Why Russia And The Us Will Not War At The End (Daniel 7)

Russia Sees Dialogue With Trump on Terrorism, Nuclear Weapons: Lavrov

by BILL NEELY and ALASTAIR JAMIESON

MOSCOW — Russia hopes for cooperation with Donald Trump's administration on "strategic stability" — including nuclear weapons — and the Syria war, foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Tuesday.

The President-elect "wants every country to be responsible for its own development and this is an attitude we can relate to," he told reporters at a news conference, reiterating Russia's criticism of President Barack Obama's administration, NATO and the European Union.

"Donald Trump has unique views that differ from the views of his predecessors, both Democrats and Republicans," Lavrov said. "And at the core of it is the interest of United States as Donald Trump sees it. When we hear that his main focus is fighting terrorism, of course we will support it because this is actually what our American partners have been missing up until now."

His comments come after Russia-U.S. relations plunged to post-Cold War lows over the Ukrainian crisis, Syria and other issues.

Russia has also come to the fore in U.S. politics amid allegations that it hacked American institutions including the Democratic National Convention. Outgoing CIA director John Brennan said Sunday that Trump lacks a full understanding of the threat Moscow poses to America.

While being broadly positive about the relationship with the new administration, Russia's top diplomat did sound an ominous note on NATO escalation at Russia's borders, especially the Baltic states.

"If the NATO forces do not see any other place for themselves aside from the Russian-Estonian border, it means their Intelligence services are not doing a good job as they don't see what is happening in other areas," Lavrov said.

Syria Talks

Lavrov also said he would invite U.S. representatives to upcoming Syria peace talks in Kazakhstan brokered by Russia and Turkey.

"I hope our cooperation in regards to the Syrian crisis and fighting terrorism will be more successful than the one we had with President Obama's administration," Lavrov said.

Russia is a major backer of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, who the United States opposes, and has helped tip the balance of the war in the president's favor.

Lavrov made a point of mentioning Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson's comment at last week's Congressional confirmation hearing that "Russia is a threat but Russia is not unpredictable." That statement is important, said Lavrov.

Lavrov also referred to the alleged of Russian hacking of U.S. organizations, saying the claims were "false."

"We've seen some poor accusations that don't hold water, that since have been shrugged off by the British and their American counterparts who tried to jeopardize the new administration," Lavrov said.

Lavrov also took a swipe at what he called "the messianic obsession of the west" with exporting its values, such as democracy.

Russia isn't trying to export anything, especially not values, he said, adding that the concept of a unipolar world was "obsolete" because there are "many centers of power."

Russia Has Trump In A Compromising Position

Russians claim to have compromising info on Trump: CNN

Washington (AFP) - US spy chiefs told President-elect Donald Trump last week that Russian operatives claim to have "compromising" personal and financial information about him, CNN reported Tuesday.

Citing "multiple" unnamed US officials with direct knowledge of the meeting, CNN said the intelligence chiefs presented a two-page synopsis on the potential embarrassment for the incoming president along with their classified briefing on Friday on alleged Russian interference in the presidential election.

President Barack Obama was also briefed on the issue on Thursday.

CNN gave no details of what the so-called compromising information is, but said knowledge of its existence in Russian hands originally came from a former British MI-6 intelligence operative hired by other US presidential contenders to do political "opposition research" on Trump in the middle of last year.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation had been given the information in August, more than two months before the November 8 election, according to CNN.

"What has changed since then is that US intelligence agencies have now checked out the former British intelligence operative and his vast network throughout Europe and find him and his sources to be credible enough to include some of the information in the presentations" to Trump, CNN said.

The existence of the information on Trump in Russian hands has been rumored since before the election.

The rumors gained support when the then Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, said in a letter to FBI Director James Comey a week before the vote: "It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government -– a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every opportunity. The public has a right to know this information."

In the Friday briefing Trump was also told by the intelligence officials -- the heads of the Directorate of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency -- of allegations that supporters of his White House campaign had a "continuing exchange of information" with intermediaries for the Russian government during the election.

Asked about this in a Senate hearing Tuesday, Comey refused to confirm or deny that his agency was investigating such links.

US intelligence has concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an operation to meddle in the US election to hurt the campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton with embarrassing hacked emails, and then to boost Trump when they thought he had a chance to win.

Trump has repeatedly dismissed the conclusion that Moscow influenced the election while expressing the need to smooth over bilateral relations deeply strained during the Obama presidency.

The Nuclear Fumble (Ezekiel 17)

Michael Gerson commentary: In desperate search of a legacy, Obama fumbles on Iran

Friday April 17, 2015 6:19 AM

“I have never seen anything like it.”

So I was told by a former U.S. official, who had seen much as a senior diplomat. It has become hard to deny that the rollout of the Lausanne framework is a first-rate debacle.

Who proposed that the State Department issue an interpretive fact sheet before the deal was actually sealed? The Iranian negotiators were bound to feel ambushed. Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had yet to sell an agreement at home. The Obama administration’s interpretive victory dance made his job considerably harder. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei quickly denounced the fact sheet as “ incorrect and contrary to the substance of the negotiations.” Do the elements outlined in that document now constitute a set of Obama administration red lines?

This dispute highlights the fact that at least three parts of the deal are not settled: an Iranian accounting for past research and development, the timing of sanctions relief and the agreement’s verification mechanisms. So everything is settled — except everything that matters most. “The sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement,” Khamenei demands. “One must absolutely not,” he continues, “allow infiltration of the security and defense realm of the state on the pretext of inspection.”

The administration’s high-profile announcement has already had the practical effect of undermining the isolation of Iran. Russia used the occasion to announce a $800 million deal to provide Iran with an advanced air-defense system. Russia claims this does not violate the spirit of sanctions because it is a defensive technology. But it is a defensive technology that may be used to shield the development of the ultimate offensive technology.

There are also reports that French and Chinese oil companies are exploring deals with Iran. Sanctions already have begun to fall apart, which will eventually free up billions of dollars for the Iranians to further destabilize the Middle East.

Why would the Obama administration claim victory in the middle of a sensitive negotiation? Maybe for the same reason that the swap of five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was declared a national triumph and Bergdahl himself, now charged by the Army with desertion, was praised for serving with “honor and distinction.” On occasion, the administration seems so anxious to score political points that it is incapable of acting with restraint.

There is another, related explanation. President Barack Obama oversold the Iran nuclear agreement to back congressional opponents into a corner. It is, the administration has repeatedly argued, a simple choice: concessions or war. But this strategy actually backs America into a corner. Does Obama not think the Iranians are listening when he sets out these alternatives? No one — not enemies, not allies, not bystanders in the street — believes that Obama would use force against Iran. And this means there is no theoretical limit to the concessions that could be justified to avoid conflict.

The administration’s botched announcement was accompanied by typically sensitive congressional outreach. At first, members of Congress were declared irrelevant and told to butt out of an executive agreement. Then Obama accused his opponents of being irrational, militant and atavistic — the functional equivalent of the Iranian mullahs. This campaign resulted in a remarkable, bipartisan congressional consensus — to assert oversight over an administration that is not inspiring confidence.

With all this, a deal with Iran is still likely — and likely to be bad — unless Khamenei is incapable of getting to “yes.” Obama’s grand strategy, meanwhile, remains a cypher. He could believe that a nuclear agreement and the lifting of sanctions will help transform Iran into a more benevolent regional power, which is naive. He could be making the move of an uber-realist: trying to extricate America from involvement in the Middle East by recognizing Iranian hegemony and developing a working relationship with the worst of the worst. This would fulfill the nightmares of Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Or Obama could have no strategy at all — in need of a political win, desperately hoping for a legacy and too invested to walk away.

Michael Gerson writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.

michaelgerson@washpost.com

White House Concedes Iranian Nuclear Program

While Insulting Netanyahu, the Administration Admits That Iran Will Go Nuclear

Mosaic

 

October 30, 2014

Disparaging comments about the Israeli prime minister by anonymous administration officials offer an “appalling display of hypocrisy, hostility to Israel, and warmth toward the very powers (Iran, Hamas, et al.) that have killed almost as many Americans as al-Qaeda,” writes Danielle Pletka. More disturbing still is the admission that the U.S. has given up on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons:

But let’s forget about Obama’s own ideological dislike of the state of Israel and its leaders, whoever they may be. . . . Let us instead focus on the fact that an unnamed “senior American official” is waxing triumphant over the fact that it is now “too late” for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. The fact that American officials believe it is more advantageous to have a nuclear Iran than to have someone in power in Israel who will not kowtow to the US president says something about the fundamental rot at the core of the Obama administration, its contempt for the national security of the American people – who are at terrible risk from an Iranian nuclear bomb – and the vileness of the cowards and chickenshit officials who people the fiefdom of Barack Obama.

Obama Expected To Make Concessions With Iran

Expect Obama to Compromise With Iran

Monday, 27 Oct 2014 03:37 PM

By Herbert London

 

It is something of an old saw to contend that if a woman says “no,” she means “maybe.” If she says “maybe” she means “yes,” but if she says “yes” she is not a “lady.” Similarly if a man says “yes,” he means “maybe,” if he says “maybe” he means “no,” but if says “no,” he could not possibly be a negotiator in Vienna for the Obama administration.

 

So keen is President Obama on a deal with Iran, he cannot say “no.” The fact that zero tolerance for an Iran with nuclear weapons is no longer a negotiating point is telling. The fact that Iran’s missile force site is not on the agenda suggests yet another concession.

 

The fact that the U.S. has already conceded the existence of at least 1,500 centrifuges, enriching uranium indicates U.S. “flexibility.” And the fact the plutonium facility is not a discussable item suggests pre-emptive acceptance of the Iranian position.

 

After one failure on the foreign policy front after another, Obama needs a victory or, more accurately, the appearance of victory. He is likely to get one and only one concession from the Iranian negotiating team: It will pledge not to weaponize its missiles.

 

The translation is that Iran will have the fissile capability to build nuclear weapons and a delivery force with the Shahab 3 and the Kavoshgar 3 rocket used as a space launch. But it will say the two are not to be united. Of course, no one but Obama will take this claim seriously.

 

Nevertheless, President Obama amid some media fanfare will argue that through the negotiating skill of his team, he has achieved an understanding with Iran that will avert hostility with this once-adversarial nation.

 

Iran’s President Ruhani will merely shake hands with Secretary Kerry for a photo op. and go on his merry way knowing that he duped the feckless Obama representatives into a deal that will give Iran enormous leverage in pursuing its dominant long-term regional goal.

 

Recognizing the flaws in the agreement, senators on both sides of the aisle will object to being left out of the negotiations. Some will even cite a constitutional provision that maintains the Senate must ratify treaties, but Obama will argue deceitfully that this deal isn’t a treaty, but merely an understanding or accord.

 

The Israeli president and representatives will balk contending that this agreement sets the stage for a second Holocaust. Not only has Iran pledged to wipe Israel off the map; it will have the means to do so. Secretary Kerry will be dispatched to Tel Aviv to assure Israeli leaders deterrence will work. No one is likely to believe him, but that too doesn’t make any difference.

 

With the completion of the deal, the Middle East is forever changed. All escalation scenarios in regional conflict will have to account for the prospect of an Iranian bomb. To deter acts of aggression enhanced by this prospect, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan. The region will now be hostage to a possible nuclear war.

 

Obama may get his political victory but at a price that puts the international community in a precarious state into the distant future. Thinking the unthinkable becomes thinkable again.

 

John Dryden wrote “. . . fool’d with hope, men favor the deceit.” One might contend that the naïve hope for the best and believe it will be achieved, but the sly enemy thinks hope is my ally in the effort to pursue negotiating advantage. Let the forces of innocence betray themselves on the altar of acceptance. The Ides of March are before us and we must entertain very bleak and uncomfortable scenarios.

Obama Busy Working On His Nobel Legacy

Has Washington’s Focusing on Iranian Nukes Distracted It from ISIL’s Rise?

“Preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb is critical, but panicking about the possibility has led to bad strategy that undermines our security.” Ryan CostelloAli Fatemi

October 17, 2014

The National Interest
The escalating security threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) should have come as no surprise to the United States. After all, the group traces its roots to post-invasion Iraq, where the U.S. spent a great deal of blood and treasure to degrade the Al Qaeda offshoot and quell a raging sectarian civil war. Recent conditions, including the Syrian civil war and increasing sectarian tension in Iraq, were a boon to ISIL, and intelligence officials warned numerous times about the threat the group posed. So why did the Obama administration “underestimate” the group, as the president and National Intelligence Director James Clapper have recently admitted?

One potential reason for the slow U.S. reaction to ISIL is that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran has been hyped at the expense of major, more-realistic security challenges across the region. Spurred by hawks, Washington got busy with the nuances of a potential nuclear “breakout capacity” in Iran and overlooked the real-time breakout of the barbarous ISIL.

Preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb is critical, but panicking about the possibility has led to bad strategy that undermines our security. For over seven years, U.S. intelligence has certified that Iran has discontinued work toward a nuclear weapon. While Iran’s nuclear capabilities have continued to advance, partially in response to America’s continual escalation of sanctions, our intelligence agencies have certified that Iran has not made a decision on whether or not to pursue a nuclear weapon. Further, in the past year, diplomatic progress has limited Iran’s nuclear capabilities and put in place an intrusive IAEA inspections regime. As a result, the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran has diminished further, and diplomats are within reach of a comprehensive agreement that would prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon and another costly, unnecessary war in the Middle East.

Yet the diminishing danger of Iran’s nuclear program has only intensified the drive of hawks to keep the Iranian nuclear threat on the radar. Grasping for straws at the United Nations General Assembly last month, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked “would you let ISIS enrich uranium? Would you let ISIS build a heavy water reactor? Would you let ISIS develop intercontinental ballistic missiles? Of course you wouldn’t.” The conflation of the bitter enemies Iran and ISIS would be laughable if Netanyahu wasn’t taken so seriously inside the Beltway. After all, just three years ago the prime minister got no fewer than twenty-nine standing ovations in an address before Congress.

Further, after backpedaling on efforts to get a vote in the Senate earlier this year on a diplomacy-killing sanctions bill, Netanyahu’s allies in Washington have backed several harmful Congressional letters on Iran policy. Most recently, a troubling letter signed by 354 members of the House of Representatives warns that an issue that is expected to be resolved during the course of the implementation of a final agreement (the IAEA’s investigation into prior, possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear activities) should instead be a prerequisite to striking an agreement. If implemented as policy, this would sabotage chances for a final deal.

With Netanyahu and hawks in Washington hyping the Iran threat, helping to amplify sanctions and diminish hopes for a diplomatic resolution, conditions in Iraq and Syria have been helping give rise to the ISIL resurgence. Moving forward, Iran’s continued status as a pariah state limits U.S. options in addressing ISIL.

While ISIL is destabilizing the region and committing numerous human-rights atrocities, the direct threat the group poses to the American homeland has been relatively limited. That is not the case for Iran. With ISIL’s control of Iraqi territory close to the Iranian border, Iran has a much more direct stake in efforts to counter the group. Further, despite the long American occupation, Iran has stronger ties with members of the Iraqi government and militias that could be key to defeating or degrading ISIL.

However, after Iran worked to find a suitable replacement for Prime Minister Maliki, the United States made clear that it will not work with Iran in countering ISIL so long as the nuclear issue remains unresolved. This refusal is partially due to an eagerness to maintain leverage in the nuclear talks, but it is also a concession that may have been necessary to secure assistance from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to join the coalition countering ISIL.

The United States may soon be forced to reconsider that approach—if not publicly, then behind closed doors. In recent years, the United States has almost always refused Iranian help in its efforts to put out fires across the Middle East. More often than not, the United States has merely succeeded in fanning the flames of extremism.

In June of this year, the United States reportedly limited its intelligence sharing with Iraqis battling ISIL out of the fear that “sensitive data would end up in Iranian hands.” In diplomatic talks aimed at stemming the bloodshed in Syria, the United States rejected the possibility of an Iranian seat at diplomatic talks, despite the fact that Iran was—and continues to be—one of the key supporters of the Assad regime. Failing to include them only encouraged Iran to continue on its policy of backing Assad, dashing hopes for a stronger solution that could have saved lives and limited the growth of extremist forces. Going back even further, the George W. Bush administration pocketed Iranian help in forming a new government in Afghanistan, but then lumped Iran into the axis of evil and effectively ended hopes of further collaboration. Given the enormous, continuing costs of that conflict, it seems clear that the United States could have used all the help it could get.

While many have cast doubt on the fact that Iran and the United States could ever see eye-to-eye on regional issues, it’s hard to dismiss the possibility of future collaboration against ISIL—assuming neither side burns too many bridges in the immediate future. Each nation senses a direct threat from the group and has worked to halt ISIL’s advance. As much as they both might like to avoid it, the fact of the matter is that the United States and Iran will need each other to defeat or degrade their mutual enemy.

Ryan Costello is a Policy Fellow with the National Iranian American Council (NIAC).
Ali Fatemi is a finance professor at DePaul University and serves on NIAC’s board of directors.