- 5 Reasons America Should Not Fight Iran, Russia, And Assad In Syria
Authored by Aaron David Miler and Richard Sokolsky via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
Pursuing an ambitious mission against all three adversaries in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary
The idea du jour circulating inside the Trump administration and among terrorism experts and Syria watchers alike is that ISIS cannot be destroyed in Syria unless Bashar al-Assad is removed from power and Iran’s presence and influence are drastically curtailed. And in a perfect world, this indeed would be the best possible outcome to prevent ISIS and other jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda, from ensconcing themselves there. But needless to say, the Middle East isn’t a perfect world. U.S. retaliation against another chemical-weapons attacks, as the White House threatened late Monday, would be both necessary and justified. (Assad and his military would “pay a heavy price,” the statementread.) But pursuing an ambitious mission against Iran, Assad and the Russians in Syria is dangerous, imprudent and unnecessary to protect vital American security interests.
Here are five compelling reasons why.
The United States Can’t Eradicate ISIS in Syria
In his inaugural address, President Trump spoke about eradicating radical Islamic terrorism from the face of the earth. It cannot be done. Syria alone will remain an incubator for jihadists and Salafists of all stripes due to a toxic brew of poor governance, bleak economic opportunities, sectarian hatreds and beleaguered Sunni communities. And its ideology and propaganda will still be able to feed on the resentments and sense of victimhood and grievance among the Sunni population. Those who argue for a more assertive policy in Syria are right that, unless these problems are addressed, ISIS and other jihadi groups will continue to thrive even without the caliphal proto-state. But even the most risk inclined in the Trump administration cannot envision that kind of U.S. commitment in Syria, which would entail the United States and its allies committing thousands of troops and billions of dollars to militarily defeat all of their adversaries in Syria and to occupy, stabilize and reconstruct the country. Indeed, the president himself has strongly argued against nation building. Containing jihadists is realistic; ridding them from Syria is a pipe dream.
There’s No Foreseeable Stable End State for Syria
The idea that confronting Iran or trying to weaken the Assad regime in an effort to remove him from power or force him into a negotiated political transition is chimerical. That’s been evident for several years. Even if the United States made a commitment to take Assad out, it would lead to more chaos, no organized force aligned with the West to replace him and a mad scramble among all kinds of groups—Sunni jihadists like ISIS and Al Qaeda, pro-Iranian Shia militias, Alawites and Kurds—to consolidate control over real estate, making the situation worse. Assad was unprepared for a negotiated political transition before Russia’s intervention in 2015 helped turn the tide in his favor. He certainly would never agree to such an outcome now that he controls most of the critical cities and regions in Syria. Moreover, the Russians, who may ultimately want a political solution as an exit strategy, don’t seem to be in a hurry for one—and Moscow won’t be pressured and intimidated into accepting one, given what it has invested in Syria. Thus, even if getting rid of ISIS, in theory, means ridding Syria of Assad and Alawite domination, reducing Sunni grievances and stemming Iran’s influence, it simply isn’t feasible at a cost the American Congress and public are willing to pay. And if there is no attainable stable end state, the Trump administration’s moves to deepen military and civilian involvement in Syria need to be carefully weighed and evaluated against the precise objectives that an escalating commitment is designed to achieve. Those who are pushing for a more aggressive role in Syria have never identified the relationship between more U.S. engagement and any conceivable end state.
We Don’t Want a War with Iran
Iran is run by a repressive regime. It abuses human rights, has expansionist aims and sponsors terrorist acts throughout the Middle East. But trying to roll back Iran’s influence in Syria looks a lot easier in theory than in practice. Those pushing to eject Iran from southeastern Syria and stymie its efforts to control border crossings between Iraq and Syria—with the intention of creating a land bridge to the Mediterranean—have yet to demonstrate how any of this would contribute to the defeat of ISIS. Nor have they been forthright about the forces it would take to achieve these goals and sustain control over the region. One White House official recently referred to the creation of a Rat Patrol modelled after the 1960s TV show depicting a bunch of tough U.S. soldiers riding around in jeeps and harassing German soldiers in the North African desert. The administration is also planning to send a seven-member team to provide humanitarian assistance to areas in southeastern Syria that have been liberated from Islamic State control. All of this amounts to tactical gimmicks bound to fail, not a strategy. The administration’s Syria policies are untethered to any broader set of goals for combating ISIS and other jihadi groups—a goal that Iran shares more urgently, given the recent terror attack in Tehran. Moreover, ramping up a more aggressive and escalatory policy against Iran might jeopardize the nuclear accord. That agreement is far from perfect, but it will significantly slow down Iran’s march toward a nuclear-weapons capability for the next ten to fifteen years. Indeed, with the North Korean nuclear file very much open, the last thing the United States needs is another outlier state pushing to join the nuclear club.
