;
/"What difference does it make?" Actually, none!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHYi6jlUq4
and DUH!> http://youtu.be/sSUXTFceilo
====
Obama's true legacy will be the radicalization and destruction of America. (See 1 below.)
and
Iran drives one more nail into Obama's diplomatic victory coffin. (See 1a below.)
Meanwhile
ISIS can be defeated if the next president cares to do so. (See 1b below.)
===
Tobin on the sanctions. (See 2 below.)
and
This from a courageous Israeli Arab who is also a friend. (See 2a below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)
Obama’s Legacy: Trump and Bernie
How could have Obama’s policies not have produced Trump and Sanders?
Wonder Land Columnist Dan Henninger on what’s driving the Vermont Senator’s popularity in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Photo credit: Getty Images.
There is Barack Obama’s State of the Union and there is the state of the union anyone else can see.
The new year began with an underground nuclear-bomb test in North Korea, the worst first week for the Dow since 1897, and Iran forcing 10 U.S. sailors to their knees.
But the man delivering the State of the Union is “optimistic” because “unconditional love” will win.
Let’s get just one SotU venting out of the way before considering what Mr. Obama has wrought for his country and its politics as he turns into his final year.
It is beyond any conceivable pale that Mr. Obama would fail at least to note the 14 Americans gunned down in San Bernardino by committed Islamic terrorists, even as he stood there lecturing the country, at least three times, about not turning against others’ religion. In the past, he said, we have “turned toward God.” Ugh.
In fact, seven years of the Obama presidency have left the United States with a historically weak economy and a degraded national politics. The causal legacy of those two realities are— Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Mr. Obama said in his speech that the economy is producing jobs, which is true, and that it is “peddling fiction” to say the U.S. economy “is in decline.” Really?
The U.S. economy’s average annual growth rate since World War II has been about 3%. In Mr. Obama’s seven years it has been about 2%. Some 65% of people think the U.S. is on the wrong track. You can discover a lot about the wrong track in that missing 1% of economic growth, Mr. Obama’s “new normal.”
The president is correct that the economy is creating jobs, but an alternative view would be that he has proven it is not possible to kill an economy with a GDP of $16 trillion.
Here’s what the new normal looks like. The gold standard of new job creation is business starts. Indeed, Mr. Obama said his new online tools “give an entrepreneur everything he or she needs to start a business in a single day.” Perhaps not everything.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of business establishments less than one year old rose steadily from 550,000 in 1997, peaked at about 650,000 in 2006, and then has gone straight down. The Kauffman Foundation’s 2015 entrepreneurship report puts startups in 2012 at just over 400,000.
The Brookings Institution in a 2014 report noted that since 2008 businesses closing annually have exceeded startups for the first time. Their yearly analysis dates to 1978.
That relative decline has a price. More businesses being born than dying is where real jobs come from, not the government tooth fairy. This data is a portrait of an economy losing its innate dynamism. That’s the real cause of “anger” in the U.S. electorate.
We’re supposed to believe that long-term “structural” factors are causing these shifts. Maybe. And if you want to wail about income disparity, go ahead. But if so, it is the president’s job to get impediments out of the way. Instead, this presidency has created them.
For example, Kauffman’s report also notes that the rate of entrepreneurship among people age 20-34—who hire employees like themselves, new breadwinners—began dropping fast in 2011. The president said Tuesday that ObamaCare would help new-business formation. It is doing the opposite. Millennials, assumed to be the Obama base, have entered adulthood to endure a decade of slow growth.
The leaders of Communist China lie awake at night worrying about creating 10 million new jobs every year to prevent a revolution. The elected leader of the U.S. lies awake every night thinking about jobs making . . . windmills and solar panels.
And we’ve got a revolution.
People wonder what accounts for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. Maybe the better question is how the Obama years could not have produced a Trump and Sanders.
Both the Republican and, to a lesser extent, Democratic parties have elements now who want to pull down the temple. But for all the politicized agitation, both these movements, in power, would produce stasis—no change at all.
Donald Trump would preside over a divided government or, as he has promised and un-promised, a trade war with China. Hillary or Bernie will enlarge the Obama economic regime. Either outcome guarantees four more years of at best 2% economic growth. That means more of the above. That means 18-year-olds voting for the first time this year will face historically weak job opportunities through 2020 at least.
Under any of these three, an Americanized European social-welfare state will evolve because Washington—and this will include many “conservatives”—will answer still-rising popular anger with new income redistributions.
