Obama's Nuclear Crisis With Turkey Goes Unreported in US

Tweet

How rotten is American journalism? In fact it has reached rock bottom.

Go to the home page of The New York Times and The Washington Post and do a word search using "Turkey." I came up with ... nothing.

Now consider the following August 18, 2016 DEBKAfile news story entitled "Rushed evacuation of US nukes from Incirlik," concerning the secret shipment of nuclear weapons from Turkey's Incirlik air base to US facilities in Romania:

"DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that Washington decided to remove the nuclear arsenal to safety after talks between American and Turkish talks on release 1,500 US airmen serving at the base from the siege clamped down a month ago broke down. The airmen were running the US air campaign against ISIS in in Syria just 112km away.

The talks ground to a halt over Turkish insistence on assuming control of the nuclear arsenal and America’s rejection of this demand.

The 50-70 B61 tactical gravity nuclear bombs were stored in underground bunkers close to the US bombers’ air strips. Although this was not fully admitted by Washington, the US air and ground crews were held intermittently in lockdown since the President Tayyip Erdogan suppressed a military coup against him a month ago.

The deteriorations of relations between Ankara and Washington contrasted strongly with the Turkish-Russian rapprochement, which Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin sealed in St. Petersburg on Aug.8. Since then, there have been calls for the Russian Air Force to be allowed to displace the US warplanes at Incirlik. This process has now begun."

Yes, that's right, "Holy atomic pile, Batman!"

Back in 2012 Obama declared Erdogan to be one of his five best overseas friends in 2012. Care to reconsider your bullshit selection of buddies, Barry?

Paul Krugman, "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate": How Does Trump Differ From Obama?

Tweet

In in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Donald Trump, the Siberian Candidate," Paul Krugman says of Donald Trump:

"[W]e’re talking about a ludicrous, outrageous candidate. And the Trump campaign’s recent behavior has quite a few foreign policy experts wondering just what kind of hold Mr. Putin has over the Republican nominee, and whether that influence will continue if he wins.

I’m not talking about merely admiring Mr. Putin’s performance — being impressed by the de facto dictator’s “strength,” and wanting to emulate his actions. I am, instead, talking about indications that Mr. Trump would, in office, actually follow a pro-Putin foreign policy, at the expense of America’s allies and her own self-interest."

A "ludicrous, outrageous candidate"? You've got that much right, Paul.

But what about Obama's foreign policy vis-à-vis Putin? As observed in a July 1, 2016 Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama retreats from Putin in Syria — again" (my emphasis in red):

"FOR SEVERAL years, the Obama administration’s Syria policy has been stuck in a cycle of failure. Secretary of State John F. Kerry negotiates deals with Russia to end the fighting or create a new government in Damascus, while warning that if they are not respected by Russian President Vladi­mir Putin or Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the United States will consider other options, such as stepping up support for Syrian rebels. In every case, the Russian and Syrian regimes have betrayed their commitments, continuing to bomb civilian areas, employ chemical weapons and deny aid to besieged communities. And no wonder: Each time the U.S. response has been to return to the Russians, offering more concessions and pleading for another deal."

Moreover, as reported by The Wall Street Journal yesterday in an article entitled "Russia Bombed Base in Syria Used by U.S." by Adam Entous and Gordon Lubold (my emphasis in red):

"The Russians weren’t bombarding a run-of-the-mill rebel outpost, according to U.S. officials. Their target was a secret base of operations for elite American and British forces. In fact, a contingent of about 20 British special forces had pulled out of the garrison 24 hours earlier. British officials declined to comment.

U.S. military and intelligence officials say the previously unreported close call for Western forces on June 16, and a subsequent Russian strike on a site linked to the Central Intelligence Agency, were part of a campaign by Moscow to pressure the Obama administration to agree to closer cooperation in the skies over Syria.

The risk that U.S. and British forces could have been killed at the border garrison hardened opposition at the Pentagon and the CIA to accommodating the Russians. But White House and State Department officials, wary of an escalation in U.S. military involvement in Syria, decided to pursue a compromise."

So how does Trump differ from Obama? One admires him, while the other kowtows to him. Both empower him.

And while we're at it, let's not forget Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous "reset" of relations with Putin.

A sickening sign of the times.

By the way, Krugman also makes no reference to the nuclear standoff between Obama and Erdogan involving the encirclement of the Incirlik Airbase in southern Turkey, where the US stores nuclear weapons and from which NATO launches strikes against ISIS.

SEE: "David Brooks, "The Death of the Republican Party": Ignoring the Incirlik Nuclear Crisis."

Fred Hiatt, "Diplomacy as anesthetic in Syria": Obama's Odious Legacy; Hillary's Horrifying Complicity

Tweet

One week ago, even Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, who supported the unsigned nuclear deal with Iran, did not mince his words when lambasting Obama's inaction in Syria in a New York Times op-ed entitled "America’s Syrian Shame":

"Obama’s Syrian agonizing, his constant what-ifs and recurrent 'what then?' have also lead to the slaughter in Paris and San Bernardino. They have contributed to a potential unraveling of the core of the European Union as internal borders eliminated on a free continent are re-established as a response to an unrelenting refugee tide — to which the United States has responded by taking in around 2,500 Syrians since 2012, or about 0.06 percent of the total."

