Stratfor_ discusses the next step in Iran-US relationship.
Friedman has an optimistic view and a scenario which suggests Obama had this all planned Time will tell. . (See 1 below.)
New York Times op ed writer sees the Iran agreement as a good deal for Israel. (See 1a below.)
I understand the intellectual argument that Iran's day in the sun cannot be deterred for ever when you have nations that are more interested in commerce than standing up against tyrannicals.
In the case of Israel, Iran has sworn to wipe them off the map and this kind of talk cannot be ignored particularly when that nation 's leaders are moving in the direction of having the capability to do so. Relying upon Obama to protect Israel is not a reliable bet in view of his previous statements and actions which belie them.
Furthermore, being a day late in doing so, even if Obama responds, is a day too late. Israel has never asked any nation to do its fighting for them. Yes, they have sought equipment and weaponry but they are prepared to defend themselves. Israeli leaders simply cannot allow others to place constraints on their ability to defend its people.
New York Times op ed writer sees the Iran agreement as a good deal for Israel. (See 1a below.)
I understand the intellectual argument that Iran's day in the sun cannot be deterred for ever when you have nations that are more interested in commerce than standing up against tyrannicals.
In the case of Israel, Iran has sworn to wipe them off the map and this kind of talk cannot be ignored particularly when that nation 's leaders are moving in the direction of having the capability to do so. Relying upon Obama to protect Israel is not a reliable bet in view of his previous statements and actions which belie them.
Furthermore, being a day late in doing so, even if Obama responds, is a day too late. Israel has never asked any nation to do its fighting for them. Yes, they have sought equipment and weaponry but they are prepared to defend themselves. Israeli leaders simply cannot allow others to place constraints on their ability to defend its people.
===
Assad congratulates Iran for its achieved new status. (See 2 below.)
===
Krauthammer writes about a virus. (See 3 below.)
===
I believe they have a right to be. (See 4 below.)
===
Obama buys accolades, (See 5 below.)
===
Krauthammer writes about a virus. (See 3 below.)
===
I believe they have a right to be. (See 4 below.)
===
Obama buys accolades, (See 5 below.)
===
Dick
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Next Steps for the U.S.-Iran Deal
Summary
What was unthinkable for many people over many years happened in the
early hours of Nov. 24 in Geneva: The United States and the Islamic
Republic of Iran struck a deal. After a decadelong struggle, the two
reached an accord that seeks to ensure that Iran's nuclear program
remains a civilian one. It is a preliminary deal, and both sides face months
of work to batten down domestic opposition, build convincing mechanisms
to assure compliance and unthread complicated global sanctions.
That is the easy part. More difficult will be the process to reshape bilateral
relations while virtually every regional player in the Middle East seeks
ways to cope with an Iran that is no longer geopolitically encumbered.
Analysis
The foreign ministers of Iran and the six Western powers that constitute
the so-called P-5+1 Group clinched a six-month deal that begins the
curtailment of Iran's nuclear program while relaxing as much as $6 billion in
sanctions -- basically those embargoes that do not require U.S. President
Barack Obama to secure approval from Congress. Allowing Iran to enrich
uranium to "civilian" levels while making sure the know-how is not diverted
to military purposes will be complex.
There will be disruptive events along the way, but the normalization
process is unlikely to derail. Both sides need it. The real stakes are the
balance of power in the Middle East.
Iran is far more concerned with enhancing its geopolitical prowess through
conventional means. Meanwhile, the United States wants to leverage
relations with Iran in order to better manage the region in an age of turmoil.
Contrary to much of the public discourse, the Obama administration is not
facilitating a nuclear Iran.
Washington and the Middle East
The United States is prepared to accept that Iran will consolidate much of
the influence it has accumulated over the 12 years since the Sept. 11
attacks. From the point of view of the Iranians, they had reached the limits
of how far they could go in enhancing their geopolitical footprint in the U.S.
war against Sunni Islamist militancy. The tightening sanctions threatened to
undermine the gains the Islamic republic had made. Thus the time had
come for Iran to achieve through geopolitical moderation what was no
longer possible through a radical foreign policy.
