As noted in previous memo Democrats got to Flake. If you can trust Democrats, that is an oxymoronic comment, then it is possible a week delay might drag a votes over from a few Despicables, to Kavanaugh. This raises a few points as to whether, if there are more gerrymandered accusations what about them? Do they have to be investigated as well? Second, Democrats are basically untrustworthy, as evidenced by the fact they arranged for the leaking of documents which blew away Ms Ford' anonymity. Third what happens after the FBI touches base? Will Despicables wnat to call them before the Committee?
Flake hates Trump. Did he conclude this would open Pandora's box as a way of sending the president a final hickey before he leaves the Senate?
Finally we have a thoughtful piece from Kim Strassel pointing out aspects of what a no vote could actually mean in view of Ford's, no evidence to back it up, charge. (See 1 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Israel and the nation's GDP has meaning. (See 2 below.)
And: US sends PLO message. (See 2a below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is Trump winning the Iran sanction challenge with Europe? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The Kavanaugh Stakes
A vote against the judge is a vote for ambush tactics and against due process.
By Kimberley Strassel
The Ford-Kavanaugh hearing consumed most of Thursday, and unsurprisingly we learned nothing from the spectacle. Christine Ford remains unable to marshal any evidence for her claim of a sexual assault. Brett Kavanaugh continues to deny the charge adamantly and categorically, and with persuasive emotion.
Something enormous nonetheless has shifted over the past weeks of political ambushes, ugly threats and gonzo gang-rape claims. In a Monday interview, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski noted: “We are now in a place where it’s not about whether or not Judge Kavanaugh is qualified.” Truer words were never spoken. Republicans are now voting on something very different and monumental—and they need to be clear on the stakes.
To vote against Judge Kavanaugh is to reject his certain, clear and unequivocal denial that this event ever happened. The logical implication of a “no” vote is that a man with a flawless record of public service lied not only to the public but to his wife, his children and his community. Any Republican who votes against Judge Kavanaugh is implying that he committed perjury in front of the Senate, and should resign or be impeached from his current judicial position, if not charged criminally. As Sen. Lindsey Graham said: “If you vote ‘no,’ you are legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics.”
The stakes go beyond Judge Kavanaugh. A “no” vote now equals public approval of every underhanded tactic deployed by the left in recent weeks. It’s a green light to send coat hangers and rape threats to Sen. Susan Collins and her staff. It is a sanction to the mob that drove Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant. It is an endorsement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who kept the charge secret for weeks until she could use it to ambush the nominee with last-minute, unverified claims. It’s approval of the release of confidential committee material (hello, Spartacus), the overthrow of regular Senate order, and Twitterrule. It’s authorization for a now thoroughly unprofessional press corps to continue crafting stories that rest on anonymous accusers and that twist innuendo into gang rapes. A vote against Brett Kavanaugh is a vote for Michael Avenatti. No senator can hide from this reality. There is no muddy middle.
The stakes go even further, to the core of this country’s principles. To vote against Judge Kavanaugh now is to overthrow due process. Contrary to Democrats’ claims, due process is not constrained to courts of law; it is central to employee discipline, professional standards of conduct, even evictions of tenants. It is owed to any individual in a civilized body politic. Under due process, the accuser has the burden of proof. Ms. Ford has not met the evidentiary standard even of a civil proceeding, the preponderance of evidence—yet this case is more significant than any that has been dealt with in a court of law for ages. How the Senate votes now will reverberate to all levels of society. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh is an authorization to renew calls for a Justice Clarence Thomas to step down. It is an authorization to derail the life of any white-collar manager or blue-collar crew boss who is ever subject to a single uncorroborated allegation.
And this is to say nothing of the federal judiciary. Democrats know that if Judge Kavanaugh goes down, Republicans will have no time to install a replacement before the midterm elections. The ultimate goal is to take over the Senate come November and keep the high court at a 4-4 deadlock until 2020, when they hope to regain the presidency, and then sway the balance of the court for a generation.
Extremely few cases come before the Supreme Court, and by definition each is monumentally important—on labor law, tort issues, environmental policy. A “no” vote on Judge Kavanaugh risks a three-year high-court impasse, which would put the circuit courts in disjointed control of national policy. If you are Lisa Murkowski or Jeff Flake, a “no” vote on Mr. Kavanaugh means putting the craziest of these circuits, the Ninth Circuit, in control of legal questions involving your state’s development and well-being.
