What is Going on Between NATO, Washington and Russia?

..

Just a few days ago NATO announced that Russia was no immediate threat to Europe. This was a dramatic turn in the anti-Russian narrative of the past few years. But it seems that the reversal did not emanate from Washington for the very next day Biden agreed with an ABC reporter that Putin was a killer. Why he would even entertain such a question is bewildering, are reporters setting international diplomacy now? 

Was there some mad scrambling from military contractors and weapons manufacturers horrified by what Stoltenberg implied? American oligarchs must keep the fear of Russia alive in Europe in order to soak them for billions of dollars in weapons. But it isn't just military suppliers who demonize Russia, many oligarchs are into it as the government sanctions almost everything Russia does as it is easier to compete with a company that is under severe sanctions. 

America seems oblivious to the expense, the pain, and even deaths that it causes to other countries as long as the USA gets the sale!

Playing politics with vaccines, like the US pressuring Brazil not to use Sputnik V,

made the world more unstable and cost lives

18 Mar, 2021 12:39

By Glenn Diesen, Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Twitter @glenndiesen.

Once again, the world has failed to unite when faced with a common threat. The response to the Covid-19 pandemic proves that much of the West, especially the US, is committed to bloc politics, no matter the real-world human cost.

It was revealed in the annual report of the US Department of Health and Human Services that the US government worked towards convincing Brazil to reject Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine. The South American country has lost control over its Covid situation and been plunged into chaos, with more than 280,000 deaths, yet vaccinating the population with a Russian formula was deemed to be an unacceptable victory for Moscow.

When everything is propaganda

The conflict between the West and Russia has securitised everything. Under the concept of “hybrid warfare”, any influence emanating from Moscow is considered malign.

We are told that the beloved Russian kids’ cartoon ‘Masha and the Bear’ is a propaganda initiative by the Kremlin, cultural exchanges are a delivery system for Russian influence, and any positive image of the largest country in Europe is a calculated and nefarious effort to ‘normalise’ Russia and divide the West.

‘Propaganda’ used to be defined as deliberately biased or misleading information intended to advance a political cause. In the age of imagined ‘hybrid wars’, the concept is widened to include any information or behaviour that could give a positive image of Russia. Thus, ‘propaganda’ is turned on its head, as it entails reaching the wrong conclusion.

The West often attributes its own actions to Russia. Its obsession with Russian ‘propaganda’ is evidently a projection, as its arguments and facts about the country must be adapted to predetermined and simplistic conclusions of good versus evil. Its fixation on Russia attempting to divide the West is also a projection. Does Russia have a relationship with any country in the world that is not problematic to the US and must not be fought tooth and nail?

The threat of a favourable view of Russia

As was evident during the pandemic, accusations of Moscow having used propaganda to divide the West included its having lent medical support abroad only to create a favourable image of the nation.

The pandemic could have had one positive aspect. Faced with a common threat to humanity, the world could have shifted focus away from zero-sum rivalry and worked towards a common good. Instead, political-media elites have consistently cautioned against allowing the shared struggle to soften views on Russia.

These vested interests express their horror at the politicisation of the pandemic, while, in the same breath, broadcasting the great geopolitical significance of pandemic diplomacy. The New York Times informs us: “It is very much in America’s national interest not to cede a critical ‘soft power’ advantage to autocratic rivals like Russia or China. Poor countries will remember who came to their assistance, and when.”

In the early stages of the pandemic, scepticism was directed towards Moscow and Beijing for sending masks, protective gear, ventilators and medical teams to Italy. The Russians, we were told, were using assistance to their fellow Europeans as a propaganda initiative to create political goodwill and thus reduce support for anti-Russian sanctions.

Nathalie Tocci, director of the strongly pro-Atlanticist International Affairs think tank based in Rome, accused Russia of exploiting the slow EU response: “Russia needs a quick win … It does what Russia always does, which is seize low-hanging fruit”.

When Russia sent military virologists to assist Italy, retired general Vincenzo Camporini, the former chief of staff of the Italian armed forces argued: “It’s very unpleasant that our tragedy is being exploited for propaganda purposes.” That “propaganda” was seemingly aimed at giving the impression of Russian altruism to distract from Russia’s real intentions towards Europe.

The BBC was alarmed that the virologists had been dispatched from the Russian military, and reported on concerns “that a Russian military mission had been allowed to operate within 50km (30 miles) of a US military base in a NATO member state”.

