eclipse the negative impact of the recession the country is now facing. Shares of the Israeli partners in the Tamar-1 drilling site jumped between 42% and 124%, though profit-taking pulled some down on Jan. 19. Even the Israeli shekel joined in, climbing by up to 1.6% against the dollar on Monday before settling the day up a half-point.
The discovery of this natural gas pipeline immediately made Israel a player in the natural gas market. It's an open secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to create a pseudo OPEC cartel in natural gas.
Last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin sent chills through Western Europe when he discussed the possibility of forming a gas-producers' association with countries like Libya and Iran. "A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it," he said. "We are not going to set up a cartel. But it would be correct to co-ordinate our activities with an eye to the solution of the main goal of unconditionally and securely supplying the main consumers of energy resources."
Uh-oh!
Here is a government that already uses its control of vital energy supplies as a weapon against its neighbors proposing to join forces with a charter member of the Axis of Evil—the better to intimidate rival nations all over the world.
Everyone is well aware that Iran is moving quickly towards developin nuclear weapons and has threatened to destroy Israel. What hasn't been reported as much is a series of high level meetings between Israeli officials and Russian officials. The latest of which I just cited.
It continues to be more and more clear that Israel has no confidence that the U.S. will do anything to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. The Israelis can attack Iran before that happens but they would clearly like to find a better way to resolve this.
That's where Russia enters this geopolitical chess match. Iran's nuclear weapons development depends in very large part on Russia's support. That's because most of the equipment and weaponry comes from Russia. With the discovery of the natural gas pipeline in Israel, Israel becomes a major player in the natural gas market. They would be a very natural part, pardon the pun, of a natural gas cartel headed by Russia. Russia has no interest in Iran attaining nuclear weapons per se. They would gladly cut Iran off if it meant securing Israel's place in their cartel. This latest meeting appears to have been a step toward Russia cutting Iran off and thus cutting off their nuclear weapons program.
Israel cannot have Iran get a nuclear weapon. They have no confidence that the Obama administration will help them in this cause. As such, that country is now reaching out to other geo political players to ally themselves. Russia has much more influence on Iran than the U.S. anyway. So, it appears the geo political balance of power is changing with little scrutiny. Israel is moving away from their alliance with the U.S. and moving toward an alliance with Russia.
Russia increases its influence in the world, and with Israel in their back pocket, they are one step closer toward creating a natural gas cartel. Meanwhile, in its quest to reach out to Iran, the U.S. is pushing away its long term ally Israel. Israel also has plenty of business dealings with China, another country with influence over Iran. Of course, if Israel were to ally itself with China and Russia, that would end any hope that the U.S. could influence Israel into a peace agreement with the Palestinians. It would also create a formidable alliance that would challenge the U.S. both militarily and economically. It appears that it is unfolding with little notice.
Please note. I welcome any and all comments from any political perspective. I will not stand or approve any swearing, and personal attacks will likely also not be approved.
