Thomas Friedman, "Impossible Missions": Yes, Wisconsin (Not Virginia), There Is a Santa Claus

Tweet

Yes, Virginia Wisconsin, there is a Santa Claus. Could it be that Donald and Hillary, i.e. Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees, will not be battling it out in November? Thank you, badgers! It had been pretty bleak until last night.

On the subject of bleak (and dull-witted), Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Impossible Missions," discusses Professor Michael Mandelbaum's new book called “Mission Failure: America and the World in the Post-Cold War Era.” Warmly recommending the book, Friedman writes:

"In earlier historical epochs the world relied on imperial powers to come in and control zones of weak governance, as the Ottomans did for 500 years in the Middle East. Then it relied on colonial powers. Then it relied on homegrown kings, colonels and dictators to maintain order.

But what if we’re now in a post-imperial, post-colonial and post-authoritarian age? The kings, colonels and dictators of old did not have to deal with amplified citizens deeply connected to one another and the world with smartphones. The old autocrats also had vast oil resources or aid from superpowers in the Cold War to buy off their people. What if they now have bulging populations, dwindling oil revenues and can’t buy off their people or shut them up?

The only option is more consensual government and social contracts among equal citizens."

Ah yes, Arab Spring II and another Green Revolution in Iran! I can assure you that Morsi and Khamenei know of other options. Go back to sleep, Tom.

Meanwhile, on the subject of Iran, Congressman Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, expresses concern in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The United States must not aid and abet Iranian money laundering," that the Obama administration intends to provide Iran with access to the American financial system in exchange for . . . nothing. Royce writes:

"Last summer, in testimony to Congress, Lew vowed, 'Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars through New York, hold correspondent account relationships with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing arrangements with U.S. banks.' As the secretary made clear, 'Iran, in other words, will continue to be denied access to the world’s largest financial and commercial market.'

Yet when I questioned Lew just two weeks ago about whether he stood by this testimony, he refused to give a direct answer. And so this appears to be just the latest in a long pattern of concessions to protect the president’s 'legacy' deal. In recent months, the administration gutted a new law to strengthen the visa waiver program to please the Iranians and has imposed only minimal sanctions on Iran’s missile program — even as Iran launches missiles stamped with the words 'Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.'"

You mean to say that the Obama administration, which promised Americans that if they liked their doctors and healthcare plans, they could keep them, in order to sell Obama's "legacy" Affordable Care Act, also lied to Congress to sell his "legacy" nuclear deal with Iran? Yes, I know: Obama's omniscient ends justify his unscrupulous means.

And so we had John Kerry telling us that Iran "absolutely" deserved access to US dollars, although none other than Obama recently acknowledged that Iran is not abiding by the "spirit" of the nuclear deal, and notwithstanding Iran's test launches of ballistic missiles.

The ballistic missiles? As reported by Adam Kredo in a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Congress Investigating Obama Admin Deception on Iran Nuke Deal":

"[C]ongressional leaders are concerned that the administration no longer considers recent Iranian ballistic missile tests a 'violation' of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, which codifies the nuclear deal.

Top administration officials including Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to Congress that Iran would be legally prohibited from carrying out ballistic missile tests under the resolution.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., shifted course last week, refusing to call recent Iranian launches a 'violation' in a letter she signed criticizing those launches."

Repercussions in the Middle East owing to Obama's duplicity? Read what Yousef Al Otaiba, the ambassador of the United Arab Emirates to the US, has to say in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "One Year After the Iran Nuclear Deal" about Obama's promise that the nuclear deal with Iran would "make the world safer":

"Sadly, behind all the talk of change, the Iran we have long known—hostile, expansionist, violent—is alive and well, and as dangerous as ever. We wish it were otherwise. In the United Arab Emirates, we are seeking ways to coexist with Iran. Perhaps no country has more to gain from normalized relations with Tehran. Reducing tensions across the less than 100-mile-wide Arabian Gulf could help restore full trade ties, energy cooperation and cultural exchanges, and start a process to resolve a 45-year territorial dispute.

Since the nuclear deal, however, Iran has only doubled down on its posturing and provocations. In October, November and again in early March, Iran conducted ballistic-missile tests in violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In December, Iran fired rockets dangerously close to a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Strait of Hormuz, just weeks before it detained a group of American sailors. In February, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan visited Moscow for talks to purchase more than $8 billion in Russian fighter jets, planes and helicopters.

In Yemen, where peace talks now hold some real promise, Iran’s disruptive interference only grows worse. Last week, the French navy seized a large cache of weapons on its way from Iran to support the Houthis in their rebellion against the U.N.-backed legitimate Yemeni government. In late February, the Australian navy intercepted a ship off the coast of Oman with thousands of AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. And last month, a senior Iranian military official said Tehran was ready to send military 'advisers' to assist the Houthis.