Though the United States is prepared to accept an internationally
rehabilitated Iran as a major stakeholder in the Greater Middle East region,
it does not wish for Tehran to exploit the opportunity in order to gain
disproportionate power. The strategic focus must now shift from nuclear
politics to the imperative that the United States balance Iran with other
regional powers, especially the Sunni Arab states.
The post-Arab Spring turmoil in the region has plunged U.S.-Arab relations
into a state of uncertainty for two reasons: First, the autocratic regimes
have become unreliable partners; second, the region is seeing the rise of
radical Sunni Islamist forces.
A rehabilitated Iran, along with its Shiite radical agenda, serves as a
counter to the growing bandwidth of Sunni radicalism. All strategies have
unintended consequences. A geopolitically unchained Iran, to varying
degrees, undermines the position of decades-old American alliances in the
region. These include Turkey, Israel and the Arab states (the ones that
have survived the regional chaos defined by anti-autocratic popular
agitation, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others).
Washington is not the only actor anticipating a shift in its regional ambitions.
greater pressure on the Iranians -- much to the enjoyment of regional
states such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Though Paris has been eying the
Middle East -- specifically the Sunni monarchies of the Persian Gulf -- as a
larger potential market for its energy firms and defense exporters, France
stands to gain little from unilaterally opposing a U.S.-Iranian deal. Rather,
France sought to shape the talks and regional reactions to the benefit of its
domestic industries. Germany and the United Kingdom, the other EU
powers present at the talks, are hoping to gain greater exposure for their
energy firms and exports to Iran's large domestic consumer base.
Germany in particular enjoyed one of the largest non-energy trade
relationships with Iran before the most recent sanctions program took
effect.
Regional Reverberations
The United States and the rest of the P-5+1 are not the only ones
attempting to reset their relationship with Iran. Ankara, though initially
opposed to Iranian ambitions in Syria and competing for influence in Iraq,
has pursued a warming of ties with Tehran over the past several months.
Turkey is a rising regional power in its own right, but domestic infighting
within Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party is coinciding with a
slump in the national economy. Meanwhile, Ankara is struggling to find a
peaceful, political solution to its Kurdish issue. Turkey faces an uphill
challenge in moving beyond the ring of Iranian influence on its borders, but
a potential normalization of relations between Washington and Iran
provides some opportunities for Ankara, even at the risk of empowering
Iran's regional ambitions. The two countries face similar challenges from
Kurdish separatism in the region, and the Iranian market and potential
energy exports could help mitigate Turkey's rising dependence on Russian
energy exports and potentially boost its slowing economy.
For all its rhetoric opposing the deal, Israel has very little to worry about in
the immediate term. It will have to adjust to operating in an environment
where Iran is no longer limited by its pariah status, but Iran remains unable
to threaten Israel for the foreseeable future. Iran, constrained by its need
to be a mainstream actor, will seek to rebuild its economy and will steer
clear of any hawkish moves against Israel. Furthermore, Iran is more
interested in gaining ground against the Arab states -- something that Israel
can use to its advantage. The report about the Israeli security
establishment seeing the deal as a positive development (in contradiction
speaks volumes about the true extent of Israeli apprehension.
That leaves the Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies,
for whom a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement is a nightmare scenario. Riyadh
and its neighboring monarchies are caught in the middle of the Arab Spring,
which challenges them from within, and were long concerned with the rise
of Iran. But now that their biggest ally has turned to normalizing ties with
their biggest adversary, these countries find themselves bereft of good
options with which to manage an Iran that will gain more from normalizing
relations with the United States than it did with the American response to
the 9/11 attacks.
Iran has played a large and visible role in bolstering the beleaguered al
Assad regime during the Syrian civil war. Iran's potential reset in relations
will bring no easy or quick resolution to Damascus. The Syrian regime will
still face the daunting task of having to rout the rebels and secure large
swathes of Syrian territory, a difficult task even in the unlikely scenario of
a precipitous drop in Sunni Arab backing for the rebels following a more
comprehensive agreement between Tehran and the West. Indeed, the
Syrian conflict, Iran's support of Hezbollah and the future of Iranian
influence in Iraq will form the more contentious, difficult stages of U.S.-
Iranian negotiations ahead.