Republican senators didn’t ask for this monumental choice—fair enough. Those demanding Ms. Ford be heard simply wanted a fair process. That has happened; she has been given every courtesy and then some. Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has worked with steadfast professionalism to investigate the claims of every other so-called accuser—despite crazy accusations, runarounds, delays, threats and obstruction. His committee majority has done its job.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"In the past 25 years, Israel’s economy has changed from a socialist command economy to a free-market economy and today Israel’s GDP per capita is higher than Japan’s."
The so-called “Oslo process,” is really two processes. The first was the Oslo peace process. It began with secret negotiations between Israeli leftists with ties to then-foreign minister Shimon Peres in Oslo, Norway, in 1993. It led to Israel’s recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the establishment of the PLO-controlled Palestinian Authority to run the Palestinian autonomy in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It also led to a seven-year attempt by Israel to make peace with the PLO.
The peace process, was the brainchild of the Israeli Left. It was predicated on the notion that without the PLO there can be no peace. And without peace, based on territorial concessions, Israel has no hope of surviving, let alone prospering.
The Oslo peace process failed in July 2000 when the PLO rejected peace and statehood.
The peace process, was the brainchild of the Israeli Left. It was predicated on the notion that without the PLO there can be no peace. And without peace, based on territorial concessions, Israel has no hope of surviving, let alone prospering.
The Oslo peace process failed in July 2000 when the PLO rejected peace and statehood.
The failure of the Oslo peace process was followed quickly with the initiation of the Oslo terror war by the PLO-PA and its partners in Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Its goal was to demoralize Israeli society and foment a collapse of Israel’s national will to reject the PLO’s maximalist demands, which in turn would lead to the eventual destruction of Israel.
To a large degree, the Oslo war ended in 2004 when Israel secured its control over the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria and killed Hamas’s senior leadership in Gaza.
The Israeli Left never accepted the failure of the Oslo peace process. And the PLO-PA never abandoned its efforts to destroy Israel – in the name of peace and justice.
The refusal of both the Israeli Left and the PLO-PA to own up to the failure of both Oslo processes, has engendered a strange symbiotic relationship between the two sides. No, of course the Left hasn’t joined or supported the PLO-PA’s terror war. To the contrary. There is little if any distinction in the positions of the Israeli Left and Right on the need to defeat Palestinian terrorism.
What the Left and the PLO-PA do share is an assessment of who is to blame for the absence of peace. Never accepting that the PLO-PA was disingenuous in its expressions of peaceful intentions, the Israeli Left has looked elsewhere for culprits to blame the Oslo peace process’s failure. Its chosen culprits have always been the Israeli Right and their American supporters. The PLO-PA for its part, has always happily agreed with the Israeli Left’s indictments.
The symbiosis between the two parties was very much in evidence in an interview Maariv’s Ben Caspit published last Friday with Saeb Erekat, PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s right-hand man and the chief Palestinian negotiator for peace talks with Israel.
The interview was both noteworthy and unoriginal. It was noteworthy because both men knew precisely whom to blame for the absence of peace – US President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Erekat went straight for the kill and accused Trump of committing “genocide” against the Palestinians. How is Trump committing mass murder?
By ending US funding of two Palestinian hospitals in east Jerusalem.
As for Netanyahu, according to Erekat, Netanyahu “killed Rabin.” Once Netanyahu was done murdering his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin, according to Erekat, he proceeded to “kill the idea of peace. [He killed] the attempt to create a culture of peace.”
Caspit for his part, was far less extreme. But he shared Erekat’s basic conceits. In an attempt to convince his readers that we need to take heed of Erekat’s words, Caspit expressed scorn for Trump.
“Even after Trump is consigned to history and leaves behind his presidential library of pornography, they [the Palestinians] and us, we remain here together,” he wrote.
Caspit then attacked the normal Israeli suspects. He accused “the Israelis, particularly the Israeli Right of preparing themselves for the coming of the messiah,” in the face of Trump’s friendship.
While Erekat didn’t attack the Israeli public specifically, his demonization of Netanyahu was instrumental. Netanyahu after all did not seize power by force. He was elected prime minister four times. And in the next elections, he is expected to win a fifth term.
Erekat claimed that Netanyahu killed peace by rejecting the PLO’s demand to base all negotiations on the 1949 armistice lines. But Netanyahu isn’t a free agent when he rejects this demand. He is the loyal representative of the Israeli people, which keeps electing him.
