Infatuation with Gen. Flynn is Dangerous/Misguided

Nothing is ever as it seems and further no one is ever as they seem.

While General Michael Flynn has been the darling on television regarding his full blown opposition of Barack Obama’s strategy on Islamic State, Flynn has other dark positions. Over the weekend, it has been reported that GOP presumptive nominee, Donald Trump is considering General Flynn as a possible vice president choice.

Flynn was fired. General Flynn was correct in naming the enemy and hence his leadership came into question from a politically correct DNI. That is a shame, yet there are other underlying questions that must be noted.

In part from NYP: Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.


I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department.

Flynn is a democrat. Here is a very interesting interview between al Jazeera and General Flynn. He is not especially an advocate of Israel.

Flynn raised eyebrows among some U.S. foreign policy veterans when he was pictured sitting at the head table with Putin at a banquet in Moscow late last year celebrating Russia Today, an international broadcasting network funded by the Russian government. Flynn told Russia Today in an interview published on Dec. 10 that the United States and Russia should work together to resolve the Syrian civil war and defeat Islamic State.

 

The Obama administration has protested Russia’s military intervention on behalf of Syrian President Bashir al-Assad, accusing Moscow of hitting opposition forces rather than ISIS.

Has Trump’s people really taken a long look at General Flynn’s positions on issues? While there are priorities for sure, government can multi-task as can Congress.

In part from Politico: Issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are not at the top of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s list of priorities, the former intelligence official and registered Democrat who is reportedly being vetted as Donald Trump’s running mate said Sunday.

“What people do in their private lives, these are not big issues that our country is dealing with that will cause our country to collapse,” Flynn told ABC’s Martha Raddatz on “This Week.” “I’m more concerned that our country could collapse because we are not dealing with education issues, immigration issues.”

Asked his stance on non-military issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Flynn suggested that he is not particularly concerned about either.

On abortion, he said, “I think it’s a — I think for women — and these are difficult issues, but I think women have to be able to choose what they — you know, sort of the right of choice, but I think that that’s a difficult legal decision that — and I think that women are so important in that decision-making process.”

“They are the ones that have to make the decision, because they’re the ones that are going to decide to bring up that child or not,” Flynn said.

As far as the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationally, Flynn responded, “You know what? I’m like — I’m about national security. I’m not going to, you know, I mean.”

“But if you become a vice president, you have to be prepared to be president,” Raddatz said. “Sure, sure,” Flynn responded.

On immigration, as Raddatz referred to “undocumented immigrants,” Flynn took issue with the term.

“So, undocumented or illegal?” he asked. “OK, so if it’s illegal, it’s illegal. If they’re here illegally then, it’s illegal. Back to my very first point, the rule of law in this country is probably the single biggest strategic advantage that we have above and beyond all other countries in the world, and we cannot allow the rule of law to break down.” More from Politico.

 

 

 

2 More Obama Executive Orders, Curious and Late

Is this one a set up for the International Criminal Court? What about Russia, China or the drug cartels? It is curious that this comes last month when Syria has been at war for 5 years with 700,000 dead. Or could this also be a set up for gun control in America?

Executive Order — Comprehensive Approach to Atrocity Prevention and Response

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO ATROCITY PREVENTION AND RESPONSE

Section 1.  Policy.  As articulated in Presidential Study Directive-10 (PSD-10), preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.  Noting that governmental engagement on mass atrocities and genocide too often arrives too late, when opportunities for prevention or low-cost, low-risk action have been missed, PSD-10 directed the establishment of an interagency Atrocities Prevention Board (Board), with the primary purpose of coordinating a whole-of-government approach to prevent mass atrocities and genocide.  PSD-10 also directed an interagency study to develop and recommend the membership, mandate, structure, operational protocols, authorities, and support necessary for the Board to coordinate and develop atrocity prevention and response policy.  This order continues in place the Board established in 2012 as I directed in PSD-10, sets out the support to be afforded by executive departments, agencies, and offices, and updates and memorializes the terms on which the Board will continue to operate in the service of its important mission.