The Saudis, domestically at a historic crossroads, are trying to assert an
independent foreign policy given the shift in American-Iranian ties. But they
know that such a move offers limited dividends. Riyadh will try to make
most of the fact that it is not in Washington's interest to allow Tehran to
operate too freely in the region.
Likewise, the Saudi kingdom will try to work with Turkey to counterbalance
Iran. But again, this is not a reliable tool, given that Turkish interests
converge with those of Iran more than they do with Saudi Arabia's. Quietly
working with Israel is an option, but there are limits to that given the Arab-
Israeli conflict and the fact that Iran can exploit any such relationship. In the
end, the Saudis and the Arab states will have to adjust most to the reality
in which American-Iranian hostility begins to wither.
1a)Israel's Iran Dilemma By ROGER COHENThe era of traumatized alienation is over. The United States and Iran have embarked on a new phase in their relationship. It is marked by bilateral negotiations, handshakes, smiles, side-by-side flags and significant compromise, including United States acquiescence to a “mutually defined enrichment program” for Iran in any long-term agreement and an Iranian commitment that “under no circumstances” will it “ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” The six-month interim deal between major powers and Iran, renewable for a further six months pending a full accord (for a period to be defined), freezes Iran’s nuclear program about where it is — at a technologically advanced point short of militarization. But it fast-forwards American-Iranian relations and may thereby redraw the strategic map of the Middle East.
This explains Israel’s over-the-top “nyet,” its insistence that a deal heading off escalation makes the region more dangerous. Israel is the status-quo Middle Eastern power par excellence because the status quo cements its nuclear-armed domination. Any change is suspect, including popular Arab uprisings against despotism. As changes go, this U.S.-Iranian breakthrough is big, almost as big as an Israeli-Palestinian peace would be.
Just as the United States has had to adapt to a world where its power is unmatched but no longer determinant, Israel will have to do the same. With enlightened leadership this adaptation could strengthen the Jewish state, securing the nation through integration in its region rather than domination of it. For now Israel is some way from this mind-set. Its overriding prism is military. It was important that President Obama set down a marker, as he has through this deal, one that may spur new strategic reflection in Israel. (An Israel already alarmed by isolation is not about to embark on a Samson-like military strike against Iran.)
Let us be clear. This is the best deal that could be had. Nothing, not even sustained Israeli bombardment, can reverse the nuclear know-how Iran possesses. The objective must be to ring-fence the acquired capability so its use can only be peaceful.
This aim has been advanced through holding Iran’s low-grade uranium at current levels, eliminating or diluting 20-percent enriched uranium, stopping installation of new centrifuges, halting construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor and intensifying international inspection. In return, Iran gets sanctions relief worth about $6 billion to $7 billion. It gets to inch back toward the world, which is where the vast majority of its young population wants it to be and where the West has an interest in seeing it, because contact fosters moderation and isolation spurs extremism. As Obama said, “Ultimately, only diplomacy can bring about a durable solution to the challenge posed by Iran’s nuclear program.”
The strategic divergence between the United States and Israel is not merely tactical. The admirable John Kerry, whose commitment to this diplomatic endeavor has been exemplary, was not altogether frank on this point.
The United States has acknowledged that any lasting accord must concede a limited enrichment program to Iran. The agreement speaks, under an eventual long-term agreement, of an Iranian nuclear program that “will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT” — so putatively placing Iran in the same category as Japan or Germany, other signatories of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty with enrichment programs. Israel, to the contrary, wants zero Iranian enrichment and Libyan-style nuclear dismantlement.
The United States is prepared to conceive of an Islamic Republic fully reintegrated in the community of nations, with equal rights. That state of affairs is a very long way off. Iran will not swiftly shake off the suspicions its actions and (sometimes vile) words have aroused. Nor should it be allowed to. But Obama and Kerry are ready to entertain Iran’s rehabilitation.
