Is there a danger of interpreting collateral consequences as primary purposes? Daesh and other armed groups are an imminent threat to both Russia and Iran and their priority must be to face up to them. The US can afford a mixed bag of purposes, they can't.
Was it not always on the cards that Iranian and Hezbollah boots would be supported by Russian air and bombardment? It's refreshing to witness the speed with which Russia unfolds what is obviously a planned and coherent agenda, and at the same time distressing that US actions grow daily more surreal. The US has apparently just dropped some 50 tons of ammunition etc. into the conflict without any clear notion who they are destined for. Also it seems Washington refused to host a delegation, which would have included Medvedev, to discuss cooperation, or send one to Moscow, unless Russia first agreed to join the US coalition, which is like insisting the surgeon assist the nurse. Looking at all this against the chest thumping pronouncements of GOP electoral candidates, and even Clinton, it would seem the US is mainly fearful for its 'credibility' would suffer after all its demonising of Russia and Iran. This is sad for a host of reasons but primarily perhaps because the Syrian chaos offered an opportunity for all nations to come together to resolve a festering problem, and had that succeeded it could been a blueprint for tackling a host of global issues darkening all our future.
Few people know or care much about the intricacies of this business, what they really want is someone who looks and sounds like they can cope confidently, and will keep US amour propre from too much damage. Apparently Russia may shortly launch a major offensive South of Aleppo with 'thousands of Iranian forces on the ground'. Under such circumstances Obama can hardly afford to defne too clear a policy and is much better off with one that can be adjusted post eventum to accommodate developments either way.
Attempting to analyse their strategies would be simpler if Obama had authority over US actions anywhere near that which Putin enjoys over the deployment of Russian resources. Obama and Putin are not really comparable since Obama is obliged to seek a high degree of consensus from a divided Legislature and public, not to mention lobby interests, and be prepared to face constant scrutiny from news bite seeking media, and interrogation from politically provocative committees, while Putin is nowhere near so constrained.
Using the surnames of leaders to describe what a nation is doing may be useful shorthand but it doesn't reflect any deeper truth. The same is true of al-Assad; talking of him the way Westerners do ignores the role of the infrastructural forces that constrain him and have since he first arrived in the Presidential palace with bushy tailed hopes of reform.
Obama reminds me somewhat of the pragmatic Harold Macmillan, UK Prime Minister during the JFK presidency and the height of the Cold War. He understood the influence of passing time, and stood up to Russian advances but retreated before they became open war. If in doubt, do nothing, doing nothing doesn't mean nothing is done since events are ever moving of themselves. To some extent, leaving Russia to take on the Islamic activists, whatever their colour, is consistent with Obama's expressed notion of 'leading from the back', that is to say letting others do the dirty work and bear the costs of it. If you have to sacrifice the 'moderate rebels' then take consolation from the fact that they were always something of a fantasy anyway.
Russia is doing nothing the US could not have done had it wanted to. If you are allied to a super power, you expect to be defended. Those are the basics of the arrangement and they apply even when the subordinate party had little or no choice in it. Bur it can only survive while the obligation is fulfilled or while the illusion that it would be is maintained. One only has to recall the air cover provided the forces that cleared the Iraqis from Kuwait or those that covered Iraq to overthrow Saddam to realise Iraq now is receiving a much watered down version, certainly much less than Syria is getting from Russia. The US is pussyfooting around muttering about the dangers of aggravating sectarian violence while the place is being overwhelmed by mind numbing excesses of sectarian violence. al-Adabi said more or less that in his France24 interview the other day; Is it any wonder Iraqis seek another defender.
These four years and whatever follows before Syria is quiet will surely have had a profound effect on al~Assad and his wife and family. By all accounts he was quite happy as an ophthalmologist and only came to this role because his brother died. His father was a man few would defy, including family. My, albeit vague, recollection is he never wanted the job in the first place and it's perfectly possible he will be more than happy to hand over when there is an alternative pleasing to the majority of Syrians. Originally he may have taken comfort rehearsing the potential for reform but found himself swept along, if not enslaved, by a deeply rooted structure established by his father over 30 years, a structure of self-perpetuating, interlocking loyalties he couldn't break, and which his father may have built up for exactly that reason, particularly if he felt his son might not have it in him. I don't seek to mitigate the horrors under his rule which were a continuation of those under his father, merely to suggest he might welcome a coherent exit.
The translation is indeed obscure but I wonder how some of the White House doublespeak sounds in Russian. I suppose from a Russian perspective anyone attacking Syrian regime forces is impeding their purpose and needs be encouraged to back off. The US etc. are the ones in the business of overthrowing the Syrian regime, not Russia whose strategy is to use precisely those Syrian forces to tackle Daesh.
If Donald Trump meant that Iraq and Libya would have been more stable today had the US/West left their constitutional evolutions to work themselves out, he could well be right. However, things are not that simple. The actions of the US/West in the ME over the last 15 years have been stages in their own evolution on the global stage. The whole 'what if' business is simply an attempt to write alternative history based on what didn't happen.
A holy war is a war of Good against Evil, and no one surely disputes that Daesh is evil. Until the modern age all peoples viewed that eternal conflict in religious terms, and clerics still do. Granted Putin may not have had that in mind last Wednesday, but then, If you count your golden stars they are disallowed! A religious war is another matter.
Intentionally or not, Obama seems to be adopting the role of opposition in relation to Putin, the role he argued Republicans should eschew in favour of coöperation with him. To an outside observer it simply makes him appear petulant. It's even possible, assuming they are successful in Syria, Russia may one day extend its anti-Daesh, etc. activities into Iraq, if only because it makes little sense simply to push them outside the door. Lavrov insists Russia has no such intention which is doubtless true but intentions are rooted in 'now' and 'now' has a very short lifespan. France24 interviewed al-Abadi the other day http://www.france24.com/en/20151001-france-24-iraq-abadi-russian-airstrikes-isil-isis? and it's not hard to see such a move as a distinct possibility, with the one saying Russia has not offered and the other saying Iraq has not asked.
Brooding more over this during the last hours, it occurred to me that if, as seems quite possible, Russia and Iran do succeed in driving Daesh and other insurgents from Syria, they will come to exceed US influence in the ME, and the Palestinians will likely be collateral beneficiaries.
Abbas' timing may prove fortuitous if it gives Netanyahu enough to think about to deter him from initiating another cull while Putin is at work next door on Daesh; something that may well have crossed his one track mind.
Given the persistent chaos many Afghans may now feel their best interests lie in the Taliban taking over. At least they would know where they are. It isn't as if 12 years of US occupation has brought them peace or stability. What kind of 'solution' must it seem to them when the US response to the Taliban in their city of Kanduz is to bomb the place flat. They probably long for the day the US and other NATO forces just go away and leave them alone. As for local forces armed and trained by an occupier deserting to their own in the heat of battle, the Romans were contending with that in Gaul two thousand some odd years ago.
Putin has never claimed long-term dedication to the survival of al-Assad as President of Syria. However, surely it is sensible to use his existing military infrastructure to resolve the Daesh priority. Once Daesh is defeated, there need be no further support offered him. That is Realpolitik, moral and ideological considerations can be left until later. Putin would hardly announce such a plan now as that would defeat it. Obama must realise this since it is the sort of thing the US does in its sleep. No, Obama is more concerned about who will follow al-Assad and wants to ensure the odds heavily favour US interests. Absent an outcome promising for ongoing US interests Obama appears to prefer bombing the country into another neutralised wasteland run by militias, the lesser, presumably, of two evils. No doubt Putin has a similar interest in Syria's future geopolitical alignment but the proximity of jihadist terrorism is more urgent to Russia than the US. Although they exchange barbs over al-Assad, he is not personally what their deeper differences are about.
I doubt Russian moves come as a surprise to Kerry. Whatever has clicked into start mode must have been planned for some time, it certainly isn't precipitate and probably has roots in the new economic and trade foundations laid east of Europe. It's been White House reaction for some time to 'watch events closely' and acknowledge various levels of 'concern' while avoiding anything much of a constructive nature. The conflation of al-Assad's domestic excesses with Daesh is one of the main things that has allowed the whole situation to get out of hand. Syria, Iraq, Daesh and the streams of recruits and refugees now represent a multi-layered problem, and such problems call for separating the components and dealing with each in turn. The US hasn't done that, Russia and China* appear to be doing so. It's not helpful to look at these things as isolated events, they are elements in a process and it is arguable that the process is one in which the US has to adjust to relinquishing its effort to determine the future course of everything in favour of a more cooperative approach to international issues. It is probably not fair to blame Obama, who must think himself in something like the Looking Glass world where things that look tantalisingly familiar turn out to be anything but.
It's rabble rousing demagoguery, designed to show him off as a gung-ho, no nonsense, straight from the hip, don't mess with me. hat tippin' hero. The reasons Iranians don't trust the US are exactly as you catalog them, and they are the big ones, the spaces between have hardly been free of aggressive acts and their overall effect has been cumulative. The Iranians probably do trust the US, to be untrustworthy!
A world power must make some cultural, moral, political or economic impact. Israel has nothing of the kind to offer. Sodom Aviv is not enough for the foundation of a hegemony, and spectacles of the culling Palestinians, however carefully staged, are a seriously acquired taste. I was 8 years old when WWII ended. Children then were 'seen but not heard', and many hours were spent sitting quietly listening to adult talk, mostly at cocktail parties, the equivalent of social media in those days. The phrase 'Jewish problem' was much bandied about, always uttered in the same tones of resigned irritation and often with a sigh. The photo you published the other day of Netanyahu and Putin in gilded chairs, Putin displaying the resigned boredom of someone about to look at his watch, echoes that perfectly. In the end it was importunity that got them their foothold in Palestine and, aside from a few idealistic, intellectual socialists, most everyone hoped that would be the last they need hear from them. No nation really wants to attack Israel, and they wouldn't be allowed to anyway, all anyone wants is for them to get back behind their apportioned boundaries and leave all else alone.
Russia has practical and strategic interests in Syria and is, I imagine, as anxious as others express themselves to be to bring an end to the bloodfest in Syria. Putin has been patient with the nonsense that has been going on there but the time has come for him, however reluctantly, to roll up his sleeves and try to sort out the mess by strengthening the regime's military ability to clear out all the insurgents and restore a semblance of order. Doubtless he hopes his efforts will accomplish this and he won't have to get his own feet wet. However, Lavrov seems to have made it quite clear that if necessary that is exactly what he will do. This may puzzle Kerry but then the State Department as a singular capacity for puzzlement these days
The constitution of the UN is out of date. Although its purposes were couched in abstract ideological terms, unquestioned at the time, it was quintessentially both Western and what one might call 'benevolent colonialist', and was launched upon the world like a bride in virgin white. In this it ideally served the interests of the largely Christian, post WWII conquerors which, as time passed, increasingly became those of the US above all others. It became corrupt, first in the sense that it was no longer what had been envisaged; and then progressively It began to lose the instinctive respect of the world, becoming instead viewed as subservient, if not a tool, of US cultural interests. As those interests became increasingly commercial it was almost inevitable the UN would stumble along behind. Add to that the yeast like tendency of any bureaucracy to multiply and we have the situation we're in today. The real question is what, if anything, can be done, if not to restore the UN which may be beyond redemption, to provide us all with a serious global alternative that responds to interests of the world as a whole rather than selected bits of it at the expense of others. If it can be cured, the first thing is probably to move it out of New York. And then revise the business of some nations being permanent members of the Security Council and having a veto. Even the sometimes lamented Gaddafi, who was quite capable of sound and sensible social achievements, and of speaking sense, albeit in a random and overly discursive manner, was cogent on the urgent need for revision of the UN constitution.
A system to forestall inadvertent Israeli attacks on Russian positions sounds to me like a pretty blunt warning to Netanyahu not to dare trying anything of the kind.
The author is perhaps a shade pessimistic. I don't imagine Putin is wedded to the idea of maintaining Assad in power for any reason other than that he is the head of state and controls the military. There is no other coherently organised force able to face up to Daesh in Syria. If Russia believes it possible to deal Daesh a disabling blow in Syria, then the quite separate issue of the constitutional future of Syria is a lesser priority and can surely wait until later. It may look as if Russia is flexing muscles against US ME policies, but if US efforts against the Daesh conflagration were unequivocally yielding positive results Russia would doubtless leave them to it, alas they are not, which more or less obliges Putin to step in, and I imagine he does so reluctantly since neither the Russian people as a whole nor the Russian army can relish another deadly adventure any more than the US population or the US soldiery. The oft expressed notion that Assad is responsible for Daesh invading Syria is simply not true however often the Secretary of State insists upon it.
Many, particularly Westerners, are detached from first hand reality. reality once extensively shared in response to climate and the seasons, even by those who lived in towns and cities. Today Westerners' emotional responses are second hand and media generated, with the inevitable calculation that implies. This means that their emotional responses are provoked to order which is one definition of entertainment. A good example is the recent picture of Aylan Kurdi's body washed up on a beach which appears likely to have been staged to sway public opinion http://observers.france24.com/en/20150915-beware-fake-migrant-images-shared-online . The fact that the boy was a migrant and did drown is not enough to justify the dimension of emotion evoked by the picture. This is the world that allows people to cling to erroneous beliefs and encourages them to get passionately worked up over fantasies.
The Church also plays a social, community role that attracts many who are not true believers but happy to go through the motions, suitably attired and with the standard serious expression. If a Roman Catholic has doubts about any part of the Pope's teaching the proper thing is to discuss them quietly with the priest. Santorum's flippant comment is a something he should confess, and displays an arrogance he should work on.
The hidden value of the Iranian deal lies in its potential to be a blueprint for a nuclear free ME. Since that would only really involve disarming Israel one can see how it might be unpopular in Washington.
Russia appears to be doing for the Syrian regime much what the US is doing for the rebels, and what they both ostensibly seek against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. It is highly unlikely Russia would get involved at an invasion level any more than the US and for the same reasons, it would cause domestic political chaos; the Russian people wouldn't like it anymore than the Americans. It's a No, No.
Corbyn simply expresses what most feel though few articulate about Israel's behaviour. Doubtless he would welcome debate on the subject of international law in relation to the settlements and the condition of the Palestinians, but Israel evades these obtrusive realities in favour of accusations of antisemitism, circumbendibus untruths, and appeals to their peculiar mythopoesis, all of which engenders dismissive irritation, not because it comes from Jews but because none of it is relevant to rational debate. Corbyn appears to express unvarnished common sense, which may well be the root of his appeal as we find ourselves drawn willy-nilly into a morass of post-rationalism .
Might it not also be because it is a realistic solution to a problem that grows daily more murky, and which Iran has more to gain from helping to resolve than the US itself. The alternative of keeping Iran on bread and water and inhibited from helping stabilize the situation in Syria is surely that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh will enter Damascus, unleashing their bloodthirsty murders, then turn towards Israel and Saudi Arabia, incidentally creating a refugee problem that would dwarf the one we face today and might well fracture the already fragile European social and political infrastructure beyond repair.
Whatever may lie behind Russian motives, it's clear their primary purpose is to resolve the Syrian conflict, and then get on with tackling Daesh. The US appears more concerned to topple Assad. I doubt Russia is wedded to Assad per se, but Syria has an army and for the time being Assad is its boss so it is logical that if anyone is going to get involved in all this Assad and the Syrian army should be assisted. But, no. The US is even pressuring other countries to close their airspace to Russia's efforts. This is absurd, and Kerry calling Lavrov twice within a week to 'express US concerns' about their efforts looks increasingly like petulance. One might understand the US desire to go it alone if their efforts were working but patently they are not working, whatever they claim, and it even appears from the Daily Beast that they are deluding themselves http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html. Yes, the Syrian regime is brutal but that is nothing new, Assad's father hanged rebels from the lampposts in Damascus. Comparatively speaking his son might even be considered a mild improvement.
Good morning! The economic arrangements Iran is forging eastwards have significant defence treaties associated with them, a military cooperation agreement was signed in January http://tass.ru/en/russia/771994 . The Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said, the need for tighter defense cooperation has always been of importance to bilateral relations.This is logical, not least because the mutual investment in transcontinental fuel pipes alone is in billions. Russia (Lavrov) is on record saying a solution to ISIS requires first the resolution of the Syrian turmoil, which is about to be actively pursued by Russia, Iran and Cairo, plus others in the region, as a prelude to bringing an end to ISIS and other terrorist groups, something the US has proved far from effective in achieving. The idea Saudi Arabia and Israel would take on such a coalition engaged in such a purpose is scarcely credible.
The notion that the Vienna accord somehow enhances the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon is patently ill-founded and cannot possibly justify the undeniable fuss Israel and Saudi Arabia are stirring up about it; one must seek another reason and in blunt human terms it is probably akin to jealousy. Iran out of purdah can exercise a considerably more important role in local and global affairs than either of them this side of the irrational. Perhaps this is already illustrated by Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister visiting Damascus as the Saudi king was still on his way to the White House
The potential harm from the US rejecting the deal would be largely economic and self-inflicted, but much external damage from this extraordinarily untidy process has already been done. No small number of Europeans will feel quite chuffed if the US Legislature does reject the deal, By the way, Jeremy Corbyn looks set to become leader of the UK parliamentary opposition, and quite possibly the next UK prime minister. He wants to withdraw from NATO and abandon Trident. Blair is fiercely against Corbyn but the more vociferously he warns against him the more support Corbyn seems to attract.
But the mirror has two faces, and for many the US is the one that is not an acceptable participant in finding a resolution to the conflict. Lavrov also said a solution to ISIS requires first the resolution of the Syrian turmoil. Americans, and by extension the US, possess very little patience and are uneasy allowing things to work through, they prefer results today or tomorrow. I have a theory that a people's/nation's natural patience is in proportion to the antiquity of their historical identity. I think Obama may understand something like this but understanding doesn't make it possible to change it. It's far better today to learn to surf than seek to control the waves.
These look like very carefully laid plans, with more Russian dolls than just ISIS and Syria. It is highly likely that Sisi has been brought on board and firmly briefed. The recent agreement signed in Moscow (quoted in Asia Times) http://atimes.com/2015/08/russias-middle-east-ship-drops-anchor-in-suez-canal/ included some pretty potent stuff.
The creation of a broad counter-terrorism front in which the key international players and the region’s countries, including Syria, would take part.
An inclusive political solution to the Syrian crisis that includes all parties, including the government, and ensures the country’s unity, territorial integrity and security.
Practical steps to establish a Russian industrial zone in the Suez Canal region (which is the route for the US naval ships en route to the Gulf region.)
Establishment of a free trade zone between Egypt and Russia (and Eurasian Economic Zone).
Use of national currencies in bilateral trade and settlements.
The construction of the nuclear power plant in Egypt by Russia.
Energy cooperation involving the Russian majors Rosneft, Gazprom and LUKOIL.
Purchase of Sukhoi Superjet 100 passenger aircraft by the national airline Egypt Air.
In addition Abbas and Hamas may, I imagine, have been encouraged to go out of their ways keep all quiet on the Western front.
ME turmoil protects Israel. Unless they are enforceable, laws are an open invitation to find arguments that render them inapplicable because superseded by some higher (chosen people) or more urgent (security) consideration. Israel is not going to stop what it is doing unless forced and it is difficult to see how, under the present circumstances, that can be brought about. BDS certainly helps prepare the ground but Israel's tentacles are spread wide and guarantee endless fudge.
A piece in the Asia Times http://atimes.com/2015/08/russias-middle-east-ship-drops-anchor-in-suez-canal/ last week might suggest that Russia's ME foreign policy contains the seeds of a collateral solution. If Moscow/Cairo/Tehran/Damascus do indeed form ...a broad counter-terrorism front in which the key international players and the region’s countries, including Syria, would take part... and it achieves significant impact it might serve to coax Israel's immunity to an end, with security for the whole area becoming an international rather than exclusively US undertaking, and attention better focused on obtaining a nuclear free ME.
I agree absolutely with your last point. I am older still and recall sitting in the Regal cinema watching Pathe news coverage of the opening of concentration camps. The images merged in my young mind with countless others from the war. It did not occur to me to put them in a separate category because the victims were mostly Jewish, in fact I don't remember that information even being part of the commentary. It was simply man's inhumanity to man and it electrified the neck and shook the place to heavy silence.
The word 'right' has a number of nuanced meanings. In blunt English it means an entitlement by law, but it is perfectly possible for someone to have a right and not have it. An example would be prisoners being denied the vote in UK elections because that is the UK law. The European Court in Strasbourg deems this to be a violation of prisoners' rights. In the same way Israeli settlements on Palestinian land can be a 'right' for Israelis while being a violation under UN legislation which, since it is unenforceable, they choose to ignore. Many nations choose to ignore international law, and to that extent such laws do not apply within them. Rivlin appears simply to have reiterated what everyone already knows. That is the nub of the impasse and it will continue until Israel determines for whatever reason to accept the relevant international laws, something it has no need even to consider while under the umbrella of the US Security Council veto.
I don't really want to get involved in this because it bores me to death. But your selective choice of 'Forward' to determine what is anti-Semitic is disingenuous to say the least. Even the World Jewish Council reporting the same story puts the appellation in inverted commas.
Both the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and the Spanish Jewish community had expressed outrage over the decision, calling it “anti-Semitic”
It seems to me BDS is an individual decision. If a group of individuals find themselves united in their reaction to whatever it may be then their individual responses may, ipso facto, be combined, but the idea that a majority within a group should impose moral perspectives, not defined in its constitution, on all its members is itself a contradiction of liberty.
If all mankind were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
John Stuart Mills 'On Liberty'
The solution surely is to create a subgroup, 'Academia for BDS', and apply available energies from within that rather than expend them in internecine dialectics.
Having read yesterday's DOS briefing, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/08/246211.htm, I am more than ever persuaded that the problem here is reluctance to accept the US position as a member of an international team dealing with this issue. 'Brad' even suggests Kerry should get the IAEA to show the confidential agreement they have with Iran to those members of Congress who express continued unease about the whole thing. It puts me in mind of the story of a British traveler arriving at immigration in New York after WW11 and asking: I see that US citizens go there and foreigners that way, but where do the British go?
“...some people advertised as journalists just aren’t very good”
Alas, all too true. Several journalists at DOS briefings simply cannot take on board the notion that anything reliable might occur that is not overseen by the US, and in consequence they assume that since they are not given details of the monitoring agreement between the IAEA and Iran there must be something fishy about it.
They cannot understand why the agreement between the IAEA and a target nation is confidential, so they worry at the issue like puppies at a slipper.
Nor are they able to grasp the two-dimensional notion that because the IAEA has agreements with all nations it monitors, having an agreement with Iran is standard practice, but since the agreements with each nation necessarily differ, each, including that with Iran, is unique. 'If you say it's standard practice, how can it be unique?', one asked.
It does the US no favours to find a reply like this from the retired US Rear Admiral, now spokesperson for the DOS.
QUESTION: So would it be fair to describe the Obama Administration as exasperated with Salva Kiir and his government
MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to throw an adverb (sic) on it here.
Iran might in time relegate that egregious episode to the past, but it can hardly be forgotten since it's a significant thread in Iran's history. Besides, it's a fascinating story, particularly as the CIA , etc. are still doing exactly the same things today. Furthermore, although some documents have been made available acknowledging US/UK responsibility* many others were apparently destroyed in the 60s for 'lack of space', which is precisely the kind of action that fosters speculative theories that won't let an issue settle.
These candidates are high on cultural evangelism which like the religious variety is driven by faith in the rightness of the objective. Faith ever supplants reason.
The question is what to do with the tens of thousands of settlers in Jerusalem and the territories. Why are they not joining the Gaza evacuees?
MK Basel Ghattas (above)
There indeed is the rub. I have asked what is envisaged for the settlers on the Mondoweiss site several times over the years. Answer comes there none. The only reply ever was a suggestion they should be driven out as the Palestinians were and are. However, that calls for a contradiction of values which most of the civilised world would find unacceptable. The problem really should be addressed since the settlers are too dangerous a concentration of negative humanity for anyone to expect them simply to dissolve quietly away.
Silence on the issue casts a harsh light on even the most liberal Jews who seem to allow themselves to imagine settlers and Palestinians settling down together in the area while completely ignoring something which, if the present tide of opposition to the occupation continues, could well provide the world with images quite as disturbing as those witnessed from Palestine today.
Not being American I cannot enter debate about the legal status of AIPAC, but I do think the blunt choice between the deal and war maybe somewhat less bleak than Obama's assertion suggests. If Congress denies approval in such a way as to obviate even a Presidential veto, then the rest of the world will go ahead with it anyway and it its difficult to see what AIPAC could possibly gain from that.
Once the deal is in place, is seems highly unlikely as things stand that Iran would renege on its undertakings. Instead it will be occupied re-establishing its industrial base, and entering more fully into unfolding plans for closer commercial integration eastwards, plans which are quintessentially coöperative and necessarily contain mutually defensive commitments since they are of a scale that cannot be left at risk from the random destructive interruption of any part of them.
Furthermore, rendering Iran transparently free from nuclear weapons allows for the resurrection of the UN commitment to a nuclear free ME and any nation seeking to impede that would surely have to come out and justify Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. One could be mistaken, of course, but AIPAC seems to be about to finesse itself.
This is true and perceptive but a whole lot of others would need to be persuaded of any Iranian breakout towards a nuclear weapon, and that would be difficult if they are transparent in not doing it. Sure, the US or Israel can go attack Iran any time, they always could but doesn't the deal ratchet down that prospect? If it does, then it has to be worth it.
One prickly factor in areas involving international cooperation, is the role of the US which while obviously frequently valuable, if not essential, appears to resist being party to any initiative which it doesn't itself entirely control, or appear to control. This deal with Iran is an example of the latter. The deal simply wasn't a solely US initiative although one would hardly guess that listening to Obama or any other legislator, media outlet or man in the street. True, Obama did acknowledge the deal could not have been achieved without the others, but even there, the unavoidable implication is the others were helping the US. This perspective completely ignores the role played by the UK. France and Germany who had, since 2003, been seeking to clarify suspicions about Iranian nuclear activities.
The three foreign ministers went to Tehran in 2003 and the result was a joint declaration http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3211036.stm. What may have caused feathers to flutter across the water and in Tel Aviv was the civilised diplomatic tone of the accord. and more specifically the last paragraph:
They [UK. France and Germany] will co-operate with Iran to promote security and stability in the region including the establishment of a zone free from weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East in accordance with the objectives of the United Nations.
Europeans had had dealings with Persia for over 2000 years, some good some bad but always conducted in a formal manner. Now the whole thing began to get ugly. However, relations appear, from Dr Cole's account of the Iranian Chief of Staff's recent statement, to have been restored to an acceptable level, despite Tel Aviv, AIPAC and various members of the US legislature.
You hear this kind of Palinspeak from many in political life. It arises because they don't think before they speak. Because it's not a habit, thinking prior to responding doesn't happen automatically, particularly under pressure. It is possible the widespread study of Latin once insensibly introduced a habit of thinking before speaking which has faded with the decline of that particular study and attendant peer example.
You get it all over, here's Mark Toner on Thursday responding to a question about US air strikes hitting Syrian Kurds:
QUESTION: -- they were considering this as a betrayal to the Kurds in Syria, especially the YPG.
MR TONER: In terms of what you’re thinking about, a betrayal, I mean, we’ve been very clear to the Turks about – the Turkish Government about these forces – not the Kurdish forces, not the – now, I’m being very clear here – not – I’m not talking about PKK, which is a designated foreign terrorist organization. But these forces shouldn’t be harassed or fired upon
The words are simply leaking from his mouth. Had he paused with the question, thought through an answer and then replied it would have taken no longer and been simple and straightforward. As it is he obliges his audience to put the words into their own heads and do his thinking for him.
During his 34 years in Congress, Schumer has become fond of telling his voters that his surname is derived from “shomer,” the Hebrew word for “guardian.” “I am a shomer for Israel and I will continue to be that with every bone in my body,” he said in 2010.
You have to look at this Iran deal in isolation. Most nations are fearful, not so much of Iran acquiring a bomb but of the consequences, specifically the proliferation of such armaments in the area, and then the increasingly likely possibility that someone somewhere will just press a red button one bright morning. Working all this through with Iran is supposed to put that box of matches well out of reach. Many are pissed off because they see the deal as providing momentum towards a nuclear weapon free ME, any resistance to which would further isolate Israel.
President Reuven Rivlin said on Thursday that the tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama have him “worried” because “for the first time I see that we are in isolation.”
The speech, which I have watched twice in full, was quite brilliant, Ciceronian indeed. It's rare these days to encounter a speech eschewing emotion and relying so completely on intellect. Those preparing to stand for office might profitably take salutary note of those parts that evoked spontaneous applause. (If you want a reminder, look at the transcript and do a 'find' on APPLAUSE.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/
Each interest group will take what it wants from it, but one paragraph, perhaps in a sense the most poignant was:
If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran's nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America's credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America's credibility is the anchor of the international system.
Some fear that credibility is already threatened, and when he employed the verb 'lose', I think he really meant it.
Human nature doesn't change, the 'ascent of Man' is an intellectual delusion; only behaviour patterns change in place and time, and they do so like leaves in a storm. Having reached the estuary of my life, well in sight of the ocean, that is how it seems to me. When I was young, economy was a virtue, things were bought to last and if they broke they were taken to be mended, debt was frowned on, bankruptcy was shameful. Today those values have passed through a mirror, and the thoughtful are becoming uneasily aware of the consequences. I don't think you can blame Obama, the whole thing is careering out of control, he's simply in the driver's seat with no breaks. It's one thing to stand aside and offer judgement and suggestions but no single leader can actually do anything about it, all Obama can do is respond to the circumstances that appear most pressing today. Besides, it's not just the US, it's the whole Western world and beyond. What hope is there when as much if not more media emotion is generated by the death of a lion hunt in Kenya as the wilful incineration of a human baby by Israelis in Palestine? Much of the world lives in poverty and the West has a long way to go before it falls anywhere near the human average. Any real change can only come from below, a change of values such as occurred with smoking, a once fashionable habit which killed off most of my parents' generation who hadn't died in one or other of their wars. I suppose we could all start by asking ourselves, each time we are moved to acquire something, Do I really need that or just want it, and relegate wants to the fantasy area occupied by the possibility of a lottery win. That's what people in straightened circumstances have to do until it becomes second nature. It's an acquired habit which can prove surprisingly refreshing.
This whole situation is in constant flux within which any effort to identify a stable element is more or less doomed. You don't, however, need to rise to Dr Cole's 30,000 feet, a few hundred will do, before recognising a unifying plateau of antipathy to the US in pretty well all its manifestations; hegemonic primarily, but also cultural, moral, and ideological, all of which are synthesised in the US support for Israel, and in consequence fed by events in the occupied territories, not so much the most recent events themselves, distressing though they are, but by the confirmation implicit in the nature of the US response to all such depredations. And not even from any one response in isolation but from their cumulative confirmation that in the end the US is working to encourage dissension in the Arab world for purposes of its own. Opposing armies in the Somme in WW1 managed a truce one Christmas and we could be looking at something akin. It has no lasting value but it will surface from time to time and won't readily go away.
The Vienna accord I negotiated on behalf of the EU strikes a blow to the terrorists’ ‘clash of civilisations’ narrative
Cooperation between Iran, its neighbours and the whole international community could open unprecedented possibilities of peace for the region, starting from Syria, Yemen and Iraq.
A further reason might be if Iran becomes a source for a coordinated response to ISIL.
The Iranian Foreign Minister is currently in Baghdad:
We (regional countries) may have different opinions regarding developments in Syria, Iraq and Yemen, but we stress that the security of each and every country in the region is like our own security and we will work to boost this collective security
Also in the end there really isn't anywhere for ISIL to go long-term. In that sense it's a bit like Israel's occupation of Palestine, an undertaking pursued in defiance of more or less everyone which will simply starve itself out of existence in time.
It's probably less a question of Americans maintaining a standard of living as restoring it and it's too late for that; it's already on the way out for the West as a whole and bringing new levels of social disorder in its wake. It's precisely a replacement for that model that is unfolding. What emerges is unlikely to bring fulfilment of the Western 'human rights' and 'democracy' mantras, but it should introduce a more coherent fiscal system with the US dollar taking its place among other currencies. Until that happens China, largely under the radar of Western media, is employing its holdings to acquire capital interests most everywhere.
Remember Napoleon's assessment of China: Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world. Well, she's awakening and there ain't much anyone can do to put her back to sleep.
One shake of the kaleidoscope could, now the Iranian threat has been largely tidied way, come from a popular and possibly massive move to resurrect the pitch for a nuclear weapon free ME. That might have a supra-schismatic unifying effect on the area while turning up the UN spotlight on Israel. A few years ago there was a Brookings survey of ME populations, and while some favoured Iran having nuclear weapon capability if Israel did, an overwhelming majority preferred the area totally free of such weapons. It's hard to see how any nation could get away with justifying Israel's retention of nuclear weapons in the face of such a noble, peaceable and popular purpose. It could also appeal to many as tangentially pro-Palestinian while quite innocently capitalising on a variety of sublimated anti-Israel sentiments
Does anyone doubt Khamenei is anti-imperialist? I have no Farsi but from the various translations it seems to me he is simply stating the facts they way he sees them. Obama and the US media have had a field day twisting news of these negotiations this way and that to make them conform to the image of a disciplinarian bringing an errant troublemaker into line. No one else gives the slightest concern to the others at the table, others without whom no deal could have been done. It puts one in mind of periods of imperial Rome when all achievement had to be effected by the emperor, and a successful general would even let victory slip from his grasp, fearful that any glory he might earn would make the emperor blood lettingly jealous, It could be Putin's ability casually to sort out US made problems, like Syrian chemicals, that makes him so distrusted.
If a lot of nations gain and only Israel and the KSA lose, then their loss is in a meaningful sense much greater. France was among the biggest losers from the sanctions and is straining at the bit to re-enter the Iranian market; Laurent Fabius accepted an invitation to visit Tehran a few days ago: http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20150715-frances-fabius-visit-iran-after-nuclear-deal-sealed.
History may judge the sanctions, and their lifting, as among the more significant events of the period. They arguably inhibited Israel from attacking Iran, and the sudden release of pent up commerce will be an significant boon in these economically fragile times.
They are allies but they also have profound disagreements and certainly didn't labour for this agreement because they were US allies, in fact they were never that happy about the sanctions in the first place. In his NYT interview on the subject, Obama admitted:
Keep in mind it’s not just Iran that paid a price for sanctions. China, Japan, South Korea, India — pretty much any oil importer around the world that had previously import arrangements from Iran — found themselves in a situation where this was costing them billions of dollars to sustain these sanctions...
...In some ways, the United States paid the lowest price for maintenance of sanctions, because we didn’t do business with Iran in the first place.
Add to that still festering spying revelations etc. and I don't imagine US media felt much inclined to open that particular box.
US policies have given birth to the pursuit of systems of economic activity insulated from the US dollar; observable in the BRICS group, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, and, of course the rapport between Russia and China. Sanctions were coaxing Iran in that direction. There are, of course, hosts of more immediate considerations, and ISIL is surely one, although any notion that Iran will agree to be 'put to work as an ally of the West' seems less likely. In fact there might well be more advantage for the US etc. to coördinate their efforts with Iran.
Netanyahu's utterances are never reflections or even approximations of truths, they are veils raised to obscure the relentless and unceasing pursuit of his purposes. I met Ben Gurion a year before he died, and we talked of de Gaulle who he claimed to respect within a measure of detachment for having always put French interests above all others, which was what any leader should ever do.
Latterly the US has alienated the majority of the 1.7 billion Muslims whom it conflates with Arabs. You can't alienate such a number without adopting a collective view of them and fostering a negative attitude towards them.
Amira Hass is admirable, as ever. Alas, reason is ineffective against fanaticism, and analysis of Israeli behaviour, however informed, is not a lot of use unless it inspires outrage and a level of action sufficient to force an end to the occupation and the ugly Zionist dream. There are really only two ways out of this morass, one is force, which is scarcely practical and would inevitably give rise to scenes such as we witness in far too many places already, the other is ostracisation which is the method of BDS. Ostracisation requires forcing the hand of political leaders since. whatever platitudes they mouth, only one or two small nations have leaders with the will to do anything but make vague gestures, It would be a Herculean task to galvanise an adequate response in the manner of the South African BDS movement which was anyway quite different in a number of fundamental ways, being a problem isolated within its own country but with strong, sympathetic echoes of the desegregation issues still working through in the US at the time.
The Israel problem is further coloured by the US attitude to Islam and Arabs and the fact that Israeli propaganda has conflated Israel with Jews in such a way that many think of Israelis as Western, and though they may not like them they provoke a less negative response than Palestinians. In this world it is not enough to be a victim, particularly when in much of the Western world many people are homeless, unemployed and hungry, and as Amira says, the predicament of millions in many Arab countries is worse than Gaza. Furthermore, the real fomenting division today is between the haves and the have nots, the 1% and the mass, and Israel is a staunch friend, ally and associate of the 1%. There are, for instance, numerous factories in Britain owned by Israeli defence giant Elbit Systems that make stuff used against the population of the occupied territories. Even nations that should know better, like India, buy its armaments, well tested as they are on the captive citizens of Gaza.
The wanton destruction of our environment, the corruption, hypocrisy and egregious moral turpitude that surrounds us makes Palestine look just another book in a burning library
Forty-five ISIL Takfiri terrorists have been killed by eating poisoned food in the Iraqi city of Mosul, while dozens of others have been taken to hospital.
A young man from Mosul doctored their iftar prepared for the terrorists with the deadly poison and managed to kill 45 of them and send 100 others to hospital, some of them reportedly in critical condition, Iraqi local sources said on Tuesday.
We cannot let Greece leave the eurozone. France is convinced that we cannot run the risk of a Greek exit from the eurozone, both for economic reasons but above all for political reasons.
You may underestimate the fierce political purposes behind the advancement of the EU from its original creation as a a Common Agricultural Policy, a European trade agreement. Germany and France moved heaven and earth to get a list of supporting nations replete enough to give it a global political look. They knew perfectly well the way Greece operated and the weaknesses of their system but brushed all doubts away in favour of grandiose political dreams. Think of seducing a kid with a bit of in his pocket into a Disneyland, locking the gates and lending him money to spend.
The new division is really between the haves and the have nots, and the haves are getting edgy. The pan Europe demonstrations in support of a Greek 'No' vote are, I believe, an illustration of the universality of the position enunciated by the representative of Syriza’s youth wing. That support for a No vote cannot have been a considered economic position so much as a moral reaction to the perceived injustice of the whole thing, and sympathy for the Greek people. In a real sense it was also anti-Brussels and the haves. That will worry the hell out of them because it achieved a focus of solidarity that has escaped Brussels since the EU was established, a solidarity that could well become viral. Yanis Varoufakis is clearly an icon of that solidarity with his casual manner, crisp mind, and refreshing moral integrity. His dismissive remark about wearing the creditors' loathing with pride suggested to me that we may be witnessing the emergence of a break between economics and politics similar to that between theology and science in the 16th century.
Hardship starts at the bottom of the economic ladder and works upwards. Leaders make grandiose promises at conferences in plush surroundings but then put fulfilment off, and then off again, until it would be almost embarrassing to be first and the commitment gets filed somewhere. We are subjected to innumerable professionally devised TV and other appeals on behalf of snow leopards and mistreated donkeys and it seems to me curious that UNRWA doesn't go straight to the public with a similar appeals for Gazan reconstruction. People worldwide are aware of the suffering in Gaza, they lived through the destruction, but they have no way to contribute.
All that does not mean that civil society in the West must wring its hands while the brutal reality of Israeli presence in the West Bank continues. But protesters need to channel their energies elsewhere. States and international organizations, such as the U.N. and related institutions, have much better tools to act against the Israeli pro-occupation coalition and they should be spurred by public opinion to do so.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Besides, BDS is also a modern form of ostracism and a perfectly coherent way to express distaste for Israel's behaviour. One shouldn't think of it as punitive so much as one way of making it clear one wishes nothing to do with people who behave as they do and would prefer others don't either. If it leads to a mass middle class exodus, so much the better.
I find the encyclical deeply impressive. It has the non polemical simplicity of Jesus' injunction to love one's neighbour, and carries a message one innately knows to be true. However, here is Jeb Bush, off the top of his head before he has even read it.
I hope I'm not like, going to get castigated for saying this in front of my priest back home but I don't get economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope.
I doubt there is any chance industry, banks, and other engines of commerce will pay the slightest attention. However, just as individuals can seek out solar panels and fuel efficient vehicles to make their own contribution, it is possible, particularly in the 'global North', to rein in consumption. Many become obliged to do so anyway for adverse economic reasons, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be a habit. One simple path in is to consider the distinction between 'wanting' something and 'needing' it, a distinction actively obscured by advertising which insensibly morphs wants into needs. A story ever haunts me of an Indian youth who sold a kidney to buy an iPhone. We make environment affecting decisions more less all the time and it can become a habit to look at them and ask. Do I need that or do I simply want it? If the latter, relegate it to the fantasy area of a lottery win and then forget about it.
I grew up during WW11 and well remember how economy was second nature; one turned off lights, saved string and wrapping paper, walked whenever possible, ate basic stuff. To this day I remember being told how cutting potatoes into small chunks would save energy because they would boil faster. It was an attitude of mind, and an admired one.
Incalculable confusion lurks in Madeleine Albright's adoption of the concept of American exceptionalism. The word exceptionalism simply means that a certain thing constitutes an exception to other things in its class (OED), and is an external value judgement. Fair enough, until the suffix 'ism' morphs it into a belief structure; Zionism, socialism, capitalism, imperialism, Satanism, etc., something which believers are persuaded not only constitutes an exception to other things in its class, but is superior to them as well. Add evangelism to the mix and you end up where we are in Iraq and elsewhere today. American exceptionalism has become a quasi-religion which means that its adherents are prepared to die and, alas more frequently, to kill for it, and are so persuaded of its essential truth that, like Dominican inquisitors, they cannot think outside its confines. This might not matter if it brought only human benefit to those it seeks to convert, but since that patently does not happen there are increasing numbers inclined actively to resist conversion. Moreover, when people realise they are being urged to adopt values the US itself eschews, they cease to fear threats,
a process accelerated by modern communication. Will anyone ever forget that leaked Nuland conversation with the Ukrainian ambassador?
As for the rationality of other guests, reasoning is thinking and it seems to me they probably were doing that. Thinking leads to reaching a conclusion but not necessarily what others consider the 'right' one. What differentiates people's conclusions, opinions, beliefs and actions is largely a question of perspective. If you are intellectually trapped inside the bubble of American exceptionalism then you are like a goldfish in a bowl, that is your world and you observe everything from within it. Any notion about what Iraqis should or shouldn't do ought first take account of the fact that they are not trapped in that particular bowl.
It's all very well laughing at Trump but he is not atypical of a fair number of US electors. Did you see the RT piece on a couple of recent fake petitions:
While a majority of Americans asked by a US journalist to support President Obama's "plan" to nuke Russia signed a fake "petition" to do so, RT decided to conduct its own poll on the streets of Moscow. Most people said no to striking America. Calling the plan "crazy," Russians refused to leave their signatures under a fake "petition" to send missiles to America.
Rudolph, What you say is perfectly true but 'hypocrisy' is an external value judgement, not a crime. US foreign policy is pragmatic. You might say Saudi Arabia is not hypocritical since they make no bones about the penalties they impose. Once you start using your values to judge others you will find yours challenged more often than not.
Aristotle suggested the Cretans encouraged homosexuality to control population by directing love and sex away from child bearing activities. Aristotle, Politics 2.1272a
Dr Cole, Are we sure Iraq is ready for democracy? Has any nation moved successfully from autocracy to democracy under external pressure? Evolution from one constitutional system to another is surely best left an internal process; there is a 5th century Greek proverb that 'One should fit the stone to the line, not the line to the stone'. The context was building, and bricklayers still follow it today; one chooses shoes to fit feet rather than selecting shoes and forcing feet into them. Hegel articulated the notion that a satisfactory outcome to division requires rising above the opposing principles to a level at which they are reconciled. I don't see how that can be done without some common cohesive vision and purpose. It worked in Iran. The West may not like the pace at which Iran is evolving, or the stages for that matter, but surely life is better there than in Iraq, and there is a tunnel with light at the end.
Morals and profit extend to opposite ends of the same scale, maintaining them in acceptable balance is what keeps the flux flowing evenly and that is a CEO's responsibility. Conflict with EU legislation is a perfect illustration of what Mr Richard is paid his doubtless enviable salary to avoid.
Obama hangs on to the old colonial notion for two states; Israel here, with these boundaries, and Palestine there; all as divided up in an atmosphere of bonhomie and cigar smoke like the rest of the ME and North Africa. That was acceptable neither to the Palestinians nor the custodians of the Jewish mythopoeic dream who had eyed the whole area as theirs and promptly set about making it so. Comparisons with apartheid are unhelpful, Israeli actions in Palestine are closer to the Chinese takeover of Tibet. I would be happy to be proved wrong but my perception is that all who take being Jewish with any degree of seriousness actually want a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and their liberals and extremists differ only in how they see the indigenous Arab population fitting into that vision. Extremists appear to want the locals to disappear, by force if necessary, while liberals envisage some vaguely defined Utopia where Arabs forget all about the last sixty years and everyone settles down to live happily ever after. The extremists are winning. They don't give two figs what anyone else thinks, indeed they are happy to be considered in the same category as any other nation defying Western moral and humanitarian norms: Why blame us when there are so many others just as bad. What they fear above all is ostracisation and they are employing every means in reach to keep it at bay. This is understandable because no one actually likes them or feels any compelling reason to have anything to do with them, aside from those seeking access to Adelson's and others' funds. As Netanyahu drops his fig leaf it's more than time for Western leaders to discard their rose-tinted spectacles; Israel is growing as dangerous as the Alien stowaway.
The word 'declining' is somewhat emotive; change is undoubtedly occurring but that is ongoing and its manifestations are more akin to cloud illusions morphing one into another. Ongoing imperial pretensions are delusional. The DOS has recently appointed a new spokesman, Jeff Rathke. and it is quite enough to watch him responding to questions from Matt Lee and others to realise that nothing can be done to turn the tide, just carry on as if nothing is changing; open another bottle of bubbly on the Titanic. The real question is what can the rest of us do to alleviate the effects of the fallout since they are likely to be catastrophic. When empires morph away an incalculable number of scarcely noticed but widely accepted conveniences vanish with them. These are dependent on an ever expanding economy. During the Roman heyday many, even modest, dwellings in relatively remote areas of the empire were built of brick, roofed with tiles, and filled with Roman pottery produced in quantity and exported over networks of well maintained roads. Later, buildings were back to mud, straw and thatch, pottery was functional stuff made to hand, and the roads overgrown with weeds. Today the US$ is not supported by any earth mineral but rather by the Earth itself, a currency whose debasement before our eyes is giving rise to a sense of impending storm most everywhere. The instinctive human response is to pull back within a like minded group, which may explain the rise of separatist and federalist movements, and much European disillusion with the EU. And, perhaps not too fancifully, what Jews are seeking to establish in Palestine. If anyone thinks the solution will be found in mutual support and cooperation, they need think again; it would take only about three days without fuel and logistics for any Western urban community to dissolve in anarchy and looting, and scarcely a couple more before all services are gone and it's Darwin to the fore.
The US is not interested in pursuing strategies that seek a cooperative outcome at the expense of its top dog position, however rational. The perceived benefits of a nuclear weapon free ME are outweighed by the potential integration of non-western interests in the area, triggered perhaps by concern for Palestinians. Sometimes it is necessary to accept services from those whose behaviour is otherwise distressing. This could be said of Israel which serves the US by keeping the ME on the boil at a cost to little more than US reputation. This is perhaps where Iran enters the equation. Iranians for all their rhetoric are more 'Western' than 'Eastern' but signals from recent Iranian cooperative activities with Russia and China may have reached a point where the potential disadvantages of further acceleration in that direction begin to outweigh the benefits Israel provides. Given the difficulties Obama has endured from Israel, and his apparent intention to squeeze an agreement from the P5+1 negotiations come what may, that point may already have arrived. Israel's nuclear arsenal has been around quite some time and dealing with it now could create a whole host of problems better kicked down to road a bit further.
Their hearts are not in it, which is scarcely surprising, many are likely there only for the money, and the units can't have acquired the camaraderie needed to fight on in fraught and dangerous situations. The US meanwhile should perhaps consider adapting the weapons it provides with a disabling mechanism which the soldiery might be encouraged to activate before throwing them away as a means of ensuing they are not subsequently turned against them.
The 'snub' could be a symptom of something long festering. Might it not have seemed a shade presumptuous for Obama to bring so many rulers half way round the world to his turf for a meeting, like a summons to the headmaster's study. That itself may have contributed to King Salman's decision to give it a miss. Why not Lausanne or Monaco?
The word is from the same source as procurator, carrying the meaning of one who acts for another, historically a steward or bailiff granted authority to manage the affairs of an estate on behalf of the owner. The word retains the meaning that whatever the proxy does is done on behalf of the grantor, and that connotation is not infrequently misused today to demonise a person or entity by transferring to them responsibility for some negative course of events more properly the responsibility of the actual perpetrators.
The only way to encourage people to change their values is to demonstrate the benefits of doing so or the disadvantages of not doing so. As far as Israelis are concerned they are advancing nicely without giving two figs what others think, after all they have vastly extended their population and territory, they participate like everyone else in international forums, scientific conferences, sporting and entertainment contests, while high profile critics find themselves unemployed and ostracised, and lesser mortals humiliated, incarcerated or eliminated. It's up to the rest of the world to turn on the pressure, maybe it will turn out to be a generation thing http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1031964.html . One thing is sure, the tide will turn, that's what tides do
A situation has been allowed to develop in the ME which may well be beyond any rational resolution, it's an avalanche one can watch with varying degrees of emotional response, catalogue its destructions, and analyse the fons et origo, but do nothing to arrest its course. The will of those who might have done something before it got this far was dormant, and it still is.
Just look at this exchange on this issue from the DOS briefing yesterday.
QUESTION: Okay. And yesterday a group of Israeli veterans released a report in which they documented in last summer’s war on Gaza, they documented severe human rights and war crimes, as a matter of fact – like killing people on the highway, demolishing homes knowing that they – exactly they were civilian areas, and so on. Are you aware of the report?
MR RATHKE: I’ve seen reports that they’ve --
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on this report?
MR RATHKE: Well, I think the United States has made – we made our views at the time of the conflict in Gaza known --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR RATHKE: -- and I think those were well reported on. I remember discussing them with you back then.
QUESTION: If you find these abuses as severe as they are alleged to be in the report, would you have something to say about this particular report?
MR RATHKE: Well, we’re --
QUESTION: Would you issue a --
MR RATHKE: -- aware of the report. I don’t have further comment to offer --
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/05/241917.htm
It is, alas, futile to employ reason to counter the actions of those who reject it. The Israelis will continue to behave as they do because they see themselves following the god given injunctions of their prophets, injunctions suited perhaps for an exiled tribe adapting to nomadic life in an inhospitable environment under a relentless sun, but deeply disconcerting today, like using the steps of the Lincoln Centre to seek the auspices from the liver of a goat.
None of this would be happening if the place had not been filled to overflowing with lethal armaments only any good for those who make them and those who sell them and you'd have to go a lot further than Dr Cole's 30,000 feet to see a solution to the conundrum implicit in that reality.
It's perfectly possible Bush believes what he said and it's appropriate he should be sharing his convictions with a Jewish Coalition session, whatever that may be, since they no doubt also espouse them. Blair is the same, when challenged about Saddam's non-existent WMDs he brushes the issue aside, saying it was right to topple him anyway. This needn't be the consequence of deliberate deceit, they may genuinely see the world that way. Beliefs are abstract and don't of themselves do harm, it's the actions that flow from them that cause the grief. Israelis are the same, they just cannot see what they do in Palestine as inimical because it's not inimical to them, and even were they to be sanctioned back behind their 1948 borders they would only see that as part of their eternal struggle or something like divine retribution (for having created Sodom Aviv?). I don't know where the problem arises, illiberal eduction perhaps.
Are drones that different from the doodlebugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb that rained down on London in WW11? You could hear them, but if you did you were safe because they had already passed and someone else over that way was going to get it.
They are competing for a position from which they will have to maintain the principles of US hegemony while keeping the natives as passive as necessary. It scarcely matters what their personal predilections may be since they will be obliged to respond to unanticipated events as they occur, and due to the extent and variety of the turf they will inherit they will forever be at the junction of a dizzy range of choices. They are not masters of their own fate, their success or failure results from the way they respond to outward events, and what the longer term consequences of their actions turn out to be. When they try to 'do' things they almost invariably go wrong. Overthrowing Gaddafi has resulted in total chaos in what was an ordered environment and contributed to the waves of refugees now drowning in the Mediterranean. A social worker I knew found an elderly man living on his own who had always retained every newspaper and journal to come his way and in consequence now lived in a five foot paper maze. Trevor, for that was the social worker's name, organised a team of volunteers and spent a weekend clearing the man's house. Visiting the house two days later to see how the man was getting on Trevor was shocked and breathless with astonishment to find him dead.
The KSA has become dangerously powerful, and perhaps too independent? Some think this messy Yemeni adventure may prove a bridge too far for the Al Saud family and produce an outcome not altogether regretted in the US. Bear in mind it is coincident with moves towards Iranian rehabilitation. (See Tacitus above.)
Setting this group against that for purposes of your own is as old as records. It was a passtime on Mount Olympus, basic to the shifting tides of medieval politics, and kept Elizabethan England afloat. One of its neatest assertions is in Tacitus' Germania:
Maneat, quaeso, duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at certe odium sui: quando, urgentibus imperii fatis, nihil jam praestare fortuna majus potest, quam hostium discordiam.
or, from 'Agricola and Germany' (OUP) trs. A R Birley
Long may the barbarians continue, I pray, if not to love us, at least to hate one and other, seeing that, as fate bears remorselessly on the empire, fortune can offer no greater boon than discord among our enemies.
One shouldn't take the Bloomberg Politics poll results too seriously. If the respondents had based their answers on the toss of a coin you would expect similar results. It's a peculiarity of our age that everyone is assumed to have opinions on everything. These hypothetical choices are not true alternatives nor do the given answers necessarily reflect deeply held convictions. Should the US send troops to defend illegal settlements in occupied Palestine? Might be a more illuminating question.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Is there a danger of interpreting collateral consequences as primary purposes? Daesh and other armed groups are an imminent threat to both Russia and Iran and their priority must be to face up to them. The US can afford a mixed bag of purposes, they can't.
Was it not always on the cards that Iranian and Hezbollah boots would be supported by Russian air and bombardment? It's refreshing to witness the speed with which Russia unfolds what is obviously a planned and coherent agenda, and at the same time distressing that US actions grow daily more surreal. The US has apparently just dropped some 50 tons of ammunition etc. into the conflict without any clear notion who they are destined for. Also it seems Washington refused to host a delegation, which would have included Medvedev, to discuss cooperation, or send one to Moscow, unless Russia first agreed to join the US coalition, which is like insisting the surgeon assist the nurse. Looking at all this against the chest thumping pronouncements of GOP electoral candidates, and even Clinton, it would seem the US is mainly fearful for its 'credibility' would suffer after all its demonising of Russia and Iran. This is sad for a host of reasons but primarily perhaps because the Syrian chaos offered an opportunity for all nations to come together to resolve a festering problem, and had that succeeded it could been a blueprint for tackling a host of global issues darkening all our future.
Few people know or care much about the intricacies of this business, what they really want is someone who looks and sounds like they can cope confidently, and will keep US amour propre from too much damage. Apparently Russia may shortly launch a major offensive South of Aleppo with 'thousands of Iranian forces on the ground'. Under such circumstances Obama can hardly afford to defne too clear a policy and is much better off with one that can be adjusted post eventum to accommodate developments either way.
Attempting to analyse their strategies would be simpler if Obama had authority over US actions anywhere near that which Putin enjoys over the deployment of Russian resources. Obama and Putin are not really comparable since Obama is obliged to seek a high degree of consensus from a divided Legislature and public, not to mention lobby interests, and be prepared to face constant scrutiny from news bite seeking media, and interrogation from politically provocative committees, while Putin is nowhere near so constrained.
Using the surnames of leaders to describe what a nation is doing may be useful shorthand but it doesn't reflect any deeper truth. The same is true of al-Assad; talking of him the way Westerners do ignores the role of the infrastructural forces that constrain him and have since he first arrived in the Presidential palace with bushy tailed hopes of reform.
Obama reminds me somewhat of the pragmatic Harold Macmillan, UK Prime Minister during the JFK presidency and the height of the Cold War. He understood the influence of passing time, and stood up to Russian advances but retreated before they became open war. If in doubt, do nothing, doing nothing doesn't mean nothing is done since events are ever moving of themselves. To some extent, leaving Russia to take on the Islamic activists, whatever their colour, is consistent with Obama's expressed notion of 'leading from the back', that is to say letting others do the dirty work and bear the costs of it. If you have to sacrifice the 'moderate rebels' then take consolation from the fact that they were always something of a fantasy anyway.
Russia is doing nothing the US could not have done had it wanted to. If you are allied to a super power, you expect to be defended. Those are the basics of the arrangement and they apply even when the subordinate party had little or no choice in it. Bur it can only survive while the obligation is fulfilled or while the illusion that it would be is maintained. One only has to recall the air cover provided the forces that cleared the Iraqis from Kuwait or those that covered Iraq to overthrow Saddam to realise Iraq now is receiving a much watered down version, certainly much less than Syria is getting from Russia. The US is pussyfooting around muttering about the dangers of aggravating sectarian violence while the place is being overwhelmed by mind numbing excesses of sectarian violence. al-Adabi said more or less that in his France24 interview the other day; Is it any wonder Iraqis seek another defender.
These four years and whatever follows before Syria is quiet will surely have had a profound effect on al~Assad and his wife and family. By all accounts he was quite happy as an ophthalmologist and only came to this role because his brother died. His father was a man few would defy, including family. My, albeit vague, recollection is he never wanted the job in the first place and it's perfectly possible he will be more than happy to hand over when there is an alternative pleasing to the majority of Syrians. Originally he may have taken comfort rehearsing the potential for reform but found himself swept along, if not enslaved, by a deeply rooted structure established by his father over 30 years, a structure of self-perpetuating, interlocking loyalties he couldn't break, and which his father may have built up for exactly that reason, particularly if he felt his son might not have it in him. I don't seek to mitigate the horrors under his rule which were a continuation of those under his father, merely to suggest he might welcome a coherent exit.
The translation is indeed obscure but I wonder how some of the White House doublespeak sounds in Russian. I suppose from a Russian perspective anyone attacking Syrian regime forces is impeding their purpose and needs be encouraged to back off. The US etc. are the ones in the business of overthrowing the Syrian regime, not Russia whose strategy is to use precisely those Syrian forces to tackle Daesh.
If Donald Trump meant that Iraq and Libya would have been more stable today had the US/West left their constitutional evolutions to work themselves out, he could well be right. However, things are not that simple. The actions of the US/West in the ME over the last 15 years have been stages in their own evolution on the global stage. The whole 'what if' business is simply an attempt to write alternative history based on what didn't happen.
A holy war is a war of Good against Evil, and no one surely disputes that Daesh is evil. Until the modern age all peoples viewed that eternal conflict in religious terms, and clerics still do. Granted Putin may not have had that in mind last Wednesday, but then, If you count your golden stars they are disallowed! A religious war is another matter.
Intentionally or not, Obama seems to be adopting the role of opposition in relation to Putin, the role he argued Republicans should eschew in favour of coöperation with him. To an outside observer it simply makes him appear petulant. It's even possible, assuming they are successful in Syria, Russia may one day extend its anti-Daesh, etc. activities into Iraq, if only because it makes little sense simply to push them outside the door. Lavrov insists Russia has no such intention which is doubtless true but intentions are rooted in 'now' and 'now' has a very short lifespan. France24 interviewed al-Abadi the other day http://www.france24.com/en/20151001-france-24-iraq-abadi-russian-airstrikes-isil-isis? and it's not hard to see such a move as a distinct possibility, with the one saying Russia has not offered and the other saying Iraq has not asked.
Brooding more over this during the last hours, it occurred to me that if, as seems quite possible, Russia and Iran do succeed in driving Daesh and other insurgents from Syria, they will come to exceed US influence in the ME, and the Palestinians will likely be collateral beneficiaries.
Abbas' timing may prove fortuitous if it gives Netanyahu enough to think about to deter him from initiating another cull while Putin is at work next door on Daesh; something that may well have crossed his one track mind.
Given the persistent chaos many Afghans may now feel their best interests lie in the Taliban taking over. At least they would know where they are. It isn't as if 12 years of US occupation has brought them peace or stability. What kind of 'solution' must it seem to them when the US response to the Taliban in their city of Kanduz is to bomb the place flat. They probably long for the day the US and other NATO forces just go away and leave them alone. As for local forces armed and trained by an occupier deserting to their own in the heat of battle, the Romans were contending with that in Gaul two thousand some odd years ago.
Putin has never claimed long-term dedication to the survival of al-Assad as President of Syria. However, surely it is sensible to use his existing military infrastructure to resolve the Daesh priority. Once Daesh is defeated, there need be no further support offered him. That is Realpolitik, moral and ideological considerations can be left until later. Putin would hardly announce such a plan now as that would defeat it. Obama must realise this since it is the sort of thing the US does in its sleep. No, Obama is more concerned about who will follow al-Assad and wants to ensure the odds heavily favour US interests. Absent an outcome promising for ongoing US interests Obama appears to prefer bombing the country into another neutralised wasteland run by militias, the lesser, presumably, of two evils. No doubt Putin has a similar interest in Syria's future geopolitical alignment but the proximity of jihadist terrorism is more urgent to Russia than the US. Although they exchange barbs over al-Assad, he is not personally what their deeper differences are about.
I doubt Russian moves come as a surprise to Kerry. Whatever has clicked into start mode must have been planned for some time, it certainly isn't precipitate and probably has roots in the new economic and trade foundations laid east of Europe. It's been White House reaction for some time to 'watch events closely' and acknowledge various levels of 'concern' while avoiding anything much of a constructive nature. The conflation of al-Assad's domestic excesses with Daesh is one of the main things that has allowed the whole situation to get out of hand. Syria, Iraq, Daesh and the streams of recruits and refugees now represent a multi-layered problem, and such problems call for separating the components and dealing with each in turn. The US hasn't done that, Russia and China* appear to be doing so. It's not helpful to look at these things as isolated events, they are elements in a process and it is arguable that the process is one in which the US has to adjust to relinquishing its effort to determine the future course of everything in favour of a more cooperative approach to international issues. It is probably not fair to blame Obama, who must think himself in something like the Looking Glass world where things that look tantalisingly familiar turn out to be anything but.
* http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/25-09-2015/132137-china-0/
http://www.infowars.com/arab-news-source-reports-china-went-warship-to-syria/
It's rabble rousing demagoguery, designed to show him off as a gung-ho, no nonsense, straight from the hip, don't mess with me. hat tippin' hero. The reasons Iranians don't trust the US are exactly as you catalog them, and they are the big ones, the spaces between have hardly been free of aggressive acts and their overall effect has been cumulative. The Iranians probably do trust the US, to be untrustworthy!
A world power must make some cultural, moral, political or economic impact. Israel has nothing of the kind to offer. Sodom Aviv is not enough for the foundation of a hegemony, and spectacles of the culling Palestinians, however carefully staged, are a seriously acquired taste. I was 8 years old when WWII ended. Children then were 'seen but not heard', and many hours were spent sitting quietly listening to adult talk, mostly at cocktail parties, the equivalent of social media in those days. The phrase 'Jewish problem' was much bandied about, always uttered in the same tones of resigned irritation and often with a sigh. The photo you published the other day of Netanyahu and Putin in gilded chairs, Putin displaying the resigned boredom of someone about to look at his watch, echoes that perfectly. In the end it was importunity that got them their foothold in Palestine and, aside from a few idealistic, intellectual socialists, most everyone hoped that would be the last they need hear from them. No nation really wants to attack Israel, and they wouldn't be allowed to anyway, all anyone wants is for them to get back behind their apportioned boundaries and leave all else alone.
Russia has practical and strategic interests in Syria and is, I imagine, as anxious as others express themselves to be to bring an end to the bloodfest in Syria. Putin has been patient with the nonsense that has been going on there but the time has come for him, however reluctantly, to roll up his sleeves and try to sort out the mess by strengthening the regime's military ability to clear out all the insurgents and restore a semblance of order. Doubtless he hopes his efforts will accomplish this and he won't have to get his own feet wet. However, Lavrov seems to have made it quite clear that if necessary that is exactly what he will do. This may puzzle Kerry but then the State Department as a singular capacity for puzzlement these days
The constitution of the UN is out of date. Although its purposes were couched in abstract ideological terms, unquestioned at the time, it was quintessentially both Western and what one might call 'benevolent colonialist', and was launched upon the world like a bride in virgin white. In this it ideally served the interests of the largely Christian, post WWII conquerors which, as time passed, increasingly became those of the US above all others. It became corrupt, first in the sense that it was no longer what had been envisaged; and then progressively It began to lose the instinctive respect of the world, becoming instead viewed as subservient, if not a tool, of US cultural interests. As those interests became increasingly commercial it was almost inevitable the UN would stumble along behind. Add to that the yeast like tendency of any bureaucracy to multiply and we have the situation we're in today. The real question is what, if anything, can be done, if not to restore the UN which may be beyond redemption, to provide us all with a serious global alternative that responds to interests of the world as a whole rather than selected bits of it at the expense of others. If it can be cured, the first thing is probably to move it out of New York. And then revise the business of some nations being permanent members of the Security Council and having a veto. Even the sometimes lamented Gaddafi, who was quite capable of sound and sensible social achievements, and of speaking sense, albeit in a random and overly discursive manner, was cogent on the urgent need for revision of the UN constitution.
A system to forestall inadvertent Israeli attacks on Russian positions sounds to me like a pretty blunt warning to Netanyahu not to dare trying anything of the kind.
The author is perhaps a shade pessimistic. I don't imagine Putin is wedded to the idea of maintaining Assad in power for any reason other than that he is the head of state and controls the military. There is no other coherently organised force able to face up to Daesh in Syria. If Russia believes it possible to deal Daesh a disabling blow in Syria, then the quite separate issue of the constitutional future of Syria is a lesser priority and can surely wait until later. It may look as if Russia is flexing muscles against US ME policies, but if US efforts against the Daesh conflagration were unequivocally yielding positive results Russia would doubtless leave them to it, alas they are not, which more or less obliges Putin to step in, and I imagine he does so reluctantly since neither the Russian people as a whole nor the Russian army can relish another deadly adventure any more than the US population or the US soldiery. The oft expressed notion that Assad is responsible for Daesh invading Syria is simply not true however often the Secretary of State insists upon it.
Many, particularly Westerners, are detached from first hand reality. reality once extensively shared in response to climate and the seasons, even by those who lived in towns and cities. Today Westerners' emotional responses are second hand and media generated, with the inevitable calculation that implies. This means that their emotional responses are provoked to order which is one definition of entertainment. A good example is the recent picture of Aylan Kurdi's body washed up on a beach which appears likely to have been staged to sway public opinion http://observers.france24.com/en/20150915-beware-fake-migrant-images-shared-online . The fact that the boy was a migrant and did drown is not enough to justify the dimension of emotion evoked by the picture. This is the world that allows people to cling to erroneous beliefs and encourages them to get passionately worked up over fantasies.
The Church also plays a social, community role that attracts many who are not true believers but happy to go through the motions, suitably attired and with the standard serious expression. If a Roman Catholic has doubts about any part of the Pope's teaching the proper thing is to discuss them quietly with the priest. Santorum's flippant comment is a something he should confess, and displays an arrogance he should work on.
The hidden value of the Iranian deal lies in its potential to be a blueprint for a nuclear free ME. Since that would only really involve disarming Israel one can see how it might be unpopular in Washington.
Russia appears to be doing for the Syrian regime much what the US is doing for the rebels, and what they both ostensibly seek against ISIS/ISIL/Daesh. It is highly unlikely Russia would get involved at an invasion level any more than the US and for the same reasons, it would cause domestic political chaos; the Russian people wouldn't like it anymore than the Americans. It's a No, No.
Corbyn simply expresses what most feel though few articulate about Israel's behaviour. Doubtless he would welcome debate on the subject of international law in relation to the settlements and the condition of the Palestinians, but Israel evades these obtrusive realities in favour of accusations of antisemitism, circumbendibus untruths, and appeals to their peculiar mythopoesis, all of which engenders dismissive irritation, not because it comes from Jews but because none of it is relevant to rational debate. Corbyn appears to express unvarnished common sense, which may well be the root of his appeal as we find ourselves drawn willy-nilly into a morass of post-rationalism .
Might it not also be because it is a realistic solution to a problem that grows daily more murky, and which Iran has more to gain from helping to resolve than the US itself. The alternative of keeping Iran on bread and water and inhibited from helping stabilize the situation in Syria is surely that ISIL/ISIS/Daesh will enter Damascus, unleashing their bloodthirsty murders, then turn towards Israel and Saudi Arabia, incidentally creating a refugee problem that would dwarf the one we face today and might well fracture the already fragile European social and political infrastructure beyond repair.
Whatever may lie behind Russian motives, it's clear their primary purpose is to resolve the Syrian conflict, and then get on with tackling Daesh. The US appears more concerned to topple Assad. I doubt Russia is wedded to Assad per se, but Syria has an army and for the time being Assad is its boss so it is logical that if anyone is going to get involved in all this Assad and the Syrian army should be assisted. But, no. The US is even pressuring other countries to close their airspace to Russia's efforts. This is absurd, and Kerry calling Lavrov twice within a week to 'express US concerns' about their efforts looks increasingly like petulance. One might understand the US desire to go it alone if their efforts were working but patently they are not working, whatever they claim, and it even appears from the Daily Beast that they are deluding themselves http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/09/exclusive-50-spies-say-isis-intelligence-was-cooked.html. Yes, the Syrian regime is brutal but that is nothing new, Assad's father hanged rebels from the lampposts in Damascus. Comparatively speaking his son might even be considered a mild improvement.
Good morning! The economic arrangements Iran is forging eastwards have significant defence treaties associated with them, a military cooperation agreement was signed in January http://tass.ru/en/russia/771994 . The Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said, the need for tighter defense cooperation has always been of importance to bilateral relations.This is logical, not least because the mutual investment in transcontinental fuel pipes alone is in billions. Russia (Lavrov) is on record saying a solution to ISIS requires first the resolution of the Syrian turmoil, which is about to be actively pursued by Russia, Iran and Cairo, plus others in the region, as a prelude to bringing an end to ISIS and other terrorist groups, something the US has proved far from effective in achieving. The idea Saudi Arabia and Israel would take on such a coalition engaged in such a purpose is scarcely credible.
That sounds like a bit of diplomatic doublespeak for Obama having read the king selected extracts from the riot act.
The notion that the Vienna accord somehow enhances the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon is patently ill-founded and cannot possibly justify the undeniable fuss Israel and Saudi Arabia are stirring up about it; one must seek another reason and in blunt human terms it is probably akin to jealousy. Iran out of purdah can exercise a considerably more important role in local and global affairs than either of them this side of the irrational. Perhaps this is already illustrated by Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister visiting Damascus as the Saudi king was still on his way to the White House
The potential harm from the US rejecting the deal would be largely economic and self-inflicted, but much external damage from this extraordinarily untidy process has already been done. No small number of Europeans will feel quite chuffed if the US Legislature does reject the deal, By the way, Jeremy Corbyn looks set to become leader of the UK parliamentary opposition, and quite possibly the next UK prime minister. He wants to withdraw from NATO and abandon Trident. Blair is fiercely against Corbyn but the more vociferously he warns against him the more support Corbyn seems to attract.
But the mirror has two faces, and for many the US is the one that is not an acceptable participant in finding a resolution to the conflict. Lavrov also said a solution to ISIS requires first the resolution of the Syrian turmoil. Americans, and by extension the US, possess very little patience and are uneasy allowing things to work through, they prefer results today or tomorrow. I have a theory that a people's/nation's natural patience is in proportion to the antiquity of their historical identity. I think Obama may understand something like this but understanding doesn't make it possible to change it. It's far better today to learn to surf than seek to control the waves.
These look like very carefully laid plans, with more Russian dolls than just ISIS and Syria. It is highly likely that Sisi has been brought on board and firmly briefed. The recent agreement signed in Moscow (quoted in Asia Times) http://atimes.com/2015/08/russias-middle-east-ship-drops-anchor-in-suez-canal/ included some pretty potent stuff.
In addition Abbas and Hamas may, I imagine, have been encouraged to go out of their ways keep all quiet on the Western front.
PressTV reports this morning that Merkel 'welcomes Iran's particiption,,,' http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/09/01/427217/Germany-Chancellor-Angela-Merkel-Iran-Syria-crisis- None of this can be very nice for Israel, one imagines.
ME turmoil protects Israel. Unless they are enforceable, laws are an open invitation to find arguments that render them inapplicable because superseded by some higher (chosen people) or more urgent (security) consideration. Israel is not going to stop what it is doing unless forced and it is difficult to see how, under the present circumstances, that can be brought about. BDS certainly helps prepare the ground but Israel's tentacles are spread wide and guarantee endless fudge.
A piece in the Asia Times http://atimes.com/2015/08/russias-middle-east-ship-drops-anchor-in-suez-canal/ last week might suggest that Russia's ME foreign policy contains the seeds of a collateral solution. If Moscow/Cairo/Tehran/Damascus do indeed form ...a broad counter-terrorism front in which the key international players and the region’s countries, including Syria, would take part... and it achieves significant impact it might serve to coax Israel's immunity to an end, with security for the whole area becoming an international rather than exclusively US undertaking, and attention better focused on obtaining a nuclear free ME.
I agree absolutely with your last point. I am older still and recall sitting in the Regal cinema watching Pathe news coverage of the opening of concentration camps. The images merged in my young mind with countless others from the war. It did not occur to me to put them in a separate category because the victims were mostly Jewish, in fact I don't remember that information even being part of the commentary. It was simply man's inhumanity to man and it electrified the neck and shook the place to heavy silence.
The word 'right' has a number of nuanced meanings. In blunt English it means an entitlement by law, but it is perfectly possible for someone to have a right and not have it. An example would be prisoners being denied the vote in UK elections because that is the UK law. The European Court in Strasbourg deems this to be a violation of prisoners' rights. In the same way Israeli settlements on Palestinian land can be a 'right' for Israelis while being a violation under UN legislation which, since it is unenforceable, they choose to ignore. Many nations choose to ignore international law, and to that extent such laws do not apply within them. Rivlin appears simply to have reiterated what everyone already knows. That is the nub of the impasse and it will continue until Israel determines for whatever reason to accept the relevant international laws, something it has no need even to consider while under the umbrella of the US Security Council veto.
I don't really want to get involved in this because it bores me to death. But your selective choice of 'Forward' to determine what is anti-Semitic is disingenuous to say the least. Even the World Jewish Council reporting the same story puts the appellation in inverted commas.
http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/matisyahu-will-play-his-concert-at-spanish-festival-organizers-confirm-8-5-2015
It seems to me BDS is an individual decision. If a group of individuals find themselves united in their reaction to whatever it may be then their individual responses may, ipso facto, be combined, but the idea that a majority within a group should impose moral perspectives, not defined in its constitution, on all its members is itself a contradiction of liberty.
John Stuart Mills 'On Liberty'
The solution surely is to create a subgroup, 'Academia for BDS', and apply available energies from within that rather than expend them in internecine dialectics.
Having read yesterday's DOS briefing, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/08/246211.htm, I am more than ever persuaded that the problem here is reluctance to accept the US position as a member of an international team dealing with this issue. 'Brad' even suggests Kerry should get the IAEA to show the confidential agreement they have with Iran to those members of Congress who express continued unease about the whole thing. It puts me in mind of the story of a British traveler arriving at immigration in New York after WW11 and asking: I see that US citizens go there and foreigners that way, but where do the British go?
“...some people advertised as journalists just aren’t very good”
Alas, all too true. Several journalists at DOS briefings simply cannot take on board the notion that anything reliable might occur that is not overseen by the US, and in consequence they assume that since they are not given details of the monitoring agreement between the IAEA and Iran there must be something fishy about it.
They cannot understand why the agreement between the IAEA and a target nation is confidential, so they worry at the issue like puppies at a slipper.
Nor are they able to grasp the two-dimensional notion that because the IAEA has agreements with all nations it monitors, having an agreement with Iran is standard practice, but since the agreements with each nation necessarily differ, each, including that with Iran, is unique. 'If you say it's standard practice, how can it be unique?', one asked.
It does the US no favours to find a reply like this from the retired US Rear Admiral, now spokesperson for the DOS.
QUESTION: So would it be fair to describe the Obama Administration as exasperated with Salva Kiir and his government
MR KIRBY: No, I’m not going to throw an adverb (sic) on it here.
Iran might in time relegate that egregious episode to the past, but it can hardly be forgotten since it's a significant thread in Iran's history. Besides, it's a fascinating story, particularly as the CIA , etc. are still doing exactly the same things today. Furthermore, although some documents have been made available acknowledging US/UK responsibility* many others were apparently destroyed in the 60s for 'lack of space', which is precisely the kind of action that fosters speculative theories that won't let an issue settle.
* http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
These candidates are high on cultural evangelism which like the religious variety is driven by faith in the rightness of the objective. Faith ever supplants reason.
MK Basel Ghattas (above)
There indeed is the rub. I have asked what is envisaged for the settlers on the Mondoweiss site several times over the years. Answer comes there none. The only reply ever was a suggestion they should be driven out as the Palestinians were and are. However, that calls for a contradiction of values which most of the civilised world would find unacceptable. The problem really should be addressed since the settlers are too dangerous a concentration of negative humanity for anyone to expect them simply to dissolve quietly away.
Silence on the issue casts a harsh light on even the most liberal Jews who seem to allow themselves to imagine settlers and Palestinians settling down together in the area while completely ignoring something which, if the present tide of opposition to the occupation continues, could well provide the world with images quite as disturbing as those witnessed from Palestine today.
Not being American I cannot enter debate about the legal status of AIPAC, but I do think the blunt choice between the deal and war maybe somewhat less bleak than Obama's assertion suggests. If Congress denies approval in such a way as to obviate even a Presidential veto, then the rest of the world will go ahead with it anyway and it its difficult to see what AIPAC could possibly gain from that.
Once the deal is in place, is seems highly unlikely as things stand that Iran would renege on its undertakings. Instead it will be occupied re-establishing its industrial base, and entering more fully into unfolding plans for closer commercial integration eastwards, plans which are quintessentially coöperative and necessarily contain mutually defensive commitments since they are of a scale that cannot be left at risk from the random destructive interruption of any part of them.
Furthermore, rendering Iran transparently free from nuclear weapons allows for the resurrection of the UN commitment to a nuclear free ME and any nation seeking to impede that would surely have to come out and justify Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. One could be mistaken, of course, but AIPAC seems to be about to finesse itself.
This is true and perceptive but a whole lot of others would need to be persuaded of any Iranian breakout towards a nuclear weapon, and that would be difficult if they are transparent in not doing it. Sure, the US or Israel can go attack Iran any time, they always could but doesn't the deal ratchet down that prospect? If it does, then it has to be worth it.
One prickly factor in areas involving international cooperation, is the role of the US which while obviously frequently valuable, if not essential, appears to resist being party to any initiative which it doesn't itself entirely control, or appear to control. This deal with Iran is an example of the latter. The deal simply wasn't a solely US initiative although one would hardly guess that listening to Obama or any other legislator, media outlet or man in the street. True, Obama did acknowledge the deal could not have been achieved without the others, but even there, the unavoidable implication is the others were helping the US. This perspective completely ignores the role played by the UK. France and Germany who had, since 2003, been seeking to clarify suspicions about Iranian nuclear activities.
The three foreign ministers went to Tehran in 2003 and the result was a joint declaration http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3211036.stm. What may have caused feathers to flutter across the water and in Tel Aviv was the civilised diplomatic tone of the accord. and more specifically the last paragraph:
In 2006 the US, with Russia and China got in on the act and the P5+1 was born and with it a whole new atmosphere of demonisation, doubt and duplicity fed in large part by unsubstantiated claims and doubtful evidence, principally the infamous laptop http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-mysterious-laptop-documents-evidence-of-iran-nuclear-weapons-program-may-be-fraudulent/21994.
Europeans had had dealings with Persia for over 2000 years, some good some bad but always conducted in a formal manner. Now the whole thing began to get ugly. However, relations appear, from Dr Cole's account of the Iranian Chief of Staff's recent statement, to have been restored to an acceptable level, despite Tel Aviv, AIPAC and various members of the US legislature.
You hear this kind of Palinspeak from many in political life. It arises because they don't think before they speak. Because it's not a habit, thinking prior to responding doesn't happen automatically, particularly under pressure. It is possible the widespread study of Latin once insensibly introduced a habit of thinking before speaking which has faded with the decline of that particular study and attendant peer example.
You get it all over, here's Mark Toner on Thursday responding to a question about US air strikes hitting Syrian Kurds:
The words are simply leaking from his mouth. Had he paused with the question, thought through an answer and then replied it would have taken no longer and been simple and straightforward. As it is he obliges his audience to put the words into their own heads and do his thinking for him.
You have to look at this Iran deal in isolation. Most nations are fearful, not so much of Iran acquiring a bomb but of the consequences, specifically the proliferation of such armaments in the area, and then the increasingly likely possibility that someone somewhere will just press a red button one bright morning. Working all this through with Iran is supposed to put that box of matches well out of reach. Many are pissed off because they see the deal as providing momentum towards a nuclear weapon free ME, any resistance to which would further isolate Israel.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Rivlin-worried-Netanyahu-Obama-rift-has-placed-Israel-in-isolation-411303
isolation exposes Israel's activities in Palestine, and in that sense can indeed be regarded as an existential threat.
The speech, which I have watched twice in full, was quite brilliant, Ciceronian indeed. It's rare these days to encounter a speech eschewing emotion and relying so completely on intellect. Those preparing to stand for office might profitably take salutary note of those parts that evoked spontaneous applause. (If you want a reminder, look at the transcript and do a 'find' on APPLAUSE.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/
Each interest group will take what it wants from it, but one paragraph, perhaps in a sense the most poignant was:
Some fear that credibility is already threatened, and when he employed the verb 'lose', I think he really meant it.
Human nature doesn't change, the 'ascent of Man' is an intellectual delusion; only behaviour patterns change in place and time, and they do so like leaves in a storm. Having reached the estuary of my life, well in sight of the ocean, that is how it seems to me. When I was young, economy was a virtue, things were bought to last and if they broke they were taken to be mended, debt was frowned on, bankruptcy was shameful. Today those values have passed through a mirror, and the thoughtful are becoming uneasily aware of the consequences. I don't think you can blame Obama, the whole thing is careering out of control, he's simply in the driver's seat with no breaks. It's one thing to stand aside and offer judgement and suggestions but no single leader can actually do anything about it, all Obama can do is respond to the circumstances that appear most pressing today. Besides, it's not just the US, it's the whole Western world and beyond. What hope is there when as much if not more media emotion is generated by the death of a lion hunt in Kenya as the wilful incineration of a human baby by Israelis in Palestine? Much of the world lives in poverty and the West has a long way to go before it falls anywhere near the human average. Any real change can only come from below, a change of values such as occurred with smoking, a once fashionable habit which killed off most of my parents' generation who hadn't died in one or other of their wars. I suppose we could all start by asking ourselves, each time we are moved to acquire something, Do I really need that or just want it, and relegate wants to the fantasy area occupied by the possibility of a lottery win. That's what people in straightened circumstances have to do until it becomes second nature. It's an acquired habit which can prove surprisingly refreshing.
This whole situation is in constant flux within which any effort to identify a stable element is more or less doomed. You don't, however, need to rise to Dr Cole's 30,000 feet, a few hundred will do, before recognising a unifying plateau of antipathy to the US in pretty well all its manifestations; hegemonic primarily, but also cultural, moral, and ideological, all of which are synthesised in the US support for Israel, and in consequence fed by events in the occupied territories, not so much the most recent events themselves, distressing though they are, but by the confirmation implicit in the nature of the US response to all such depredations. And not even from any one response in isolation but from their cumulative confirmation that in the end the US is working to encourage dissension in the Arab world for purposes of its own. Opposing armies in the Somme in WW1 managed a truce one Christmas and we could be looking at something akin. It has no lasting value but it will surface from time to time and won't readily go away.
Riveting!
Federica Mogherini
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/28/iran-agreement-isis-vienna-eu
link is funny
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/27/422119/Iranian-Foreign-Minister-Mohammad-Javad-Zarif--Ibrahim-alJaafari-Baghdad
A further reason might be if Iran becomes a source for a coordinated response to ISIL.
The Iranian Foreign Minister is currently in Baghdad:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/27/422119/Iranian-Foreign-Minister-Mohammad-Javad-Zarif--Ibrahim-alJaafari-Baghdad
That is a mature response and the ME is badly in need of a unifying purpose acting above conflicting differences.
Also in the end there really isn't anywhere for ISIL to go long-term. In that sense it's a bit like Israel's occupation of Palestine, an undertaking pursued in defiance of more or less everyone which will simply starve itself out of existence in time.
It's probably less a question of Americans maintaining a standard of living as restoring it and it's too late for that; it's already on the way out for the West as a whole and bringing new levels of social disorder in its wake. It's precisely a replacement for that model that is unfolding. What emerges is unlikely to bring fulfilment of the Western 'human rights' and 'democracy' mantras, but it should introduce a more coherent fiscal system with the US dollar taking its place among other currencies. Until that happens China, largely under the radar of Western media, is employing its holdings to acquire capital interests most everywhere.
Remember Napoleon's assessment of China: Let China sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world. Well, she's awakening and there ain't much anyone can do to put her back to sleep.
One shake of the kaleidoscope could, now the Iranian threat has been largely tidied way, come from a popular and possibly massive move to resurrect the pitch for a nuclear weapon free ME. That might have a supra-schismatic unifying effect on the area while turning up the UN spotlight on Israel. A few years ago there was a Brookings survey of ME populations, and while some favoured Iran having nuclear weapon capability if Israel did, an overwhelming majority preferred the area totally free of such weapons. It's hard to see how any nation could get away with justifying Israel's retention of nuclear weapons in the face of such a noble, peaceable and popular purpose. It could also appeal to many as tangentially pro-Palestinian while quite innocently capitalising on a variety of sublimated anti-Israel sentiments
Does anyone doubt Khamenei is anti-imperialist? I have no Farsi but from the various translations it seems to me he is simply stating the facts they way he sees them. Obama and the US media have had a field day twisting news of these negotiations this way and that to make them conform to the image of a disciplinarian bringing an errant troublemaker into line. No one else gives the slightest concern to the others at the table, others without whom no deal could have been done. It puts one in mind of periods of imperial Rome when all achievement had to be effected by the emperor, and a successful general would even let victory slip from his grasp, fearful that any glory he might earn would make the emperor blood lettingly jealous, It could be Putin's ability casually to sort out US made problems, like Syrian chemicals, that makes him so distrusted.
If a lot of nations gain and only Israel and the KSA lose, then their loss is in a meaningful sense much greater. France was among the biggest losers from the sanctions and is straining at the bit to re-enter the Iranian market; Laurent Fabius accepted an invitation to visit Tehran a few days ago: http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20150715-frances-fabius-visit-iran-after-nuclear-deal-sealed.
History may judge the sanctions, and their lifting, as among the more significant events of the period. They arguably inhibited Israel from attacking Iran, and the sudden release of pent up commerce will be an significant boon in these economically fragile times.
They are allies but they also have profound disagreements and certainly didn't labour for this agreement because they were US allies, in fact they were never that happy about the sanctions in the first place. In his NYT interview on the subject, Obama admitted:
Add to that still festering spying revelations etc. and I don't imagine US media felt much inclined to open that particular box.
US policies have given birth to the pursuit of systems of economic activity insulated from the US dollar; observable in the BRICS group, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, and, of course the rapport between Russia and China. Sanctions were coaxing Iran in that direction. There are, of course, hosts of more immediate considerations, and ISIL is surely one, although any notion that Iran will agree to be 'put to work as an ally of the West' seems less likely. In fact there might well be more advantage for the US etc. to coördinate their efforts with Iran.
True. My intention was to illustrate the consistent mindset.
Netanyahu's utterances are never reflections or even approximations of truths, they are veils raised to obscure the relentless and unceasing pursuit of his purposes. I met Ben Gurion a year before he died, and we talked of de Gaulle who he claimed to respect within a measure of detachment for having always put French interests above all others, which was what any leader should ever do.
Latterly the US has alienated the majority of the 1.7 billion Muslims whom it conflates with Arabs. You can't alienate such a number without adopting a collective view of them and fostering a negative attitude towards them.
Amira Hass is admirable, as ever. Alas, reason is ineffective against fanaticism, and analysis of Israeli behaviour, however informed, is not a lot of use unless it inspires outrage and a level of action sufficient to force an end to the occupation and the ugly Zionist dream. There are really only two ways out of this morass, one is force, which is scarcely practical and would inevitably give rise to scenes such as we witness in far too many places already, the other is ostracisation which is the method of BDS. Ostracisation requires forcing the hand of political leaders since. whatever platitudes they mouth, only one or two small nations have leaders with the will to do anything but make vague gestures, It would be a Herculean task to galvanise an adequate response in the manner of the South African BDS movement which was anyway quite different in a number of fundamental ways, being a problem isolated within its own country but with strong, sympathetic echoes of the desegregation issues still working through in the US at the time.
The Israel problem is further coloured by the US attitude to Islam and Arabs and the fact that Israeli propaganda has conflated Israel with Jews in such a way that many think of Israelis as Western, and though they may not like them they provoke a less negative response than Palestinians. In this world it is not enough to be a victim, particularly when in much of the Western world many people are homeless, unemployed and hungry, and as Amira says, the predicament of millions in many Arab countries is worse than Gaza. Furthermore, the real fomenting division today is between the haves and the have nots, the 1% and the mass, and Israel is a staunch friend, ally and associate of the 1%. There are, for instance, numerous factories in Britain owned by Israeli defence giant Elbit Systems that make stuff used against the population of the occupied territories. Even nations that should know better, like India, buy its armaments, well tested as they are on the captive citizens of Gaza.
The wanton destruction of our environment, the corruption, hypocrisy and egregious moral turpitude that surrounds us makes Palestine look just another book in a burning library
Deserves a medal? http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/07/08/419259/Iraq-Mosul-ISIL
And here's evidence if it's needed.
Manuel Valls, French prime minister on RTL radio:
You may underestimate the fierce political purposes behind the advancement of the EU from its original creation as a a Common Agricultural Policy, a European trade agreement. Germany and France moved heaven and earth to get a list of supporting nations replete enough to give it a global political look. They knew perfectly well the way Greece operated and the weaknesses of their system but brushed all doubts away in favour of grandiose political dreams. Think of seducing a kid with a bit of in his pocket into a Disneyland, locking the gates and lending him money to spend.
The new division is really between the haves and the have nots, and the haves are getting edgy. The pan Europe demonstrations in support of a Greek 'No' vote are, I believe, an illustration of the universality of the position enunciated by the representative of Syriza’s youth wing. That support for a No vote cannot have been a considered economic position so much as a moral reaction to the perceived injustice of the whole thing, and sympathy for the Greek people. In a real sense it was also anti-Brussels and the haves. That will worry the hell out of them because it achieved a focus of solidarity that has escaped Brussels since the EU was established, a solidarity that could well become viral. Yanis Varoufakis is clearly an icon of that solidarity with his casual manner, crisp mind, and refreshing moral integrity. His dismissive remark about wearing the creditors' loathing with pride suggested to me that we may be witnessing the emergence of a break between economics and politics similar to that between theology and science in the 16th century.
Jed Raroff NY Federal Judge http://nylawyer.nylj.com/adgifs/decisions/112911rakoff.pdf
Hardship starts at the bottom of the economic ladder and works upwards. Leaders make grandiose promises at conferences in plush surroundings but then put fulfilment off, and then off again, until it would be almost embarrassing to be first and the commitment gets filed somewhere. We are subjected to innumerable professionally devised TV and other appeals on behalf of snow leopards and mistreated donkeys and it seems to me curious that UNRWA doesn't go straight to the public with a similar appeals for Gazan reconstruction. People worldwide are aware of the suffering in Gaza, they lived through the destruction, but they have no way to contribute.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Besides, BDS is also a modern form of ostracism and a perfectly coherent way to express distaste for Israel's behaviour. One shouldn't think of it as punitive so much as one way of making it clear one wishes nothing to do with people who behave as they do and would prefer others don't either. If it leads to a mass middle class exodus, so much the better.
I find the encyclical deeply impressive. It has the non polemical simplicity of Jesus' injunction to love one's neighbour, and carries a message one innately knows to be true. However, here is Jeb Bush, off the top of his head before he has even read it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/16/jeb-bush-upbraids-pope-francis-on-climate-change_n_7598416.html.
I doubt there is any chance industry, banks, and other engines of commerce will pay the slightest attention. However, just as individuals can seek out solar panels and fuel efficient vehicles to make their own contribution, it is possible, particularly in the 'global North', to rein in consumption. Many become obliged to do so anyway for adverse economic reasons, but there is no reason why it shouldn't be a habit. One simple path in is to consider the distinction between 'wanting' something and 'needing' it, a distinction actively obscured by advertising which insensibly morphs wants into needs. A story ever haunts me of an Indian youth who sold a kidney to buy an iPhone. We make environment affecting decisions more less all the time and it can become a habit to look at them and ask. Do I need that or do I simply want it? If the latter, relegate it to the fantasy area of a lottery win and then forget about it.
I grew up during WW11 and well remember how economy was second nature; one turned off lights, saved string and wrapping paper, walked whenever possible, ate basic stuff. To this day I remember being told how cutting potatoes into small chunks would save energy because they would boil faster. It was an attitude of mind, and an admired one.
Incalculable confusion lurks in Madeleine Albright's adoption of the concept of American exceptionalism. The word exceptionalism simply means that a certain thing constitutes an exception to other things in its class (OED), and is an external value judgement. Fair enough, until the suffix 'ism' morphs it into a belief structure; Zionism, socialism, capitalism, imperialism, Satanism, etc., something which believers are persuaded not only constitutes an exception to other things in its class, but is superior to them as well. Add evangelism to the mix and you end up where we are in Iraq and elsewhere today. American exceptionalism has become a quasi-religion which means that its adherents are prepared to die and, alas more frequently, to kill for it, and are so persuaded of its essential truth that, like Dominican inquisitors, they cannot think outside its confines. This might not matter if it brought only human benefit to those it seeks to convert, but since that patently does not happen there are increasing numbers inclined actively to resist conversion. Moreover, when people realise they are being urged to adopt values the US itself eschews, they cease to fear threats,
a process accelerated by modern communication. Will anyone ever forget that leaked Nuland conversation with the Ukrainian ambassador?
As for the rationality of other guests, reasoning is thinking and it seems to me they probably were doing that. Thinking leads to reaching a conclusion but not necessarily what others consider the 'right' one. What differentiates people's conclusions, opinions, beliefs and actions is largely a question of perspective. If you are intellectually trapped inside the bubble of American exceptionalism then you are like a goldfish in a bowl, that is your world and you observe everything from within it. Any notion about what Iraqis should or shouldn't do ought first take account of the fact that they are not trapped in that particular bowl.
It's all very well laughing at Trump but he is not atypical of a fair number of US electors. Did you see the RT piece on a couple of recent fake petitions:
http://rt.com/news/266848-russia-nuke-america-poll/
Obviously there is no conceivable comparison between a beach in San Diego and the streets of a capital like Moscow. However...
Rudolph, What you say is perfectly true but 'hypocrisy' is an external value judgement, not a crime. US foreign policy is pragmatic. You might say Saudi Arabia is not hypocritical since they make no bones about the penalties they impose. Once you start using your values to judge others you will find yours challenged more often than not.
Aristotle suggested the Cretans encouraged homosexuality to control population by directing love and sex away from child bearing activities. Aristotle, Politics 2.1272a
Heavens above! Rumsfeld has found a bit of flotsam. http://atimes.com/2015/06/rumsfeld-bush-was-wrong-about-democracy/ I can't possibly be in agreement with him; better go wash my mouth out.
Dr Cole, Are we sure Iraq is ready for democracy? Has any nation moved successfully from autocracy to democracy under external pressure? Evolution from one constitutional system to another is surely best left an internal process; there is a 5th century Greek proverb that 'One should fit the stone to the line, not the line to the stone'. The context was building, and bricklayers still follow it today; one chooses shoes to fit feet rather than selecting shoes and forcing feet into them. Hegel articulated the notion that a satisfactory outcome to division requires rising above the opposing principles to a level at which they are reconciled. I don't see how that can be done without some common cohesive vision and purpose. It worked in Iran. The West may not like the pace at which Iran is evolving, or the stages for that matter, but surely life is better there than in Iraq, and there is a tunnel with light at the end.
Morals and profit extend to opposite ends of the same scale, maintaining them in acceptable balance is what keeps the flux flowing evenly and that is a CEO's responsibility. Conflict with EU legislation is a perfect illustration of what Mr Richard is paid his doubtless enviable salary to avoid.
Obama hangs on to the old colonial notion for two states; Israel here, with these boundaries, and Palestine there; all as divided up in an atmosphere of bonhomie and cigar smoke like the rest of the ME and North Africa. That was acceptable neither to the Palestinians nor the custodians of the Jewish mythopoeic dream who had eyed the whole area as theirs and promptly set about making it so. Comparisons with apartheid are unhelpful, Israeli actions in Palestine are closer to the Chinese takeover of Tibet. I would be happy to be proved wrong but my perception is that all who take being Jewish with any degree of seriousness actually want a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and their liberals and extremists differ only in how they see the indigenous Arab population fitting into that vision. Extremists appear to want the locals to disappear, by force if necessary, while liberals envisage some vaguely defined Utopia where Arabs forget all about the last sixty years and everyone settles down to live happily ever after. The extremists are winning. They don't give two figs what anyone else thinks, indeed they are happy to be considered in the same category as any other nation defying Western moral and humanitarian norms: Why blame us when there are so many others just as bad. What they fear above all is ostracisation and they are employing every means in reach to keep it at bay. This is understandable because no one actually likes them or feels any compelling reason to have anything to do with them, aside from those seeking access to Adelson's and others' funds. As Netanyahu drops his fig leaf it's more than time for Western leaders to discard their rose-tinted spectacles; Israel is growing as dangerous as the Alien stowaway.
The word 'declining' is somewhat emotive; change is undoubtedly occurring but that is ongoing and its manifestations are more akin to cloud illusions morphing one into another. Ongoing imperial pretensions are delusional. The DOS has recently appointed a new spokesman, Jeff Rathke. and it is quite enough to watch him responding to questions from Matt Lee and others to realise that nothing can be done to turn the tide, just carry on as if nothing is changing; open another bottle of bubbly on the Titanic. The real question is what can the rest of us do to alleviate the effects of the fallout since they are likely to be catastrophic. When empires morph away an incalculable number of scarcely noticed but widely accepted conveniences vanish with them. These are dependent on an ever expanding economy. During the Roman heyday many, even modest, dwellings in relatively remote areas of the empire were built of brick, roofed with tiles, and filled with Roman pottery produced in quantity and exported over networks of well maintained roads. Later, buildings were back to mud, straw and thatch, pottery was functional stuff made to hand, and the roads overgrown with weeds. Today the US$ is not supported by any earth mineral but rather by the Earth itself, a currency whose debasement before our eyes is giving rise to a sense of impending storm most everywhere. The instinctive human response is to pull back within a like minded group, which may explain the rise of separatist and federalist movements, and much European disillusion with the EU. And, perhaps not too fancifully, what Jews are seeking to establish in Palestine. If anyone thinks the solution will be found in mutual support and cooperation, they need think again; it would take only about three days without fuel and logistics for any Western urban community to dissolve in anarchy and looting, and scarcely a couple more before all services are gone and it's Darwin to the fore.
The US is not interested in pursuing strategies that seek a cooperative outcome at the expense of its top dog position, however rational. The perceived benefits of a nuclear weapon free ME are outweighed by the potential integration of non-western interests in the area, triggered perhaps by concern for Palestinians. Sometimes it is necessary to accept services from those whose behaviour is otherwise distressing. This could be said of Israel which serves the US by keeping the ME on the boil at a cost to little more than US reputation. This is perhaps where Iran enters the equation. Iranians for all their rhetoric are more 'Western' than 'Eastern' but signals from recent Iranian cooperative activities with Russia and China may have reached a point where the potential disadvantages of further acceleration in that direction begin to outweigh the benefits Israel provides. Given the difficulties Obama has endured from Israel, and his apparent intention to squeeze an agreement from the P5+1 negotiations come what may, that point may already have arrived. Israel's nuclear arsenal has been around quite some time and dealing with it now could create a whole host of problems better kicked down to road a bit further.
Their hearts are not in it, which is scarcely surprising, many are likely there only for the money, and the units can't have acquired the camaraderie needed to fight on in fraught and dangerous situations. The US meanwhile should perhaps consider adapting the weapons it provides with a disabling mechanism which the soldiery might be encouraged to activate before throwing them away as a means of ensuing they are not subsequently turned against them.
The 'snub' could be a symptom of something long festering. Might it not have seemed a shade presumptuous for Obama to bring so many rulers half way round the world to his turf for a meeting, like a summons to the headmaster's study. That itself may have contributed to King Salman's decision to give it a miss. Why not Lausanne or Monaco?
The word is from the same source as procurator, carrying the meaning of one who acts for another, historically a steward or bailiff granted authority to manage the affairs of an estate on behalf of the owner. The word retains the meaning that whatever the proxy does is done on behalf of the grantor, and that connotation is not infrequently misused today to demonise a person or entity by transferring to them responsibility for some negative course of events more properly the responsibility of the actual perpetrators.
The only way to encourage people to change their values is to demonstrate the benefits of doing so or the disadvantages of not doing so. As far as Israelis are concerned they are advancing nicely without giving two figs what others think, after all they have vastly extended their population and territory, they participate like everyone else in international forums, scientific conferences, sporting and entertainment contests, while high profile critics find themselves unemployed and ostracised, and lesser mortals humiliated, incarcerated or eliminated. It's up to the rest of the world to turn on the pressure, maybe it will turn out to be a generation thing http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-1031964.html . One thing is sure, the tide will turn, that's what tides do
A situation has been allowed to develop in the ME which may well be beyond any rational resolution, it's an avalanche one can watch with varying degrees of emotional response, catalogue its destructions, and analyse the fons et origo, but do nothing to arrest its course. The will of those who might have done something before it got this far was dormant, and it still is.
Just look at this exchange on this issue from the DOS briefing yesterday.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2015/05/241917.htm
It is, alas, futile to employ reason to counter the actions of those who reject it. The Israelis will continue to behave as they do because they see themselves following the god given injunctions of their prophets, injunctions suited perhaps for an exiled tribe adapting to nomadic life in an inhospitable environment under a relentless sun, but deeply disconcerting today, like using the steps of the Lincoln Centre to seek the auspices from the liver of a goat.
Robert Fisk in The Independent today has what one might call a 'Cole-esq' contribution on the chaos in the ME.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/robert-fisk-who-is-bombing-whom-in-the-middle-east-10222938.html
None of this would be happening if the place had not been filled to overflowing with lethal armaments only any good for those who make them and those who sell them and you'd have to go a lot further than Dr Cole's 30,000 feet to see a solution to the conundrum implicit in that reality.
It's perfectly possible Bush believes what he said and it's appropriate he should be sharing his convictions with a Jewish Coalition session, whatever that may be, since they no doubt also espouse them. Blair is the same, when challenged about Saddam's non-existent WMDs he brushes the issue aside, saying it was right to topple him anyway. This needn't be the consequence of deliberate deceit, they may genuinely see the world that way. Beliefs are abstract and don't of themselves do harm, it's the actions that flow from them that cause the grief. Israelis are the same, they just cannot see what they do in Palestine as inimical because it's not inimical to them, and even were they to be sanctioned back behind their 1948 borders they would only see that as part of their eternal struggle or something like divine retribution (for having created Sodom Aviv?). I don't know where the problem arises, illiberal eduction perhaps.
Are drones that different from the doodlebugs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb that rained down on London in WW11? You could hear them, but if you did you were safe because they had already passed and someone else over that way was going to get it.
They are competing for a position from which they will have to maintain the principles of US hegemony while keeping the natives as passive as necessary. It scarcely matters what their personal predilections may be since they will be obliged to respond to unanticipated events as they occur, and due to the extent and variety of the turf they will inherit they will forever be at the junction of a dizzy range of choices. They are not masters of their own fate, their success or failure results from the way they respond to outward events, and what the longer term consequences of their actions turn out to be. When they try to 'do' things they almost invariably go wrong. Overthrowing Gaddafi has resulted in total chaos in what was an ordered environment and contributed to the waves of refugees now drowning in the Mediterranean. A social worker I knew found an elderly man living on his own who had always retained every newspaper and journal to come his way and in consequence now lived in a five foot paper maze. Trevor, for that was the social worker's name, organised a team of volunteers and spent a weekend clearing the man's house. Visiting the house two days later to see how the man was getting on Trevor was shocked and breathless with astonishment to find him dead.
...can US still do Diplomacy in ME?
Diplomacy requires a minimum of 2 players versed in its subtleties. So the answer is probably, No.
The KSA has become dangerously powerful, and perhaps too independent? Some think this messy Yemeni adventure may prove a bridge too far for the Al Saud family and produce an outcome not altogether regretted in the US. Bear in mind it is coincident with moves towards Iranian rehabilitation. (See Tacitus above.)
Setting this group against that for purposes of your own is as old as records. It was a passtime on Mount Olympus, basic to the shifting tides of medieval politics, and kept Elizabethan England afloat. One of its neatest assertions is in Tacitus' Germania:
Maneat, quaeso, duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at certe odium sui: quando, urgentibus imperii fatis, nihil jam praestare fortuna majus potest, quam hostium discordiam.
or, from 'Agricola and Germany' (OUP) trs. A R Birley
Long may the barbarians continue, I pray, if not to love us, at least to hate one and other, seeing that, as fate bears remorselessly on the empire, fortune can offer no greater boon than discord among our enemies.
One shouldn't take the Bloomberg Politics poll results too seriously. If the respondents had based their answers on the toss of a coin you would expect similar results. It's a peculiarity of our age that everyone is assumed to have opinions on everything. These hypothetical choices are not true alternatives nor do the given answers necessarily reflect deeply held convictions. Should the US send troops to defend illegal settlements in occupied Palestine? Might be a more illuminating question.
This, Putin was showing Obama, is the way things should be done; an Olympian response to the recent shenanigans on Capitol Hill.