  1. The Board shall be composed of individuals at the Assistant Secretary-level or higher who shall be designated by the leadership of their respective departments or agencies. Within 60 days of a vacancy on the Board, the relevant department or agency or office head shall designate a replacement representative and notify the National Security Advisor. In addition to the Chair, the Board shall consist of the designated representatives from the following:
  1. the Office of the Vice President;
  2. the Department of State;
  3. the Department of the Treasury;
  4. the Department of Defense;
  5. the Department of Justice;
  6. the Department of Homeland Security;
  7. the U.S. Mission to the United Nations;
  8. the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
  9. the Central Intelligence Agency;
  10. the U.S. Agency for International Development;
  11. the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
  12. such other agencies or offices as may request to participate in coordination with the Chair.
  1. The Board shall be composed of individuals at the Assistant Secretary-level or higher who shall be designated by the leadership of their respective departments or agencies.  Within 60 days of a vacancy on the Board, the relevant department or agency or office head shall designate a replacement representative and notify the National Security Advisor.  In addition to the Chair, the Board shall consist of the designated representatives from the following:
  2. the Office of the Vice President;
  3. the Department of State;
  4. the Department of the Treasury;
  5. the Department of Defense;
  6. the Department of Justice;
  7. the Department of Homeland Security;
  8. the U.S. Mission to the United Nations;
  9. the Office of the Director of National Intelligence;
  10. the Central Intelligence Agency;
  11. the U.S. Agency for International Development;
  12. the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
  13. such other agencies or offices as may request to participate in coordination with the Chair.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Justice, in coordination with the Department of State, shall continue to develop proposals for legislative, regulatory, or administrative amendments or changes that would permit the more effective use and enforcement of immigration and other laws to deny impunity to perpetrators of mass atrocities and that would enhance our ability to prosecute such perpetrators subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and remove those who are not citizens. Read the whole EO here.

*****

There is yet another Executive Order and this is due to Mr. Weinstein, an American citizen being killed by an Obama drone strike.

Related reading: Obama Apologizes After Drone Kills American and Italian Held by Al Qaeda

The violent death of an American at the hands of his own government proved a searing moment in a drone war that has come to define the nation’s battle with Al Qaeda, especially since President Obama took office. Visibly upset, Mr. Obama came to the White House briefing room shortly after his staff issued a written statement announcing the deaths to make a rare personal apology.

“As president and as commander in chief, I take full responsibility for all our counterterrorism operations,” the grim-faced president told reporters as television cameras broadcast his words. “I profoundly regret what happened,” he added. “On behalf of the United States government, I offer our deepest apologies to the families.”

Executive Order — United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force

(iv) maintain channels for engagement with the International Committee of the Red Cross and other nongovernmental organizations that operate in conflict zones and encourage such organizations to assist in efforts to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, including by appropriately marking protected facilities, vehicles, and personnel, and by providing updated information on the locations of such facilities and personnel.

Sec. 3. Report on Strikes Undertaken by the U.S. Government Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities. (a) The Director of National Intelligence (DNI), or such other official as the President may designate, shall obtain from relevant agencies information about the number of strikes undertaken by the U.S. Government against terrorist targets outside areas of active hostilities from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2016, as well as assessments of combatant and non-combatant deaths resulting from those strikes, and publicly release an unclassified summary of such information no later than May 1, 2017. By May 1 of each subsequent year, as consistent with the need to protect sources and methods, the DNI shall publicly release a report with the same information for the preceding calendar year. Read the full Executive Order here.

John Kerry, Call Holding Line 2, Tehran Terrorism Calling

Iranian commander: Missiles ready for the ‘annihilation’ of Israel

JPost: The deputy commander of Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard said the country has over 100,000 missiles in Lebanon alone readied for the “annihilation” of Israel.

Iranian-made Fateh 110 (Conqueror) (L) and Persian Gulf (R) missiles

Speaking before Friday prayers on Iran’s state-run IRIB TV, Hossein Salami also said that Iran has “tens of thousands” of additional missiles that are ready to wipe the “accursed black dot” of Israel off the map, according to a translation from the Farsi by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Salami is deputy head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is under the command of the country’s Supreme Leader.

*****

Iran’s Support for Terrorism Under the JCPOA

WashingtonInstitute/Levitt: The Islamic Republic’s terror sponsorship has hardly abated since the nuclear deal was reached, giving the Obama administration another opportunity to reassess these menacing behaviors and hold Tehran accountable.

July 14 will mark one year since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the nuclear agreement with Iran. This article is part of a series of PolicyWatches assessing how the deal has affected various U.S. interests, to be released in the days leading up to the anniversary.

When the JCPOA was implemented in January, terrorism-related sanctions remained in place against Iran, and U.S. officials promised they would hold Tehran accountable for any such activity despite the lifting of nuclear sanctions. As Secretary of State John Kerry noted on January 21, “If we catch them funding terrorism, they’re going to have a problem with the United States Congress and with other people, obviously.” And yet, in the year since the deal was signed, Iran’s threatening behavior has not diminished.

In February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that “Iran, the foremost state sponsor of terrorism — continues to exert its influence in regional crises in the Middle East through the International Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), its terrorist partner Lebanese Hezbollah, and proxy groups…Iran and Hezbollah remain a continuing terrorist threat to U.S. interests and partners worldwide.” A month later, CENTCOM chief Gen. Joseph Votel testified that Iran had become “more aggressive in the days since the agreement.”

Sponsoring Terrorists in the Levant

Iran has been a consistent supporter of U.S.-designated Palestinian terrorist organizations, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas. In August 2015, after four rockets hit the Israeli Golan Heights and Upper Galilee, Jerusalem attributed the attack to a joint effort by PIJ and the IRGC-QF. These claims were substantiated when Israeli counterstrikes against the cell that launched the initial salvo wound up killing an IRGC general, Mohammad Ali Allahdadi.

In September, the Treasury Department designated Maher Jawad Yunes Salah, a dual British-Jordanian citizen who headed the Hamas Finance Committee headquartered in Saudi Arabia. In that capacity, he had been overseeing the transfer of tens of millions of dollars from Iran to the committee; these monies were used to fund Hamas activity in Gaza, including the group’s military “wing,” the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

Although Iran and Hamas have argued at times over the latter’s refusal to support the Assad regime in Syria, they rekindled their broken relationship this year. According to a November report issued by Congressional Research Service, “Iran has apparently sought to rebuild the relationship with Hamas by providing missile technology that Hamas used to construct its own rockets, and by helping it rebuild tunnels destroyed in the [2014] conflict with Israel.” At a press conference in 2015, an Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman asserted that bolstering resistance to Israel — in part by funding Hamas — is a “principled policy.” This support was clarified in February when a Hamas delegation visited Iran for eight days and met with various officials, including IRGC-QF commander Qasem Soleimani. According to a member of the delegation quoted by the Jerusalem Post, Soleimani stated that “Iran was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian resistance before the nuclear deal, and it will remain so after the deal.” Hamas celebrated the trip in a statement of its own, highlighting its “successful and positive meetings with Iranian officials.”

Despite this rapprochement with Hamas, Iran continued its sponsorship of al-Sabirin, a new proxy militant group in Gaza. Led by a former PIJ commander, al-Sabirin reportedly receives $10 million a year from Tehran. Members of the group have also apparently converted to Shia Islam despite operating in Sunni-majority Gaza, adding another level of complexity to the relationship. In December, al-Sabirin claimed responsibility for an explosion that targeted Israeli forces on the border.

Elsewhere in the Levant, Lebanese Hezbollah remains Iran’s primary terrorist proxy. Last month, the group’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, bluntly declared that “Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah.” Since the JCPOA was signed, the U.S.-designated terrorist organization has engaged in numerous criminal, espionage, and terrorist plots.

In February, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration announced that it had uncovered a major drug trafficking and money laundering network during a multinational investigation. The agency named the “Business Affairs Component” of Hezbollah’s External Security Organization as one of the main benefactors of a network that collected and transported “millions of euros in drug proceeds,” which in turn were used to purchase weapons for Hezbollah fighters in Syria.

Last year, less than a week after the JCPOA was signed, Israeli officials arrested a Swedish-Lebanese man, Hassan Khalil Hizran, at Ben Gurion Airport for attempting to gather intelligence on Israeli targets on Hezbollah’s behalf. And just days before the signing, a Lebanese-Canadian man confessed his ties to Hezbollah and said the group had directed him to attack Israeli targets. He was jailed in Cyprus after authorities seized nine tons of a chemical compound used in bombmaking from his home there.

As Hezbollah pours considerable weaponry and manpower into the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, it has also directed third-party actors to carry out terrorist attacks. This January, Israeli authorities arrested five Palestinians for planning an attack “organized and funded by Hezbollah.” According to Israeli officials, the leader of this West Bank cell was recruited by Hassan Nasrallah’s son Jawad. Hezbollah trained and directed the group to surveil Israeli targets, giving the men $5,000 to carry out suicide bombings and other attacks. Based on these and other cases, a senior Israeli official warned in February that Iran was “building an international terror network” of cells with access to weapons, intelligence, and operatives to carry out attacks in the West.

The Gulf

In naming Iran as a major sponsor of terror, the State Department’s 2015 Country Reports on Terrorism revealed that Tehran has “provided weapons, funding, and training to Shia militants in Bahrain,” and that the island state had “raided, interdicted, and rounded up numerous Iran-sponsored weapons caches, arms transfers, and militants” that year. In November, Bahraini authorities arrested forty-seven individuals for their involvement in a terrorist organization linked to the IRGC. And this January, authorities detained six individuals for their involvement in a terrorist cell with claimed links to Iran and Hezbollah. The cell was accused of orchestrating a July 2015 explosion that killed two people outside a girls school in Sitra.

Iran also continued to support Shiite terrorists in Kuwait. In August 2015, local authorities raided a terrorist cell of twenty-six Shiite Kuwaitis, accusing them of amassing “a large amount of weapons, ammunition, and explosives.” After media outlets reported the cell’s alleged links to Iran and Hezbollah, the public prosecutor issued a gag order on the investigation. In January, a local court sentenced two men, one Kuwaiti and one Iranian, to death for spying on behalf of Iran and Hezbollah.

Tehran’s antagonistic relationship with Saudi Arabia also continued this year, mainly through proxy warfare, but also through alleged activities against Saudi targets. In February, the Saudi-aligned Yemeni government asserted that it had evidence of “Hezbollah training the Houthi rebels and fighting alongside them in attacks on Saudi Arabia’s border.” And according to another report that same month, Filipino authorities claimed to thwart an IRGC plot against a fleet of Saudi passenger planes in the Philippines.

Beyond the Middle East

This May, an American drone strike killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour on the Iran-Pakistan border. At the very least, his activities indicated tacit Iranian support for the Taliban, if not more. U.S. authorities had tracked him visiting family in Iran and conducted the strike as he returned to Pakistan. Afterward, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid stated that Mansour had been on one of his several “unofficial trips” to Iran because of “ongoing battle obligations.”

Previously, in November, Kenyan authorities arrested two Iranian citizens on charges of plotting to carry out a terrorist attack against Israeli targets in Nairobi. The Iranians were allegedly sent by the IRGC-QF.

A month later, the Nigerian army launched a massive attack on the Shiite town of Zaria after reportedly obtaining intelligence about an assassination attempt on the country’s army chief of staff. The plot was allegedly organized by the Islamic Movement of Nigeria, a Shiite militant group that Iran had previously trained in the assembly of explosives and other skills, according to a former Iranian Foreign Ministry advisor.

Conclusion

At an April 2015 Washington Institute event held three months before the signing of the JCPOA, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew stated, “Make no mistake: deal or no deal, we will continue to use all our available tools, including sanctions, to counter Iran’s menacing behavior.” A year later, President Obama underscored this pledge to Gulf Cooperation Council partners at a Camp David summit: “We have to be effective in our defenses and hold Iran to account where it is acting in ways that are contrary to international rules and norms.”

Today, however, it is clear that Iran’s support for terrorism has only increased since the deal was reached, and officials cannot feign surprise on the matter. In June, for example, senior Treasury official Adam Szubin bluntly concluded, “As we expected, Iran has not moderated this conduct since the implementation of the JCPOA.” Given Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism and regional instability and the administration’s repeated insistence that it would hold Tehran’s feet to the fire on these very issues, the JCPOA’s first anniversary presents Washington with a perfect opportunity to reassess the regime’s menacing behavior and take steps to hold it accountable.

Deeper Ties of the Dallas Sniper/Terrorists

BARC

Note the bottom flag on the lower left. Referenced here in this article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The organizer of the Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas is Jeff Hood. You can meet him here as described by Breitbart.

So, this goes to a deeper condition and Robert Spencer did some great work.

