08 | February | 2017 | WarSclerotic

Archive for February 8, 2017

NY Times reports that Yemen halts US ground operations — but top Yemeni official says ‘not true’

February 8, 2017

Source: NY Times reports that Yemen halts US ground operations — but top Yemeni official says ‘not true’ – TheBlaze

U.S. Navy SEALs train with an SH-60F ‘Seahawk’ helicopter October 18, 2001 on the flight deck of USS Enterprise. Aircraft from the Enterprise are being used to attack targets within Afghanistan. (Lance H. Mayhew Jr./U.S. Navy/Getty Images)

The New York Times reported late Tuesday that following a botched United States special forces mission in Yemen last month, Yemeni officials “withdrew permission” for U.S. forces to operate in their country — but a top Yemeni official disputes the Times’ reporting.

The raid, which resulted in the deaths of civilians including children, was the first military operation of President Donald Trump’s tenure as commander in chief and was carried out by an advanced Navy SEAL team. It also resulted in the death of Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens, the first in-action combat death under Trump’s command.

U.S. officials said last week the purpose of the operation was to collect intelligence on terrorists with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula while also targeting AQAP leader Qassim al-Rimi. However, the SEALs were unable to hit their target and al-Rimi has since mocked Trump over the raid.

In addition to the Times report, CNN reported Wednesday that Yemen has given the “red light” on future U.S. ground mission in Yemen for the immediate future, citing two “senior Yemeni defense officials.”

“That’s what happens when a mission goes wrong,” one official reportedly told CNN. “From the intelligence we have, conducting a raid was the wrong option and failure was written all over it. The only side that gained is al Qaeda.”

However, a report from the Associated Press published early Wednesday disputes the reporting of both the Times and CNN. The AP, citing comments from Yemen’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdul-Malik al-Mekhlafi, reports that Yemen has not barred U.S. ground forces from operating in Yemen.

Al-Mekhlafi told the AP that “Yemen continues to cooperate with the United States and continues to abide by all the agreements,” while adding that his government “is involved in talks with the U.S. administration on the latest raid.”

Al-Mekhlafi also disputed the Times’ reporting, which was the first outlet to report the alleged news, saying definitively that it is “not true.”

However, Al-Mekhlafi did tell the AP that his government has asked for a “reassessment” of U.S. operations in Yemen.

Still, neither the Pentagon nor Yemen’s government has made an official statement announcing the alleged halt of U.S. ground operations in Yemen.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Tweet On Nordstrom Dumping Ivanka Line Falls Under Inherent Parental Powers

February 8, 2017

Trump Tweet On Nordstrom Dumping Ivanka Line Falls Under Inherent Parental Powers, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, February 8, 2017

(HST was, and remains, one of my favorite presidents. Honest, candid and colorful, he left office no more wealthy than when he had entered. One day, when I was about ten years old, my dad and I were on a ferry headed down the Potomac River to Marshall Hall, an amusement park just below Mount Vernon. When the Presidential Yacht passed, passengers aboard our ferry yelled, “Give ’em Hell, Harry!” President Truman appeared, doffed his hat, grinned and waved it at us. Among President Trump’s attributes which I find most appealing is his propensity to Give ’em Hell. Perhaps we should emulate those who cherished President Truman and yell, “Give ’em Hell, Donald!” — DM)

hstanddaughter

Another tweet by Donald Trump has caused a ruckus back in Washington (I am in Guam for a speech). Trump took after Nordstrom for dropping the Ivanka brand. While the store cited poor sales, Trump tweeted “My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person — always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible!” Shares for the store chain dropped in value following the tweet and media began calling to ask for the legality of such criticism by the president. The answer is that it is perfectly legal . . . just ask Harry Truman. While the scope of executive privilege is broad, it is not nearly as broad and plenary as that of inherent parental authority. When it comes to a president and his daughter, history has shown that this is one power exercised by all fathers that is accorded sweeping deference and little judicial review.

If you think the Trump tweet was raw consider Truman’s letter to Washington Post music critic Paul Hume after Hume panned the performance of Margaret Truman. Hume wrote that “Miss Truman cannot sing very well.” Comparing Hume to columnist Westbrook Pegler (who Truman previously called a “rat,” Truman proceeded to say that he wanted to punch Hume in the nose and would likely kick the “frustrated old man” in the groin. Hume was 34 at the time.

Mr. Hume:

I’ve just read your lousy review of Margaret’s concert. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are an “eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.”

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you’ll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.

That makes the Trump tweet look pretty mild in comparison.

Categories: Parental privilege, President Truman, President Trump
Tags: Parental privilege, President Truman, President Trump

Comments: 1 Comment

5 Big Reasons Israel Is a (Mini) Military Superpower

February 8, 2017

And why it wins the wars it fights.

Source: 5 Big Reasons Israel Is a (Mini) Military Superpower | The National Interest Blog

February 8, 2017

The technology that binds all of these other systems together is the Israeli soldier. Since 1948 (and even before) Israel has committed the best of its human capital to the armed forces. The creation of fantastic soldiers, sailors, and airmen doesn’t happen by accident, and doesn’t result simply from the enthusiasm and competence of the recruits. The IDF has developed systems of recruitment, training, and retention that allow it to field some of the most competent, capable soldiers in the world. None of the technologies above work unless they have smart, dedicated, well-trained operators to make them function at their fullest potential.

