The opportunities and risks of Trump's Iran initiative - By Caroline B. Glick - http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Our-world-The-opportunities-and-risks-of-Trumps-Iran-initiative-507594
By placing the nuclear deal in the context of Iran's hostility and aggression, Trump made it self-evident that no US interest is served in continuing to give Iran a free pass.
On Friday, US President Donald Trump initiated an important change in US policy toward Iran.
No, in his speech decertifying Iran's compliance with the nuclear accord it struck with his predecessor Barack Obama, Trump didn't announce a new strategy for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stemming its hegemonic rise in the Middle East, or limiting its ability to sponsor terrorism.
Trump's move was not operational. It was directional.
In his address Friday, Trump changed the policy dynamics that dictate US policy on Iran. For the first time since 2009, when Obama backed the murderous regime in Tehran, spurning the millions of Iranians who rose up in the Green Revolution, Trump opened up the possibility that the US may begin to base its policies toward Iran on reality.
Trump began his remarks by setting out Iran's long rap sheet of aggression against America.
Starting with the US embassy seizure and hostage crisis, Trump described Iran's crimes and acts of war against America in greater detail than any of his predecessors ever did.
Trump's dossier was interlaced with condemnations of the regime's repression of its own people.
By merging Iran's external aggression with its internal repression, Trump signaled a readiness to drive a wedge - or expand the wedge - between the authoritarian theocrats that rule Iran and the largely secular, multiethnic and pro-Western people of Iran.
Trump then turned his attention to Iran's illicit ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorism, including its links to al-Qaida, its aggression against its neighbors, its aggressive acts against maritime traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, and its bids to destabilize and control large swaths of the Middle East through its proxies.
It is notable that these remarks preceded Trump's discussion of the nuclear deal - which was the ostensible subject of his speech. Before Trump discussed Iran's breaches of the nuclear deal, he first demonstrated that contrary to the expressed views of his top advisers, it is impossible to limit a realistic discussion of the threat Iran constitutes to US national security and interests to whether or not and it what manner it is breaching the nuclear accord.
This was a critical point because for the past two years, US discourse on Iran has focused solely on whether or not Iran was complying with Obama's nuclear pact. By placing the nuclear deal in the context of Iran's consistent, overarching hostility and aggression, Trump made it self-evident that no US interest is served in continuing to give Iran a free pass from congressional sanctions.
After accomplishing that goal, Trump turned his attention to how Iran is actually breaching the letter and spirit of the nuclear pact. Only then, almost as an afterthought, did he announce that he was decertifying Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, setting the conditions for the renewal of congressional sanctions on Iran and opening the floodgates of congressional sanctions on Iran in retaliation for the full spectrum of its aggressive and illicit acts against the US, its interests and allies.
By empowering Congress to prohibit economic cooperation with Iran, Trump put the Europeans, Chinese and Russians on notice that they may soon face a choice between conducting business with the US and conducting business with Iran.
After putting them on notice, Trump discussed the possibility of improving Obama's nuclear accord. Among other things, he suggested expanding the inspection regime against Iran's nuclear installations and canceling the so-called "sunset" clause that places an end date on the restrictions governing certain components of Iran's nuclear advancement.
Trump's address has the potential to serve as the foundation of a major, positive shift in US policy toward Iran. Such a shift could potentially facilitate the achievement of Trump's goals of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, containing its regional aggression and empowerment and defeating its terrorist proxies.
Unfortunately, it is also likely, indeed, it is more likely, that his words will not be translated into policies to achieve these critical aims.
Trump's decision to transfer immediate responsibility to Congress for holding Iran accountable for its hostile actions on the military and other fronts is a risky move. He has a lot of enemies, and the nuclear deal has a lot of supporters on Capitol Hill.
Obama would have never been able to implement his nuclear deal if Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, hadn't agreed to cast the Constitution aside and ignore Obama's constitutional duty to present the nuclear deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.
Over the past week, Trump and Corker have been involved in an ugly public fight precipitated by Corker's announcement that he will not be seeking reelection next year.
