RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://asiatimes.com/2021/08/us-business-pushes-biden-for-a-china-trade-deal/

The US-China trade war has endured under the Biden administration.

NEW YORK – Never before in US political history has the whole of the American business community—more than thirty major business organizations—spoke with one voice as it did in an August 5 appeal to the Biden administration to eliminate tariffs on imports from China.

No entities in American politics are timider than business lobbies, most of whose work involves quiet lobbying for administrative relief and legislative tweaks. Such a high-profile intervention suggests that the business organizations believe that a deal is already underway.

A deal is likely because inflation could poison the Democratic Party’s chances at 2022 mid-term elections and return control of the US Congress to the Republicans. Cutting tariffs is the quickest way to reduce inflation. Beyond the arithmetic of electoral politics, a consensus is emerging that the technology sanctions that Trump imposed on China have failed and may even have backfired.

More than 30 business groups including the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Semiconductor Industry Association, as well as retailer, farm and manufacturing representatives asked Biden to cut tariffs and restart trade talks with China.

The letter stated: “A worker-centered trade agenda should account for the costs that US and Chinese tariffs impose on Americans here and at home and remove tariffs that harm U.S. interests.”

Last month, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told the New York Times that tariffs “hurt American consumers.” Since then-president Donald Trump imposed a 20% tariff on roughly half the goods America buys from China, the Treasury has collected about $100 billion in fees. Most of that was paid by US consumers.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17612/ebrahim-raisi-us-visa

If [Iran’s President Ebrahim] Raisi is granted a visa to come to the US, the Iranian regime’s legitimacy will be enhanced, and the regime will be empowered to try to kidnap more Americans on the US soil.

The senators’ letter sheds a light on several examples: “In 1988, the United States barred PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat from entering the United States to attend a meeting of the United Nations. In 2014, President Obama denied an entry visa to Iranian Ambassador Hamid Aboutalebi, who was involved in taking American diplomats hostage in 1979. In 2020, the United States declined to issue a visa for Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.”

The Biden administration needs to listen to the US senators, who have accurately explained: “Ebrahim Raisi’s role in the Death Commissions, brutal crackdowns on Iranian protesters, and his association with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps should disqualify him from receiving a visa to the United States.”

If the Biden administration has a shred of respect for human rights and those people who lost their lives to reach freedom and democracy, it should not negotiate with Iran’s mass murderer president, or grant him a visa to come to New York.

The Biden administration has signaled that it is in a hurry to negotiate with the government of Iran’s new president, Ebrahim Raisi, a mass murderer who is known as the Butcher of Tehran, in order to revive former US President Barack Obama’s catastrophic 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — which Iran never signed — and lift sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Just last month, Iran was exposed in an attempt to kidnap a dual US-Iranian citizen, Masih Alinejad, from her home in New York City.

Raisi is currently scheduled to come to the city of that planned kidnapping to speak at the United Nations General Assembly in September. This prospect prompted six Republican senators — Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — to send a letter to US President Joe Biden urging him to deny entry visas to Raisi and other Iranian officials who are planning to attend the annual UN event.

https://bit.ly/3xnO4f1

Disengagement from the Middle East?

The Middle East is situated between Europe, Asia and Africa, and between the Mediterranean, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.

President Biden wishes to disengage from the Middle East, but the Middle East does not intend to disengage from the US.

The US is perceived by rogue Middle East entities as “The Great Satan” and the mega-obstacle on their way to achieve their mega-goal: bringing the West to submission, militarily, culturally and religiously. This mega-goal has been deeply-rooted since the 7th century, independent of US policies.

Isolation is not a realistic option in the increasingly globalized village, where rogue Middle East regimes are engaged in the proliferation of terrorism, non-conventional military technologies and drug trafficking around the globe. Their reach extends all the way to the American continent, impacting the US homeland security.

Will the US lead – or follow – the engagement process?  Will the engagement with rogue Middle East entities be conducted mostly around the US – or the Middle East – “end zone”?

The Biden team’s track record

President Biden’s Middle East policy reflects the worldview of his top foreign policy and national security team, most notably Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, who has been President Biden’s most influential advisor since 2002-2008 (similar to Secretary Baker’s influence on President Bush), when Blinken was the Democratic Staff Director on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Other leading members of the team are Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, William Burns, the CIA Director and Avril Haines, the Director of National Intelligence. They – like Blinken – played a key role in shaping President Obama’s Middle East policy.

