sieges are always horror shows it is so sad that so many lost their lives but that kind of city fighting in an ancient city is about the most brutal type of combat especially when one faction is basically holding the civilians as hostages.
A couple of years ago I figured ISIS was rather secure in Mosul, simply because retaking it would require doing something... like that. And I honestly assumed there would not be political will or stomach for doing that.
I'm already feeling ill thinking of how many of my friends--genuinely non-terrible people, I would otherwise argue--are going to authoritatively claim all of those really only happened since March of this year.
I don't get it. Why would they think this? The article specifies it applies to the "9 month siege".
The siege is nearly a year long (I actually thought it had been going on for a full year, which proves me wrong), but I know a few people who feel very strongly that civilian casualties (at Mosul and in Iraq in general) have really only started being more than "isolated incidents" and "very rare" since Donald Trump took office. It's a sentiment that predated recent reports that, for example, civilian casualties from the air campaign against ISIL have risen very, very sharply since then.
A couple of years ago I figured ISIS was rather secure in Mosul, simply because retaking it would require doing something... like that. And I honestly assumed there would not be political will or stomach for doing that.
40k is so high that I'm slightly skeptical of the number. KRG intelligence as a source is also a mixed bag; on the one hand they are close to the conflict and probably have more knowledge of the situation than anyone other than the Iraqi Security Forces and ISIS, but they are also engaged in a political struggle with Baghdad, and could wish to portray the ISF as more brutal than they actually are. Although US airstrikes would probably be the largest cause of civilian death, so I don't know if "make ISF look bad" makes sense as a motive.
But I'll reluctantly acknowledge that it's not implausible given reported numbers of civilians remaining in the city. If the numbers are accurate, any trace of satisfaction I felt at IS's defeat is gone.
I'm again struck by the divergence in Western media's portrayal of the bombing of Aleppo - outrage and shock bordering on hysteria, entirely directed toward Russia/Syrian government - and Mosul - mostly a collective "meh," where those articles that do express sorrow still don't criticize the US's actions, and where ISIS's "use of human shields" is to blame for the USAF's mass slaughter.
Saudi Prince arrested after a video of him apparently beating a man and pointing a rifle at another. Also in the video were bottles of Whiskey and wads of cash.
(I haven't seen the video as I'm at work, I only read the story)
Considering the reports cited earlier in here calling the battle for Mosul some of the most brutal and intense fighting seen in Iraq in the last 20 years, I would not be surprised if those numbers were accurate
Netanyahu accidentally reveals Israel has struck Iran-backed fighters in Syria ‘dozens of times’.
It has never been a particularly well-kept secret that Israel has conducted clandestine airstrikes in Syrian territory over recent years. But this week, Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to not only admit that these strikes had occurred, but that they had occurred “dozens” of times.
The Israeli prime minister made this admission accidentally — all thanks to a hot mic.
Netanyahu's remarks came during a meeting with Eastern European leaders in Budapest on Wednesday. Although the meeting occurred behind closed doors, the Israeli leader's microphone remained on and his voice was transmitted to headphones given to reporters earlier.
Speaking to the leaders of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia, Netanyahu said Israel had specifically targeted Iranian weapons shipments to the Lebanese militia Hezbollah in Syria, where Hezbollah is helping bolster Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces in the ongoing civil war.
“We blocked the border not only in Egypt but in the Golan Heights,” he said, according to an account from Haaretz newspaper. “We built the wall because there was a problem with ISIS and Iran trying to build a terror front there. I told [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, when we see them transferring weapons to Hezbollah, we will hurt them. We did it dozens of times.” ISIS is an alternative acronym for the Islamic State militant group.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
The bill's been lingering in committee since March, which is probably telling on its own, but I have a hard time believing that any judge who reviewed legislation like that would fail to not only strike it down, but somehow find a way to collect medical expenses from Congress as damages when they injured themselves laughing at the thought that it could survive a challenge.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
That's the issue, isn't it? Because there's no way that the Pentagon didn't told Trump that Bibi was bombing stuff in Syria, and he decided to pull out anyways. He's likely to just ignore the issue, like everybody else. Under all the "my daughter is Jewish, I have the best Jews, blah blah", I see a man that sees the DC establishment's postrating to Israel as a weakness to be exploited. "Walls work, ask Israel!" pretty much shut down the line of attacking The Wall as a humanitarian crisis.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
That's the issue, isn't it? Because there's no way that the Pentagon didn't told Trump that Bibi was bombing stuff in Syria, and he decided to pull out anyways. He's likely to just ignore the issue, like everybody else. Under all the "my daughter is Jewish, I have the best Jews, blah blah", I see a man that sees the DC establishment's postrating to Israel as a weakness to be exploited. "Walls work, ask Israel!" pretty much shut down the line of attacking The Wall as a humanitarian crisis.