And for years afterward, Barack Obama will stroll off the 18th green, smiling. Mission, finally, accomplished.
1a)
Iran’s Hostage Triumph
The U.S. pays a steep ransom for the release of four innocents.
Now we know that Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian and three other Americans were hostages held by Iran in return for U.S. concessions, in case there was any doubt. And on Saturday we learned the ransom price: $100 billion as part of the completed nuclear deal and a prisoner swap of Iranians who violated U.S. laws. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps should call this Operation Clean Sweep.
The timing of Iran’s Saturday release of the Americans is no accident. This was also implementation day for the nuclear deal, when United Nations sanctions on Tehran were lifted, which means that more than $100 billion in frozen assets will soon flow to Iran and the regime will get a lift from new investment and oil sales. The mullahs were taking no chances and held the hostages until PresidentObama’s diplomatic checks cleared.
We’re as relieved as anyone to see the four Americans coming home, though there was no legal basis for their arrests. Mr. Rezaian had been held since July 2014 and was convicted last year of espionage without evidence. The other freed Iranian-Americans include former Marine Amir Hekmati, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Nosratollah Khosravi-Roodsari, a dual citizen whose detention wasn’t previously reported.
But the Iranians negotiated a steep price for their freedom. The White House agreed to pardon or drop charges against seven Iranian nationals charged with or convicted of crimes in the U.S., mostly for violating sanctions designed to retard Iran’s military or nuclear programs. Iran gets back men who were assisting its military ambitions while we get innocents. This is similar to the lopsided prisoner swaps that Mr. Obama previously made with Cuba for Alan Gross and the Taliban for alleged deserter Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
The U.S. didn’t resolve the case of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who disappeared in Iran in 2007. Iran claims it doesn’t know where he is. Iran also refused to release its newest hostage, oil-industry executive Siamak Namazi, who was detained in October and accused of espionage though no charges have been brought. Perhaps he’ll be held for some future ransom.
The Obama Administration also agreed to drop the names of 14 Iranian nationals from an Interpol watch list. Most notable is the CEO of Mahan Air, an Iranian carrier sanctioned for transporting members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards that is suspected of transferring arms to Bashar Assad’s regime.
The prisoner swap helps to solve the mystery of the Obama Administration’s December flip-flop on new sanctions against Tehran’s ballistic-missile program. The mullahs have twice tested long-range missiles in violation of a U.N. Security Council resolution since the nuclear accord was signed in July.
The White House in December told Congress that it was preparing sanctions against 12 entities allegedly involved in the ballistic-missile program, then abruptly dropped the idea the same day. The Administration never explained the about-face and denied that the delay was political.
But Reuters reported Saturday that the U.S. stood down after “Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif warned U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry the move could derail a prisoner deal the two sides had been negotiating in secret for months.” On Sunday, with the Americans home, the U.S. went ahead with very limited sanctions against 11 entities and individuals for procuring components for the missile program, but Iran has promised to accelerate its missile deployments in any case.
All of this shows that the nuclear accord is already playing out as critics predicted. The West will tread gingerly in challenging Iran’s nonnuclear military and regional ambitions lest it renege on its nuclear promises. Iran has again shown the world that taking American hostages while Barack Obama is President can yield a diplomatic and military windfall.
1b) ANALYSIS: Defeating ISIS Requires Simultaneously Countering Iran
But Levinson, like the hostages who were released, is mere collateral damage to an Obama administration that is besotted with the idea of Iran détente. While we share the joy of the families of those who have been sprung from captivity, we should never forget that the process by which that happy result was achieved was predicated on a series of concessions by which the U.S. abandoned each of its positions on Iran’s nuclear program. In October 2012, President Obama said in his foreign policy debate with Mitt Romney that any deal would mean the end of Iran’s nuclear program. Within two years that promise was reinterpreted to mean that Iran could keep its program, its most advanced centrifuges and research capabilities, never fully reveal the extent of the military dimensions of its work and that all restrictions on its activities would end in a decade. Iran would also not be required to end its ballistic missile production or cease its support for terror and threats to destroy Israel while getting a huge financial windfall that would strengthen its military and ability to use terrorism to advance its push for regional hegemony. In exchange for this, Obama was able to point to his hope that this forestalls the nuclear threat for ten years and eventually get four Americans released.