For instance, they were instrumental in carving the 2015 nuclear accord with Iran (JCPOA), which followed the US embrace of Iran’s Ayatollahs (Shiite terrorism), while demoting the stature of the pro-US Saudis, the UAE and Bahrain.  This has intensified the existential threat to these regimes, injuring the US’ strategic reliability, and driving its traditional Arab allies closer to China and Russia.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/time-to-take-advantage-of-cracks-in-tehrans-armor-opinion-675992

There’s nothing new about the powers-that-be in Tehran speaking out of both sides of their mouths, particularly when switching from Farsi to other languages. The only “novelty” was the inauguration on Tuesday – and swearing-in before the Majlis on Thursday – of Ebraim Raisi as Iran’s eighth president, replacing Hassan Rouhani in the role that he’s held since 2013.

Though it remains to be seen how Raisi “The Butcher” handles the predicament currently confronting the Islamic Republic, it’s safe to say that one way in which he’ll toe the ayatollahs’ line is to rule with an iron fist while lying about it for international consumption.

Indeed, as Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s hand-picked victor in the staged June 18 “election,” Raisi is certain to hit the ground running where attempting to quash the countrywide protests that have been plaguing his country for the past few weeks is concerned.
Nor is there any doubt that he’ll continue his predecessors’ tradition of pinning the blame for the public’s dire economic straits on the United States and Israel – the former for “crippling sanctions,” and the latter for aggression.

At this juncture, however, the Iranian people are so fed up with their plight at the hands of the regime that they’re no longer willing to be fed the propaganda. They want actual sustenance in the form of food on the table and water in the tap, both of which are running as scarce as electricity.

The fact that their slogans at mass demonstrations include calls for Khamenei’s death means that they no longer fear the torturous punishment that befalls Iranian dissidents. Their denunciations of the government’s funding of Palestinian terrorism, let alone its bankrolling ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, indicates that they have become emboldened by the sense that they have nothing left to lose

THE TROUBLE is that what they have to gain could easily be thwarted by fantasists in Washington. Yes, the administration of US President Joe Biden incredibly refuses to abandon its notion that a return to some form of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 countries from which former president Donald Trump withdrew in 2018 – is the way to curb the threat from Tehran.

https://www.nysun.com/foreign/league-of-appeasement-how-the-west-fails-to-take/91603/

If ever there were a cause for “collective response,” Iran’s deadly attack on a commercial carrier navigating the busy shipping lanes of an oil-rich region is it — unless, of course, that phrase means no response at all.

On April 2, 1917, in a speech to Congress, President Wilson cited repeated German violations of the principle of “Freedom of the Seas” as casus belli, justifying America’s entry into the European blood-letting later known as World War I.

After that war was won, Wilson went on to promote the establishment of the League of Nations, an unconstitutional, ill-fated attempt to forge a collective global response to threats against world peace.

Zoom forward to last Thursday night, when a Romanian captain and a British security officer aboard the Mercer Street were killed in a drone attack in the Persian Gulf, off the shores of Oman. The Liberian-flagged tanker is operated by Zodiac, a company listed in Britain and owned by Eyal Offer, an Israeli billionaire.

An Iranian website initially reported the attack was retaliation for an Israeli air attack on Iranian targets in Syria, but officials in Iran later denied responsibility. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said Israel possesses irrefutable evidence of Iran’s culpability.

Soon after, Secretary of State Blinken and Britain’s foreign minister, Dominic Raab, also stated Iran was responsible. These allies will launch a “collective response,” Mr. Blinken ominously declared Monday.

Yet before the collective concluded its deliberations over what course of coordinated action it should take collectively, Iran seemed to unilaterally escalate. Earlier today the British navy reported a “potential hijacking” of a ship off the United Arab Emirates’ coast. Additionally, four oil tankers reported loss of control over their Automatic Identification System tracker.

The Iranian news agency IRNA immediately denied Tehran was involved in those attacks, and the country even offered its assistance.

Israel’s foreign and defense ministers reportedly plan to brief diplomats of the United Nations Security Council tomorrow on the Mercer Street evidence. That indicates a Security Council response. Expect Russia, China and others to demand an investigation by the world body before any collective action is taken.

Meanwhile, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, said Monday that Washington remains engaged in talks aimed at reviving the articles of appeasement on the nuclear deal. “Our view,” she said, “is that every single challenge and threat we face from Iran would be made more pronounced and dangerous by an unconstrained nuclear program.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17565/afghanistan-withdrawal-china

China, which shares a tiny 47-mile-long border with Afghanistan, has long coveted developing closer ties with Kabul, not least because of the large, untapped reserves of mineral wealth that Afghanistan possesses.

Rich in copper, lithium, marble, gold and uranium, Afghanistan’s mineral wealth has been estimated to exceed in excess of $1 trillion….

Beijing already enjoys good relations with neighbouring Pakistan, where the country’s charismatic prime minister, Imran Khan, was once dubbed “Taliban Khan” for supporting the Islamist movement.

As part of Beijing’s efforts to deepen and broaden its ties in Central Asia, Beijing is also concentrating its efforts on expanding its influence in Afghanistan, a policy it expects will bear fruit if the Taliban achieve their goal of seizing control of the entire country.

Mr Biden, judging by his spirited defence of his decision to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan, clearly believes that it is in America’s interests to end its two-decade-long involvement in the country. But if the US withdrawal simply opens the way for China to become the new dominant power in Afghanistan, then Mr Biden will be responsible for causing, so far as the West is concerned, a strategic disaster of epic proportions.

The indecent haste with which the Biden administration has undertaken its military withdrawal from Afghanistan not only raises the prospect of handing control of the country over to the hardline Islamist Taliban movement. It also presents China with a golden opportunity to extend its influence over this strategically important Central Asian country.

China, which shares a tiny 47-mile-long border with Afghanistan, has long coveted developing closer ties with Kabul, not least because of the large, untapped reserves of mineral wealth that Afghanistan possesses.

Rich in copper, lithium, marble, gold and uranium, Afghanistan’s mineral wealth has been estimated to exceed in excess of $1 trillion, resources that could easily make the country economically self-sufficient if ever they were to be fully developed.

From China’s perspective, access to Afghanistan’s mineral riches would provide it with a ready supply of valuable minerals that are deemed vital to the ruling Communist party’s long-term aim of becoming the world’s pre-eminent economic power.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/the_hotel_california_doctrine_of_us_military_intervention.html

It is easy to remember why the United States invaded Afghanistan.  Our country had just been attacked by terrorists based there.  The nation was united in a desire to protect itself from further attacks and bring the parties responsible to justice.

It’s not so easy to remember whether the justification for the invasion was based on a broader policy, whether there was discussion at the time of what would constitute victory, or whether the invasion was an actual war in the traditional sense.  More to the point, it’s unclear whether those questions have answers today, even as we exit Afghanistan.

I’ve read several articles written by people with a ton more knowledge than I have about whether our country should stay in Afghanistan or leave.  A lot of the writers had personal experience fighting in Afghanistan.  The opinions they offer differ, with some arguing to stay and others arguing to leave.  The positions of Trump and Biden seem to be aligned on the side of leave, which is remarkable, given how much else they disagree on.

As an average citizen, I supported the decision to invade.  Like most people, the attacks scared the daylights out of me, and I was riled up more than at any other time in my life.  I suspect that our leaders were at least in part reacting to the zeitgeist as much as, or possibly more than they were thinking about the end game.

At this point, I don’t presume to know the correct answer on the stay or leave question, though I could make a solid argument for either course of action.  Stay: The situation in Afghanistan could quickly return to pre-9/11 conditions and again become a haven for terrorists plotting to attack us.  Leave: There’s nothing more to do in Afghanistan that would justify expending more blood and treasure than we already have, and we need to rely on Homeland Security and the “Intelligence Community” to defend ourselves from future terrorist attacks.  You can add in arguments about the positive or negative impacts on Afghanis from either point of view.  On this count, most people would acknowledge that leaving is going to hurt the segment of the Afghani population who want to avoid a return to the tender mercies of the Taliban, including and especially women.