Defying Trump, IAEA says Iran honoring nuclear deal
Iran is honoring the terms of the landmark 2015 nuclear accord, the UN atomic watchdog said in its latest quarterly assessment today, according to news agencies that obtained the confidential six-page report. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessment puts the agency charged with overseeing compliance with the nuclear accord at odds with members of theDonald Trump administration who have signaled that they want to declare Iran in breach of the deal. IAEA officials said they would not help the Trump administration make a false case for abandoning the agreement. “If they want to bring down the deal, they will,” an IAEA official told Reuters. “We just don’t want to give them an excuse to.” More
Trump’s Plan To Kill The Iran Deal? Outsourcing
Trump has reluctantly agreed to certify Iran’s compliance twice now, but has promised to refrain from doing so in future. His failure to re-certify, however, would trigger a legislative process under which Republican leaders in Congress can re-impose any or all U.S. statutory sanctions lifted pursuant to the JCPOA. Moreover, such a move would almost certainly be insulated from any opposition, as the legislation would be entitled to expedited consideration – and thus likely preempt any organized pushback from legislators, the policymaking community, and the general public. Effectively, this means that even if Trump wanted to de-certify Iran’s compliance but nonetheless refrain from re-imposing the sanctions lifted under the agreement – the so-called “middle ground” approach – he would not have control over that decision… It’s no coincidence that those advocating the so-called “middle ground” approach is the same cast of characters that has been pushing for war with Iran. They know they cannot trick or strong-arm the rest of the world into erroneously deeming Iran non-compliant with its JCPOA commitments. Instead, by outsourcing the decision, they seek to kill the deal and obfuscate the blame. More
The Same Ol’ Afghan War Fallacies
Trump used the term safe haven four times in his speech. He declared that the basic purpose of the military expedition in Afghanistan was, “We must stop the resurgence of safe havens that enable terrorists to threaten America.” … That notion is not valid, and never has been. The very physical distance involved works against the relevance of foreign havens to terrorist threats against the homeland. One cannot drive a truck bomb, or even the ingredients for one, across the Atlantic Ocean. To the extent any physical space is required to prepare a terrorist attack, a house or apartment in or near the city being targeted is — as a long history of terrorist incidents has demonstrated — much more useful to terrorists than a piece of real estate on another continent… . But the notion is a misreading of that piece of history, even without getting into overlooked details about phases of the Afghan civil war and the nature of the relationship between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Most of the preparations for the 9/11 operation did not take place in Afghanistan; most took place in the West, including in apartments in Hamburg, hotels in Spain, and flight schools in the United States.
IT’S TIME TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN
A case can be made, as President Trump and his two predecessors did, that the Kabul government’s collapse would open the way for the Taliban to regain dominance and that could lead to increased terrorism against the West, including the United States. Yet given the territories already open to al-Qaeda and its ilk, including IS, it is far from clear that adding Afghanistan to the list of possibilities would make matters worse. Further, there is one ineluctable fact about Islamist terrorism that none of the last three administrations has been willing to face: the inspiration for most of the terrorism, along with much of the funding, comes from by far the world’s leading exporter of terrorism—Saudi Arabia and its fanatical religious creed, Wahhabism… In the final analysis, it may be that Trump, treading in Obama’s footsteps, decided to persevere in Afghanistan for a special, political, but understandably human reason: the fear of being seen to lose a war. Regarding Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson said it directly: “I’m not going down in history as the first American President who lost a war.” And yet he and the nation did, seven long years and tens of thousands of American dead later. Afghanistan is less costly to the United States in blood and treasure. But that is no argument for further sacrifice, however limited it could prove to be. More
U.S. Military Battles Syrian Rebels Once Supported by CIA
Soldiers from the U.S.-led coalition tasked with battling the Islamic State militant group (ISIS) engaged in a firefight in northern Syria Tuesday with Syrian rebels whose movement was once supported by the CIA. Ryan Dillon, a spokesperson for the Kuwait-based Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve, said the insurgents opened fire first near the city of Manbij, prompting coalition forces to shoot back before taking cover elsewhere. The belligerent Syrian fighters were not identified, but they were believed to have been part of a Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army group opposed to ISIS, the Syrian military and the mostly Kurdish forces supported by the Pentagon, all of which are vying for control in northern Syria… The Free Syrian Army was also the primary recipient of CIA funding to overthrow Assad, but this support diminished as ISIS and Al-Qaeda became increasingly influential among rebels. More
How Media Obscure US/Saudi Responsibility for Killing Yemeni Civilians
On August 23, the US/Saudi coalition bombed a hotel near Yemen’s capital Sanaa, killing 41 people, 33 of whom—80 percent—were civilians, according to the United Nations. Then on August 25, the coalition bombed homes in Sanaa, massacring a dozen civilians, including eight members of the same family. Major Western media outlets have, however, obscured the responsibility Saudi Arabia, and its US and European supporters, bear for launching these airstrikes. There are no other parties presently bombing Yemen, so media cannot feign ignorance as to who is responsible for the attacks. But reports on the bloody US/Saudi coalition airstrikes were nonetheless rife with ambiguous and downright misleading language… Whose airstrike was it? What party was responsible? This remains unknown to those who only glanced at the headlines—that is to say, to most readers. The 29-month war has killed thousands of Yemeni civilians, with tens of thousands more injured and millions facing famine. And the United Nations has repeatedly reported that the US/Saudi coalition is responsible for a majority of the civilian casualties. Even when Saudi Arabia’s guilt is acknowledged by media, the crucial role of the US is typically ignored. More
IN KOREA:
TRUMP AND THE GEOPOLITICS OF CRAZY
So far, the prospects for negotiations have been rather dim. True, Trump has directed some backhanded compliments at Kim Jong-un (a “smart cookie”) and broached the possibility of talking person-to-person with the North Korean leader.Backchannel discussions with that country’s U.N. mission in New York have made modest headway over the last several months on issues like the detention of American citizens. But President Trump is, by nature, erratic, and a purposefully understaffed State Department and distinctly under-informed National Security Council are not exactly firing on all diplomatic cylinders. Then, of course, there’s the other alternative (an option also considered by previous administrations): launching a more concerted effort at regime change… You’d think that the examples of Cuba, Iraq, and Libya -- not to mention Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen -- would have cured Washington’s regime-change enthusiasts of their recurring illusions… Economic sanctions, military pressure, and intemperate threats, on other hand, will ultimately prove counterproductive, doing little but to intensify the nothing-to-lose mentality of the regime, while failing to encourage the changes already ongoing. Bycontinuing to isolate an already isolated land, the United States is only strengthening the very wall against which it’s been banging its head for so many years. More
No comments:
Post a Comment