This begins to bring us to the reason that the Oslo peace process was rejected and the reason the Oslo war also failed.
Both of these initiatives were launched first and foremost against the Israeli people.
From the time the Rabin-Peres government unveiled the Oslo peace process in late August 1993, until today, at its heart is an assumption that rejects the foundations of Zionism and Jewish identity more generally.
The Oslo peace process assumed that Israel’s prosperity, its survival and its morality were functions of its willingness and its success in making peace with the PLO by appeasing it. That assumption gave Yasser Arafat, Abbas and their comrades veto power over Israel’s success and survival. After all, it was up to them to decide if Israel gave enough.
Zionism and Jewish national identity have always placed the power to determine the fate of the Jewish people, its survival and its success on the Jews themselves. Jewish national identity has never been defined by other nations. It has always been defined by the Jews themselves.
Over the years, since the peace process failed, one of the things that the Israeli Left has been hard pressed to comprehend has been Israel’s high rankings on happiness indexes. Most recently, ahead of Rosh Hashanah, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported that 89% of Israelis say they are happy and satisfied with their lives.
This report, like all of its many predecessors, plunged the Israeli Left into a fit of despair. How can Israelis be happy when there’s no peace, nor even a peace process? How can Israelis be happy when the Palestinians in Gaza and Judea and Samaria reject them?
The explanations are always forthcoming. Then-secretary of state John Kerry said in 2014 that Israel’s economic prosperity – which was supposed to only come after peace was achieved – has made Israelis too rich to care about the Palestinians.
The problem with that view is that in the CBS’s 2002 survey – taken at the height of Israel’s economic recession and the darkest moments of the Oslo war – 83% of Israelis said they were happy and satisfied with their lives in Israel.
Israeli commentators like Ron Ben-Yishai have argued that the constant wars and security threats have strengthened social cohesiveness and unity, which serve ironically as the foundations for happiness. The problem with this view is that happiness levels rise both when Israel is at war and when the security situation is stable.
The reason Israelis are so happy – despite Oslo’s failure – is unquestionably tied to the basic reason that the Oslo peace paradigm never won the sustained support of a majority of Israelis.
Israelis are a dynamic people. In the quarter-century since the handshake on the White House lawn, Israeli society has been transformed in every sphere. The percentage of Israelis with an academic degree rose to 47% from 20% between 1990 and 2012.
In the past 25 years, Israel’s economy has changed from a socialist command economy to a free-market economy and today Israel’s GDP per capita is higher than Japan’s. Israel’s annual GDP overall will likely reach a half trillion dollars within a decade.
Israel’s fertility rates dwarf those of every Western country. Unemployment is at record lows.
All of this occurred as the Palestinians under the PLO have been robbed of their wealth by kleptocratic terrorists who run their autonomous governments like mafia bosses. To excuse their failures and mask their crimes, the PLO tells the Palestinians to blame their misfortune on the Jews and exhorts them to murder Jews at every opportunity.
One of the central narratives repeated ad nauseam over the past 25 years by the PLO and Israeli leftists alike is that the PLO is the only moderate and secular group in Palestinian society. If Israel fails to support it, then Israel will be forced to fight a war with Islam. In his interview with Erekat, Caspit gave prominent voice to this contention.
This would be an important insight, if were true. But there isn’t.
Sunday morning, Khalil Jabareen, a 16-year-old from south of Hebron plunged a knife into 45-year-old Ari Fuld’s back outside a supermarket at Gush Etzion junction. Why did he do it? Secular, moderate Abbas.
Monday, Bassem Tawil reported at the Gatestone Institute’s website that, last Saturday – the day after Caspit’s interview with Erekat was published, Abbas gave a speech to the PLO’s Executive Committee in Ramallah. There the “secular, moderate” leader accused Israel of plotting to permit Jews to pray at al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
Abbas provided no proof for his utterly false allegation. He did say that he is working with the Jordanian government to submit a complaint against Israel for its evil plot before the International Criminal Court at The Hague.
According to Tawil, the pan-Arab and Palestinian media picked up Abbas’s remarks immediately. They were the top story on the Hamas and Islamic Jihad websites.
After Jabareen murdered Fuld, the Palestinian media claimed that he killed him to defend al-Aqsa. In other words, Abbas got Jabareen to go hunting for Jew to kill. Abbas killed Fuld.
