WarSclerotic

President Obama plans major fundraiser in Tehran, Dan Miller’s Blog, June 17, 2014

The gala event will take place following the successful conclusion of P5 + 1 Iranian nukes for peace process.

This report is based on information provided by my confidential White House informant, the Really Honorable I. M. Totus, Teleprompter of the United States. He stated that President Obama will hold the fundraiser despite his (Mr. Totus’) expressions of concern that acceptance of traceable foreign contributions might be unlawful. President Obama responded to those petty quibbles as follows:

The greatest and most important security interest of My nation now lies in having My party strong and abundantly funded by rebates from sanctions relief. It’s the fair, common sense way to go.

He giggled simultaneously.

Holding the fundraiser depends on a successful conclusion of the P5 + 1 negotiations permitting Iran to continue its moderate development and construction of nuclear weapons for self-defense against Israel and any other ridiculously aggressive nations. Accordingly, President Obama has been pushing the process with a degree of vigor normally reserved for attacks on climate change deniers and any remaining racist Republicans, KKK members Tea Party Terrorists all.

Hoping to entice numerous affluent Iranian civil servants and other prominent business celebrities to attend His fundraiser, President Obama will also soon commit His military to assisting Iranian anti-terrorist forces in Iraq. He resolved to do so upon learning of this statement by the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces:

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firuzabadi described the creation of ISIL terrorist group as an Israeli plot to make a safe zone for the Zionists and keep the revolutionary forces away from the occupied lands.

Expressing equally strong disapproval of all Zionist plots (except grave plots), whether in the occupied lands or elsewhere, President Obama told Mr. Totus of his great happiness upon learning of the perceptiveness and accuracy of General Firuzabadi’s remarks. He will henceforth place unbounded trust in whatever General Firuzabadi and other consistently knowledgeable Iranians may say — subject only to verification by His league of Experts stationed in His echo chamber. President Obama further observed that if He had a son he hoped that he would look a lot like General Firuzabadi.

President Obama declined to comment on a report in the Daily Beast that

President Obama is repositioning military assets closer to Iraq, in case he wants to strike at the terrorists that are threatening to tear the country apart. The problem is, the U.S. doesn’t know who it’s supposed to hit. [Emphasis added.]

. . . .

[T]he American intelligence community is only now scrambling to draw up a potential target list in Iraq, and possibly Syria—even though the threat of ISIS has been visibly growing for years.

. . . .

Current and retired American defense and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that the CIA and the Pentagon are not certain who exactly makes up the forces that have taken so much of Iraq. [Emphasis added.]

Despite His understandable reluctance to comment, President Obama clearly faces such difficulties and needs to rely on His substantially better informed Iranian allies than on His own blinded U.S. military and other intelligence sources.

In related news President Obama, in His capacity as Commander in Chief of the United States of Obama, issued an Executive Decree modifying His Humanitarian Exceptionalism Rules of Engagement (HEROs) by exempting U.S. forces engaged in kinetic actions to assist Iranian forces from them and by requiring that, in rendering such help to Iran, they obey and enforce Iranian ROEs strictly.

President Obama explained to Mr. Totus,

In Iraq, We and Iran are a great team forced to confront really nasty people, unlike other situations elsewhere to which My HEROs applied. We must join with our Iranian brothers in opposing them with the same gentle respect universally shown by Iran in dealing with all of her vile enemies.

President Obama then visited a Common Corps classroom to tell students about a few of His most recent foreign policy successes.

Obama’s Favorite Think Tank: We Should Prepare to Bomb Iraq, Daily Beast, Josh Rogin, June 17, 2014

A new report by the Center for American Progress, the left-leaning policy organization that maintains close ties to the White House, says the U.S. should “prepare for limited counterterrorism operations against ISIS, including possible air strikes.” That is just one of the steps CAP is recommending to help keep Iraq from crumbling and fight the scourge of ISIS and other extremist groups festering in Iraq and Syria.

Several sources at Washington policy organizations told The Daily Beast that top administration officials have been calling around Washington think tanks for days to solicit advice and consultation on the substantive options for responding to the ever-deepening crisis in Iraq.

An American F-16 fighter jet takes off. (Mircea Rosca/AFP/Getty)

Few think tanks are more closely aligned with the Obama administration than CAP. The think tank was founded by John Podesta, a top advisor to President Obama. Several former Obama administration officials—including Neera Tanden, a former top White House and campaign advisor, Vikram Singh, a former State Department and Pentagon official, and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers—are now affiliated with CAP.

The CAP report presents elaborate arguments regarding the justifications for potential U.S. military action in Iraq, the conditions under which it should be considered, and the limits of such a mission. Such arguments could later be adopted by the Obama administration for defending a policy of using American military power inside Iraq, if that is the decision they ultimately make.

“Quite clearly this blitzkrieg by ISIS should be a wake up call for the Iraqi government, for the region, and for U.S. policy,” CAP Senior Fellow Brian Katulis, one of the report’s authors, told The Daily Beast. “The administration is very judiciously weighing a range of options in a dynamic situation. This is largely our own analysis. We tried to strike the right balance.”

The Obama administration wants to provide military aid to the Iraqi government, but only if they make progress towards Shia-Sunni reconciliation. Meanwhile, Iran is offering Iraq everything and anything they need to fight ISIS with no strings attached.

“Quite clearly this blitzkrieg by ISIS should be a wake up call for the Iraqi government, for the region, and for U.S. policy.”