Israel bombing Syria occasionally I think is a very minor factor in DC thinking wrt Syria. And Syria is so messy nobody will even remember a few months ago when there's some new crisis.
If there's another uprising in Gaza or the West Bank though? And hell one is possible any day if things keep going like this. Then it would be, to Trump I think, a very clear example of The Terrorists. It would be a great chance for him to get fellow Republicans back on side by taking a harsh line. Though predicting Trump is a fool's errand I know.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
Their desire to cut off activists at the knees is distributed because it ensures it's much harder for any political pressure to build up independent of them. So they have no desire to do anything about Israel and actively take hostile measures against anyone who could make that more politically feasible.
Big clashes. Video of tear gas barrage after the link.
At least two Palestinians have been killed, according to local media, and hundreds more injured amid mass protests over new Israeli security measures at the al-Aqsa Mosque compound.
A settler shot and killed an 18 year old Palestinian during the protest, and a second Palestinian was also killed.
Palestinians, who don't want to give the bodies of the dead over the Israelis, attempted to hide one in a hospital, Israeli troops stormed the hospital. Perhaps also looking to arrest some of the injured.
Tamim is giving his first speech since the beginning of dispute.
Edit: now over. The bits about the diversification of the economy is mostly rhetorical, they're not going to be doing anything they weren't already doing. He probably did make a good decision to not give any speeches until the crisis played itself out. In the end he didn't embarrass himself like everyone else did.
That's almost certainly not something they're actually doing.
Yeah cutting off all contact would mean receiving no cash, no "security assistance". It could maybe mean closing the borders, which given how many settlements there are would cut the West Bank even further into tiny little sections.
Abbas is trying to win political points here. In a real uprising, he'd be one of the first to go.
That's almost certainly not something they're actually doing.
Yeah cutting off all contact would mean receiving no cash, no "security assistance". It could maybe mean closing the borders, which given how many settlements there are would cut the West Bank even further into tiny little sections.
Abbas is trying to win political points here. In a real uprising, he'd be one of the first to go.
I'm inclined to agree, and that fits my perception of Abbas, but it's possible that Fatah leadership thinks this is a real uprising and is acting on that basis, or thinks that they will be overthrown if they do not take extreme measures.
AJE just reported that at least three Israelis are dead and one wounded by a Palestinian attacking with a knife in a West Bank settlement town.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
Their desire to cut off activists at the knees is distributed because it ensures it's much harder for any political pressure to build up independent of them. So they have no desire to do anything about Israel and actively take hostile measures against anyone who could make that more politically feasible.
It's disgusting.
Yeah uh
That flagrantly flies against free speech.
Jesus Christ I don't understand the mindset of some politicians
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
Their desire to cut off activists at the knees is distributed because it ensures it's much harder for any political pressure to build up independent of them. So they have no desire to do anything about Israel and actively take hostile measures against anyone who could make that more politically feasible.
It's disgusting.
Yeah uh
That flagrantly flies against free speech.
Jesus Christ I don't understand the mindset of some politicians
Little bubbles, you know a few Jewish people or Israelis, you're aware that a lot of people hate one or the other, or both for no fucking reason at all. You know that there's a lot of organised hate against these people, so decide to kill two birds with one stone - reiterate that it's a crime to commit a hatecrime against your friends, and attempt to blunt the worst of the organised side at the same time by targeting beyond what an individual can deal with.
Same as any other bad policy, simple response to a more complicated question. But a bad answer a lot of people will just reflexively agree with as there's nothing wrong in their mind with the intention of the law and understanding of the situation.
But now, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats — wants to implement a law that would make it a felony for Americans to support the international boycott against Israel, which was launched in protest of that country's decades-old occupation of Palestine. The two primary sponsors of the bill are Democrat Ben Cardin of Maryland and Republican Rob Portman of Ohio. Perhaps the most shocking aspect is the punishment: Anyone guilty of violating the prohibitions will face a minimum civil penalty of $250,000 and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years in prison. The proposed measure, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720), was introduced by Cardin on March 23. The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that the bill "was drafted with the assistance of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." Indeed, AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year.
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
Their desire to cut off activists at the knees is distributed because it ensures it's much harder for any political pressure to build up independent of them. So they have no desire to do anything about Israel and actively take hostile measures against anyone who could make that more politically feasible.
It's disgusting.
Yeah uh
That flagrantly flies against free speech.
