New York Times Editorial, "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions": Rouhani a "Moderate"?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "President Trump’s Mideast Contradictions," The New York Times observes with respect to Trump's initial stopover in Saudi Arabia on his first overseas trip:

"The Saudi human rights record is no better than Iran’s."

The Times is correct in this regard: Iran stones to death women accused of adultery and hangs gay men, while Saudi Arabia lashes and imprisons women who have been gang-raped and beheads persons accused of witchcraft. However, having established that Saudi Arabia is no better than Iran concerning human rights, the Times editorial goes on to lavish praise upon Iran's recently re-elected president:

"Even as Mr. Trump reaffirmed America’s partnership with the conservative Saudi royals, Iranians were re-electing a moderate, Hassan Rouhani, as president and reaffirming their interest in engagement with the West."

Ah yes, Rouhani the "moderate." Who cares if Iran, under Rouhani's leadership, executes more persons per capita than any other country in the world? Moreover, as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in December 2015:

"Iran's President Hassan Rouhani on Thursday ordered Defense Minister General Hossein Dehqan to enhance and accelerate development of the country's missile capability in response to the United States' new sanctions against Tehran's defense program.

President Rouhani noted the United States' "hostile policies and illegal and illegitimate meddling against Iran's right to develop its defensive power", and ordered the defense minister to accelerate production of various types of missiles needed by the Iranian Armed Forces more powerfully.

'As the United States seems to plan to include the names of new individuals and firms in its previous list of cruel sanctions in line with its hostile policies and illegitimate and illegal meddling in the Islamic Republic of Iran's right to reinvigorate its defense power, the program for the production of the Armed Forces' needed missiles is required to continue more speedily and seriously,' President Rouhani's written order to the Defense Minister read.

President Rouhani's decree came in reaction to the US Treasury Department's announcement that it is preparing sanctions on two Iran-linked networks helping develop the missile program.

The presidential decree also required the defense ministry to think of new missile production programs at a much wider scale in case Washington continues its sanctions policy against Iran's defense industries."

Have you any doubt as to whom those missiles will be directed against? Rouhani declared in 2013, "The Zionist regime is a wound that has sat on the body of the Muslim world for years and needs to be removed."

 And as reported by Iran's Fars News Agency in August 2015:

"'We will purchase weapons from wherever we deem necessary and we are not waiting for anyone's permission; if we deem necessary we will sell our weapons and we will do this without paying attention to any resolution,' President Rouhani said, addressing a ceremony held to commemorate the National Defense Industry Day in Iran on Saturday." 

Or stated otherwise, Iran will continue to import whatever arms systems they desire and freely transfer them to Hezbollah and Hamas for use against Israel.

Seeking a more nuanced approach to Iran, the Times editorial concludes:

"Mr. Trump’s determination to forge an anti-Iran alliance with the Sunni Arab states and isolate Iran could drift into military confrontation. The nuclear agreement negotiated between Iran and the United States could unravel, causing a split with America’s European allies. These are consequences that Mr. Trump, in his enthusiasm for Saudi Arabia, seems to have thought little about."

Apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial, such a confrontation already occurred last week in southern Syria, when US warplanes attacked an Iranian-commanded Hezbollah convoy which was approaching US, British and Jordanian special forces. Also apparently unbeknownst to the author of this editorial with respect to Obama's sacrosanct unsigned nuclear deal, a "moderate" Rouhani informed Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolution Council in 2004:

"While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the facility in Isfahan. . . . in fact, by creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work in Isfahan. Today, we can convert yellowcake into UF4 and UF6, and this is a very important matter."

Bottom line, with "moderates" like Rouhani, who needs "radicals"?

New York Times Editorial, "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen": Houthis "May Have Fired" Iranian Missiles on a US Destroyer

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "America’s Moral Duty in Yemen," The New York Times wrties:

"Airstrikes by a Saudi-led coalition that devastated a funeral in Yemen on Saturday make it clear that the United States must end its complicity in a civil war that has caused a humanitarian catastrophe in one of the world’s poorest countries and fueled extremism. It is within President Obama’s power to do so. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf state allies depend on Washington for aircraft, munitions, training and in-flight refueling. The United States also helps Saudi Arabia guard its borders.

. . . .

The Saudi strikes killed more than 140 mourners and wounded hundreds at a funeral in Sana, the capital, which is controlled by Houthi rebels, an indigenous Shiite group with loose connections to Iran."

"[L]oose connections to Iran"? I don't think so. As reported by Reuters in a December 15, 2014 article entitled "Iranian support seen crucial for Yemen's Houthis":

"A Western source familiar with Yemen also said the Houthis had been getting training and money.

'It's been happening for over a year. We've seen Houthis going out to Iran and Lebanon for military training.'

'We think there is cash, some of which is channeled via Hezbollah and sacks of cash arriving at the airport. The numbers of those going for training are enough for us to worry about,' the source said. The first Yemeni security official said Houthi fighters had received training by Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters that the Quds Force, the external arm of the Revolutionary Guard, had a 'few hundred' military personnel in Yemen who train Houthi fighters."

The Times editorial mentions:

"On Monday, Houthi rebels who have been fighting with the Yemeni government reportedly launched a ballistic missile deep into Saudi Arabia, and on Sunday they may have fired on a United States Navy destroyer, but missed."

