Israel Lobby Takes Aim at Iran Deal

By Paul R. Pillar, Consortium News | Op-Ed

Official Washington’s neocons are still trying to derail a negotiated settlement with Iran over its nuclear program by imposing new sanctions and thus putting the U.S. on a course for war – as favored by Israel’s Likud. But this reality is hiding behind sophistry, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar. 

Here’s a New Year’s resolution that participants in policy debate in Washington, and especially those in Congress, should make: be honest about your position on Iran. Say what you really want, and make your best arguments on behalf of what you really want, and don’t pretend to be working in favor of what you really are working against.

The main vehicle for debate about Iran once Congress reconvenes is a bill introduced by Senators Mark Kirk, R-Illinois, and Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, that would threaten still more sanctions on Iran and purchasers of its oil, would impose unrealistic conditions to be met to avoid actually imposing the sanctions, and would explicitly give a green light to Israel to launch a war against Iran and to drag the United States into that war.

As Colin Kahl has explained in detail, passage of this legislation would be very damaging to the process of negotiating a final agreement with Iran to keep its nuclear program peaceful. The promoters of the legislation contend that its effect would be just the opposite, and would increase U.S. bargaining power and make it more likely Iran would make concessions we want.

It is possible that some members of Congress who might be inclined to vote for this bill, and even some who have signed on as co-sponsors, actually believe that contention. They keep hearing, after all, the trope about how “sanctions brought Iran to the table” and that if some sanctions are a good thing than even more sanctions are an even better thing.

But anyone who has thought seriously for more than a minute about this subject — as the chief promoters of the legislation surely have — realizes how fallacious that idea is. Whatever role sanctions may have had in getting Iran to the table, it is the prospect of getting sanctions removed, not having them forever increase, that will induce Iran, now that it is at the table, to complete an agreement placing severe restrictions on its nuclear program.

It goes against all logic and psychology to think that right after Iran has made most of the concessions necessary to conclude the preliminary Joint Plan of Action, “rewarding” it with more pressure and more punishment would put Iranians in the mood to make still more concessions.

The people doing the negotiating for the United States oppose the legislation because of the damage it would do to the negotiations. Their view is highly significant, no matter how much one might agree or disagree with whatever specific terms the administration is trying to get. If the legislation really would strengthen the U.S. negotiating position, any U.S. negotiator would welcome it.

And if that weren’t enough, counterparts to Kirk and Menendez in the Iranian legislature are providing further evidence of the destructive effect of what is transpiring on Capitol Hill, with the Iranian legislators’ bill calling for Iran to start enriching uranium to a level well beyond what it has ever done before if the United States imposes any new sanctions.

This is direct confirmation of how threats and hardline obstinacy, especially at this juncture, beget threats and hardline obstinacy from the other side. The Iranian bill also provides a real-life opportunity for some role reversal. Does this threat emanating from the Majlis make U.S. policy-makers more inclined to take a softer line and make more concessions? Of course not.

Kirk and Menendez are not dummies. They surely realize all this. Their legislation serves the purpose of those who want the negotiations with Iran to fail, not to succeed. Chief among those with this purpose is, of course, the right-wing Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made it abundantly clear that he opposes any agreement of any sort with Iran and will continue to do whatever he can to portray Iran as Satan incarnate and to keep it permanently ostracized.

The principal organization in Washington that serves the policy of Netanyahu’s government — i.e., AIPAC — also has its own reason to hammer away forever at the Iranian bogeyman: it’s “good for business,” as a former senior AIPAC executive explained. It is no accident that Mark Kirk is easily the biggest congressional recipient of AIPAC funds, and Robert Menendez is also among the top half dozen recipients.

Honesty would mean dispensing with the phony issue of whether more sanctions now would help negotiate a better agreement — since they clearly would not — and instead posing the real issue: whether it is in the interests of the United States for the negotiations with Iran to succeed or to fail. That issue can be debated according to several criteria.

One concerns the objective of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon: is that objective more obtainable through a negotiated agreement that imposes major new restrictions and intensified international monitoring on Iran’s nuclear program, or through continued confrontation that offers neither of those things?