Playing vaccine politics

Once vaccines were developed, Russia was accused of spreading anti-vaccination propaganda to weaken the West – although this accusation was supported by misinformation rather than evidence. Meanwhile, great efforts in the West were made to undermine trust in a Russian vaccine.

After the effectiveness and quality of Sputnik V had been scientifically established, the political concerns about the scientific win being used for propaganda purposes was enough reason to reject co-operation with Russia. Sputnik V is supposedly not a solution to the pandemic but an instrument for subverting the West.

Subsequently, governments have been willing to let their own people perish rather than grant Russia a vaccine ‘victory’. Who knows, maybe tricking foreign governments to let their own people die for obscure political purposes was the real Russian propaganda initiative – as we are frequently reminded, Russians are sneaky and conniving.

Protecting the world from imagined Russian propaganda has also translated into slowing down the vaccination program in other states. The US’ efforts to convince Brazil to reject Sputnik V is hardly a unique instance. The president of the European Council, Charles Michel, expressed both geopolitical and ideological reasons for obstructing vaccination progammes: “We should not let ourselves be misled by China and Russia – both regimes with less desirable values than ours – as they organise highly limited but widely publicised operations to supply vaccines to others … Europe will not use vaccines for propaganda purposes.”

Russia is accused of attempting to divide the EU by exporting vaccines to its members at a time when frustration has grown over the EU’s own vaccination program. The Slovakian foreign minister, Ivan Korcok, believed it was necessary to identify the newly ordered vaccine as a Russian “hybrid war tool”. Hungary’s procurement of Sputnik V has been attributed to Prime Minister Victor Orban’s lack of commitment to liberal democracy. By contrast, the Lithuanian PM, Ingrida Šimonytė, expressed her allegiance to the West by reassuring it that her country’s citizens would not be administered the Russian vaccine even if it were to be approved by the European Medicines Agency.

Meanwhile, Ukraine imposed an outright ban on Sputnik V, irrespective of insufficient alternatives and having registered more than 28,000 deaths from the pandemic (officially, the real number is surely vastly higher). Meanwhile, Kiev’s Deputy Prime Minister, Oleksiy Reznikov, denounced Russia’s successful vaccination program in Crimea as “some kind of human trials with an unknown and uncertified vaccine”.

All this occurs at a time when Western governments are stepping up censorship to fight against anti-vaccination propaganda.

Increased polarisation

The pandemic has merely exposed how much the concept of ‘propaganda’ has been watered down. If Russia developed green technologies that provided a solution to global warming or discovered a cure for cancer, would that not also fall into the category of ‘propaganda’ in as much as it presents Russia in a favourable light? Could Moscow have contributed to resolving the pandemic in any ways that would not have been denounced as propaganda?

The sad conclusion we must come to is that the world failed to co-operate when it was faced with a common threat. Even worse, that shared challenge and the notion of uniting behind a cause was feared because it might soften the image of Russia and thus destabilise the ideological divisiveness on which Western power depends. The inability to co-operate when we are all in the same boat can only give rise to pessimism about the potential of future co-operative efforts.

Senator Buys (and Drops) Thousands in Defense Stock After Pushing Trump for Bigger Military Budget

The Military Industrial Establishment is not normally this sloppy.

That's why it's called Deep State!

Corruption is Everywhere - even in Washington

© Reuters / Gary Cameron

A Republican senator who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee bought thousands of dollars-worth of stock in arms manufacturer Raytheon after pushing the Trump administration to approve massive hikes in defense spending.

Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 of Raytheon stock last Tuesday – just days after news broke that US President Donald Trump had decided to back plans to request $750 billion from Congress for defense spending for the fiscal year 2020.

Citizens for Ethics✔

@CREWcrew

 1. Sen. Inhofe pushed for record defense spending

2. Inhofe bought tens of thousands of stock in a defense contractor

3. Inhofe’s office was asked about the purchase

4. Inhofe dumped the stock https://www.thedailybeast.com/sen-james-inhofe-bought-defense-stock-days-after-pushing-for-record-pentagon-spendingthen-dumped-it-when-asked-about-it …

It seems that Inhofe was personally involved in the decision to hike the defense budget, too. When Trump suggested last week that he wanted to downsize parts of the US defense budget, Inhofe met with him and Defense Secretary James Mattis – a meeting which seems to have successfully convinced Trump to back increases in defense spending rather than cutbacks.

Inhofe’s communications director, Leacy Burke, told the Daily Beast, which first reported on the senator’s stock buy, that his financial transactions are “handled by a third-party advisor” and that he was not aware of the stock transaction. Burke said Inhofe had told his financial advisor to reverse the transaction when he learned of it. “This means that the transaction was canceled before it was settled; the Senator never took ownership of it,” she said.