Erekat warned Caspit that at his speech before the UN General Assembly next Thursday, Abbas is planning to make a dramatic statement that will effectively burn down what’s left of the peace process. Caspit, for his part, warned his readers that we need to be very concerned that Abbas will follow through with his threat to dismantle the PA.
His warnings failed to alarm the public. And rightly so.
Fuld’s grotesque murder was just one more reminder that Oslo was wrong on all counts. The PLO was never interested in peace. And Israel’s right to exist, like its success, its security and its prosperity were never in the hands of anyone but the people of Israel.
The people of Israel’s rejection of Oslo’s central premise – that our happiness and success are in the PLO’s hands – and our insistence on carrying on and building their lives and country even in the face of massive suffering and persecution is a testament to two things: the absurdity of Oslo’s central assumption, and the resilience and strength of the Jewish people and Israeli society.
Israel defeated Oslo not by going to war against it, per se. Israel survived the Oslo peace process and defeated the Oslo war by remaining true to itself.
2a) US to PA: Change Your Destructive Policies or Lose American Support By Jason Greenblatt
Thank you to all of the countries assembled here today who have dedicated significant time and resources to this critical issue. For years, many of you mustered financing for programs investing in the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. Your people and governments saw a need and rallied to help. This has been a noble effort.
But here we are again at the AHLC in New York City. Six months have passed since our last meeting, and unfortunately, the AHLC’s well-intentioned efforts have not changed the downward trajectory of Palestinian lives and futures. Decades of work, billions of dollars, euros, shekels, and dinars donated, yet life continues to get worse in Gaza.
Gaza is becoming more and more impoverished, as Palestinians there contend with failing infrastructure and poor governance. Hamas has driven Gaza to a state of utter desperation. Each year Hamas takes the population of Palestinians living there further and further away from the potential for a better life.
The West Bank has fared better, but efforts there are constrained by Palestinian Authority leaders who refuse opportunities to build the economy due to an anti-normalization prejudice towards doing business with Israelis. Such policies only harm the Palestinian people, leave them further and further behind, and cost donor countries more and more money. The Trump administration has closely watched the PA leadership thwart economic improvement for Palestinians in the West Bank and directly challenged them to change their destructive policies or lose American support.
It is time to look at the situation realistically. We could continue the same pattern for years to come, but that would be folly. Clearly, none of our financial assistance is getting Israelis and Palestinians closer to a solution. Each of our countries have limited assistance available to provide to Palestinians.
When it comes to aid from the United States, we have determined that under current conditions, our aid could provide more benefit to other parts of the world.
We must all ask ourselves why we should keep struggling to raise money when everyone can plainly see the Hamas regime and the PA are squandering the opportunities our money provides for a better future for Palestinians.
In reviewing our foreign assistance, among the factors that the Trump Administration considers are: (1) how does the United States advance its interests with the use of its hard earned tax dollars for such aid and (2) is this an effective use of such tax dollars? Said plainly – are we seeing the intended results? In terms of Palestinian aid, the answer is, “definitely not!”
We cannot continue to provide aid year after year to areas whose leadership, for political purposes, thwarts our efforts to improve the economic well-being of Palestinians.
Palestinians are very smart, talented people – they are fully capable of improving their economy and their lives without giving up their political aspirations. There is an old philosophy that Palestinian economic cooperation with Israel, which would lead to an improved quality of life for the Palestinian people, must be avoided. This philosophy is based on the notion that such cooperation and improvement of Palestinian lives and their economic situation would cause apathy for Palestinians’ national aspirations. This old philosophy- the anti-normalization philosophy- has never worked, and it will never work. It is time for the Palestinian Leadership to recognize that reality.
Palestinians must explore all avenues of economic cooperation and improvement, including cooperation with Israel. The United States will not use the hard-earned tax dollars of its citizens to subsidize anti-normalization – a failed political philosophy. The PA can work with all interested parties, including Israel, to help all Palestinians thrive and prosper, and, at the same time, continue to advocate their political positions. The interactions between Israelis and Palestinians should not be limited to a small group of wealthy businessmen, laborers, and Palestinians who are fortunate to have been allowed by their leadership to work for Israeli companies.
Here, today, rather than rehashing history, let’s focus on realistic, current solutions. We have heard—many times—the standard talking points about the solutions to this conflict, but those talking points haven’t brought us closer to peace. Another hundred resolutions in the UN General Assembly won’t make the lives of Palestinians in Gaza more bearable.