"[M]ay have fired ... but missed"? Oh really. As reported by DEBKAfile in an October 10, 2016 article entitled "Yemeni Houthis fire 2 Iranian-made missiles at US destroyer – and miss":

"For the first time in two years, Yemeni Houthi rebels Saturday fired on an American vessel, launching two missiles at the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Mason which was patrolling international Red Sea waters just north of the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait. 'Both missiles impacted the water before reaching the ship,' Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis said. 'There were no injuries to our sailors and no damage to the ship.' DEBKAfile: The failed attack came a week after a United Arab Emirates vessel was badly damaged by a missile launched from the Houthi-controlled Yemeni shore, following which two US destroyers, the Mason and Nitze, were deployed to the region, along with the afloat forward USS Ponce staging base. The UAE never disclosed the extent of the damage to their vessel or the number of casualties.

The Yemeni insurgents have been armed with advanced Chinese-made C-802 (NATO-named CSS-N-8) anti-ship missiles upgraded by Iran, as part of Tehran’s proxy bid to seize control of the strategic Red Sea strait."

In fact, there is no denying that those anti-ship missiles supplied by Iran to the Houthis were intentionally fired at the USS Mason. And now I ask you, boys and girls, do any of you honestly believe that Iran did not provide advance approval for this attack?

Or stated otherwise, the benefits of Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Iran just never seem to end. Forfeit control over the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait to Iran to preserve the illusion of "peace in our time" with Iran? Sure, anything to buck up this lame duck's crumbling legacy.

Maureen Dowd, "W., Borne Back Ceaselessly": No Undoing What's Been Done

Tweet

In her latest New York Times op-ed entitled "W., Borne Back Ceaselessly," Maureen Dowd says of the 28 pages of a 2002 congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that have just been released:

"If the 28 pages had been released back in 2002, the revelations might have helped stop the Iraq invasion by refocusing attention where it belonged: on possible real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi royals, rather than the fantasy links between Al Qaeda and Saddam pushed by Dick Cheney."

Back when, I opposed the Second Gulf War because it was apt to destroy the delicate equilibrium between a Sunni-dominated Iraq and a Shiite Iran, both monstrous in their own right.

Saudi Arabia, which whips and incarcerates women who have been gang raped and decapitates persons convicted of witchcraft and sorcery, was and is no better. All of which did not prevent Maureen from hobnobbing with Saudi royalty back in March 2010.

If only George W. Bush had not been goaded into going to war with Saddam? If only ...

But that was 13 years ago. No point in kicking a dead horse. The US must look to the future.

Syria and Iraq have disintegrated, Turkey is shaky, and it's time to ensure that the Middle East's 30 million pro-Western Kurds (also living in Iran) be granted their independence and freedom.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, "Saudi Arabia’s Reckless Extremism": Goozidam Too Cheshmet

Tweet

In a New York Times opinion piece entitled "Saudi Arabia’s Reckless Extremism," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif strains human credibility to its utmost limits. How does one accuse Saudi Arabia of "reckless extremism" without a single mention of the direct involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps in the Syrian civil war or Iranian military assistance to radical Shiite militias in Iraq? And then there's also that "small" matter of Iranian leaders repeatedly threatening Israel with extinction.

More specifically, Zarif writes in his opinion piece of Saudi Arabia:

"At home, state executioners sever heads with swords, as in the recent execution of 47 prisoners in one day, including Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a respected religious scholar who devoted his life to promoting nonviolence and civil rights. Abroad, masked men sever heads with knives."

Yet, Zarif fails to mention that Iran executes more individuals per capita than any other country in the world. Zarif also fails to breathe a word about the barbarism of Iranian-backed Shiite militias in Iraq, which includes beheadings.

Zarif continues:

"Let us not forget that the perpetrators of many acts of terror, from the horrors of Sept. 11 to the shooting in San Bernardino and other episodes of extremist carnage in between, as well as nearly all members of extremist groups like Al Qaeda and the Nusra Front, have been either Saudi nationals or brainwashed by petrodollar-financed demagogues who have promoted anti-Islamic messages of hatred and sectarianism for decades."

Needless to say, no mention here by Zarif of Iran's bombing of the Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 87 people and wounded more than 100. Also no mention by Zarif of Iran's responsibility for the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 US soldiers.

Next, Zarif tells us:

"The Iranian government at the highest level unequivocally condemned the assault against the Saudi embassy and consulate in Tehran on Jan. 2, and ensured the safety of Saudi diplomats. We took immediate measures to help restore order to the Saudi diplomatic compound and declared our determination to bring perpetrators to justice. We also took disciplinary action against those who failed to protect the embassy and have initiated an internal investigation to prevent any similar event."

Of course, Zarif somehow forgets how Iran attempted to murder the Saudi ambassador to the US in 2011.

Zarif's conclusion:

"The Saudi leadership must now make a choice: They can continue supporting extremists and promoting sectarian hatred; or they can opt to play a constructive role in promoting regional stability. We hope that reason will prevail."

Iran wants to promote regional stability? My response in classical Farsi to the less than honorable Zarif: Goozidam too cheshmet, or loosely translated, "I fart in your eye."

Alissa J. Rubin, "Flawed Justice After a Mob Killed an Afghan Woman": Care to Comment, Hillary?