Dallas massacre of police: FBI investigating anti-police group that attended Dallas mosque
JULY 8, 2016 10:26 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER
The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other Islamic supremacist groups have assiduously courted Black Lives Matter, and linked their propaganda efforts against “Islamophobia” to the Black Lives Matter stand against perceived racism. In Dallas last night, we see where this is tending: as Kyle Shideler notes in the March article below, “At the event, MAS leader Khalilah Sabra openly discussed the importance of Muslim support for Black Lives Matter, and urged ‘revolution.’ Comparing the situation in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Arab Spring revolutions, she asked, ‘We are the community that staged a revolution across the world; if we can do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?’” And with the mass murder of police in Dallas last night, we’re getting there.

The Nation of Islam is not an orthodox Muslim group, and subscribes to a great deal of racial mythology that is nowhere in Islamic tradition. It is, however, also true that many black Americans first enter the Nation, and then become orthodox Sunni Muslims. And given the increased racial tensions of the Obama era, many people in both the NOI and among mainstream Sunnis have a taste for the “revolution” that is brought about by means of jihad.
“Dallas police shootings: Race rally cops killed in Dallas sniper ambush,” The Australian, July 9, 2016:

Heavily armed snipers killed five police and transit officers in downtown Dallas and wounded seven more, in a premeditated and triangulated “ambush-style” assault during a rally protesting against the killing of black men after two shootings this week….

As the FBI and local authorities launched an investigation, their focus was expected to probe militant black rights groups set up in Dallas. Anti-police groups include the New Black Panther Party and Huey P. Newton Gun Club, named after the founder of the 1960s activist Black Panther Party.

The Huey P. Newton Gun Club includes a coalition of BARC (Blacks Against Racist Cops) and other African-American groups, who agitate against police brutality. The group ­attended the Nation of Islam’s Muhammad mosque in Dallas in April to monitor protests by an anti- Islamic group, the Bureau of American Islamic Relations. Both sides were armed, and moved on by police….

It’s useful to recall this: “Black Lives Matter and a History of Islamist Outreach to African Americans,” by Kyle Shideler, Townhall, March 17, 2016:

Once the dust settled, last week’s protest of a Donald Trump rally in Chicago demonstrated a growing nexus between Islamist groups in the United States and the radical leftist “Black Lives Matter” movement.

This rhetoric of unity between these movements was clearly on display at the 2015 joint conference of the 2015 Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA). MAS was described by federal prosecutors as the “overt arm” of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood, and ICNA is recognized as the front for the Pakistani Islamist group Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) founded by one of the foremost thinkers on modern Jihad, Syed Abul A’la Maududi.

At the event, MAS leader Khalilah Sabra openly discussed the importance of Muslim support for Black Lives Matter, and urged “revolution.” Comparing the situation in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Arab Spring revolutions, she asked, “We are the community that staged a revolution across the world; if we can do that, why can’t we have that revolution in America?”

Reporting on this merging “revolutionary” alliance goes back as far as the first outbreak of disorder in Ferguson. Few may recall the attendance at Michael Brown’s funeral of CAIR executive director Nihad Awad. Awad was identified in federal court as a member of the Palestine Committee, a covert group of Muslim Brothers dedicated to supporting Hamas in the United States.
CAIR joined other groups named by federal law enforcement as Muslim Brotherhood organizations and lined up behind the Ferguson protests.

In November of 2014, Fox News reported on an effort by CAIR Michigan Director Dawud Walid to link the death of Michael Brown at the hands of police and the death of Luqman Abdullah, a Detroit imam shot during an FBI raid.

Abdullah was described by the FBI as a leader of a nationwide Islamic organization known as “The Ummah,” run by convicted cop-killer Jamil Abdullah Amin. Abdullah’s group engaged in criminal activity in order to raise funds in order for an effort to establish Sharia law in opposition to the U.S. government.

Amin and CAIR have a long association together, with CAIR providing funding for Amin’s legal defense, and issuing numerous press releases in support of the Georgia radical imam and former Black Panther.

While this linkage of Islamist front groups to radical racial politics may seem a relatively new development, the reality is it has been the result of a nearly four decade long effort by Islamist groups. A major thinker on this effort was a Pakistani immigrant and ICNA leader named Shamim A. Siddiqui, who knew JeI founder Maududi personally. Siddiqui wrote his work, Methodology of Dawah Il Allah in American Perspective in 1989. Read more here.