Another hundred resolutions will be ignored by Hamas, which continues to hold the missing Israeli soldiers and civilians, who must be returned, and which indiscriminately launches rockets and flaming kites displaying Swastikas into Israel. Israeli families on the other side of the Gaza border will hope that flames don’t destroy their crops or homes. Israelis will continue to have only mere seconds to run for bunkers as sirens wail, hoping this isn’t the day they lose a loved one or someone will be injured or maimed. This situation is unsustainable for both sides.
We must focus on realistic ways forward. If Palestinian lives are going to be changed for the better, their leaders need to change their behavior. It needs to start with Hamas in Gaza. I will say it clearly: we will not fund a situation that empowers Hamas, an unrepentant terrorist organization. It’s that simple.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of hosting over 40 Palestinian teenage students at the White House who were attending the Kennedy-Lugar Youth Exchange and Study Program. I was so impressed with the teenagers that I met. I was particularly taken by the teens from Gaza- all with bright smiles, positive attitudes and great excitement for their year ahead studying in the United States. Based on how they spoke and their bright outlook, no one would ever know how much their families are suffering in Gaza right now. I am a father of six children. My heart aches for these teens from Gaza who left families behind who have to deal with Hamas’ oppression. But, I applaud them for their energy and optimism.
And I applaud their parents and families who let them travel so far away from Gaza, in terms of both distance and living conditions.
The United States remains committed to trying to help them, if we can figure out a realistic way to do so. We should not… we cannot… allow another generation of youth in Gaza to suffer the hopelessness caused by Hamas’ failures.
Americans are by our nature very generous and inclined to provide humanitarian relief. For decades we have sought ways to help the Palestinian people, but the Trump Administration will not reward provocations and violence. Insults and attacks directed at President Trump and members of the Administration will not help the Palestinian people. While some may be uncomfortable with our direct, frank message, the United States will continue speaking directly and frankly because we must tell the truth. We do this because we care about the Palestinian people and their future.
We care about all Palestinians – those in the West Bank, those in Gaza, and those languishing in refugee camps who have been used as pawns in a political game, and who should have started new lives years ago.
We will not continue to invest in temporary solutions that only prolong the cycle of suffering and violence. We can see the trend across the world. Countries are speaking with their budgets – donor fatigue shows that the international community has reached the same conclusions – some of the donors just haven’t voiced them clearly yet or have been afraid to admit them out loud, publicly, the way most do with us in private. But, that time will come too. What I hear from other countries in private, will one day be said by them publicly. I am sure of it, because these financial commitments are simply unsustainable. They are unsustainable for the United States, a country of great wealth and power, and they are certainly also unsustainable for most countries sitting around this table.
We have had enough of the status quo. We have had enough of Hamas diverting funds donated by the generous, well-meaning countries sitting around this table, and using those funds for illicit activity. We have had enough of Hamas taking all of our and your generous donations to the Palestinians and then failing to provide even the most basic services – safe water, electricity and hospitals to those who they purport to govern.
I urge you all to join us in acknowledging this reality, and shunning Hamas as the terrorist organization it is.
I urge you all to join us in being direct and frank with the Palestinian Authority about charting a new, sustainable path – one that improves all Palestinian lives.
The United States is committed to seeking a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will make lives better on both sides and build regional prosperity.
We are working on a plan that both sides will gain more from than they give; a plan that is realistic, fair, and implementable. Neither side will like everything in the plan, but we are confident both sides will understand why we came to the conclusions that we did – if they are willing to engage. That is the key – leaders must have the courage to guide their people to a better future. We ask that they, and you, read the plan in its entirety when it is released, and then judge for yourself. It is our job – all of us who are serious about peace – to encourage the two sides in as positive a manner as we are able to.
You and the countries you represent here today must ask yourselves a very basic question: Which side do you want to be on- a force for positive change and the improvement of lives, or will you choose to align yourselves with a force for continued conflict, harm and loss. Although I can’t reveal today when we will release the plan, we are determined to do so, because Palestinians and Israelis deserve to read it, think about it, engage on it, and see if we can make it happen.
