Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

The Cuba embargo is a diplomatic fiasco that's endured 55 years and accomplished nothing, politically driven by 1st generation Cuban-American resentment and Florida's swing state status.

Maybe in 2034 (1979+55) the ice will start cracking.

xp: we think alike.

oh, come on, mordy. the details that have been leaked so far show that is precisely the approach being taken, and it makes perfect sense that it would be structured that way.

that was the claim of the framework but there is a lot to suggest that snapback mechanisms are going to be far less effective than advertised, and maybe i should have total faith in the US negotiating team but from recent leaks i do worry that they'll sign an agreement that releases all sanctions immediately, that doesn't give inspectors the right to look at military sites, that won't disclose information about previous IAEA violations, etc.

otoh congress gets to vote on it so it kinda doesn't matter what the US negotiating team comes up w/

Sadatesque! http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Saudi-prince-to-visit-Israel-in-unprecedented-overture-407973

article disappeared from site (though can find it cached); apparently may have been false online rumors/hoax?

too bad

yeah

Saudi-led coalition air strikes and clashes killed at least 176 fighters and civilians in Yemen on Monday, residents and media run by the Houthi movement said, the highest daily toll since the Arab air offensive began more than three months ago....

On Monday, about 63 people were killed in air strikes on Amran province in the north, among them 30 people at a market, Houthi-controlled state media agency Saba said.

In the same province, about 20 fighters and civilians were killed at a Houthi checkpoint outside the main city, also named Amran, about 50 km (30 miles) northwest of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa, local residents said.

Arab alliance war planes also killed about 60 people at a livestock market in the town of al-Foyoush in the south.

Also in the south, residents reported a further 30 killed in a raid they said apparently targeted a Houthi checkpoint on the main road between Aden and Lahj. They said 10 of the dead were Houthi fighters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/07/us-yemen-security-idUSKCN0PH0R220150707

It's as if the Sauds shared the ISIS desire for a Sunni-Shia götterdämmerung.

In the absence of strenuous and vociferous US condemnation of such bombing (seems unlikely to occur) I suspect the US will be blamed for this only slightly less than the Saudis will be.

saudis can own their own bombing imho

they are John Kerry's cherished pals.

fuck unesco

So? Any takes on the deal yet? Early takes, perhaps mistaken: 1) 65 days to reintroduce sanctions is great. 2) No deal was ever going to be punishing enough for Bibi and our sunni allies anyway.

Will it get through congress?

well, think iran deal likely an awful mistake but what the fuck do i know :/

some of the stuff i'm seeing seems pretty good.

• snapback just requires majority vote - out of United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, the European Union, Russia and Iran that's a strong US/UK/France/Germany/EU block even if there's Iran/Russia/Chinese recalcitrance
• 98% reduction in low-enriched
• reduction by 2/3rds of centrifuges and remaining centrifuges go to continually monitored storage site

it seems like IAEA has a lot of authority in the deal which is good since they've sounded the alarm about the Iranian nuclear program in the past. tracking uranium mining + centrifuge construction will last for up to 20 years...

a big thing is going to be whether iran agrees w/ obama (and p5+1) about what this deal contains. after the framework there was a lot of celebration about a muscular deal that iran started shooting down piece by piece. eg it seems from what i'm reading like natanz is not going to be allowed to continue to spin centrifuges but iirc that was a khomenei redline. i'd even be okay w/ IAEA giving up anytime/anywhere inspections for anytime w/ a little advance warning inspections (i don't think iran can shut down an entire nuclear program in the few weeks they might stall before letting IAEA in), but i'm not seeing the conditions for inspections addressed anywhere as well. so there's still a lot to look at but if i understand correctly bc they went over the deadline congress now gets 60 days to look over the agreement so we'll probably know in a few weeks a little more accurately about what this deal contains. i'm not prima facie opposed.

just saw russia leaked the deal here:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeednews/iran-nuclear-talks?utm_term=.jy3NAqRjx&sub=3841349_6250584

gonna read it when i get a few minutes

i like the way one journalist put it: they get to keep the house but we're taking all the furniture

I suspect all the correct answers were given this morning:

@HFACDemocrats
Former US Senator @JoeLieberman will testify t 10:00amEST on #Iran and implications of the nuclear agreement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiqJaPxJgKE

someday

for a much more cynical take on the deal - obviously everyone understands that the dream that this deal w/ moderate Iran in terms of funding Assad/Hezbollah/Houthis/Hamas/etc calling for death to America/Israel hosting Holocaust cartoon contests etc is pretty fantastical. i do accept that halting nuclear proliferation, esp in the middle east, is an important enough issue that it deserves precedence even if all the other issues are not engaged. i'd like someone to ask Obama what his strategy is for combatting Iranian aggression in the Middle East after this deal - i think at today's press conference he started to answer a question about how we'd handle new Iranian arms going to Syria/Lebanon but i missed the full answer bc i had to get out of the car :(

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/syrian-atrocity-photos-are-real-fbi-says-photo-124080891291.html

A top State Department official said the FBI report, a copy of which was obtained exclusively by Yahoo News, could provide fresh impetus for international war crimes prosecutors to bring criminal charges against top Syrian officials.