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Diplomacy as anesthetic in Syria," Fred Hiatt now joins Cohen in holding Obama accountable for this disaster. Noting US Secretary of State John Kerry's optimistic pronouncement at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that "This is the hinge point" for bringing peace to Syria, Hiatt writes:

"As Kerry was discussing the latest diplomatic development, Russian planes were bombing civilians in the city of Aleppo and cutting off its supply line, raising the possibility that the city will be encircled and 400,000 more people forced to flee or face possible starvation, a favorite tactic of Syrian ruler and Putin ally Bashar al-Assad.

. . . .

I admire Kerry’s doggedness. But diplomacy that perpetually, and falsely, holds out the prospect of imminent progress can end up providing a cover and an excuse for inaction. The options available to Obama from the start were risky, and maybe none would have helped; maybe he was right not to give the rebels missiles to shoot down the helicopters that were dropping barrel bombs on civilian neighborhoods; maybe safe zones would not have spared Europe from its 'near-existential' crisis. But the mirage of negotiated peace has helped spare the administration — and Congress, and the nation — from even having to debate those possibilities seriously as one of the greatest humanitarian and strategic disasters of our time has unspooled."

Admire Kerry, who called Assad "my dear friend," for anything? Below, Kerry and Assad, together with their wives, dining in Damascus in 2009.



And what about Kerry's predecessor at the State Department, Hillary Clinton, who inexcusably came to the defense of  Assad in 2011:

"Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer."

This inane declaration followed Hillary's presentation of a "reset button" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in 2009.

Recently asked if Obama's failure to enforce his "red line" involving the use of Assad's chemical weapons damaged American credibility, Hillary responded with a non-answer:

"I think as commander-in-chief, you have to be constantly evaluating the decisions you have to make."

David Brock, the head of a Hillary Clinton super PAC, not long ago declared that "cementing [Obama's] legacy is a very important part of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy." May the Lord have mercy on our souls.

New York Times Editorial, "The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia": What Happened to Hillary's "Reset Button"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "The Pentagon’s Top Threat? Russia," The New York Times acknowledges:

"It is undeniable that Russia has become openly aggressive under President Vladimir Putin, who has violated sovereign borders by annexing Crimea and stoking civil war in Ukraine. A cease-fire in Ukraine was declared last year, but Russian forces still maintain a presence in eastern Ukraine, raising questions about whether Russia might try to extend its reach to the Baltic States.

There are other concerns as well. Russia has built a web of complex missile defenses that increasingly threaten NATO’s military access to airspace in parts of Europe, including one-third of the skies of Poland. Similar Russian missile buildups are underway in Crimea and in Syria, where the Russians have beefed up their air campaign on behalf of the Assad government."

Fascinating.

But didn't Secretary of State Clinton present Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a "restart button" in 2009?

And if memory serves me correctly, it was Hillary who subsequently declared in 2011:

"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is – is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see." 

Yup, we're talking about the same Assad, who, with Russian assistance, is now starving out the inhabitants of the Syrian town of Madaya?

Yet, on the eve of the hotly contested Iowa presidential primary, The New York Times published an editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton for the Democratic Nomination," warmly alluding to Hillary's international expertise.

What am I missing here?

Thomas Friedman, "Friends and Refugees in Need": "Obama Did Not Cause This Syria Problem"? Yeah, Right!

Tweet

Declaring in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Friends and Refugees in Need" that Obama, in his last year as president, "has much to be proud of," Thomas Friedman proceeds to lament the refugee crisis affecting Europe, which could go "from a giant humanitarian problem to a giant geostrategic problem that shatters America’s most important ally: the European Union." Tom Terrific goes on to say:

"The meltdowns of Syria, Somalia, Eritrea, Mali, Chad and Yemen and our takedowns of Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan — without proper follow-up on our part, NATO’s part or by local elites — has uncorked the worst refugee crisis since World War II. This tidal wave of migrants and refugees is a human tragedy, and their outflow from Syria and Libya in particular is destabilizing all the neighboring islands of decency: Tunisia, Jordan, Lebanon, Kurdistan and Turkey. And now it is eating away at the fabric of the E.U. as well.

Why should Americans care? Because the E.U. is the United States of Europe — the world’s other great center of democracy and economic opportunity. It has its military shortcomings, but with its wealth and liberal values, the E.U. has become America’s primary partner in addressing climate change, managing Iran and Russia and containing disorder in the Middle East and Africa."

Yup, the EU sure as heck helped manage Russia when it annexed Crimea and invaded Ukraine . . . not.

European "liberal values"? Consider how naked statues were covered up when Iranian President Rouhani visited Rome on Monday in order to sign business deals worth $18 billion with Italian companies. Needless to say, these deals were all made possible by the removal of sanctions resulting from Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Supreme Leader Khamenei. Additional billion dollar deals will also soon be signed by Rouhani, a leader of a country with the highest per capita rate of executions in the world, with "liberal" Germany and France.