Tweet

In an important lead New York Times article entitled "Flawed Justice After a Mob Killed an Afghan Woman" (avoid watching the video at the top of the article unless you have a cast-iron stomach), Alissa J. Rubin writes of the horrific murder of Farkhunda Malikzada, a 27-year-old woman falsely accused of burning a Quran, and of the lenient legal proceedings against the men who were responsible for her death. Rubin writes:

"Farkhunda’s death and the legal system’s response call into question more than a decade of Western efforts in Afghanistan to instill a rule of law and improve the status of women. The United States alone has spent more than $1 billion to train lawyers and judges and to improve legal protections for women; European countries have provided tens of millions more.

But like so many other Western attempts to remake Afghanistan, the efforts have foundered, according to Afghan and Western lawyers and officials. Afghan society has resisted more than 150 years of such endeavors by outsiders, from the British to the Russians to the Americans. This remains a country where ties of kinship and clan trump justice, and where the money brought by the West has made corruption into a way of life. The rule-of-law programs were often designed in ignorance of Afghan legal norms, international and Afghan lawyers say. And Western efforts to lift women’s legal status provoked fierce resentment from powerful religious figures and many ordinary Afghans.

Yet Afghan women most need the legal system to defend them: They are largely powerless without the support of male family members, and it is usually family members who abuse them."

However, Afghanistan is not the only country where women are subjected to such horrors which go virtually unpunished by the legal system. Although never captured on video and never disseminated on the Internet, as was the slaying of Farkhunda, "Honor killings" are endemic throughout the Muslim Middle East.

Let's also not forget that stoning to death for alleged adultery, a punishment usually reserved for Muslim women, is legal in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, and Yemen.

And then there's also that "minor matter" involving the lashing and imprisonment of Saudi women who have been gang-raped.

Saudi Arabia? Yes, that's the country that has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation. (Qatar has given the Clinton Foundation somewhere between $1 million and $5 million in the past, and Kuwait and the UAE have also made hefty contributions.) But let's just ignore all that cash. After all, Hillary has placed women's rights at the center of her agenda, and we all know that she never lies.

New York Times Editorial, "Saudi Arabia’s Execution Spree": What About Iran?

Tweet

In an editorial entitled "Saudi Arabia’s Execution Spree," The New York Times lambastes "Saudi Arabia’s justice system":

"Ali al-Nimr was sentenced to beheading and crucifixion for participating in a protest at age 17. Raif Badawi was to receive a thousand lashes — a punishment sure to kill — for his blog posts. A Sri Lankan maid, whose name has not been released, was sentenced, on scant evidence, to death by stoning for adultery. These are just some of the people awaiting horrific punishment in Saudi Arabia for things most of the world would not consider serious crimes, or crimes at all. It would be an outrage if their sentences were carried out.

Saudi Arabia’s justice system has gone into murderous overdrive. More than 150 people have been executed this year, the most since 1995. More than 50 people are reported to be scheduled for imminent execution on terrorist charges, though some are citizens whose only crime was protesting against the government. This wave of killing has prompted some to compare Saudi Arabia to the Islamic State: both follow Shariah law.

. . . .

That Saudi Arabia serves on the United Nations Human Rights Council makes this year’s execution spree all the more egregious. It is shameful that the United States and other democracies that consider Saudi Arabia a valuable ally are so often silent in the face of such gruesome excesses."

All true and horrific, but where is there any mention of what happens in Iran, with whose diplomats a jolly John Kerry posed after signing off on an unsigned nuclear deal? Iran hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, and executes poets for "moharabeh," i.e. enmity to God. As reported by Al Jazeera America in an October 27, 2015 article entitled "UN: Executions in Iran could top 1,000 in 2015":

"A U.N. investigator says executions in Iran have been rising at "an exponential rate" since 2005 and could top 1,000 this year as the country cracks down on drug offenders.

Ahmed Shaheed said in a report to the General Assembly circulated Tuesday that Iran executes more individuals per capita than any other country in the world.

He said the majority of executions violate international laws that ban the use of capital punishment for non-violent offenses and for juveniles and he urged Iran to impose a moratorium on the death penalty for all but the "most serious crimes.".

Shaheed, the special investigator on the human rights situation in Iran, said 69 percent of executions during the first six months of 2015 were reportedly for drug-related offenses, reflecting the rising drug influx in the country.

In July, Amnesty International reported a 'surge' in executions in 2015."

A surge in executions in 2015? And all this while, we have been told by the Times that Iranian President Rouhani is a "moderate."

Shame on Obama, Kerry, The New York Times and all of the columnists of the Times who traipse off to Saudi Arabia and Iran and turn a blind eye to human rights outrages.

New York Times Editorial, "Hillary Clinton Botches Wall Street Questions": And Saudi Contributions to the Clinton Foundation?

Tweet

A New York Times editorial entitled "Hillary Clinton Botches Wall Street Questions" has surprisingly savaged Hillary Clinton's explanation concerning campaign contributions she has received from Wall Street. In response to her attempt to tie these contributions to the 9/11 attacks directed against the World Trade Center in Manhattan's financial district, the editorial states:

"Since 2001, she and Bill Clinton have earned more than $125 million for speeches, many of the most lucrative made before financial groups. That does not account for the millions given directly to her campaign, and to political action committees backing her. Nearly 15 years after the 2001 attacks, Mrs. Clinton was earning more than $200,000 for a 20-minute speech. Most of those took place behind guarded doors. But one can guess that she and the financial executives were not still talking about 9/11.