As for the new sanctions, they are better than nothing but still essentially meaningless.The appeasement that preceded this gesture speaks more loudly than anything the Treasury Department might accomplish now. Sanctioning the individuals involved in missile procurement does nothing to impede that program. Moreover, separating out such individuals is also foolish since the main forces driving this activity are the Iranian government and the Revolutionary Guard Corps that controls much of the defense and business establishment inside the country. Announcing the sanctions gives the impression that the U.S. is serious about holding Iran accountable. But their limited reach and everything that has preceded this day can only convince Tehran that it can do as it pleases. Whether that means further missile violations or illicit nuclear activity, it’s doubtful that President Obama has the will to do anything about it. In the coming years, as a result of Western largesse, Iran will grow stronger as the axis of its allies
Mohamed Dahlan (right), a former PA security commander in the Gaza Strip, is one of the major critics and rivals of PA President Mahmoud Abbas (left), and hopes to succeed him in the presidency. (Image: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)
1b) ANALYSIS: Defeating ISIS Requires Simultaneously Countering Iran
Two Very Different Dangers
ISIS and Iran detest each other, but they share many goals and methods. Both are stridently anti-Western and aim to upend the few remaining stable states in the Middle East—Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies—in the name of a radical and theocratic version of Islam. Both employ and facilitate terrorism, either directly (as does ISIS) or directly and through proxies such as Hezbollah, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Iraq’s Shia militias (as in Iran’s case). Yet closer inspection reveals that the overall dangers that Tehran and ISIS pose for the United States, Europe, and Israel are of strikingly different magnitudes: Tehran resembles an undefeated heavyweight champion with years of experience who is eying the world title, while ISIS is more akin to an upstart middleweight fighter who has scored some surprising upsets but whose long-term viability in the ring is questionable. A few examples illustrate the differences:
- Iran has a population of over 80 million and the resources of an industrialized state with advanced military, nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. In comparison, over the past six months ISIS has lost about a third of the land it once held and now controls no more than five million people living in largely underdeveloped and impoverished parts of Syria and Iraq.
- Iran is governed by an unchallenged Supreme Leader who is patiently implementing a sophisticated long-range anti-Western and anti-Israel foreign policy agenda. In comparison, ISIS is run by a fractious coalition of Jihadists, Sunni tribes, and ex-Ba’athists whose long-range planning is in part linked to hopes for a millennial “end of days” cataclysmic confrontation with the West.
- Iran boasts a military of over 500,000 men, including the well-trained Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which trains and leads tens of thousands of terrorists and irregulars in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. In comparison, ISIS has at best 100,000 lightly equipped fighters, and has suffered severe losses recently battling in Kobane, Ramadi and Sinjar.
- Iran asserts control in four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sana’a. In comparison, ISIS is largely limited to the Sunni hinterland of Iraq and Syria; the extent to which it actually controls its small “franchises” in Libya, Sinai, Yemen, and elsewhere is unclear.
- The Iran-Hezbollah-Assad troika is responsible for roughly eight times as many dead Syrians as ISIS. Furthermore, according to a survey of 900 Syrian refugees in five German cities, 70 percent of Syrian refugees blame Assad—not ISIS—for their exodus. The sponsor of the poll concluded that it showed that “the battle against ISIS terrorism will not solve the [refugee] problem."
None of this is meant to suggest that ISIS does not pose a serious challenge to America, Western Europe, and Israel. ISIS has shown in Paris and San Bernardino that it is not satisfied with attacking the “near enemy” (neighboring Muslim states) but is determined to assault the “far enemy” (the West) as well. The issue is not whether the West needs to defeat ISIS, but how best to eliminate this peril while continuing to confront the even more significant long-term risks posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Not Either/Or but Both
This quandary is less difficult to resolve than it seems, primarily because maintaining pressure on Iran provides the West with its best hope to assemble the moderate Sunni coalition required to defeat ISIS. Europe and the United States can contribute training, air support and special operations assistance in the fight against ISIS, but the task of liberating its Sunni strongholds belongs to the many anti-ISIS Sunni tribes and opposition groups in Iraq and Syria, helped by moderate Sunni states such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates. These Sunni forces, however, will be understandably reluctant to fully cooperate with the United States against ISIS if they conclude that Iran, Assad, and radical Shia might be the ultimate beneficiaries of their sacrifices. Many moderate Sunnis, for example, deplored the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq not because they supported Saddam Hussein, but because they feared that Washington was delivering Baghdad to Tehran on a silver platter.
