Posted tagged ‘Obama’

Kerry plans Middle East visit to calm Israeli-Palestinian tensions

October 14, 2015

Kerry plans Middle East visit to calm Israeli-Palestinian tensions US Secretary of State John Kerry stated he was planning a visit to the Middle East in order to try and calm violence between Israel and the Palestinians.

Oct 14, 2015, 10:16AM | Yael Klein

Source: Kerry plans Middle East visit to calm Israeli-Palestinian tensions – JerusalemOnline

Kerry and Netanyahu, photo archives

Kerry and Netanyahu, photo archives Photo Credit: Government Press/Channel 2 News

US Secretary of State John Kerry announced his intentions to travel to the Middle East in order to try and calm recent tensions between Israel and the Palestinians and “move the situation away from this precipice.”

If he indeed carries out his plans, it will be the first direct effort to broker peace in the region made by the US since the failure in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians last year.

“I will go there soon, at some point appropriately, and try to work to reengage and see if we can’t move that away from this precipice,” Kerry stated. “The United States’ goal for the region, the two-state solution, could conceivably be stolen from everybody if violence were to spiral out of control. You have this violence because there’s a frustration that is growing and a frustration among Israelis who don’t see any movement,” he added.

Obama Admin Refuses to Condemn Palestinians

October 13, 2015

Obama Admin Refuses to Condemn Palestinians for Wave of Terrorism The “cycle of violence” returns

BY:
October 13, 2015 4:40 pm

Source: Obama Admin Refuses to Condemn Palestinians

A spokesman for the Obama administration Tuesday refused to identify Palestinians as the perpetrators of a wave of Palestinian terrorist attacks that have left dozens of Israelis dead and wounded in the past weeks.

Associated Press reporter Matt Lee pressed the State Department spokesman to explain why the administration says it delivers the same message to both Israeli and Palestinian leaders when only Palestinians are carrying out terrorist attacks. “Does the United States believe–does the administration believe–that Israel is inciting or not condemning violence?” Lee asked.

Spokesman Mark Toner replied, “I think what we’ve been very clear about saying is that we want to see both sides take affirmative steps.”

“So the U.S. – the administration sees both sides at fault here, is that correct?” Lee asked.

“Both sides need to, as their leaders need to express the fact that both sides need to decrease the tensions that are leading to ongoing incidence of violence. But you know, you’re asking me to assign blame and I don’t think that’s the case,” Toner said.

“Well, I mean, if the secretary is calling up both Abbas and Netanyahu and has the same message for both of them, it would suggest that you think that both of them need to do more to that,” Lee said. “I’m just trying to figure out what is it you would want the Israelis to do more in condemning the violence.”

“For one thing, upholding–for one thing, as I said upholding the status quo in Haram al-Sharif and Temple Mount,” Toner said.

“But has there been suggestion that the status quo is going to be changed?” Lee asked.

Toner then changed the subject. There has been no change in the status quo on the Temple Mount, nor any consideration given by the Israeli government to changing the status quo there. Palestinian leaders have spread the unfounded claim that Jews are threatening the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount, sparking Palestinian rioting there.

Lee then pressed from a different angle.

“Do you think the Palestinian Authority, President Abbas, needs to do more to combat incitement and condemn violence?” he asked.

Toner replied, “I think that both leaders need to – need to convey that message.”

Toner later called the past month’s wave of unprovoked Palestinian terrorism “the cycle of violence that’s currently taking place.”

Obama’s Mideast Policies Are Paid for in Christian Blood

October 13, 2015

Obama’s Mideast Policies Are Paid for in Christian Blood

by 

Tuesday, 13 October 2015

Source: Obama’s Mideast Policies Are Paid for in Christian Blood

They cut off the 12-year-old boy’s fingertips, but still he refused to convert to Islam. They then “severely beat him,” reports the group Christian Aid Mission, “telling his father they would stop the torture only if he, the father, returned to Islam. When the [father] refused, relatives said, the ISIS militants also tortured and beat him and … two other ministry workers. The three men and the boy then met their deaths in crucifixion.”

Perpetrated by Islamic State (IS) jihadists, the above crime occurred near Aleppo, Syria, just last month. But it’s a scene that has been replayed over and over in the Middle East for years now, a result, say critics, of Obama administration policy that has destabilized the region and empowered the most brutal of Islamists.