Friedman's conclusion:

"Obama did not cause this Syria problem, and he can’t fix it alone — but it’s not going to get fixed without U.S. leadership. I have shared the president’s caution about getting involved on the ground in Syria. But I now believe we need to take another look at establishing some kind of U.S./E.U./NATO safe zone inside Syria and Libya to create space for refugees to remain in these countries. It’s not a panacea or cost-free, but letting this refugee disaster fracture the E.U. will be a lot more expensive."

"Obama did not cause this Syria problem"? Oh really? At an August 20, 2012 news conference, Obama declared with regard to potential American intervention in Syria:

"A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus."

Well, Assad started "moving around" a "whole bunch" of chemical weapons, so Obama drew a new line in the sand. Speaking at the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction symposium in Washington on December 3, 2012, Obama stated:

"The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable. And if you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences, and you will be held accountable."

Obama further warned, “I want to make it absolutely clear to Assad and those under his command, the world is watching.” Well, Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, and Obama, who also likes to watch, did absolutely nothing, further exacerbating the Syrian refugee crisis.

Create a safe zone inside Syria, as suggested by Friedman? A "little" too late, especially with Russia now in control of the skies over that country. Herd nine million Syrian refugees into that safe zone? I don't think so.

Go back to sleep, Tom.

The Battle for Aleppo: Russian T-90s vs. American TOWs

Tweet

Largely unbeknownst to the West, a critical battle for what is left of Aleppo (see pictures), once Syria's largest city, is raging between rebel forces and Assad's crumbling army, which in recent months has been reinforced with "crack" Iranian Quds troops. Notwithstanding Russian bombing runs, the Iranian expeditionary force suffered an embarrassing defeat at the hands of the rebels several weeks ago, and Putin has rushed T-90 tanks with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armor to Assad's 4th Mechanized Division to change the tide of battle.

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is boosting supplies, including advanced anti-tank missiles, to the rebels. Moreover, after a Turkish F-16 downed a Russian Su-24 tactical bomber which strayed into Turkish air space (the Su-24 didn't stand a chance) and Erdogan refused to apologize, Turkey has also  been increasing supplies to the rebels.

Can Russian T-90s withstand American-made TOWs? Stay tuned. Although Israel doesn't have a dog in this fight, it has a lot to learn from the outcome.

[Was Gen. Qassem Suleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds force, severely wounded in the battle for Aleppo? As reported yesterday by the National Council of Resistance of Iran:

"According to reports from inside the Iranian regime’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the terrorist Qods Force, has suffered severe shrapnel wounds, including in the head, while at Aleppo’s southern front two weeks ago.

Qassem Suleimani’s vehicle that was there for him to oversee an operation by the revolutionary guards and a number of hired forces was targeted by the Free Syrian Army severely injuring Suleimani.

. . . .

The IRGC counterintelligence section has imposed severe restrictions to prevent any leakage of information of Soleimani being wounded and has ordered all hospital personnel to refrain from answering any questions in this regard. The Iranian regime is worried that the news on Soleimani’s injury would cause a complete collapse of moral of the IRGC forces and the militias in Syria. Even now, the revolutionary guards are quite frightened and anxious due to the large number of casualties they have suffered in the past couple of months in Syria."

If true (Fars News is saying that it's not the case), it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.]

Peter Wehner, "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria": The Commander-in Chief Who Likes to Watch

Tweet

"I like to watch."

- Chance the Gardener, "Being There" (1979)

As I observed yesterday, with Russian deployment of S-400 missile systems in Latakia, which are capable of downing aircraft 250 miles away (including planes landing at and departing from Israel's Ben Gurion Airport), President Obama has ceded control over the entire Syrian theater of operations to Putin. Thus, it should come as no surprise that RT is today gloating:

"Both the American and Turkish air forces halted their strikes on Syrian territory around the time Russia deployed S-400 air defense complexes at the Khmeimim airbase, from which it stages its own incursions against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).

A spokesperson of the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) told Sputnik on Friday that the absence of anti-IS coalition airstrikes 'has nothing to do with the S400 deployment' in Syria."

Nothing to do with the deployment of the S-400 systems? Yeah, right.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "President Obama’s Hypocrisy on Syria," Peter Wehner writes:

"In 2012 Mr. Obama rebuffed plans to arm Syrian rebels despite the fact that his former secretaries of defense and state, his C.I.A. director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supported them. He repeatedly insisted he would not put American soldiers in Syria or pursue a prolonged air campaign. He refused to declare safe havens or no-fly zones. And it was also in 2012 that Mr. Obama warned the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, that using chemical weapons would cross a 'red line.' Yet when Mr. Assad did just that, Mr. Obama did nothing.

The president, perhaps fearful of offending the pro-Assad Iranian government with which he was trying to negotiate a nuclear arms deal, chose to sit by while a humanitarian catastrophe unfolded. As Walter Russell Mead wrote in The American Interest, 'This crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn.'"

