RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2021/03/02/america-is-back-unfortunately/

Bragging about his restoration of the pre-Trump neoliberal foreign policy, Joe Biden proudly declared “America is back.” What this means in practice is that barely a month into Biden’s term, America is back to bombing Syria for alleged provocations by Iranian-backed militias. 

While ordinary Americans on both the Left and Right are wary of dreams of empire and want to focus instead on pressing domestic challenges, Biden’s paeans to America’s pre-Trump foreign policy—including its disastrous run in the Middle East—suggest someone unwilling and unable to learn from events. 

A Dubious Return to Regime Change in Syria

For example, this recent attack supposedly was a response to an Iranian-backed militia, but this prompts the question: Why are our troops still in Syria and Iraq? On what authority and for what purpose does this mission continue? Biden’s recent approval of a limited bombing did almost nothing to justify the decision to the American people, nor did he attempt to justify the continued presence of U.S. troops in a danger zone. Instead, the White House sent a pro forma statement to Congress, and that’s about it. 

The United States has been involved in Syria since 2011. First, we set out under Barack Obama to remove Bashar al-Assad by arming the so-called Free Syrian Army. Then, having armed the anti-Assad rebels, many of them became unmanageable and joined ISIS, wreaking havoc in Syria, in Europe, and here at home. President Trump then proceeded to devise policies to destroy ISIS, which the military largely achieved.

But now what? Does Biden still mean to remove Assad? And, if so, why are we so sure that what comes next won’t resemble ISIS? 

Trump faced a lot of criticism for ordering our troops out of Syria after the ISIS mission was complete. He was then persuaded into keeping some forces there—ostensibly to guard both critical oil resources and our Kurdish allies. Key government officials, including his Syrian envoy, lied to him about the numbers and status of American forces. 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/crocodile-tears-for-khashoggi-betray-info-op-to-promote-his-fellow-islamists_3717242.html

With the Biden administration releasing an intelligence assessment claiming de facto Saudi leader Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) approved the grisly 2018 murder of Jamal Khashoggi, the political-media class is once again shedding crocodile tears over his death. Its purpose is more than performative. It is signaling the dawn of the rebooted Obama-Biden administration project to Make the Middle East Great for Islamists Again, aided by the Iran Deal–Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber that is reassembling in real-time to amplify such stories.

We know the outrage over Khashoggi’s murder, which the Biden administration has re-stoked, is disingenuous on account of two things: First, the political-media class has always been at pains to lionize Khashoggi as a highly sympathetic, muckraking, dissident journalist, while airbrushing out the more unsavory details of his life. Such details include his Muslim Brotherhood support and mourning of Osama bin Laden’s death, apparent anti-Semitism, the backing of his Saudi-critical work by rival Qatar, and past service as a Saudi government mouthpiece. Second, the political-media class has, by contrast, ignored the fates of the scores of journalists who fit the idealized Khashoggi profile, from China, to Turkey, to Iran.

To mention these omissions of Khashoggi’s views and associations is not to diminish his murder. But it is to call into question the circumstances surrounding it, which matter if there are to be consequences for our national security and foreign policy—as our political-media class has long demanded.

The facts suggest that contra the Official Narrative of Khashoggi as a freedom-fighting regime critic-in-exile, it might be more accurate to describe him as an Islamist political operative who was participating in a high-stakes geopolitical game involving dangerous players—among them competing factions of the House of Saud, Qatar, and Turkey.

 https://www.newsweek.com/this-hand-that-hand-biden-administration-iran-opinion

The media is full of news about American airstrikes on Iranian-supported militias in Syria. Yes—it is a big deal and an appropriate measure—but if that’s the left hand of the Biden administration, watch out for the right. This is becoming a theme.

In early January, though little remarked upon in the Western press, Iran seized the South Korean oil tanker MT Hankuk Chemi in international waters in the Persian Gulf. Coincidentally (Tehran says), Iran demanded the release of funds frozen by the South Korean government under the U.S.-led sanctions regime. Most of the crew was released in February, but the ship and its captain remain in Iranian waters. South Korea has now agreed to release $1 billion out of an estimated $7–9 billion held by Seoul. According to a Korean Foreign Ministry source, “The actual unfreezing of the assets will be carried out through consultations with related countries, including the United States.”

South Korea, an American ally, wanted its ship and captain back while not breaking sanctions. It appears that the Biden administration offered Seoul a bit of a sleight of hand, suggesting that some of the funds either go directly to pay Iran’s dues in arrears to the UN or go toward humanitarian activity controlled by outside organizations. The Iranian government says Tehran will determine where the money is spent.

If the money ends up in Iranian banks, you will know how that negotiation went.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17109/nuclear-inspectors-iran

In the latest example of Iran’s increasingly reckless approach to the nuclear issue, the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has threatened to increase uranium enrichment to 60 percent, just below the 90 percent threshold required to produce weapons grade material.

Thus, while IAEA director general Rafael Grossi claimed the talks had been a success, the IAEA now finds itself in the invidious position whereby it will not be able to ascertain whether Iran is actively working to produce nuclear weapons until after the event.

Even Mr Grossi has been forced to concede that, as a result of Iran’s decision to withdraw access to inspection teams, the IAEA’s ability to monitor Iran’s activities will be reduced by 70 percent.

In the latest blow to the IAEA’s credibility, within hours of Mr Grossi concluding his compromise deal, Mr Khamenei exposed the futility of this approach with his threat that Iran was prepared to increase uranium enrichment to 60 percent, a move that would make any attempt to revive the JCPOA utterly doomed.

As Iran continues to maintain its defiance over its controversial nuclear programme, the failure of the UN-body responsible for monitoring Iran’s activities is only lending further encouragement to the ayatollahs to indulge in further acts of dangerous brinkmanship.

In the latest example of Iran’s increasingly reckless approach to the nuclear issue, the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has threatened to increase uranium enrichment to 60 percent, just below the 90 percent threshold required to produce weapons grade material.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/02/if_nobodys_home_who_called_out_the_syria_airstrike.html

Seven weeks into his presidency, senile Joe Biden surprised many by calling in a Syria air strike.

It was puzzling, given that there seemed to be no immediate threat.  And that’s just for starters.

It was billed as a strike on pro-Iran militants stationed in the region, and in retaliation for an earlier strike of theirs against a U.S. installation.  That seems a little eyebrow-raising, given Biden’s eagerness to make nice with the mullahs.  Even that explanation has skeptics who call the whole thing laughable.

There are also those who think Biden is finishing up what President Obama started.  You know, for the legacy thing.  Favor to a pal.

What’s vivid is that questions are being raised about whether Joe really made the call.

First, note that his vice president, Kamala Harris, was kept out of the loop.  According to a report citing a White House official, she’s said to be steaming that nobody told her before it happened.  And she’s probably more steamed to learn that that news got out, advertising for everyone that her giggly round-heeled self is viewed, even in the Biden White House, as a lightweight.

But we already knew that.

What’s also news is that on more than one occasion, she’s publicly opposed attacking Syria.  Here’s her famous tweet everyone’s retweeting, exposing her supposed (in this case) hypocrisy:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-bidens-mixed-iran-messages-11614382234?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

Friday morning’s airstrike against Iran-backed militias in eastern Syria sends a clear message: President Biden will use force to defend American lives. But this welcome development is an exception to the rest of Mr. Biden’s emerging Iran policy.

The President authorized the mission Thursday as a response to deadly rocket attacks against American and allied personnel in Iraq this month. The strikes, meant to target the Iranian proxies Kataib Hezbollah and Kataib Sayyid al-Shuhada, destroyed several weapons storage facilities.

The Pentagon didn’t confirm casualty numbers, but media reports suggest well over a dozen pro-Iranian fighters were killed as the U.S. also struck trucks loaded with weapons. The message will be heard in Tehran and by other U.S. adversaries.

On the other hand, there’s Mr. Biden’s seemingly eager desire to return to the flawed 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. After announcing that Washington couldn’t “snap back” United Nations sanctions, the new Administration is consulting with South Korea about releasing at least $1 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said this week the U.S. wants to “lengthen and strengthen” the accord—good—but then said President Trump’s sanctions on Iran had failed.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/help-wanted-america-must-resume-its-postwar-role-promoting-freedom-178830

“We’re at an inflection point,” President Joe Biden told the Munich Security Conference the other day, “between those who argue that . . . autocracy is the best way forward” and “those who understand that democracy is essential” to meeting the world’s economic, health, and other challenges.

A month into his presidency, Biden seems deeply committed to restoring America’s moral voice, to resurrecting its traditional postwar role of promoting freedom and democracy around the world.

“We must start,” he told State Department employees, “with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.” At a CNN town hall, he spoke passionately about rebuilding the U.S. refugee program that former President Donald Trump severely curtailed, describing “people piled up in camps, kids dying, no way out, refugees fleeing from persecution” – and about an America that “used to do our part” in accepting refugees in far greater number.

Biden recognizes that America promotes freedom and democracy for reasons of not just morality but self-interest – that a freer, more democratic world will be a safer, more prosperous one for us; and that we can best meet the challenge of what he calls “advancing authoritarianism” by highlighting the advantages of U.S.-led freedom over its authoritarian alternatives in Beijing, Moscow, and elsewhere.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/17054/us-arming-china

China’s greatest financial weakness remains its continued dependence on Western capital markets, crucial for a growing economy…. To grow, China depends on massive inflows of capital that surge through the capital markets based in the U.S. The Trump administration made several moves during its term to delist Chinese companies that are not forthcoming about who really owns them and what businesses they are really engaged in.

[S]ince 2013, Chinese state-owned enterprises have enjoyed exemptions from Sarbanes-Oxley and other regulatory requirements that also force greater transparency from these companies. They were the only ones granted these exemptions while still being listed on New York stock markets. What if those exemptions were removed?

The only relevant screening in the US happens through the same government body that approved the sale of Uranium One to Russian government-backed investors, called the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

Yet, U.S. capital markets currently have no such insulation. So we have capital markets which freely trade the shares of companies that have violated international sanctions, sold America’s adversaries advanced ballistic missiles, armed the PLA, and helped militarize the fabricated new islands in the South China Sea. These companies freely receive investment dollars from ordinary Americans saving for their retirement, unaware of their real activities and ownership.

This January, the New York Stock Exchange began the process of delisting three Chinese telecom companies…. The administration said the three firms are owned or controlled by China’s military.

No one wants to damage the investment portfolios of American retirement savers. But the dark side of this exposure is what may become of U.S. resolve to stand up to Beijing if 180 million Americans realize that up to 20% of their retirement funds are locked into Chinese securities. These Americans would suddenly have a personal, vested interest in opposing any future sanctions or other penalties against China, regardless of the geopolitical sense or national security implications. That prospect should encourage Congress to move sooner rather than later.

President Ronald Reagan knew the weaknesses of the Soviet Union. Unlike his predecessors, he did not focus on countering their strengths, but by exploiting those problems of life under a Marxist-Leninist regime that were impossible for them to fix. Reagan’s policies targeted many weaknesses – religious, political, military, and cultural among them – but his focus on Russia’s economic problems exposed those other weaknesses by choking the regime’s ability even to throw money at other problems.

Today, the most pressing threats do not come from Russia. They come from the growing power exerted by China. So, the question becomes: Can we apply these today lessons to China? With the massive, worldwide reach of China, its economic power and military build-up combine to pose strategic threats to the U.S. and the free world. Reagan’s strategy, however, can counter these threats and reduce others posed by the Chinese dragon.