Since 1948, the state of Israel has fielded a frighteningly effective military machine. Built on a foundation of pre-independence militias, supplied with cast-off World War II weapons, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have enjoyed remarkable success in the field. In the 1960s and 1970s, both because of its unique needs and because of international boycotts, Israel began developing its own military technologies, as well as augmenting the best foreign tech. Today, Israel boasts one of the most technologically advanced military stockpiles in the world, and one of the world’s most effective workforces.

Here are five of the most deadly systems that the Israeli Defense Forces currently employ–the foundation of why Israel is a military power no one wants to mess with.

Merkava:

The Merkava tank joined the IDF in 1979, replacing the modified foreign tanks (most recently of British and American vintage) that the Israelis had used since 1948. Domestic design and construction avoided problems of unsteady foreign supply, while also allowing the Israelis to focus on designs optimized for their environment, rather than for Central Europe. Around 1,600 Merkavas of various types have entered service, with several hundred more still on the way.

The Merkava entered service after the great tank battles of the Middle East had ended (at least for Israel). Consequently, the Merkavas have often seen combat in different contexts that their designers expected. The United States took major steps forward with the employment of armor in Iraq and Afghanistan (particularly in the former) in a counter-insurgency context, but the Israelis have gone even farther. After mixed results during the Hezbollah war, the IDF, using updated Merkava IVs, has worked hard to integrate the tanks into urban fighting. In both of the recent Gaza wars, the IDF has used Merkavas to penetrate Palestinian positions while active defense systems keep crews safe. Israel has also developed modifications that enhance the Merkavas’ capabilities in urban and low-intensity combat.

Indeed, the Merkavas have proved so useful in this regard that Israel has cancelled plans to stop line production, despite a lack of significant foreign orders.

F-15I Thunder:

The Israeli Air Force has flown variants of the F-15 since the 1970s, and has become the world’s most versatile and effective user of the Eagle. As Tyler Rogoway’s recent story on the IAF fleet makes clear, the Israelis have perfected the F-15 both for air supremacy and for strike purposes. Flown by elite pilots, the F-15Is (nicknamed “thunder”) of the IAF remain the most lethal squadron of aircraft in the Middle East.

The F-15I provides Israel with several core capabilities. It remains an effective air-to-air combat platform, superior to the aircraft available to Israel’s most plausible foes (although the Eurofighter Typhoons and Dassault Rafales entering service in the Gulf, not to mention Saudi Arabia’s own force of F-15SAs, undoubtedly would provide some competition. But as Rogoway suggests, the Israelis have worked long and hard at turning the F-15 into an extraordinarily effective strike platform, one capable of hitting targets with precision at long range. Most analysts expect that the F-15I would play a key role in any Israeli strike against Iran, along with some of its older brethren.

Jericho III:

The earliest Israeli nuclear deterrent came in the form of the F-4 Phantom fighter-bombers that the IAF used to such great effect in conventional missions in the War of Attrition and the Yom Kippur War. Soon, however, Israel determined that it required a more effective and secure deterrent, and began to invest heavily in ballistic missiles. The Jericho I ballistic missile entered service in the early 1970s, to eventually be replaced by the Jericho II and Jericho III.

The Jericho III is the most advanced ballistic missile in the region, presumably (Israel does not offer much data on its operation) capable of striking targets not only in the Middle East, but also across Europe, Asia, and potentially North America. The Jericho III ensures that any nuclear attack against Israel would be met with devastating retaliation, especially as it is unlikely that Israel could be disarmed by a first strike. Of course, given that no potential Israeli foe has nuclear weapons (or will have them in the next decade, at least), the missiles give Jerusalem presumptive nuclear superiority across the region.

Dolphin:

Israel acquired its first submarine, a former British “S” class, in 1958. That submarine and others acquired in the 1960s played several important military roles, including defense of the Israeli coastline, offensive operations against Egyptian and Syrian shipping, and the delivery of commando teams in war and peace. These early boats were superseded by the Gal class, and finally by the German Dolphin class (really two separate classes related to the Type 212) boats, which are state-of-the-art diesel-electric subs.

The role of the Dolphin class in Israel’s nuclear deterrent has almost certainly been wildly overstated. The ability of a diesel electric submarine to carry out deterrent patrols is starkly limited, no matter what ordnance they carry. However, the Dolphin remains an effective platform for all sorts of other missions required by the IDF. Capable of maritime reconnaissance, of sinking or otherwise interdicting enemy ships, and also of delivering special forces to unfriendly coastlines, the Dolphins represent a major Israeli security investment, and one of the most potentially lethal undersea forces in the region.

The Israeli Soldier:

The technology that binds all of these other systems together is the Israeli soldier. Since 1948 (and even before) Israel has committed the best of its human capital to the armed forces. The creation of fantastic soldiers, sailors, and airmen doesn’t happen by accident, and doesn’t result simply from the enthusiasm and competence of the recruits. The IDF has developed systems of recruitment, training, and retention that allow it to field some of the most competent, capable soldiers in the world. None of the technologies above work unless they have smart, dedicated, well-trained operators to make them function at their fullest potential.

Conclusion:

When considering the effectiveness of Israeli weapons, and the expertise of the men and women who wield them, it’s worth noting that for all the tactical and operational success the IDF has enjoyed, Israel remains in a strategically perilous position. The inability of Israel to develop long-term, stable, positive relationships with its immediate neighbors, regional powers, and the subject populations of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip means that Jerusalem continues to feel insecure, its dominance on land, air, and sea notwithstanding. Tactics and technologies, however effective and impressive, cannot solve these problems; only politics can.

Robert Farley is a senior lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime affairs.He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and The Diplomat. Follow him on Twitter:@drfarls.

This first appeared in May 2015 and is being reposted due to reader interest.

Image Credit: Creative Commons 2.0.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: 1 Comment

Trump, Israel and Iran: A lot of noise and threats, but no war

February 8, 2017

Source: Trump, Israel and Iran: A lot of noise and threats, but no war | Middle East Eye

Wednesday 8 February 2017 13:50 UTC

Despite the harsh language and confrontation in the Persian Gulf, Israel is no longer pushing for war and Trump’s options are limited

Despite the inflammatory rhetoric coming out from the Trump presidency, war with Iran is not on the horizon.

Last week, Iran tested two long-distance missiles. One, with a range of 3,500- 4,000 kilometres, is capable of reaching Europe. The other was a ballistic missile with a 2,000 kilometre range. Reports suggested that at least one test – probably two – failed or had problems.

In response to the tests, the US national security adviser, the hawkish extreme right-wing Lt Gen (retired) Michael Flynn declared in his first press conference that the administration is “officially putting Iran on notice”.

By testing the missiles, Iran is not breaching the nuclear deal it signed with the six world powers in July 2015

In addition to the missile test, Flynn also referred to news of an attack on a Saudi Al-Madinah warship by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. A Houthi explosive-laden suicide boat rammed into the Saudi frigate, killing two Saudi sailors.

President Donald Trump was in his element. He tweeted a warning to Iran saying it was “playing with fire” and ordered the Norfolk based USS Cole – the same guided missile destroyer that al-Qaeda targeted in the port of Aden in 2000, killing 17 US sailors – to change its voyage and redirect it to patrol the Red Sea waters near the Yemeni coast.

Trump also ordered his treasury to add a few individuals from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) and entities linked to the missile programme to the US sanction regime.

UN violations

By testing the missiles, Iran is not breaching the nuclear deal it signed with the six world powers in July 2015. But it may have been in violation of UN Security Council decisions.

For example, UN Resolution 2231 from 2015 “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology”.

Iran’s counter argument is that since it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons, its missile programme is not and cannot be related to its nuclear programme.

A Shahab 3 missile points towards a picture of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (AFP)

Preparing to test long-distance missiles in general and ballistic in particular takes a long time. So these latest tests would have to be been in the works before the US presidential elections. Still, they have been interpreted as an attempt to challenge and test the Trump presidency.

Pushing the envelope and conducting a “threshold policy” is a typical Iranian policy ploy, used numerous times against the world powers during the nuclear negotiations. Media commentators and public figures identified with the ultra-conservative circles responded with fiery language bashing the US.

But Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s counter tweet was mild. He wrote that the tests were legitimate and that Iran has no aggressive intentions, but will defend itself if attacked. More interesting is the silence of the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. He said nothing, which is very unusual under such circumstances.

‘Official notice’

The big questions are what are the Trump administration’s options and what does it intend to do next. First of all, what does it means to put a country on an “official notice”. Flynn did not elaborate, leaving his words enigmatically to hang in the air.

Senior US officials and Vice President Mike Pence later added another layer of vagueness, saying there are several options available to the administration, hinting “that we’re going to take appropriate action”.

Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden thinks the real intention of Netanyahu-Barak was to provoke Iran to attack Israel and thus to drag the US into an all-out war

Before the nuclear deal, the mantra repeatedly used by the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s government was that “all options are on the table,” referring to a military attack against the Islamic republic. While Obama just wanted Iran to cave in and limit its nuclear programme, Netanyahu planned to drag the US into a military action against Iran.

In 2012, the Israeli prime minister and his then defence minister Ehud Barak instructed the army, especially the air force and the intelligence community, to prepare attack scenarios against Iran.

British Prime Minister Theresa May shakes hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outside 10 Downing Street (Reuters)

Whether the duo had real intentions to actually order an attack or were just increasing the psychological warfare to scare Iran is not clear and still hotly debated. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden thinks the real intention of Netanyahu-Barak was to provoke Iran to attack Israel and thus to drag the US into an all-out war against the Islamic Republic.

During the Obama administration, the Israeli intelligence and military chiefs, such as the late Mossad head Meir Dagan, opposed the war mongering of Netanyahu and Barak. Why, their thinking went, should Israel use the last possible resort when other options – sanctions, sabotage, Stuxnet, for example – were still possible? And eventually, the war option came off the table.

Limited options

Now the Trump administration is bringing the military option back into the open – or so it seems. It is not a secret that Trump and his team dislike the nuclear agreement they inherited from the Obama administration.

In contrast to the estimates of the US and Israeli intelligence communities about the nuclear deal – “It’s not a bad deal” – the Trump team, like Netanyahu, views it as a disaster. But it seems that Trump’s hands are tied. The deal is not a bilateral US-Iranian one. It’s a multilateral agreement approved by the UN Security Council and supported by the entire international community.

Once the nuclear deal became a reality, Netanyahu’s motivation to attack Iran – or to pretend that he was willing to – went out the window

Netanyahu, who met British Prime Minister Theresa May this week in London, is due to see Trump next week in Washington. He will try to persuade him to be tough on Iran. So hope the pro-western Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE.

But Netanyahu is no longer talking about a military strike, whether Israel or American. Disaster or not, once the nuclear deal became a reality, his motivation to attack Iran – or to pretend that he was actually willing to attack – went out the window. Now he just hopes that Trump will continue to pile on the pressure.

The US could unilaterally pull out of the agreement but the other signatory members – Russia, China, the UK, France and Germany – would most likely still honour it. If the US pulls out, it will jeopardise its already strained relations with China and put Washington on a collision course with Moscow.

Moscow factor

Such a step would make Trump’s attempts to reach a new world order with President Vladimir Putin much more difficult. By the way, Russia says that Iran didn’t violate any agreement by conducting the ballistic missile test.

All the steps taking so far by the Trump administration, including the sanctions, are minor. In order to inject credibility to its threats and to be taken seriously by Tehran, the Trump administration will need to be more creative in its wording and more serious in its actions. Still, it’s not clear what Trump is up to.

Tension and escalation may give the relatively moderate President Hassan Rouhani his second term

Trump and some of his aides (Steve Bannon) are seeking to escalate the tension with Iran. They want to provoke Iran to give them the pretext to walk out of the nuclear deal and even more so to attack Iran. So far Iran’s restrained reaction shows it doesn’t swallow the bait.

But tension and escalation may give the relatively moderate President Hassan Rouhani his second term. The presidential election’s first round is in May and Rouhani hasn’t yet declared that he would be running for reelection.

In the era of President Donald J Trump, no statement, or even action, can surprise. If he attacks Iran he may declare it on Twitter.

– Yossi Melman is an Israeli security and intelligence commentator and co-author of Spies Against Armageddon.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photograph: Trump and Netanyahu met at Trump Tower during the presidential campaign last year (Screengrab)

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Donald Trump ready to approve weapons packages to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain that Obama blocked

February 8, 2017

Source: Donald Trump ready to approve weapons packages to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain that Obama blocked – Washington Times

By Guy Taylor – The Washington Times – Tuesday, February 7, 2017

The Trump administration is poised to move quickly to approve major weapons packages for Saudi Arabia and Bahrain that President Obama blocked during his final months in office over human rights concerns in both nations, U.S. officials and congressional sources say.

While the White House declined to discuss its plans, one U.S. official directly involved in the transfers told The Washington Times that a roughly $300 million precision-guided missile technology package for Riyadh and a multibillion-dollar F-16 deal for Bahrain are now in the pipeline ready for clearance from the new administration.

The deals, if approved, would send a significant signal about the priorities of the new administration, where the security challenge posed by forces such as Islamist jihadi groups and Iran is taking a much greater precedence in setting foreign policy.

“These are significant sales for key allies in the Gulf who are facing the threat from Iran and who can contribute to the fight against the Islamic State,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Whereas the Obama administration held back on these, they’re now in the new administration’s court for a decision — and I would anticipate the decision will be to move forward.”

The Pentagon also declined to comment. But congressional sources said they anticipate the Trump administration will easily overcome resistance on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and some Republicans have called for restrictions on sales to Riyadh amid an outcry from human rights groups over large-scale civilian casualties of the Saudi-led military campaign in neighboring Yemen.

Amnesty International has charged that the U.S.-backed, Saudi-led coalition waging war against Iran-backed rebels in Yemen “appear[s] to have deliberately targeted civilians and civilian objects such as hospitals, schools, markets and mosques, which may amount to war crimes.”

Congressional resistance

More than 60 members of the House signed a bipartisan letter calling on former President Obama to delay a $1.15 billion sale of battle tanks to Saudi Arabia last Summer. In September Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky co-sponsored a bill with Democratic Sens. Christopher Murphy of Connecticut and Al Franken of Minnesota to try to block the sale.

While the bill was tabled by a 71-27 procedural vote, the senators made headlines arguing that Riyadh’s indiscriminate bombing in Yemen was feeding extremist narratives and strengthening al Qaeda and Islamic State in the war-torn nation.

The Obama administration ultimately approved the Saudi tank deal — a move many saw as part of a pattern to ease security fears of the Saudis and other Arab Gulf states in the wake of the nuclear deal Mr. Obama strongly backed with Iran.

But during his final days in office, Mr. Obama suddenly shifted on weapons sales to the Saudis, specifically with regard to the now-pending package of precision-guided weapons technology.

An Obama administration official told Reuters in December that “systemic” and “endemic” problems in Saudi Arabia’s targeting in Yemen had led to the decision to spike the sale of the so-called smart bomb technology from Raytheon.

The U.S. official who spoke with The Times this week questioned that logic and suggested the Trump White House is now poised to embrace the deal, which would include enough of the Waltham, Massachusetts-based company’s “Paveway” guidance systems to “convert thousands of dumb bombs into smart bombs.”

The U.S. has sold precision-guided bombs and technology to the Saudis as far back as 2008, but the kingdom has reportedly been badly in need of a resupply since its campaign in Yemen kicked off two years ago.

“While we’re very concerned about Saudi actions in Yemen in terms of the civilian casualties, we believe a more accurate partner is a more effective partner and results in fewer casualties,” the official said. “If they’re going to drop stuff, it should be precision-guided rather than dumb.”

Bahrain concerns

On a separate track, the Obama administration in October blocked the proposed $3 billion sale of 19 Lockheed Martin F-16 fighter jets to Bahrain until the tiny Sunni Arab monarchy demonstrated measurable progress on human rights. The government in Bahrain, which hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, has aggressively cracked down on its restive Shiite Muslim majority since the pro-democracy Arab Spring uprisings of 2011.

It’s not clear whether the Bahrain and Saudi deals will face the same level of opposition on Capitol Hill as was seen last fall. Once the Trump administration signs off on the deals, Congress will have 30 days to block them.

Mr. Paul and Mr. Murphy declined to comment for this article.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker suggested the Bahrain deal may be imminent, but declined to comment on the Saudi deal.

“I’m hoping the Bahrain deal is going to roll out without the restrictions,” the Tennessee Republican told Defense News last week. “I think it could happen soon.”

A senior aide to Mr. Corker told The Times that the senator stands by the assertion.

The Saudi embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Sources close to the government in Riyadh, however, said that Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir is “very, very up” on the Trump administration and believes it will pursue a significantly different policy from the Obama administration, particularly toward Iran.

Other U.S. officials, speaking on background this week, noted that the Trump administration already moved during its first days in office to approve roughly $1 billion in sales for America’s Gulf Arab allies, including some $400 million in air-to-air missiles and helicopter parts for Kuwait and a $500 million-plus package that included Aerostat observation balloons for Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis in particular are likely to see billions of dollars in more defense sales in the coming years.

William Hartung of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for International Policy noted in an analysis published in December that the Obama administration offered more than $115 billion worth of weapons to Riyadh in 42 separate deals between 2009 and 2016 — more than any U.S. administration in history.

“The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi military for years to come,” wrote Mr. Hartung, who said in an interview this week that the Trump administration should proceed with caution on both Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

“In the case of Bahrain, whatever purported benefits they would get from more F-16s are counterweighted by the fact that they suppress democracy,” he said. The Obama administration’s sudden resistance in December had also sent “a concrete message” to the Saudis that “we’re not going to tolerate their indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Yemen,” he added.

“To lift that now, without some indication from the Saudis that they’re going to stop doing it, makes no sense,” Mr. Hartung said.

Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Do Not Reward Bad Behaviour

February 8, 2017

Do Not Reward Bad Behaviour, Gatestone Institute, Jagdish N. Singh, February 8, 2017

The Trump Administration needs to see to it that UN Security Council Resolution 2334 is rendered null and void.

UNSC Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948.

Given the history of violence which the Palestinians indulge in against the Jews, it would seem a counter-productive precedent to reward decades of terrorism and uncivilised behaviour with a state. It would also leave the Palestinians, who deserve a responsible and accountable leadership, under the domination of two corrupt and brutal governments, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

A study of the various proposals Israel has made to Palestine from time to time shows the key obstacle to peace is not the Palestinians’ demand for any piece of land but their refusal to recognize the existence of the Jewish state, or presumably any state but an Islamic one.

The U.S. could also move its embassy to Jerusalem. This would send the Palestinian leadership and others in the region a strong message that Washington will support both historical facts and countries that comport themselves with civilised behaviour.

In the long-continuing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, conventional wisdom has it that peace can be achieved through realistic negotiations between the parties to the conflict.

The previous Obama administration displayed a clear tilt towards one party to the conflict, the Palestinians, at the cost of the other, Israel.

Last month, Washington’s abstention from voting on United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2334 led to its passage. This resolution condemns Israeli settlements in “Palestinian Occupied Territories.” Resolution 2334 also implies that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, Western Wall and Temple Mount are all occupied territory, when in fact, it was Israel that liberated them from the illegal Jordanian conquest of them in the war of 1948. The resolution effectively states that any Jewish presence beyond the 1949 armistice lines, or Israeli construction in Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem, is illegal.

Objectively speaking, this resolution amounts to anti-Semitism: it is simply counterfactual to the Jews’ history in the region. Both the Bible and archeology reveal that Jews have had a historical connection with this land for more than 3000 years.

Given the history of violence that the Palestinians indulge in against the Jews, it would seem a counter-productive precedent to reward decades of terrorism and uncivilised behaviour with a state. It would also leave the Palestinians, who deserve a responsible and accountable leadership, under the domination of two corrupt and brutal governments, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas.

One hopes President Donald J. Trump, as the leader of the democratic world, would waste no time to bury this counter-factual, anti-Semitic resolution. Nikki Haley, Trump’s appointment to the United Nations, has already condemned the controversial resolution as an “outrageous bias” against Israel, and criticized the Administration of former President Barack H. Obama for the abstention that let the resolution pass.

2287

Nikki Haley (pictured above from 2014), President Trump’s appointment to the United Nations, has already condemned UN Security Council Resolution 2334 as an “outrageous bias” against Israel. (Image source: defenseimagery.mil)

The Trump Administration needs to see to it that UNSC Resolution 2334 is rendered null and void. Significantly, it has the moral and political support of the American Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly condemned the resolution. The Senate has introduced a similar bipartisan bill to cut funding from the United Nations.

Ironically, it is Washington’s “no” to this resolution that will help the peace process, not this resolution, as the Obama Administration disingenuously tried to claim.

A study of the various proposals Israel has made to the Palestinians from time to time shows the key obstacle to peace is not the Palestinian demand for any piece of land but its refusal to recognize the very existence of the Jewish state, or, presumably any state but an Islamic one, preferably its own. That there is any dispositive linkage of land for peace is a myth.

Sometimes, the Palestinians do recognize the state of Israel. At a news conference, then Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat once said, “We accept two states, the Palestine state and the Jewish state of Israel.”

The Palestinian leadership said they did so in the Oslo Accords, too, but they never practised it. In all the proposals for peace Israel has set forth, the Palestinians have never even made a counter-offer, and seem especially averse to signing an “end of conflict” document.

The current Palestinian leadership is divided into two factions — the West Bank-based Fatah party of the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the Gaza Strip-based Hamas. Both openly incite violence against the Jews, and aspire to the eventual creation of an Islamic state replacing all of Israel.

According to a recent House of Representatives resolution, there have been more than 300 terrorist attacks targeting Israelis since September 2015. PA President Mahmoud Abbas, too, incites violence against Jews.

Washington’s “no” to the resolution would give the right message to the Palestinian Authority to join the Israeli leadership in direct negotiations, recognize the Jewish state and appreciate its security concerns.

The United States could also move its embassy to Jerusalem. This would send the Palestinian leadership and others in the region a strong message that Washington will support both historical facts and countries that comport themselves with civilised behaviour.

Categories: Israel - Jewish state, Israel and Middle East, Trump and Israel, Trump and United Nations, Trump presidency, UN Security Council Resolution 2334
Tags: Israel - Jewish state, Israel and Middle East, Trump and Israel, Trump and United Nations, Trump presidency, UN Security Council Resolution 2334

Comments: Be the first to comment

Cartoons and Video of the Day

February 8, 2017

Latma-TV via YouTube

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

msm

racists-1

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

choice1

argue

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

die

Categories: Humor
Tags: Humor

Comments: Be the first to comment

What Is the Muslim Brotherhood?

February 8, 2017

What Is the Muslim Brotherhood? Gatestone Institute, Thomas Quiggin, February 8, 2017

Islamists are those who have the desire to “impose any interpretation of Islam over society by law.” A variety of groups ascribe to the Islamist objective of imposing their politicized beliefs on others. Included in these are ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the largest and best organized of all the Islamist groups is the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the well-spring from which the Islamist ideology flows.

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

A variety of groups ascribe to the Islamist objective of imposing their politicized beliefs on others. Included in these are ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the largest and best organized of all the Islamist groups is the Muslim Brotherhood. It is the well-spring from which the Islamist ideology flows.

The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, stated that “It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

A bill, introduced by Senator Ted Cruz, to have the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist group would have far-reaching impact, and be the single greatest blow stuck against Islamist extremism in the USA.

The Muslim Brotherhood operating in the U.S. made it clear that “their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The North Atlantic Islamic Trust, according to former FBI Agent Robert Stauffer, “served as a financial holding company for Muslim Brotherhood-related groups.” This money was wired into the U.S. from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Libya.

Muslims living in the United States likely have little to fear from the Trump Administration and the 115^th Congress. By contrast, Islamists living in the United States have grounds to be worried.

A bill introduced by Senator Ted Cruz to have the Muslim Brotherhood designated as a terrorist group could have far-reaching implications, many of which have received little public attention. The bill, if acted upon, would be the single greatest blow stuck against Islamist extremism in the USA. It would also have far reaching impact in Canada and elsewhere.

Islamists are those who have the desire to “impose any interpretation of Islam over society by law.” A variety of groups ascribe to the Islamist objective of imposing their politicized beliefs on others. Included in these are ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the largest and best organized of all the Islamist groups is the Muslim Brotherhood. They are the well-spring from which the Islamist ideology flows. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, stated that “It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

2254-1

The emblem of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its founder, Hassan al-Banna.

The Muslim Brotherhood operating in the United States made it clear that:

“their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The producer of the memorandum from which this statement is derived was Mohamed Akram (A.K.A. Mohammad Akram Al-Adlouni). He is now the Secretary General of al-Quds International, the international think tank of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today, according to a 2015 report, Mohammed Akram Adlouni is the General Secretary of the Al Quds International Foundation, a Special Designated Global Terrorist entity, accused by the U.S. Treasury Department of financing Hamas. The Treasury Department notes:

“Hamas’s leadership runs all of the foundation’s affairs through Hamas members who serve on the Board of Trustees, the Board of Directors, and other administrative committees. All documents, plans, budgets, and projects of Al-Quds are drafted by Hamas officials. Several senior Hamas officials, including Specially Designated Global Terrorists Musa Abu-Marzuq and Usama Hamdan, served on Al-Quds’ Board of Trustees. Representatives at an Al-Quds conference were told to consider themselves unofficial ambassadors for Hamas in their respective countries.”

The chairman of the board of trustees of the Al Quds International Foundation is identified as Qatar-based Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leadership figure of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qaradawi is the subject of an Interpol Red Notice.

The Senate Bill – S.68

Senate Bill S.68, would not only have the effect of designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist entity, but it would also list three Muslim Brotherhood front groups: The Council for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

CAIR has already been identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, founded to advance the cause of Hamas, and it was listed as a terrorist entity by the United Arab Emirates in 2014. CAIR functions as the public relations and legal arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and it regularly launches lawsuits against those who speak out against extremist Islam. Its designation as a terrorist group would severely damage the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

ISNA was the first of the major Muslim Brotherhood groups formed out of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), itself formed by Muslim Brotherhood adherents. Its loss would undermine the Muslim Brotherhood on multiple levels.

The Major Impact

The most important issue in Bill S.68 may be the inclusion of the NAIT – the North American Islamic Trust. Formed in 1973, it can fairly described as a waqf, which is the Islamic finance equal to a trust or endowment fund.

The property and cash holdings of the NAIT have never been made completely clear. CAIR itself stated that the NAIT holds the title of some 27% of the 1200 mosques in the USA. The NAIT website states that it “holds the title of approximately 300 properties.” This means that the Muslim Brotherhood controls a large number of mosques and other properties in the U.S. where the message of the Brotherhood is spread.

Former FBI Agent Robert Stauffer led a 1980s investigation into the NAIT, including its role in the ideological takeover of moderate mosques. At that time, he assessed that the ISNA received millions of dollars from the NAIT, which he says “served as a financial holding company for Muslim Brotherhood-related groups.” This money was wired into the U.S. from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Egypt, Malaysia and Libya.

Like CAIR and ISNA, NAIT would have its assets frozen if it is designated as a terrorist group. This would include property such as real estate, as well as cash and other assets held in bank accounts. The responsibility for this would mainly fall to the Department of the Treasury, the Justice Department and the integrated inter-agency strategy known as National Money Laundering Strategy (NMLS).

In addition to stripping the Muslim Brotherhood of its assets, Bill S.68 would also have the effect of silencing the extremist voice of the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S., along with its extensive network of collaborators. The financial inflow from other countries would be stopped (think Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), while funding to Muslim Brotherhood front groups in other countries would be halted as well (think Canada).

This bill would be a most helpful first step in countering what seems to be on the part of many a purposeful global jihad.

Categories: CAIR, Hamas, Islamic Society of North America, Islamist infiltration, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Muslim Brotherhood, North American Islamic Trust, U.S. Congress
Tags: CAIR, Hamas, Islamic Society of North America, Islamist infiltration, Islamist objectives, Islamist organizations, Islamists in America, Islamists in Canada, Muslim Brotherhood, North American Islamic Trust, U.S. Congress

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Missile Test Aligns Trump, Netanyahu Before the Israeli Leader’s Visit

February 8, 2017

Source: Iran Missile Test Aligns Trump, Netanyahu Before the Israeli Leader’s Visit

As Trump and Netanyahu prepare for their Feb. 15 meeting, focus has shifted to Iran’s ballistic missile test last week.

By Reuters On 2/7/17 at 10:00 PMIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and new U.S. President Donald Trump, seizing on an Iranian missile test, are nearing common ground on a tougher U.S. policy towards Tehran ahead of their first face-to-face talks at the White House.

But people familiar with the Trump administration’s thinking say that its evolving strategy is likely to be aimed not at dismantling Iran’s July 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers, as presidential candidate Trump sometimes advocated, but tightening its enforcement and pressuring the Islamic Republic into renegotiating key provisions.

Options under consideration, they say, would include wider scrutiny of Iran’s compliance by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, including access to Iranian military sites, and seeking to remove “sunset” terms that allow some curbs on Iranian nuclear activity to start expiring in 10 years and lift other limits after 15 years.

In a shift of position for Netanyahu, all signs in Israel point to him being on board with the emerging U.S. plan, though it may prove impossible to get other world powers and Iran to consider revising the landmark nuclear deal.

Two years ago, Netanyahu infuriated the Obama White House by addressing the U.S. Congress to rally hawkish opposition to a budding Iran pact he condemned as a “historic mistake” that should be torn up.

As Trump and Netanyahu prepare for their Feb. 15 meeting, focus has shifted to Iran’s ballistic missile test last week. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to members of the diplomatic corps in Israel in the Yad Vashem Synagogue, January 26, 2017, in Jerusalem, Israel. Lior Mizrahi/Getty

The White House said the missile launch was not a direct breach of the nuclear deal but “violates the spirit of that”. Trump responded by slapping fresh sanctions on individuals and entities, some of them linked to Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

A U.N. Security Council resolution underpinning the nuclear pact urges Iran to refrain from testing missiles designed to be able to carry nuclear warheads, but imposes no obligation.

However, Trump tweeted, “Iran is playing with fire” and “they don’t appreciate how ‘kind’ President Obama was to them. Not me!” Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, warned that Washington “would no longer tolerate Iran’s provocations.” Netanyahu “appreciated” the comments.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, on Tuesday dismissed the U.S. decision to put Iran “on notice” over its missile tests and called Trump the “real face” of American corruption. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying Iran would not renegotiate the nuclear deal.

Meeting of Minds Over Missle Test

Beyond the rhetoric, the missile test gave the new Republican president and the conservative Israeli leader – who had an often acrimonious relationship with Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama – an early chance to show they are on the same page in seeking to restrain Iranian military ambitions.

Netanyahu wrote on Facebook last week: “At my upcoming meeting with President Trump in Washington, I intend to raise the renewal of sanctions against Iran in this context and in other contexts. Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.”

In London for talks with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday, Netanyahu said “responsible” nations should follow Trump’s imposition of new sanctions as Iran remained a deadly menace to Israel and “threatens the world”.

But he stopped short of any call to cancel the nuclear accord. Israeli officials privately acknowledged that he would not advocate ripping up a deal that has been emphatically reaffirmed by the other big power signatories – Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China – since Trump’s election victory.

Russia said on Monday it disagreed with Trump’s assessment of Iran as “the number one terrorist state” and a Russian diplomat said any move to rework the nuclear pact would inflame Middle East tensions. “Don’t try to fix what is not broken,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said.

Trump’s stance could weaken the hand of pragmatists in Tehran who have been willing to negotiate a detente with the West after decades of volatile confrontation, a former senior Iranian official said.

Under the accord, Tehran received relief from global economic sanctions and in return committed to capping its uranium enrichment well below the level needed for bomb-grade material, cutting the number of its centrifuge enrichment machines by two-thirds, reducing its enriched uranium stockpile and submitting to a more intrusive IAEA inspections regime.

Diplomats close to the IAEA consider the deal a success so far, voicing little concern with overall Iranian compliance – despite Netanyahu’s insistence that it will only pave the Islamic Republic’s path towards nuclear weapons once major restrictions expire 15 years after its signing.

Pressure Points Other Than Scrapping Deal

With German, French and British firms busy cultivating new business with Iran, Washington’s peers in the six-power group almost surely would rebuff any U.S. thrust to reopen the deal.

Daniel Shapiro, who recently ended his tenure as U.S. ambassador to Israel under Obama, told Reuters he would be surprised if Trump and Netanyahu “determined so early in the time working together that they would rather scrap that agreement than try to enforce it in a tough manner and put other pressures unrelated to that deal on the Iranians”.

Some foreign policy experts say U.S. efforts to tighten the screws on Iran could seek to goad it into ditching the nuclear accord in hopes that Tehran – and not Washington – would then have to shoulder international blame for its collapse.

According to Israel’s Haaretz newspaper, an Israeli intelligence assessment recently presented to Netanyahu said revoking the pact would be an error, causing a chasm between Washington and other signatories like Russia and China.

Amos Yadlin, former head of Israeli military intelligence, said there were many areas outside the deal where pressure could be applied on Iran to change what he called its negative behavior of “subversiveness, supporting terrorism”.

But beyond new sanctions and sharpened rhetoric, analysts say, it is unclear how far Trump could go. Arguments for restraint would include the risk of military escalation in the Gulf, out of which 40 percent of the world’s seaborne crude oil is shipped, and strong European support for the nuclear deal.

Though the new U.S. strategy is in the early stages of development, the Trump administration, the sources say, is considering a range of measures, including seeking “zero tolerance” for any Iranian violations.

Trump’s aides accused the Obama administration of turning a blind eye to some alleged Iranian infractions to avoid anything that would undermine confidence in the integrity of the deal. Obama administration officials denied being “soft” on Iran.

Other U.S. strategy options, the sources say, include sanctioning Iranian industries that aid missile development and designating as a terrorist group the Revolutionary Guards, accused by U.S. officials of fuelling Middle East proxy wars. That designation could also dissuade foreign investment in Iran because the Guards oversee a sprawling business empire there.

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Operation Orchard: Israel’s strike on the Syrian reactor – YouTube

February 8, 2017

My most successful video – 1,054,735 views !

JW

Categories: Uncategorized

Comments: Be the first to comment

Archives