But, by refocusing attention on Syrian abuses, it could also complicate Obama administration efforts to persuade Congress to back the Iranian nuclear deal signed today in Vienna.

Iran has been a major backer of the Assad regime, and Assad himself today sent a congratulatory telegram to the country’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, saying he expected the accord to lead to more support “with greater drive.”

After more than a year of analysis by the FBI lab in Quantico, Va., the five-page report was completed last month. It focused on 242 of the grisly photos — there were more than 55,000 in all — showing emaciated, bruised and scorched bodies, some lined up in a warehouse with ribs protruding, in scenes that have been compared to images from the Nazi Holocaust.

They were taken by a former official government photographer-turned-defector who, using the codename “Caesar,” smuggled them out of Syria two years ago on thumb drives concealed in his shoes.

I think this is good too:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2015/07/15-middle-east-iran-deal-obama-hamid

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/jul/15/iran-deal-rouhani-vs-reality/

Listening to the speeches that American President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani each gave their nations about the nuclear agreement in Vienna, one has the impression that the two leaders are living in alternate universes.

I liked this interview: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/15/8967147/iran-nuclear-deal-jeffrey-lewis

Point I like:

If you are interested in the nonproliferation piece — how to say this. As a deal, this is what deals look like. Actually, they usually don't look this good. So if you don't know that...

When I read people saying, you know, "I can't believe we're making a deal with these morally dubious people," I understand why a regional security specialist might feel that way.

But when you work in the arms control field, they're all morally dubious people! These are people who are building nuclear weapons — there are no not-morally-dubious people involved. So when you take that out of the equation, you end up just looking at, "Do these limits slow them down, are they verifiable, are we likely to catch them if they cheat, are we likely to have enough time to do anything?"

The problem [for regional analysts] is not going to be the terms. It's not going to be how it's written. It's going to be the fact that one side or another decides they don't like the idea of it. But the deal itself can still be perfectly workable.

I do appreciate the analysis from 'regional security specialists'. But I disagree with most of the cynical takes on the same point I've done the whole time, mainly that 'our sunni allies' aren't a force of stability, and aren't worth stopping this deal for.

internet conservative doesn't like the deal (or democracy at all, anymore)

whoops

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/357901.php

Again, several years ago, I actually believed in America, and participatory democracy, and all that.

Now I don't. So now I find myself agreeing with Chomsky, albeit from a rightward direction. I don't agree with him about who controls the country, or to what political ends; but I do with agree with him that it is controlled.

Now this brings me to the Manufactured Consent we're about to have on this Iran deal.

the rest of the post, about how the vote was structured in an earlier senate deal, is news to me! interesting.

sad lol

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKDsDyyXAAAcBIQ.png

i didn't get this but if it does work the way lewis says that's a pretty big deal imo:

Jeffrey Lewis: The snapback thing is really clever, I had to read it a couple of times to make sure it said what I think it said.

According to the deal, the way this is going to work is that sanctions will be lifted, but in a conditional fashion. If any party to the deal — and, not to spill the beans, that means the United States — is dissatisfied with Iran's compliance, then first it has to go to the joint commission [of the seven states that signed the Iran deal plus the European Union]. If they don't get satisfaction, then they go to the UN Security Council. And they can notify them that they're not satisfied with the compliance of another party.

That starts a 30-day clock ticking. The Security Council must act to resolve the concerns of the state. If the Security Council does nothing — which could include them trying to pass something and the US vetoing it — at the end of the 30 days, if there's no action from the Security Council, the sanctions are reimposed automatically.

which could include them trying to pass something and the US vetoing it this is the super clever bit

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/middleeast/iranian-hard-liners-say-nuclear-accord-crosses-their-red-lines.html

it would be kinda weird i think if khomenei gave rouhani the go-ahead to announce the deal was done w/out having actually discussed said deal w/ rouhani? or is this just a discrediting long-game to alienate rouhani + other moderate elements in iran gvt?

— Los Angeles Times, “Iran Unlikely to Spend Most of its Post-Sanctions Funds on Militants, CIA says,” by Brian Bennett: “A secret U.S. intelligence assessment predicts that Iran’s government will pump most of an expected $100-billion windfall from the lifting of international sanctions into the country’s flagging economy and won’t significantly boost funding for militant groups it supports in the Middle East…Intelligence analysts concluded that even if Tehran increased support for Hezbollah commanders in Lebanon, Houthi rebels in Yemen or President Bashar Assad’s embattled government in Syria, the extra cash is unlikely to tip the balance of power in the world’s most volatile region.”

As my mother would say, "Now don't spend it all at once!"

cameron's speech on the allure of jihadism

Like so many ideologies that have existed before – whether fascist or communist – many people, especially young people, are being drawn to it.

We need to understand why it is proving so attractive.

Some argue it’s because of historic injustices and recent wars, because of poverty and hardship.

This argument, the grievance justification, must be challenged.

So when people say “it’s because of the involvement in the Iraq War that people are attacking the West”, we should remind them: 9/11 – the biggest loss of life of British citizens in a terrorist attack – happened before the Iraq War.

When they say that these are wronged Muslims getting revenge on their Western wrongdoers, let’s remind them: from Kosovo to Somalia, countries like Britain have stepped in to save Muslim people from massacree, it’s groups like ISIL, Al Qaeda and Boko Haram that are the ones murdering Muslims.

the four reasons he identifies

One – like any extreme doctrine, it can seem energising, especially to young people.

They are watching videos that eulogise ISIL as a pioneering state taking on the world, that makes celebrities of violent murderers ...

Two – you don’t have to believe in barbaric violence to be drawn to the ideology.

No-one becomes a terrorist from a standing start.

It starts with a process of radicalisation.

When you look in detail at the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were first influenced by what some would call non-violent extremists.

It may begin with hearing about the so-called Jewish conspiracy, and then develop into hostility to the West and fundamental liberal values, before finally becoming a cultish attachment to death.

Put another way, the extremist world view is the gateway, violence the ultimate destination.

Three: the adherents of this ideology are overpowering other voices within Muslim debate, especially those trying to challenge it.

There are so many strong, positive Muslim voices being drowned out ...

Four: there is also the question of identity.

For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and feel little or no attachment to other people here.

Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.

So when groups like ISIL seek to rally our young people to their poisonous cause, it can offer them a sense of belonging that they can lack here at home, leaving them more susceptible to radicalisation and even violence against other British people to whom they feel no real allegiance.

there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain

There's 45% of Scots for instance.

At least 27 dead in a bomb attack in Turkey. Looks like it could be an ISIS attack targeting refugees who have come across the border near Kobane.

i think mostly young activists from socialist and kurdish groups trying to bring assistance to kobane. there's a horrific video of the blast on twitter, it's some sort of event with people holding a banner before the explosion.

Could get messy this.

just heard someone on Newshour being interviewed who kept insisting that Cameron is wrong to say that ideology leads to violence bc of 'empirical evidence,' but whenever the interviewer asked him for specific data/studies that proved that he ducked the question. does anyone here maybe have an idea of what he was referring to when he claimed that the connection between ideology + violence had been totally debunked?

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/192309/knesset-rejects-death-penalty-for-terrorists-bill-96-4

I feel like Cameron should maybe sorta look at the fact that people that are drawn to isis are also coming from poor as fuck countries with hordes of unemployed, idle young men with nothing better to do..

Poor as fuck like medical doctors from the Uk

Well considering his speech was about the radicalisation of UK Muslims I hardly think he's going describe the country he's been Prime Minster of for 5 years as 'poor as fuck with hordes of unemployed, idle young men with nothing better to do', no matter how accurate a description that might be.

But some of the radicalized are not poor and unemployed

No matter how accurate a description that might be of the UK... bit of politics on the UK being 'poor as fuck with hordes of unemployed, idle young men with nothing better to do', do you see? Satire is dead again.

Iranian hardliners are gonna hardline but wtf is w/ Kerry's wide-eyed naif-in-the-woods act? This is the first time he's hearing about the Iranian revolution's opinions re the Great and Little Satan?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/21/Kerry-to-Al-Arabiya-Khamenei-s-speech-was-disturbing-.html

Kerry told Al Arabiya that he was taking the comments at face value.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy. But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling, and we’ll have to wait and see,” the Secretary said.

Who is Little Satan these days?