Pete's right; however, I believe that America's credibility and deterrent power have also crashed and burned under a commander-in-chief who likes to watch.

Frank Bruni, "How ISIS Defeats Us": Dracula to the Rescue?

Tweet

In a seemingly sensible, balanced, New York Times op-ed entitled "How ISIS Defeats Us," Frank Bruni begins:

"I DON’T know how we win the war against ISIS.

But I know how we lose it. The last week has been a thorough and demoralizing education in that.

We lose it with a response to the Paris carnage and a discussion about the path forward that’s driven by partisan grievances and posturing rather than a mature, nuanced attempt to address Americans’ understandable anxiety and acknowledge that we may not be doing the right things or enough of them."

Bruni doesn't know how to win the war against the Islamic State? Well, fortunately or unfortunately, Russian President Putin thinks he knows how to win. Although Russian air strikes in Syria were initially focused on non-Islamic State rebel forces, including US-backed insurgents, that has all changed after ISIS took down a Russian passenger plane over Sinai on October 31 with a bomb that  killed 224 people. Putin responded to the attack on the A321 jet by declaring:

"Our military work in Syria must not only continue. It must be strengthened in such a way so that the terrorists will understand that retribution is inevitable."

And "true to his word," Putin is now carpet-bombing the Syrian city of Raqqa, which had served as the capital of the Islamic State's would-be caliphate. How many ISIS fighters and civilians have died in the attacks on the city, which once had a population of some 220,000? No one knows.

As you might be aware, Bram Stoker's "Dracula" was based upon a historical figure named Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia, who, in his battles with the Ottoman Empire, took to impaling Turkish prisoners of war in order to dispirit enemy forces. Well today, a new Vlad has arisen - actually his name is Vladimir - who is not willing to brook any sh*t from ISIS.

How does the US win or lose against ISIS? Sorry, Frank, the whole situation has spun entirely out of American control.

David Ignatius, "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier": Missing the Elephant in the Room

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How the Syrian conflict could get even bigger and bloodier," David Ignatius points to the danger that the conflict in Syria could spin even further out of control. Ignatius suggests steps needed to be taken in order to avoid this possibility:

"Studying Syria from north to south, it’s clear where 'deconfliction,' as the military puts it, is needed to avoid unintended disaster.

On the northern front, the United States needs to deepen its consultations with Turkey as it escalates support for Syrian Kurdish forces and their Arab allies. President Obama is sending fewer than 50 Special Operations forces to Syria, but make no mistake, this is a significant commitment. The U.S. troops will need air support — not just to bomb the Islamic State, but for resupply, rescue if they get in trouble, and perhaps to enable the cycle of intelligence-driven 'night raids' that was so devastating in Iraq.

. . . .

On Syria’s southern border with Jordan, the United States has quietly helped train a rebel coalition known as the Southern Front,which claims 35,000 fighters in 54 brigades. Last week, Russian warplanes attacked some of those U.S.-backed forces at Al-Harra in southwest Syria, the site of a former Russian signals-intelligence station captured by the rebels. This is crazy. Moscow and Washington should look to de-escalate the situation, rather than torch it more."

Missing from Ignatius's analysis is any mention of the cat and mouse game now being played by Russian and Israeli fighter planes over Syria. Israel will not permit the transfer of advanced weaponry from Syria to Lebanon as again evidenced on Friday, when a shipment of long-range Scud missiles was bombed en route to Hezbollah. Should Russian and Israeli jets engage in a future dogfight over Syria, there is no knowing where this could lead.

David Brooks, "The Big University": Send Your Kids to Hogwarts!

Tweet

The news just keeps getting worse. As we were informed yesterday by The Wall Street Journal in an article entitled "Turkey Says Russian Fighter Jet Violated Its Airspace With Syria" by Julian E. Barnes, Emre Peker and Gordon Lubold:

"At least one Russian warplane violated Turkish airspace and another jet locked its targeting radar on Turkish jet fighters over the weekend, incidents that some U.S. and NATO officials called a deliberate signal from Moscow as it conducts its own bombing campaign in Syria."

And then there is the report from DEBKAfile:

"Friday, Oct. 2, the Russian Defense Ministry announced the surprise deployment of Navy cruiser, the Moskva, armed with 64 advanced anti-aircraft missiles S-300 ship-to-air missiles opposite the Syrian coastal town of Latakia.

DEBKAfile’s military sources point out that Russia, without saying so publicly, has thus created an effective no-fly zone over most of Syria, most of northern Israel, including the Golan, as well as southern Turkey, for US aircraft based there for air strikes in Syria; Cyprus, the site of British air force bases; and Jordan."

More? On Sunday, Iran's Fars News Agency told us:

"Commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Aerospace Force Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh said all US military bases in the Middle East are within the range of the IRGC's missiles, but the country still sees no restriction for boosting its missile capabilities."

But don't worry, be happy. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Big University," David Brooks writes:

"To lead a full future life, meanwhile, students have to find new things to love: a field of interest, an activity, a spouse, community, philosophy or faith. College is about exposing students to many things and creating an aphrodisiac atmosphere so that they might fall in lifelong love with a few."

