RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18125/us-diplomacy-iran

As part of its “diplomacy”, the White House first told the Iranian leaders not only that it is willing to lift nuclear-related sanctions, but also that it is considering lifting non-nuclear related sanctions.
Not only has the Biden administration’s diplomatic route lifted some of the sanctions on the Iranian regime and its Houthi proxy, the administration has also looked the other way regarding the Islamic Republic’s malign actions in the region.
As #BloodyFriday [the Iranian regime’s lethal response to citizens protesting water shortages] trended on Twitter, not a word of condemnation could be heard from the White House. The organization Iranian-Americans for Liberty pleaded with the Biden administration to stand with the protesters….
Sadly, throughout history, “diplomacy” without the credible threat of a military follow-up (emphasis on the credible) can easily be regarded as just a “toothless” bore.
The Biden administration’s policy of “diplomacy” towards the Iran’s ruling mullahs seems in reality to be nothing more distressing to the ruling mullahs than a soggy pile of concessions and capitulations that, far from stopping their predations, will only empower and embolden them.

The Biden administration is perpetuating the idea that the White House is relying on “diplomacy” in dealing with the Iranian regime. However, the Biden administration’s “diplomacy” with Iran seems nothing but capitulations to the ruling mullahs.

As part of its “diplomacy”, the White House first told the Iranian leaders not only that it is willing to lift nuclear-related sanctions, but also that it is considering lifting non-nuclear related sanctions. This was followed by the first concession toward Iran’s proxy militia group, the Houthis. Even as the evidence — including a report by the United Nations — showed that the Iranian regime was delivering sophisticated weapons to the Houthis in Yemen, the Biden administration suspended some of the anti-terrorism sanctions on the Houthis that the Trump administration had imposed. Soon after, the Biden administration revoked the designation of Yemen’s Houthis as a terrorist group.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18140/china-year-of-the-tiger-ii

The same inaction by Western leaders to hold China accountable for the global pandemic that infuriates Western citizens only emboldens the Communist Party leadership, which sees inaction as a license to do more.

China will be constantly assessing the political strength of its adversaries. European political leaders have never demonstrated the stomach to confront military threats. During my tenure as U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, I observed Europeans always believed dialogue was more important than confrontation. Bad agreements were better than no agreements and being party to agreements that did not work was better than withdrawing.

They also likely assess the EU will do almost anything to protect its significant economic ties with China. The EU likely would propose as the appropriate response to any CCP action against Taiwan talks and talks and talks.

The CCP will closely monitor the responses of the EU and U.S. to Russia’s aggressive posture against Ukraine. Does Russia gain major concessions from the West? Does it grab another piece of Ukraine with little or only a modest reaction from the West? If so, this would signal to China that the West is unreliable ally and ripe for the picking.

The year of the Tiger, 2022, is shaping up to be a year of escalating tension between the world’s two major superpowers. It will be go big or go home.

Not only will the U.S. go big against China, but it is likely the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will see 2022 as an opportunity to go big against the U.S. The target will be Taiwan.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18138/destroying-taiwan

Chinese ruler Xi Jinping is not going to be deterred by the prospect of losing TSMC [semiconductor company] or, for that matter, all of Taiwan’s semiconductor industry. He will take the island even if he has to make it a radioactive slab uninhabitable for a thousand years.

“China wanted Taiwan long before TSMC was churning out chips, and would want it even if TSMC had never existed…. It wants Taiwan because, like Nazi Germany, it is an expansionist power….” — Michael Turton, columnist, Taipei Times, January 10, 2022.

China’s regime is extraordinarily casualty-adverse…. McKinney and Harris, therefore, totally miss the mark when they argue that an arms race with China would be counterproductive. Xi knows that an invasion of the island would be unpopular among most Chinese citizens if their sons or daughter were killed or maimed in the effort…, he is not about to do anything that could lead to the end of Communist Party rule.

Richard Fisher, a China military analyst with the International Assessment and Strategy Center, tells Gatestone that it is possible for the United States to win such a contest with China. Fisher is correct. The Chinese military is arms-racing not just with the United States but with much of the region, especially Japan and Australia.

[A]t a time when China’s Communist Party is attacking democracies, Washington cannot allow Beijing to absorb any one of them, even if it is not home to the world’s leading chipmakers.

“Destroying Taiwan’s democracy is essential to giving China’s Communist Party license to destroy all other democracies.” — Richard Fisher to Gatestone, January 2022.

If America came to the rescue of Taiwan, it would not be defending just the island; America would be defending itself.

America can save Taiwan from Chinese invasion by promising to destroy it, or at least its chipmaking capability, argues an article in Parameters, the U.S. Army War College’s quarterly. In “Broken Nest: Deterring China from Invading Taiwan,” Air University’s Jared McKinney and Colorado State University’s Peter Harris say that Taipei and Washington should make the island “unwantable.”

https://amgreatness.com/2022/01/16/how-to-counter-bidens-national-security-incompetence-in-2022/

The inept national security policies of Joe Biden during his first year in office caused a profound deterioration in American and global security that is certain to worsen in 2022 unless he takes aggressive steps to change course. 

From his disastrous withdrawal of U.S troops from Afghanistan, lack of coherent policies to deal with Russia and China, a stubborn determination to appease Iran to revive the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear deal, and an obsession with climate change as a national security issue, Biden in just one year severely undermined America’s global reputation as a strong and principled nation. 

Making this worse is a global perception that Joe Biden is not mentally competent to be the U.S. commander in chief. 

America’s enemies have been watching this unprecedented deterioration of American global leadership and are preparing to cash in. This could include in 2022 China attacking Taiwan, Russia invading Ukraine, and increased provocations by Iran and North Korea, including possible nuclear tests by both nations. There is also the threat to the United States directly by criminal and national security threats resulting from Biden’s failure to secure our southern border. 

Biden’s advisers and members of Congress must recognize that threats to American security could significantly worsen in 2022 and demand changes to the Biden Administration’s national security policies and staffing. These changes should include:

First, fire Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. These officials have been weak advisers to an incompetent president and should be replaced with more experienced Democratic experts with gravitas and principle. 

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/01/why-joe-biden-should-leverage-the-abraham-accords-to-bring-stability-to-the-middle-east/

This week’s announcement that a bipartisan group of House and Senate members have created an Abraham Accords Caucus to encourage more Arab-Israeli normalization agreements reminds us that the accords have the potential to reshape the region’s politics, economics, diplomacy, and military relationships.

The question is whether, in the months to come, the Biden administration will view the accords as an opportunity to promote America’s regional interests or as a distraction from its other challenges.

The accords – the U.S.-brokered normalization agreements that Israel signed with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in late 2020 and subsequently with Morocco – are having a noticeable positive impact on the nations involved and, as a result, are raising prospects for wider Israeli-Arab peace.

Airlines are flying back and forth from Israel to those Arab states, tourism and people-to-people exchanges are flourishing, and trade between Israel and the UAE, in particular, is soaring. In recent months, Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid attended the opening of Israel’s new embassy in Manama; Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett visited UAE Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan in Abu Dhabi; Israel and Morocco signed an agreement to nourish security cooperation; and the UAE and Bahrain joined the United States and Israel in a naval exercise in the Red Sea.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18134/responding-to-chinese-diplomatic-and-economic

The UAE is a staunch ally of the U.S. as well as home to a major joint U.S./UAE military installation. The UAE, demonstrating extraordinary leadership by His Highness Mohammed bin Zayed Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and his outstanding advisors, was also the first Muslim country to sign on to the Abraham Accords, and to initiate a truly warm peace between Muslim states and Israel after years of disputes had destabilized the region. The UAE, in addition, was the first Arab country to send troops to Afghanistan alongside the U.S. and to provide significant assistance when the U.S. withdrew from there in 2021.

National security cannot be compromised and diplomatic relations must be defended…. The “Monitoring China-UAE Cooperation Act,” is, alas, a woefully misguided way to go about it. Congress may try to claim that it is trying to protect our national security against China’s espionage and influence operations, but triggering friction against strong allies can end up delivering them into the hands of our adversaries – as our adversaries doubtless wish.

Sadly, this Act is profoundly counterproductive….Most importantly, any new requirements would respect our friends and allies. Legislation highlighting a single specific country can only be perceived by that country as an insult, an affront. Whether it is in the economic or national security arena, the business of diplomacy is improving relationships, not damaging them.

This is a global problem, not unique to one country. China is trying to install its companies’ products all over the globe. Some might even call China’s aggressive push on 5G a pandemic.

Rather than assaulting allies, and instead of clinging to a one-size-fits-all solution, the U.S. might craft legislation that would require the Director of National Intelligence to adjust requirements based on the relationship that the U.S. has with various countries….The DNI would design a global system that is flexible enough to reflect the complex network of relationships that the U.S. has around the world. No two are exactly the same.

China is the threat, not our allies.

Legislation recently introduced in Congress purportedly seeks to confront China’s growing global aggression on a broad range of fronts. While that goal is certainly urgent and important goal, regrettably, in reality,this document appears largely a pretext for attacking one of America’s most impressive allies, the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-china-bid-empire-colonialism-ukraine-taiwan-imperial-invasion-qing-dynasty-soviet-union-romanov-11642111334?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Intellectuals can’t stop denouncing the West for its legacy of imperialism. But the imperialism on the march today is in the East. Russia and China are determined to consume Ukraine and Taiwan, legacies of the Romanov and Qing dynasties respectively, into the latest versions of their historical empires. Technology has intensified this struggle for imperial geography. Great-power war has become entirely imaginable because of the reduced emphasis on thermonuclear bombs in an era of hypersonic missiles, automated weapons systems, and information warfare. Russia and China demonstrate that the struggle for empire has rarely had such nerve-racking stakes.

The notion that we can play Russia off against China—as the Nixon administration played China off against the Soviet Union—is a fantasy. President Biden’s reward for giving up opposition to Russia’s Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany has been the advance of nearly 100,000 Russian troops to the Ukrainian border area. National security adviser Henry Kissinger’s secret 1971 visit to Beijing occurred in the context of dramatic military tensions on the Chinese-Soviet frontier. China was in desperate need of U.S. help. Russia today has no such need.

True, the Chinese are making large-scale economic advances in formerly Soviet Central Asia, as well as providing security assistance to the Muslim republics there. But Russian President Vladimir Putin has calculated that China, a fellow authoritarian regime, isn’t a threat to his rule in the way the West is. (Indeed, Mr. Putin easily moved antiriot police into Kazakhstan, a place that the Russian empire settled with peasants from Russia and Ukraine in the 19th and early 20th centuries.) He has little need to line up with the West to balance against China.

Rather the reverse: Mr. Putin needs China to balance against the West. Since it is the West, in his view, that has helped install a hostile regime in Ukraine, whose border is less than 300 miles from Moscow, and would like to install a similarly hostile and democratic regime in Belarus, also relatively close to the Russian capital. What we see as potential or fledgling democratic states, Mr. Putin sees as vital parts of the former Soviet Union, a great power whose sprawling territory was based on czarist imperial conquests. While Ukraine was the birthplace of Kyivan Rus, it was also forcibly absorbed inside the czarist empire in the late 18th century, only to declare independence in 1918, before the Soviet conquest.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/if_the_us_and_russia_are_implacable_foes_then_all_lines_of_inquiry_lead_to_nato.html

In 1961, as a young academic Henry Kissinger had an opportunity to interview President Harry Truman. He asked the former president what in his presidency had made him most proud.

Truman replied, “That we totally defeated our enemies and then brought them back to the community of nations.”

Unfortunately, the U.S. chose not to emulate Truman’s achievement in the years that followed. With the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact, the military threat to Western Europe had ended, but NATO alliance did not disband itself. Mission accomplished was not good news for the military alliance — it needed new enemies and a new mission for self-preservation.

Indeed, NATO had no difficulty adjusting to the emerging world order. A new enemy was invented — Russia was to be treated as a descendant of the “evil empire.” The concept of an alliance was quietly converted into a doctrine of collective security.  The difference is that while alliances are aimed at a specific threat and define the obligation of each partner in case of belligerency, collective security is an ambiguous concept that defines no specific threat and is designed to resist any aggression anywhere in the world. In this new mission, NATO equated peace and security with expanding democratic gains and the proliferation of American values.

In conformance with a new disposition, in the exultant atmosphere of the end of the Cold War, when Russia’s executive power was in a state of paralysis and its military in a state of despair, NATO hastily extended membership to the countries of former Soviet satellite orbit. The projection of a hostile military alliance eastward to within several hundred miles of Moscow could not be long tolerated by Russia irrespective invocations of goodwill.

After the restoration of her economy and years of heavy investment into the modernization of its armed forces, Russia feels strong enough to confront what she considers a serious threat to her security.

Putin proclaimed his strategy, which was akin to a Russified Monroe Doctrine. It aimed to reassert Russian hegemony around its perimeter, or what Russia has long called its “near abroad.” 

Russia’s fear is not unfounded. “If you know a country’s geography, you can understand and predict its foreign policy,” said Napoleon.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/ifthen_is_no_policy_for_dealing_with_russia_.html

Russia has embarked upon a series of threatening activities ostensibly directed at Ukraine, but that in fact could culminate in enormous and disastrous military and political damage to NATO. Those same threatening activities might also be used by Russia as a lever to get the West to deliver what President Vladimir Putin wants without military action. We don’t know yet which is the Russian endgame, and it is conceivable that they don’t yet either.

Which makes it foolish in the extreme to have an “if/then” policy. “If/then” is transactional — If I’m nice to you, you should be nice to me; if you misbehave, I will impose consequences on you. If/then relies on two things — first, that your adversary believes you and further, that he fears the consequences. This works from parent to child. But with a competent adversary, there is a third requirement — that the consequences he can inflict on you are within your tolerance.

How is it working?

President Joe Biden removed sanctions from the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, allowing Russia to finish the supply line for more Russian gas to Europe and cut Ukraine out as the middleman. In return, Russia has added troops to the border of Ukraine; there appear to be upwards of 70,000 now. In December, the G7 ministers adopted a more threatening tone. “Russia should be in no doubt that further military aggression against Ukraine would have massive consequences and severe cost in response.” In January, Secretary of State Antony Blinken sounded firm. “We’ve offered (Putin) two paths forward. One is through diplomacy and dialogue; the other is through deterrence and massive consequences for Russia if it renews its aggression against Ukraine. And we’re about to test the proposition of which path President Putin wants to take.” 

He was not explicit about the nature of the consequences — the Ukrainians clearly are hoping for a NATO military response, but for many reasons, including that NATO has not even discussed such an option, it is unlikely. The new German foreign minister tipped NATO’s hand that the response will be economic when she said, “Further military escalation wouldn’t bring Ukraine greater security.”