This contention is made and the Christian persecution recounted — in horrific detail — in a recent Gatestone Institute piece by Raymond Ibrahim entitled, “How Obama Ushered in the New Age of Christian Martyrdom.” And the martyrs, sadly, are many. Just consider this 2014 testimonial from Andrew White, an Anglican priest known as the “Vicar of Baghdad”:

ISIS turned up and they said to the [Christian] children, “You say the words [shehada, convert to Islam], that you will follow Muhammad.” And the children, all under 15, four of them, they said, “No, we love Jesus. We have always loved Jesus. We have always followed Jesus. Jesus has always been with us.” They [IS] said, “Say the words!” They [the children] said, “No, we can’t” [White begins weeping]. They chopped all their heads off. How do you respond to that? You just cry. They are my children. That is what we have been going through. That is what we are going through.

These are not events you read about in the establishment media, and Obama doesn’t talk about them. Both he and the media certainly find time, though, to take up the cudgels for criminals such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Obama and his media minions also don’t explain the urgency of granting these Christians safe haven, although they devote much effort to advocating for the Muslim migrants currently pouring into Western nations. Damnable? Yes. Especially since Obama’s policies — largely rubber-stamped by the media — make him and the media culpable in the Christians’ deaths.

Obama’s support for the misnamed “Arab Spring” movement and the consequent ouster of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, and the targeting of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, was justified on the basis that we were backing “moderate” Arab rebels. But did the administration really believe this? Consider that Vice President Joe Biden himself admitted in a Harvard University speech last year that in Syria there is “no ‘moderate middle.’” He went on to say that our allies “were so determined to take down Assad and have a proxy Sunni-Shia war” that “they poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens, thousands, of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight,” thus supplying and empowering “al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”

This was also admitted by then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey in a 2014 U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee meeting. When asked by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) if he knew of any major Arab allies who embrace IS, Dempsey replied, “I know major Arab allies who fund them.”

But could this all just be “some new revelation that took the White House by surprise?” asked The New American’s Alex Newman in August. Answering “Not even close,” Newman then reported:

Judicial Watch recently obtained an explosive 2012 document from the Defense Intelligence Agency exposing the fact that the West, along with Arab and Muslim regimes in Obama’s anti-ISIS coalition, knew that al-Qaeda and other terror groups were leading the rebellion against Assad from the start. The report says, “The Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.”

… “The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the Syrian opposition.” The document goes on: “There is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

And, of course, the same dynamic applied in Libya and Egypt.

It speaks volumes — but isn’t surprising to those not blinded by political correctness — that our Muslim “allies” might favor a radical-jihadist state over more secular leaders such as Assad. But why did Obama proceed with his reckless policies knowing such an outcome was possible? I suggested here that he could be motivated by hatred for all things Western (and the modern Middle East is a Western construct). Whatever the case, the results are clear: Muslim migrants flooding into the West, IS rampaging through the Mideast as it forges a modern caliphate — and the new age of Christian martyrdom.

But while this may be a new age, Muslim persecution of Christians is nothing new. Orthodox Christian researcher and author Ralph Sidway recounts the beheading of 100,000 Georgians in 1226 A.D., and Ibrahim writes of the murder of a “great procession” of Coptic Christians in Egypt in 1389. Of course, that the latter would occur in the belly of Dar al-Islam may come as no surprise; note, however, that persecution of Christians was not always a given in the Mideast and North Africa. For Christianity was once the regions’ dominant faith.

In fact, in the 400s A.D. there were more Christians in North Africa than in Europe. But this would change. Shortly after Islam’s birth in 622, its hordes would set out to conquer the old Christian lands, and by 709, North Africa was in their grasp. They would also invade Europe two years later, eventually getting within 125 miles of Paris before Charles Martel (the “Hammer”) stopped them at the Battle of Tours in 732. Muslims’ later conquests in Byzantine Empire (the remnant of the Roman Empire) territory would, in 1095, spark the great but misunderstood defense of Christendom known as the Crusades. And Islam’s warriors would twice reach the gates of Vienna, in 1529 and 1683.

Today, Islamic State and other Muslim jihadists are finishing the job of conversion by the sword their co-religionist forebears began, and there are no modern Crusaders riding to the rescue. For Obama’s part, he appears blithely unaware of (or indifferent to) the bloody history and — whether through malice or criminal neglect — bent on writing more of it.

 

Islamic State urges jihad against Russians, Americans.

October 13, 2015

Islamic State urges jihad against Russians, Americans: audio

Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:49pm EDT

Source: Islamic State urges jihad against Russians, Americans: audio | Reuters

Islamic State called on Muslims to launch a “holy war” against Russians and Americans over what it called their “crusaders’ war” in the Middle East, an audio message distributed by supporters of the ultra hardline group said on Tuesday.

“Islamic youth everywhere, ignite jihad against the Russians and the Americans in their crusaders’ war against Muslims,” the speech by Islamic State spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani said.

The United States and Russia are carrying separate airstrike campaigns in Syria, which they say are targeting Islamic State.

Washington says Moscow’s campaign has mainly targeted other insurgent groups including those that have fought Islamic State, a charge Russia denies.

The United States is also carrying out airstrikes in Iraq, where Russia has also become separately involved. A senior Iraqi parliamentarian said on Tuesday that Russian officials were part of a new Iraq-based intelligence center with staff from Iran and Syria.

The audio message also confirmed the death of Abu Mutaz Qurashi, which the SITE monitoring service said was a reference to a senior Islamic State official killed in an airstrike in Iraq in August and referred to then as Fadhil Ahmad al-Hayali.

The White House said at the time that a U.S. air strike in Iraq had killed Hayali, whom it described as the second-in-command of the group which has seized swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq.

The audio made no specific mention of Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, whose health and whereabouts became a subject of speculation earlier this week when an Islamic State convoy was hit in Iraq.

Eight senior figures from Islamic State were killed in the Iraqi air strike while meeting in an Iraqi town on Sunday, but Baghdadi did not appear to be among them, residents of the town and hospital sources said.

(Reporting by Ahmed Tolba and Sylvia Westall; Editing by Richard Balmforth)

 

Junker Throws in the Towel: “We Can’t Go On” Fighting Russia

October 13, 2015

Junker Throws in the Towel: “We Can’t Go On” Fighting Russia The EU chief says Europe can no longer afford to have a policy dictated by the United States

Source: Junker Throws in the Towel: “We Can’t Go On” Fighting Russia

This article originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated from the German by Boris Jaruselski


His own man?

Huge reversal: the EU seeks a normal relationship with Russia. It seems that the EU is being greatly affected by the actions of Vladimir Putin in Syria: suddenly the EU President Jean-Claude Junker is saying that the EU must not let the US dictate their relationship with Russia. He has demanded a normalization of relations – and indirectly, the end of sanctions.

The EU Commission President advocated a relaxation in the conflict with Russia. “We have to achieve a sustainable relationship with Russia. It’s not sexy, but has to be done. We can’t go on like this anymore”, he said on Thursday in Passau. It isn’t necessary to achieve overall understanding, but a sensible conversational basis. “The Russians are a proud people”, the country has “a role to play”, said Junker: “One must not remove them from the bigger picture, otherwise they’ll call again, very quickly, as we seen already.” He critisized US Presidnet Barack Obama, for having downgraded Russia as “regional power”. “Russia needs to be treated correctly”, the Luxemburgian explained. “We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.

This statement is particularly noteworthy. Until now, the EU always placed emphasis on having complete accord with the Americans, with the placement of the Russian sanctions. Some time ago, the US Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the US had urged the EU to impose the sanctions. Junkers’ big back flip is confirming the statement made by Biden. It’s hard to discern what’s really going on Junker’s mind: as late as March, Junker was demanding the establishment of a EU army, which was expressly directed against Russia: such a European army would “give Russia the impression, that we are seriously intending to defend European Union’s values”, Junker said word for word, back then.

Iran Parliament passes bill approving nuclear deal

October 13, 2015

Iran Parliament passes bill approving nuclear deal

Published time: 13 Oct, 2015 05:50

Edited time: 13 Oct, 2015 06:37

Source: Iran Parliament passes bill approving nuclear deal — RT News

© Behrouz Mehri
The Iranian parliament has voted in favor of the nuclear deal with world powers, yet preconditioned that international inspectors will only have limited access to Tehran’s military facilities, reports IRNA news agency.

“The bill to implement the JCPOA … was passed in a public session on Tuesday with 161 votes in favor,” Reuters cited IRNA as saying, which referred to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action reached in July.

The parliament has also agreed on counter-measures in case the deal is not approved by other parties.

Now that the deal has been approved by the Majlis, the lower house, it needs endorsement by the Guardian Council of the Constitution consisting of clerics. Once the council approves the bill, it will come into law.

Once in force, the bill on the 6+1 nuclear agreement will enable Iranian government to implement the deal.

The agreement has a strong opposition from the Republican Party in the US, which attempted to prevent the deal from being approved by the Senate, but the Obama administration has so far been effective in finding right arguments to expect the deal get be agreed upon.

READ MORE: Senate fails to sink Iran nuclear deal by tying it to Israel

An Israeli lobby in the US has been fiercely opposing the nuclear agreement with Iran and put much effort to disrupt it.

The Israeli government has been vocally opposed to the deal, with the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) spending up to $40 million on a public relations campaign criticizing the agreement, according to National Public Radio.

READ MORE: UN nuclear watchdog chief visits Parchin military facility in Iran

The historic agreement between Iran and six world powers was reached on July 14, putting an end to years of complex negotiations regarding the fate of the Iranian nuclear program. The deal is contingent on the adoption of a set of measures, the completion of which will lift all sanctions imposed on Tehran by the UN Security Council, the US and the EU.

Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq

October 13, 2015

Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq Pentagon dismisses Iranian ‘propaganda’

BY:
October 12, 2015 12:27 pm

Source: Report: Islamic State Seizes U.S. Missiles in Iraq

The Pentagon acknowledged on Monday that Iraqi forces could have discovered a cache of U.S. weapons and missiles seized by Islamic State (IS) militants operating in the country, according to U.S. officials and regional media reports.

Iraqi forces combatting IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL) are said to have found a stockpile of U.S. weapons, including ammunition and anti-armor missiles, hidden at sites controlled by terrorist forces, according to foreign military sources who spoke to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency. This is said to include a “huge volume” of advanced TOW II anti-tank missiles.

When asked to address the reports on Monday, a Pentagon official acknowledged that U.S. weapons had gone missing last year, but denied that the United States was intentionally arming IS or its affiliates in the region.

“As you may recall, when ISIL overran Iraqi positions last year, we were aware of ISIL capturing some Iraqi weapons and equipment that had been supplied by the U.S. to Iraqi forces,” the official said. “However, the claims that U.S. and Coalition forces are directly supplying ISIL with any weapons, equipment, or ammunition are completely false.”

Fars claimed the U.S. weapons and ammunition were discovered over the weekend near the Iraqi city of Fallujah and that they had been “airdropped” into the area by American forces.

“The military hardware and weapons had been airdropped by the U.S.-led warplanes and choppers for the ISIL in the nearby areas of Beiji,” a military source was quoted as telling Fars.

The U.S. defense official rejected this claim, calling it “nothing more than propaganda intended to mislead readers about the true nature of the coalition’s efforts to support our Iraqi partners and defeat ISIL.”

Another Pentagon official noted that Iran often disseminates these types of reports and officials “regularly have to correct the record.”

Iraqi sources had claimed over the weekend that U.S. shipments had been spotted being sent to IS, though the claims could not be verified. Videos disseminated via Twitter appear to show Iraqis digging through U.S. supply crates.

The claims follow months of speculation among some Iraqis that the United States is wrongly arming terrorist forces in the country.

Such claims are a sign of a growing propaganda war on both sides of the fight, with the United States working to dampen conspiracies about its supposed support for IS.

Iranian officials and the country’s media outlets have attempted to perpetuate this narrative.

Fars quoted an Iraqi official earlier this year who claimed that U.S. aircraft were dropping food and weapons for forces believed to be affiliated with IS.

“The U.S. planes have dropped weapons for the ISIL terrorists in the areas under ISIL control and even in those areas that have been recently liberated from the ISIL control to encourage the terrorists to return to those places,” Jafar al-Jaberi, a coordinator for the Iraqi popular forces, was quoted as telling the outlet.

Meanwhile, U.S. coalition forces continue to strike IS positions.

The Pentagon announced on Sunday that it had conducted 17 airstrikes in Iraq and another seven in Syria.

“The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose to Iraq, Syria, and the wider international community,” the Pentagon said. “The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group’s ability to project terror and conduct operations.”

Obama Will Be the Only Person Sticking to Iran Deal

October 12, 2015

Obama Will Be the Only Person Sticking to Iran Deal, Gatestone InstituteAmir Taheri, October 12, 2015

(Happy implementation day. — DM)

Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.

But as things now stand, Obama may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself.

The Iranians have signed nothing and have no plans for doing so. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not even been discussed at the Islamic Republic’s Council of Ministers. Nor has the Tehran government bothered to even provide an official Persian translation of the 159-page text.

The Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, is examining an unofficial text and is due to express its views at an unspecified date in a document “running into more than 1,000 pages,” according to Mohsen Zakani, who heads the “examining committee.”

“The changes we seek would require substantial rewriting of the text,” he adds enigmatically.

Nor have Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia, who were involved in the so-called P5+1 talks that produced the JCPOA, deemed it necessary to provide the Obama “deal” with any legal basis of their own. Obama’s partners have simply decided that the deal he is promoting is really about lifting sanctions against Iran and nothing else.

So they have started doing just that without bothering about JCPOA’s other provisions. Britain has lifted the ban on 22 Iranian banks and companies blacklisted because of alleged involvement in deals linked to the nuclear issue.

German trade with Iran has risen by 33 percent, making it the Islamic Republic’s third-largest partner after China.

China has signed preliminary accords to help Iran build five more nuclear reactors. Russia has started delivering S300 anti-aircraft missile systems and is engaged in talks to sell Sukhoi planes to the Islamic Republic.

France has sent its foreign minister and a 100-man delegation to negotiate big business deals, including projects to double Iran’s crude oil exports.

Other nations have also interpreted JCPOA as a green light for dropping sanctions. Indian trade with Iran has risen by 17 percent, and New Delhi is negotiating massive investment in a rail-and-sea hub in the Iranian port of Chah-Bahar on the Gulf of Oman. With help from Austrian, Turkish and United Arab Emirates banks, the many banking restrictions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program have been pushed aside.

“The structures of sanctions built over decades is crumbling,” boasts Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Meanwhile, the nuclear project is and shall remain “fully intact,” says the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi.

“We have started working on a process of nuclear fusion that will be cutting-edge technology for the next 50 years,” he adds.

Even before Obama’s “implementation day,” the mullahs are receiving an average of $400 million a month, no big sum, but enough to ease the regime’s cash-flow problems and increase pay for its repressive forces by around 21 percent.

Last month, Iran and the P5+1 created a joint commission to establish the modalities of implementation of an accord, a process they wish to complete by December 2017 when the first two-year review of JCPOA is scheduled to take place and when Obama will no longer be in the White House. (If things go awry Obama could always blame his successor or even George W Bush.)

Both Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have often claimed that, its obvious shortcomings notwithstanding, their nuke deal with the “moderate faction” in Tehran might encourage positive changes in Iran’s behavior.

That hasn’t happened.

The mullahs see the “deal” as a means with which Obama would oppose any suggestion of trying to curb Iran.

1173 (1)

“Obama won’t do anything that might jeopardize the deal,” says Ziba Kalam, a Rouhani adviser. “This is his biggest, if not the only, foreign policy success.”

If there have been changes in Tehran’s behavior they have been for the worst. Iran has teamed up with Russia to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria, mocking Obama’s “Assad must go” rhetoric. More importantly, Iran has built its direct military presence in Syria to 7,000 men. (One of Iran’s most senior generals was killed in Aleppo on Wednesday.)

Tehran has also pressured Iraqi Premier Haidar al-Abadi’s weak government to distance itself from Washington and join a dubious coalition with Iran, Russia and Syria.

Certain that Obama is paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent “deal” the mullahs have intensified their backing for Houthi rebels in Yemen. Last week a delegation was in Tehran with a long shopping list for arms.

In Lebanon, the mullahs have toughened their stance on choosing the country’s next president. And in Bahrain, Tehran is working on a plan to “ensure an early victory” of the Shiite revolution in the archipelago.

Confident that Obama is determined to abandon traditional allies of the United States, Tehran has also heightened propaganda war against Saudi Arabia, now openly calling for the overthrow of the monarchy there.

The mullahs are also heightening contacts with Palestinian groups in the hope of unleashing a new “Intifada.”

“Palestine is thirsty for a third Intifada,” Supreme Guide Khamenei’s mouthpiece Kayhan said in an editorial last Thursday. “It is the duty of every Muslim to help start it as soon as possible.”

Obama’s hopes of engaging Iran on other issues were dashed last week when Khamenei declared “any dialogue with the American Great Satan” to be” forbidden.”

“We have no need of America” his adviser Ali-Akbar Velayati added later. “Iran is the region’s big power in its own right.”

Obama had hoped that by sucking up to the mullahs he would at least persuade them to moderate their “hate-America campaign.” Not a bit of that.

“Death to America” slogans, adoring official buildings in Tehran have been painted afresh along with US flags, painted at the entrance of offices so that they could be trampled underfoot. None of the US citizens still held hostages in Iran has been released, and one, Washington Post stringer Jason Rezai, is branded as “head of a spy ring “in Tehran. Paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent deal, Obama doesn’t even call for their release.

Government-sponsored anti-American nationwide events are announced for November, anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. The annual “End of America” week-long conference is planned for February and is to focus on “African-American victims of US police” and the possibility of “self-determination for blacks.”

According to official sources “families of Black American victims” and a number of “black American revolutionaries” have been invited.

Inside Iran, Obama’s “moderate partners” have doubled the number of executions and political prisoners. Last week they crushed marches by teachers calling for release of their leaders. Hundreds of trade unionists have been arrested and a new “anti-insurrection” brigade paraded in Tehran to terrorize possible protestors.

The Obama deal may end up as the biggest diplomatic scam in recent history.

In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

October 12, 2015

In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

By Patrick Goodenough

October 12, 2015  4:21 AM EDT

Source: In ‘60 Minutes’ Interview, Obama Muddles Facts on Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets in 2013 with then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich – the man who President Obama in his CBS interview described as ‘a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin.’ (AP Photo/Ivan Sekretarev, File)

(CNSNews.com) – Defending himself against accusations that Russian President Vladimir Putin is challenging American leadership, President Obama erroneously told CBS’s “60 Minutes” that when he took office Ukraine was ruled by a Putin “stooge.”

Questioning the premise that Putin’s foreign policy was succeeding, Obama cited the situations in Ukraine and Syria.

“When I came into office, Ukraine was governed by a corrupt ruler who was a stooge of Mr. Putin,” he told interviewer Steve Kroft. “Syria was Russia’s only ally in the region.”

Today, Putin is no longer able to count on those allies’ support, Obama continued, adding that the Russian leader instead was having to deploy his military “just to barely hold together by a thread his sole ally” – Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The implication was that having lost one ally and at risk of losing another, Putin’s international position had in fact been weakened during the Obama administration, rather than the opposite as many Obama critics contend.

 

The president was incorrect, however, in his citing of the situation in Ukraine when he entered the White House.

The Putin-backed “stooge” he referred to, Viktor Yanukovich, only became president in Kiev in February 2010, more than a year after Obama’s own inauguration.

When Obama became president, his counterpart in Ukraine was not Yanukovich but Viktor Yushchenko, a pro-Western leader who, during his five years at the helm, had angered the Kremlin by seeking European Union and NATO membership.

(The Russian-backed Yanukovich had sought the presidency in 2004, but amid accusations of vote-rigging that bid was foiled by the “Orange Revolution,” which brought Yushchenko to power instead.)

Yushchenko’s policies were a major challenge to Moscow, which fretted about losing influence over a strategically-located country which, after Russia itself, was the biggest of the Soviet Union successor states.

Ukraine’s Crimea region was home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, based at the Soviet-era Sevastopol naval base under a long-term lease. Yushchenko’s call for Russian ships and personnel to leave when the lease expired in 2017 was another serious concern for the Kremlin.

Looking to Washington for support, Yushchenko found it from the Bush administration. President Bush visited Kiev in 2008, en route to a NATO summit where the U.S. backed membership plans for both Ukraine and Georgia. (In the end the issue was shelved, because some European NATO members were loath to antagonize Russia.)

The last year of Yushchenko’s presidency overlapped with the first year of Obama’s. During that period – from Jan. 2009 to February 2010 – Obama traveled to Europe six times, but did not visit Ukraine.

At the time, the new administration in Washington was pursuing a “reset” in relations with Moscow, prompting prominent figures in eastern and central Europe to express concern that Obama’s attempts to improved ties could result in the U.S. making “the wrong concessions to Russia.”

Vice President Joe Biden did visit Ukraine and Georgia in July 2009, and reiterated U.S. support for their NATO aspirations.

Campaigning for Ukraine’s presidential election in early 2010, Putin ally Yanukovich pledged to return Kiev to Moscow’s fold. After he won – an outcome viewed as a significant victory for Putin – he shelved Ukraine’s NATO application process and extended the Crimea lease for the Black Sea Fleet for at least another 25 years.

Yanukovich remained in power until February 2014, when he fled Kiev amid huge anti-government protests and sought shelter in Russia.  Moscow backed an armed separatist movement in eastern Ukraine, and after a referendum not recognized by the West, annexed Crimea.

Russia’s intervention prompted U.S. and E.U. sanctions. But the situation in Ukraine is unresolved and, despite the West’s refusal to recognize it, Crimea remains part of the Russian Federation.

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

October 12, 2015

Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

By Mike Whitney

Source: Putin’s “Endgame” in Syria

Russia doesn’t want to fight a war with Turkey, so Russian generals devised a simple, but effective plan to discourage Turkey from taking any action that could lead to a clash between the two nations.

Last week, Russian warplanes intruded into Turkish airspace twice. Both incidents caused consternation in Ankara and send Turkish leaders into a furor.  On both occasions, officials in Moscow politely apologized for the incursions claiming they were unintentional (“navigational errors”) and that they would try to avoid similar intrusions in the future.

Then there was a third incident, a more serious incident, that was not a mistake. It was clearly intended to send a message to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.  Here’s a short summary of what happened from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

“Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire.” (“US, NATO step up threats to Russia over Syria“, World Socialist Web Site)

This was no mistake. The only time a fighter pilot adopts these protocols is when he plans to take down an enemy plane. This was a message, and while it might have been over-the-heads of the politicians and the media but, I assure you, every general in the Turkish High-Command knows what’s it means. This is a wake-up call.  Moscow is indicating that there’s a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there’s going to be trouble. There’s not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there’s not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria.  The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria’s sovereign borders. That’s the message. Period.

This is a good example of how “preemption” can actually prevent conflicts rather than starting them. By firing a shot over Turkey’s bow, Moscow has dampened Erdogan’s plan to annex part of N. Syria and declare it a “safe zone”. Turkey will have to scrap that plan now realizing that any attempt to seize-and-hold Syrian territory will trigger a swift and powerful Russian retaliation. Seen in this light,  Russia’s incursion looks like an extremely effective way to prevent a broader war by simply telegraphing to potential adversaries what they can and can’t do. Simply put: Putin has rewritten the rules of the game in Syria and Erdogan had better comply or else. Here’s more on Turkey from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent:

“A Turkish ground invasion into Syria, though still a possibility, would now be riskier with Russian aircraft operating in areas where Turkey would be most likely to launch an incursion.

The danger for the Turks is that they now have two Kurdish quasi-states, one in Syria and one in Iraq, immediately to the south. Worse, the Syrian-Kurdish one…is run by the Democratic Union Party (PYD) which is effectively the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) which has been fighting the Turkish state since 1984. Any insurgency by the PKK in Kurdish areas in south-east Turkey in future will be strengthened by the fact that the PKK has a de facto state of its own.

It appears that Turkey’s four-year attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad has failed. It is unclear what Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan can do about this since support from Nato is at this stage purely rhetorical. As for Turkey’s relations with Russia, Mr Erdogan says that any attack on Turkey is an attack on Nato and that “if Russia loses a friend like Turkey with whom it has co-operated on many issues, it will lose a lot.” But in Syria, at least, it appears that it is Turkey that is the loser.” (“Russia in Syria: Russian Radar Locks on to Turkish Fighter Jets“, The Unz Review)

Poor Erdogan. He rolled the dice and came up snake-eyes. He figured he could expand his would-be Ottoman Empire into Northern Syria, and now his dream is in a shambles. Should he deploy his warplanes to N Syria and openly challenge the Russian airforce?  No, he’s not that foolish. He’s going to stay on his side of the border, stomp his feet, and lash out at “evil Putin”, but at the end of the day, he’ll do nothing.

And Washington’s not going to do anything either. Yes, Hillary and McCain have been calling for a no-fly zone over Syria, but that’s not going to happen. Putin won’t allow it and neither will the Security Council. And, on what pretext anyway? Is Obama really going to request a no-fly zone on the basis that Putin is killing “moderate” terrorists along with the “extreme” terrorists? That’s not a very compelling argument, in fact, even the American people are having a hard time swallowing that one. If Obama wants something from Putin, he’s going to have sit-down at a bargaining table and hash out a deal. So far, he has refused to do that, because he still thinks regime change is within his grasp. There are signs of this everywhere like this article in Turkey’s Today’s Zaman titled “İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel”:

“A tent city within İncirlik has been undergoing reconstruction for modern prefabricated houses, which will host 2,250 US military personnel, the Doğan news agency reported on Friday. During the Gulf War of 1991, a tent city was established to accommodate military personnel serving with Operation Provide Comfort (OPC) and was shut down with the end of the OPC.

On Aug. 20, work began to transform the site of the tent city into a new area named “Patriot Town.” After construction is completed, the İncirlik base will have the largest capacity among the US bases in Europe…

The expansion of the İncirlik base’s capacity comes at a time when Russia has launched the biggest intervention in the Middle East in decades….Moscow’s intervention means the conflict in Syria has been transformed from a proxy war.. into an international conflict in which the world’s main military powers… are directly involved in fighting.” (“İncirlik base to increase capacity by 2,250 to accommodate new personnel“, Today’s Zaman)

This article smacks of US ambitions in the Middle East. As readers can plainly see,  Washington is gearing up for another war just like it did in 1991.  And the US air war is going to be launched from “Patriot Town” at Incirlik just like we’ve been predicting since July when the deal was finalized. Here’s more background from an article at Hurriyet:

“U.S. Air Force Central Command has started deploying search and rescue helicopters and airmen at Turkey’s southeastern Diyarbakır Air Base in order to help with recovery operations in neighboring Iraq and Syria, it has announced….

NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and the commander of U.S. European Command, Gen. Phillip Breedlove, has said the mission will be temporary.

“We will be guests of the government of Turkey at Diyarbakir Air Base. There are no plans for a permanent U.S. presence at this location … This marks yet another successful cooperative effort between the Turkish and U.S. militaries,” Breedlove said.” (“US deploys recovery aircraft in Turkey’s southeast“, Hurriyet)

 

“US Search and rescue helicopters” just a couple miles from Turkey’s southeastern border?

Yep.  In other words,  if an F-16 is shot down somewhere over Syria while trying to impose an illegal no-fly zone, then– Presto– the search and rescue helicopters are just 20 minutes away.

How convenient.

So you can see that– even though Putin has thrown a wrench in the works–  the Obama team is still moving ahead with its “Topple Assad” plan.  Nothing has changed, the Russian intervention just makes the future much more uncertain which is why frustrated geopolitical strategists, like Zbigniew Brzezinski, have begun to pop-up in the op-ed pages of leading newspapers blasting Putin for sabotaging their plans for regional hegemony. It’s worth noting that Brzezinski is the spiritual godfather of Islamic extremism, the man who figured out how religious nutcases could be used to foment hysteria and advance US geopolitical objectives around the world. Thus, it’s only natural that Brzezinski would want to offer his advice now in a desperate effort to avoid a legacy of failure and disgrace. Check out this clip from Politico:

“The United States should threaten to retaliate if Russia does not stop attacking U.S. assets in Syria, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in a Financial Times op-ed published Sunday, urging “strategic boldness,” with American credibility in the Middle East and the region itself at stake….And if Russia continues to pursue non-ISIL targets, the U.S. should retaliate, he added.

“In these rapidly unfolding circumstances the U.S. has only one real option if it is to protect its wider stakes in the region: to convey to Moscow the demand that it cease and desist from military actions that directly affect American assets,” he said.” (“Brzezinski: Obama should retaliate if Russia doesn’t stop attacking U.S. assets“, Politico)

The people who Brzezinski breezily refers to as “American assets” in Syria are terrorists. It’s that simple. Putin doesn’t distinguish between the “moderate” terrorists and the “radical” terrorists, the good terrorists and the bad terrorists. It’s a joke. They’re all in the same pool and they’re all going to meet the same fate. They all have to be rooted out, apprehended or killed. End of story.

By tweaking the war on terror narrative in a way that supports some, but condemns others, the Obama administration has backed themselves into an ideological cul de sac from which there is no way out. What they are doing is wrong and they know it is wrong. And that’s why it’s going to be so difficult to make the case for war. In a recent “must see” interview, Putin called out Obama on this very point. Here’s what he said:

“President Obama frequently mentions the threat of ISIS. Well, who on earth armed them? And who created the political climate that facilitated the current situation?  Who delivered arms to the area? Do you really not know who is fighting in Syria? They’re mercenaries mostly. They are paid money. Mercenaries work for whatever side pays more. We even know how much they are paid. We know they fight for awhile and then see that someone else pays a little more, so they go there…..

The US says “We must support the civilized, democratic opposition in Syria”. So they support them, arm them, and then they join ISIS. Is it impossible for the US to think one step ahead?  We do not support this kind of policy at all. We think it’s wrong.” (Putin explains who started ISIS, you tube, 1:38 to 4:03)

See? Everyone knows what’s going on. Barack Obama is not going to initiate a confrontation with Russia to defend a fundamentally immoral CIA program that has gone south.  He will, however, do what the US always does when dealing with an adversary that can actually defend itself.  He’s going to hector, harass, threaten, demean, demonize, ridicule, and bully. He might launch another attack on the ruble, or fiddle with oil prices or impose more economic sanctions. But he’s not going to start a war with Russia,  that’s just not going to happen.

But don’t give up hope just yet, after all, there is a silver lining to this fiasco, and all of the main players know exactly what it is.

It’s called Geneva. Geneva is the endgame.

Geneva is the UN-backed road map for ending the war in Syria. Its provisions allow for the “establishment of a transitional governing body”, the  “participation of all groups… in a meaningful national dialogue,” and “free and fair multi-party elections.”

The treaty is straightforward and uncontroversial. The one sticking point, is whether Assad will be allowed to participate in the transitional government or not.

Putin says “Yes”.  Obama says “No”.

Putin is going to win this battle. Eventually, the administration will cave in and withdraw their demand that Assad step down. Their plans for regime change through the use of jihadi-proxies will have failed, and Putin will have moved the Middle East one step closer to a lasting peace and genuine security.

That’s the silver lining and that’s how the war in Syria will end.

Bravo, Putin.