Jesus Christ I don't understand the mindset of some politicians
Little bubbles, you know a few Jewish people or Israelis, you're aware that a lot of people hate one or the other, or both for no fucking reason at all. You know that there's a lot of organised hate against these people, so decide to kill two birds with one stone - reiterate that it's a crime to commit a hatecrime against your friends, and attempt to blunt the worst of the organised side at the same time by targeting beyond what an individual can deal with.
Same as any other bad policy, simple response to a more complicated question. But a bad answer a lot of people will just reflexively agree with as there's nothing wrong in their mind with the intention of the law and understanding of the situation.
But, like, Richard Spencer gets less shit from the US Goverment that anybody that dares to displease AIPAC. And he's an actual anti-semite.
After a contentious meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, President Donald Trump instructed a group of trusted White House staffers to make the potential case for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal. The goal was to give Trump what he felt the State Department had failed to do: the option to declare that Tehran was not in compliance with the contentious agreement.
“The president assigned White House staffers with the task of preparing for the possibility of decertification for the 90-day review period that ends in October — a task he had previously given to Secretary Tillerson and the State Department,” a source close to the White House told Foreign Policy.
...
FP spoke with three sources who were either invited to take part in the new process or were briefed on the president’s decision on certification. All described the new process as a way to work around the State Department, which the president felt pushed certification forward by giving him no other options.
Not good. I was surprised at what appeared to be a smooth certification process and was wondering what changed in the White House's thinking about Iran. If this is true, and we'll see in October, then the answer is nothing changed.
I wonder how the rest of the JCPOA signatories will react to this. I can't imagine anyone is excited about the prospect of another war in the Middle East.
+5
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
After a contentious meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, President Donald Trump instructed a group of trusted White House staffers to make the potential case for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal. The goal was to give Trump what he felt the State Department had failed to do: the option to declare that Tehran was not in compliance with the contentious agreement.
“The president assigned White House staffers with the task of preparing for the possibility of decertification for the 90-day review period that ends in October — a task he had previously given to Secretary Tillerson and the State Department,” a source close to the White House told Foreign Policy.
...
FP spoke with three sources who were either invited to take part in the new process or were briefed on the president’s decision on certification. All described the new process as a way to work around the State Department, which the president felt pushed certification forward by giving him no other options.
Not good. I was surprised at what appeared to be a smooth certification process and was wondering what changed in the White House's thinking about Iran. If this is true, and we'll see in October, then the answer is nothing changed.
I wonder how the rest of the JCPOA signatories will react to this. I can't imagine anyone is excited about the prospect of another war in the Middle East.
I presume other countries will just drop it and start dealing with Iran again.
Hezbollah/SAA (mostly Hezbollah, it seems) are launching an assault to retake the mountains along the Syrian/Lebanese border from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. ISIS also holds part of the area, and has fought HTS/al-Nusra for it. The offensive has been successful so far; while HTS and ISIS are usually pretty good at guerrilla warfare, Hezbollah is also competent at that sort of mountain fighting, and previous fighting between HTS/JaN and ISIS has weakened both groups. Meanwhile there are reports that the Lebanese Army is fighting the salafi-jihadists from the other side. I wonder how Israel feels about it.
Also, the son of the Taliban's current emir suicide bombed Afghan government forces in Helmand. Was sorta surprised to read that one.
After a contentious meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, President Donald Trump instructed a group of trusted White House staffers to make the potential case for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal. The goal was to give Trump what he felt the State Department had failed to do: the option to declare that Tehran was not in compliance with the contentious agreement.
“The president assigned White House staffers with the task of preparing for the possibility of decertification for the 90-day review period that ends in October — a task he had previously given to Secretary Tillerson and the State Department,” a source close to the White House told Foreign Policy.
...
FP spoke with three sources who were either invited to take part in the new process or were briefed on the president’s decision on certification. All described the new process as a way to work around the State Department, which the president felt pushed certification forward by giving him no other options.
Not good. I was surprised at what appeared to be a smooth certification process and was wondering what changed in the White House's thinking about Iran. If this is true, and we'll see in October, then the answer is nothing changed.
I wonder how the rest of the JCPOA signatories will react to this. I can't imagine anyone is excited about the prospect of another war in the Middle East.
I presume other countries will just drop it and start dealing with Iran again.
Trade-wise, this is what the Eurasian Economic Union is hoping for. Compliance with western sanctions were a longstanding obstacle to bridging Iran, which Russia and Armenia were both strongly in favor of. I do not at all believe it's a coincidence that creation if an EEU-Iran free trade zone became possible this year, and seems close to being finalized. I'm really not an economist, but I think the worry about a new wave of sanctions of Iran managed to outweigh longstanding disagreements in details between Iran and the EEU member states.