. . . .

Her effort to tug on Americans’ heartstrings instead of explaining her Wall Street ties — on a day that the scars of 9/11 were exposed anew — was at best botched rhetoric. At worst it was the type of cynical move that Mrs. Clinton would have condemned in Republicans."

Contributions from Wall Street? In the aftermath of the Islamic State's attack against Paris, I would be more concerned with contributions the Clinton Foundation has received from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, which have also taken a lax attitude toward private contributions to this terror organization.

Prior to November 2016, I am confident this cozy arrangement between the Clintons and the various Gulf states will be explored. It will also be interesting to hear her explain away the abusive conduct of these donor countries to women.

New York Times Editorial, "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy": A "Hallucinatory" President?

Tweet

Whoa! What's happening at the Times?

In an editorial entitled "An Incoherent Syria War Strategy," The New York Times says of the Obama administration's new Syria policy (my emphasis in red):

"The Pentagon will stop putting rebel fighters through training in neighboring countries, a program that was designed to ensure that fighters were properly vetted before they could get their hands on American weapons and ammunition. The new plan will simply funnel weapons through rebel leaders who are already in the fight and appear to be making some headway.

. . . .

The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces."

Yes, after spending $500 million to put "moderate" Syrian rebels in the field and managing to muster a force of five, "Change" had to come. But isn't the Times being unduly harsh on the president? Consider what the "A-Team" accomplished with only four members (Howling Mad Murdock, B. A. Baracus, John "Hannibal" Smith and Templeton Peck). Perhaps the CIA should consider sending Mr. T to fight ISIS . . .

The Times editorial concludes:

"Getting out of the quagmire in Syria may appear harder than it has ever been. But the only viable solution remains a diplomatic breakthrough that leads to a transfer of power in Damascus and paves the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State.

That will require the ironing out of stark differences between the United States and Mr. Assad’s chief backers, Russia and Iran. Until then, the three countries are unlikely to accomplish much beyond moving the front lines back and forth, adding to Syria’s bloodletting and despair."

Yup, Putin and Khamenei, both "great guys," are going to force Assad, John Kerry's "dear friend," to step down in order to "pave the way for a unified campaign against the Islamic State." A "hallucinatory" president, or a "hallucinatory" editorial?

Apparently it never occurred to the genius who wrote this gem of an opinion piece that Putin does not intend to wage war against the Islamic State, beyond propping up Assad in what is left of his state within a former state. You see, Putin has no interest in antagonizing Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both of which could prove lucrative arms customers, particularly when the price of Russian oil has fallen so low and is jeopardizing the Russian economy. Saudi Arabia continues to contemplate major arms deals with Russia, intended by the Saudis to gain leverage over Russian involvement in Syria, and with funding from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Egypt is already buying weaponry from Moscow.

Also consider that some 12 percent of Russia's population is Muslim, and most of them are Sunnis. Putin has no intention of reigniting a Chechen revolt.

Putin is playing both sides of the fence? What a surprise!

Are you listening, Langley?

David Brooks, "The Robert E. Lee Problem": What About Modern-Day Slavery in India, Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Robert E. Lee Problem," David Brooks tackles the recent debate in the US concerning "the Confederate battle flag and other symbols of the Confederacy." Brooks writes:

"Lowering the Confederate flag from public properties is thus an easy call. There are plenty of ways to celebrate Southern heritage and Southern life without choosing one so enmeshed in the fight to preserve slavery."

Specifically regarding Confederate General Robert E. Lee, Brooks concludes:

"My own view is that we should preserve most Confederate memorials out of respect for the common soldiers. We should keep Lee’s name on institutions that reflect postwar service, like Washington and Lee University, where he was president. But we should remove Lee’s name from most schools, roads and other institutions, where the name could be seen as acceptance of what he did and stood for during the war.

This is not about rewriting history. It’s about shaping the culture going forward."

Okay, I agree with David concerning symbols of the Confederacy and Lee, but indeed, what "about shaping the culture going forward"? You see, slavery still exists today.

There are 14 million adults and children who live today in slavery in India, and more than 2 million Pakistanis who are enslaved. There are also 2.9 million people living in slavery in China.

There are also thousands of forced laborers in Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the list continues.

Yes, the Confederate battle flag should not be flown on South Carolina's Capitol grounds, but what about the 30 million people who still live in bondage, manufacturing our clothes, sporting goods and electronic equipment? Don't they also deserve our attention?

Nawaf Obaid, "Actually, Saudi Arabia could get a nuclear weapon": The Middle East Nuclear Arms Race Begins

Do you recall Fareed Zakaria's ludicrous contention earlier this month that Saudi Arabia is too backward to build an atomic bomb? Well, Zakaria, who was trying to explain why Obama's forthcoming nuclear deal won't set off a Middle East nuclear arms race, now has his answer. In a CNN article entitled "Actually, Saudi Arabia could get a nuclear weapon," Nawaf Obaid, "a visiting fellow and associate instructor at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs," writes:

"Now that the Obama administration has largely given up its resistance to Iran's development of some kind of nuclear program, the Middle East is poised to see a change in the balance of power. As the Saudi Ambassador to the United Kingdom recently stated, should Iran acquire a nuclear weapon, 'all options' could be on the table when it comes to the Saudi response. That could include an indigenous nuclear program. And although some commentators remain skeptical about the Kingdom's ability to produce nuclear weapons, I would argue that it actually has the will and the ability to do so.

