Rolling MENA 2014 (Middle East)

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?

http://europe.newsweek.com/us-reportedly-offer-israel-unprecedented-arms-deal-330550?ref=yfp < bibi better take this deal if he knows what's good for him

tom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan#Lesser_Satan xp

Ah, the UK, typically, sometimes sees itself as Little Satan, let's face it they hated the UK long before they hated the US.

I think nakh might attribute that to the UK's ongoing struggle to reconcile itself to non power status :p

"We are Satan too!"

Undoubtedly. More like, hey, don't forge us, we used to be Satan!

forget even

Have you heard of My Uncle Napoleon?

no - i haven't! i'll check it out. looks like fun

v interesting guy > http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/192329/the-most-dangerous-man-in-iran

yes, v interesting. hope he's omen of future iran

strange to hear this said so plainly (by anyone, in iran or the west):

”The reason that the West is nervous and opposes our nuclear program is because Iran has stated very precisely and officially that Iran is going to destroy the state of Israel. Therefore the Israelis—as well as everyone else—can be worried about this country becoming engaged in uranium enrichment. That’s why the United States, Israel, and Europe are against our nuclear program. If we had not stated that we are going to destroy the state of Israel, none of this would happen.”

in the end, though, that statement/ rhetoric not v relevant (or not much of a hindrance) to the deal
& of course opposition to nuclear program not just about that statement/ rhetoric; other geopolitical factors

wd like to feel more of his optimism re positive influence of deal (e.g. moderating/diversifying influence on iranian politics)
not too hopeful yet hoping
might dilute iran gov’t’s anti-americanism (though that by itself doesn’t mean much; anyway, u.s. relevance/influence now decreased, for good or ill)
but i don’t see it affecting anti-israel policy (not in near term anyway)

then there’s effects on ME balance of power, regional instability, & weapons proliferation
(& call me cynical, but it’s obv to me there will be cheating & ineffective oversight, as always)
maybe was no (or not much) better alternative to this gamble, but can’t help seeing downsides here (not just in final terms of deal & consequences, but how the negotiation was conducted & precedents it set)
hope downside outweighed (if not by upside at least) by less downside
guess we’ll see how things shake out, in the never not fucked-up balance of history

here’s a conversation with 3 diff perspectives on deal
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/07/iran-nuclear-deal-goldberg-frum-beinart/398816/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-preparing-to-release-convicted-israeli-spy-jonathan-pollard-officials-say-1437766957

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/us-iran-nuclear-deal-0724

u-s-preparing-to-release-convicted-israeli-spy-jonathan-pollard-officials-say

lol such an obv move (kind of embarrassingly so tbh)

newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/us-iran-nuclear-deal

thx for link with those perspectives
i’ve read positive assessments of deal, those are especially glowing
they are experts, so it’s likely they are correct & my skepticism is unwarranted
(anyway, hope so)
(still skeptical)

lol such an obv move (kind of embarrassingly so tbh)

Dude was sentenced to life, gets released after 30 years. Will this "goodwill" have much political benefit for the US? I doubt it

doubt it too
but clearly admin decided there was need right now for this (all too transparent) move vis-a-vis israel
political reasons not just international but domestic maybe
not against it, just saying

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/turkish-jets-strike-kurds-iraq-complicating-anti-isis-fight-n398276

i'm still very skeptical of any pollard release stories (for the good reason of them being plentiful over my lifetime and simultaneously never true). i've never been particularly attached to his release, though my parents are, and i wonder if it's a generational thing (i was only 3yo in 1987 when he was sentenced). if it is true, i think it's neat that the Algemeiner Journal (the first newspaper i ever worked for back when i was 20yo) broke it an entire week before the WSJ: http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/07/17/source-jonathan-pollard-likely-to-be-released-later-this-year/

what the hell is wrong with turkey? xp like i understand why they're afraid of kurdish unity but who the hell enters a war explicitly announced against one side and then uses it as an opportunity to bomb the hell out of the other side? and from the description it doesn't sound like it was an accident or fog of war: "The jets hit PKK shelters, bunkers, caves, storages facilities and other "logistical points," a statement from the Turkish prime minister's office said. It said areas targeted included the Qandil mountains, where the PKK's command is based."

(further reading suggests it's retaliation for a PKK attack a few days ago but still so transparently opportunistic and self-defeating)

I imagine it's designed to send a message that Turkey won't accept either side bringing the war within its own borders. ISIS gets hit for the bombing, the PKK gets hit for murdering two Turkish police officers they suspected of being sympathisers. Turkey's attempts at playing a strategic game with both sides have failed and there's a significant risk of it spilling over domestically now.

wtf
diff states (supposedly in coalition?) bombing willy-nilly in ME (iraq, syria) lately

"us-led war" :/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/26/isis-syria-turkey-us

In the wake of the raid that killed Abu Sayyaf, suspicions of an undeclared alliance have hardened. One senior western official familiar with the intelligence gathered at the slain leader’s compound said that direct dealings between Turkish officials and ranking Isis members was now “undeniable”.

“There are hundreds of flash drives and documents that were seized there,” the official told the Observer. “They are being analysed at the moment, but the links are already so clear that they could end up having profound policy implications for the relationship between us and Ankara.”

Turkey calls Nato talks on IS and PKK

The US has called on both Turkey and the PKK to avoid violence, but said Turkey had the right to defend itself against attacks by Kurdish rebels.