© The Daily Beast

The staffer also said Inhofe had written to his financial adviser instructing him not to buy anymore aerospace or defense stocks in future, given his position as the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee – but metadata on the letter provided by Burke showed that the letter was created less than 20 minutes after the Daily Beast contacted Inhofe’s office for comment on the stock purchase.

It appears that this was not the first time Inhofe owned stock in companies “within his direct legislative purview” either, the website reported. When he chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee between 2015 and 2017, Inhofe owned stakes in multiple energy companies.

The stock buy has raised ethics concerns, with experts saying it highlights the conflict of interest that exists when elected officials’ financial interests are tied up in industries they have control over in the form of enacting or stopping legislation.

Lawmakers are not allowed trade stock based on non-public information, but since the news of Trump’s defense spending request was already public, Inhofe’s short-lived Raytheon purchase would not have been classed as congressional insider trading, even if he had directed the purchase himself.

Still, one expert said the senator “likely has other nonpublic inside information, such as insight into what the final budget will look like and which industries stand to benefit.”

Dead & Duct-Taped Saudi Sisters Found on Banks of Hudson Could Be… a Suicide?

The Farea sisters. © AFP / NYPD

Two Saudi sisters found dead and duct-taped together on the banks of New York’s Hudson River were seen praying near the water hours before their bodies were found, in a baffling case that police say shows no signs of foul play.

The sisters, Rotana Farea (22) and Tala Farea (16) were discovered on October 24 on the banks of the river, having gone missing two months previously from Fairfax, Virginia, where they lived with their family. So far, the investigation has revealed that the sisters traveled from Washington DC to Philadelphia, before arriving New York City on September 1.

At a press conference on Friday, police said they had "no credible information” that any crime took place, but confirmed that their probe is ongoing. Investigators tracked the girls’ last movements using credit card records, which showed that they had “maxed out” a card staying in a number of “high end” hotels in New York, where they ordered meals for two people every day in the days leading to their deaths.

The sisters were found tied face-to-face with duct tape at the waist and feet, were fully clothed and their bodies showed no obvious signs of trauma, which likely rules out a theory that they could have jumped together from the George Washington Bridge.

Some kind of suicide is still a leading theory in the sisters’ deaths, however. Water found in their lungs made it “entirely credible” that they entered the water while still alive.

Applied for political asylum

The baffling case took on an added air of mystery when it was revealed that the sisters’ mother told police that she had received a phone call from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington DC the day before the sisters were found. During the call, a Saudi embassy official instructed her family to leave the US, due to the fact that her daughters had applied for political asylum, she claimed.

Police also revealed that a man who frequently exercises along the riverbank told them that he had seen the girls sitting about 30 feet apart in a playground with their heads in their hands and making “praying” noises on the same day that they were later found dead – an image that the witness said has been "haunting" him since.

Tala and Rotana moved to the US with their mother in 2015. Rotana had been enrolled at George Mason University but left in the spring.

Physical abuse

The two had previously been placed in a shelter after another disappearance in 2017, reportedly asking police not to reveal their location. On Friday, police confirmed that reports of physical abuse within the family had been made at that time, but did not elaborate.

Sources in Virginia who were not family members told the police that the sisters had said they would rather harm themselves or commit suicide than return to Saudi Arabia.

According to some media reports, 16-year-old Tala had reportedly been offered a place at a top school in Saudi Arabia but desperately did not want to go.

The Saudi consulate in New York said it had "appointed an attorney to follow the case closely,” while the Saudi embassy in Washington contacted the family and “extended its support and aid in this trying time.”

It certainly appears the family was preparing to return to Saudi Arabia and the girls were prepared to accept death rather than that. What a shame!

Venezuelan Parliament Votes to Remove Maduro as President

Venezuelan parliament votes to remove Maduro as president,

claims he ‘abandoned’ office

Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro © Miraflores Palace / Reuters

Venezuela’s opposition-controlled parliament has passed a resolution saying President Nicolas Maduro has “abandoned” his post. The vote came despite a warning by the Supreme Court that it violates the Venezuelan Constitution.

A majority of the 106 deputies of the opposition-led National Assembly on Monday voted to adopt a resolution aimed at effectively ousting the Venezuelan president, declaring that he had “abandoned his post” due to his stewardship of the country’s stagnating economy – and calling for snap presidential elections. Prior to the vote conducted at the request of the opposition deputy Juan Pablo Garcia, MPs from Maduro’s own United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) left the room, El Nacional reports.