The White House announced Monday the U.S. had moved 270 military personnel into Iraq, for missions focused on the protection of the U.S. embassy and personnel. Any future airstrikes would require reliable intelligence on the ground, therefore some prepositioning of forces is needed in advance, according to CAP.

But airstrikes would not be a complete solution to the ISIS problem, CAP warns. They would only be useful for degrading the extremist group while other political and diplomatic measures were taken to fix Iraq’s sectarian schism. The CAP report compares such a mission to the U.S. no fly zones over Iraq during the Clinton and Bush administrations, known as Operation Northern Watch. Katulis said that the administration must set strict limits on the American use of force inside Iraq, if they are deemed necessary.

“The nature of the strikes shouldn’t be broad and open ended, it should be targeted, precise, and principled,” he said. “There is no win or lose in this type of conflict. The focus should be to degrade the capacity of ISIS and other groups that threaten the Iraqi state and U.S. national security.”

CAP’s recommendation is also significant also because CAP advocated for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as far back as 2005. Back then, the U.S. needed to incentivize the Iraqi government to take responsibility for its own affairs, CAP argues, but now Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has failed in that task.

“The withdrawal of U.S. combat troops was necessary [then] to create an incentive for Iraqis to take control of their own affairs: Iraq had become dependent on an endless supply of American ground troops for its security,” the report states. “The failure of Iraqi leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, to build an inclusive political system has enabled the current startling advances of militants across Iraq led by the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS.”

Even after potential airstrikes in Iraq, ISIS would still be untouchable in Syria, so CAP recommends increasing the training and equipping of the moderate Syrian armed rebels, something the administration has resisted for three years. Money for that should come from the new $5 billion counterterrorism fund Obama announced in his West Point speech this month, the report states. Congress may not give Obama those funds any time soon.

“The United States should not undertake military action lightly and should be wary of unintended consequences. But not all military action is the same,” the report states. “Ground troops or invasions to control a country are very different from limited air strikes or targeted assistance to help push back terrorist extremists. Extremist terrorist groups controlling large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria from which they could ultimately attack American interests or allies are worthy of a limited, effective response, including limited air strikes.”

The End of Obama’s Bad Deal with Iran — What’s Next?, Front Page Magazine, Adam Turner, June 17, 2014

(Another possibility is that due to Iran’s “cooperation” in Iraq, the P5 + 1 deal will be consummated by July 20th. Isn’t President Obama even more eager for that?– DM)

According to the press, the negotiations to craft a more permanent agreement between Iran and the P5 + 1 are going nowhere, fast.  Bilateral talks are springing up to complicate the negotiations.  Many observers expect that the President and his team will simply agree to an extension of the interim agreement for another six months, as is provided for in the JPA.

The Obama Administration will eagerly sign onto an extension, so as to prevent yet another obvious foreign policy fiasco on their watch. 

Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz expressed his hope that the U.S. would not make a “bad” deal with Iran regarding the nuclear negotiations.

Unfortunately, there can be no doubt about what is going to happen.  The Obama Administration released five senior Talibani terrorists – and perhaps some additional ransom money – to the Taliban/Haqqani Network in return for one captured American serviceman, who may have been a deserter.  Any nuclear deal between the U.S. (and others) and Iran, including an extension of the current one, produced by President Obama and his team of “smart diplomats,” will inevitably be bad.

On July 20, 2014, the P5 + 1 nations’ Joint Plan of Action (JPA) with Iran officially ends.  The JPA was the bad deal promoted by President Obama that recognized Iran’s right to enrich nuclear material and gave it relief from crippling economic sanctions in return for almost nothing of any real significance to restrict Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.  Under the JPA, Iran was allowed to keep every one of its 19,000 plus centrifuges spinning, and was even able to continue to construct more.  Some limited caps were placed on Iran’s ability to enrich, but nothing was done to prevent it from expanding its stockpile of uranium.  Meanwhile, the JPA gave the Iranian regime an economic windfall of well over $20 billion.

It must be understood that the JPA was not just a bad deal, but it was, in fact, an exceptionally bad deal from the perspective of the U.S., Israel, the Arab states, and the Western World democracies.

• According to The Tower, “Iran is now mathematically certain to have busted through the caps on energy exports set by the interim Joint Plan of Action (JPA), which had eroded the sanctions regime, despite months of promises and ongoing declarations from administration officials insisting that violations of the remaining sanctions would not be tolerated.”

•While the Iranian concessions are easily reversible, the Western concessions in the JPA are likely irreversible, meaning the existing sanctions regime was gutted with no realistic prospect of restoring those sanctions to previous levels.

•The JPA promised Iran the right to nuclear enrichment simply for good conduct over a relatively small period of time, ignoring the fact that the Iranian regime is inherently aggressive and dangerous.

•The JPA deal did nothing to stop Iran from using its new installments of cash and time to advance the weakest parts of its nuclear program — bomb technology and the ballistic missiles needed to deliver such bombs to Israel, Europe or the U.S.

•The JPA deal was in direct contravention of six U.N. resolutions, all of which stated that Iran had no right to nuclear enrichment and required that Iran dismantle its vast nuclear infrastructure.

•The JPA deal actually included a provision allowing the Iranians to veto reports of their own violations of the interim agreement.

•The JPA increased the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s access in Iran to monitor the agreement, but not enough.  It still falls short of what the IAEA says it needs, and it is less than the wide-ranging inspection powers the IAEA had in Iraq in the 1990’s.

