RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://bit.ly/3sB9Fyo

While US policy in the Middle East focuses on multilateralism, human rights, democracy and international law, the stormy Middle East displays deeply-rooted domestic and regional Shiite (mostly Iran) and Sunni (mostly Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS) repression, terrorism and warfare, as well as imperial aspirations by Iran’s Ayatollahs and Turkey’s Erdogan.

The explosive state of the Middle East has highlighted the vulnerability and the actual/potential disintegration of Arab entities, which have always revered local/tribal – much more than national – loyalty.

This state of affairs emphasizes Western misinterpretation of the unpredictable, violently intolerant, highly fragmented, despotic and dis-functional Middle East, which has systematically frustrated benevolent Western efforts to introduce democracy, tolerance, stability and peaceful-coexistence into the Middle East.

In 2021, the well-armed Middle East is raging with a litany of armed conflicts, domestic and anti-Western terrorism and other forms of violence, which have yielded over 500,000 fatalities and close to 10 million refugees since 2011.

It features Iran (domestic repression and military and terroristic involvement in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, the Arabian Peninsula, the Horn of Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and Europe), Turkey (the key supporter of the transcontinental Muslim Brotherhood terrorism, and militarily involved in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Horn of Africa and the Persian Gulf); as well as Libya (internationalized civil war and global Islamic terrorism), Egypt (war on Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS terrorism) and Jordan (war on Muslim Brotherhood terrorism and explosive domestic conflicts).  In addition, there are Lebanon (Islamic terrorism and low scale civil war), Syria (internationalized civil war and Islamic terrorism), Iraq (Islamic terrorism and internationalized civil war, while considering Kuwait its own Province 19), Yemen (internationalized civil war and Islamic terrorism), Qatar (financial supporter of Muslim Brotherhood terrorism and closely aligned with Iran and Turkey), Saudi Arabia (war on Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and Shiite terrorism, as well as war on Iran-supported Yemen-Houthi terrorism), the UAE and Bahrain (war on Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS and Shiite terrorism), etc.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/04/democrats-comply-chicomintern-lloyd-billingsley/

Back in February, the government of Romania adopted a memorandum that would exclude Chinese firms from public contracts for highway or rail projects. This comes at a time when Romania “desperately needs to start infrastructure works,” according to deputy prime minister Dan Barna, concerned about companies that “do not live up to European standards.”

As Barna and leaders around the world should know, Chinese infrastructure also falls short of American standards. Should that be doubted, consider the new span of the Bay Bridge from San Francisco to Oakland, California.

California Democrats could have tapped federal money for the infrastructure project, but that would have required the use of American steel. California Democrats preferred Chinese steel and Chinese labor, and both fell short of American standards.

California selected the state-owned Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company, which at the time had no experience building bridges. Zhenhua’s 3,000 employees on the project included steel-cutters, welders, polishers and engineers. The bridge decks and materials were to be constructed in China, which left American workers with only assembly, concrete pouring and such.

In 2007, fissures began appearing in bars of Chinese steel. In 2009, the company shipped from China the main bridge tower and 28 bridge decks. Engineers found hundreds of cracks in the welds, and every one of the 750 panels had to be repaired. In 2013, dozens of the long metal rods on the project snapped, and during storms critical parts of the bridge filled with water.

The bridge came in ten years late, $5 billion over budget, and riddled with safety issues. Then-governor Jerry Brown, a three-time Democrat presidential contender, shrugged it off with “shit happens,” and when whistleblowers called for a criminal investigation, attorney general Kamala Harris ignored them. UC Berkeley engineering professor Abolhasaan Astaneh-Asi, a critic of the design, declines to use the bridge, warning that, “If a single component fails, the whole thing comes down.”

Romanian leaders were doubtless aware of the project, but they had other reasons to be wary of China. Like millions of other Europeans, the Romanians lived under the yoke of Communism from 1947 to 1989. By then it was time for a change and the Romanians knew what to do. The tyrant Nikolae Ceaucescu and his loathsome wife Elena attempted to flee, but the army, now on the people’s side, captured the pair and charged them with crimes against humanity. 

On December 25, 1989, a Romanian firing squad executed Ceaucescu and Elena. Five years later, Romanians believed the summary execution was fully justified. More than 30 years later, Romanians seem aware that China’s “belt and road” initiative leads to substandard infrastructure and dangerous entanglements with a totalitarian regime.

China now functions as the Communist International (Comintern), which the Soviets set up to control the national Communist parties. With the ChiComintern, Democrats are particularly compliant.

For 20 years, California Democrat Diane Feinstein employed a Chinese spy who functioned as her office manager. When Missouri takes China to court over the pandemic, Feinstein takes China’s side, and like other Democrats she parrots Chinese propaganda.

https://richard-kemp.com/our-afghan-retreat-is-a-surrender-to-iran/

Over 50 per cent of Afghanistan is now controlled or violently contested by the Taliban, down from about three quarters before US-led forces threw them out of power after 9/11. Despite the country’s army and police being strengthened by two decades of international training and investment, it is hard to see how the Islamist militants can be prevented from regaining their 2001 position now that Joe Biden has announced the withdrawal of all US forces by September this year.

The Trump administration planned to pull out all US forces four months earlier, subject to conditions including a significant reduction of violence, meaningful negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the breaking of Taliban relations with Al-Qaida and an undertaking not to allow Afghanistan to be used as a base to attack the West. Predictably, none have been met. But that will not affect Biden’s plan which is based not on conditions but an arbitrary date.

We should now be prepared for a civil war even bloodier than anything witnessed so far and the downfall of the democratic government in Kabul. As well as an incessant campaign of violence against women, girls’ schools and anyone transgressing strict sharia laws in the distant provinces, the Taliban have been waging a vicious purge in Kabul and other cities against leaders of the more progressive civil society that has emerged since 2001. Targets for assassination include politicians, judges, lawyers, human rights worker, teachers, university lecturers and journalists: anyone who might lead or influence opposition to a return to fundamentalist rule.

More than 450 British troops have been killed and thousands more maimed in Afghanistan since 2001. As well as fighting the Taliban and other insurgents, our soldiers have been heavily engaged in supporting the Afghan security forces. More than 70,000 of their number have been killed, including nearly 10,000 since the ‘agreement for bringing peace’ was signed between the US and the Taliban in Doha last year.

It is difficult to see total withdrawal of US and other coalition forces as anything but a betrayal of all those that sacrificed so much. High on the Taliban hit list will be Afghans that assisted our troops, in particular the thousands of local interpreters who played such a key role and helped save many lives. One of my own teenage interpreters in Kabul in 2003 is today a general in the Afghan National Army and I dread to think what his fate might be if the Taliban take over.

https://www.jns.org/opinion/bidens-bad-foreign-policy-deals/

Because Barack Obama struck me as a clever fellow, I never understood why, when negotiating with despots, he failed to utilize the leverage available to him.

For instance, he might have said to Russian President Vladimir Putin: “I want to reset our relations, but many Americans haven’t forgotten the Cold War. So, I need you to make clear that Russia today isn’t just the USSR 2.0.”

To Raul Castro, he could have said: “It’s high time for us to open diplomatic relations, but you know the Miami crowd! If you’ll just ease up on dissidents a little, we can meet and go to a baseball game together in Havana, and maybe I’ll even have my picture taken under a portrait of Che Guevara!”

To Iran’s rulers, he should have said: “Many members of Congress, even within my own party, won’t approve the deal you want me to sign off on. So, at a minimum, I need you to demonstrate—verifiably—that you’re permanently out of the nuclear weapons business and won’t threaten your neighbors anymore.”

Instead, of course, Obama gave without getting and then postured as though he’d achieved spectacular victories. President Joe Biden is now doing likewise. A few examples follow.

In February, the Biden administration lifted the foreign terrorist designation of the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Since then, they’ve been launching missiles and armed drones at Saudi cities and oil facilities, and have turned down proposals for ceasefires. Mission unaccomplished.

The United Nations Human Rights Council has become a club for chronic human rights abusers—China, Russia and Cuba among them. The Trump administration withdrew from it. The Biden administration plans to return. What reforms have been undertaken in exchange for the United States again lending its legitimacy to the UNHRC? None.

https://amgreatness.com/2021/04/14/how-to-start-a-war/

Wars often arise from uncertainty. When strong powers appear weak, truly weaker ones take risks they otherwise would not. 

Sloppy braggadocio and serial promises of restraint alternatively trigger wars, too. Empty tough talk can needlessly egg on aggressors. But mouthing utopian bromides convinces bullies that their targets are too sophisticated to counter aggression.

Sometimes announcing “a new peace process” without any ability to bring either novel concessions or pressures only raises false hopes—and furor. 

Every new American president is usually tested to determine whether the United States can still protect friends like Japan, Europe, South Korea, Israel, and Taiwan. And will the new commander-in-chief deter America’s enemies Iran and North Korea—and keep China and Russia from absorbing their neighbors?

Joe Biden, and those around him, seem determined to upset the peace they inherited. 

Soon after Donald Trump left office, Vladimir Putin began massing troops on the Ukrainian border and threatening to attack.

Putin earlier had concluded Trump was dangerously unpredictable, and perhaps better not provoked. After all, the Trump Administration took out Russian mercenaries in Syria. It beefed up defense spending and upped sanctions.

The Trump Administration flooded the world with cheap oil to Russia’s chagrin. It pulled out from asymmetrical missile treaties with Russia. It sold sophisticated arms to the Ukrainians. The Russians concluded that Trump might do anything, and so waited for another president before again testing America.

In contrast, Biden too often talks provocatively—while carrying a twig. He has gratuitously called Putin “a killer.” And he warned that the Russian dictator “would pay a price” for supposedly interfering in the 2020 election. 

Unfortunately, his bombast follows four years of a Russian-collusion hoax, fueled by a concocted dossier paid for by 2016 candidate Hillary Clinton. Biden and others swore Trump was—in the words of Barack Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper—a “Russian asset.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/back-to-irans-nuclear-future-11618354043?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

‘America is back” has been a mantra of the early Biden Presidency, and back how is the question. So far regarding Iran it seems to mean back to the future of 2015-2016 and another bad nuclear deal.

The U.S. on Wednesday will resume talks in Vienna to revive the nuclear agreement, but the bigger news is the explosion over the weekend at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. No one has taken credit, but Israel has been notably public in saying it will do whatever it must to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Unlike past cyber attacks, the U.S. was quick to say it had nothing to do with the Natanz attack. A fair conclusion is that Israel feels it must act because it sees President Biden rushing back to a deal that clearly hasn’t stopped Iran from continuing to make progress toward a nuclear breakout.

Washington and Tehran are so far speaking through European intermediaries, but the focus of the talks is also back to the Obama future. The Iranians, who outmaneuvered the same American negotiators six years ago, are demanding the removal of all sanctions as the price for a return to the deal. Donald Trump’s sanctions have increased domestic economic pressure on the mullahs, who want access to global oil markets and investment.