White House and Kremlin Coordination on Syria

  

IRAQ: Syrian rebel group directed US airstrikes against ISIS targets in the desert near Aksahat.

#US airstrikes w/ #NSyA spotters help in clearing #Akashat Desert. Early report of 5 #Da‘esh killed. #ISIL retreating from Ak to the desert.

*****

The Kremlin: Obama agrees to more military coordination in Syria

President Obama and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, in a telephone call Wednesday, agreed they were ready to intensify military coordination in Syria, according to a Kremlin statement.

“Both sides reaffirmed their readiness to increase the military coordination of Russian and U.S. actions,” it said, according to a translation by the Russian news agency, Interfax.

The call, initiated by Putin, came as the Syrian military said it would begin a 72-hour truce in the country’s long-running civil war to honor the Eid holiday marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. Syrian rebels reportedly agreed to the truce, although fighting continued.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry said he hoped the truce initiative was an “outgrowth” of talks in which the United States is trying to persuade Russia to press its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, to stop bombing civilians and opposition groups seeking to oust him. Kerry spoke during a visit to Tblisi, Georgia.

The administration last week offered to help Russia improve its own air targeting against terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, if it would rein in Assad. In Wednesday’s call, the Kremlin said, Putin “urged” Obama to work harder to separate U.S.-backed opposition groups from the forces of Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate.

U.S. officials have said they are willing to discuss additional coordination in their so-far separate counterterrorism operations in Syria, but remain unsure if Russia would pressure Assad and that no decisions have been made.

The White House made no mention of increased coordination with Russia in its own statement about the Putin call. Obama, it said, “emphasized his concerns over the failure of the Syrian regime to comply with the cessation of hostilities in Syria,” referring to a truce that was negotiated under U.S.-Russian auspices in February, but has since largely fallen apart under intensified Syrian and Russian bombing.

“President Obama stressed the importance of Russia pressing the Syrian regime for a lasting halt to offensive attacks against civilians and parties to the cessation, noting the importance of fully recommitting to the original terms of the cessation,” which was signed by Assad and opposition groups, but excluded the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Russia has long been eager to expand its military cooperation with the United States, a goal that administration officials attribute to Putin’s desire for increased status on the world stage. While both oppose the Islamic State and agree that Syria’s separate civil conflict undermines efforts to destroy the terror group, they have vastly different prescriptions — centering on whether Assad stays or goes — for resolving it.

Both Obama and Putin, their statements said, called for progress on negotiations toward a political solution to the Syrian conflict. More here from WashingtonPost

160706_digiovanni_syria_gty.jpg

The Syria Trump and Clinton Aren’t Talking About

As the presidential candidates spin sketchy ideas for peace in Syria, whole cities are starving.

In part from Politico:

The truth is that the world, at least much of the United States, is not watching.

For Americans, caught up in a circus-like presidential election driven by fear and anger—about lost jobs, about terrorist attacks, about immigrants—Syria is simply part of an indefinite mass of Middle Eastern chaos and danger. Though Syria has endured five years of war, and suffered more than 400,000 dead, it manages to arouse as much suspicion as pity. And when it has been discussed at all by presidential candidates often it has been to argue over the need for an immigration ban on all Muslims to prevent terrorists from hiding among the trickle of Syrians entering the country. No one talks about Daraya, or the 18 other besieged towns across Syria just like it where starvation is being used as a tool of war.

The ordeal of Daraya exemplifies how we have gotten everything wrong about Syria. Daraya is suffering because the U.N. and Western countries like the United States cannot act effectively in concert, cannot manage to compel Assad to do anything he says he will do. Beginning last autumn and continuing through early this year, the International Syria Support Group (ISSG), the 17-nation group plus the European Union and U.N., convened in Vienna and Geneva to help determine the future of Syria. The group issued a series of directives, most of them quite straightforward: Commit to a cease-fire and allow humanitarian aid to enter places like Daraya.

So far, Assad has violated every directive, with no consequences for his noncompliance. This demonstrates two things: the U.N., which has been attempting to mediate the peace talks for four years, has once again lost any credibility and that Assad is basically above the law. The question for the United States is what will the next president do about it?

Going by the sketchy and not always consistent ideas put forward by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential nominees of their parties, it’s hard to believe the next occupant of the White House will make a measurable improvement. That said, there is some reason to believe either one of them could be far more aggressive than President Barack Obama, whose decision not to enforce his so-called red line on chemical weapons in 2013 and his general desire to get out of the Middle East has left him open to criticism that he pulled his punch on Syria.

Obama has consistently rejected direct strikes against the Syrian government, saying that “what we have learned over the last 10, 12, 13 years is that unless we can get the parties on the ground to agree to live together in some fashion, then no amount of U.S. military engagement will solve the problem.” And now the White House is proposing a plan that would strengthen military cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, which has been bombing targets inside Syria since September, to combat terrorist groups in Syria in exchange for Russia’s agreement to persuade the Assad regime to stop bombing U.S.-supported rebels like the ones holed up in Daraya. Whether Vladimir Putin would follow through on such a deal is something about which Syria experts express deep skepticism.

So what would Clinton and Trump do differently—if anything?

“Under a Clinton administration, it’s fair to assume there will be a move to discuss the establishment of safe zones, probably first in places away from Russian activities to avoid any potential confrontation,” Shadi Hamid, a senior analyst with the Brookings Institution, says. “Regardless of her own preferences, she’d be under pressure to distinguish herself from Obama on foreign policy, and Syria would make sense as the place to chart a new approach.”

The no-fly zone Clinton has called for in north Syria would provide a humanitarian safe-space that, in theory, would stem the tide of refugees fleeing for Europe. But Clinton, generally seen as more hawkish than Obama, has struggled to answer the difficult questions about how to implement it and enforce it. Would she commit ground troops, widely accepted as a logistical prerequisite? And would she be prepared for the U.S. to shoot down Russian jets that violated the airspace? Her answers about “deconflicting airspace” have sounded more wishful than anything.

Her answers about “deconflicting airspace” have sounded more wishful than anything.

Kim Ghattas, who wrote a biography of Clinton, The Secretary, says: “She will likely want to quickly signal to the Russians, but also the Iranians, that there is a new president in the (White House) who is ready to impose a price on Iran for its behavior in the region—at the risk of undermining the nuclear deal—and force a political settlement in Syria.”

But Ghattas says that a lot depends on what is actually happening inside Syria by the time she gets to the Oval Office. “Either way, her approach will be driven by her concerns about the vacuum that the U.S. leaves when it is not fully engaged in a situation or a region.”

And then there’s Trump.

The real estate mogul’s thoughts on Syria are in such conflict they ought to have their own no-fly zone. He has campaigned against foreign entanglements like the Iraq War, never missing an opportunity to remind voters of Clinton’s support for that invasion. But he has also pledged to destroy ISIL, something he alleges current U.S. policy will never achieve. But that can only mean committing American troops to the region. As for Assad, whom he has pronounced “bad,” Trump has expressed no interest in angering Vladimir Putin by interfering with Russia’s desire to keep Assad in power.

“Trump’s experience in foreign policy matter is dire, to say the least, and the erratic nature of his approach confounds explanation,” says H.A. Hellyer, senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Centre for the Middle East in London. “What little he has said on Syria indicates he’s more comfortable with the Russian position than he is with the current American one, and views ISIL as more of a threat to regional and international stability than Assad’s regime.”

While Clinton has a four-year record of foreign policy decisions to indicate her tendencies, Trump’s utter lack of a record is what confounds those trying to responsibly predict what he might do.

“Trump is unpredictable and a total mystery, ‘a jump in the dark’, possibly over a cliff,” Nadim Shehadi, director of the Fares Center for Eastern Mediterranean Studies at the Fletcher School of Tufts University, says. “But those who are favorable to him think that he will be more like a chairman of the board and appoint various CEOs for different tasks like Defense, State, Health, and leave them to do their job.”

Hamid, from Brookings, says there might be some flexibility in Trump’s approach if his advisers, or public opinion, can persuade him to re-engage on Syria. “In the form of establishing no-fly and no-drive zones, which Trump seemed to suggest recently he’d be open to,” Hamid says. “But this is at cross purposes with his friendliness with Putin, who would see such safe zones as a threat.” Full story here.