Ah yes, an "aphrodisiac atmosphere" guaranteed to last a lifetime! But why spend a hundred thousand dollars over the course of four years "to find new things to love," and then spend 50 years wondering how to pay back your student loans, when The Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry is currently offering Horace Slughorn potions scholarships?

Cynical? Me?

New York Times Editorial, "Russia’s Dangerous Escalation in Syria": Langley, Please Ignore!

Tweet

Langley, I'm begging you: Ignore everything written in today's New York Times editorial entitled "Russia’s Dangerous Escalation in Syria." The Times writes:

• "Syria is Russia’s chief ally in the Middle East, and Mr. Putin has enabled Mr. Assad throughout the conflict."

In fact, Syria no longer exists as a country. Syria is loosely controlled by Assad; the Islamic State; the al-Nusra Front, i.e. al-Qaeda; other rebel factions backed by the US and Jordan (recently bombed by the Russians); and the Kurds (friendly to the US and being pounded by Turkey).

Still unbeknownst to the Obama administration, Russia's chief ally in the Middle East today is Iran, not Syria. Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds Force, traveled to Moscow in July in violation of a UN travel ban, to orchestrate this build-up of Russian and Iranian forces in Syria to buttress Assad's shrinking army and Hezbollah's bloodied fighters.

Putin enabled Assad throughout the conflict? Rubbish! Hillary Clinton enabled Assad when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a "restart button" in 2009 and then declared in 2011:

"There is a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer. What’s been happening there the last few weeks is – is deeply concerning. But there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, then police actions, which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see."

President Obama enabled Assad when he promised Putin "flexibility" after his 2012 re-election and retreated from his "red line" threatening action if "we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized."

John Kerry enabled Assad when he called this monster "generous" and "my dear friend," and had an intimate dinner with Assad and their wives.

Nancy Pelosi enabled Assad when, all smiles, she met with this mass murderer in 2007.

The Times editorial continues:

• "Whether Russia will try to help Mr. Assad reclaim control over the entire country is unclear."

No, Russia will not help Assad reclaim control over all of Syria. Putin remembers Russian casualties in Afghanistan. He's too wily.

The Times tells us:

• "President Obama appears to have been caught off guard by the bold move to reassert Russian influence in the Middle East, as Mr. Putin no doubt intended. Despite American-led airstrikes, the administration has no real strategy for Syria. There is no obvious Russian strategy either, except for bolstering Mr. Assad, whom Mr. Putin considers the key to stability but most of his brutalized citizens detest."

There is no Russian strategy? Horsefeathers!  Putin is sending Russia's military into Syria to support Assad precisely because there is no one in the Oval Office to oppose him - at least for the next year and three months. Putin is taking full advantage of the opportunity to reassert Russian power and influence in the Middle East while it lasts.

The Times goes on to say:

• "Mr. Obama will have to work with America’s partners on a unified response to Russia’s moves and seek a way to end the war."

Which "partners" are those? Israel? And all this while I thought that Russia was supposed to be one of Obama's darling P5+1 "partners," which helped bring about the unsigned, legacy-building, nuclear deal with Iran . . .

The Times ends it editorial by observing:

• "On Wednesday, Mr. Putin said he hoped that after the Russian intervention Mr. Assad would be open to compromise. But with Russia willing to intervene directly on his behalf, Mr. Assad may conclude he can stay in power indefinitely."

Assad "may" conclude he can stay in power? I have news for the editorial board of the Times: Assad isn't going anywhere. After Russian intervention, Assad will be open to compromise? A pity Obama is incapable of comprehending that he cannot and should not believe a word of what Putin tells him, no matter how comforting his lies. The problem is that much akin to Father Flanagan, Obama still believes that there is no such thing as a bad boy.

Russia and Iran Send Troops to Syria: Putin and Khamenei Call Obama's Bluff

Tweet

On August 5, 2015, Obama declared in a speech at American University in support of his nuclear deal with Iran (my emphasis in red):

"But if we are serious about confronting Iran's destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter . . . a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons' shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies' special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen."

Well, as now being reported today by Reuters in an article entitled "Russia to U.S.: talk to us on Syria or risk 'unintended incidents'" by Christian Lowe and Julia Edwards :

"In recent days, U.S. officials have described what they say is a buildup of Russian equipment and manpower.

In the latest reports, two Western officials and a Russian source told Reuters Moscow is sending advanced SA-22 anti-aircraft missiles Syria. The system would be operated by Russian troops, rather than Syrians, the Western officials said.

Lebanese sources have told Reuters that at least some Russian troops are now engaged in combat operations in support of Assad's forces. Moscow has declined to comment on those reports."

And as also reported by DEBKAfile today in an article entitled "First Iranian marines land in Syria, link up with newly-arrived Russian troops":

"Iran this week sent its first ground troops to Syria, around 1,000 marines and elite troops of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). They moved straight into Ghorin, a small military air facility just south of the port town of Latakia, and hooked up with the just-landed Russian marines at Jablah."