More recent events in Iraq and Syria underscore the centrality of combining both anti-Iran and anti-ISIS strategies. During the 2007-2008 “surge” of U.S. forces in Iraq, Sunni tribes joined the fight against Jihadist terrorism only when convinced that Washington would restrain the Shia-dominated and Iranian-influenced Baghdad government and defend Sunni interests in territories liberated from ISIS’s predecessor. Likewise, America recently encouraged Baghdad to reconquer Ramadi with a mixed Shia-Sunni Iraqi army counterterrorism force (aided by Sunni tribal irregulars) and to forego Iran-controlled Shia militias, lest the city’s Sunni inhabitants conclude that exchanging ISIS’s control for Baghdad’s amounted to going from the frying pan into the fire. The same logic applies to Syria: the Sunni majority there will not turn decisively against ISIS (and other radical jihadists such as Jabhat al-Nusra) until satisfied that Iran and Assad will not reap the rewards.
Nothing could damage the struggle against ISIS and the quest to stabilize pro-Western Sunni regimes in the Middle East more than for the West to suspend its efforts to contain Iran and depose its ally Assad in the misguided belief that it cannot fight on two fronts at once. Even worse would be the appearance of an informal U.S.-European alliance with Tehran and Damascus against radical Sunni Jihadism. This would almost certainly rally much of the Sunni population in Syria and Iraq to ISIS’s side and trigger a mass withdrawal of moderate Sunni states from Washington’s anti-ISIS coalition. We can, however, avoid these perils if we understand that anti-ISIS and anti-Iran operations reinforce each other. With patience, perseverance and resolve America can, in time, achieve both critical objectives.
=================================================================================
2)
he Sanctions Bait and Switch
On Sunday morning with American hostages on their way home, President Obama hailed the new era of diplomacy with Iran that he has brought into being as being responsible for their freedom. He’s right about that though it might also be added that their imprisonment and exorbitant ransom is also the product of his détente policy. But, as if putting a fig leaf on a negotiating process that reaped enormous rewards for Iran while giving the United States little in return, he also noted that the administration was imposing new sanctions on the Islamist regime. The sanctions are limited to 11 entities and individuals involved in procuring the missiles for Tehran. They are also a mere pinprick compared to the more comprehensive sanctions that are being lifted today as the nuclear deal goes into effect. If it is as the president says, “a good day,” that is only true for the hostages and the Iranians. From the point of view of the interests of America and its allies, it is a terrible day.
The belated imposition of the missile sanctions was clearly part of the administration’s efforts to avoid antagonizing Iran. The release of the hostages was clearly linked to the lifting of the international sanctions that were part of the nuclear deal. But, as they have during the three years of talks that led up to this moment, the Iranians stood their ground and drove a hard bargain. No Americans would go free until the Iranians were paid off in the form of more than $100 billion in unfrozen funds and countless billions more that will accrue to them once the floodgates are opened for business to pour in. As our Michael Rubin wrote earlier today, the administration has incentivized hostage taking. Just as tellingly, the Iranians only paid off in the hostages whose whereabouts were already known. Nothing was heard today in Washington or Tehran about ex-CIA contractor Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007 and is believed to be the longest-held hostage in U.S. history. It is inconceivable that the Islamist regime has no idea of where he is or what his fate might be.
All of which means that the issue of how the next administration will treat Iran is vital not only to the security of the United States but to that of the entire world.
Though some of the candidates have talked tough about Iran, no one should labor under the delusion that reversing Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement will be as easy as issuing a statement on their first day in office.
Likely Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton says she wants to hold Iran accountable and, to her credit, even mentioned Levinson’s fate today. But as a key member of Obama’s foreign policy team, she has zero credibility on the issue. Once in office she will be wedded to the nuclear deal and isn’t likely to do anything to disrupt it or start rolling back Iran’s gains around the region.
As for the Republicans, all denounce the deal, but the idea that it can be renegotiated (as Donald Trump imagines) or be effectively rolled back without a major commitment to defeating terrorist forces on the ground in the region (as some like Ted Cruz seem to think) or without the help of U.S. allies that have been allowed to check out on the struggle with Tehran, is short-sighted.
This is a gloomy prospect that U.S. allies like Israel and the Arab governments that are equally afraid of Tehran, can only view with dismay. Though Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said today his country will “monitor Iran,” that is more of a wish than a plan. Without a U.S. government completely committed to combating Iran’s push for hegemony and post-deal nuclear plans, there is little that Israel will be able to do on its own.
In other words, today’s minimal sanctions may be just the start of a new era of pretend accountability for Iran that will end only when the world is no longer able to ignore the reality of Tehran’s power. The announcement was a classic bait and switch intended to deceive Americans but which Iran understood all too well. All of which means that rather than looking back on the enactment of these measures as the moment when the U.S. began to reassert itself, it will, instead, be thought of as the commencement of the “good day” when yet another chance to halt the Iranian juggernaut was lost.