•The JPA did not allow the West access to such places like the Parchin military base in Iran, which is believed to be used as a covert nuclear weapons development site.

•Soon after the JPA’s announcement, Iranian President Rouhani – a supposedmoderate – gloated on Twitter (later removed) and video about the world powers capitulating to Iran.

Now the question becomes, what will replace the JPA? According to the press, the negotiations to craft a more permanent agreement between Iran and the P5 + 1 are going nowhere, fast.  Bilateral talks are springing up to complicate the negotiations.  Many observers expect that the President and his team will simply agree to an extension of the interim agreement for another six months, as is provided for in the JPA.

In other words, these observers believe that the JPA will be replaced by the JPA.  The same bad agreement currently in existence.

The Obama Administration will eagerly sign onto an extension, so as to prevent yet another obvious foreign policy fiasco on their watch.  After all, they currently face Iraq, where a jihadist group too violent for al-Qaeda is carving out its own state and the U.S. can do nothing about it, because all of the American troops were removed by President Obama.  They face Libya, where the U.S. “led from behind” to oust the dictator Gaddafi, which resulted in the collapse of the Libyan nation, the spread of U.S. weapons to jihadists groups throughout the Middle East, the seizure of parts of Mali by jihadist groups armed with American weapons that prompted French intervention, and the death of the U.S. Ambassador by elements of al-Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11.  They face Syria, where the Administration blustered with its red line against the use of chemical weapons before caving, and the dictator Assad continues to use those weapons against civilians in the bloody civil war.   And there are so many more foreign policy disasters under the current Administration.

Perhaps even more importantly, the Obama Administration will sign onto an extension of the JPA as a way to facilitate plans to “open direct talks with Iran on how the two longtime foes can counter the insurgents” in Iraq. (More “smart diplomacy” in action.)

The Mullahs in Iran will also probably agree to an extension of the JPA.   As we know, they are giving up almost nothing regarding their nuclear research, and getting huge benefits in time and money in return.  Plus,  the JPA does not seriously infringe, in any way, with the Iranian leaderships’ ability to threaten the U.S. and Jews, support terrorists and/or wars of aggression in Lebanon,Syria, Egypt, Yemen etc. and/or oppress its own people.

So why would the Iranians not take advantage of President Obama, if they can?  Every other bad actor is doing it.

ISIL Israel’s Trick to Create Safe Zone for Zionists: Iranian Commander, Tasnim News Agency, June 17, 2014

(Is a perverse sense of humor a mandatory qualification for the Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, or do General  Firuzabadi’s comments reflect the views of the humanitarian Iranian government which claims to oppose terrorism (unless sponsored by Iran)? Will expression of such views diminish the Obama Administration’s apparent willingness to help Iran in Iraq? “US and British sources report that Washington and Tehran are in practical talks on their respective roles: One proposal is for the US to provide air cover for Iranian ground troops and support in the form of air strikes against Al Qaeda targets.” — DM)

TEHRAN (Tasnim) – The Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Hassan Firuzabadi described the creation of ISIL terrorist group as an Israeli plot to make a safe zone for the Zionists and keep the revolutionary forces away from the occupied lands.

Firuzabadi stressed that unity and resistance of the Iraqi nation is key to defeating the terrorist group.

In early June, following its large-scale offensives in Iraq, ISIL seized control of most parts of Mosul, the second most populous city in Iraq, its surrounding Nineveh province. ISIL militants have been in control of Fallujah city since December.

The terrorists’ attacks have reportedly forced more than half a million people in and around Mosul, the capital of Nineveh Province, to flee their homes. The Takfiri (extremist) militants have vowed to march toward the capital, Baghdad.

Nearly 1.5 million Iraqis have volunteered to join battles against the al-Qaeda-linked militants shortly after senior religious and political leaders called on the nation to take up arms and defend their country against militants. The volunteers consist of people from all walks of life including retired officers.

Epic US-Iran military cooperation in Iraq coincides with Israel’s war on Tehran’s Palestinian ally, Hamas.

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 17, 2014, 12:20 PM (IDT)

USS George H. W. Bush opposite Bahrain

The US and Iran took the first steps for their military cooperation in Iraq on June 16, at the same time as Israel declared war on Tehran’s Palestinian ally, Hamas, in the wake of a fruitless four-day sweep of the West Bank Hebron region for the three Israeli teenagers kidnapped on June 12, and the detention of hundreds of Hamas activists – which Israel leaders said was just the beginning.

The talks between Washington and Tehran on working together in Iraq (A prospect first envisaged  by DEBKA Weekly 639 on June 14)  were revealed Monday by Secretary of State John Kerry who told a Yahoo interviewer that the US is “open to discussing any constructive process here… Let’s see what Iran might or might not be willing to do before we start making any pronouncements. I would not rule out anything that would be constructive to providing real stability.”

He also said that President Obama was vetting “every option that is available,” including drone strikes.

But, for once, reality  moved ahead of diplomatic caution.

Overnight, President Obama informed Congress that up to 275 troops could be sent to Iraq to provide support and security for US personnel and the American Embassy in Baghdad,which with a staff of 5,000 is the largest in the world. About 170 of those forces are already in Iraq.

debkafile: That is only the first step, to be followed by more. US naval, air and Marine forces are assembling in the Persian Gulf ready to go in.

Ahead of them, Iran sent at least 2,000 troops and the Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimeni to Baghdad.

Monday, The Iraqi crisis deteriorated further when ISIS seized Tal Afar, a key city on the Syrian border for its  Islamist state which is planned to span Iraq and Syria.