. . . .

The thinking in Washington seems to be that Saudi Arabia should remain a passive player in the Middle East, with even President Obama suggesting the Kingdom should not develop a nuclear program. Instead, there is talk of a 'nuclear umbrella' that would supposedly safeguard Gulf states including Saudi Arabia against a nuclear Iran. But this is completely unacceptable to the Saudi leadership. As with any important nation with global responsibilities, it is a matter of vital national security that the Kingdom be able to defend itself and its allies from hostile outside forces. A nuclear Iran is one such force. With the U.S. continuing to move in the direction of allowing such a development, the Kingdom can only look to itself to protect its people, even if this means implementing a nuclear program. And make no mistake, it has the scientists to develop the technology, finances, and national will to do so."

Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia signed an agreement on Thursday to build up to 16 nuclear reactors with Russian assistance for "peaceful" purposes.

Thank you, Obama, for making the world so much safer.

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.

Fareed Zakaria, "Why Saudi Arabia can’t get a nuclear weapon": Saudi Arabia Is Too Stupid to Build a Bomb

As the June 30 deadline for a "final" (as in final solution) nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran fast approaches, Saudi Arabia is warning that if Iran is allowed to maintain its nuclear infrastructure, it too will pursue a nuclear weapons development program. In response to this threat, Fareed Zakaria writes in his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why Saudi Arabia can’t get a nuclear weapon":

"Oh, please! Saudi Arabia isn’t going to build a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia can’t build a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia hasn’t even built a car. (By 2017, after much effort, the country is expected to manufacture its first automobile.)

. . . .

Where would Saudi Arabia train the scientists to work on its secret program? The country’s education system is backward and dysfunctional, having been largely handed over to its puritanical and reactionary religious establishment. The country ranks 73rd in the quality of its math and science education, according to the World Economic Forum — abysmally low for a rich country. Iran, despite 36 years of sanctions and a much lower per capita GDP, fares far better at 44."

Ah yes, the entirety of Saudi Arabia's population is too stupid and lazy to build a bomb. Yeah, right.

Zakaria goes on to say that the Saudis also will not be able to buy a bomb:

"But couldn’t Saudi Arabia simply buy a nuclear bomb? That’s highly unlikely. Any such effort would have to take place secretly, under the threat of sanctions, Western retaliation and interception. Saudi Arabia depends heavily on foreigners and their firms to help with its energy industry, build its infrastructure, buy its oil and sell it goods and services. Were it isolated like Iran or North Korea, its economic system would collapse.

It is often claimed that Pakistan would sell nukes to the Saudis. And it’s true that the Saudis have bailed out Pakistan many times. But the government in Islamabad is well aware that such a deal could make it a pariah and result in sanctions. It is unlikely to risk that, even to please its sugar daddy in Riyadh."

The Saudis could not create their own secret nuclear development program, as did Iran, and bamboozle Obama over the remainder of his second term? The Saudis could not lure experienced Pakistani scientists into the country with lucrative compensation packages? The Saudis could not purchase components of the bomb from North Korea, as did Iran? And the Saudis could not convince China, Russia and much of Europe to turn a blind eye to such a program, as did Iran?

And what if Turkey and Egypt also decide to build their own nuclear weapons arsenal? Are their populations also too stupid? I don't think so.

Zakaria is obviously attempting to boost the Obama administration's lobbying effort in favor of its impending nuclear deal with Iran, which faces a June 30 deadline and Congressional review. Nice try, Fareed.

Nicholas Kristof, "Polluted Political Games": Was Kristof Paid by the Clinton Foundation?

Acknowledging his involvement with the Clinton Foundation in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Polluted Political Games," Nicholas Kristof writes:

"I’ve admired the Clintons’ foundation for years for its fine work on AIDS and global poverty, and I’ve moderated many panels at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Yet with each revelation of failed disclosures or the appearance of a conflict of interest from speaking fees of $500,000 for the former president, I have wondered: What were they thinking?"

Okay, Nick, you've admired the "fine work" of the Clinton Foundation, but now tell us if you were paid to "moderate" these many panels, and if so, how much were you paid? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with moderating panels, but if you, a Times columnist, were paid by the Clinton Foundation, can we please know how much?

Kristof is quick to inform us that Republican presidential candidates have also benefited from "our entire disgraceful money-based political system." Specifically with regard to Marco Rubio, Kristof writes that "Senator Marco Rubio of Florida has received financial assistance from a billionaire, Norman Braman, and has channeled public money to Braman’s causes." Kristof provides a link to a New York Times article entitled "Billionaire Lifts Marco Rubio, Politically and Personally" by Michael Barbaro and Steve Eder, which informs us:

"A detailed review of their relationship shows that Mr. Braman, 82, has left few corners of Mr. Rubio’s world untouched. He hired Mr. Rubio, then a Senate candidate, as a lawyer; employed his wife to advise the Braman family’s philanthropic foundation; helped cover the cost of Mr. Rubio’s salary as an instructor at a Miami college; and gave Mr. Rubio access to his private plane.

The money has flowed both ways. Mr. Rubio has steered taxpayer funds to Mr. Braman’s favored causes, successfully pushing for an $80 million state grant to finance a genomics center at a private university and securing $5 million for cancer research at a Miami institute for which Mr. Braman is a major donor.

. . . .

The reliance on Mr. Braman is likely to put a spotlight on the finances of Mr. Rubio, who ranks among the least-wealthy candidates in the emerging Republican field. Mr. Rubio left the Florida House of Representatives in 2008 with a net worth of $8,351, multiple mortgages and $115,000 in student debt. In his latest financial disclosure form, for 2013, he reported at least $450,000 in liabilities, including two mortgages and a line of credit."

Oh my goodness, Mr. Braman once dared employ both Rubio and his wife! Worse still, Rubio helped secure funds for the cancer research of a Miami institute favored by Mr. Braman. Of course, we all know that government funding must never be used for cancer research . . . not.

Rubio  is considered one of the poorest Republican presidential candidates? Maybe Mr. Braman has not been helping him enough.

But now consider the millions of dollars received by the Clinton Foundation from Saudi Arabia, which whips gang rape victims and beheads persons accused of engaging in witchcraft. Also consider the millions of dollars in donations to the Clinton Foundation from banks which were recently convicted of rigging the value of world currencies.

And although Hillary claimed that she and Bill left the White House "dead broke" and whined that "we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy,” Hillary's net worth in 2012 was estimated at between $5 million and $25 million, and Bill's net worth is estimated at some $55 million. Poor, Hillary! Poor, poor Hillary!

Compare  Rubio with the Hillary? I don't think so. Meanwhile, let's see if Kristof or the Times is willing to answer my question above.

Thomas Friedman, "Contain and Amplify": While Allowing Iran to Build Atomic Bombs?

And I thought the Times editorial entitled "Iran’s Secret Trial of a Journalist" was naive . . .

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Contain and Amplify," Thomas Friedman writes of the mounting muddle in the Muslim Middle East. Claiming that he has "never seen it this bad," Friedman tells us:

"For now, I see only two ways coherent self-government can re-emerge in Libya, Iraq, Yemen and Syria: If an outside power totally occupies them, snuffs out their sectarian wars, suppresses the extremists and spends the next 50 years trying to get Iraqis, Syrians, Yemenis and Libyans to share power as equal citizens. Even that might not work. Anyway, it’s not going to happen. The other is just wait for the fires to burn themselves out. The Lebanese civil war ended after 14 years by reconciliation-through-exhaustion. All sides accepted the principle of “no victor/no vanquished,” and everyone got a piece of the pie."

Unbeknownst to would-be Middle East expert Friedman, the fighting in Lebanon never ended, and it is only a matter of time until the Sunni/Shiite conflict in Syria spills across the border into Lebanon. Hezbollah chieftain Hassan Nasrallah is obviously concerned by this inevitability, which he now admits poses an "existential threat" to his terrorist organization.

Friedman's solution:

"U.S. policy now should be 'containment, plus amplification.' Let’s help those who manifest the will to contain ISIS, like Jordan, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and the Kurds in Iraq, and amplify any constructive things that groups in Yemen, Iraq, Libya, or Syria are ready to do with their power, but we must not substitute our power for theirs. This has to be their fight for their future. If the fight against ISIS is not worth it to them, it surely can’t be for us."

Or in other words, let's not do anything.

Unfortunately, however, Obama is doing something: In furtherance of his pursuit of a presidential legacy, he is determined to grant Iran the right to build a nuclear arsenal within a decade, which, as we have heard from the Saudis, is destined to trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Should the US watch from the sidelines as the mullahs mount their new toys on ICBMs capable of reaching America's shores? Should the US stand idly by as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan and the UAE build their own bombs?

Yes, ISIS is a problem, but it is a Sunni response to Obama's unwillingness to stand in the way of aggressive Iranian efforts to achieve suzerainty over the region -  by way of Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Houthis in Yemen.

Obama stuck his foot deep in the muck, and it won't be easy extricating it. More to the point, mindless declarations by Friedman that it is "their fight" are of no value whatsoever, given the threat of a future nuclear war which will likely span continents.

New York Times Editorial, "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs": Who Wrote This Twaddle?

What I would give to know who wrote today's New York Times editorial entitled "President Obama and the Gulf Arabs"! The editorial begins:

"Saudi Arabia is so angry at the emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the major powers that it is threatening to develop its own nuclear capability — one more indication of the deep differences between the United States and the Persian Gulf Arab states over the deal, which the major powers and Iran aim to complete by June 30. President Obama had hoped to bridge that gap with a show of American-Arab unity at this week’s summit meeting at Camp David. The summit meeting fell well short of his ambitions, an unfortunate outcome for both sides.

. . . .

The most overt evidence of the unsettled ties between the United States and its longstanding Arab allies was a decision by King Salman of Saudi Arabia to stay home, after the White House announced he would be at the meeting. Bahrain’s king, Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa, also a no-show, chose to attend a horse show in Britain."

A pity Obama is not inviting Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu to Camp David to bridge their differences. Netanyahu would come, but Obama has no intention of inviting his bête noire, who might educate the president concerning the realities of the Middle East.