The United States Can’t Sideline Russia
Fears that the United States and Russia will slide into a full-scale war over Syria are overblown because both fully appreciate the potentially catastrophic consequences. But continued escalation of military incidents involving U.S. and Russian forces in Syria will make it all but impossible for the two countries to work out any kind of modus vivendi for stabilizing the country after Raqqa falls to U.S. and coalition forces. Russia confronts Washington with several inconvenient truths: first, it’s in a much stronger military and diplomatic position than the United States. Second, because Putin has the upper hand it is hard to imagine that he (or the Assad regime) will be amenable to imposing any meaningful restrictions on Assad’s freedom of action. Nor is Putin likely to accept any kind of international presence in Syria for peacekeeping, stabilization and reconstruction that undermines their control. Third, Moscow will be critical to establishing the political and economic arrangements that will be required for stabilization and reconstruction. In short, any kind of post-conflict cooperation with Moscow in Syria will not be possible if the United States tries to put the squeeze on Russia. Those who argue that pressure on Moscow is the only way to change Putin’s calculations ignore the president’s seeming unwillingness to tangle with him, the unwillingness of the United States to apply serious pressure and Putin’s willingness to push back if necessary.
U.S. Interests in Syria Aren’t as Vital as Those of Its Adversaries
No matter how important Syria is to the United States (and an argument can be made that it’s not all that important), Washington needs to decide how much it’s prepared to sacrifice and whether it’s ready to stay the course when Iran and Russia push back. There’s an elemental divide between the way the United States sees this issue and those who live in or close to the region: whether it’s Iran, Turkey, Israel, Jordan and the Gulf Arabs, they seem prepared to sacrifice far more than the United States. They know their neighborhood better, geography and demography give them key advantages, and for many the stakes are existential in a way they’ll never be for America. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Syria: Assad is fighting for his survival; Syria may not be as vital to Iran as Iraq is, but Tehran has already sacrificed huge resources, men and material to the fight; and Putin didn’t project Russia’s military power into Syria only to fold in the face of U.S. pressure. The reality is that the Syria-Iran-Russia coalition is much more a coalition of the willing than the alliance the United States has managed to assemble, which seems more like a coalition of the semi-willing and self-interested. The argument that the only way to change Russian or Iranian calculations is to escalate the pressure is a dangerous game, given the disparity in will, interests and allies that exists between the two sides. Who’d blink first, given the absence of congressional and public support for another military adventure with no end state (see Afghanistan and Iraq)?
Like Afghanistan where the United States is now also stuck, Washington will likely need to settle for a good-enough outcome, certainly not a victory. What this means now is impossible to say. After all, the United States has been in Afghanistan for a decade and a half, and still doesn’t know if anything resembling sustainable success is in the cards.
Still, the primary goal in Syria must continue to be weakening and containing jihadi groups, keeping them on their heels to prevent attacks on the United States, Europe and regional allies. This is not an optimal outcome, but it’s far more preferable than pursuing unrealistic and unrealizable goals that could drag the United States into endless and distracting wars it cannot win against far more committed and determined adversaries. Managing rather than eliminating the jihadist threat in Syria is neither a pretty nor heroic strategy, and it certainly won’t fix Syria or deal Iran a strategic blow. But for America, it’s the right approach, particularly when considering the risks and downsides of taking on Syria and Iran in these contested areas. And there are hopeful signs that the Pentagon at least is well aware of these dangers.
- Sarah H. Sanders Takes No Crap From Virtue Signaling WH Press Corps
Content originally published at iBankCoin.com
During yesterday’s White House press briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was hit with a barrage of salty questions over President Trump’s early morning tweets about MSNBC hosts “Low I.Q. Mika Brzezinski” and her husband “Psycho Joe Scarborough.”
Identity Politics 101
When NBC’s Hallie Jackson asked how “as a woman” she felt about the President attacking another woman on her looks, Sanders didn’t bat an eyelash – telling the outraged social justice journalist:
“Everybody wants to make this “an attack on a woman.” What about the constant attacks he [Trump] receives? Or the rest of us? I’m a woman and I’ve been attacked by the shows multiple times – but I don’t cry foul because of it. I think that you want to create this false narrative – one hand it’s like “let’s treat everybody equally,” and on the other hand they attack, attack, attack – and apparently that’s wrong.”
BUT SARAH – THE CHILDREN!
Attempting to lure Huckabee into a logic trap – Jackson then asked what the Press Secretary would tell her children about Trump’s tweets. Sorry Hallie, God wins just about every time.
Hallie Jackson: You talk about being personally affected by all of this as well – and that nothing is wrong with the president fighting fire with fire – is the argument you’re making. On a personal level, you have sat here and talked about your family from this podium. Are you going to tell your kids this behavior is okay?
Sarah H. Sanders: Look, I’ve been asked before – when it comes to role models, as a person of faith, I think we all have one perfect role model, and when I’m asked that question I point to God, I point to my faith, and that’s where I tell my kids to look. None of us are perfect, and certainly there’s only one that is, and that’s where I would point.
How do Trump’s tweets help his agenda?