US and British sources report that Washington and Tehran are in practical talks on their respective roles: One proposal is for the US to provide air cover for Iranian ground troops and support in the form of air strikes against Al Qaeda targets.

The repercussions of this collaboration may at some point intersect with Israel’s long-delayed confrontation with Tehran’s Palestinian proxy, Hamas.

Israel’s leaders issued a blunt declaration of war on the Palestinian Hamas Tuesday, June 16, when the three Israeli teenagers remained missing. The mass detentions of Hamas activists was just the start of the pressure aimed at crushing their organization’s terrorist infrastructure, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, declared after their latest situation update.

More and tougher military operations were coming until the mission was accomplished – however grave the consequences and however long it takes, they said.

The chief of staff also made it clear that the IDF stands ready to hit back at Hamas’ Gaza strongholds in the event of a Hamas rejoinder to the harsh pressure clamped down on its West Bank organization.

By its policy of silence – abstaining from owning up to the kidnapping or uttering a single word about it –  Hamas has left Israel with no option but to confront the extremist organization head-on to force the issue.

Hamas’ political leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip – or even its military officers – may be ignorant of the boys’ whereabouts and constrained from admitting as much. Only a very tight hard core may be in possession of this information.

This kind of standoff follows the lines of the abduction in 2006 of the Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit by an international terrorist league of which Hamas was a member. It took years for the circumstances of his capture to come to light after the Palestinian group gained the release of nearly a thousand of its jailed members.

In the case of Naftali Frenkel, Gil-Ad Sha’ar and Eyal Yifrach, debkafile’s intelligence sources report that the IDF, Mossad, AMAN and the Shin Bet are better informed than they were in the hunt Gilead Shalit. This information is kept under tight wraps so as not to compromise the search.

But in the absence of a glimmer of light, Netanyahu, Ya’alon and Gantz cut through the emotionally-charged atmosphere in the country with a caution to be patient because the operation to smash Hamas, though determined and all-encompassing, is likely to be protracted and difficult.

It is also worth noting that even if leads to the mystery do turn up, the IDF and government may find as often before that their hands are tied by interminable legalistic quibbles and delays. Israeli left wing fringes make a habit of teaming up with Palestinian associates to throw up walls against security-related actions by petitions to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem to defeat or at least slow down those actions.

At the same time, it is to the credit of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that, appreciating the complexity of the crisis and Israel’s sensitivities, picked up the phone and for the first time in many months talked to Binyamin Netanyahu. After condemning the abductions, he said he hoped the boys would return home safely. He also assured the Israeli prime minister of his continued cooperation, notwithstanding the constant assaults directed against him and the Palestinian Authority’s security and intelligence agencies.

That call was the first positive outcome of Netanyahu’s actions in this episode and the only one so far.

It will be interesting to see how the juxtaposition of the first US-Iranian military coordination in Iraq and Israel’s operation to hammer Tehran’s protégée, both epic events, affects US-Israeli relations.

US focus must be on Iran as Iraq falls apart, Fox News, Amb. John Bolton, June 16, 2014

[F]or U.S. regional and global interests, we must increase (more accurately, renew) our efforts to overthrow the ayatollahs in Tehran. The reasons this objective deserves priority also explain why aiding an Iranian surrogate like Maliki’s regime does not benefit America today. 

The main beneficiary would be Tehran, especially if Obama, reprising Roosevelt’s World War II infatuation with Joseph Stalin, decided to do business with the ayatollahs. “Uncle Ali” Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, would undoubtedly have the last laugh.

Unfortunately, there is no chance Obama will adopt anything like this strategy. Indeed, given the president’s limp June 13 statement, it is doubtful Washington will even perform coherently in the months ahead. It is not a matter whether Obama’s Iraq “policy” is correct, but whether he is even interested.

Whole forests have been sacrificed since the stunningly swift military advances of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (”ISIL”) to provide enough newsprint for the debate over who bears responsibility for the current debacle in Iraq. Inevitably, analysts are rearguing George W. Bush’s decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Barack Obama’s complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, and virtually everything else Iraq-related in between.

This is all beside the point for today’s decision-makers confronting the question of what, if anything, to do as Iraq nears disintegration. America must instead decide what its national interests are now, not what they were five or ten years ago. As economists love to remind, the “sunk costs” fallacy warns against revisiting past mistakes to recreate a history we wish had unfolded.

Maliki has had his chance, and he has failed; aiding him is likely a fool’s errand.

None of the parties to Iraq’s current conflict have anything to recommend them. ISIL is a terrorist organization, and even conceding its (perhaps temporary) schism with Al Qaeda, it is precisely the terrorist enemy we have been fighting since September 11, 2001 (and before, although we didn’t realize it until too late).

Ranged against ISIL are Assad’s regime in Syria, Maliki’s regime in Iraq, and their puppet-masters in Iran. None of them smell any sweeter. (The Kurds are a special case, but they first need to make their goals clear before we decide how to respond.)

Nonetheless, some argue we should assist Maliki to prevent the complete loss of America’s heroic effort to oust Saddam Hussein and give Iraqis the chance for representative government. From a very different perspective, people who always (or at least sometimes) opposed the second Iraq war, now suggest we should aid Maliki because it would provide an opportunity to work with Tehran, presumably building mutual confidence thereby.

Both these arguments are wrong and their policy implications misguided. Instead, we should pursue two courses of action, one tactical, one strategic.

First, regarding the immediate hostilities, we should stand aside, hoping the conflict damages all the combatants, as in the 1980’s Iran-Iraq war, of which Henry Kissinger reportedly quipped that he hoped both sides would lose.

Second, strategically and most importantly for U.S. regional and global interests, we must increase (more accurately, renew) our efforts to overthrow the ayatollahs in Tehran. The reasons this objective deserves priority also explain why aiding an Iranian surrogate like Maliki’s regime does not benefit America today.

Maliki has had his chance, and he has failed; aiding him is likely a fool’s errand. Even if Washington conditioned its assistance on Maliki effectively breaking with Tehran, there is precious little chance he would agree. And if he did, there is every chance he would break his commitment — or Iran would break it for him — at the earliest opportunity once ISIL was crushed.

Iran is clearly the strongest, most threatening power in this conflict. It is rapidly approaching (or has already all but reached) a deliverable nuclear-weapons capability.

For nearly 35 years since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Tehran has been the world’s central banker for international terrorism. It has armed and financed terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism on an equal-opportunity basis, including Sunnis like Hamas and Taliban, and Shia like Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iraqi Shia who attacked American forces. A nuclear Iran could engage in even greater terrorist activity with relative impunity, something Taliban and Al Qaeda lacked the luxury of contemplating while we were overthrowing their regime in Kabul after 9/11.

Thus understood, it becomes perfectly clear that we should not aid our stronger adversary power against our weaker adversary power in the struggle underway in Iraq. There is little in it for us. The main beneficiary would be Tehran, especially if Obama, reprising Roosevelt’s World War II infatuation with Joseph Stalin, decided to do business with the ayatollahs. “Uncle Ali” Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, would undoubtedly have the last laugh.

U.S. strategy must rather be to prevent Tehran from re-establishing its scimitar of power stretching from Iran through Iraq and Syria to Lebanon. Our interests dictate not being content with a Middle East where Iran and its puppets predominate. Balancing against Iran by aiding friendly Arab regimes (which Maliki’s is not) is inadequate. At best, we would produce a regional status quo filled with sworn enemies of America.

Instead, our objective should be to remove the main foe, Tehran’s ayatollahs, by encouraging the opposition, within and outside Iran, to take matters into their own hands. There is no need to deploy U.S. military power to aid the various opposition forces. We should instead provide them intelligence and material assistance, and help them subsume the political differences that separate them. Their differences should be addressed when the ayatollahs’ regime lies in ashes. And as Iran’s regime change proceeds, we can destroy ISIL.

Unfortunately, there is no chance Obama will adopt anything like this strategy. Indeed, given the president’s limp June 13 statement, it is doubtful Washington will even perform coherently in the months ahead. It is not a matter whether Obama’s Iraq “policy” is correct, but whether he is even interested.

Possibly, Iraq’s potential disintegration, together with the broader collapse of U.S. influence and interests now unfolding, could give impetus to a major national debate, long overdue, about America’s proper place in the world. Let it begin now, whether Obama is inclined to participate or not.

Obama-Supported Palestinian Gov’t Kidnapped American Citizen

Israel Revolt

Daniel Mael

via Obama-Supported Palestinian Gov’t Kidnapped American Citizen | Truth Revolt.

he Hamas-endorsed Palestinian unity government, which the Obama administration has committed to fund, kidnapped three Israeli teenagers on Thursday evening, including an American citizen.

As outlined by the Wall St. Journal on June 6th, “The 1988 Hamas Charter explicitly commits the Palestinian terror group to murdering Jews. Thanks to the formation this week of an interim government uniting Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, which the U.S. supports to the tune of more than $400 million a year, the American taxpayer may soon become an indirect party to that enterprise.”

Funding Hamas is a direct violation of United States law:

(a) Prohibited Activities.—

(1) Unlawful conduct.— Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. To violate this paragraph, a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6)), that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).

On Wednesday, a day before the kidnapping, 88 senators sent a bi-partisan letter to the Obama administration demanding that the United States cease its assistance to the government:

Dear Mr. President:

We are appreciative of your Administration’s dedication to achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, the recent formation of a Palestinian Authority unity government supported by Hamas, a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization that has never publicly accepted the Quartet principles, represents a serious setback to efforts to achieve peace. We are gravely concerned that the formation of this government and President Abbas’ renewed effort to upgrade the status of the Palestinians within international organizations will jeopardize direct negotiations with Israel to achieve a two-state solution.

By its actions and inaction, Hamas has demonstrated it is not a partner for peace. Hamas has openly called for Israel’s destruction and last month Hamas leaders again repeated their refusal to meet recognized international demands: recognition of Israel, renunciation of terror, and acceptance of previous Israel-PLO agreements.

Recent events have consequences as to U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority as provided for in the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 and restrictions contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2014, including prohibiting foreign assistance to Hamas or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member or over which Hamas has undue influence. These troubling developments, including the role played by Hamas in the formation of the government, have undermined Congressional support for U.S. assistance to the Palestinians. Any assistance should only be provided when we have confidence that this new government is in full compliance with the restrictions contained in current law. We urge you to continue to impress on President Abbas the need for him to cease any alliance with terrorist organizations such as Hamas and to return to the negotiating table with Israel.

On Sunday, John Kerry issued a statement condemning the kidnapping, though the press release failed to mention that one of the abducted boys, Naftali Frenkel, is a United States citizen:

The United States strongly condemns the kidnapping of three Israeli teenagers and calls for their immediate release. Our thoughts and prayers are with their families. We hope for their quick and safe return home. We continue to offer our full support for Israel in its search for the missing teens, and we have encouraged full cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian security services. We understand that cooperation is ongoing.

We are still seeking details on the parties responsible for this despicable terrorist act, although many indications point to Hamas’ involvement. As we gather this information, we reiterate our position that Hamas is a terrorist organization known for its attacks on innocent civilians and which has used kidnapping in the past.

Israel made clear that it knows Hamas was behind the kidnapping of the innocent school-children. Former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, called on the U.S. government to rescind its recognition of the new government after the latest developments and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not mince words:

Added by Joop Klepzeiker

As the US dawdles in Iraq, opportunity for the Kurds — and Iran, Times of Israel,  Lazar Berman, June 16, 2014

Iraqi men board military trucks to join the Iraqi army at the main recruiting center in Baghdad, Iraq, Saturday, June. 14, 2014, after authorities urged Iraqis to help battle insurgents. (Photo credit: AP/Karim Kadim)

[T]here is a stable, pro-Western force in the country, the Kurds, and Washington is doing itself no favors by not backing them more firmly in their disputes with Baghdad and neighboring countries.

But there is little chance the US will back Kurdish independence. Washington, after investing so much blood and treasure into keeping the Iraqi state together after Saddam’s downfall, is not interested in seeing it fracture along ethnic lines. The Americans “want to keep the political map of the region as it is,” noted Salam Saadi, editor of Rudaw.

If the US insists on keeping out of the Iraqi mess, there is not much left for it to do but hope Iran can stem the ISIL advance while moving Iraq in a direction that will meet American interests — not an especially good bet.

The big players in Iraq are surprised and deeply alarmed by the lightning gains achieved over the past week by the Sunni militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

In Baghdad, the Shiite-dominated government of Nuri al-Maliki is on its heels, its soldiers led passively to the slaughter in the desert, and its patrons in Iran sending troops across the border to help prop it up. The United States, which expended billions of dollars and thousands of lives building up the Iraqi state and training the crumbling Iraqi army, finds itself mulling military action two weeks after President Barack Obama ridiculed those who say “that every problem has a military solution.”

But for the Kurds, rulers of Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern region, the Iraqi army’s retreat offers new opportunity.

The most significant gain they have made so far is to take full control of the disputed oil-rich city of Kirkuk, after rolling in last Thursday with their Peshmerga forces.

Kurds see Kirkuk as an integral part of their historic homeland, their “Jerusalem,” and believe it should be under their authority. A historically ethnically mixed city of Turkomen, Assyrians, Arabs, and Kurds within a heavily Kurdish province, Kirkuk’s demographics were changed drastically by Saddam Hussein’s Arabization campaign, during which he drove out of 100,000 Kurds.

A referendum on Kirkuk’s future, mandated by the 2005 Iraqi constitution, has been delayed indefinitely by Baghdad. Thus, the Kurds have decided to solve their biggest outstanding dispute — and there are many — with the central government themselves, by taking control of the city.

With the Kurdistan Regional Government in control of all the areas under dispute between Baghdad and the KRG capital Erbil, the Kurds’ position has improved drastically. According to some reports, Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani ordered the Peshmerga to prepare for permanent control of the city.

Keeping Kirkuk “means moving forward an extra mile toward independence,” said Ofra Bengio, an expert on Iraq at Tel Aviv University. “This means further escalation with Baghdad, which, however, seems incapable to stop the advancement of the Kurds.”

Kurdish PM Nechirvan Barzani (photo credit: US Department of Defense)

And who would take the city from them? The United States and the Iraqi central government have much bigger problems on their hands; and for ISIL, fighting the Peshmerga forces would be an unnecessary, perhaps fatal, diversion from the campaign against Iraq’s Shiites.

Still, there is always an outside chance that in the bloody ring that Iraq has become, the Peshmerga could find itself in a serious fight with the Islamists. “The Kurds stated that they do not want to open a front against ISIL, but if the latter does there is no doubt that such a clash might occur,” Bengio noted.

Kurdish media reported that Peshmerga forces have already battled ISIL militants, in the town of Jalula last week, driving the Islamist fighters out while losing two of their own. In addition, Kurdish news channel Rudaw reported Sunday that ISIL was sending messages to the Peshmerga through civilians passing through checkpoints, asking the Kurds to refrain from attacking.

A video posted to YouTube showed a group of Kurdish ISIL fighters addressing the Kurdish people in their own language, said Rebaz Ali, a Kurdish journalist based in the United States. They promised to liberate the Kurds one day from the parties currently controlling the region.

In any event, the Peshmerga are not about to pursue ISIL fighters beyond disputed territories. “Kurds are not ready to fight against ISIL in support of Maliki unless they have some assurance from his side that he’s going to resolve the issues with them,” said Ali.

Granting Iraq to Iran on a silver plate

As Sunni militants advance, Iran sends troops in to back the US-supported government, and Kurds move closer to independence, what options remain for the United States?

First, Washington should give up the expectation that it can put the country back together again, emphasized Bengio: “Iraq as a unitary state has gone forever. In fact this artificial entity has never managed to become a cohesive and unified entity without the force of arms.”

She also placed significant blame on the Obama administration for the current turmoil in Iraq. “Not because it withdrew its forces from Iraq, as Maliki insisted that not one soldier should remain in Iraq after 2011 there, but because of the free hand which it gave him in the aftermath of the withdrawal to marginalize the Sunnis and antagonize a whole section of the population,” she said. “Their support of Maliki against the Kurds was another gross mistake.