Not Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to keep Iran down. “Push us down, that is all I hear when I listen to Netanyahu,” one Stanford and Harvard-educated Iranian businessman told me. He has a strong belief that drawing Iran closer to the world is essential, a strong dislike of the Iranian regime, and a strong sense of outrage at Israel’s contempt for Iran’s national aspirations.
Diplomacy involves compromise; risk is inherent to it. Iran is to be tested. Nobody can know the outcome. Things may unravel but at least there is hope. Perhaps this is what is most threatening to Netanyahu. He has never been willing to test the Palestinians in a serious way — test their good faith, test ending the humiliations of the occupation, test from strength the power of justice and peace. He has preferred domination, preferred the Palestinians down and under pressure.
Obama and Kerry have invited Netanyahu to think again — and not just about Iran. Nothing, to judge by the hyperventilating Israeli rhetoric, could be more disconcerting. Nothing is more needed. Cheap allusions to 1938 are a poor template for Israel in the 21st century.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)Assad to Rouhani: Iran nuclear deal boosts Tehran's
position in region, world
Syrian President Bashar Assad called his Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday,
congratulating him on theinterim agreement Tehran signed with the West over the weekend in regard to
its nuclear program.
According to Syria's official news agency, SANA, Assad hailed Rouhani's achievement as enshrining the
rights of developing countries to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. He added that the deal boosts Iran's
position both in the region and internationally.
Assad posited that the agreement would also positively affect Syria because of the close strategic ties
between Damascus and Tehran.
According to SANA, Rouhani reaffirmed to Assad his support in Syria's "war against terrorism."
Rouhani met with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on Wednesday, saying that the Syria
conflict “has no military solution, and the country’s crisis should be ended through serious negotiations,”
according to Iranian news agency, Tasnim.
In Syria, Iran is supporting the regime of Assad, while the Turkish government, led by the Islamist AK
Party, is supporting the Islamist opposition.
However, Davutoglu said during his visit to Tehran Wednesday that Rouhani would be visiting Turkey in
January.
The Turkish foreign minister and his Iranian counterpart Mohamed Javad Zarif issued a joint call
Wednesday for for a cease-fire in Syria ahead of peace talks between the factions in its civil war that are
scheduled for January 22 in Geneva.
Ariel Ben Solomon contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)An outbreak of lawlessness By Charles Krauthammer,
For all the gnashing of teeth over the lack of comity and civility in Washington, the real problem is not etiquette but the breakdown of political norms, legislative and constitutional.
Such as the one just spectacularly blown up in the Senate. To get three judges onto a coveted circuit court, frustrated Democrats abolished the filibuster for executive appointments and (non-Supreme Court) judicial nominations.
The problem is not the change itself. It’s fine that a president staffing his administration should need 51 votes rather than 60. Doing so for judicial appointments, which are for life, is a bit dicier. Nonetheless, for about 200 years the filibuster was nearly unknown in blocking judicial nominees. So we are really just returning to an earlier norm.
The violence to political norms here consisted in how that change was executed. By brute force — a near party-line vote of 52 to 48 . This was a disgraceful violation of more than two centuries of precedent. If a bare majority can change the fundamental rules that govern an institution, then there are no rules. Senate rules today are whatever the majority decides they are that morning.
What distinguishes an institution from a flash mob is that its rules endure. They can be changed, of course. But only by significant supermajorities. That’s why constitutional changes require two-thirds of both houses plus three-quarters of the states. If we could make constitutional changes by majority vote, there would be no Constitution.
As of today, the Senate effectively has no rules. Congratulations, Harry Reid. Finally, something you will be remembered for.
Barack Obama may be remembered for something similar. His violation of the proper limits of executive power has become breathtaking. It’s not just making recess appointments when the Senate is in session. It’s not just unilaterally imposing a law Congress had refused to pass — the Dream Act — by brazenly suspending large sections of the immigration laws.
We’ve now reached a point where a flailing president, desperate to deflect the opprobrium heaped upon him for the false promise that you could keep your health plan if you wanted to, calls a hasty news conference urging both insurers and the states to reinstate millions of such plans.
Except that he is asking them to break the law. His own law. Under Obamacare, no insurer may issue a policy after 2013 that does not meet the law’s minimum coverage requirements. These plans were canceled because they do not.
The law remains unchanged. The regulations governing that law remain unchanged. Nothing is changed except for a president proposing to unilaterally change his own law from the White House press room.
That’s banana republic stuff, except that there the dictator proclaims from the presidential balcony.
Remember how for months Democrats denounced Republicans for daring to vote to defund or postpone Obamacare? Saboteurs! Terrorists! How dare you alter “the law of the land.”
This was nonsense from the beginning. Every law is subject to revision and abolition if the people think it turned out to be a bad idea. Even constitutional amendments can be repealed — and have been (see Prohibition).
After indignant denunciation of Republicans for trying to amend “the law of the land” constitutionally (i.e. in Congress assembled), Democrats turn utterly silent when the president lawlessly tries to do so by executive fiat.
Nor is this the first time. The president wakes up one day and decides to unilaterally suspend the employer mandate, a naked invasion of Congress’s exclusive legislative prerogative, enshrined in Article I. Not a word from the Democrats. Nor now regarding the blatant usurpation of trying to restore canceled policies that violate explicit Obamacare coverage requirements.
And worse. When Congress tried to make Obama’s “fix” legal — i.e., through legislation — he opposed it. He even said he would veto it. Imagine: vetoing the very bill that would legally enact his own illegal fix.
At rallies, Obama routinely says he has important things to do and he’s not going to wait for Congress. Well, amending a statute after it’s been duly enacted is something a president may not do without Congress. It’s a gross violation of his Article II duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
A Senate with no rules. A president without boundaries. One day, when a few bottled-up judicial nominees and a malfunctioning health-care Web site are barely a memory, we will still be dealing with the toxic residue of this outbreak of authoritative lawlessness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) CNN Poll: More Americans Pessimistic About State of Nation
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Americans are becoming even more pessimistic about the state of the nation, according to a new CNN/ORC International poll released Friday, with more than half saying conditions are going badly.
The survey, conducted on Nov. 18-20 of 843 adults, showed that 41 percent believe conditions are going well, marking the lowest that number has been in a CNN poll since February 2012.
Meanwhile, 59 percent say things are going badly, a number up nine points since the last poll in April. The opinions were along a partisan divide, as well as a difference of opinion between younger and older people.
"There's a slight generational divide, with 46 percent of those under age 50 saying things are going well. That number drops to 36 percent for those 50 and older," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.
Americans are also pessimistic about the economy, the poll showed. Thirty-nine percent believe the economy is still declining, and just 24 percent believed a recovery is occurring. Meanwhile, 36 percent said they do not believe there is a recovery going on, but still think conditions are becoming stable.
The numbers were similar to those from a CNN/ORC International survey in October, when 59 percent predicted poor economic conditions a year from now, while 40 percent said the economy would be in good shape next year, marking the lowest level of optimism from the public in two years.
Partisan and geographic divides also came into play when it came to the economy. Forty-five percent of people who are 50 or older say the economy remains in a downturn, but 34 percent of people younger than 50 said the economy is declining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5)Group Receives $1.1 Million Grant to Gather Obamacare Success Stories By Leah Barkoukis Cancer patients are being dropped from their health insurance plans, the “keep your doctor” mantra touted by Obama turned out to be a lie, the website is a disaster, rising healthcare costs are making the Affordable Care Act not so affordable, and the list goes on and on. With so much negative Obamacare coverage in the news, it’s no wonder that one “nonpartisan” group has been given a $1.1 million grant to create a database of success stories (unlike, you know,these).
Over to you, Fox News:
As one would expect, the group is hardly “nonpartisan.” According to Capitol City Project, the group has close ties to the administration and Enroll America.
With all the negative press and one delay after another being announced, the administration would, I'm sure, desperately welcome such a database. After all, Obama recently said at theWall Street Journal CEO Summit, “We obviously are going to have to remarket and rebrand,” which he said would be “challenging in this political environment.” But the 'challenge' of doing so may have less to do with the political environment than with the law itself.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment