WarSclerotic

United Nations Security Council votes 15-0 to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons | JPost | Israel News.

Unanimously adopted by the UNSG, resolution demands eradication of Syria’s chemical weapons, without threat of military response; conference scheduled for November; Syrian ambassador says Assad fully committed.

▶ Herman Wouk’s “War and Remembrance” – Opening Sequence and titles – YouTube.

There’s been quite a bit of discussion in the comments as to whether the disastrous Obama administration coming after the disastrous Bush administration spells the end of the United States as the leader of the world in the 21st century.

I grew up during the 18 years that my father was writing “The Winds of War” and “War and Remembrance.”

My whole being was infused with the knowledge of America’s strength  to overcome seemingly insurmountable odds.

Believe it or not, things have actually been a lot worse for the US than they are now.

We beat the odds then, and with God’s help we’ll do it again…

– JW

BBC News – Iran nuclear: Obama and Rouhani speak by phone.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment work is for nuclear energy only

US President Barack Obama says he has spoken by phone to Iran’s Hassan Rouhani – the first such top-level conversation in more than 30 years.

Mr Obama spoke of a “unique opportunity” to make progress with Iran’s new leadership, amid a flurry of diplomacy over its nuclear programme.

Earlier, Mr Rouhani said Iran was keen to reach a deal soon.

He also asserted that Iran did not seek a nuclear bomb, as Western powers have long suspected.

Describing meetings at the UN this week as a “first step”, he said he believed the nuclear issue could be settled “within the not too distant future”.

Mr Rouhani said initial discussions had taken place in an environment that was “quite different” from the past.

Mr Rouhani, who is regarded as a moderate and was elected in June, has said he wants to reach a deal over the nuclear issue in three to six months.

He says he is fully empowered by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to negotiate on the issue.

On Friday, he told a press conference at the UN: “I believe that whatever result we achieve through negotiations my government will have the full backing of all the main branches of power in Iran as well as the support of the people of Iran.”

And he said Iran was 100% supportive that a deal should be struck “within a very short period of time”.

‘Bomb is dangerous’

Earlier, the UN nuclear agency said it had held “very constructive” talks with Iran.

Herman Nackaerts, deputy director-general of the IAEA, did not give details of Friday’s talks, but said the two parties would meet again on 28 October.

“We will start substantial discussions on the way forward to resolving all outstanding issues,” Mr Nackaerts said.

Reza Najafi, Iran’s envoy to the International Atomic Agency (IAEA), was quoted as saying that the aim was to reach an agreement “as soon as possible” and also spoke of a “constructive discussion”.

Diplomats have spoken of a “significant shift” in Iran’s attitude.

There has been a flurry of meetings over Iran’s nuclear programme this week in New York, where the UN General Assembly is holding its annual meeting.

On Thursday US Secretary of State John Kerry held a rare meeting with his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Mr Kerry said he was struck by the “very different tone”, but added that Iran still had questions to answer.

There was speculation that Mr Rouhani might meet Mr Obama in New York. On Friday, Mr Rouhani said that “in principle we did not have any problems with having a meeting”, but “there was not sufficient time” for planning the encounter.

The Iranian president rebuffed questions about Iran’s reliability as a negotiating partner, saying his country wanted to retain nuclear technology but would submit to IAEA supervision.

“We say explicitly that we do not seek a bomb,” he said. “We say explicitly that we believe the building of a bomb is dangerous for us – for our region.”

The US and China have said they expect Iran to respond to an existing offer by the US, Russia, Britain, France, China and Germany, who form a negotiating group known as the P5+1.

The group has asked Iran to halt production and stockpiling of uranium enriched to 20% – a step away from achieving a nuclear weapons capability.

They also demanded Iran shut down the Fordo underground enrichment facility, near Qom.

Substantive talks between Iran and the P5+1 are due to take place on 15 October, and Mr Rouhani said Iran would bring a plan to that meeting, though he did not give details.

Obama: UN deal on Syria ‘a potentially huge victory’ | JPost | Israel News.

The ‘Arab axis of moderation’ needs help – Alarabiya.net English | Front Page.

Charles Krauthammer: The Iranian ‘moderate’ – The Washington Post.

