Archive for June 16, 2015

Is there anything the Iranians could do that would upset President Obama?

June 16, 2015

Is there anything the Iranians could do that would upset President Obama? Jerusalem PostEric R. Mandel, June 16, 2015

(Not likely. — DM)

Biden and ObamaUS President Barack Obama (L) and Vice President Joe Biden. (photo credit:OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO BY PETE SOUZA)

The administration’s fear of provoking actions while the nuclear negotiations are ongoing is interpreted by Iran not as pragmatism, but as an invitation to cheat on any future deal.

This schizophrenic foreign policy is not fooling anyone. At best, it is naïve; at worst, it threatens longterm American national security and foreign interests, to say nothing of Israel’s existence.

*****************

It is probably time of us who have strenuously opposed acquiescing in Iran’s development of nuclear weapons to throw in the towel… Mr. Obama’s definition of a satisfactory outcome has evolved… from the complete abandonment… of the Iranian nuclear program to an honor-system reliance on the Iranians.” – Conrad Black, National Review.

What stands out in the following bullets?

• Iran is increasing its financial and military support for the genocidal Syrian ophthalmologist President Bashir Assad.

• The Iranian proxy Hezbollah is helping to prop up the Assad government with its armed forces in Syrian territory.

• US President Barack Obama has stopped supporting Hayya Bina, a “civil society program in Lebanon that seeks to develop alternative Shi’ite political voices to Hezbollah” (The Wall Street Journal).

Reminiscent of the president’s abandonment of the Iranian people during the 2009 Green Revolution, when he sided with the radical mullahs over Iranians seeking a democratic government, the US has decided to leave Lebanese Shi’ites with little choice but the repressive fundamentalist Hezbollah government.

But shouldn’t it be in America’s foreign policy interests to help Iranian and Lebanese Shi’ites break free from the repressive shackles of these anti-Western terrorists and help create the conditions for a peaceful and non-threatening Islam? Anyone paying attention to Iran’s behavior since the Revolution knows that the ayatollah does not reciprocate appeasement. You would have thought after six years of a failed Middle East policy that the president would have learned that unilateral concessions are pocketed, and only encourage more demands and intransigent behavior.

The administration’s fear of provoking actions while the nuclear negotiations are ongoing is interpreted by Iran not as pragmatism, but as an invitation to cheat on any future deal.

The Iranians have been testing the Obama administration with transgressions of the Joint Plan of Action, and their escalating support of the Yemini Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and the Iraqi Shi’ite government. Iran has learned that this American administration would rather bury its head in the sand than act upon almost any transgression.

Iran can be confident that the Obama administration will be the loudest public defender of the deal, knowing it is the president’s foreign policy legacy. Future transgressions will be swept under the table to avoid anything that might unsettle the Iranian regime. Just this week, Iran tested advanced satellite missile launchers, which could be used to deliver nuclear warheads.

Although they contradict current UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolutions, the Obama administration has remained silent, claiming the Iranians are complying with their commitments because the Joint Plan of Action does not address missile systems. The administration conveniently fails to acknowledge is that the JPA does not abrogate the UNSC sanctions.

The president’s outreach to the Iranian-backed Shi’ite Houthis in Yemin, while simultaneously defending the Iranian narrative that it does not support the Shi’ite fighters, fuels the fire that the White House will defend the Iranian narrative after the deal is concluded. Nothing must get in the way of threatening the “success” of the deal.

Even more egregious is the White House’s silence on the blatant violation of a UNSC blacklist. Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force, is barred from traveling to UN member states like Lebanon, Iraq and Syria, yet he travels freely to these nations. For the past eight years, the American government has listed the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist-supporting entity. The Quds Force reports directly to the supreme leader.

The history of the Quds Force’s terrorist activity is well known.

Ahmad Vahidi, who directed the Quds Force at the time, allegedly planned the infamous bombing of the Jewish Center in Buenos Aires in 1994. According to the Obama administration, in 2011 it attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the US in Washington. No wonder America’s Gulf allies are less than enthusiastic about the US cozying up to the mullahs.

Israel and the Sunni Arab world see the president’s desire to align with Iran as both incomprehensible and inevitable. With little chance of the Senate having the votes to override the president’s almost certain veto this summer, the president is a step closer to his grand plan, in place since his first day in office – to distance America from Israel and the Gulf States, and create a new relationship with the world’s capital for terrorism, Tehran.

The head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, went to Israel last week and bluntly told the Israelis that the US expects sanctions relief to increase Iranian support of its proxies, including State Department-designated terrorists Hezbollah and Hamas. The Quds Force can expect a virtual windfall for its overseas terrorist activities. Iran is expected to receive at least $150 billion in sanctions relief, and Dempsey said it would not all be staying in Iran to help its people and economy. Is this administration acting as an indirect supporter of terrorist entities by facilitating their financing? You be the judge.