In fact, Putin and Khamenei are calling Obama's bluff, and the first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office has no intention to "interdict" any military aid being sent to Assad, Hezbollah, the Houthis or anyone else. "Counter a ballistic missile" against Israel? In fact, Iranian troops are now on Israel's northeastern border, and the threat to Israel is now much worse than long-range missiles fired from within Iran.

America is in full retreat, and Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey and Jordan are watching in horror.

David Brooks, "The Russia I Miss": Then They Came for the Jews

Tweet

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

- Martin Niemöller

Yesterday, we learned that Amazon was selling "Blood Splattered Flag of Israel" cell phones cases, umbrellas, doormats, shower curtains, pillows cases, mouse pads and more; however, after an enormous outcry, the merchandise was removed from Amazon's website.

In addition, The New York Times came under fire yesterday for creating an infographic listing Democrats opposed to Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, and indicating the estimated percentage of Jews among their constituents. I am waiting to see if there is even a single Times columnist brave enough to address this outrage, which suggests that Democratic opposition to the nuclear deal stems from Jewish influence over government and not from ethical considerations.

Meanwhile, David Brooks has other things on his mind. Writing from St. Petersburg, Brooks, a Jew, concludes his latest Times op-ed entitled "The Russia I Miss" by observing:

"There’s something sad about the souvenir stands in St. Petersburg. They’re selling mementos of things Russians are sort of embarrassed by — old Soviet Army hats, Stalinist tchotchkes and coffee mugs with Putin bare-chested and looking ridiculous. Of the top 100 universities in the world, not a single one is Russian, which is sort of astonishing for a country so famously intellectual.

This absence leaves a mark. There used to be many countercultures to the dominant culture of achievement and capitalism and prudent bourgeois manners. Some were bohemian, or religious or martial. But one by one those countercultures are withering, and it is harder for people to see their situations from different and grander vantage points. Russia offered one such counterculture, a different scale of values, but now it, too, is mainly in the past."

Serfdom, the Russian famine of 1921 which killed six million people, the Soviet famine of 1932–33 which killed another 6-8 million people, the gulags, the oppression of Jewry? Sorry, David, but as much as I admire Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, I do not fondly reminisce about past Russian counterculture.

Enjoy your stay in St. Petersburg, David. It is indeed a beautiful city. However, don't you think that the infographic of the Times deserves a few lines from you?

Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt, "Russian Moves in Syria Pose Concerns for U.S.": No Mention of Iran?

Tweet

In a New York Times article entitled "Russian Moves in Syria Pose Concerns for U.S.," Michael R. Gordon and Eric Schmitt tell us that the arrival of an advance Russian military team in Syria is causing concern within the Obama administration. Gordon and Schmitt write:

"Syria is one of Russia’s major arms clients, and is also host to a Russian naval base at the port city Tartus. But the new concerns from intelligence analysts, as well as news and social media reports in the Middle East, led to warnings this week from the State Department and White House about Mr. Putin’s intentions.

'We have regularly and repeatedly expressed our concern about Russian military support for the Assad regime,' said John Kirby, the State Department spokesman. 'But we’re also watching their actions very carefully. If these reports are borne out, it would represent a very serious shift in the trajectory of the Syria conflict and call into question any Russian commitment to a peaceful settlement.'"

But why should this come as a surprise to the Obama administration? After all, back in March 2012, Obama asked Medvedev to inform Putin, "After my election, I have more flexibility," and Putin is obviously taking Obama at his word. More to the point, Putin believes that he can now do whatever he pleases without objection from the invertebrate occupying the Oval Office . . . and he's right.

Gordon and Schmitt go on to say:

"[I]f Russia targets rebel groups that are opposed to Mr. Assad, they might be striking some of the moderate Syrian fighters who have been trained by the C.I.A. and the Pentagon."

Russia could strike some of the Syrian fighters trained by the CIA? Probably not, because it will be difficult to find them. Notwithstanding a $500 million budget to aid Syrian rebels, only 54 of such fighters have been trained, their leaders have already been abducted, and several more of them were recently killed in a battle with al-Nusra.

In fact, Gordon and Schmitt's story is not all that new. As was already reported by DEBKAfile on Tuesday:

"Despite strong denials from Moscow, Russian airborne troops are preparing to land in Syria to fight Islamic State forces. The surprise attack on Monday, Aug. 31, by ISIS forces on the Qadam district of southern Damascus, in which they took over parts of the district - and brought ISIS forces the closest that any Syrian anti-Assad group has ever been to the center of the Syrian capital - is expected to accelerate the Russian military intervention.

Moscow is certainly not ready to endanger the position of President Bashar Assad or his rule in Damascus, and views it as a red line that cannot be crossed. If Russia intervenes militarily in this way, Russia will be the first country from outside the Middle East to send ground forces into the Syrian civil war."

But what remarkably goes missing from Gordon and Schmitt's article is any mention of Iran. Russian deployment in Syria is being carefully coordinated with Tehran. Yes, that's right: America's P5+1 partner in the nuclear talks with Iran is now cooperating with Iran to prop up Assad, who just also happens to be an Iranian vassal.