The interference doesn’t stop there. Since the beginning of the year, Tehran and its proxies have increased their efforts to provide armor-piercing explosive devices to Shiite cells in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. A former Iranian general and close adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called for Iran to annex all of Bahrain. And in Syria, Iran continues to deploy Hezbollah militias and its own Iranian Revolutionary Guard to prop up Syria’s Bashar Assad.

. . . .

If the carrots of engagement aren’t working, we must not be afraid to bring back the sticks. Recent half measures against Iran’s violations of the ballistic-missile ban are not enough. If the aggression continues, the U.S. and the global community should make clear that Iran will face the full range of sanctions and other steps still available under U.N. resolutions and in the nuclear deal itself."

"Bring back the sticks"? Reinstate the sanctions? Sorry, but not if it means that a narcissistic Obama must acknowledge that he was dead wrong.

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!."]

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.

Gaza: Obama Supports Hamas

On whose side is the Obama administration in Israel's current war with Hamas? Although Israeli ambassador to the United States Ron Dermer would, for public consumption, feel compelled to deny it, Obama supports Hamas.

In a New York Times article entitled "Arab Leaders, Viewing Hamas as Worse Than Israel, Stay Silent" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/31/world/middleeast/fighting-political-islam-arab-states-find-themselves-allied-with-israel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0), David Kirkpatrick writes:

"Egypt and other Arab states, especially the Persian Gulf monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are finding themselves allied with Israel in a common opposition to Iran, a rival regional power that has a history of funding and arming Hamas.

For Washington, the shift poses new obstacles to its efforts to end the fighting. Although Egyptian intelligence agencies continue to talk with Hamas, as they did under former President Hosni Mubarak and Mr. Morsi, Cairo’s new animosity toward the group has called into question the effectiveness of that channel, especially after the response to Egypt’s first proposal.

As a result, Secretary of State John Kerry turned to the more Islamist-friendly states of Qatar and Turkey as alternative mediators — two states that grew in regional stature with the rising tide of political Islam after the Arab Spring, and that have suffered a degree of isolation as that tide has ebbed.

But that move has put Mr. Kerry in the incongruous position of appearing to some analysts as less hostile to Hamas — and thus less supportive of Israel — than Egypt or its Arab allies."

Kirkpatrick, however, is only partially correct. Although Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are silently rooting for the destruction of Hamas, their support of Israel has little to do with "common opposition to Iran." Hamas has allied itself with the rebels in Syria, fighting against the Iranian proxy regime of Bashar al-Assad, and for this reason Hamas moved its headquarters from Damascus to Qatar. Rather, the opposition to Hamas of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE is grounded upon their fear of Sunni Islamic radicalism, as embodied by ISIS (alternatively "ISIL"), which also poses a threat to Shiite Iran.

Note that Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, has been holding its fire against Israel during the current war.

So why did Kerry turn to "the more Islamist-friendly states of Qatar and Turkey as alternative mediators"?

I would observe that notwithstanding identical denials from Obama's West Wing and Netanyahu's PMO (Prime Minister's Office), I have been informed by a reliable source that Obama did instruct Bibi on Sunday to agree to an immediate unilateral ceasefire, as reported by Israel's Channel 1. I am told that Obama also declared that he trusts Qatar and Turkey, and that Israel is not in a position to choose mediators.

In addition, I would note that Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority were not invited to Kerry's meeting on Friday with the foreign ministers of France, Italy, the UK and Germany to discuss Gaza. Rather, Kerry invited the foreign ministers of Qatar and Turkey, Hamas's principal backers, to join this meeting. And on Saturday, Kerry had a separate follow-up meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs Khalid bin Mohammad al-Attiyah.

Qatar, known for its abuse of foreign laborers, has been bankrolling a bankrupt Hamas. Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen said of Qatar earlier this year (http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2308.aspx):

"Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability. Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria. To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner."

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, known for his horrific anti-Semitic outbursts, several days ago said that Israel has "surpassed what Hitler did to them" and declared Israel a "terrorist state" (see: http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/25/turkish-prime-minister-israel-has-surpassed-what-hitler-did-to-them/). By the way, the Turkish government also objects to women laughing in public (see: http://abcnews.go.com/International/turkish-women-defiantly-laugh-official-lol/story?id=24779386).

Given their fervent support of Hamas, Qatar and Turkey were "peculiar" choices by Obama to mediate the conflict between Israel and Hamas. They were even stranger choices given the fact that by seeking to appoint these two countries as mediators, Obama knew that he would be insulting Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority. Stupidity on Obama's part, or something far more insidious?

But more to the point, why is Obama so intent upon reaching an immediate cease-fire between Israel and Hamas? Why isn't Obama willing to allow Israel to "win," i.e. eradicate Hamas?

Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "The U.S. push for a Gaza cease-fire should empower moderate Palestinians" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-push-for-a-gaza-cease-fire-should-empower-moderate-palestinians/2014/07/29/daba4f3e-1735-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html), The Washington Post stated:

"More broadly, the Obama administration should be working with Egypt and Mr. Abbas, as well as Israel, to end the conflict in a way that reduces rather than reinforces Hamas’s power over Gaza. This is not unrealistic: A recent agreement between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement and Hamas to form a single government for the West Bank and Gaza, followed by elections for new leaders, could provide a mechanism. Mr. Abbas, who has been working closely with Egypt, is reportedly proposing that his U.S.-trained security forces secure the border between Gaza and Egypt, displacing Hamas."

However, Obama is plainly not interested in ousting Hamas and installing Fatah in Gaza. Rather, the Obama administration is busy playing the "both sides are culpable" game, when it is not actively seeking to undermine Israel. As acknowledged by Barak Ravid, writing for Israel's left-leaning Haaretz in an article entitled "Kerry's cease-fire draft revealed: U.S. plan would let Hamas keep its rockets" (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.607379), Kerry's cease-fire plan ignored all of Israel's basic security needs:

"Israel's demands were mentioned in the most general of terms in the phrase 'address all security issues.' There was no one mention of demilitarizing the Gaza Strip of its rocket supply or advanced weapons, and not the dismantling of the terror tunnels."

Was Kerry acting in renegade fashion, i.e. without the knowledge of Obama, when drafting his cease-fire proposal? Not a chance.

As Obama nears the end of his second term, we will see more and more of his "true colors." It is becoming increasingly apparent that the president is no friend of Israel, despite what Israeli Ambassador Dermer might feel compelled to say in order to prevent Israel's relationship with the Obama administration from completely unraveling.

New York Times Editorial, "Another Syria Peace Conference": Insights Into Obama's Secret Agenda

The latest New York Times editorial entitled "Another Syria Peace Conference" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/opinion/another-syria-peace-conference.html?ref=opinion) is as addle-brained as always. However, given that its editorials habitually reflect Oval Office "thinking," this short piece, ruing the absence of Iran from the upcoming peace conference in Geneva, is certainly worth a read. The editorial board of The Times would have us know:

"Just how the invitation from the United Nations was fumbled is unclear, but it is unfortunate that some diplomatic solution could not have been found to include Iran, which along with Russia is Syria’s main ally, providing President Assad with arms and other military support. In an interview with The New York Times and Time magazine last month, the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said Iran would not be an impediment to a political settlement. 'We have every interest in helping the process in a peaceful direction,' he said. 'We are satisfied, totally satisfied, convinced that there is no military solution in Syria and that there is a need to find a political solution in Syria.'"

Iran has "every interest in helping the process in a peaceful direction"? "There is no military solution in Syria"? I suppose that is why Iran sent Revolutionary Guard advisors and thousands of Hezbollah fighters to assist Assad.

The editorial continues:

"The civil war has drawn affiliates of Al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists to the Syrian battlefield, and these could eventually be a threat to Shiite-led Iran as well as Russia, which is fighting extremists in the Caucasus and worrying about attacks during the Winter Olympics in Sochi next month.

Mr. Zarif acknowledged this problem generally, asserting that 'the continuation of this tragedy in Syria can only provide the best breeding ground for extremists who use this basically as a justification, as a recruiting climate, in order to wage the same type of activity in other parts of this region.'"

Now I understand: al-Qaeda is extremist, but Hezbollah and the Iran Revolutionary Guard are not, and we should also believe everything that Javad Zarif tells us. Yeah, right.

Again, you might ordinarily expect this sort of muddled thinking from the editorial board of The New York Times, but in this instance it more likely reflects the thinking of the president. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Obama is preparing to elevate the status and standing of Iran at the expense of America's traditional Sunni allies in the region, i.e. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE and Jordan.

Indeed, the US purportedly objected to the last-minute invitation to Iran from the UN to participate in the talks, but other conciliatory signals - such as this one from the semi-official organ of the Obama administration - are also being sent to Tehran.

Or in a nutshell, Obama is undertaking a Middle Eastern shake-up with all the preparation that went into the rollout of Obamacare.