To deflect charges that the White House is in bed with the Iranians, the administration has allowed the Treasury Department to continue to place some sanctions on Hezbollah members. Like the blacklisting of Quds leader Qassem Suleimani, however, sanctions or blacklisting are one thing, enforcement is another.

This schizophrenic foreign policy is not fooling anyone. At best, it is naïve; at worst, it threatens longterm American national security and foreign interests, to say nothing of Israel’s existence.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist state in a decade’s time. That’s a perplexing goal for the leader of the free world.

Cartoon of the day

June 16, 2015

H/t The Jewish Press

Obama nukes

 

 

 

Russian Bully Putin Threatens Europe

June 16, 2015

Russia warns of ‘new military confrontation’ in Europe

BY Holly Ellyat Via CNBC June 16, 2015


Russia prepares for a European road trip. (photo credit: Kirill Kudryavtsev | AFP | Getty Images)

(While the Russian economy continues to falter, Putin competes in the only way he’s capable…nuclear build up. I hope Europe is listening. The threat is real. Put a cap on the socialist spending and invest in a strong military now before it’s too late. – LS)

Relations between Russia and the West took another downturn this week when Russia warned that any stationing of military equipment along the border with eastern Europe could have “dangerous consequences.”

The warning came as Russian President Vladimir Putin announced on Tuesday that Russia would add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year, Reuters reported.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued the warning on Monday after theNew York Times and other media organizations reported that the U.S. had offered to store military equipment for up to 5,000 troops – including battle tanks and heavy weapons — in allied eastern European countries.

“The emergence of such information confirms that the U.S., in cooperation with its allies, apparently has serious sights on ultimately undermining key provisions in the ‘NATO Russia Founding Act’ of 1997, in which the alliance pledged not to deploy substantial combat forces on the territory of the countries mentioned in the permanent basis,” the ministry said in a statement on its website.

“We hope, however, that reason will prevail and that the situation in Europe will be able to keep from sliding to a new military confrontation that could have dangerous consequences.”

The statement preceded a comments from Putin, who was attending a military and arms fair on Tuesday. Addressing the fair’s attendees, he announced the addition of the ballistic missiles which, he said, were able to “overcome even the most technically advanced anti-missile defence systems,” Reuters reported.

An U.S. Pentagon official told the NYT that no decision had yet been made and that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), to which many European countries belong, would have to ratify such a move.

“The U.S. military continues to review the best location to store these materials in consultation with our allies,” said a Pentagon spokesman said, cited by the NYT. “At this time, we have made no decision about if or when to move to this equipment.”

Propaganda and Phobia

Eastern European and Baltic states sharing a border with Russia—which include Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Ukraine—have become increasingly nervous about recent, seemingly provocative military exercises by Russia. This follows Moscow’s annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region last year, role in the pro-Russian uprising in Ukraine and subsequent sanctioning by the West.

Nonetheless, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the proposed move by the U.S. to station military equipment along the border was part of a propaganda plot to turn Europe against Moscow.

“Washington says the planned measures are needed to ‘increase the confidence’ of European allies in the face of the ‘Russian threat,'” the ministry said.

“In fact, capitals in both Washington and in Europe are aware that the ‘Russian threat’ is nothing more than a myth.”

The countries where military equipment could be stored include Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Estonia and possible Hungary. The plans could be decided upon when defence ministers from the 28 NATO member countries meet later in June.

A Russian defence official was also quoted on Monday as saying that any U.S. plan to station tanks and heavy weapons in NATO states on Russia’s border would be an “aggressive step,” news agency Interfax reported.

“If heavy U.S. military equipment, including tanks, artillery batteries and other equipment really does turn up in countries in eastern Europe and the Baltics, that will be the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War,” Russian defence ministry official General Yuri Yakubov said.

He was also quoted as saying Moscow would retaliate by building up its own forces “on the Western strategic front.”

All about Ukraine

With the war of words between the U.S. and Russia threatening to descend into something nastier, Ian Bremmer, president of risk consultancy Eurasia Group, said the geo-political tension was very much focused on Ukraine.

“We have seen a ceasefire in Ukraine that has not held, we have seen an escalation in Russian war material in east Ukraine, we’ve seen casualties in the last few weeks and expanded Russian military exercises on the border as well as more Russian troops,” he told CNBC Europe’s “Squawk Box.”

“From the western perspective it does seem laughable that Russia would talks about the greatest escalation by the Americans potentially putting tanks in the Baltics, which still hasn’t been approved by NATO as a whole, when Russia is putting tanks in countries that don’t want those tanks there. This is very much about Ukraine.”

Moscow has also accused the U.S. of being responsible for the political uprising in Ukraine in 2014 that preceded the annexation of Crimea, in which the pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych was ousted.

“It is convenient to use propaganda to cover up the responsibility of the U.S. for the anti-constitutional coup in Ukraine and in Kiev,” said the Russian Foreign Ministry in its statement.

“The U.S. has assiduously nurtured an anti-Russian among its European allies in order to take advantage of the current difficult moment for the further expansion of its military presence.”