Jon Decker of FOX News Radio then asked Sanders whether or not Trump’s tweets helps his legislative agenda, which she threw back in Decker and the MSM – bringing up the media’s time spent covering various topics:
Sanders: You look at the coverage over the last month of the extended period between May and June – all of the major networks, if you look at their coverage and what they’re talking about, they spent one minute in the evening newscast talking about tax reform, three minutes on infrastructure, five minutes on the economy and jobs, 17 minutes on healthcare, and 353 minutes attacking the President and pushing a false narrative on Russia. I mean, look at that in comparison. If you guys want to talk about legislative agenda and focus on policy and priorities – you guys get to help set that table.
But, but – Trump should be better than a cable news journalist…
NBC’s Kristen Welker also threw down – asking about unity.
Kristen Welker: “Does his tweet this morning, his series of tweets help to unify the country?”
Sarah H. Sanders: “Look, again, I think that the President is pushing back against people who attack him day after day after day. Where is the outrage on that?”
Kristen Welker: “I understand your point, but he’s the President of the United States, they are cable news anchors. So he has to stand to a higher standard”
Sarah H. Sanders: “Again, I think I’ve been pretty clear that when the President gets hit, he’s going to hit back harder, which is what he did here today.”
At the end of the day
The MSM White House Press Corps played hardball identity politics in their attempt to lure Sarah H. Sanders into calling President Trump a sexist degenerate monster; trotting out women, Sarah Huckabee’s children, “unity,” and cable news anchors – and instead got served for being total hypocrites obsessed with Russia.
Follow on Twitter @ZeroPointNow § Subscribe to our YouTube channel
- Trump Security Chief Turned White House Aide Called As Witness In Russia Probe
It’s been a couple of weeks since the mainstream media has ID’d a Trump associate who’s been drawn into the ongoing investigations in the alleged collusion between the campaign and Russia. Today’s disclosure comes courtesy of ABC, which identified longtime bodyguard Keith Schiller as a possible witness. Congressional investigators allegedly want to interview Schiller, the former head of security for the Trump Organization who currently serves as the White House director of Oval Office operations.
“Congressional investigators now want to interview Keith Schiller, President Donald Trump’s longtime bodyguard-turned-White House aide, as part of their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential campaign, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News.
Schiller, the former head of security for the Trump Organization who now serves as the White House director of Oval Office operations, is one of several Trump associates on the House Intelligence Committee’s witness list in its ongoing investigation into Russian election interference.
ABC claims that the committee’s decision to interview Schiller marks a “new phase” in the investigation, which is examining how Russia attempted to influence the election, the Obama administration’s response and allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials. But it's unclear exactly what the news organization means by this.
"The committee’s focus on Schiller and other Trump campaign officials and associates marks a new phase in the investigation — which is examining how Russia attempted to influence the election, the Obama administration’s response and allegations of collusion between Trump associates and Russian officials.
“It's the latest indication that the investigations are touching Trump's inner circle. In late July, longtime Trump associate Roger Stone is expected to appear before congressional investigators for a closed-door interview. The growing list of other Trump associates the committee has said they want to meet includes former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, Trump son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.”
To date, Kushner, Stone, Flynn and Manafort have all volunteered to cooperate with the ongoing investigations and have denied any wrongdoing. Notably, ABC’s report is devoid of any details about the questions Schiller might be asked, or the circumstances surrounding whatever it is he may have witnessed. But, as is becoming tradition with these anonymously sourced reports about the Russia investigation, the most telling details can be found at the bottom of the story.
“One White House official was unsurprised to learn that Schiller has been contacted. As the investigations expand, several White House aides have expressed privately to ABC News that they are expecting to hear from Congress or the special counsel.”
That’s right: Schiller is being called as a witness because it’s likely that EVERYBODY EVEN REMOTELY CLOSE to the president is being summoned to speak with investigators. As ABC noted lower down in the story, special counsel Robert Mueller has already interviewed dozens of witnesses as part of its probe. Schiller, a former NYPD officer, has been at Trump’s side for nearly 20 years, and is one of his closest advisers and aides — playing the role of a body man, confidant and gatekeeper for the businessman-turned-president.
Perhaps investigators will focus on the circumstances surrounding the firing of former FBI Director James Comey – a decision for which the Trump administration has provided multiple conflicting explanations, provoking outrage from Democrats. According to ABC, Schiller played a small role in the firing of Comey.
When Trump made the decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, it was Schiller who hand-delivered the letter of termination from the president to FBI headquarters.
Schiller typically keeps a low profile, though ABC notes that he headlines during the campaign after hitting a protester outside Trump Tower and ejecting Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a Trump campaign press conference. Investigators appear to have a wide remit to interview Trump associates, and it’s looking increasingly likely that they won’t be satisfied until every single person in Trump’s orbit has been interviewed. Who knows? Maybe Anthony Senecal, the Mar-a-Lago butler who was the subject of his very own New York Times profile during the campaign, will be next?