A second set of criteria concerns which path is more likely to avoid the danger of a new war — supplemented by discussion of the impact of a new war on U.S. interests. Another criterion concerns whether broader U.S. policy in the Middle East is better served by the United States having the flexibility to conduct its own diplomacy with anyone in the region on a case-by-case, issue-by-issue basis, or by being locked into hostility insisted on by third parties.

All of this should be debated from the standpoint of U.S. interests. Those with a special concern for Israel can also ask parallel questions, such as whether Israeli interests are better served by an unending relationship of hostility with another major state in the region, with threats and hatred being perpetually flung by each side at the other, or by following a different path.

Let such an honest debate begin. But an honest debate will barely get off the ground unless we discard the nonsense about how something like the Kirk-Menendez bill supposedly aids negotiations.

US the biggest threat to world peace in 2013 – poll

US President Barack Obama. (AFP Photo / Nicholas Kamm)

The US has been voted as the most significant threat to world peace in a survey across 68 different countries. Anti-American sentiment was not only recorded in antagonistic countries, but also in many allied NATO partners like Turkey and Greece.

A global survey conducted by the Worldwide Independent Network and Gallup at the end of 2013 revealed strong animosity towards the US’s role as the world’s policeman. Citizens across over 60 nations were asked: “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?”

The US topped the list, with 24 percent of people believing America to be the biggest danger to peace. Pakistan came second, with 8 percent of the vote and was closely followed by China with 6 percent. Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea came in joint fourth place with 5 percent of the vote.

The threat from the US was rated most highly in the Middle East and North Africa, those areas most recently affected by American military intervention. Moreover, the survey showed that even Americans regard their country as a potential threat with 13 percent of them voting the US could disrupt global status quo.

Latin America expressed mixed feelings towards its northerly neighbor, with Peru, Brazil and Argentina all flagging the US as the most dangerous country.

After its numerous threats of a strike on Iran, many countries voted Israel was the biggest threat to prosperity. Morocco, Lebanon and Iraq all chose Israel as the number one danger to world peace.

In the survey participants were also asked: “If there were no barriers to living in any country of the world, which country would you like to live in?” Despite being the perceived largest threat to world peace, the US still topped the tables by a narrow margin of 9 percent.

In general 2013 saw a drop in approval ratings for the Obama Administration. A poll conducted by the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 50 percent of those asked thought that the political system in the US needed a “complete overhaul.”

In addition, 70 percent of Americans believe the government lacks the ability to make progress on the important problems and issues facing the country in 2014.”

The survey comes two months after the first government shutdown in 17 years in the US which cost the country an estimated $10 billion.

The American government’s credibility was dealt a blow earlier this year when President Obama made a call to strike Syria following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government on civilians. The American public and the international community both opposed the action.

Source: rt.com

Obama To Cut Middle East Democracy Programs

The administration has informed aid groups that it plans to decrease the budget for pro-democracy assistance in Arab Spring countries.

A planned decrease by the Obama administration in funding for democracy promotion and election support in the Middle East is prompting alarm among activists. They say cuts are likely to be more severe than first realized and that the White House appears to be giving up on democracy in the region and downgrading its advancement as a policy priority.

In the run-up to Christmas, State Department officials briefed American non-profits funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) about cuts in funding. They were told no money was being earmarked for democracy and governance assistance programs in Iraq and that, for Egypt, the administration was adopting a wait-and-see approach until after a January 15 referendum on a newly-drafted constitution.

No extra funding for democracy promotion is being earmarked for Libya, whose transition from autocracy following the toppling of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi has been plagued by lawlessness. USAID democracy programs there were cut by about half last year, following the assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that led to the deaths of ambassador Christopher Sevens and three other Americans.

The total amount of foreign assistance requested by the Obama administration for the Middle East and North Africa for fiscal year 2014 is $7.36 billion, a nine percent decrease from FY2013. Of that, $298.3 million has been requested to support democracy and governance programming across the region, a cut of $160.9 million from FY 2013.

But those briefed last month by State Department officials say the decrease in funding is likely in effect to be harsher and that it may be masked when the administration goes through with plans to re-categorize so-called D&G funding by combining it with development programs. That will make it difficult to follow what actually has been spent on democracy promotion.

“We had expected big cuts in D&G to the region soon,” says Cole Bockenfeld, director of Advocacy at the Project on Middle East Democracy, a Washington DC-based non-profit. “In many ways, there was already a widespread perception that this administration was giving up on promoting democracy in the Middle East, and major cuts to democracy funding will further confirm those fears.”

Overall, he says, “there is clearly a diminished focus on democracy best illustrated by Obama’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly.”

"There was already a widespread perception that this administration was giving up on promoting democracy in the Middle East, and major cuts to democracy funding will further confirm those fears."

In that September 24 speech the President stressed mutual security interests shared by the U.S. and countries in the region and was criticized for seemingly downplaying democracy.

When it came to Egypt, Obama made no explicit reference to standards for human rights, despite the ongoing violent dispersal by the Egyptian security forces of demonstrators protesting the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi, the first democratically elected head of state in Egyptian history.

For the region as a whole, the President cited four key American interests in the Middle East—confronting aggression from the region aimed at the U.S., maintaining an unhindered flow of oil, confronting jihadists and terrorist networks, and preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions. The promotion of democracy and human rights came in as a fifth fiddle.

Democracy campaigners say the United States has national interest stakes in promoting democracy and assisting countries trying to transition from autocracy can help them overcome challenges.

The decrease in overall foreign assistance to the region is due in large part to the budget challenges the U.S. is facing and the federal sequester. But the shift away from democracy promotion is made clear in the President’s budget request, which sees the proportion devoted to security assistance programs in foreign aid earmarked for the Middle East increase from 69 percent to 80 percent.

Pro-democracy advocates acknowledge Obama has a difficult task in the Middle East, trying to balance U.S. strategic and national security interests with the promotion of democracy—and that political setbacks in the region have not helped. But Thomas Carothers, a noted authority on international democracy support, says the Obama administration has always been lukewarm about democracy promotion, partly because of its association with the neo-conservative policies and freedom agenda of the Bush era.

“The administration never made a big push to increase money for democracy and governance in the Middle East after the Arab Spring,” says Carothers, a vice president at the Washington DC-based think tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

He points out that D&G money for Iraq in Obama’s first term was a holdover from earmarks by the Bush administration, adding, “it is notable the administration has never developed a democracy strategy for the Middle East and this further reduction of emphasis on democracy reflects how the Arab Spring has turned into a series of security headaches for the administration. The challenge the administration has not solved is how to become a credible pro-democracy actor in the region.”

In briefings, State Department officials have told democracy advocates that they are too narrowly focused. “Administration officials favorite phrase these days is that, ‘you have to widen the aperture,’” says Bockenfeld. “They say we are looking at democracy promotion too narrowly, when we focus on building up civil society groups or provide technical election support. They say if you do women empowerment programs or if you do economic opportunity programs, that all feeds into the bigger picture of democracy. They are pushing them altogether to brush over these cuts to democracy programs.”

Some activists argue the pullback from democracy promotion reflects an administration fear about antagonizing governments in the region. Others say that with democracy enlargement in the region faltering, the Obama administration is eager to shield itself from any blame for the Arab Spring failing.

Scientists observe dogs relieving themselves, discover something amazing

Dogs are sensitive to the Earth's magnetic field, say a team of Czech and German scientists.

By Eoin O'Carroll,

For a dog, when nature calls, it might also be doing something more subtle. 

A team of Czech and German researchers have found that, all else being equal, when a dog wants to go powder its rhinarium, it will tend to do so while standing in alignment with the Earth's magnetic field.

The two-year study, which involved 37 dog owners, 70 dogs, and 7,475 instances of the animals relieving themselves outside while their owners dutifully took notes, is the first demonstration of magnetic sensitivity in dogs. The authors write that their findings, which appeared last week in the journal Frontiers in Zoology, "open new horizons for biomagnetic research." 

The scientists, who are affiliated with Germany'sUniversity of Duisburg-Essen and the Czech University of Life Sciences, asked dog owners in the two countries to measure the alignment of their dogs' thoracic spines as the pets fed, rested, urinated, and defecated. They found observations of the final two activities to be the most promising, noting that excretion "seems to be least prone to be affected by the surroundings."

They then compared the data to the prevailing geomagnetic conditions at the time of each instance. The results: When our planet's magnetic field is quiet, dogs are more likely to do their business while standing along a north-south axis. Indeed, the data suggested that the animals were actively avoiding the east-west axis.

Magnetoception – the sense that allows an organism to determine its position relative to a magnetic field – has been documented among bacteria, molluscs, insects, chickens, and, famously, homing pigeons. Among mammals, some research indicates that the ability could also exist among some species of rodents, bats, foxes, cattle, and deer. Humans are not believed to have a magnetic sense, although a 2011 study uncovered a protein in our eyes that is apparently sensitive to the Earth's magnetic field.

The scientists admit that they don't know the reason for the dogs' apparent polar inclination, or what's going through those canine minds as they circle around before assuming the position.

"It is still enigmatic," they write, "why the dogs do align at all, whether they do it 'consciously' (i.e., whether the magnetic field is sensorial perceived (the dogs 'see', 'hear' or 'smell' the compass direction or perceive it as a haptic stimulus) or whether its reception is controlled on the vegetative level (they “feel better/more comfortable or worse/less comfortable” in a certain direction)."

   

First car assembled in Somaliland rolled out of factory

Hargeisa - The first  car that has ever been assembled in Somaliland was rolled out of a vehicle assembly plant in Hargeisa yesterday.

The assembly plant  is owned by a Chinese company and the first of the vehicles was delivered to the ministry of industry of Somaliland. The director of the Chinese company informed the press that the vehicles presented to the ministry are  meant to introduce more Chinese vehicles into the country. The Chinese executive requested Somaliland government to encourage the usage of Chinese cars in the country.

Assembly factories work in different ways .Some are run by robots while this particular one in Somaliland is run  by humans who form assembly lines to put car parts together. The parts are imported in crates from manufacturers in China and are then assembled according to designs supervised by experts from the original manufacturers.

This new assembly plant in Somaliland ushers a new era into the country. Currently , more then 90% of the vehicles used in the country are made in Japan and are mainly Toyota brands. Although it may be very difficult for these Chinese vehicles to compete with the Japanese , price factor could encourage many of those who cannot afford the Japanese cars to opt for the cheaper Chines ones.

Source: Medeshi

Capitalism in Crisis: Who Are the Real "Takers"?

(Image: Hollow man via Shutterstock)

By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers | Op-Ed

 Capitalism is in crisis across the globe. When both the President of the United States and the Pope take out after its worst manifestations within days of each other, you know there's an internal time-bomb inside this dysfunctional economic system.

Though the American population clearly feels and is forced to deal with the ramifications of this failing system, it's highly unlikely that capitalism will be dismantled in favor of full-scale socialism. (Even though recent U.S. polls demonstrate that "socialism" no longer is a boogeyman to be frightened of.) So the question now is which type of economic system do we want to live under: hard line, I've-got-mine-Jack-you're-on-your-own capitalism? "capitalism with a human face"? democratic socialism? a new blend?

While we're considering those choices, let's look at a little history.

Back in the 1930s, following the economic crash and Great Depression, both socialism and communism were gaining force in the United States and around the globe.

To cut the legs out from under those leftist movements, the aristocratic President Roosevelt borrowed a bit of socialism for the creation of the Social Security system and other people-friendly programs, such as the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) to put out-of-work laborers temporarily on the federal payroll to help construct roads, bridges, parks and public buildings.

Our Own Generation's Depression

In our own time, we're still suffering the after-effects of a semi-permanent economic depression fueled by greed and the lack of tough, appropriate regulation of the finance and banking sectors. The economy remains in dire straits; the gap between the truly wealthy and the rest of us shows little signs of closing. The long-touted "American Dream" no longer offers a means by which many of the poor and middle class can make their way up the socioeconomic ladder.

Outside of the top 1% extremely wealthy, few have much disposable income, there are few good-paying jobs for the working class, partly because of outsourcing abroad, increasing robotization, unimaginative, old-style business thinking, etc. Moreover, violence and threats of violence have increased in our class-based inequality system.

It's the most simple Keynesian prescription: If most people have little money to spend, the economy will remain locked in its present state of torpor. If they have some extra cash, they will spend it, thus greasing the wheels of economic activity.

In an ideal world in this scenario, the economy would bounce back into a robust recovery, jobs would be plentiful, and all those paychecks would bolster a lively and politically stable economic scene. But there is little hope that scenario can take place. All over the world, the battle is raging between the "austerians" -- those "austerity" advocates who want to tighten down the screws on the economy, which negatively impacts mostly the poor and middle-class -- and those who prefer the more Keynesian, grow-out-of- the-recession approach through infrastructure investment, an increase in targeted fees and taxes, aiding progressive entrepreneurial ventures with tax incentives, etc.

In much of the developed industrial world, mainly in the U.S. and Europe, austerity reigns, and the ones benefitting are those at the top of the economic ladder. Much of the conservative rightwing excoriates the poorer classes as "moochers" and "takers," but it's quite clear that the true "takers" are the "one-percenters" who get more and more wealthy on the backs of those beneath them.

Getting Money Into Circulation

Rightwing "trickle-down" theories are little more than heartless Republican spin on what is, at heart, a socio-political fraud. Far better that the government arrange to get disposable funds into the hands of those who have little such largesse.

In other words, straightforward Keynesian macro-economics, proven time and again by history, as opposed to austerity (cut government and taxes and screw the poor), which history has clearly refuted. In fact, forget history: look at the economies abroad today, where the Keynesian solution is promoting recovery (in Iceland, parts of continental Europe, the Pacific Rim), and austerity, once again, is failing (in the UK, Greece, Spain).

I am not a trained economist; my degrees are in American politics and international relations. But even ordinary observers can figure out that remaining in our current status quo is a risky, and losing, proposition.

Getting Cash to the Public

Getting cash into the hands of those who would spend it is neither a new nor revolutionary idea.

After the 2007-2008 crash, the Bush administration's stimulus program -- a worthy endeavor but way too weak to do much good -- included rebates on tax revenues going out to 52 million ordinary citizens. The average stimulus check was $250, and almost universally was spent quickly on life-essentials, thus priming the economic pump.

In addition to the stimulus motive, one must also fold in the moral imperative in our national DNA since America's founding: The Preamble to the Constitution stipulates that an essential function of our government is to "promote the general welfare." And so, we look after one another and ensure that an economic safety-net exists for those who, through no fault of their own, are suffering in the wake of a failed "trickle-down" approach.

There are a number of major initiatives and programs that result in getting governmental funds into the wallets of millions of ordinary citizens:

• Earned-income tax credit. This 1975 law provides for a refundable federal income tax credit for low to moderate- income individuals and families. When EITC exceeds the amount of taxes owed, it results in a tax refund to those the employed who claim and qualify for the credit. Such a program doesn't help any during the year for cash-flow purposes, but it does allow poor folks to keep their earned income sans taxes. In short, knowing that they will receive a tax credit or check at the end of the tax year certainly helps out a lot.
•  Social Security checks are spread out over years to our elderly citizens, to make sure there is some monetary floor under their feet in their less-productive period of life. Those Social Security recipients worked hard to earn those monthly checks -- in short, they paid into that program for decades and are entitled to those funds -- and, together with other initiatives, they constitute an important underpinning for society's elderly.
•  Government "make-work" programs, such as FDR's WPA, CCC or our generation's hiring of at-risk teenagers in the summers. Today's infrastructure needs are massive and immediate; a new, temporary WPA- or CCC-type program -- where hard- working infrastructure laborers would get much-needed checks -- would do wonders for the economy and to the sense of self- worth of millions of workers currently in involuntary "retirement."
•  Unemployment checks are designed to go out to millions of those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. In an economy where there are not enough jobs to go around, those unemployment checks help families survive and guarantee that governmental cash goes straight back into the economy. Currently, the Republicans are making sure that more than 1.3 million of the jobless will receive no more such unemployment checks, even knowing that such funds get plowed back immediately into the troubled economy.
•  The federal government offers special subsidies and survival aid to children in need, and to families hard put to buy groceries, through its Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known colloquially as "food stamps." One would think that providing this assistance would be non-controversial, but the Republicans, taking it out on the poor again, have continually cut the program and are refusing to restore this much-needed aid to the destitute.

A Guaranteed Income Floor?

Given the principle that there should always be a "safety net" to catch those who have fallen badly during hard times, and that the economy needs those cash infusions to keep the wheels turning, serious economists are asking why the Treasury is not printing more money and getting it directly to the people who so desperately need it. (There are even wilder ideas circulating in financial circles these days: building a minimum income floor for every citizen, and minting platinum coins to raise emergency funds. Economists and politicians are so desperate for solutions to capitalism's crises that ideas once thought to be too extreme to be taken seriously now are prompting examination by noted thinkers.)

If stimulus-infusions are part of the solution, how big should those checks be, and for how long should this temporary emergency fund be tapped? $250 a month for years, say? $500 for six months? $1000 for three months? $20,000 per annum if a minimum- income floor?

Certainly, one wants to stimulate the economy far beyond subsistence grocery shopping. For the economy to take off, it would seem to make sense to grease the wheels in large enough amounts, for a long enough time, to provide both for groceries and medications and adequate, affordable housing. And a way for larger purchases (cars, houses, refrigerators, etc.) to be made, thus enlivening the manufacturing sector.

Where Would the Money Come From?

OK, let's suppose that the situation gets desperate enough to make options mentioned in this essay look reasonable. Where would the money come from to underwrite such massive programs?

It seems obvious that the tax structure would have to be rejiggered by Congress, no doubt over the strenuous objections of the 1%, to make up for the high costs. That could result in, say, a top, marginal 50% income tax rate, or even 90% top rate for the tax on income over, say, one million dollars, as it was under the Republican presidency of Dwight David Eisenhower in the 1950s.

Or it could be termed a one-time only or annual "surtax" for the extremely wealthy of, say, 2% or 5% or 10% or 20%, whatever, added on to their IRS bill.

A Populist Uprising Required

Of course none of this could happen unless a tsunami of popular/populist anger and determination sweeps over the country and make it happen. The current dysfunction of our politics and capitalist system is building up a head of steam, and conceivably could blow at any moment.

There are a few progressive elected officials on the national scene, such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Allan Grayson, Keith Ellison, et al. -- backed up by such progressive thinkers as Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Rachel Maddow, Bill Moyers, Chris Hayes, et al. (And did you notice the other day that Republican heavyweight Colin Powell came out in favor of single-payer health care?) We can count on their activism and bully-pulpit leadership. But we can't rely on political revolution coming from the top down or happening overnight. It'll take a concerted effort from the grassroots to build the from-below radical momentum necessary to move the system in the required new direction.

(While we're engaged in our radical building project, we can't forget electoral politics. Advice: Forget the 2016 presidential race right now; we need to concentrate on the 2014 midterm election. Money and energy to the more progressive candidates.)

Those of us engaged in that long-term struggle will continue to be buffeted and attacked by an in-place elitist political infrastructure that maintains effective control of mainstream media, a good many think tanks, a good share of the courts and judicial system, along with far too many local, state and federal legislatures.

Pitchforks and Progress

But it can be done. The plutocrats are shamelessly autocratic and greed-obsessed, and believe themselves to be chosen by God to rule our lives. But they are partially blind to the consequences of their power-hungry policies. History tells us that when the tipping point has been reached in an organized social movement, revolutionary fervor and solutions can work their political magic with surprising quickness.

So, to the wealthy, this message: Do you want your cake and eat it too while you can still get it, and to hell with those below your feet, or do you want to take your chances with The Revolution? It could come to that, you know. (See Iceland. The Arab Spring. Central Europe.) You choose.

The bottom line: There are fewer than 1% of the plutocrats, and 99% of their victims. And those put-upon citizens are angry and know their pitchforks.