And although Obama and friends now have their underpants in a knot over Russian intervention in Syria, they couldn't care less about Russia's sale of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran. Obama doesn't understand that that it's all part and parcel of Putin's expansionist designs on the Middle East, which are eerily reminiscent of the Cold War and include arms for Egypt.

Or stated otherwise, an omniscient Obama and his obeisant friends in Congress are being snookered by Putin and Khamenei. By why should this matter to Obama? In another year and four months, the president will have departed the White House and will be spending his days in golf heaven.

Roger Cohen, "Iran: The Obamacare of Foreign Policy": More Lunacy From the Man Who Claimed Iran Is Not Totalitarian

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Iran: The Obamacare of Foreign Policy," Roger Cohen would have us know that Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran has prevented a disaster:

"Why has a disaster been averted? Because if the deal had unraveled in Congress, so would America’s standing as a global power. Russia, China and the European Union would have concluded that the United States is unserious. To negotiate over years a tough compromise obliging Iran, among other measures, to slash its stockpile of enriched uranium by 98 percent and its operating centrifuges by two-thirds, and then walk away in a righteous and deluded funk — well, that’s not how America won the respect of the world."

However, as we were told earlier this week by Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Hossein Dehqan, "the time had come for the Americans to realize that they were not the world's super power and no one recognizes them as such any longer."

And as reportedly stated by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov, who headed Russia's negotiating team:

"I was telling my associates last night that these Iranians are truly geniuses. They came to get a green light for their enrichment program from the Security Council in exchange for what? In exchange for their sanctions to be lifted. Not only do they not give anything in exchange, but they receive something in exchange for what they receive! Their sanctions will be lifted and their enrichment will continue."

America is now considered "serious" by the rest of the world? Road apples!

In his opinion piece, Cohen tells us of a conversation that he had with Nicholas Burns:

"The deal will become the 'Obamacare of foreign policy,' Nicholas Burns, a Harvard professor and former under secretary of state, told me. Yes, it will. That is, something sensible (at least in the eyes of most people across the world) to which Republicans will never acquiesce and which they will try to use in every conceivable way to undermine a president they loathe."

Needless to say, Cohen doesn't mention that Burns, in a recent Times op-ed, acknowledged:

"Republicans have been right to highlight the deal’s principal weakness — it could permit Iran to emerge stronger 10 to 15 years from now as restrictions on its nuclear program begin to lapse."

To overcome this "weakness," Burns, in his op-ed, recommended five measures, which surely should have been implemented prior to, and not after, agreeing to this illusory arrangement.

Sorry, but Obama's nuclear deal is indeed a disaster in the making, and Democrats will live to rue the day when Iran builds an arsenal of nuclear-tipped ICBMs capable of striking New York and Washington in the not too distant future.

German Foreign Minister Steinmeier Calls for "Courage" in Talks With Iran: Sowing the Seeds of a Second Holocaust

Tweet


According to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the conclusion of a nuclear deal with Iran now depends upon the participants' "courage." Given Germany's history, it requires "courage" for Germany to allow Iran, which threatens Israel with annihilation every week, to build a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (much less time if Iran cheats - which it will)? "Courage" is not the word I would use.

Meanwhile, Russia is preparing to sell Iran a "wide range of naval equipment."

This comes after a US trade delegation visited Tehran in April as did a German trade delegation that same month. Another US trade delegation visited Iran in May and a Chinese delegation arrived in June.

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel, "Around 100 French companies are reportedly planning to participate in a delegation to Tehran in September to review business opportunities in the Islamic republic."

Who cares about a second Holocaust? After all, it's all about the $50 billion signing bonus that Obama has promised Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and who will benefit from this windfall.

And this from a Reuters article entitled "Iran nuclear talks: Brothels, bike rides and Groundhog Day" by Fedja Grulovic, Louis Charbonneau and John Irish:

"Anyone who says it's all work and no play for the hordes of diplomats, officials, security agents, analysts and reporters who have descended on Vienna for what should be the finale of almost two years of Iran nuclear talks is dead wrong. As the manager of a local brothel said, when the Iran talks are in town, 'business is booming'.

He declined to say who were his most frequent customers, but made clear that, as far as he was concerned, the longer the negotiations between Iran and six world powers drag on, the better."

What a surprise . . .

The Middle East Nuclear Arms Race Begins

As reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Saudis said set to build 16 nuclear reactors with Russian help":

"Saudi Arabia and Russia reached an agreement on Friday under which Riyadh is reportedly to build up to 16 nuclear reactors under Moscow’s supervision, further bolstering ties between the two countries days ahead of the deadline for nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers.

According to Saudi owned al-Arabiaya TV, the agreement, which provides for the 'peaceful use of nuclear technology,' was signed at a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at an economic forum in St. Petersburg. The Saudi report, which cited unnamed sources, was not immediately confirmed."

The "peaceful use of nuclear technology" in the hands of a kingdom which decapitates persons convicted of witchcraft and whips and imprisons women who have been gang-raped? Yeah, right.