- Russian Satellite Will Launch In Two Weeks, Will Be The Brightest Star In Sky
Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,
(ABOVE: An artist’s rendition of the Russian Mayak satellite.)
Mayak, a Russian satellite that will become one of the brightest stars in the night sky, is just two weeks away from launching into space. Their goal is to make the unique satellite bright with the use of a giant reflective sheet of material, but some scientists are warning that there may be negative consequences.
The satellite is small, roughly the size of a loaf of bread and in the form of a CubeSat. It will be launched on a Soyuz 2.1v vehicle on Friday, July 14, from Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, as a secondary payload. The project, led by Moscow State Mechanical Engineering University (MAMI), raised more than $30,000 on Russian crowdfunding website Boomstarter.
Once in orbit, about 600 kilometers (370 miles) high, the satellite is designed to unfurl a giant pyramid-shaped solar reflector.
The goal is for this satellite to shine brighter than any other star in the night sky. To do this, its reflector made of Mylar will span 16 square meters (170 square feet) and is apparently 20 times thinner than human hair. The mission is also acting as a technology demonstration, to test how to brake satellites in orbit and de-orbit them.
“Mayak,” which translates to “Beacon” in English is controversial though.
“We want to show that space exploration is something exciting and interesting, but most importantly that today it is accessible to everybody who is interested,” project leader Alexander Shaenko said, reported Sputnik News. Mayak’s only mission is to be bright and remove defunct satellites from earth’s orbit.
But it runs the risk of a backlash from scientific and environmental groups, depending on how bright it is. Some, like Russia Today, have suggested it may shine as bright as the Moon, although that is questionable. Nonetheless, if it is excessively bright, it could cause havoc for astronomers who rely on darkness to observe the universe.
“We fight so hard for dark skies in and around our planet,” Nick Howes, an astronomer and former deputy director of the Kielder Observatory in Northumberland, told IFLScience.
“To see this being potentially ruined by some ridiculous crowdfunded nonsense makes my heart simply despair.”
Skeptics won’t keep the satellite from launching though. Russia will put Mayak in space in about two weeks, on July 14. We’ll have to wait to see just how bright it is and if it’s bright enough to warrant complaints from scientists.
- House Passes "Kate's Law" & Bill Targeting Sanctuary Cities
Split largely along party lines, The House passed legislation on Thursday to crack down on illegal immigration and enact a key priority of President Trump’s known as "Kate's Law."
As The Hill reports, the House approved two bill –
- one would cut off some federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with immigration authorities;
- the other would impose tougher sentences on criminals who have entered the U.S. illegally multiple times.
“For years, the lack of immigration enforcement and spread of sanctuary policies have cost too many lives,” said House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), the author of both bills.
Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations.The brutal murder of Steinle catapulted the issue of illegal criminal aliens into the national spotlight. Alleged shooter Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times and had seven felony convictions. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday.
The second measure, "No Sanctuary for Criminals Act," would cut federal grants to states and “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement carrying out immigration enforcement activities.
“The word 'sanctuary' calls to mind someplace safe, but too often for families and victims affected by illegal immigrant crime, sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asserted in the pre-vote press conference.
“It is beyond my comprehension why federal state and local officials … would actively discourage or outright prevent law enforcement agencies from upholding the laws of the United States,” he added.
House Democratic leaders encouraged members to oppose the bill to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, but didn’t apply as much pressure on “Kate’s Law,” which establishes higher penalties for criminals who have entered the country illegally. As The Hill reports,
The sanctuary city bill passed 228-195, while the sentencing bill passed 257-167.
Three Democrats defected from their party to support taking away grants from the sanctuary localities: Reps. Matt Cartwright (Pa.), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Collin Peterson (Minn.). Seven Republicans voted against the bill: Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Dan Donovan (N.Y.), Peter King (N.Y.), Dave Reichert (Wash.) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.).
Twenty-four Democrats voted for "Kate's Law." Amash was the only Republican to oppose it.
President Trump was pleased…
Good news, House just passed #KatesLaw. Hopefully Senate will follow.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 29, 2017
Calling the bills "vital to public safety and national security."
Democrats, as appears to be their identity-politics-driven divisive way, accused proponents of the bill of stoking anti-immigrant attitudes.
“These bills are nothing new and they are not really about immigration or fighting crime,” Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said during House floor debate. “They are about racial profiling and putting Latinos, quote unquote, in our place.”
ICE already has arrested nearly 66,000 individuals this year that were either known or suspected to be in the country illegally. Of those arrested, 48,000 were convicted criminal aliens.
We now await the legal challenges to these bills which we are sure will be unleashed instantly.
- Rebellion At The NYTimes: Newsroom To Walk Out After "Decrying Direction Of Paper"
Exhausted and demoralized after repeated buyouts and cutbacks in the newsroom, it seems the downtrodden journalists at the New York Times have finally had enough: In a pair of letters delivered to executive editor Dean Baquet and managing editor Joseph Kahn, the News Guild of New York said the New York Times editorial staff will leave the newsroom on Thursday as a demonstration of solidarity as management threatens jobs, according to MarketWatch.
Unlike the employee rebellion at the Wall Street Journal last year, when staffers confronted management about unequal pay practices and a paucity of female reporters and editors in leadership roles, the uproar at the times is centered around the repeated paycuts and cutbacks, which have left the newsroom feeling “demoralized.” One letter was sent by the organization's copy editors, who are facing dramatic staffing cuts, while the second letter was sent by reporters in an expression of solidarity with the editing staff. Both detailed frustrations with the repeated rounds of buyouts, and the lack of transparency surrounding management’s decisionmaking.
“In the copy editors’ letter to Baquet and Kahn, they say they feel betrayed and disrespected in the newsroom, and ask that management reconsider staffing cuts that are expected as the paper plans to restructure.
“Cutting us down to 50 to 55 editors from more than 100, and expecting the same level of quality in the report, is dumbfoundingly unrealistic,” the letter reads. “You often speak about the importance of engaging readers, of valuing, investing and giving a voice to readers. Dean and Joe: We are your readers, and you have turned your backs on us.”
“Editors — and yes, that especially means copy editors — save reporters and the Times every day from countless errors, large and small,” they say in the letter. “Requiring them to dance for their supper sends a clear message to them, and to us, that the respect we have shown the Times will not be reciprocated.”
The editorial staff is accusing Times management of being too opaque in its efforts to restructure the news operation, which includes consolidating two separate groups of editors into one group and asking copy editors to resubmit applications for roles in the newsroom.
Indeed, morale is so low at the NYT that its reporters and editors said they actually feel more respected by readers than by management. The letters referenced an internal report in which the copy editors were compared to dogs urinating on fire hydrants.
That’s quite the claim – considering President Donald Trump’s relentless bashing of the “failing” news organization has turned public sentiment squarely against it.
“And that is why it feels like such a profound waste that morale is low throughout the newsroom, and that many of us, from editors to reporters to photo editors to support staff, are angry, embittered and scared of losing our jobs,” the letter reads.
The rebellion comes at a time when advertising revenues for print – formerly a powerhouse of the media industry that has been precipitously eroded by the rise of free news on the internet – continue to shrink, and gains in digital advertising are failing to make up the difference.
In the first quarter, print ads declined by 18% while digital ad revenue increased by nearly 19% and accounted for more than 38% of the company’s total ad revenue. Still, the paper’s stock remains buoyant; shares have risen more than 35% year-to-date, compared with a 9% gain in the S&P 500.
- Saudi Arabia Is Weakening US Influence In The Middle East
Authored by Federico Pieraccini via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
As widely anticipated, tensions between members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are slowly corroding the unity of Washington’s allies in the Middle East
In a series of almost unprecedented events among Washington's regional allies, the crisis between Saudi Arabia and Qatar seems to worsen by the day. The long-awaited list of demands presented to Doha by Riyadh seem to be intentionally impractical, as if to oblige Qatar to plead guilty to the crimes alleged by the Saudi kingdom or face the consequences, still unknown.
The surreal requests start with demands to close the international television network Al Jazeera, as well as halt the financing of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the heart of the issue remains the question of political and diplomatic relations with Iran, the bane of the Saudi royal family’s existence. The House of Thani that controls Qatar has until July 3 to accept all the demands presented. At the moment, Doha seems to be sending mixed messages, announcing that it wants to evaluate the Saudis’ proposals, but also letting it be known that most of the demands are «not reasonable».
Another interesting tidbit concerns the removal of Muhammed bin Nayef by the Saudi king as his successor to the throne. Prince Mohammad bin Salman, the young 31-year-old nephew, replaces Muhammed bin Nayef, the former Crown Prince and major ally of the CIA and European and American governments. Mohammad bin Salman is currently the most controversial figure in the Middle East. Responsible for the devastating war in Yemen and the desperate financial state of Riyadh’s finances, he oscillates between his Vision 2030 and an anti-Iranian preoccupation that is likely to bring his kingdom to bankruptcy. In Yemen, he waged a military campaign costing in the tens of billions of dollars, only to lose against the poorest Arab country in the world. His irrational anti-Iranian stance has even led him to risk a conflict within the GCC (thanks to the precious lobbying role of the UAE ambassador to the US, Yousef al-Otaiba) over the excessive freedom of Doha's foreign policy.
Initially, this disaster appeared to be limited only to the two Gulf nations, with Trump’s Twitter account signalling Washington’s immediate backing of Mohammad bin Salman’s crusade against Iran and Qatar. The severity of the situation was immediately perceived by Turkey. Ankara and Doha have always played a leading role in the Muslim Brotherhood, a religious group that Riyadh considers to be terrorist organization and a threat to their Salafi realm.
Turkey reiterated its support for the House of Al Thani by deploying about 3,000 military personal to Doha in the country's new military base, at the same time dismissing as «useless and unresponsive» the Saudis’ requests to abandon the base and withdraw their troops. In a series of unprecedented moves, bin Salman mooted the possibility of supporting Kurdish troops in Iraq and Syria if Ankara should continue to support Doha. What once seemed to be an indissoluble union between Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia today presents far more than fracture and tension, all to the benefit of the likes of Iran and Russia fighting terrorism in Syria alongside the legitimate government in Damascus. It is a nightmare for those like the United States who hoped to continue to impose their will on the Middle East through the blind obedience of certain vassals like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. With each one battling the other, the US’s role becomes much more complicated to influence events.
Tensions between Washington's allies are creating a situation of all against all, indeed a sense and feeling that is all too commonly reflected in Washington these days. After days of silence, the State Department and the Pentagon expressed their support for Qatar, contradicting the President’s indications that Qatar was a terrorist-financing state. Confusion and contradictions in the United States are increasingly having a destabilizing effect, showing a country without a strategic direction. The State Department has strongly criticized Saudi Arabia for its attitude towards Qatar over the last two weeks. This is by no means surprising, as the US Department of State is still infiltrated by former Obama administration loyalists, who themselves are heavily tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, as was the former nominee Hillary Clinton together with her trusted assistant Huma Abedin. The Pentagon, in this deep-state civil war, considers Qatar primarily from a tactical perspective: 90% of US aircraft directed against Syria take off from the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The sale of $12 billion worth of jets to Qatar is evidence that Qatar is one of the military-industrial complex’s best customers. The contradictory messages emanating from this US administration, unable to speak with one voice, continues to destabilize America’s closest allies in the region.
Another move that has certainly not gone unnoticed concerns the deployment of several Israeli tactical and operational aircraft in Saudi Arabia. The process of rapprochement between these two nations continues unabated, creating even more distrust in the region.
What now seems irreversible is the attitude of Doha’s authorities, who seem to have decided to use this opportunity to chart their own course independently of Riyadh. The Qatar Airways CEO, when interviewed by Al Jazeera, reiterated that, thanks to Iran, there is a chance for the operator to circumvent the skies illegally closed to it by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The CEO, when questioned on how he would proceed given the expected huge losses, stated that the company intends to broaden its horizons towards new routes so far unexplored.
Saudi tactics are likely to create difficulties and problems for Qatar, even with support from Iran and other regional countries. For the moment, Doha’s ships carrying liquefied natural gas (LNG) continue to operate freely. In a country that receives almost 90% of its revenue from the sale of LNG, blocking its ships would mean pushing Qatar into a corner, a state of affairs that would closer resemble conventional warfare. Bin Salman’s inexperience and bungling will end up creating problems with Egypt, which currently allows transit of Qatar’s LNG through the Suez Canal to reach the Mediterranean and deliver gas to European customers. A request from Riyadh to Cairo to block Qatari ships would hardly be accepted, creating further fractures and tensions among those participating in the blockade of Qatar.
Perhaps Trump has only now realized how unhelpful these rifts are to his Arab NATO plan. If Turkey and Israel are on opposite sides, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are on the verge of a war, it is unlikely that Washington could continue to try impose its strategic vision in all the Middle East in the intention of safeguarding its interests.
In this chaotic mess for the US and it’s allies, as always, the axis of the Shiite resistance benefits the most, especially in Syria with the advancement of Assad's troops in the province of Deir ez-Zor, after almost five years of its absence there. Where Turkey, Iran and Russia have achieved ceasefire agreements, signed in Astana, the majority of remaining problems lie with the terrorist groups supported by Qatar and Turkey or Saudi Arabia. In addition to a series of skirmishes a few days ago, mistrust and the swapping of sides seem to be on the agenda, with Syria decreasingly under the control of terrorists and the prospect of the entire country being liberated coming into vision.
Washington is once again getting itself into an almost unprecedented situation. Whether or not Trump has given his blessing to Saudi Arabia’s actions against Qatar, what matters are the consequences for the region. Iran seems to play more and more the role of a moderate force ready to engage in dialogue with all parties. The Saudi attitude is likely to disaffect two strategic partners, Turkey and Egypt, with the latter ready to abandon the Saudis if pushed too far. Turkey, after intense Russian diplomatic efforts, seems to be on the verge of abandoning its support for anti-Assad forces, but prudence dictates that it tarries awhile before proceeding with these changes. Erdogan has often played a double or triple game.
Bin Salman’s strategy began with the Yemen war, continued with hostility against Qatar, and is now culminating with his appointment as Crown Prince. Trump seems to have climbed onto the chariot of losers, and now it is harder than ever to support a loose cannon like bin Salman who seems to show little hesitation in destroying his kingdom as well as undoing fundamental relations among Washington's allies.
It is a struggle against time for the American deep state in fight against itself and spinning around in conflict. The risks of Bin Salman’s disruptive actions and Trump’s incompetence could have unimaginable consequences, as the possible collapse of the whole Anglo-American Middle East architecture constructed over a hundred years of wars and abuses.
- Millennial Housing Crisis Unfolds As Skyrocketing Avocado Prices Hit All Time High
One month ago, an Australian millionaire “discoverd” the cause why US housing refuses to rebound to its pre-crisis levels, and tangentially why Millennials were – at least anecdotally – living if not in their parents basement, then destined to a life of renting: avocado toast. (For a more in depth discussion on Millennials’ housing habits, read “Will Millennials Ever Become A Generation Of Homeowners: BofA Has A Troubling Answer“).
Tim Gurner, a luxury property developer in Melbourne told 60 Minutes in Australia that young people can’t afford to buy property because they’re wasting money on fancy “avocado toast” and overpriced coffee.
“When I was trying to buy my first home, I wasn’t buying smashed avocado for $19 and four coffees at $4 each,” he said. “We’re at a point now where the expectations of younger people are very, very high.”
Tim Gurner believes our housing crisis will be resolved when young Aussies inherit the ‘incredible wealth’ from the Baby Boomers. #60Mins pic.twitter.com/iET9sus8qW
— 60 Minutes Australia (@60Mins) May 15, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
He added: “We are coming into a new reality where … a lot of people won’t own a house in their lifetime. That is just the reality.” Asked if he believes young people will never own a home, he responded: “Absolutely, when you’re spending $40 a day on smashed avocados and coffees and not working. Of course.” The 35-year-old executive then offered a point of comparison, describing how hard he worked when he was young.
Gurner was not the first to suggest that young people’s love of avocado toast was making it harder for them to buy homes. According to the Guardian, demographer Bernard Salt wrote in the Australian last year that if young people stopped going to “hipster cafes”, they could purchase property. He wrote: “I have seen young people order smashed avocado with crumbled feta on five-grain toasted bread at $22 a pop and more. I can afford to eat this for lunch because I am middle aged and have raised my family. But how can young people afford to eat like this? Shouldn’t they be economising by eating at home? How often are they eating out? Twenty-two dollars several times a week could go towards a deposit on a house.”
Well, we have bad news: as of today, the price of raw avocado just hit an all time high, and if the gentlemen mentioned above are correct, it assures an entire generation of Millennials will be doomed to rent or continue living in various parental basements.
Among other thing, the record high price has been blamed on soaring demand as American per-capita consumption jumped to 6.9 pounds in 2015, versus 3.5 pounds in 2006, according to government data. People are being drawn to the fruit not just for its taste but also for its healthy oils and fats, a trend borne out in the U.S. by Starbucks Corp.’s announcement last month it’s selling avocado sandwich spread.
“You have increased consumption in China and other areas of the world, like Europe,” said Roland Fumasi, an analyst at Rabobank in Fresno, California. “They’re pulling a lot more of the Mexican crop, so there’s less available for the U.S.”
As Bloomberg reported in April, Mexico supplies 82 percent of the avocados eaten north of the border. Its shipments into the U.S. surged to 1.76 billion pounds in 2015 from just 24 million pounds in 2000, according to data from the Hass Avocado Board in Mission Viejo, California. As a result, in late April a 10-kilogram (22-pound) box of Hass avocados from the state of Michoacan, Mexico’s biggest producer, cost 530 pesos ($27.89). The price was more than double what it was a year earlier and the highest in data going back 19 years.
* * *
Meanwhile, piggybacking on the meme of avocados-as-homeownership-equivalent, SoFi, an online personal finance company geared toward younger moneymakers, said today it would “award” anyone who takes out a mortgage through the service a month’s worth of avocado toast, delivered straight to their door. So… take out a mortgage that locks you in for 30 years, but get free avocados for a month.
From the purposefully absurd press release:
SoFi Is Offering Avocado Toast for Buying a Home—Yes, Really
Who says you can’t have avocado toast if you want to buy a home? Oh, right—an Australian real estate developer who made the comment heard ’round the world about how it’s preventing millennials from becoming homeowners.
Obviously, buying a home doesn’t mean you have to chuck avocado toast out of the picture. In fact, buying a home now comes with avocado toast.
What we mean by that is, for the month of July 2017 only, anyone who takes out a SoFi mortgage to purchase a home will receive a month’s worth of avocado toast delivered to their door. Buy a home using a SoFi mortgage, and you’ll receive an email asking whether you want regular or gluten-free bread. Avocados and bread will then arrive in a series of three shipments—though you’ll still need to toast the bread yourself to get the full experience.
Why avocado toast? Because with a SoFi mortgage, you don’t have to skip out on the avocado toast while saving up for a down payment. SoFi mortgages make it possible to buy a home with just 10% down and no borrower-paid private mortgage insurance required, which could get you into your dream home sooner. It could also make it possible to do that while brunching.
Plus, the SoFi pre-approval process is mostly online and exceptionally fast (paperwork is kept at a minimum). And with flexible debt-to-income limits, SoFi mortgages make it possible to qualify for more financing than you might with a traditional lender. For millennials with student debt, this could be your ticket to a home, rather than opting out of an occasional morning treat.
So, want to buy a home and have your avocado toast, too? Apply for a SoFi mortgage, and once it goes through we’ll email you with details about sending you fancy breakfast to pair with coffee on your new kitchen countertop. (Instagram filter optional.)
While it remains to be seen if this gimmicky ad campaign is successful in spurring millennial homeownership, even if it means soaring bad debt for SoFi in just a few short year, for now a far bigger threat to the US housing market is how financially challenged millennials will be able to juggle both their favorite bourgeois meal as well as saving up for that down payment or simply staying current on their mortgage.
- American "Fear Of Sharia" Is Anything But "Silly"
Authored by A.Z.Mohamed via The Gatestone Institute,
- To allay fears inspired in Americans by what he called a "right-wing caricature" of Islamic jurisprudence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claimed, falsely, that it "does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them." In fact, both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments.
- A new problem seems to have sprung up: some disembodied entity at Google apparently decided, with a few swipes of a bear-paw, to censor all the contents from these historically accurate think-tank postings. What is Google trying to keep you from knowing? Material that would be more dangerous for you to know or more dangerous for you not to know? How considerate of Google to have made this decision for you!
- American fear of sharia is anything but "silly." It comes not a minute too soon.
In a recent op-ed in the New York Daily News, Kuwaiti American Sufi cleric and activist Feisal Abdul Rauf — who served more than 25 years as the imam of the Masjid al-Farah Mosque in New York City — argued that nobody in the United States should be worried about the incorporation of Islamic law, sharia, into the legal system or should be protesting it. To allay fears inspired in Americans by what he called a "right-wing caricature" of Islamic jurisprudence, Rauf claimed, falsely, that sharia "does not presume to replace American law. It agrees with its underlying values and promotes them." In fact, both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna, openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments.
Both founders of political Islam, Sayyed Qutb (right) and Hassan al-Banna (left), openly explained that Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)
Hmm, a new problem seems to have sprung up: some disembodied entity at Google apparently decided, with a few swipes of a bear-paw, to censor all the contents from these historically accurate think-tank postings. What is Google trying to keep you from knowing? Material that would be more dangerous for you to know or more dangerous for you not to know? How considerate of Google to have made this decision for you!
Anyhow, Rauf then goes on to say that sharia courts would never be sanctioned in the U.S. "The First Amendment, which prevents government establishment of religion, forbids it," he writes, incorrectly.
The First Amendment, in its entirety, reads as follows:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rauf then proceeds to defend sharia against its detractors.
"Sharia is not about amputations and stoning," he assured readers, again incorrectly.
Rauf continues: "…Within the history of Islam, they have rarely occurred." A short search in google belies that.
"What Islamic law does prescribe," he goes on, in a breathtaking example of taqiyya [obfuscation] and kitman [dissimulation] — which are both permitted in Islam under certain circumstances, such as to defend Islam — "are the same do's [sic] and don'ts of the Ten Commandments — the social imperatives most of us recognize whatever our religion."
Ironically, the Reuters photo selected by the Daily News op-ed editor to accompany the piece — a snapshot of a Muslim bride at her "sharia" wedding – provided inadvertent evidence of Rauf's deceit. Sharia forbids taking, printing or disseminating photos except when required (such as to obtain a passport) or otherwise necessary. In addition, according to sharia, a female Muslim must cover her entire body, her hair and preferably her face — so as not to arouse sexual desire in men other than her husband. As it is written in the Quran (33:59):
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and daughters and the believing women that they should draw over themselves their jilbab (outer garments) (when in public); this will be more conducive to their being recognized (as decent women) and not harassed."
One frequently quoted hadith (the actions and saying of the Prophet Muhammad) goes farther, branding women who are "dressed but appear to be naked" as "inviting to evil and will be inclined to it. They will not enter Jannah (paradise) and they will not even smell its fragrance."
The bride in the photo illustrating Rauf's article is wearing a very revealing dress, which exposes not only her face and hair, but her entire upper body and a view of cleavage. Although it is likely that the picture was taken while she was with a group of women, it is now on public display, enabling men other than her husband to see it.
As someone who has shared the article on social media, Rauf would be considered by sharia to be among those responsible for "inviting to evil" through its dissemination, as would the bride herself, the groom and her other male guardians, such as her father and brothers.
In any country governed by sharia, such as Iran, these transgressors could expect not only divine retribution, but punishment ("ta'zir"), meted out by a qadi (judge), Muslim ruler, religious police or other disciplinary forces. This punishment is often imprisonment or brutal lashing.
In Saudi Arabia, for example, a woman was arrested last December for tweeting a picture of herself without a hijab or abaya.
Such instances are completely absent from Rauf's article.
Rather than whitewashing the Islamic legal system, and trying to assuage what the headline of the piece calls the "silly American fear" of sharia, Rauf — and the family and imam of the Muslim bride in the photo — should be grateful for living in the United States, where they are not subjected to such cruel and senseless punishments. American fear of sharia is anything but "silly." It comes not a minute too soon.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...