“However, the worst was granting Iraq to Iran on a silver plate.”

Unless Obama takes decisive action now, including airstrikes, Iran could gain significantly if it manages to save the Maliki government, becoming the decisive player in the country at the expense of the US. If that were to happen, Tehran would hold sway from Iraq to the Mediterranean Sea through Syria and Lebanon.

But airstrikes alone are only one piece of the solution, Ali said, and the US must pressure Baghdad to enact policies designed to meet the needs of the Sunni population, now actively helping ISIL fighters. “It’s a Sunni uprising against the Shiite-dominated government,” said Ali. “Maliki’s sectarian war against the Sunnis has been brutal. We only see the ISIL fighters, but there are also tribal fighters, former Iraqi military officers and soldiers.”

Moreover, there is a stable, pro-Western force in the country, the Kurds, and Washington is doing itself no favors by not backing them more firmly in their disputes with Baghdad and neighboring countries.

But there is little chance the US will back Kurdish independence. Washington, after investing so much blood and treasure into keeping the Iraqi state together after Saddam’s downfall, is not interested in seeing it fracture along ethnic lines. The Americans “want to keep the political map of the region as it is,” noted Salam Saadi, editor of Rudaw.

If the US insists on keeping out of the Iraqi mess, there is not much left for it to do but hope Iran can stem the ISIL advance while moving Iraq in a direction that will meet American interests — not an especially good bet.

It’s June 2015. Isis has its own ‘holy land’ and airliners are being blown out of the sky, The Telegraph, Tom Rogan, June 16, 2014

(To what extent are the “powers that be” trying to anticipate the consequences of their actions and inactions. Does Iran’s generally long-term approach suggest that it may be doing that while others dither? — DM)

Far-fetched? Maybe. But I want to make three points. First, to emphasise the interwoven threads of Middle Eastern politics: one circumstance causes a ripple of other effects, which in turn cause further ripples and so on. Second, to highlight the influence of paranoia in political calculations. Third, to suggest that the West won’t find insulation from this crisis.

As events spiral out of control in Iraq, I thought it might be useful to consider what the country might look like this time next year . . .

One year after Isis seized Mosul and Tikrit, the Iraqi Prime Minister remains in power.

Maliki’s survival is no great victory.

Snaking a bloody path from Syria into Iraq, Isis has scoured itself a shadow Caliphate. In this holy land, cells of car bombers and death squads reign supreme. Unable to fight Isis alone, Maliki has made a deal with Iran. In return for thousands of Revolutionary Guards, Ayatollah Khamenei and Qassem Suleimani (a top Guards force commander) have locked Maliki into an implicit political union with the Islamic Republic. Gone are the days when Maliki could confront Iranian-supported militias. Today, Maliki has expelled most American contractors from Iraq, US Embassy staff rarely leave Baghdad and CIA officers are regularly harassed by Iraqi security forces. Facing Iran’s surge, even Najaf’s Grand Ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, has been pressured into silence. Iran is playing the long game.

Though driven from Mosul last summer, Isis are fully content with their present condition. They control many towns and villages in both Iraq and Syria. Their lines of communication are covert but secure, and their authority is imbued in the minds of those who live under them. To be sure, the barbarism of Isis Sharia courts has alienated some. In Anbar province, an anti-Isis insurgency is gathering steam. Still, many others have been won over by Isis gifts of medical supplies and expensive household goods. Bribery works.

Paranoia has foisted Sunni and Shia communities into stark sectarian divisions. It’s never been this bad, not even in the darkest days of 2006. Weekly death tolls are soaring. Signs of torture are etched into the bodies dumped on the streets. To make matters worse, the Sunni Arab monarchies are funnelling stacks of hard cash to Isis financiers. They’re desperate to stop Iranian usurpation of Iraq, whatever the cost.

For Isis, 2015 is therefore a dream come true. Using their Caliphate as a vehicle to export terrorism, they’ve launched two major attacks on the West. In November 2014, French citizens bombed a restaurant and a bus in Paris. In a simultaneous January 2015 attack, British citizens blew up two transatlantic passenger planes. Six hundred died. This airline attack has taken more than innocent lives. It has frayed EU-US diplomacy. America now requires EU passport holders who’ve traveled to any of 10 countries (including Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey) to attain a visa for travel to the United States. Combined with fears over flight safety, the airlines have lost billions in revenues. Intelligence services are struggling to identify Isis terrorists who are returning home with a smile and the knowhow of a bomb-maker. Benefiting from Snowden’s leaks, Isis has dramatically reduced its use of the internet and cell phones. More attacks are expected.

Of course, Isis has also lost people. Back in February, its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a joint US-Jordanian special forces raid in Syria. But he’s been replaced by Ni’ma al-Jabouri, another Iraq-focus commander. And while Isis has suffered heavy casualties, its stunning successes have attracted waves of new recruits. Maliki’s overt association with Iran has enabled ISIS to present itself as a necessary defender against Shia aggression. Sectarian neutrality doesn’t exist in 2015 Iraq. Sunni-Shia intermarriage is a capital offence.

In June 2015, the chaos is spilling across borders. Watching Iran’s unrestrained advance across the Middle East, Israel is convinced it cannot allow Khamenei to gain a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has told Obama he may strike Iran at any time. In Syria, Assad has taken advantage of American distraction, using chemical weapons and starvation to crush the nationalist rebel formations. Opposing a de facto independent state of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, Turkey’s Republican People’s Party is calling for military action. Across the world, from Indonesia to Pakistan, Isis has inspired Salafi Jihadist groups to believe that anything is possible. Global terrorism is exploding.

2015 is not a good year.

Far-fetched? Maybe. But I want to make three points. First, to emphasise the interwoven threads of Middle Eastern politics: one circumstance causes a ripple of other effects, which in turn cause further ripples and so on. Second, to highlight the influence of paranoia in political calculations. Third, to suggest that the West won’t find insulation from this crisis.

Obama Fiddles While the World Burns, Algemeiner, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, June 16, 2014

Depiction of President Obama delivering his 2014 State of the Union address. Photo: White House.

[B]y allowing Iraq and Syria to degenerate into Afghanistan, we are all but guaranteeing another hit on the United States. A lawless world cannot possibly keep America safe.

Under President Obama, the world is becoming unstuck. Iraq is being overrun by Islamist terrorists and the United States is now evacuating its Baghdad embassy. The Arab Spring has led to either civil war and mass slaughter, like Syria, or new Arab dictators, like Egypt. Libya is degenerating into a den of terrorists who have already murdered the American Ambassador. Putin is sending tanks into Ukraine and the thuggish Russian strongman bestrides the world like a colossus, unchecked by American will.

These facts are undeniable. The only question is whether President Obama is responsible.

Obama’s argument, as laid out in his 2014 West Point commencement, is that his first rule of foreign policy is “Don’t do anything stupid.” Military action should be reserved only for the most extreme circumstances. Americans are war-weary after Iraq and Afghanistan. Our President believes in a minimalist approach.

The shallowness of this argument, however, lies in this simple fact. Yes, Americans are weary of entering foreign conflicts. The President is correct that we don’t want our boys dying to fight on behalf of Iraqi cowards who shed their uniforms at the first sound of gunfire. But we are even more weary of another 9/11 attack. And by allowing Iraq and Syria to degenerate into Afghanistan, we are all but guaranteeing another hit on the United States. A lawless world cannot possibly keep America safe.

I have contempt for Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq. Increasingly autocratic, he is even more guilty of gross ingratitude. Rather than show America any kind of thanks for all that we sacrificed to give his nation their freedom, he treats America with disdain. Who wants to help a man who is becoming a despot, hates democratic Israel, and reaches out to America only when he fears being strung up by Jihadists?

But this isn’t about Maliki, but America. The chaos that comes to Iraq will directly impact the security of the United States. An evacuation of Baghdad would be much worse than the shame of Saigon because at least the North Vietnamese communists did not deploy a global army of terrorists who fly planes into buildings. Al Qaeda does.

I visited West Point last night with my family for their summer concert series. It was the 239th birthday of the Army, and the West Point Band put on a stirring and patriotic performance. President Obama had spoken at the cadets’ commencement just two weeks earlier. Ask yourself: how did these cadets feel when President Obama got up at their graduation and told them there is increasingly no substantive role for them to play in the world. Here were young warriors, trained to fight and protect the United States, being told that the use of force has little to no application. No wonder there was such tepid applause and a cold response. These bright young men and women must have been thinking why they didn’t instead just land jobs in the  State Department.

No one wants to see American troops die in foreign wars. Of course our soldiers should never be sent needlessly into harm’s way. But the threat of American force must always be present, even if it’s not deployed. People must fear the United States. What President Obama is doing by not taking action and by giving so many unnecessary speeches defending his belief in doing nothing, is that he is removing the deterrent of a credible threat. The world believes that the United States under President Obama has no stomach for a fight. And we’re watching the effects all around us. The inmates are running the asylum.

The world is slowly becoming unglued. The Islamic world especially is in a deteriorating spiral that’s positively tragic to watch. Turkey, once a proud democracy, now boasts a Prime Minister whose own political aides violently attack peaceful protestors. My God, Erdogan doesn’t even shy from harassing and shoving CNN reporters while they are live on the air. He no longer even shows the pretense of freedom. When I was in Istanbul I was amazed to experience firsthand how YouTube is permanently blocked, and Twitter was restored just two days before I arrived. This Turks were once a free people. How are they allowing this?

Syria is a giant killing zone with President Obama’s red line against the use of chemical weapons being repeatedly violated without consequence. Iran sports the second most brutal and vile government on the earth, after North Korea, and thinks nothing of stoning women, hanging gays from cranes, and assassinating peaceful protestors in cold blood. Worse, they fund the bloodiest terrorists around the world. But that does not stop our President from negotiating with them and leaving them within a few months of nuclear weapons. Egypt is back to Presidents who win elections with 95% of the vote. Nigeria’s Boko Haram is the filthiest terror group in the entire world, murdering children in large number and bragging about selling young girls into sexual slavery.

And who most pays the biggest price for this lawlessness? Why Israel, of course, with three teenagers now kidnapped by what appears to be Hamas, an organization that the United States officially labels as terrorists but whose joint government with Mahmoud Abbas we now recognize.

Through all this, Barack Obama drifts along, meditating on his mantra of “let’s do nothing stupid.” But I have long believed that the true sins we are guilty of in life are not the sins of commission, the mistakes we make, but rather the sins of omission, the good things we fail to do.

Sometimes the dumbest thing is to fail to act because of the fear of doing dumb things.

Barack Obama is fiddling while the world is burning. Israel is already smoldering under its heat and it won’t be long before America too is cindered.