By Charles Krauthammer, Friday, September 27, 3:13 AM

The search, now 30 years old, for Iranian “moderates” goes on. Amid the enthusiasm of the latest sighting, it’s worth remembering that the highlight of the Iran-contra arms-for-hostages debacle was the secret trip to Tehran taken by Robert McFarlane, President Reagan’s former national security adviser. He brought a key-shaped cake symbolizing the new relations he was opening with the “moderates.”

We know how that ended.

Three decades later, the mirage reappears in the form of Hassan Rouhani. Strange résumé for a moderate: 35 years of unswervingly loyal service to the Islamic Republic as a close aide to Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei. Moreover, Rouhani was one of only six presidential candidates, another 678 having been disqualified by the regime as ideologically unsound. That puts him in the 99th centile for fealty.

Rouhani is Khamenei’s agent but, with a smile and style, he’s now hailed as the face of Iranian moderation. Why? Because Rouhani wants better relations with the West.

Well, what leader would not want relief from Western sanctions that have sunk Iran’s economy, devalued its currency and caused widespread hardship? The test of moderation is not what you want but what you’re willing to give. After all, sanctions were not slapped on Iran for amusement. It was to enforce multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding a halt to uranium enrichment.

Yet in his lovey-dovey Post op-ed, his U.N. speech and various interviews, Rouhani gives not an inch on uranium enrichment. Indeed, he has repeatedly denied that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons at all. Or ever has. Such a transparent falsehood — what country swimming in oil would sacrifice its economy just to produce nuclear electricity that advanced countries such as Germany are already abandoning? — is hardly the basis for a successful negotiation.

But successful negotiation is not what the mullahs are seeking. They want sanctions relief. And more than anything, they want to buy time.

It takes about 250 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb. The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in August that Iran already has 186 kilograms. That leaves the Iranians on the threshold of going nuclear. They are adding 3,000 new high-speed centrifuges. They need just a bit more talking, stalling, smiling and stringing along of a gullible West.

Rouhani is the man to do exactly that. As Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator between 2003 and 2005, he boasted in a 2004 speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, “While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [uranium conversion] facility in Isfahan. . . . In fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan.”

Such is their contempt for us that they don’t even hide their strategy: Spin the centrifuges while spinning the West.

And when the president of the world’s sole superpower asks for a photo-op handshake with the president of a regime that, in President Obama’s own words, kills and kidnaps and terrorizes Americans, the killer-kidnapper does not even deign to accept the homage. Rouhani rebuffed him.

Who can blame Rouhani? Offer a few pleasant words in an op-ed hailing a new era of non-zero-sum foreign relations, and watch the media and the administration immediately swoon with visions of detente.

Detente is difficult with a regime whose favorite refrain, fed to frenzied mass rallies, is “Death to America.” Detente is difficult with a regime officially committed, as a matter of both national policy and religious duty, to the eradication of a U.N. member state, namely Israel. It doesn’t get more zero-sum than that.

But at least we have to talk, say the enthusiasts. As if we haven’t been talking. For a decade. Strung along in negotiations of every manner — the EU3, the P5+1, then the final, very final, last-chance 2012 negotiations held in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow at which the Iranians refused to even consider the nuclear issue, declaring the dossier closed. Plus two more useless rounds this year.

I’m for negotiations. But only if it’s to do something real, not to run out the clock as Iran goes nuclear. The administration says it wants actions, not words. Fine. Demand one simple proof of good faith: Honor the U.N. resolutions. Suspend uranium enrichment and we will talk.

At least that stops the clock. Anything else amounts to being played.

And about the Khamenei agent who charms but declares enrichment an inalienable right, who smiles but refuses to shake the president’s hand. When asked by NBC News whether the Holocaust was a myth, Rouhani replied: “I’m not a historian. I’m a politician.”

Iranian moderation in action.

And, by the way, do you know who was one of the three Iranian “moderates” the cake-bearing McFarlane dealt with at that fateful arms-for-hostage meeting in Tehran 27 years ago? Hassan Rouhani.

We never learn.

Americans Think Putin Has Been More Effective Than Obama On Syria.

he Huffington Post  |  By Ariel Edwards-Levy Posted: 09/27/2013 9:35 am EDT  |  Updated: 09/27/2013 10:00 am EDT

President Barack Obama gets lower marks for his effectiveness on Syria than does Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to an online Economist/YouGov poll.

Just 25 percent of respondents picked Obama as the most effective world leader during the Syrian chemical weapons crisis, while 49 percent named Vladimir Putin.