In conclusion, let’s stop focusing on tired talking points and throwing more money at the same things we have been doing since 1993. It is time to realistically evaluate what works and what does not. The AHLC was started to enhance peace by strengthening institutions and developing the economy of the West Bank and Gaza, but are Palestinian leaders doing all they can to meet these goals? Hamas and the leaders of the PA must unstick themselves from the past. We must focus our assistance on building the future, and we will work to offer Israelis and Palestinians, as well as others in the region, a future of peace where all have the opportunity to thrive. We hope we can count on you to support our efforts, and together we can achieve this complex, challenging, but very noble goal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)Europe’s Leading Companies Are Bowing to U.S. Sanctions
David Adesnik, Saeed Ghasseminejad
Corporate Europe is bowing to the pressure of Washington’s unilateral sanctions on Iran. The continent’s leading multinational firms, such as Airbus, Maersk, Peugeot, Total, and Siemens, are leaving a market many of them entered with enthusiasm after the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
The trickle of departures since Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal has made it difficult to appreciate just how dramatic the European divestment has been. To address that oversight, we have released a report that catalogs the efforts of 136 European companies to conduct business with Iran, including 38 firms whose annual revenues have earned them a place in the Fortune Global 500 rankings. (The study also examines almost 100 firms outside Europe.)
Our study identified 52 European firms that have clearly indicated they will cut ties with Iran. This includes 19 firms that are part of the Global 500. Since the full array of U.S. sanctions won’t return until Nov. 4, or 180 days after Washington’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal, many firms have kept quiet about their plans -- we placed 76 European firms in the “No Announcement” category. A mere six have said they will ignore Washington’s pressure, while two will continue to operate because they are covered by exemptions.
Remarkably, no European company in the Global 500 plans to defy sanctions. The one firm that tried, Renault, soon chose to back down rather than put itself directly in the U.S. Treasury’s crosshairs.
For the French automaker, the cost of leaving Iran will be considerable. Last year, Renault signed the largest foreign auto deal in Iranian history, a $780 million agreement to increase its annual production capacity from 200,000 to 350,000 vehicles. In June, Renault announced its plans to resist.
Yet just six weeks later, the firm admitted it would likely put its Iranian operations on hold. It may seem strange that a firm which sells no cars in the United States would surrender a valuable market like Iran. However, what leading multinationals all understand is the potentially crippling risk of being cut off from the dollar and from the U.S. financial system.
Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have had a more difficult time comprehending this fact. As part of their bid to save the nuclear deal, European governments have set up euro-denominated financing facilities to provide an alternative for firms dependent on the dollar. Companies’ interest was anemic. As a French official explained to Reuters, “When you’re an economic player and a multinational with interests in the United States that works in dollars, you have a choice and that choice is made quickly.”
The European Union also moved to activate a blocking statute that would theoretically forbid European firms from complying with U.S. sanctions. Yet the law cannot prevent the United States from cutting off their access to the dollar and to the world’s largest market.
Of course, the elected official who misjudged the power of unilateral sanctions most thoroughly was Barack Obama, who insisted that Washington would have minimal leverage in nuclear negotiations with Iran if the European Union lifted its sanctions. Thus, Obama explained in 2015, the United States had to make a deal quickly, lest the European Union grow tired of trying to isolate Iran.
In a sense, Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal represented a gamble that unilateral sanctions would be far more effective than his predecessor forecasted. If the United States withdrew and European firms ignored American threats, it would have exposed Washington as powerless and cemented the nuclear deal as the foundation of Iranian relations with the West.
Instead, Washington has shown its ability to put severe pressure on Tehran at a time when its currency is already collapsing and the Iranian people are protesting the corruption, mismanagement, and foreign wars that have left them increasingly impoverished. A little over a year ago, the rial was trading at 37,500 to the dollar. The regime has shut down the currency trade, but the dollar this week reached a high of 138,000 rial on the black market.
If Iran still refuses to accept tough and enduring restraints on its nuclear and missile programs, then the United States should campaign for Iran’s expulsion from SWIFT, the global financial messaging system that cut off Iran in 2012, condemning it to unprecedented financial isolation. This may lead to another showdown between Washington and Brussels, since SWIFT is a Belgian entity subject to EU law.
The odds still favor Washington, but the strongest message to Iran would come from a united U.S.-European front. This means the White House would have to temper its instinctive hostility to Europe, while Europe would have to acknowledge the deep flaws of the existing nuclear deal. Of course, the people of Iran may take matters into their own hands before Western leaders take action.
David Adesnik is director of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Saeed Ghasseminejad is a fellow. Follow David on Twitter @adesnik and Saeed @sghasseminejad.
Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD. FDD is a Washington-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment