Tag Archives: Saudi Arabia

Same old same old (and I loathe it)

Remember when, during the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden said that he would return us to the Iran deal (or JCPOA)? Yeah, that was awesome. Except that they haven’t done that, which is not so awesome. In fact, it’s infuriating. But it’s also exactly what we should have expected out of him, frankly – namely, that instead of reversing Trump’s most heinous foreign policy initiatives, Biden would adopt and even extend them into his own term.

Some readers may remember my posts from during the Biden/Trump race regarding Biden’s lack of focus on foreign policy issues. I wrote at the time about how his campaign site issues section didn’t have a single item on global affairs, other than some dreck about immigration from the southern cone nations. My contention at the time was that he had little good to say about it, and that he assumed his voters didn’t care about those issues. Perhaps he was right, but I have to think a section of Democratic party voters are a bit taken aback by some of his policies.

The toxic alliance

The JCPOA is the most glaring example of this. Biden could have reinstated this agreement with the stroke of a pen in the first days of his presidency. Instead, he chose to consult with then Israeli PM Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia – both openly hostile to Iran – before proceeding. Our State Department is balking on sanctions relief, and there’s little sign of progress over the past year. This agreement, very favorable to the U.S., is essentially dead in the water. Why?

Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute, who appeared on Majority Report last week, talked about Biden’s apparent support for strengthening the alliance of nations that are signatories to the Abraham Accords, a Trump initiative to defuse support for the Palestinians and isolate Iran. Parsi suggests that the JCPOA is a casualty of the administration’s desire to build a common front against the Iranians, pulling Israel together with some of the more pugnacious gulf states – an alliance built on common enmity. What a good idea.

Continuity: not our friend

Okay, so … why is our government – the government of normie Joe Biden, not crazy-ass Donald Trump – encouraging conflict in the Middle East instead of working toward peaceful outcomes of the sort the JCPOA was designed to produce? Well, this is nothing new in American foreign policy. Yes, they are extending one of Trump’s worst decisions. But they are also doing the same sort of thing the U.S. always does in various parts of the world.

Other examples aren’t hard to find. The first that comes to mind is another Trump reversal of a late Obama administration policy, the opening to Cuba. Trump shut that down entirely, and Biden has failed to even act as though he’s willing to reinstate it. The domestic political motivations are obvious, but again – why perpetuate conflict when normalization would bring greater stability and, of course, more benefits to Cubans living in the U.S.?

The other obvious example is Korea. Here is one instance when Trump’s instincts were, at a certain point, better than Biden’s. Why have we failed to settle the Korean conflict when the solution is almost entirely in our hands? Same reason with all of the other endless conflicts: we want to remain a force to be reckoned with in all of these regions. We want to keep potential economic rivals – like an integrated Asia – from emerging. Same old, same old.

The way forward

There are a handful of members of Congress who understand these issues. We need more like them. I know elections are not the only thing, but they’re worth the modicum of effort we all need to put into them. Look at the candidates vying for your district’s House seat, find the most progressive, and vote. We need allies in government before we’ll see some movement on backing off of the bipartisan neoimperialist agenda.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

While you were looking over there

As Russia continues to do what Russia always does, this time in Ukraine, other atrocities try to keep pace. The Saudis put 81 people to death this past week in one of their execution sprees. Ali AlAhmed shared some photos of the victims on Twitter, and it’s worth scrolling through the list just to afford these people a small portion of the humanity being accorded, quite rightly, to Ukrainians.

Then, of course, there’s Yemen – still Yemen. Over the weekend, UNICEF reported that almost 50 children were killed or maimed in January alone, adding to the more than 10,000 child casualties recorded since the war began, with our nod and crucial material support, in 2015. Yemen remains among the worst humanitarian crises in the world, and yet it has fallen from the front page, particularly in America.

Proximity, proximity is everything

It’s not surprising or outrageous that the mainstream corporate media, and much of the independent media, spends most of their time on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s a huge story, and it should be reported on. But some crises fail to command the attention that Ukraine has garnered over the past three weeks. Yemen is chief among them, but certainly not the only instance.

The reason? Impossible to be precise, but it’s not hard to discern a pattern. If an atrocity is being committed by an official enemy, it is all over the media. If, on the other hand, the atrocity is being committed by us or by a close ally, it gets much, much less coverage, by and large. Count the number of stories about the war in Yemen that have run in U.S. major media. You will have fingers left over. Now compare that with this wall-to-wall Ukraine coverage.

Conclusion: Ukraine is being attacked by someone we don’t like; Yemen is being attacked by an ally who’s dependent on our help to conduct the war. The less likely it is that we can stop a war, the more likely it is that our media will focus on it.

Sticking to what you know

Russia’s military, at Putin’s behest, is doing what they know how to do: blowing things up. That’s how they get people to bend to their will. It’s the sharpest imperial tool in their toolbox by far. They destroy whole cities and drive people into the wilderness. That’s all they know.

Bombs, missiles, shells, and bullets are what’s available to Putin. But he doesn’t have a corner on imperialism. The United States, on the other hand, has more than one way to skin a country. When we put a nation under sanction, it hurts very badly. We can shut off access to international financial institutions. We can starve whole populations and ruin their public health infrastructure. This is what we did to Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s, between two spates of bombing. That’s how we bent them to our will.

Russia doesn’t have that. If they sanction someone, it doesn’t mean much. They don’t have anywhere near the leverage of the U.S. in international finance. All they have is the bombs.

Finding the exit

Maddeningly, this attack on Ukraine, all in the space of a few weeks, is doing what was done in Yemen, in Syria, in Iraq at the height of those conflicts – destroying societal infrastructure on a massive scale. Much as you have to admire the Ukrainians’ courage and stubbornness, I hope the sides aren’t getting so entrenched that some settlement can’t be reached.

This war will end. The question is, how much of Ukraine will survive that long? If Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and others are any indication, it’s better to find a way to settlement sooner rather than later. I think that’s one channel by which the international community can help.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Enter The Blob.

As anyone who listens to my podcast, Strange Sound, knows, I’ve had serious differences with the Biden team on foreign policy from early on in their campaign. What first gave me pause was the fact that the “issues” section of their campaign web site included no foreign policy items whatsoever, except one or two bank-shot mentions of other countries in the context of discussions about domestic policy issues, like immigration and energy policy. Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Donald Rumsfeld once told us, and in this context the cliche is true – while Biden’s outward-facing platform was a blank slate on foreign policy, there was definitely a there there, even if we couldn’t see it. And, no great surprise, the Biden foreign policy is basically built around the return of the blob (a.k.a. the imperial foreign policy establishment that has dominated administrations of both major parties since the American empire began).

We saw evidence of this in stark relief this past week with the bombing of “Iranian-backed” elements in Syria. Immediately we saw mainstream commentators like Richard Haas on television describing this as a measured and appropriate response to what they described as Iranian provocations, parroting the administration line that the U.S. needed to do this to show the Iranians that they can’t do whatever they want in the region without consequences. (That privilege we reserve to ourselves, of course – hence the raid.) The Biden administration is taking the path of least resistance, returning to the settled imperial order of confronting Iran at every opportunity, imposing conditions on them unilaterally, and not taking responsibility for our own disastrous policy decisions over the past four years (which, themselves, compounded the disastrous policy decisions of the preceding 75 years).

The fact is, the Biden administration is building on that bad policy. While Anthony Blinken has not openly endorsed Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, he is leading the State Department in returning to something that still looks a lot like that recognition, while keeping the American embassy in Jerusalem – a decision that cements in place this open defiance of the very concept of a two-state solution. The Biden State Department is still calling Juan Guaido the “interim president” of Venezuela when he is, in fact, no such thing and has no standing as the leader of that country – a delusional policy originated by the Trump crew. Biden is unlikely to withdraw U.S. recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, a criminal quid-pro-quo over recognition of Israel, brokered by the Trump administration. Don’t even get me started on Saudi Arabia. In fact, as far as I can see, the only policy Biden appears poised to reverse is Trump’s opening to North Korea – literally the only good thing the man ever did (albeit by accident).

With respect to foreign affairs, war and peace, we appear to be locked into place, regardless of which major party runs the White House. Bad news for anyone who might have hoped this presidential transition would bring a saner approach to the world. Doesn’t seem likely.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Who’s the client?

As the Senate moves closer to a veto override vote on the $740 billion defense authorization act, I’ve been thinking about how eager our national legislators are to spend money when it comes to military hardware, consultants, logistics, etc, and yet how reluctant they seem to be to provide working people with the means to, I don’t know, feed themselves and their families, keep a roof over their heads, maybe see a medical professional if they need one, all in the midst of a once-in-a-century (up to now, at least) pandemic. Of course, this $740 billion doesn’t represent the full price tag of our national security posture – no, indeed, there are many billions more going into intelligence, covert operations, and of course the after-market costs of war, such as the Veteran’s administration and so on. All this money to “keep us safe”, and yet here we are – more people dying on a daily basis than in any previous armed conflict.

We have an administration that has dragged its feet on the Coronavirus since the very beginning. They are currently falling way behind on their vaccination campaign, having committed to 20 million Americans vaccinated by year’s end – it looks like they will struggle to achieve ten percent of that. When challenged on this, they shrug – it’s the states’ fault, you see. What a pathetic joke. Take the goddamn money you’re shoveling at the Pentagon and use it to get those fucking vaccines into people’s arms … now. COVID is the national security threat, fool, not a resurgent Russia or China. People are dropping dead all around us, like there’s been an invasion of invisible killer aliens, and fat boy is out golfing while his Coronavirus coordinator Veep is enjoying a skiing holiday. From the start, this phenomenal lack of urgency has been a reflection of the president’s priorities – there’s simply no perceived benefit to him in pursuing this virus, and so he pretends it doesn’t exist.

Someone on Facebook shared that photo of Trump in the oval office with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, going over the presentation of military hardware that the Prince was committing to purchase from U.S. arms manufacturers. It struck me that what I was looking at was an image of a vendor (Trump) with his client (MBS). Trump was using his office to broker a deal with Saudi Arabia – one that is currently being extended, by the way – so that they will continue to patronize him after he leaves office. How does this serve the interests of the American people? Saudi Arabia is a repressive, dictatorial regime that’s killing thousands of people in Yemen, using our weapon systems and our military’s logistical support. The jobs supported by these purchases are not worth the lives lost – far from it. The only benefit that comes from this relationship is realized by Trump, who has bragged about the money he earns from the kingdom. His entire presidency has been a branding exercise, and he’s ready to start cashing in his chips.

This is a level of cynicism beyond anything we’ve seen before. We are losing thousands of lives every day, and our leaders are too busy feathering their nests to even notice, let alone act.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Enemy of my enemy.

It’s not hard to see how Donald Trump’s presidency could be good for the war caucus that encompasses parts of both parties. The deep neocon types oppose some of Trump’s foreign policy decisions, thereby endearing themselves to centrist Democrats who are always eager to make new friends (on the right). Then if a Democrat wins the presidency next year, the neocons would hope, I’m sure, to ride into Washington with her or him. There are two, maybe three Democratic presidential candidates  who would say no, but the others … I’m not so sure. I have no doubt, though, that some of them would serve as a tunnel back to power for the hyper interventionists.

That’s not to say that Trump represents any alternative to an imperial foreign policy. A recent Nation editorial by Bob Borosage describes Trump’s betrayal of the Kurds in Syria as giving peace a bad name – this is a fair point, but the Trump foreign policy bears very little resemblance to anything the anti-war movement ever advocated. His abrupt policy change in northern Syria initiated violence rather than stopping it; moreover, he is simply moving troops to another part of Syria in violation of that country’s sovereignty, supposedly “guarding” their oil fields. That is textbook, old-school imperialism. Combine that with his movement of troops to Saudi Arabia, his tearing up of the Iran Nuclear Accord, his withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement with Russia, and his showering of the Pentagon with unprecedented billions, and you have a full-on militarist presidency, every bit as dangerous as the Bush II regime at its most bellicose.

Not too late for a come back, guys.

What is particularly problematic about this political moment is that Trump’s erratic behavior and lack of any definable ideology on foreign policy (or, apparently, any nuanced knowledge of the world in general) gives traditional militarists an opportunity to paint themselves as a more reasonable, stable alternative. This must be rejected. If we are going to make the herculean effort to defeat Trump in next year’s election, it shouldn’t be for the sake of merely replacing him with a Bush clone. We need a new, anti-imperial approach to the world; one that emphasizes cooperation and harm reduction as well as human rights. The urgent goal of turning back terminal challenges like climate change and nuclear war requires that we change course in this way, not simply tweak our current hegemonic policy around the edges.

In short, we need to ask more of ourselves and our leaders than simply ridding ourselves of this mad president.

luv u,

jp

Grifting.

I’ve been reading the Washington Post edition of the Mueller Report, basically the same as all of the other versions, and I have to say that it is both an interesting and a sickening document. Much as it has been discussed on cable news, you never get the full story without reading it yourself, and there’s a lot in there that never makes it to your television. I’m taking it slow, splitting time with another book that I can’t put down (Visions of Freedom by Piero Gleijeses), but my biggest take away is, well, just what a grifter Donald Trump is, and the same goes for the people he surrounds himself with.

I haven’t written about this scandal very much on this blog, as not to superfluously comment on material that is being handled much more competently elsewhere, but I basically fall into the non Russia-obsessed segment. Sure, there’s a lot in the report about Russian hacking and influence campaigns, but that is something states do in their efforts to advance their perceived national interest. I’m not saying it’s right – I’m saying it’s common practice. If it were up to me, we would regulate campaigns a lot more tightly than we do now. I’m also of the opinion that there isn’t enough brain power in the Trump clown car to effectively pull off any sophisticated kind of collusion with a foreign power. I think the Russians and other foreign governments – UAE, Saudi, Israel – inserted themselves into the 2016 election in hopes of affecting the outcome in some way. And clearly, the Trump team was glad for the help. So there was a confluence of interests, that’s probably about it.

Not a three-dimensional chess master

Something tells me Trump’s biggest problem coming out of this scandal will be his own financial misconduct over the years and that of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Again, they’re not the brightest bulbs on the porch, so they would have been very poor at concealing, say, money laundering in any sophisticated way, resorting to clumsy attempts at stonewalling. The Democrats should move forward with the investigation if only to keep the president on his back foot. And no, I don’t think Trump is playing three-dimensional chess. I think he’s a dunce, and it pains me to see people ascribing more wits to Donald Trump than is indicated by what comes out of his festering gob. This phenomenon is not limited to Trump. People tend to think of creatures like Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and Henry Kissinger as mad geniuses; the fact is, they are massive fuck-ups whose policies invariably result in catastrophic failure, even when viewed through the distorted lens of their own harebrained objectives.

God help us if (or when) we get reactionary leaders that are actually competent at what they attempt to do. Up to now, the only thing that has saved us has been their ignorance and ineptitude.

luv u,

jp

Fear and favor.

The Trump Administration almost gleefully declared Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization this week, setting a new precedent in this overtly imperial practice of terror designation by applying it to a branch of the armed forces of a sovereign nation. The first question that came to my mind was, did Trump do this at this particular moment as a last-minute favor to Netanyahu or as a sop to his buddy Mohammed bin Salman? Only Trump’s hairdresser knows for sure.

Not that the president’s penchant for prioritizing his personal interests is the sole motivation here. As the execrable Pompeo said, this is part of their strategy of placing “maximum pressure” on Iran, another step toward making military conflict with the Islamic Republic all but inevitable. Trita Parsi pointed out on Democracy Now! that one of the most serious effects of this decision would be to forestall any future opportunity to reduce the level of confrontation with Iran by effectively criminalizing any contact with large swaths of the Iranian government or civil society. It will also make reconciliation far more politically costly for future, hopefully more sane American leaders, while strengthening the hardliners in Iran. This strikes many as ironic, but it isn’t, really – this is similar to what the Bush II administration did with Mohammed Khatami. Republican presidents in particular much prefer hot-headed Iranian leaders like Ahmadinejad because they’re easy to demonize. This policy practically guarantees another hot head in Teheran.

The neocon lobe of Trump's tiny brain.

The frankly laughable Pompeo took the occasion of his announcement to rattle through a litany of Iran’s terroristic offenses over the decades, such as the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983, carried out by a nascent Hezbollah. Naturally, every action taken by Hezbollah is attributed to Iran, but just to focus on this one example – in 1983, the U.S. was supporting Saddam Hussein in his then 3-year-old invasion of Iran, a conflict that killed upwards of 900,000 Iranians over eight years. Hezbollah had risen in opposition to the invasion of Lebanon by Israel, which was essentially supported by the United States. Say what you like about the bombing, we were not simply minding our own business in those days. Add to that the fact that we worked with British intelligence to bomb a mosque in Lebanon around that time, and then ask … who’s the terrorist?

One thing to remember with the Trump administration: there’s the personal venality and self-dealing of Trump himself, and then there’s the craven policies of the institutional Republican party. Often those things intersect in toxic ways, and I think this terror designation is one of those instances.

luv u,

jp

Tragedy, then farce.

The Trump administration has been pushing the sale of nuclear reactors to Saudi Arabia, according to a report from the House Government Oversight Committee, now functional once again since the Democratic takeover of that body. Some pretty good reporting on this from ProPublica suggests, predictably, that Trump’s family would benefit materially from such an arrangement, in the form of lucrative Saudi contracts for the now bankrupt nuclear plant designer Westinghouse, which has garnered Trump friend Tom Barrack as a major investor. ( I believe the consortium is eyeing Jared Kushner’s 666 building for office space.) Barrack wants to be part of a crackpot “Marshall Plan” for the Middle East that will involve building dozens of nuclear reactors in Saudi. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, the same things that have gone wrong on previous occasions when we have moved in this direction. Oh, yes … we have been here before, though perhaps without the craven self-dealing that Trump adds to virtually every initiative. In the 1960s, we were pushing the “atoms for peace” program, and at one point we were working with the British to help Iran (under the Shah) develop nuclear weapons – this according to longtime Labor party leader the late Tony Benn. In the late 1980s, George H.W. Bush was planning to send nuclear scientists over to Iraq for talks with Saddam Hussein’s government. And we have, of course, looked the other way with regard to Israel’s nuclear program, which remains unacknowledged, even though it continues to affect regional politics.

Now, there are historical and institutional reasons why our relationship with Saudi Arabia is unlikely to go south in a way similar to our little imperial dance with Iraq or Iran. But it’s hard to predict what will happen to any despotic regime. I’m sure back in the 1960s U.S. policymakers thought Iran would remain within the fold for the long term. My sense is that on this issue, like other foreign policy issues, Trump is being driven around like a little toy car by his advisors. People like Bolton, Pompeo, and Elliott Abrams work their strategies through people like Trump, who has little or no interest in international politics and is really only focused on what is best for him, his children, his son in law, his cronies. In a place like Saudi, they can all get what they want even if their goals are divergent from one another.

We live in dangerous times, to be sure. There’s nothing more dangerous than a useful idiot.

luv u,

jp

Hit factory.

If reports from Turkey are to be believed, Washington Post editorialist Jamal Khashoggi was the victim of a mob-like hit, and a pretty gruesome one at that.  I am glad to see some politicians using this horrible story as a means of broadening the scope of this new scrutiny being focused on the House of Saud, namely Senator Chris Murphy, Ro Khanna, and a handful of others. Those of us who want action on the Yemen question have to overcome this culture of privilege in which the life of a columnist (important as it may be) is seen to be worth more than that of a Yemeni child … or fifty Yemeni children. While it’s heartening to see that some legislators understand this issue, it’s maddening to think that something so basic needs to be explained. It’s not right to kill people – how hard is that? Isn’t that fundamental to christian teaching?

Dismember a whole country? Meh.Sadly, the problem goes way beyond what other countries do. We have a bad habit of supporting paramilitary activities in other countries, as well as allowing our own citizens to act as mercenaries and even officers in foreign military organizations. The latter problem is familiar to anyone who has followed the exploits of Blackwater and other similar war-fighting  “contractors”.  A recent report from Aram Roston of BuzzFeed News, featured on DemocracyNow! this past week, chronicles the deadly activities of a company named Spear Operations Group in Yemen on behalf of the United Arab Emirates. This firm is made up of former Navy SEALs, special forces, etc., and they basically assassinate enemies of the UAE, like a made to order hit squad.

While running assassination – basically, terrorist – teams overseas is nothing new, this is an American company working for another – if allied – government. I’m not suggesting that this is breaking American law, but that is the scandal. How is it that this is a legal practice? How is it that Americans, including active duty military, can, as Roston reports, are able to serve in an official capacity in the armed forces of another country? That has been happening forever, of course – the French Foreign Legion, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, the Israeli Defense Forces, etc. , but still … that’s one small step away from joining ISIS, in my humble opinion, and the distance between those two things is purely a political, not a moral, gap. ISIS are fanatical killers – so is the government of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, only to a much greater degree. They have lots of company in that regard.

Our government should neither promote nor condone assassinations anywhere in the world, full stop. Neither should it permit its own citizens to monetize assassination while they enjoy the blessings of American citizenship.

luv u,

jp

Fifteen Saudis.

It’s kind of amazing to watch the talking head squad comment on the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi columnist for the Washington Post who was apparently abducted and quite probably killed and dismembered by his government for the crime of being mildly critical of Prince Muhammad Bin Salman. As I’m sure you know, Khashoggi went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain some documents relating to his planned marriage … and never emerged. Now denizens of Morning Joe who were not so very long ago praising Bin Salman to the skies – I’m looking at you, David Ignatius – are now wringing their hands over the disappearance of a colleague. Rightfully so – if there’s any truth to the murder allegations, this is a sickening and despicable act.

MBS red-handedWhat’s ironic is that these pundits should be surprised and appalled by such behavior. After all, the Saudis have been killing people by the thousand in Yemen. It appears that Yemeni children’s biggest mistake may be that they aren’t members of the Washington Post editorial board. And if memory serves, they were well represented in the 9/11/2001 attacks … nearly as many hijackers as there were assassins sent to kill Khashoggi. I’m surprised that the Saudis considered this such heavy lifting. Nevertheless, all of the gray-headed shills who were running around trumpeting the virtues of “MBS” will now have to find some way of reconciling themselves to the ugly truth: their hero is a murderous despot.

The evidence of the Saudi regime’s toxicity is much broader and deeper than this suggests. They have been complicit in supporting some of the most retrograde and destructive movements in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa over the last six decades. Most often, they did so with our help. They were deeply hostile to Arab nationalist movements, to the point of becoming de facto allies of Israel after the Israeli military destroyed Nassar’s army in 1967 (while Nassar and the Saudis were engaged in a conflict in – you guessed it – Yemen). They funded and manned the radical opposition to the Soviets in Afghanistan, with our active participation. They fueled radical movements in Iraq, Syria, you name it. And their intelligence services reportedly supported the Saudi 9/11 hijackers as they prepared to pull off their spectacular atrocity.

Will Trump do anything? Not a chance. He’s worried about arms sales and lucrative bookings at his hotels, to say nothing of plans for future ventures for him and Jared Kushner. This is where we’re at, folks. Don’t like it? Vote.

luv u,

jp