Thank you, Obama, for bringing this plague upon the world as a byproduct of your search for a legacy-building nuclear detente with a maniacal Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery.

It just can't get any worse.

Will Damascus Soon Fall to ISIS?

Will Damascus soon fall to ISIS or to the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front? It seems that the Russians and Hezbollah think that this is the case. As reported by The Jerusalem Post in an article entitled "Report: Russia turning its back on Syrian regime, not honoring prior agreements":

"'The Kremlin has begun to turn away from the regime,' the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq al-Awsat reported on Sunday, quoting an opposition official.

According to the report, for three months Moscow has been reducing its diplomatic staff in Damascus to essential personnel exclusively and the most recent move saw 100 Russians, along with their families, board a plane at the Latakia airport. Lebanese figures belonging to Hezbollah, as well as Iranian officials, were also said to be aboard the flight. According to the report, none of the personnel, main-stays of the government's War-Room throughout the civil war, have been replaced."

More evidence of the imminent fall of Damascus? Again, as reported by The Jerusalem Post in an article entitled "Assad hanging on, suspicion surrounds report he told Alawites to flee capital," which was published at the beginning of May:

"A report in the Saudi newspaper Okaz on Sunday quoted Lebanese Social Affairs Minister Rashid Derbas denying an article in the same paper a day earlier quoting unnamed sources claiming that Syrian intelligence told the elite Alawite families to leave the capital within 48 hours for its coastal stronghold of Latakia."

In addition, DEBKAFile is informing us in an article entitled "Iran weighs turning Hizballah’s anti-Israel missiles against ISIS to save Damascus and Baghdad" that "Iran is eyeing the re-allocation of the roughly 1,000 long-range rockets in Hizballah’s store" if the fate of Damascus hangs in the balance, i.e. turning the missiles against ISIS instead of Israel.

Stay tuned.

Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin Gives the Lie to Obama's "Snapback" Mechanism

"In return for Iran's actions, the international community, including the United States, has agreed to provide Iran with phased relief from certain sanctions. If Iran violates the deal, sanctions can be snapped back into place."

- President Obama, Weekly Presidential Address, April 4, 2015

Ah yes, when Iran violates its agreement with the P5+1, the sanctions regime will snap back into place. But wait! Yesterday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin informed Bloomberg News:

"'There can be no automaticity, none whatsoever' in reimposing UN sanctions if Iran violates the terms of an agreement to curb its nuclear program, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin told Bloomberg News on Wednesday. He didn’t elaborate."

Do you think this will stop Obama from signing a deal with Khamenei. Heck no! He already got away with "If you like your doctor or health care provider, you can keep them." Why shouldn't he get away with this cock-and-bull story, too?

Meanwhile as reported Wednesday by David Sanger of The New York Times in an article entitled "Saudi Arabia Promises to Match Iran in Nuclear Capability":

"Now, as [Obama]gathered Arab leaders over dinner at the White House on Wednesday and prepared to meet with them at Camp David on Thursday, he faced a perverse consequence: Saudi Arabia and many of the smaller Arab states are now vowing to match whatever nuclear enrichment capability Iran is permitted to retain.

'We can’t sit back and be nowhere as Iran is allowed to retain much of its capability and amass its research,' one of the Arab leaders preparing to meet Mr. Obama said on Monday, declining to be named until he made his case directly to the president. Prince Turki bin Faisal, the 70-year-old former Saudi intelligence chief, has been touring the world with the same message."

Is there a way out of this ugly mess concocted by Obama and his playmates? Not that I know.

New York Times Editorial, "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves": Maintain Sanctions on Russia, but Not on Iran

In an editorial entitled "President Vladimir Putin’s Dangerous Moves," an alarmed New York Times begins by observing:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has added new, chilling nuclear threats to his aggression in Ukraine, where 6,000 people have been killed in a war with Russian-backed separatists. Mr. Putin wants to expand his country’s influence and standing, but his alarming behavior has estranged Russia from most other major powers, damaged its economy and narrowed its future options.

Even for Mr. Putin, the recent nuclear threats have set a new benchmark for hostility in the conflict he has ignited with the West. Two weeks ago, The Times of London reported on a meeting between Russian generals and American officials in which the Russians threatened a 'spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military' if NATO moved more military forces into the Baltic States."

The Times's conclusion:

"Russia’s bellicose behavior is a serious test for NATO, which has sometimes shown disturbing divisions. The Europeans and the United States have to stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia and in continuing air patrols and training exercises, as it becomes increasingly difficult to predict Mr. Putin’s next move."

Hey, isn't this the same Putin whom Obama asked Medvedev to inform, "After my election, I have more flexibility"?

And isn't this the same Russia which, according to John Kerry, agreed that the US State Department "fact sheet" describing the Lausanne "framework understanding" was accurate, yet at the same time declared its intention to deliver S-300 advanced air defense systems to Tehran?

And aren't Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's calls to annihilate Israel equally "chilling"? (Today is Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel.)

So why should the Europeans and the United States "stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia," but not on Iran?