Although the Venezuelan Constitution does not give National Congress explicit powers to dislodge the president, the legislators say they acted in line with the article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution which stipulates that President “shall become permanently unavailable to serve” in case of “abandonment of his position, duly declared by the National Assembly.” Among other reasons are resignation, death, removal by Supreme Court and recall in a public referendum. 

"The most important thing is that [this measure] demands an electoral solution to Venezuela's crisis, so that the people can express themselves through the vote," said Congress President Julio Borges, who was pushing for the resolution to be approved since he assumed office on January 5, as cited by Reuters. The opposition argues that Socialist President Maduro, who succeeded his close ally, the late President Hugo Chavez, in 2013, neglected his duties as the country plunged into a severe economic crisis with constant shortages of basic goods reminiscent of the last years of the Soviet Union.

Maduro, meanwhile, has blamed the rampant inflation of the bolivar currency on a coordinated attack led by Washington.

Now that's just silly. Everybody knows the US would never interfere with the politics or economy of a sovereign country, right?

Ahead of the vote, the country’s Supreme Court issued a warning to opposition deputies, urging them to “refrain from continuing the procedure of declaration of political responsibility” against Maduro as it lies “outside [their] constitutional powers,” citing the court’s ruling from last November.

After the parliamentary vote ended in a sweeping victory for the opposition, the deputies began chanting, “Elections now,” reinforcing their calls for immediate presidential elections, ABC reports.    

However, Socialist Vice President Diosdado Cabello rejected the idea of Maduro caving in to pressure and complying with the National Assembly’s vote, telling a news conference: “President Maduro has not resigned and he will not resign.”    

Cabello stressed that Maduro and his party have no intention of recognizing the legitimacy of the controversial vote, instead labeling the National Assembly a “disobedient legislature.”

In late October, the opposition-driven National Assembly moved to launch impeachment proceedings, accusing Maduro of “constitutional violations” and ordered him to face MPs in a week’s time. 

The constitutional crisis was spurred by the decision of the electoral commission to axe a proposed referendum to recall Maduro, citing forged signatories. In their turn, the lawmakers then accused Maduro of staging a coup d’état by blocking the popular vote. 

White House Accused of Censoring French President Mentioning ‘Islamist Terrorism’

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with French President Francois Hollande (R) at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington March 31, 2016.© Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

The White House has been accused of censoring the French president at a Nuclear Security Summit press conference, after he used the term “Islamist terrorism” to describe the global threat from Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) which has roots in Syria and Iraq.

Both US President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande made remarks at Thursday’s meeting, which mainly focused on global terrorism. A video and transcript of the comments made were uploaded to the White House website. 

According to the Media Research Center, a self-described media watchdog with conservative leanings, the White House pulled the video shortly after publishing it online only to post it again but with some of the interpreter’s audio removed, reverting instead to Hollande’s French.

The audio in question was at the exact moment Hollande said that “Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq,” a phrase Obama has not used, which his critics have branded as “political correctness”.

The removed comments, as per the transcript, are in bold: 

“We are also making sure that between Europe and the United States there can be a very high level coordination. But we're also well aware that the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq. We therefore have to act both in Syria and in Iraq, and this is what we're doing within the framework of the coalition. And we note that Daesh [Arabic name for IS] is losing ground thanks to the strikes we've been able to launch with the coalition.”

Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz told Fox News that the "administration have been sound bound up by political correctness that they have refused to acknowledge what is it is we are fighting, refused to even name it."

"After every one of these attacks, the president does a national TV conference where he refuses to say the words 'radical Islamic terrorism,'" said Cruz. "Instead he lectures Americans on Islamophobia. Well, enough is enough."

The White House have denied the accusation of censorship, however, claiming that it was due to a “technical issue with the audio during the recording of President Hollande's remarks” that “led to a brief drop in the audio recording of the English interpretation.”

An updated video with the audio restored was then posted to the White House website and YouTube channel, with both versions now online.

Many of those commenting beneath the video have not accepted the “technical issue” excuse though with one user saying the White House had been “called out” while another commented that it was “a technical issue my ass.”

“You think so little of the public's intelligence,” wrote user kobee while user Jay Dillon wrote that it was a “treasonable offense”.

Clowns on the Republican Campaign Trail

There's probably a reason why this New York professor's article was published in Dubai, not New York; probably.

By Ian Buruma, Special to Gulf News

Donald Trump, the real estate tycoon and reality-show host, also known as “The Donald”, is unlikely to be the next president of the United States. He is loud, crude, ignorant about most things, and looks absurd in his puffed up blond comb-over hairdo. Even ardent Republicans have dismissed him as a “rodeo clown,” and his campaign as a “circus.” The Huffington Post covers Trump’s campaign strictly as entertainment news.

Yet for the moment Trump is leaving all his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in the dust. Even in US politics, which can be very strange, this is extraordinary. What explains Trump’s popularity? Are all his supporters “crazies,” as Senator John McCain, perhaps unwisely, called them?

Trump’s critics argue that he is playing to the basest instincts of disaffected voters, who hate foreigners (especially Mexicans), distrust bankers (or anyone with a higher education, for that matter), and still can’t get over the election of a president whose father was black. Trump, in the comedian (read clown) Jon Stewart’s words, is “America’s id,” or at least the id of a large number of mostly white, mostly older, mostly small-town Americans.

Now, all this may be so. But Trump is part of a wider phenomenon throughout the democratic world. Disaffected voters can be found everywhere, whether in the US, Europe, or India. But they are not only turning away from mainstream political parties and following populists who promise to clean out the corrupt elites from the centres of power; they also share a taste for political entertainers, or clowns if you like.

Beppe Grillo, Italy's opposition leader

Beppe Grillo, a real professional comedian, now leads the second largest political party in Italy. His aim is to overturn the country’s political establishment and upset the European Union by taking Italy out of the euro.

In a sense, of course, Italians already voted three times for a clownish figure as prime minister. Silvio Berlusconi, another real-estate billionaire, who began his career as a crooner on a cruise ship, was even more outrageous than Trump, as well as a master of the mass media — literally so, as he owned most of it in his country. As is true of The Donald, many people, especially men, liked him not despite his outrageous statements and behaviour, but because of them.

Silvio Berlusconi

A television comic named Victor Trujillo, but better known as Brozo the Creepy Clown, became the most influential political commentator in Mexico. In the Netherlands, not normally a country known for clownish politicians, the surge of populism was first led by Pim Fortuyn, a flamboyantly gay man who staged provocative, and always richly entertaining, public appearances. Again, his talent for shocking statements was an asset, not a hindrance. After his violent death in 2002, Geert Wilders, a former punk rocker with a pile of dyed platinum blond hair, shone brightest in the Dutch populist firmament.

Prickly hostility to elites

Apart from peculiar hairstyles (the balding Berlusconi has his head painted), the new populists have several things in common. Whether billionaires or not, they share a prickly hostility to so-called elites, from whom they feel socially excluded. Wilders and Trump, among others of their ilk, also play on popular anti-immigrant sentiment. Trump called Mexicans in the US “rapists.” Wilders wants to ban the Quran and stop Muslims from moving to his country. Wilders wants to stop the Islamification of Holland, Trump, the Mexification of America.

But this, too, is part of the same resentment against elites, who are blamed for allowing foreigners to arrive in the first place.

Geert Wilders

In Europe, antipathy to immigrants, or Islam, can quickly switch to hostility toward the European Union, which is seen as yet another bastion of entrenched elites. This is what Wilders and Grillo have in common.

That hostility arises from the 'entrenched elites' inability, or refusal, to see that the rising wave of Muslim immigrants will turn their countries into Islamic states complete with Sharia Law, within a few decades.

To include Wilders in the 'clown' list because he has dyed hair is a bit absurd. Or perhaps he is included because of his anti-Muslim immigration stand. That being the case it is more telling of Professor Baruma than Geert Wilders.

But I think there is a more basic reason why political clowns are doing so well. Many people are fed up with the professional political class. In the past, politicians of the left often came from the trade unions, while conservatives were rich businessmen or landowners. Social classes had their own interests, which were represented by parties divided by clear ideological differences.

Increasingly, however, people see no difference between politicians from one party or another. They are lumped together under such rubrics as “Washington,” “Brussels,” or “Wall Street.” This perception is exaggerated, especially in the US. The country really would be a different place under a Republican president, especially with a Republican majority in both houses of Congress. No kidding, what a terrifying thought, if either party were to dominate both houses and the White House.

But it is certainly true in many places that ideological differences have largely collapsed. Social democrats govern in coalition governments with laissez-faire conservatives. Neoliberalism reigns. More and more, politics looks like a rigged system whereby members of the same political class compete for jobs, rather than for the victory of ideas, or on behalf of larger collective interests.

Trumpism, then, or Grilloism, is a revolt against the professional politicians. Trump is not just trying to run against a Democrat for the presidency; he is running against his own party’s establishment as well. His supporters are disgusted with the compromises made in Washington between leading Republicans and Democrats. To them, bipartisan cooperation is not necessary to the governance of a large and diverse country; it is a form of corruption.

That is why they voted five years ago for Tea Party politicians, who preferred a government shutdown to a negotiated deal with Democrats. And that is why they are cheering for a showy loudmouth like Trump. But without compromise a democracy becomes ungovernable. The US is in grave danger of this now. Even though Trump will not become the next president, the populist damage has already been done.

— Project Syndicate, 2015

Ian Buruma is Professor of Democracy, Human Rights, and Journalism at Bard 
College, New York, and the author of Year Zero: A 
History of 1945

Why Saudi Arabia has Lost Faith in the US

Obama post retreat presser, alone!

By Kim Ghattas
BBC News, Washington

One key sentence in President Barack Obama's press conference at Camp David last week clearly illustrates the gulf between Washington and its allies on the Arabian Peninsula when it comes to Iran.

"We gave [our allies] our best analysis of the enormous needs that Iran has internally and the commitment that Iran has made to its people in terms of shoring up its economy and improving economic growth," said President Obama, when asked about concerns that Iran would use the money from sanctions relief for nefarious aims in the region.

Nowhere in there is the fact that the government of Iran has no obligation to tell the truth, nor that it has not wavered in the least on it's commitment to annihilate Israel.

He added that "most of the destabilising activity that Iran engages in is low-tech, low-cost activity".

It was just as well that Mr Obama gave the press conference on his own. The Gulf leaders had just departed after a full day of talks at the Maryland retreat or they would have had a hard time resisting a collective eye roll at what they perceive to be American naivety about Tehran.

As it pursues a nuclear deal with Iran, Washington has been trying hard not to adhere to the positions and fears of Arab countries vis-a-vis Iran.

At Camp David, the six countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council received assurances that Washington had their backs, with pledges about more military cooperation and hardware. But on the key issue it was hoping Washington would engage on - a regional strategy to contain Iran - it got little more than a suggestion that Gulf countries should ramp up on their own asymmetric challenge to Tehran's influence. Nothing can bridge what are essentially opposing world views.


Gulf Cooperation Council

Six members: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Bahrain

Formed in May 1981 against the backdrop of the Islamic revolution in Iran and the Iraq-Iran war

Security is a major issue for the GCC, but finding a collective formula that satisfies all member states is a challenge

Gulf leaders perceive the Americans to be naive when it comes to Iran

Riyadh has accepted that there is little it can do about stopping a nuclear deal, but it's gearing up to push back more forcefully against its arch-nemesis, as Tehran boasts of a new Persian empire with influence over four capitals: Beirut, Baghdad, Damascus and Sanaa.

Lebanon's former Prime Minister Saad Hariri was scathing on a recent visit to Washington about the administration's assertion that the money from the sanctions relief would go to "building bridges and roads".

Sounds like Hamas in Gaza, promising money would go to rebuilding Gaza City as they are digging in the sand for their next onslaught against Israel.

It's estimated that after a deal is reached and Iran is verifiably in compliance, Tehran would get access to at least $100bn (£64bn).

"I want to know how much of this money is going to Hezbollah," said Mr Hariri, whose political camp is staunchly opposed to Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia militant group backed by Iran, which has been fighting in Syria to help prop up President Bashar al-Assad.

American officials say the US cannot impose conditions on how Iran spends its own money.

Military edge

A UN official also recently estimated that Iran had been channelling as much as $35bn a year into Syria since the conflict started.

Earlier this month, Syria and Iran were discussing a $1bn credit line to help Mr Assad's government, the second credit line since 2013.

Arab countries don't see Iran's efforts to expand its regional influence as a low-cost operation, though it could perhaps be characterised as low-tech.

When it comes to a military edge, Saudi Arabia is billions of dollars ahead of Iran.

Riyadh is now trying to deploy its hardware in the face of Iran's asymmetric warfare and is looking beyond Yemen.

A senior Saudi Arabian official told me they were deeply concerned about the cash injection Iran would get after a nuclear deal.

When I asked him whether they were planning to make a move on Syria before a deal is reached, his response was a surprisingly forceful "Yes".

Former Lebanon Prime Minister Saad Hariri fears money from sanctions relief
may go to Hezbollah

Losing patience

Channelling his Saudi Arabian allies, Mr Hariri indicated that while replicating the Saudi military operation in Yemen was not an option in Syria, the kingdom had come to accept that the only way to get Washington more involved in the effort to push President Assad out was to take the initiative and hope the US followed.

After years of disconnected policies, Saudi Arabia is now working with Qatar, Turkey and Jordan to better coordinate their support for the rebels opposing President Assad, and this has quickly translated into significant gains on the ground in recent weeks.

The strategy is likely to tip the balance of power on the battlefield enough that Iran will agree to a political negotiation and push Mr Assad out.

Exerting real leverage on Damascus would require further action, and Washington has made clear it is opposed to an outright win by the Syrian rebels.

But it's unlikely anyone can micromanage advances on the ground - or that the Saudi Arabia has much patience left for Mr Obama's approach.

Just as the American president's pursuit of a deal with Iran upset the status quo that has prevailed in the region for the past three decades, Saudi Arabia's decision to go to war caused a further tectonic shift.

Saudi Arabia has never really gone to war in this way, and the jury is still out on how it is managing.

Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel described it as bordering on drink-driving.

But it's clear that Riyadh is test driving its ability to lead military coalitions and wants to be the new military power of the region.

Israeli Election Campaign Takes Mudslinging into the Theater of the Absurd

Israel is so pivotal in the geopolitical climate of the middle east, choosing the right prime minister is critical for the entire world. I sincerely hope and pray that it is not decided by the theater of the absurd.

By ISI LEIBLER
Jerusalem Post

Israeli voters should be considering the issues and debating who is best equipped to lead a nation confronted by extraordinary military, diplomatic, social and religious challenges. Yet what we are witnessing today is probably the most vulgar and demeaning campaign in the country’s history, in which the vast majority of politicians have descended to the lowest levels. The bulk of the media has heightened this by excessively exaggerating, personalizing, distorting and sensationalizing the issues.

Topping the charts for vulgarity have been the obsessive and primitive attacks designed to discredit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by portraying his wife as a resurrected witch from Salem.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

This was spearheaded by Meni Naftali, a disgruntled employee who is obviously being promoted by those engaged in the “anyone but Bibi” campaign.

His allegations of “abuse” include claims that Sara Netanyahu reprimanded him over issues such as providing milk in a bag instead of a carton. Oh my goodness, how could she?

The latest accusation, the so-called “Bottlegate” affair, alleged that Sara Netanyahu was “stealing” NIS 1,000 worth of bottle refunds a year, despite the fact that this was clearly a bureaucratic oversight rectified at her own initiative two years ago. Can anyone seriously visualize the Netanyahu family planning to augment their income by an extra 20 shekels a week from bottle refunds? Yet the sickening media obsession with this issue was infinitely more passionate than the shocking Yisrael Beytenu corruption charges.

The Prime Minister’s Office has also been accused of buying too much ice cream and even worse, purchasing higher quality ice cream. And the latest act of purported extravagance was the consumption of a bottle of wine a day, which was dubbed excessive.

We have also had “Bibitours” allegations of accepting disproportionate hospitality on a visit to the UK 10 years ago, an issue which had previously been raised and dismissed.

It is inconceivable that any other Western prime minister and his wife would be subjected to such a defamatory campaign. None of these bizarre accusations would reach the media in another country, much less serve as the main headlines of a number of newspapers day after day.

It clearly represents a concerted conspiracy to divert debate from the real issues and to depict Netanyahu as corrupt and avaricious. The worst feature of this vulgarity is that two newspapers have transformed these non-issues into screaming front-page headlines. Haaretz has a clear political agenda but one would have expected it to concentrate on genuine issues rather than seeking to exploit the lowest forms of populism by stooping to petty character assassination against a candidate and his wife.

But the worst is Yediot Aharonot. Publisher Noni Mozes has demonstrated that he lacks any semblance of moral compass. He has a venomous, histrionic hatred of Netanyahu, exacerbated because the prime minister is supported by Mozes’ principal competitor, Israel Hayom. Mozes has directed his employees to demonize Netanyahu, transforming his front page into a gutter, with ad hominem attack placards against Netanyahu and his wife. Yet the very same paper was shamelessly promoting Ehud Olmert as a future prime minister even after he was formally convicted in court. Yediot’s behavior is a disgrace to the entire Israel media.

I would be surprised if Washington isn't helping fund the opposition parties and even the newspapers. We know Obama hates Bibi, though he may hate all Jews; and John Kerry sees Bibi as the main obstacle to peace in the middle east. He has this hair-brained idea that Hamas actually wants peace. They don't, if they pursue peace at all it's to buy time while they re-stock their arsenal of rockets, and because they just want the borders of Israel rolled back so as to make it easier to invade.

The character assassination is being replicated by most of the political parties as standard electioneering.

But even worse is the effort to gain votes by seeking to discredit Netanyahu even when this conflicts with the national interest and undermines Israel’s global position.

Tzipi Livni

This has been the constant refrain of Isaac Herzog, Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, who have blamed Netanyahu rather than Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the breakdown in negotiations with the Palestinians. They have of course not proposed an alternative approach to the intransigent and duplicitous Palestinian leaders.

Likewise, they have condemned Netanyahu rather than US President Barack Obama for the toxic relationship that prevails between them. They have not said that they would accept Obama’s call for adopting the indefensible borders based on the 1949 armistice lines or accept US demands to freeze construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem on the grounds that these constitute settlements. Their crass and cynical attacks on Netanyahu’s visit to France were appalling.

But the most irresponsible act was their hysterical condemnation of Netanyahu for having agreed to address US Congress to alert the world of the tremendous dangers inherent in enabling Iran to become a nuclear state. Most Israeli politicians across the political spectrum are cognizant of the fact that Obama and most Western countries are desperate to make a deal with the Iranians, virtually capitulating to their major demands. While a nuclear Iran would pose a nightmarish threat extending ultimately to the entire world, for Israel, a nuclear Iran – which is today openly calling for its annihilation – represents an existential threat.

Under such circumstances, it was utterly irresponsible to accuse Netanyahu of insulting Obama for electoral benefit, and thus justifying the outrageous responses from the Obama administration. It also provides credence to those seeking to exploit Netanyahu’s address to Congress as a means to weaken the bipartisan climate which is of enormous importance to retaining the strong US-Israel relationship.

There are other bizarre aspects to the election. It is almost comical to observe Lapid, head of Yesh Atid, continuously, unashamedly condemning the government – in which he was finance minister – for having failed to confront and reform social and economic anomalies.

Isaac Herzog

Avigdor Liberman’s party, Yisrael Beytenu, has been on a downward spiral since the exposure of the extent of corruption at senior levels. He has been zigzagging, issuing alternating hawkish and dovish sound bites. During the flare-up with Hezbollah at the Syrian border, despite being foreign minister, he highlighted the dysfunctionality of his own government by condemning it for not being tough enough in its response. Realizing that his dovish outbursts have undermined his core support, he has now proclaimed that he would never join a left-wing government, in stark contradiction to what he had been saying a few weeks ago.

Likud as the governing party has been less on the offensive and has sought to debate issues rather than personalities. But it has accused Herzog and Livni of being behind Victory 2015 (V15), a group heavily engaged in lobbying for them, and raising of millions of dollars from abroad, including foreign governments, in contravention of election finance laws. They note that Herzog’s illegal fundraising for Ehud Barak was a scandalous fraud, that was quietly shelved in 1999 after Herzog invoked his right of silence to deter any investigation. Ironically, Livni, who at the time was a member of Likud, led the charge against Herzog in 1999. But then again, Livni, who is at the forefront of the “Bottlegate” brouhaha, was still willing to run with Olmert in the last election even though he was a convicted criminal.

Naftali Bennett, head of Bayit Yehudi, who was until recently riding a crest of popularity, shot himself in the foot by autocratically selecting Eli Ohana, a secular former football star with no serious political credentials, outraging all his party colleagues.

When some of his inner circle accused him of engaging in low-level populism and betraying the ideals of his party and threatening to leave, he was forced to back down.

What is needed in lieu of character assassination and crass populist demagoguery are basic facts to enable the public to assess and vote on the basis of which party can best deal with the following crucial challenges.

They should ask themselves: 

• Who can best handle the military and security challenges facing us? 
• Who is best able to turn the current anti-Israel global tide without making concessions that will undermine our security? 
• Who is best equipped to bring about sorely needed social and economic reforms that will enhance the quality of life for most Israelis? 
• Who is best able to resolve the issues of religion and state as well as be strong enough to resist haredi (ultra-Orthodox) pressure and bring about changes that will peacefully engage more haredim in the workforce and ensure that they share the national burden? 

Most Israelis have misgivings concerning the composition of the party lists they will be supporting.

Yet in our system, the prime minister will be assuming the key policymaking role. The most important question is whether it is Netanyahu or Herzog/Livni who is the most capable to lead our nation over the next challenging years.

One can only hope that despite the shameful media sensationalism, it is the issues – not bottle refunds or ice cream – that will determine how Israelis vote.

The author’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com