The Times editorial continues:

"It is hard to see how threatening and snubbing a president who is offering crucial assistance to the Saudi-led war in Yemen and who still has two years left in office advances Arab interests. Even so, Mr. Obama could have done a better job of calming Arab insecurities long before he invited the gulf leaders to Camp David.

The Sunni Arabs have two main worries. One is that the nuclear agreement with Iran would leave Iran with a limited capability to produce nuclear fuel for energy and medical purposes, instead of ending it outright. They also worry that Iran’s re-entry into the international community after decades of isolation would mean that Washington’s loyalties would henceforth be divided and that America could no longer be counted on to defend them."

It is "hard to see" why Sunni Gulf State leaders are snubbing the president? For the love of heaven, Obama is giving Iran the right to manufacture a nuclear arsenal after 10 years, if Khamenei doesn't cheat before the expiration of the agreement - which he will. Then, too, Obama is giving Iran a signing bonus of $50 billion of freed bank deposits, which will quickly find its way into the hands of the Houthis in Yemen, Assad in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza. Yes, I know: the editorial claims that the funds will be used for "accumulated domestic needs." Indeed, this might be a cogent argument were it not for the fact that Iran is a country that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, and persecutes Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunni Muslims, as its leaders await the return of the Mahdi. Attribute rational conduct to Khamenei and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? I don't think so.

Remarkably, the editorial does not address Obama's nonsensical claim that if Iran cheats, sanctions will "snap back" into place. On Wednesday, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin gave the lie to this outlandish attempt to sell the deal with Khamenei by declaring:

"'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."

The editorial concludes:

"A verifiable nuclear deal that limits Iran’s abilities has the best chance of keeping Iran from a nuclear weapon. The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities, which could set off a new arms race and inflame the region even more."

A "verifiable nuclear deal" of the kind that was also negotiated by Wendy Sherman with North Korea in the past? Good luck!

Moreover, as previously observed, the deal is not intended to prevent Iran from building an atomic bomb. Rather, it is intended to delay by ten years the fabrication of such a weapon. "The solution definitely does not lie in threats by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to build up their own nuclear capabilities"? True. The solution lies in a credible effort by the US to stand up to Tehran and deny them any possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this is not occurring, and the Arabs, who better understand Iran than Obama, know this.

[Regarding Obama's credibility involving his "unique" interpretation of events in the Middle East, see also "Obama Claims Chlorine 'Historically Has Not Been Listed as a Chemical Weapon': Liar!."]

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.

Saudi King Salman Refuses Obama's Invitation to Camp David Summit: A Slap in the Face for Obama

President Obama invited leaders of the Arab Persian Gulf countries to a Camp David summit on Thursday in order to "sell" them the nuclear deal that he is fashioning with Iran. There has been much speculation concerning the military hardware that Obama is preparing to transfer to these countries in order to allay their anxiety over the arrangement with Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. However, as reported by Helene Cooper in a lead New York Times article entitled "Saudi Arabia Says King Won’t Attend Meetings in U.S.":

"Saudi Arabia announced on Sunday that its new monarch, King Salman, would not be attending meetings at the White House with President Obama or a summit gathering at Camp David this week, in an apparent signal of its continued displeasure with the administration over United States relations with Iran, its rising regional adversary.

As recently as Friday, the White House said that King Salman would be coming to 'resume consultations on a wide range of regional and bilateral issues,' according to Eric Schultz, a White House spokesman."

An "apparent signal" of Saudi displeasure? Make that a slap in the face for Obama.

Meanwhile, as Obama continues to insist upon reaching agreement with Iran by June 30, regardless of the concession that he will be forced to make, Iran's Fars News Agency is reporting that "US and French warships and military aircraft changed their direction in the Gulf of Aden on Saturday night after being warned by an Iranian flotilla to keep distant."

In addition, as reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Iran Kurds riot after foul play suspected in woman’s death":

"Iranian Kurds rioted in the city of Mahabad last week after a 25-year-old woman fell to her death in an incident in which foul play was suspected. In the ensuing skirmishes, police killed at least two demonstrators, Kurdish media reported.

The demonstrations were held Thursday after Farinaz Khosravani, 25, a chambermaid in the city’s Tara Hotel, fell to her death Monday from the fourth floor of the hotel. Unconfirmed reports indicated that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps soldier reportedly threatened or attempted to rape her, according to Kurdish media accounts quoted in the Israeli press.

. . . .

A Channel 2 report called the outbreak of violent demonstrations a 'Kurdish intifada' and posited that the protests might break out into a 'Kurdish Spring' akin to the Arab Spring which began after a Tunisian man lit himself on fire in 2011."

What does the Obama administration have to say about the rioting and Iranian oppression of its Kurdish minority? Nothing. It could stand in the way of the nuclear deal with Khamenei and Obama's legacy.

In a nutshell, American prestige and influence in the Middle East have reached a nadir.

New York Times Editorial, "Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal": Senile Dementia

Is the Gray Lady suffering from senile dementia? It would almost be worth paying to know who wrote the delusional editorial entitled "Beyond the Iran Nuclear Deal," in which The New York Times goes on record as saying:

"Iran is a Shiite nation; the Gulf states are majority Sunni, and the closer Iran and the big powers get to a deal (the self-imposed deadline is June 30) the more anxious the Sunni leaders have become. On this score, Mr. Obama can offer a convincing response: an Iran restrained by a strong and verifiable nuclear agreement is a lot less threatening than an unfettered Iran."

A "strong and verifiable nuclear agreement" like the one the US signed with North Korea?

But wait, there's more! The Times concludes:

"But as Ellen Laipson, president of The Stimson Center, a think tank, has argued, the nuclear deal should be seen as 'a great moment of opportunity' for the Arabs (with Israel’s tacit agreement) to embark on new regional ventures with Iran on energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control.

If the nuclear deal is completed, the administration would try to encourage Iran to play a more constructive role in Syria. Many are skeptical that this will produce results, but testing the possibility of expanded cooperation beyond the nuclear deal is certainly worth the effort."

Got it!: Saudi Arabia, which beheads persons for practicing "witchcraft," and Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, should cast aside almost 1,400 years of vicious Sunni/Shiite enmity and focus on "energy, climate change, water scarcity and arms control."

You just know that's going to happen . . . not.

Obama Creates Middle East Arms Race: Atomic Bombs to Iran and F-35s to the UAE?

As the P5+1 prepares to finalize a nuclear deal with Iran, guaranteeing the mullahs atomic weapons within a decade or less, Obama is seeking to obtain the tacit approval of America's Sunni allies to this abomination, which is intended to cement his presidential "legacy." Iran's Sunni neighbors, however, are terrified by this prospect, and in preparation for a May 14 Camp David summit meeting with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council, i.e. Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Oman, the Obama administration is anxiously seeking to cobble together a package of "goodies" intended to allay their anxieties.

As reported in a New York Times article entitled "White House Looks to Ease Arab Fears Over Iran Nuclear Pact" by Helene Cooper:

"There is not much time left to come up with something. Mr. Kerry is to meet next week with the foreign ministers of the Arab countries to prepare for the Camp David summit meeting on May 14, and he will be expected to foreshadow what kind of package the administration is willing to offer.

. . . .

Increased weapons sales could help, but there is a major roadblock: maintaining Israel’s military edge. The United States has long put restrictions on the types of weapons that American defense firms can sell to Arab nations, which are meant to ensure that Israel keeps a military advantage against its adversaries in the region. That is why the administration has so far not allowed Lockheed Martin to sell the F-35 fighter jet, considered to be the jewel of America’s future arsenal of weapons, to Arab countries. The plane, the world’s most expensive weapons project, has stealth abilities and has been approved for sale to Israel.

Defense analysts say that with the balance of power in the Middle East in flux, that could change. One possibility would be to wait three years after delivering the F-35 to Israel and then approve it for sale to the United Arab Emirates — the Arab ally most likely to get the first chance to buy the stealth fighter — which would give Israel a three-year head start."

Now it all makes sense: Atomic bombs to Iran within a decade and F-35s to the UAE to counter an Iranian nuclear arsenal. That should ensure peace and stability in the Middle East for many years to come . . . not.

John Bolton, "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran": Sorry, Obama Has Already Surrendered

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran," former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton explains that whatever nuclear "privileges" are granted to Iran pursuant to its pending agreement with the P5+1, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey will demand the same. (In my blog entry yesterday entitled "Thomas Friedman, "Look Before Leaping": Obama Gets Tough With the White House Florist," I suggested that Jordan and the UAE would also seek to begin building their own bombs.) Convinced that Iran will not forgo its nuclear weapons program regardless of the threat or implementation of international sanctions, Bolton concludes:

"The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.

Rendering inoperable the Natanz and Fordow uranium-enrichment installations and the Arak heavy-water production facility and reactor would be priorities. So, too, would be the little-noticed but critical uranium-conversion facility at Isfahan. An attack need not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but by breaking key links in the nuclear-fuel cycle, it could set back its program by three to five years. The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.

Mr. Obama’s fascination with an Iranian nuclear deal always had an air of unreality. But by ignoring the strategic implications of such diplomacy, these talks have triggered a potential wave of nuclear programs. The president’s biggest legacy could be a thoroughly nuclear-weaponized Middle East."

War, or even the threat of war, is frightening. I've lived through enough of them. On the other hand, the failure to stop Iran in its tracks is reminiscent of Chamberlain's 1938 "peace for our time" Munich Agreement. Chamberlain could have said no to Hitler and saved the lives of more than 60 million people, but he didn't. Such is human nature.

Yes, Obama's pact with Khamenei is certain to bring about a Middle East nuclear arms race. Moreover, given the regimes involved, these weapons will be used - that's a promise.

Could a bomb hit the US? Absolutely. Obama's agreement does not prevent Iran from developing ICBMs.  But as John Kerry acknowledged yesterday:

"What happens if, as our critics propose, we just walk away from a plan that the rest of the world were to deem to be reasonable? That could happen. Well, the talks would collapse. Iran would have the ability to go right back spinning its centrifuges and enriching to the degree they want, if they want, if that's what they choose. And the sanctions will not hold, because those other people who deem the plan to be reasonable will walk away and say, 'You do your thing, we’ll do ours.'"

Or in other words, American foreign policy is now being dictated by Russia, China and European corporations hungry for renewed trade with Iran, i.e. Obama has already surrendered.