Inspectors will monitor Iran’s key nuclear facilities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year,” President Obama promised yesterday. Praising the Iran deal’s implementation, he asserted that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon and that the Middle East has been made safer. Tellingly, the president also referenced Iran’s detention of U.S. sailors last week: “We worked directly with the Iranian government and secured the release of our sailors in less than 24 hours.” These two quotes illustrate President Obama’s kidnapping of realist international-relations theory, which, as he sees it, involves balancing U.S. interests with the realities of a complicated world. Or, as he puts it, “Don’t do stupid sh**.”
The president believes that, with a mix of hard compromise and unwavering leadership, he has prevented a nuclear-arms race and facilitated Iranian political moderation. But this isn’t realism; it is delusion.First off, it’s willfully ignorant. Consider again President Obama’s remark on inspecting “Iran’s key nuclear facilities.” It’s relevant because it reminds us that the deal in fact prevents timely inspections of other Iranian military sites. And by describing only some nuclear facilities as “key,” President Obama is tacitly accepting Iran’s obstruction of non-key facility inspections. Iran will simply use military sites for nuclear-weaponization research and then claim those facilities are off limits or clean them up before inspections. This isn’t really debatable; after all, Iran’s ongoing ballistic-missile tests prove its public determination to build a nuclear-weapons delivery platform. Of course, announcing new sanctions yesterday on eleven individuals and organizations connected to Iranian ballistic-missile research, the president said he will “remain steadfast in opposing Iran’s destabilizing behavior elsewhere.” He neglected — as do most in the media — to mention that these new sanctions are so weak that they’re functionally irrelevant. Iran will simply use new cut-out entities and further evasion to continue its ballistic activities. The Obama administration knows this, the Sunni monarchies know this, the Iranians know this, and the Europeans — who cannot wait to get their hands on Iranian business contracts — are banking on it.
The second way in which this deal distorts realist theory is in its fatally narrow-minded strategic vision. As I noted recently at National Review Online, Iran’s unchallenged dissection of U.S. credibility on inspections, missile tests, support for regional terrorism, etc., is fueling reciprocal escalation by the Sunni-Arab monarchies. As a consequence, opportunities for political moderation in the Middle East are rapidly being displaced by sectarian extremism. Making matters worse, as attested by President Obama’s failure to meet with Jordan’s King Abdullah in Washington last week, the president seems to have decided to simply ignore America’s Sunni allies. This preference for a short-term perceived win (the Iran deal) over long-term U.S. influence with the Sunni kingdoms (promoting political reform and restraining their sectarian impulses) further exemplifies the president’s defective realism. Yet the president’s realist delusion is enabled by many in the international-relations community. Just contemplate how his Twitter supporters mobilized this weekend. Professor Daniel Drezner of Tufts University gleefully tweeted: “All US negotiations with Iran this week have been a win-win. Which, if you believe relations with Iran’s regime are zero-sum, is infuriating.” Drezner also claimed that the Iranians released in exchange for Jason Rezaian and Amir Hekmati and two other Americans were largely insignificant actors. Vox’s Max Fisher tweeted: “Amazing fact: Iran surrenders the bulk of its nuclear program, and it is considered a partisan issue in America whether that is good or bad.” From the Council on Foreign Relations, Micah Zenko tweeted that every Joint Staff and Central Command defense planner is “elated.” All these claims deserve great scrutiny. First, while defense planners hope the Iran deal will hold, they also know it fuels second- and third-order risks of sectarian escalation. Moreover, although I support the deal to release Rezaian and company, we shouldn’t pretend that the released Iranians are insignificant. They were variously involved in supporting Iran’s satellite communications capability, in stealing U.S. technology for the Iranian military, and in hacking into the U.S. power-grid and airline-service databases. According to an American cyber-investigations firm, the airport hacking involved Iranian attempts to access ground-crew credentials. It doesn’t take a genius to understand why Iran wants access to civilian aircraft and power infrastructure: the capability to launch spectacular attacks on U.S. and allied interests. Again, realism demands our assessment of the facts in the context of Iran’s previous actions. For one, we should remember Iran’s 2011 attempt to blow up a packed Washington, D.C., restaurant. Oh, and as Josh Rogin reports, two other Iranian suspects the Obama administration has agreed to stop pursuing are involved in the drowning and starving of Syrian civilians. Related: Assad Is Deliberately Starving Sunni Muslims in Syria Finally, any true realist must also accept what this deal means for hard-liners aligned with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRGC). Holding dominion over key sectors of Iran’s economy and controlling foreign commercial access to the economy, the IRGC is getting a big payday. Realism also requires our objective assessment as to where the IRGC will spend its money: exported death. Consider that in the past five years, the IRGC has plotted an attack on the U.S. capital, supported the Taliban, assassinated U.S. allies in cities such as Beirut, and kidnapped U.S. citizens. And upon presenting these tests of U.S. resolve, the IRGC has witnessed two distinct Obama-administration responses: silence and, as in the case of last week’s sailor kidnap, gratitude. Yesterday, we learned of another Iranian test: Within the past few days, several Americans were kidnapped by a militia in Baghdad. I would confidently venture that an IRGC-proxy such as Kataib Hezbollah is responsible. As I warned back in December, “if the IRGC leadership senses American weakness, it will take hostile action (directly, via KH, or via covert subgroups) against U.S. interests.” Don’t get me wrong; realism demands that we actively pursue diplomacy with Iran. Iran’s youthful population is an existential threat to the theocrats and a source of major internal political pressure. We must not alienate these future leaders with a leap to military action. Yet by our failure to deter Iran’s hard-liners, we only encourage them further. And in their empowerment, political moderation perishes. Foreign-policy realism demands that we sometimes deal with unpleasant people. But it also requires our commitment to honest policy.Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429907/obamas-realism-iran?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=569ce98d04d3012242625e14&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Author Archives: Denise Simon
Davos: Europe’s Social Breakdown, Begins with Immigration
And all the signals are beginning to apply to the United States….fair warning.
Davos/World Economic Forum
Davos Boss Warns Refugee Crisis Could Be Precursor to Something Much Bigger
Bloomberg: As the crash in commodities prices spreads economic woe across the developing world, Europe could face a wave of migration that will eclipse today’s refugee crisis, says Klaus Schwab, executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
“Look how many countries in Africa, for example, depend on the income from oil exports,”Schwab said in an interview ahead of the WEF’s 46th annual meeting, in the Swiss resort of Davos. “Now imagine 1 billion inhabitants, imagine they all move north.”
Whereas much of the discussion about commodities has focused on the economic and market impact, Schwab said he’s concerned that it will also spur “a substantial social breakdown.”
That fits into what Schwab, the founder of the WEF, calls the time of “unexpected consequences” we now live in. In the modern era, it’s harder for policy makers to know the impact of their actions, which has led to “erosion of trust in decision makers.”
“First, we have to look at the root causes of this,” Schwab said. “The normal citizen today is overwhelmed by the complexity and rapidity of what’s happening, not only in the political world but also the technological field.”
That sense of dislocation has fueled the rise of radical political leaders who tap into a rich vein of anger and xenophobia. For reason to prevail, Schwab said, “we have to re-establish a sense that we all are in the same boat.”
The theme for this year’s meeting is the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which the WEF defines as a “fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”
While that presents huge opportunities, Schwab warns that technological innovation may result in the loss of 20 million jobs in the coming years. Those job cuts risk “hollowing out the middle class,” Schwab said, “a pillar of our democracies.”
At the same time, Schwab argues, trends like the sharing economy and the changes wrought by technology mean economists must adapt the tools they use to assess well-being. “Many of our traditional measurements do not work anymore,” he said.
After decades watching the ebbs and flows of the global economy, Schwab said the current anxiety is “not new” for him. But he said that as the world gets ever more interconnected, the consequences of such turmoil could become more grave. This week’s WEF meeting, he said, will offer policy makers “the first opportunity after the markets have come down to look at the situation and coordinate.”
Davos facts for this year:
CNNMoney: Around 2,500 participants from more than 100 countries, including 40 heads of state, attend the gathering in Switzerland, formally known as the World Economic Forum annual meeting. This year, the theme is “Mastering the Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
It takes place in the mountains. Way up. At 1,560 meters (5,120 feet) above sea level, Davos is Europe’s highest town. Its population is just over 11,000 and the average temperature in January is -5°C/23°F.
Why in such a remote, cold place? Tradition. Also, it’s much easier to secure a little town wedged between the mountains than a conference center in a big city — remember, 40 heads of states are coming.
Only once was the meeting held outside of Davos: In 2002, in New York, as a gesture of solidarity after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Davos is safe. The organizers don’t release specific information, but it is estimated that around 5,000 Swiss troops, police and security personnel guard the town.
Davos is pricey. The ticket is around $20,000 and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Travel can cost thousands, and a night in a medium-range hotel is around $600. Add to it wining, dining, and essential accessories like snow boots, and the total bill can add up to around $40,000.
Davos is green. The town’s CO2 levels fall on average up to 30% during the annual meeting, thanks to controls on vehicle emissions and the use of electric transport.
Besides the skiing, what’s it all about? Meetings. Hundreds of them. With major companies, countries and media represented, there is hardly a better opportunity to schmooze and make deals. But the forum is not about big public announcements. Meetings are informal and take place behind closed doors.
Who is coming this year? Nearly everyone who matters in the world of business. Bill Gates will be there, as will Mary Barra, Satya Nadella, Jack Ma, Eric Schmidt, Sheryl Sandberg and dozens of other CEOs.
The IMF chief Christine Lagarde will be in Davos, with ECB President Mario Draghi and the governors of 10 national central banks.
The U.S. will be represented by Joe Biden and John Kerry. Loretta Lynch, the U.S. Attorney General, is also coming, as is Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of Commerce.
The King and Queen of Jordan will be there, as will Bono, Leonardo DiCaprio, Yao Chen and will.i.am.
They’ll all be closely followed by around 250 journalists, including a posse from CNN.
And the no-shows? Neither Barack Obama nor Vladimir Putin are coming to Switzerland. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is also sitting it out this year.
Eric Holder has Teamed up with Hillary
via GIPHY (Hat tip, Weekly Standard)
This could also tell us that Holder is working deeply with the Clinton campaign on all her legal issues that include the server and the foundation….wow, no doubt eh?
Eric Holder: ‘Progressive’ Hillary Best to ‘Protect Obama Legacy’
She’s an “agent of change.”
TruthRevolt: Anyone who watched Sunday evening’s Democrat debate, or who has followed presidential contender Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric of late, knows she has been doing an inordinate amount of pandering to Obama voters.
Full of praise for the Obama administration, its policies and initiatives, Clinton is beginning to sound like an Obama’s greatest cheerleader. While on its face it seems the former First Lady is simply looking to garner the support of Obama disciples, according to Attorney General Eric Holder, who recently endorsed the Democrat frontrunner, Clinton is actually the best candidate to uphold Obama’s legacy.
In fact, Holder thinks the former Secretary of State is just as “progressive” as socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. He also said that black voters can’t afford to allow “wistfulness” at the closer of Obama’s presidency keep them from the polls. During an interview with The Washington Post on Sunday Holder discussed why Clinton is the best candidate to “continue the great work that President Obama and his administration did.”
When asked what he would say to black voters who are not as excited about the candidates this time around, Holder explained why Clinton will “protect the Obama legacy” and that she is an “agent of change.”:
“I think what people have to understand is that what we have to do is protect the Obama legacy. We’ve made really substantial progress in the last eight years — it’ll be eight years at the end of 2016 — and the question is who is best situated to protect that legacy and not let the progress that we have made get rolled back. And there is no question that there are going to be attempts to roll back the Affordable Care Act, they sent [President Obama] a bill the week before last that he had to veto. There will certainly be efforts to counter the executive actions that he’s taken on immigration issues, when it comes to gun safety issues and his foreign policy.
“You need somebody who’s got a record on those issues that’s consistent with the positions that the president took, and Hillary Clinton is that person, there’s no question. They are in lockstep when it comes to gun safety issues. Sen. [Bernie] Sanders, quite frankly, is not. So to the extent that people are a bit of a nostalgic, wistful feeling, I think that ought to be converted into a concern for the future and for the preservation of all the great work that President Obama and his administration did.”
Some voters don’t think Clinton, compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders, is progressive enough.
“People have not, for whatever reason, focused on the fact that Hillary Clinton is and always has been a change agent. If you look at her record as a progressive and think about what she did early in her career at Children’s Defense Fund. We can talk about here in South Carolina where she worked to make sure that kids were not incarcerated, jailed with adults. Health care — Hillary Clinton led the fight for health care during the Bill Clinton administration. Although the overall effort wasn’t successful, the CHIP program came out of that effort.
Holder told the Post that, from his perspective, people are confused about who Clinton is as a political figure.
“There’s no question in my mind that she is a progressive,” he said.
And there’s no question in our minds either, Holder.
NY Judge Gives Victory Decision to U.S. Islamists
Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists Inside U.S.
FreeBeacon: The New York Police Department has been directed by a U.S. court to remove from its online records an investigation pertaining to the rise of Islamic extremists in the West and the threats these individuals pose to American safety, according to legal documents.
As part of a settlement agreement reached earlier this month with Muslim community advocates in U.S. District Court, the NYPD will purge from its website an extensive report that experts say has been critical to the department’s understanding of radical Islam and its efforts to police the threat.
The court settlement also stipulates that the NYPD make a concerted effort to mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups, according to a copy of the court documents published by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the case since June 2013.
Legal experts and critics of the settlement maintain that it could hamper future terrorism investigations and view it as part of a larger campaign by Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States to dismantle surveillance programs encompassing that community.
Critics expressed particular concern about the case in light of a recent surge in attacks on U.S. citizens committed by individuals pledging allegiance to terror groups such as ISIS.
A key portion of the settlement focuses on the NYPD’s purported use of a document produced by the department’s intelligence division to examine how radicalized individuals make their way to the United States and carry out terror attacks.
The document, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” aimed to provide local law enforcement and policy makers with information about domestic terrorists and their operations.
As part of the settlement agreement, the NYPD will be forced to remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future.
The NYPD and New York state government agencies included in the case “represent that they do not, have not, and will not rely upon the Radicalization in the West report to open or extend investigations,” according to the settlement. “Defendants will remove the Radicalization in the West report from the NYPD website.”
The settlement further affirms that the NYPD will be “committed to mitigating the potential impact” of future investigations on political and religious groups, such as those in the Muslim-American community.
While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement.
The NYPD and relevant New York state agencies will “provide additional guidance to police officers as part of a settlement of lawsuits accusing the NYPD of improperly investigating Muslim groups,” according to the Jan. 7 press release. “While the City did not admit to engaging in any improper practices, the changes represent an effort to provide more detailed guidance to NYPD personnel within the existing Handschu Guidelines,” which govern how authorities investigate political activities.
The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.
The department will additionally incorporate into the guidelines “police policies against religious profiling” and insert an additional “provision for considering the impact investigations have on people who are not targets of investigations,” according to the statement.
John Miller, the NYPD’s deputy commissioner of intelligence and counterterrorism, maintained in a statement that the settlement would not “weaken the [department’s] ability to fulfill its steadfast commitment to investigate and prevent terrorist activity in New York City.”
However, some experts have cast doubt on this statement, claiming that the decision to delete the anti-terrorism handbook will impact officers’ ability to understand how terrorists organize and operate in the United States.
Benjamin Weingarten, a writer and national security analyst who has covered the court case, said that local police departments should be relying more heavily on the now-banned counterterror analysis.
Referring to the recent shooting of a Philadelphia police officer by a radicalized individual who allegedly pledged allegiance to ISIS, Weingarten noted that the assailant followed the “‘four stages of radicalization’ detailed in the NYPD report.”
The information about radical terrorists provided in “the NYPD’s analysis may have at the least led Philadelphia authorities to dig deeper and flag him,” he said.
The settlement further reflects a larger cultural shift in America that shuns terms such as “war on terror” and “Muslim terrorism,” Weingarten said.
“To pursue a see-no-Islam counter-jihadist strategy is not only absurd and contradictory on its face, but its a severe dereliction of duty—ignorance is not an excuse, and it represents a failure to do everything necessary to defend against an ideology that seeks to undermine the Constitution and subvert and destroy Western civilization again, according to Islamic supremacists themselves,” he said.
Stephen Coughlin, an attorney and intelligence officer, expressed concern about what he described as a widening attempt by local and federal authorities to redefine the nature of domestic counter-terror efforts.
“I am greatly concerned with the imposition of [the case] which, I believe, exists to replace counter-terror efforts,” Coughlin said. “This is a continuation of a purging of evidentiary based counter-terror analysis first initiated in 2011.”
The ACLU and Muslim community advocates initially filed the lawsuit following reports after the 9/11 terror attacks that the NYPD was running a domestic spy operation centered on the American-Muslim community.
The ACLU, which would not comment on record for this report, directed the Free Beacon to a recent editorial published in the Guardian celebrating the court decision.
“Bias-based policing legitimizes religious discrimination, It can pave the way to copy-cat approaches by other agencies and set the stage for hate crimes nationwide,” wrote Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security project, and Ramzi Kassem, a law professor at the City University of New York.
“We hope the settlement announced this week pulls our city and its police department out of a downward spiral by reaffirming core values and principles, ones just as necessary to a local police force as they are to a rational debate on civil rights and liberties nationally,” they wrote.
Germany: Migrant Rape Crisis Calls for Military
German finance minister calls for option to deploy troops in wake of Cologne attacks
In light of the New Year attacks in Cologne, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has demanded the option of deploying Bundeswehr troops at home. He also reiterated his support for Chancellor Angela Merkel.
In an interview with Saturday’s edition of the “Süddeutsche Zeitung,” Schäuble said Berlin must ask itself why “under clear legal rules in support of the police, practically every other country in Europe can turn to its armed forces,” except for Germany.
“A legal basis for domestic military missions must be created,” Schäuble told the paper, adding that Germans expect the state to ensure security.
“For this you need more police and enhanced legal foundations for the police and intelligence services,” he said.
“The situation may arise, however, where both federal and state police forces are exhausted,” he added. “Every other country in the world would deploy soldiers in an emergency.”
Any deployment of the Bundeswehr within Germany is subject to extremely strict constitutional limitations, with its role described in the German Basic Law as absolutely defensive.
Refugee debate
The finance minister’s comments came amid ongoing uproar in Germany over reports of scores of sexual assaults in Cologne at the city’s New Year’s Eve celebrations.
Witnesses at the city’s main train station and iconic cathedral described women being groped, as well as subjected to lewd insults and robbery. In one instance, a rape was reported. Most of the culprits were said to have been of a North African or Middle Eastern appearance.
Support for Merkel
The reports have also renewed criticism of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s open-door policy on refugees and migrants, with some 1.1 million new asylum seekers registered in the last year alone. Following criticism from within Merkel’s own Christian Democrats (CDU), Schäuble renewed his support for the chancellor.
“I support with conviction what the chancellor has said: We must solve the problem at the external borders,” Schäuble told the “Süddeutsche.”
Like Merkel, Schäuble called for a solution to the refugee crisis by means of better controls and cooperation with neighboring countries, adding that action in Europe was “still too slow.”
‘No one satisfied’
The finance minister also warned his fellow CDU party members against criticizing Merkel’s refugee policy.
“Of course, no one is satisfied with the situation,” Schäuble said, admitting that there had been “very intensive discussions” within the CDU and its Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union. The people want us “to solve the problems the best we can,” he said.
Schäuble’s comments published Saturday were far from comparable to those heard at the end of last year when he called for a strict limit on the number of family reunifications among refugees and compared Germany’s unprecedented influx of asylum seekers to an “avalanche.”