In a separate question, 44 percent named Obama as the least effective leader. That ranks him last among a list that included Putin, UK prime minister David Cameron, French president Francois Hollande, Syrian president Bashar Assad, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon — results that likely reflect Americans’ disapproval of Obama, rather than plaudits for or recognition of the other men.

Other polls have shown Americans are deeply skeptical of Obama’s approach in Syria. A CBS/New York Times poll released Wednesday revealed just 37 percent approved of his handling of the Syrian crisis. His overall approval ratings on foreign policy, formerly a political strength for him, have dropped significantly as well in recent months.

The Economist/YouGov poll showed that many Americans have little faith in Syria as well. Just 23 percent of respondents thought the Syrian government would surrender its chemical weapons stockpile, and only 14 percent thought that Syria was negotiating in good faith.

The poll was conducted Sept. 21-23 among 1,000 U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

A Small President on the World Stage – WSJ.com.

At the U.N., leaders hope for a return of American greatness.

PEGGY NOONAN

The world misses the old America, the one before the crash—the crashes—of the past dozen years.

That is the takeaway from conversations the past week in New York, where world leaders gathered for the annual U.N. General Assembly session. Our friends, and we have many, speak almost poignantly of the dynamism, excellence, exuberance and leadership of the nation they had, for so many years, judged themselves against, been inspired by, attempted to emulate, resented. As for those who are not America’s friends, some seem still confused, even concussed, by the new power shift. What is their exact place in it? Will it last? Will America come roaring back? Can she? Does she have the political will, the human capital, the old capability?

It is a world in a new kind of flux, one that doesn’t know what to make of America anymore. In part because of our president.

“We want American leadership,” said a member of a diplomatic delegation of a major U.S. ally. He said it softly, as if confiding he missed an old friend.

“In the past we have seen some America overreach,” said the prime minister of a Western democracy, in a conversation. “Now I think we are seeing America underreach.” He was referring not only to foreign policy but to economic policies, to the limits America has imposed on itself. He missed its old economic dynamism, its crazy, pioneering spirit toward wealth creation—the old belief that every American could invent something, get it to market, make a bundle, rise. The prime minister spoke of a great anxiety and his particular hope. The anxiety: “The biggest risk is not political but social. Wealthy societies with people who think wealth is a given, a birthright—they do not understand that we are in the fight of our lives with countries and nations set on displacing us. Wealth is earned. It is far from being a given. It cannot be taken for granted. The recession reminded us how quickly circumstances can change.” His hope? That the things that made America a giant—”so much entrepreneurialism and vision”—will, in time, fully re-emerge and jolt the country from the doldrums.

The second takeaway of the week has to do with a continued decline in admiration for the American president. Barack Obama‘s reputation among his fellow international players has deflated, his stature almost collapsed. In diplomatic circles, attitudes toward his leadership have been declining for some time, but this week you could hear the disappointment, and something more dangerous: the sense that he is no longer, perhaps, all that relevant. Part of this is due, obviously, to his handling of the Syria crisis. If you draw a line and it is crossed and then you dodge, deflect, disappear and call it diplomacy, the world will notice, and not think better of you. Some of it is connected to the historical moment America is in.

But some of it, surely, is just five years of Mr. Obama. World leaders do not understand what his higher strategic aims are, have doubts about his seriousness and judgment, and read him as unsure and covering up his unsureness with ringing words.

A scorching assessment of the president as foreign-policy actor came from a former senior U.S. diplomat, a low-key and sophisticated man who spent the week at many U.N.-related functions. “World leaders are very negative about Obama,” he said. They are “disappointed, feeling he’s not really in charge. . . . The Western Europeans don’t pay that much attention to him anymore.”

The diplomat was one of more than a dozen U.S. foreign-policy hands who met this week with the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani. What did he think of the American president? “He didn’t mention Obama, not once,” said the former envoy, who added: “We have to accept the fact that the president is rather insignificant at the moment, and rely on our diplomats.” John Kerry, he said, is doing a good job.

Had he ever seen an American president treated as if he were so insignificant? “I really never have. It’s unusual.” What does he make of the president’s strategy: “He doesn’t know what to do so he stays out of it [and] hopes for the best.” The diplomat added: “Slim hope.”

This reminded me of a talk a few weeks ago, with another veteran diplomat who often confers with leaders with whom Mr. Obama meets. I had asked: When Obama enters a room with other leaders, is there a sense that America has entered the room? I mentioned De Gaulle—when he was there, France was there. When Reagan came into a room, people stood: America just walked in. Does Mr. Obama bring that kind of mystique?

“No,” he said. “It’s not like that.”

When the president spoke to the General Assembly, his speech was dignified and had, at certain points, a certain sternness of tone. But after a while, as he spoke, it took on the flavor of re-enactment. He had impressed these men and women once. In the cutaways on C-Span, some the delegates in attendance seemed distracted, not alert, not sitting as if they were witnessing something important. One delegate seemed to be scrolling down on a BlackBerry, one rifled through notes. Two officials seated behind the president as he spoke seemed engaged in humorous banter. At the end, the applause was polite, appropriate and brief.

The president spoke of Iran and nuclear weapons—”we should be able to achieve a resolution” of the question. “We are encouraged” by signs of a more moderate course. “I am directing John Kerry to pursue this effort.”

But his spokesmen had suggested the possibility of a brief meeting or handshake between Messrs. Obama and Rouhani. When that didn’t happen there was a sense the American president had been snubbed. For all the world to see.

Which, if you are an American, is embarrassing.

While Mr. Rouhani could not meet with the American president, he did make time for journalists, diplomats and businessmen brought together by the Asia Society and the Council on Foreign Relations. Early Thursday evening in a hotel ballroom, Mr. Rouhani spoke about U.S.-Iranian relations.

He appears to be intelligent, smooth, and he said all the right things—”moderation and wisdom” will guide his government, “global challenges require collective responses.” He will likely prove a tough negotiator, perhaps a particularly wily one. He is eloquent when speaking of the “haunted” nature of some of his countrymen’s memories when they consider the past 60 years of U.S.-Iranian relations.

Well, we have that in common.

He seemed to use his eloquence to bring a certain freshness, and therefore force, to perceived grievances. That’s one negotiating tactic. He added that we must “rise above petty politics,” and focus on our nations’ common interests and concerns. He called it “counterproductive” to view Iran as a threat; this charge is whipped up by “alarmists.” He vowed again that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb, saying this would be “contrary to Islamic norms.”

I wondered, as he spoke, how he sized up our president. In roughly 90 minutes of a speech followed by questions, he didn’t say, and nobody thought to ask him.

» Seymour Hersh: Bin Laden Raid “One Big Lie” Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

Pulitzer-prize wining journalist slams “pathetic” US media for failing to challenge White House

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 27, 2013

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh says that the raid which killed Osama Bin Laden in 2011 is “one big lie” and that “not one word” of the Obama administration’s narrative on what happened is true.

Image: President Obama.

In a wide-ranging interview published today by the Guardian, Hersh savages the US media for failing to challenge the White House on a whole host of issues, from NSA spying, to drone attacks, to aggression against Syria.

On the subject of the Navy Seal raid that supposedly resulted in the death of the Al-Qaeda terror leader, Hersh remarked, “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true.”

Hersh added that the Obama administration habitually lies but they continue to do so because the press allows them to get away with it.

“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” Hersh told the Guardian.

The raid that supposedly led to Bin Laden’s death has been shrouded in mystery for over two years. Speculation that the Obama administration may have embellished or outright lied about the true account of what happened has persisted, mainly because the White House has refused to publicly release images of Bin Laden’s body.

Although the White House said the corpse was immediately “buried at sea” in line with Islamic tradition, it quickly emerged that this was not standard practice.

Numerous analysts have claimed that Bin Laden had in fact been dead for years and that the raid on his alleged compound in Pakistan was little more than a stunt.

Other questions also persist, such as why the narrative and timeline of the raid has changed multiple times, why the White House initially claimed that “situation room” photos showed Obama watching the raid live when in fact there was a blackout on the live feed, and whyneighbors in the immediate area surrounding the compound said with absolute certainty that they had never seen Bin Laden and that they knew of no evidence whatsoever to suggest he lived there.

During the rest of the Guardian interview, which is well worth reading in its entirety, Hersh lambastes the corporate press and particularly the New York Times, which he says spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would.”

Hersh’s solution is to shut down news networks like NBC and ABC and fire 90% of mainstream editors, replacing them with real journalists who are outsiders and not afraid to speak truth to power.

“The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple,” concluded Hersh.

Iran puts the UN in unbelievable | The Times of Israel.

Skepticism prevails in the Israeli press after President Hasan Rouhani calls for detente with the West and resolution of the nuclear standoff

Iranian President Hasan Rouhani speaks at the UN General Assembly in New York. (photo credit: @nycjim via Twitter)

The Israeli press takes stock of Iranian President Hasan Rouhani’s statements at the United Nations after a day-long hiatus due to the Sukkot holiday. Rouhani’s comments at the General Assembly — particularly his call for Israel to give up its nuclear arms — make top headlines, as do US President Barack Obama’s attempt to bridge the gap and bring about a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.

Rouhani told the UN earlier in the week that Tehran was willing to build bridges with the West, but warned that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear drive can’t be halted. He also called on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons, saying “No nation should possess nuclear weapons.”

Maariv reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming UN speech will — shocker — focus on Iran’s nuclear program and on negotiations with the Palestinians. The paper cites a briefing he gave The New York Times, which says the prime minister will reportedly emphasize the failure of American negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear program.

Haaretz columnist Yossi Verter writes that Netanyahu’s mission in New York will be to act as the international “party pooper” and splash cold water on “the love affair that is developing between the West, led by the United States, and Iran, under the stewardship of its new soft-spoken leader.” The prime minister will reportedly be armed with intelligence proving Iran’s involvement in worldwide terrorist operations and, as Maariv writes, “will draw a direct line between the swindle North Korea perpetrated on the US eight years ago — which began with nuclear talks and ended with a rather impressive nuclear explosion — and the ‘something new’ that’s supposedly happening now with Iran.”

Maariv also runs a short column whose theme sounds more like an article on Buzzfeed: “20 reasons why Iran is serious.” It’s not clear whether the list is in ascending order or not, but No. 1 is Rouhani’s declaration earlier this week that Iran will never develop a nuclear weapon; No. 2 is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s support of diplomacy with the West.

Maariv’s list is a collection of “proofs” that hardly demonstrate Iran’s intentions. Israel Hayom seemingly addresses them, posing the rhetorical question: “Are Iran and the West approaching a deal on Tehran’s nuclear program?”

“Depends how much you’re interested in believing the news Iran is presenting the West at face value,” it writes in response.  

“Look who’s talking,” reads Israel Hayom’s headline to a story about Rouhani calling on Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Boaz Bismuth contends in his column that Rouhani’s statements were not all that different than those of his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concerning Iran’s right to nuclear development, to uranium enrichment, and to criticism of the US.

Nonetheless, “Rouhani succeeded in inspiring the world with hope,” Bismuth writes. Unlike Maariv, whatever Iran is selling, Bismuth isn’t buying it: “Rouhani knows how to broadcast exactly the music the world wants to hear these days.”

He adds that if talks between Iran and the world powers do succeed in reaching an agreement within three to six months, according to Rouhani’s aims, “it will not be good for Jerusalem.

“But even if there isn’t any progress, it’s very doubtful whether someone in the world will take up the mission to stop the Iranian centrifuges,” he continues.

Yedioth Ahronoth leads off with statements by Barack Obama — rather than that of Rouhani — at the General Assembly, which it headlines “Extending a hand to Iran.” The paper reports that senior Israeli officials harshly criticized the president’s speech for being too soft on Rouhani and for juxtaposing Iran’s nuclear diplomacy and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

“This is very problematic,” the sources are quoted as saying, adding that Obama was showing Iran too much carrot and not enough stick. Regarding the Israelis and Palestinians, they argue “that Obama is again presenting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the core problem in the Middle East, while ignoring the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria.”

Neither Haaretz, nor the remainder of the Israeli press, has much to report on the goings-on in New York between Iran and the world powers — US Secretary of State John Kerry and his Iranian counterpart only convened around 11:30 p.m., local time. Those details will have to wait for Sunday morning’s papers.

In local news, the main story is the continuing poor health of Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. Yedioth titles it “Fateful moments” and reports that the rabbi is sedated and hooked up to a respirator after suffering a multisystem failure.

“We are expecting the mercy of heaven,” reads Israel Hayom’s headline, set alongside a photo of Orthodox men praying for Yosef’s well-being earlier this week in Jerusalem. Maariv quotes Yosef’s doctor, however, saying that there’s but a slim chance that the 93-year-old rabbi’s health condition will improve.