IDF training and preparing for potential attack by Hezbollah and claims they have some surprises should they do so. (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile:
Iran continues to blow smoke. (See 1a below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What is really behind the attacks on the NRA?
The leftists are focused on centralizing government and power and their tactics have been obvious but subtle.
They are not interested in confiscating guns but something far more pernicious. (See 2 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Germany used Spain to test their weapons . Is Russia using Syria for the same purpose? (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My friend, John Podhoretz, discusses, in a lengthy op ed, the new Trump realism towards Israel. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In the interest of balance I am posting 7 links to conflicting op eds which you can read if you choose. (See 5 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)The IDF conducted a large-scale drill this past week that simulated potential ground incursions by elite Hezbollah forces into northern Israel during future conflicts, the Hebrew news site Walla reported on Sunday.
In such scenarios, the IDF believes the Iran-backed Shi’a terrorist group will use massive barrages of short-range fire to enable its fighters to cross the border from Lebanon into Israel, according to Walla.
“I very much respect Hezbollah, but we’ve honed our ability to take the sting out of them,” Col. Manny Liberty — the commander of the IDF’s 769th Brigade — told Walla. “We have a number of surprises waiting for Hezbollah.”
Referring to the current situation along the Israel-Lebanon frontier, Col. Liberty said, “Hezbollah is present all the time, it is not hiding in the rear. We are seeing more attempts to create provocations…but Hezbollah is very careful not to stretch the rope.”
“Hezbollah hasn’t finished its job in Syria [where it has been fighting on behalf of the Assad regime], but it also hasn’t abandoned its array in southern Lebanon,” Liberty noted.
1a)
This week, Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi charged that the 2015 nuclear deal that his nation concluded with six major powers “has no benefit for us,” and threatened that Iran would leave the deal. Araqchi explained that Iran wasn’t enjoying the full benefits of the deal because banks were not doing business with Iran due to uncertainty over the future of the deal, following President Donald Trump’s announcement last month that he would no longer waive nuclear sanctions Iran until the flaws in the deal were fixed.
Congress and the other parties to the deal have until May to end the sunset clauses in the deal that would allow Iran to develop an industrial nuclear program in less that 15 years, prevent Iran from any more missile development, force Iran to open its military sites to inspections and pursue Iran for human rights violations and terror support.
To hear Araqchi’s complaint in isolation, it appears that Trump has imposed a new hardship on Iran. But the Islamic Republic has been playing the game since the nuclear deal was agreed to in July 2015. Even when President Barack Obama was still in office, Iran accused the United States of not living up to the terms of the nuclear deal.
In December 2015, Congress passed and Obama signed a bill that would exclude certain countries from the Visa Waiver Program, which allowed nationals of many nations to have visas to enter the U.S. granted automatically. Iran, which the State Department has determined is the leading state sponsor of terror in the world, was one of the countries excluded.
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif complained that by requiring Iranians or those who had traveled to Iran to go through the regular visa application process constituted a restriction on travel, and therefore a violation of the United States’ commitment not to impose new sanctions on Iran. In response to Zarif’s complaint, the Obama administration agreed that the State Department could hand out visa waivers to visitors from Iran.
Zarif’s threat that Iran would treat a non-nuclear issue as a breach of the nuclear deal intimidated the Obama administration into undermining a law that the president himself had signed.
In June 2016, Sen. Chris Coons (D – Del.), who had supported the nuclear deal, criticized then Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to drum up business for Iran in Europe in light of complaints from Iran that the received sanctions relief was inadequate. Coons said, “It is Iran’s challenge to demonstrate that their economy is transparent enough, legitimate enough, secure enough, to attract foreign investment. I don’t think it’s our job to act as the chamber of commerce for Tehran,” referring to sanctions imposed on Iran for its money laundering and terror finance, which predated the nuclear sanctions.
During the Obama administration, just as now, Iran complained that the U.S. was preventing from receiving the full measure of sanctions relief that it was due.
Araqchi’s effort to blame the Trump administration comes at a time when an increasing number of people are realizing how bad the consequences of the nuclear deal have been, even among those who supported it originally.
Joshua Keating, a foreign policy expert for Slate, earlier this month, published a reconsideration of the deal which he once “fully supported,” writing, “in order to address a terrifying but hypothetical danger—an Iranian nuke—the Obama administration’s foreign policy accepted a real and catastrophic one.”
A New York Times editorial this week acknowledged that a legal case should be built against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for committing war crimes. The editorial added that a case should also be made against “Russian leaders, who help keep Mr. Assad in power with political support and military air assets, and Iranian leaders, who provide tactical advice and ground troops.” Implicitly the Times, which avidly backed the deal, was admitting that Iran rather than being constrained by the nuclear deal was emboldened to pursue its hegemonic aims even more aggressively in its wake.
Araqchi is attempting to change the subject. He arguing for his nation that if the deal falls apart it will be Trump’s fault.
But, in January, the United Nations found that Iran was violating UN-imposed restrictions against sending arms to the Houthi rebels in Yemen. This, by the way, is also a violation of UN Security Council 2231 which not only endorsed the nuclear deal, but also prohibited Iran from exporting any weapons, including ballistic missiles. By standards set out by Zarif three years ago, this means that Iran is in violation of the nuclear deal.
Now that the world is recognizing the destruction that was unleashed by releasing Iran from the penalties imposed on it for repeated defiance of the UN Security Council, it is time to heed Trump’s call and fix the nuclear deal. Or to re-impose sanctions and make Iran pay for its refusal to abide by international law.
Do not let Iran change the subject.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)The Left's Objective in Its War on the NRA
The litany of major American companies severing their ties to the NRA continues to expand. They are succumbing to the drumbeat of false accusations and hysteria ginned up by the left and its political arm, the Democratic Party, as well as the left's cohorts in the media. The NRA has been in leftists' cross hairs for the past two decades. However, the actual purpose of this targeting is far deeper than what the left proclaims to be its objective: the passage of "common sense" gun laws and restrictions on gun ownership as an antidote to gun violence.
Beginning in the first part of the twentieth century, the disciples of Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, and later Alinsky (the American left) understood that in order to establish their version of a uniquely American socialist state, virtually all traditions, history, and societal underpinnings would have to be fully undermined and replaced. This process, while time-consuming, would eventuate in a new American society subservient to the central government.
The major tenets of their long-term strategy of ultimately controlling a potentially all-powerful central government in perpetuity are:
- The subtle but persistent annexation of the education establishment, thus creating succeeding generations of indoctrinated and ill educated voters.
- The stealth placement of true believers throughout the entertainment complex, transforming it into an instrument of socialist and anti-American propaganda.
- As a byproduct of transforming the education and entertainment establishments, the reshaping of the so-called mainstream media into another subsidiary of the left's propaganda leviathan.
- The takeover of one of the two major political parties.
- Undermining the religious foundation of the country and its cultural institutions by proclaiming a new panoply of rights as granted by the government. Any opposition is to be ridiculed, intimidated, and if necessary threatened.
- The measured elimination, utilizing coercion and harassment, of all political opposition, particularly grassroots organizations representing a vast number of citizens that potentially stand in the way of the ultimate objective.
The NRA is perhaps the most powerful grassroots organization in the nation still dedicated to preserving the rights as enumerated in the Constitution. Because of its over 5 million members, it has influence not only in Washington, but in the state capitals as well. Through its offices and media activity, it can influence and mobilize exponentially far more than just its dues-paying membership.
Therefore, the left-wing cabal must mobilize and utilize all tactics possible in order to marginalize the NRA. The fact that the primary purpose of the NRA is the defense of the 2nd Amendment plays into the left's hands, as leftists have a cudgel – gun violence – to use whenever mass shootings occur. With a compliant media (see C above), a woefully ill educated populace (see A above), and an entertainment complex to do their bidding (see B above), the forces arrayed against the NRA or any other similar organization dedicated to preserving the tenets of this nation's founding are formidable
Leftists know they cannot confiscate all the guns in the nation and have no intention of attempting to do so. But by eliminating the influence of the NRA they can by legislation, taxation, and regulation incrementally make gun ownership increasingly problematic and progressively more expensive, as there will be no organized and powerful voice to defend the unfettered right to bear arms or promote the tenets and spirit of the Constitution.
The left is hoping everyone will not see the forest for the trees. While it has virtually the entire country focused on gun control, the American left is beginning to realize the very real possibility of success in its original objective. If the NRA collapses or is marginalized, no other conservative grassroots organization will be able to survive. The left will have achieved another and perhaps the most important of its major goals.
The election of Donald Trump was a major setback to the ongoing machinations of the left. However, they are more determined and devious than ever as they endeavor to get their "revolution" back on course. Whether it is gun control, immigration, spending, or a myriad of societal and cultural issues, there can be no good-faith compromising with such a Machiavellian and callous group that would exploit a tragedy purely for political gain in order to destroy one of its most outspoken nemeses: the NRA.
I have owned firearms for over 60 years, yet I had never joined NRA. However, in light of what is happening now, I have joined. So should all Americans who value liberty, whether they own a gun or not. The stakes are far greater than many realize
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)
| Russian news agency: Here's What Those Russian Su-57 Jets May Be Doing in Syria |
| Mission Possible: Here's What Those Russian Su-57 Jets May Be Doing in Syria https://sputniknews.com/military/201802231061928859-su57s-in-syria-analysis/ The appearance of two Su-57 fighters at Syria's Hmeymim Airbase, yet to be confirmed by the Russian MoD, has nevertheless got defense observers and armchair analysts alike talking. But what might the planes be doing there? Is their deployment strictly testing-related, or is it also meant to send a political message? Sputnik investigates. Deployment Details So far, both the Kremlin and the MoD have stayed mum on the subject of the Su-57s' possible mission to Syria. But a simple observation of Su-57-related news from recent months seems to indicate that the deployment is highly likely. For instance, on February 8, Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov announced that the military was set to buy a batch of Su-57s for combat trials, with the first stage of state trials already completed. Two weeks before that, Boris Obnosov, CEO of Tactical Missiles Corporation, a company engaged in the development of weapons for the fighter platform, confirmed that the Su-57 had begun flight testing with its advanced new weaponry onboard. Hinting that the results of their work would be seen "in the imminent future," Obnosov added that Su-57 test launches of new weapons developed by the Raduga and Vimpel design bureaus would start "soon." Vladimir Gutenov, Duma lawmaker in charge of a commission supporting the Russian defense industry, told Sputnik that while he could not independently confirm the Su-57s' deployment to Syria, he "whole-heartedly welcomed" the reports. According to the lawmaker, the planes "need to be tested in combat conditions, in conditions of [enemy] resistance." Furthermore, he said, the presence of the Su-57s will doubtlessly send a political message, serving as a deterrent "for aircraft from neighboring states which periodically fly into" the Middle Eastern country uninvited. What Russian Experts Are Saying Russian military experts have offered a myriad of possible reasons for the Su-57s' deployment to Syria. For instance, Andrei Frolov, editor-in-chief of Arms Export, a Russian military publication, told RBC that the deployment would help to advertise the planes, especially to the Indian market, in light of the joint Russian-Indian Sukhoi/HAL Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) program. For one thing, he said, "Lockheed Martin is active on the Indian market. Furthermore, there are difficulties with India on the FGFA project. The public launch of the Su-57 last year and its deployment to Syria now is aimed at convincing the Indians that the FGFA is a real project, which has a prototype that not only flies, but is capable of operating in a warzone." For his part, Nikolai Antoshkin, Col-Gen (ret.) a veteran Soviet and Russian military pilot, commander and combat training specialist, explained that while the first squadron of production Su-57s would soon be deployed to the Lipetsk Combat Training Center, "fighters, like any other weapon, are tested mainly in combat. Therefore, sending the Su-57 to Syria is a natural solution." Emphasizing that the Su-57 was an excellent tool which would "come in handy" in the event of any "provocations against our forces in Syria," Antoshkin also commented on rumors circulating online about the US Air Force allegedly suspending its F-22 Raptor flights over Syria due to the appearance of the Russian planes in the country. For one thing, Antoshkin recalled, the Su-57 is equipped with 3D thrust vector jets, as opposed to the F-22's 2D thrust vector jets, meaning higher maneuverability for the Russian plane. "In addition, these engines allow our fighter to reach speeds up to Mach 2 without an afterburner. With its onboard Belka radar station, the Su-57 can detect 'stealth' aircraft, and track over 10 targets simultaneously. Add to this the plane's excellent radio-electronic warfare module, which suppresses enemy missiles' homing systems." As far as onboard weapons are concerned, the observer recalled that "the Su-57 has two large internal weapons compartments, taking up practically the entire useful length of the aircraft. Each compartment can carry up to four K-77M air-to-air missiles," which have a range of nearly 200 km and serve as the rough equivalent to the US's AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. Ultimately, Antoshkin stressed that while deploying just two planes is not enough to provide Russia with an overwhelming military advantage in the Syrian theater, it would cause Russia's potential adversaries to think twice: "I think it will give our geopolitical rivals an extra reason to ponder whether it is worth raising their hand against Russia," the veteran air force officer concluded. Western Military Observers Respond Wednesday's photo and video evidence of the Su-57 fifth-gen stealth fighters flying around Hmeymim certainly got the Pentagon's attention, with a DoD spokesperson complaining that the deployment was an indication that Russia was not living up to its "announced force drawdown." Many Western military observers were similarly critical, with Business Insider quoting experts who claimed that the deployment was a "cynical move" aimed at boosting Russian arms sales and gaining valuable intelligence on advanced US air power operating in the region. Popular Mechanics was somewhat more evenhanded, pointing out that the deployment will give the Russian military an opportunity to "learn a lot about how the jet works in less-than-ideal conditions, how good its sensors are at picking up targets in the air and on the ground, and how difficult it is to maintain the planes thousands of miles from Mother Russia." However, that publication too offered its share of criticism, suggesting the Su-57s might stoke conflict with F-22s over US-controlled airspace in Syria, and would face the constant threat of mortar or drone attacks so long as they remain stationed in Hmeymim. The National Interest's Dave Majumdar did one better, actually speaking to a Russian military expert รข€“ Vasily Kashin of the Moscow-based Center for Comprehensive & International Studies. According to Kashin, the Su-57s' deployment amounts to "testing in actual war," something that would help prepare the planes for mass production. As for Majumdar, as far as the analyst can tell, the deployment will likely help the Russian military gain valuable operational experience and performance data on the Su-57's advanced avionics, including its active electronically scanned array radar and ELINT systems. Even "limited combat missions" are a possibility, he wrote. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4) A New Realism: America and Israel in The Trump Era. By John Podhoretz
But shift he did. In the 14 months since his inauguration, the new president has announced that the United States accepts Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and has declared his intention to build a new U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, first mandated by U.S. law in 1996. He has installed one of his Orthodox Jewish lawyers as the U.S. ambassador and another as his key envoy on Israeli–Palestinian issues. America’s ambassador to the United Nations has not only spoken out on Israel’s behalf forcefully and repeatedly; Nikki Haley has also led the way in cutting the U.S. stipend to the refugee relief agency that is an effective front for the Palestinian terror state in Gaza. And, as Meir Y. Soloveichik and Michael Medved both detail elsewhere in this issue, his vice president traveled to Israel in January and delivered the most pro-Zionist speech any major American politician has ever given.
Part of this shift can also be seen in what Trump has not done. He has not signaled, in interviews or in policy formulations, that the United States views Israeli actions in and around Gaza and the West Bank as injurious to a future peace. And his administration has not complained about Israeli actions taken in self-defense in Lebanon and Syria but has, instead, supported Israel’s right to defend itself.
This marks a breathtaking contrast with the tone and spirit of the relationship between the two countries during the previous administration. The eight Obama years were characterized by what can only be called a gut hostility rooted in the president’s own ideological distaste for the Jewish state.
The intensity of that hostility ebbed and flowed depending on circumstances, but from early 2009, it kept the relationship between the United States and Israel in a condition of low-grade fever throughout Barack Obama’s tenure—never comfortable, never easy, always a bit off-kilter, always with a bit of a headache that never went away, and always in danger of spiking into a dangerous pyrexia. That fever spike happened no fewer than five times during the Obama presidency. Although these spikes were usually portrayed as the consequences of the personal friction between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that friction was itself the result of the ideas about the Middle East and the world in general Obama had brought with him to the White House. In this case, the political became the personal, not the other way around.
Given the general leftish direction of his foreign-policy views from college onward, it would have been a miracle had Obama felt kindly disposed toward the Jewish state’s own understanding of its tactical and strategic condition. And Netanyahu spoke out openly and forcefully to kindly disposed Americans—from evangelical Christians to congressional Republicans—about the threats to his country from nearby terrorism and rockets, and a developing nuclear Iran 900 miles away. His candor proved a perpetual irritant to a president whose opening desire was to see “daylight” (as he said in February 2009) between the two countries. Obama caused one final fever spike as he left office by refusing to veto a hostile United Nations resolution. This appeared churlish but was, in fact, Obama allowing himself the full rein of his true and long-standing convictions on his way out the door.
The things Trump both has and has not done should not seem startling. They constitute the baseline of what we ought to expect one ally would say and not say about the behavior of another ally. But as Obama’s disgraceful conduct demonstrated, Israel is not just another ally and never has been. It is a unique experiment in statehood—a Western country on Mideast soil, born from an anti-colonialist movement that is now viewed by many former colonial powers as an unjust colonial power, created by an international organization that is now largely organized as a means of expressing rage against it.
Historically, American leaders have had to reckon with these unique realities—and the fact that the hostile nations surrounding Israel and hungering for its destruction happen to sit atop the lifeblood of the industrial economy. The so-called realists who claim to view the world and the pursuit of America’s interests through cold and unsentimental eyes have experienced Israel mostly as a burden.
Through many twists and turns over the seven decades of Israel’s existence, they have felt that America’s support for Israel is mostly the result of short-sighted domestic political concerns for which they have little patience—the wishes of Jewish voters, or the religious concerns of evangelical voters, or post-Holocaust sympathy that has required (though they would never say it aloud) an unnatural suspension of our pursuit of the American national interest.
Israel created problems with oil countries, and with the United Nations, and with those who see the claims for the necessity of a Jewish state as a form of special pleading. As a result, the realists have spent the past seven decades whispering in the ears of America’s leaders that they have the right to expect Israel to do things we would not expect of another ally and to demand it behave in ways we would not demand of any other friendly country.
The realists and others have spent nearly 50 years propounding a unified-field theory of Middle East turmoil according to which many if not all of the region’s problems are the result of Israel’s existence. Were it not for Israel, there would not have been regional wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982—no matter who might have borne the greatest degree of responsibility for them. There would have been other conflicts, but not this one. There would have been no world-recession-inducing oil embargo in 1973 because there would have been no response to the Yom Kippur War. Were it not for Israel, for example, there would be no Israeli–Palestinian problem; there would have been some other version of the problem, but not this one.
Unhappiness about the condition of the Palestinians in a world with Israel was held to be the cause of existential unhappiness on the Arab street and therefore of instability in friendly authoritarian regimes throughout the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel’s own pursuit of what it and its voting populace took to be their national interests was usually treated with disdain at the very least and outright fury at moments of crisis.
It was therefore axiomatic that the solution to many if not most of the region’s problems ran right though the center of Jerusalem. It would take a complex process, a peace process, that would lead to a deal—a deal no one who believed in this magical process could actually describe honestly and forthrightly or give a sense as to what its final contours would be. If you could create a peace process leading to a deal, though, that deal itself would work like a bone-marrow transplant—through a mysterious process spreading new immunities to instability in the Middle East that would heal the causes of conflict and bring about a new era.
Again, this was the view of the realists. With Israel’s 70th anniversary coming hard upon us, the question one needs to ask is this: What if the realists were nothing but fantasists? What if their approach to the Middle East from the time of Israel’s founding was based in wildly unrealistic ideas and emotions? Central to their gullibility was the wild and irrational idea that peace was or ever could be the result of a process. No, peace is a condition of soul, an exhaustion from the impact of conflict, born of a desire to end hostilities. Only after this state is achieved can there be a workable process, because both parties would already have crossed the Rubicon dividing them and would only then need to work out the details of coexistence.
There was no peace to be had. The Arab states didn’t want it. The Palestinians didn’t want it. The Israelis did and do, but not at the expense of their existence. The Arabs demanded concessions, and the Israelis have made many over the years, but they could not concede the security of the millions of Israel’s citizens who had made this miracle of a country an enduring reality. The realists fetishized “process” because it seemed the only way to compel change from the outside. And so Israel has borne the brunt of the anger that follows whenever a fantasist is forced to confront a reality he would rather close his eyes to.
That is why I think what Trump and his people have done over the past 14 months represents a new and genuine realism. They are dealing with Israel and its relationships in the region as they are, not as they would wish them to be. They are seeing how the government of Egypt under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is making common cause with Israel against the Hamas entity in Gaza and against ISIS forces in the Suez. They are witness to the effort at radical reformation in Saudi Arabia under Muhammad bin-Salman—and how that seems to be going hand in hand with an astonishing new concord between Israel and the Desert Kingdom over the common threat from Iran. This is a harmonizing of interests that would have seemed positively science-fictional in living memory.
Mostly, what they are seeing is that an ally is an ally. Israel’s intelligence agencies are providing the kind of information America cannot get on its own about Syria and Iran and the threat from ISIS. Israel is a technological powerhouse whose innovations are already helping to revolutionize American military know-how. Israel’s army is the strongest in the world apart from the regional superpowers—and the only one outside Western Europe and the United States firmly locked in alliance with the West. Things are changing radically in the Middle East, and as the 21st century progresses it is possible that Israel will play a constructive and influential role outside its borders in helping to maintain and strengthen a Pax Americana.
Donald Trump is a flighty man. All of this could change. But for now, the replacement of the false realism of the past with a new realism for the 21st century seems like a revolutionary development that needs to be taken very, very seriously.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)Do Trump Approval Numbers Tell Us About Him, or Us?Charles Homans, NY Times
|
No comments:
Post a Comment