Today Corker has nothing to restrain him from scuttling Trump's agenda. If he wishes, out of spite, Corker can block effective sanctions from being passed. And he may do so even though the implications for his Senate colleagues would be dire and even though doing so would render him an unofficial protector of Iran's nuclear program.
What is true for Corker is doubly true for the Democrats.
Leading Democratic senators like Robert Menendez, Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer, who opposed Obama's Iran deal may now feel that as opponents of the Trump administration, they are required to oppose any change to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.
Indeed, given the rise of radical forces in their party it is likely that they would rather give Iran a free pass for its anti-American aggression and nuclear proliferation than work with Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House.
Then again, by framing the issue of Iran's threat to America as he did, and by transferring responsibility for reinstating sanctions and passing further sanctions on Iran to Congress, Trump opened up the possibility that Congress will conduct substantive - rather than personal - debates on Iran.
And the more substantive those debates become, the further away the US discourse will move from the mendacious assumptions of Obama's Iran policy - that the Iranian regime is a responsible actor and potential US ally, and that there is nothing inherently aggressive or problematic about Iran's illicit nuclear weapons program.
The second major risk inherent in Trump's approach is that he will get his way; that the Europeans, Russians and Chinese and the Iranians will agree to improve the nuclear deal. The problem here is not obvious. Clearly, it is better if the deal is amended to delete the sunset clauses and expand the inspections regime.
Yet even an amended, improved deal will still serve as a shield to Iran's nuclear program. An improved deal won't destroy Iran's centrifuges.
It won't take away Iran's enriched uranium. It won't destroy Iran's nuclear installations. And it won't bring down the regime which by its nature ensures all of these things will remain a menace to the US, its allies and international security as a whole.
So long as the US continues to maintain a policy based on the false view that all that is necessary to destroy the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a combination of the nuclear deal and economic sanctions, it will continue to ensure that Iran and its nuclear program remain a major threat. Distressingly, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the most outspoken supporter of decertifying Iranian compliance in the Trump administration, told NBC on Sunday that the US intends to remain in the nuclear deal.
To understand what must be done we must return to Trump's speech and its strategic significance.
By taking a holistic view of the Iranian threat - grounded in a recognition of the inherent hostility of the regime - Trump opened up the possibility that the US and its allies can develop a holistic policy for confronting and defeating Iran and its proxies. If the Iran deal and sanctions are two components to a larger strategy rather than the entire strategy, they can be helpful.
A wider strategy would target Iran's regional aggression by weakening its proxies and clients from Hezbollah and Hamas to the regimes in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. It would target the regime itself by empowering the ayatollahs' domestic opponents. It would pin down Iranian forces by arming and otherwise assisting the Iraqi Kurds to defend and maintain their control over their territory along the Iranian border while strengthening the ties between Iranian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds.
Friday, Trump created the possibility for such a strategy. It is up to members of Congress, and US allies like Israel and the Sunni Arab states to help Trump conceive and implement it. If they fail, the possibility Trump created will be lost, perhaps irrevocably.
Trump: "Peace has to happen" - Terry James - http://www.raptureready.com/category/nearing-midnight/
It is inevitable. Peace in the Middle East must happen. This, according to President Donald Trump.
The president, while being interviewed on former Governor Mike Huckabee's initial TBN program, made the declaration.
"I want to give that a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem."
He said further, "f we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israel, I think it'll lead to ultimately peace in the Middle East, which has to happen."
Trump, in June of 2017, signed a temporary order keeping the American embassy in Tel Aviv. This follows the actions of presidents preceding him.
Some see this as his breaking a promise he made while on the 2016 presidential campaign trail. He received rousing ovations every time he declared he would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the city that Israel claims as its capital.
Mr. Trump has said on numerous occasions that his administration is working on a peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians that will result in peace for the whole region. He has appointed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, as unofficial diplomat in charge of working to accomplish peace in the Middle East.
Others-including the Benjamin Netanyahu-led government-deny that the president has abandoned the idea of moving the embassy. In his declaration that he wants to give peace a chance before moving the embassy, Trump simply means, in their view, that the move is postponed. To force such an action at this moment in the current volatile geopolitical climate would likely ramp up hostilities.
To watchers on the wall-those who view the world through the prism of Bible prophecy from the pre-Millennial, pre-Tribulation perspective, the president's declaration and decision on the embassy move should not come as surprise.
Like every other prophetic indicator on the present world horizon, the fact that there is a continuing drive to force peace between Israel and its enemy neighbors is simply something that must be in view while final prophecies near fulfillment. Like Mr. Trump says, peace between Israel and its closest enemy neighbor "has to happen," from the human point of view.
Like all the world has cried for decades-as wrapped neatly in the lyrics of the song by John Lennon-we must "give peace a chance."
But, that much-ballyhooed peace process leaves out the one essential ingredient that can make it come to pass. God is ignored. The very Prince of Peace, the Lord Jesus Christ, is not even considered in their humanistic effort. As a matter of fact, His Holy name is ridiculed and mocked at every turn by most of the diplomatic world. Christ is viewed as the holdup to peace in most instances, rather than the solution to the hatred and war-making that has dominated human history.
Mr. President, much of your political-electoral-base is made up by those of us who support Israel. We want peace for Israel, the Middle East, the United States, and the world. We know, however, from what God's prophetic Word has to say, that there will be no peace until the Prince of Peace rules and reigns in the hearts and minds of mankind.
The present call for peace is addressed, I'm convinced, by the apostle Paul as follows:
For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. (1 Thessalonians 5:1)
Mr. President, peace will happen. It will come in two distinctively opposite forms.
The first peace will be a false peace, brought about by the man of sin, the son of perdition - Antichrist.
Daniel the prophet said the following about this false prince that shall come:
And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many. (Daniel8: 25)
The other peace-the real peace-will be brought upon the planet at Christ's return to make all things right again.
Jesus, the Prince of Peace, said the following just before leaving this sin-corrupted world:
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. (John 14:27)
Trump Does Not Understand Israeli/Palestinian Conflict - By Geri Ungurean -
I write this article knowing that I may receive many derogatory responses. Nevertheless, this article must be written.
I voted for Trump; or perhaps I should say I voted against Hillary Clinton. During the primaries, I was a supporter of Ted Cruz. No man is perfect - we are all sinners. I realize that many Christians were "Never-Trumpers" but I could not sit home on election day. I cast my vote for Trump and that was that.
One of Trump's campaign promises was to move our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. It would be a bold measure; telling the world that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. When Trump was elected, he tapped his son-in-law Jared Kushner as a primary player in negotiating a peace plan between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.
The problem with Kushner is that he comes from a family, much like my own, with liberal Democrats. Most Jews are Democrats. Most Jews are liberals. I believe that Kushner has no idea about Israel's right to the land. He views this ongoing conflict from a secular standpoint - and so does President Trump.
I woke up this morning and read this in the news:
"Trumps says he wants to give peace a shot before he even thinks of moving the embassy."
I am envisioning people locking arms, swaying back and forth and singing Kumbaya.
Trump does not understand that the Palestinians do not want "peace." They long for the annihilation of Israel. Mahmoud Abbas has repeatedly said that Israel does not have the right to exist. Does Kushner or Trump understand this? Or perhaps the question should be asked: "Do they care?"
From jpost.com
TRUMP: I WANT TO GIVE PEACE A SHOT BEFORE I EVEN THINK OF MOVING EMBASSY
US President Donald Trump breaks the silence on the disputed issue of the American embassy's relocation (or its lack thereof).
WASHINGTON - US President Donald Trump said in an interview broadcast on Saturday that he wanted to give a shot at achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians before moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In June, Trump signed a temporary order to keep the US embassy in Tel Aviv, despite a campaign promise he made to move it to Jerusalem.
"I want to give that a shot before I even think about moving the embassy to Jerusalem," he said.
"If we can make peace between the Palestinians and Israel, I think it'll lead to ultimately peace in the Middle East, which has to happen," he said.
Asked if there was a time frame for the embassy move, Trump said: "We're going to make a decision in the not too distant future.
"Hours before going on air, Trump took to Twitter to promote the show and his appearance on it, inviting his followers to watch him make an appearance on Huckabee's show as his very first guest. The fact that Huckabee managed to snag such an important guest for the first episode of his show was criticized by many, seeing as the former governor's daughter, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, currently serves as White House Press Secretary.
Many in Israel were looking forward for the president to make good on his campaign pledge and move the embassy from Tel Aviv to the capital, but were disappointed to discover that Trump was backtracking on his promise as the first months of his presidency and his key Israel visit both went by without significant progress towards a move.
Trump's decision to halt the embassy relocation was perceived as a stinging blow, despite the fact that he has sent officials from his administration with increasing frequency in recent months to attempt to accelerate the stagnant peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.
Both Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law who serves as a shadow diplomat in the White House in charge of US-led peace efforts, and US Special Envoy Jason Greenblatt have visited the region numerous times in the past six months to negotiate with government officials in Israel as well as Palestinian Authority representatives.
So there you have it. Was the pledge to move our embassy to Jerusalem just another "broken" campaign promise? Was it said to secure some of the Jewish vote?
We don't know the answers to this, but for Trump to even dream about peace between Israel and her mortal enemy is naive at best.
Shalom b'Yeshua
FBI Russia investigation points to Clinton - Bill Wilson - www.dailyjot.com
In March, the Daily Jot reported that when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State she completed a deal where nuclear grade uranium was sent to Russia scoring $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a speech in Moscow, Clinton's campaign Chairman John Podesta did a $35 million energy deal with Russia, and the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in donations from Ian Telfer, head of Russia's uranium company. Now the FBI is releasing information that indicates both the Clinton's and the immediate past "president" were involved in what appears to be a bribery/kickback scheme with Russian officials in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
A lengthy story by John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill documents that federal agents "obtained an eyewitness account-backed by documents-indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the US designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow." That government body would be the Committee on Foreign Investment and Hillary Clinton brokered a deal where Russia gained control of more than 20 percent of America's uranium supply. Nonetheless, the news media, despite documented facts, continued to push the narrative that President Donald Trump was in league with the Russians to influence the US election.
One of The Hill's sources says: "The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the [sic ex-"president's"] administration made those decisions." Attorney General Eric Holder also was part of the committee that brokered the uranium deal. The Russian chicanery was blamed on then candidate and now President, Donald Trump. A willing news media hardly reported on the uranium deal and all the money that went to the Clintons and their foundation, but pounded Americans with Russian election interference news.
If you look at who had pre-election deals with Russia, Hillary Clinton and the ex-"president" would be poster children. Hundreds of millions of dollars exchanged hands between Russia and the Clinton Foundation when Clinton was Secretary of State in the ex-"president's" administration, and these deals were supported by the ex-"president." The more they pushed Russian ties with Trump, the more deals they did with Russia themselves. This is an ongoing effort to conduct a bait and switch on the American people. As said in 2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." This is some of the worst deception of this generation.
Iran's very good week - Caroline B. Glick -
The Islamic Republic doesn't play around.
You have to hand it to the Iranians. They don't play around. Just hours after President Donald Trump gave his speech outlining the contours of a new US policy toward Iran, senior Iranian officials were on the ground in Iraq and Syria not only humiliating the US, but altering the strategic balance in Iran's favor.
Last Friday Trump said that from now on, the nuclear deal his predecessor Barack Obama concluded with the Iranian regime would be viewed in the overall context of Iran's many forms of aggression. Iran's support and direction of terrorism, its subversion of neighboring regimes, regional aggression, weapons proliferation, development of ballistic missiles and harassment of maritime traffic will no longer be dealt with in isolation from Iran's nuclear program.
Trump pledged that it will henceforth be US policy to ensure that Iran is made to pay a price for all its aggressive actions, including its breaches of the nuclear deal.
Among other things, Trump singled out Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps for its role in sponsoring and engaging terrorism. He came within a hair's breadth of defining the IRGC as a foreign terrorist organization. But words to one side and actions to the other.
On Saturday morning, Maj.-Gen. Qasem Soleimani, who commands the Qods Force, responsible for the IRGC's international terrorist operations, landed in Iraq's Kurdish city of Kirkuk.
The Kurds have been autonomous in Iraq since 1992 and have exercised de facto sovereignty over Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003. One of their chief disputes with the central government in Baghdad was control over the oil rich city of Kirkuk, adjacent to autonomous Kurdistan. Kurds make up a large majority of the population of the city.
That dispute seemed largely settled three years ago when in the summer of 2014, Kurdish Peshmerga forces took over the oil town and other areas south of their official territory. The Kurds moved in after government forces fled Kirkuk and other areas, in the face of Islamic State's offensive.
The Kurds played a key role in the anti-ISIS campaign.
Both in Iraq and Syria, the Kurds have been the US's only reliable ally. Iraqi regime forces, like the Shi'ite militia that fight alongside them, are controlled by Iran.
Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq and the head of the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP), thought that ISIS's defeat in Iraq and Syria was the right time to call in the US debt to the Kurds for the central role they have played in the fight to defeat ISIS.
And so on September 25, he held a referendum on Kurdish independence. Nearly 93% of Iraqi's Kurds voted in favor.
Support for independence is so overwhelming that even the Talabani family supported the referendum.
For generations, the Barzanis and Talabanis have vied for control of Iraqi Kurdistan. And whereas the Barzanis have enjoyed longstanding warm ties with Israel and the US, for the past generation, the Talabanis have grown close to Iran.
Jalal Talabani, the head of the Talabani clan, served in the ceremonial position of Iraqi president from 2005 until 2014. He was the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or PUK party.
Talabani, who died two weeks ago, opposed Kurdish independence.
On Saturday, flanked by the Iraqi Shi'ite militia commanders - two of whom are on the FBI wanted terrorists list - Soleimani told the Talabanis to support the restoration of Iraqi government control - that is, Iranian control - over Kirkuk.
Ala Talabani, Jalal's niece, told an Arabic television station that Soleimani came to pay his respects to her late uncle. According to The Washington Post, Ala Talabani praised Iran's role in Iraq and said, "Soleimani advised us that Kirkuk should return to the law and the constitution, so let us come to an understanding."
In other words, he offered them a deal.
In an article in The American Interest, Jonathan Spyer, director of the Rubin Center at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, said the deal was concluded the next day between one of the Shi'ite militia leaders and Bafel Talabani, Jalal's eldest son. Based on Kurdish media accounts, Spyer wrote that the deal involves establishing "a new authority in the Halabja-Sulaymaniyah-Kirkuk area to be jointly administered by the Iraqi government and the 'Kurds' (or rather the PUK) for an undefined period."
Spyer summarized, "The federal government would manage the oil wells of Kirkuk and other strategic locations in the city, while also overseeing the public-sector payroll."
So two days after Trump's speech, the Iranians and the Talabani family agreed to split Iraq's Kurds in two and set up an Iranian puppet in the new governing authority, killing any thought of an independent Kurdistan.
So far, the deal has gone off without a hitch. The Peshmerga forces in Kirkuk, which are loyal to the Talabani family, abandoned their posts on Monday when the Soleimani-controlled combined force of US-armed and -trained Iraqi government forces and Shi'ite militias took over Kirkuk and other areas.
Despite Trump's stated position in favor of weakening Iranian power and influence, and despite the fact that the occupation of Kirkuk was directed by the IRGC, which Trump just sanctioned, the Americans to date seem fine with this outcome.
According to Kurdish and US commentators, Iran or no Iran, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi wouldn't have dared to order the strike on Kirkuk without US agreement.
It's true that the US has never gone out on a limb for its Kurdish allies. Despite the fact that 1,700 Peshmerga fighters were killed fighting - and defeating ISIS - over the past three years, and despite the fact that an independent Kurdistan would constitute a severe blow to Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the region, the US vocally opposed last month's referendum. Following the vote, US officials told reporters that since Barzani ignored their position, they feel they owe him no loyalty.
And indeed, the US couldn't be more disloyal than it is today - siding with Iran against America's only dependable ally in Iraq.
The implications of Iran's successful strategic offensive against the Kurds are disastrous for the US. Iran's establishment of a Kurdish satrapy in Iraq harms the US in three ways.
First, America's only stable Iraqi ally is now destabilized. For the past several years, the Barzanis and Talabanis had managed to more or less bury the hatchet, each content with their own sphere of influence. Now, they are once again at each other's throats. Even if the Americans never asked them to do it, Iraq's Kurds protected America's interests in Iraq. And their prosperity and stability were viewed as an American achievement.
Now that is a thing of the past.
Second, Iran's successful neutralization of the Kurds clears away the only major obstacle to Iranian hegemony over Iraq. This development has major implications for the region. If there is no safe base for operations against Iran in Iraq, any plan to block Iran's regional rise has become far more complicated.
And finally, the US's reputation and its strategic credibility in the region and beyond have just taken a massive hit. Until Soleimani's forces marched into Kirkuk, it was possible to believe that the US's recent preference for Iran over its own allies was a function of Obama's radical worldview.
Now that Trump is in office, the policy was effectively over.
In the face of the US's betrayal of the Kurds to the benefit of Iran, that position is no longer credible. Trump can claim till he's blue in the face that he has abandoned Obama's Iran policy, but so long as Iraqi government forces control Kirkuk - for Iran - his claims only discredit him.
The consequences of the US's acceptance of Iran's Kurdish gambit are already being felt on the ground. On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that Syrian Kurds, who just this week led the forces that defeated ISIS forces in Raqqa, are now concerned that the US will abandon them as well. Syrian Kurds now exercise autonomy. But with ISIS now defeated, Syrian Kurds fear the US will withdraw its forces from Syria and allow them to be overrun by Assad regime forces controlled by Iran and Hezbollah.
Luckily, not everything is black. Israel isn't the US. But it is more powerful than the Kurds. And Israel is doing what it can to both help them and curb Iran's expanding power. This, even as Trump seems incapable of translating his positions into policies on the ground.
The same day Iranian-backed forces were taking control of Kirkuk, Israel both destroyed a Russian- made anti-aircraft battery in Syria in retaliation for Syria's targeting of IAF jets, and welcomed Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu to Israel for his first visit in office.
Israel's willingness to attack the Syrian battery the day Shoigu arrived made clear that Russian support for its Syrian client is not unconditional.
This was brought home yet again and more powerfully the next day. On Tuesday, Maj.-Gen.
Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian military, made an official visit to Damascus.
While he was there Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Russian President Vladimir Putin to talk to him about Iran's nuclear weapons program and its increased presence in Syria. Netanyahu also beseeched Putin to support Kurdish independence in Iraq.
Interestingly, it was Putin's office, not Israel, which revealed the call had taken place.
Russia's willingness to accept Israeli air strikes in Syria and to openly work with Israel indicates that Iran may have overstepped the boundaries. It is possible that Russia is not interested in having an empowered Iranian ally. Given past Russian practice, it is likely that Russia would like to see Iran weakened and therefore more dependent on Moscow.
Then there are the Germans and British. Whereas German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Theresa May came out strongly for maintaining the nuclear deal with Iran, both leaders indicated this week that they are willing to take a stronger stand against Iranian support for terrorism, missile development and regional expansion. Netanyahu reportedly has spoken at length to both leaders, and to a host of others, in recent days lobbying them to support the anti-Iranian Kurdish regional government.
By not abandoning the Kurds and by continuing to press for the West - including the Trump administration - to support Barzani and his government, and by pushing back against Iran's empowerment in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, Netanyahu is trying to exploit and expand Iran's weaknesses. He does this even as Iran's strengths become more obvious and Iran's power rises against an America that remains strategically adrift.
Netanyahu's actions alone will not stop Iran.
But they do make it clear that Iran's rise is not unstoppable. There are plenty of actors with plenty of reasons to oppose Iran's empowerment. And once they see the danger Iran poses to them, working together and separately, they can help to cut it down to size.
At some point, the Americans may come to their senses and finish off the job.
PLEASE VISIT MY WIFES WEBSITE. SHE RUNS "YOUNG LIVING" WHICH PROVIDES ALL NATURAL OILS THAT CAN BE USED INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INCLUDING A DEFUSER WHICH PUTS AN AMAZING ODOR IN THE AIR. THIS PRODUCT IS SO AMAZING AND KNOW THAT YOU WILL GET YEARS OF ENJOYMENT FROM IT. GOTO HTTP://WWW.YOUNGLIVING.ORG/CDROSES
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.