2a)
How (and Why) Palestinian Leaders Scare the World
- Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the Palestinian Authority (PA) president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash, and a gaze directed away from the PA's turmoil.
- The PA wants the following response from the international community: “Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand.”
- Abbas wants the world's eyes on Israel — and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.
- The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?
What do you do when your home has become hell?
If you are Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, you divert attention from the mess as fast as possible.
For a start, Abbas is trying to scare the international community into believing that without increased pressure on Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be forced to resort to unilateral measures, such as attempting to create new “facts on the ground” in the West Bank.
Next, Abbas is threatening to renew the Palestinian call for convening an international conference for peace in the Middle East and to step up rhetorical attacks against Israel.
Finally, Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the PA president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash and a gaze directed away from the PA's turmoil.
Abbas wants the world's eyes on Israel — and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.
This week, Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, announced that the Palestinian Authority was coordinating with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in order to create “facts on the ground” to establish a Palestinian state.
This announcement was designed to tighten the international screws on Israel. The threat to “create facts on the ground” was a direct message to the US and the EU that they had better push Israel farther — and faster — or the Palestinians would be left with no recourse but to build in Area C of the West Bank, currently under exclusive Israeli control.
Yet Palestinian building in Area C is not just a threat. In fact, and thanks to the financial and logistical aid of the EU, Palestinians have already begun building that project in some parts of the West Bank.
What the PA wants is the following response from the international community: “Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand.”
The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. This has been quite clear for some time, but the PA spokesman's recent announcement leaves no room for doubt. Abbas has no incentive whatsoever to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?
As part of this strategy, Abbas last week renewed his call for an international conference to discuss “ways of solving the Palestinian cause.” According to the PA president, the international community that has reached understandings that Syria, Libya and Iran should be able to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This is nothing but an Abbas scare-tactics redux. Radical Islam and terrorism, so we are to believe, will be conquered by solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president of the PA desires to implant in the minds of the West a direct link between the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
But Abbas might have done well to check in with his sources. ISIS and the other terror groups currently destroying the Arab world do not give a damn about Israeli settlements or checkpoints. Nor is a two-state solution on their docket. These groups have a different agenda — to conquer the world and establish an Islamic empire. En route to achieving their aim, the Muslim terrorists will kill “apostates” and “infidels” including Abbas and other Arab leaders.
“President Abbas's call for an international conference reflects the state of confusion and wallowing he is in,” remarked former Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfour. “The appeal is designed to search for an unclear and jellied formula and it has no legitimacy.” Asfour noted that there was no need for such a conference, in light of the fact that the UN already recognized a Palestinian state in 2012.
So what exactly is Abbas trying to achieve? For the most part, Palestinian political analysts are convinced that the eighty-year-old president, who is about to enter the eleventh year of his four-year term in office, is simply seeking to hold onto the reins of power. The best way to do so, they argue, is by keeping up the buzz about international conferences and potential Palestinian unilateral moves on the ground.
In order to run the Palestinian show until his last day, Abbas needs to divert attention from the battle of succession that has hit the spotlight in the past few days. Top Fatah officials have been pushing him to appoint a deputy president, in the hope of forestalling a power vacuum upon his departure from the scene for one reason or another.
These officials have long censured Abbas for running the PA as if it were his private fiefdom. Among the critics are Jibril Rajoub, Tawkif Tirawi, Mohamed Dahlan, Salam Fayyad and Yasser Abed Rabbo — all of whom regard themselves as potential successors to his seat.
Mohamed Dahlan (right), a former PA security commander in the Gaza Strip, is one of the major critics and rivals of PA President Mahmoud Abbas (left), and hopes to succeed him in the presidency. (Image: U.S. State Dept., M. Dahlan Office)
Meanwhile, Abbas's preferred candidate for deputy president appears to be none other than Saeb Erekat, the PLO's chief negotiator who was recently upgraded to the post of PLO Secretary-General. This choice, however, is not going down well with Fatah officials, many of whom have expressed their opposition to the attempt to pave the way for Erekat to become the next Palestinian president.
A direct link does exist, then, but it is not, as Abbas contends, one between ISIS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The true direct link is between the urgency Abbas feels at home to prop up a crumbling empire and his intimidation of the international community. In other words, when Abbas feels the heat, Israel is thrown into the fire.
===============================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment