Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences": Coaxing Obama Down From His Tree

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences," Henry Kissinger and George Shultz yesterday diplomatically concluded:

"Until clarity on an American strategic political concept is reached, the projected nuclear agreement will reinforce, not resolve, the world’s challenges in the region. Rather than enabling American disengagement from the Middle East, the nuclear framework is more likely to necessitate deepening involvement there—on complex new terms. History will not do our work for us; it helps only those who seek to help themselves."

Or stated otherwise, a nuclear deal with Iran will not provide Obama with a legacy of the kind Nixon established for himself by seeking to normalize relations with China. Quite the contrary, Obama, a foreign policy naif, has embarked on a mission of self-aggrandizement, which is apt to spawn disaster, i.e. turn nuclear arms into conventional weapons.

One can only wonder what Kissinger and Shultz would have added had they known of Iranian President Rouhani's televised declaration today that "We will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day."

No less remarkable was Marie Harf's attempt on Tuesday to explain away Obama's admission that after 13 years of signing a deal with Iran, "breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."

It just can't get any worse.

Thomas Friedman, "Caution, Curves Ahead": Let Them Bleed

In June 2012, Henry Kissinger weighed in on the issue of American intervention in the Syrian civil war in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrian-intervention-risks-upsetting-global-order/2012/06/01/gJQA9fGr7U_story.html). Kissinger, a refugee from Nazi Germany, wrote:

"Military intervention, humanitarian or strategic, has two prerequisites: First, a consensus on governance after the overthrow of the status quo is critical. If the objective is confined to deposing a specific ruler, a new civil war could follow in the resulting vacuum, as armed groups contest the succession, and outside countries choose different sides. Second, the political objective must be explicit and achievable in a domestically sustainable time period. I doubt that the Syrian issue meets these tests. We cannot afford to be driven from expedient to expedient into undefined military involvement in a conflict taking on an increasingly sectarian character. In reacting to one human tragedy, we must be careful not to facilitate another."

This was written by the same man who advised President Nixon, when Israel was struggling against Egypt and Syria during the War of Atonement, to withhold supplies. Although the Arabs had been supplied with the latest Soviet weaponry, Kissinger reportedly told Nixon, "Let them [the Israelis] bleed a little."

This was written by the same man who also informed Nixon (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html):

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

Maybe a "humanitarian concern"? Humanitarian concerns should not shape foreign policy? Every sinew in my body rebels against this noxious declaration.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Caution, Curves Ahead" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/opinion/friedman-cautions-curves-ahead.html), Thomas Friedman similarly concludes with respect to Syria:

"I’m dubious that just arming 'nice' rebels will produce the Syria we want; it could, though, drag us in in ways we might not want. But if someone can make the case that arming the secular-nationalist rebels increases the chances of forcing Assad and the Russians into a settlement, and defeating the Islamists rebels after Assad falls, I’m ready to listen.

This is the problem from hell. Sometimes the necessary and desirable are impossible, which is why I commend the president on his caution, up to now."

Some 70,000 civilians have been killed by the Assad regime over the past three years, and Friedman is "commending" the president on his inaction?

The likelihood is indeed that when Assad is ultimately deposed, Syria's Sunnis, some 70 percent of the population, will seek revenge against Assad's Alawaite minority. And I hope at that time the world will do all in its power to protect innocents.

But just in case my soft-hearted pleas for mercy don't resonate with Tom, perhaps he should reconsider the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that Assad has accumulated, and in whose hands this arsenal might ultimately find itself when Assad falls. There is every reason for the US to seek to achieve a desired outcome to this conflict, albeit without boots on the ground.

"Leading from behind" just doesn't cut it.

Thomas Friedman, "Why Not in Vegas?": How About a Little Honesty, Tom?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Why Not in Vegas?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/opinion/friedman-why-not-in-vegas.html), Thomas Friedman attacks Romney for pandering to AIPAC and Israel. Friedman begins by observing:

"I’ll make this quick. I have one question and one observation about Mitt Romney’s visit to Israel. The question is this: Since the whole trip was not about learning anything but about how to satisfy the political whims of the right-wing, super pro-Bibi Netanyahu, American Jewish casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, why didn’t they just do the whole thing in Las Vegas? I mean, it was all about money anyway — how much Romney would abase himself by saying whatever the Israeli right wanted to hear and how big a jackpot of donations Adelson would shower on the Romney campaign in return. Really, Vegas would have been so much more appropriate than Jerusalem. They could have constructed a plastic Wailing Wall and saved so much on gas."

Obama today believes that the US should not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital? Did it ever occur to Obama and his foreign policy advisers, including Samantha Power, who advocated sending US troops to protect Palestinians from Israel (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFdt6fjdHQw), that his refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital adds credibility to Arab attacks on Israel's legitimacy?

It should come as no surprise that Friedman showers praise in this opinion piece on Jimmy Carter, who accused Israel of apartheid, yet cowardly refused to debate Alan Dershowitz on the issue; Henry Kissinger, who infamously told Nixon during the War of Atonement, "Let them [the Israelis] bleed a little"; and James Baker, who was quoted as saying, "Fuck the Jews - they didn't vote for us anyway."

Yes, I find Friedman revolting. Enough said.

Henry Kissinger, "Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order": Another Rendering of "Let Them Bleed"

Given the daily deluge of barbarism directed against civilians by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Henry Kissinger has weighed in on the issue of intervention in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Syrian intervention risks upsetting global order" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/syrian-intervention-risks-upsetting-global-order/2012/06/01/gJQA9fGr7U_story.html). Heinz Kissinger, a refugee from Nazi Germany, concludes:

"Military intervention, humanitarian or strategic, has two prerequisites: First, a consensus on governance after the overthrow of the status quo is critical. If the objective is confined to deposing a specific ruler, a new civil war could follow in the resulting vacuum, as armed groups contest the succession, and outside countries choose different sides. Second, the political objective must be explicit and achievable in a domestically sustainable time period. I doubt that the Syrian issue meets these tests. We cannot afford to be driven from expedient to expedient into undefined military involvement in a conflict taking on an increasingly sectarian character. In reacting to one human tragedy, we must be careful not to facilitate another."

This was written by the same man who advised President Nixon, when Israel was struggling against Egypt and Syria during the War of Atonement, to withhold supplies. Although the Arabs had been supplied with the latest Soviet weaponry, Kissinger reportedly told Nixon, "Let them [the Israelis] bleed a little."

This was written by the same man who also informed Nixon (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/us/politics/11nixon.html):

"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern."

Maybe a "humanitarian concern"? Humanitarian concerns should not shape foreign policy? Every sinew in my body rebels against this noxious declaration.

Well, the likelihood is indeed that when Assad is ultimately deposed, Syria's Sunnis, some 70 percent of the population, will be seeking revenge against Assad's Alawaite minority. And I hope at that time the world will do all in its power to protect innocents.

But just in case my soft-hearted pleas for mercy don't resonate with Heinz, perhaps he should reconsider the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that Assad has accumulated, and in whose hands this arsenal might ultimately find itself when Assad falls.

Then, too, there is the "minor" issue of containing Iranian attempts at establishing hegemony over the Muslim Middle East. There is a reason why Iranian paliament speaker Ali Larijani recently threatened that intervention in Syria, Tehran's closest ally, "would definitely envelop the Zionist regime" (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1616460).

Why can't Kissinger do the world a favor and acknowledge that his policies, demonstrably wrong even in his heyday, are irrelevant, and that his attempts to regain the limelight, evidencing a narcissism undiminished with the years, are unwanted.

Henry Kissinger: Democracy in the Muslim Middle East Is Wishful Thinking

I'm no friend of Henry Kissinger, but his analysis of the turmoil gripping the Middle East is entirely in accord with the message of this blog over the past two months:

"Speaking at IHS's CERA's annual energy conference, Kissinger said most media reports have indicated the Mideast protests should result in a relative peaceful transition to more democratic regimes.

Most experts speaking at the conference this week have said that while turmoil and change may come to the Middle East, the end result should be positive for the whole region and that oil supplies should remain stable.

While Kissinger made no prediction on the fate of Middle East oil, he threw cold water on the idea that the transition of power in the region would lead to a new era of democracy there.

'That's wishful thinking,' said Kissinger, who as secretary of state in 1973 helped end the war between Israel, Egypt and Syria and largely shaped the current political makeup of the Middle East. 'There's evidence of rejection of the previous model, but no evidence of what the new model will be.'"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Oil-industry-gets-Middle-East-cnnm-2433156481.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

Indeed, the overthrow of Egypt's Mubarak had little to do with "democracy", as much of the media would have us believe, but rather entails a conflict between haves and have-nots, with the have-nots shackled to a life of squalor.

Want proof? A "Million Woman March" on Tuesday, International Women's Day, demanding "fair and equal opportunity for all Egyptian citizens -- beyond gender, religion or class," brought less than a thousand persons to Tahrir Square and quickly degenerated into a shouting match. On Wednesday, a Muslim mob attacked Christian Copts protesting the burning of a Cairo church, resulting in the death of 11 people.

Libya? It is a tribal feud, having nothing to do with democracy, in which the privileged Gaddafa, Qaddafi's tribe, and the Warfalla, are fighting those seeking a larger share of the pie. The Gaddafa and the Warfalla, out to preserve their entitlement, couldn't give a fig about Qaddafi's sponsorship of terror or human rights atrocities.

Meanwhile, as the rebels lose ground to Qaddafi's armor and attack helicopters, Obama promises us that the United States is "slowly tightening the noose" on Qaddafi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_obama), the author of the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am flight 103, with the emphasis on "slowly" . . .