After a contentious meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this week, President Donald Trump instructed a group of trusted White House staffers to make the potential case for withholding certification of Iran at the next 90-day review of the nuclear deal. The goal was to give Trump what he felt the State Department had failed to do: the option to declare that Tehran was not in compliance with the contentious agreement.
“The president assigned White House staffers with the task of preparing for the possibility of decertification for the 90-day review period that ends in October — a task he had previously given to Secretary Tillerson and the State Department,” a source close to the White House told Foreign Policy.
...
FP spoke with three sources who were either invited to take part in the new process or were briefed on the president’s decision on certification. All described the new process as a way to work around the State Department, which the president felt pushed certification forward by giving him no other options.
Not good. I was surprised at what appeared to be a smooth certification process and was wondering what changed in the White House's thinking about Iran. If this is true, and we'll see in October, then the answer is nothing changed.
I wonder how the rest of the JCPOA signatories will react to this. I can't imagine anyone is excited about the prospect of another war in the Middle East.
Well. Obviously Iran is the enemy considering how their explicit offer of support for that Terrorist nation Qatar was one of the reasons that the good Saudis and their shiny globe of world conq friendliness got derailed. Their support terrorist Qatar obviously means that Iran itself is terrorist and we can't have peace with terrorists, so clearly we have to appoint our own commission to derail any attempt to normalize Irans foreign relations.
Sad.
It's almost like he's taking his cues from the Richard Hawks Guide to Being The President.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
And in Syria, the rebel held province of Idlib has been experiencing widespread fighting between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (hardline Islamic faction led by a former al-Qaeda branch) and Ahrar al-Sham (another militant Islamic group, but less tied to AQ and less hardline). The two were rivals for control of the province, and people debated who was stronger, but this latest fighting has largely settled the question: Ahrar has withdrawn from Idlib City and most of the rest of the province, leaving Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in control of most northern rebel territory. There are also reports of large defections from Ahrar to HTS.
The fact that the most radical of rebel groups (if you don't count ISIS) appears to have won is unfortunate for multiple reasons, but the worst is that now I don't see any path for a political solution in Idlib. If Ahrar and other Turkish-friendly groups had come out on top, it's possible that some sort of deal could have been reached, but it's not clear how much negotiation is even possible with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. If the Syrian government attempts to retake Idlib and its surroundings through war, it will be a brutal and grueling struggle, among the bloodiest phases of the war yet.
I don't have any admiration or goodwill for Obama's decision to semi-secretly flood Syria with weapons. Trump admitting that is what has been happening isn't going to change anything on the ground. What's anyone gonna do about it?
Posts
The siege is nearly a year long (I actually thought it had been going on for a full year, which proves me wrong), but I know a few people who feel very strongly that civilian casualties (at Mosul and in Iraq in general) have really only started being more than "isolated incidents" and "very rare" since Donald Trump took office. It's a sentiment that predated recent reports that, for example, civilian casualties from the air campaign against ISIL have risen very, very sharply since then.
I live among those sort, I guess.
But I'll reluctantly acknowledge that it's not implausible given reported numbers of civilians remaining in the city. If the numbers are accurate, any trace of satisfaction I felt at IS's defeat is gone.
I'm again struck by the divergence in Western media's portrayal of the bombing of Aleppo - outrage and shock bordering on hysteria, entirely directed toward Russia/Syrian government - and Mosul - mostly a collective "meh," where those articles that do express sorrow still don't criticize the US's actions, and where ISIS's "use of human shields" is to blame for the USAF's mass slaughter.
Saudi Prince arrested after a video of him apparently beating a man and pointing a rifle at another. Also in the video were bottles of Whiskey and wads of cash.
(I haven't seen the video as I'm at work, I only read the story)
My theory is that he's letting it all out because he's mad that Trump is basically pulling out of Syria. And come on, is not like anybody will call him from it. Hell, DC is basically a competition of who can get their tongue deeper in Bibi's ass:
The ACLU went ballistic, as they should. But really, got to wonder if Trump treating Bibi with a part of the contempt he deserves isn't a reason why he got popular.
I don't... there isn't a judge in the country who would take longer than ten seconds to tear that bill to shreds. They have to realize that, right?
This decades long blowjob of the Israeli government has got to end eventually... right?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I think the trend is in that direction. The most recent lawn mowing in Gaza seemed to generate more American outrage than usual. If something like that happens again, and most especially if Trump backs Bibi, then Democrats miggghhhtt do something about it. But I imagine they'd need to be pressured by voters to actually change anything. Even Obama had to prostrate himself before AIPAC like all the rest, despite him really not getting along with Bibi.
That's the issue, isn't it? Because there's no way that the Pentagon didn't told Trump that Bibi was bombing stuff in Syria, and he decided to pull out anyways. He's likely to just ignore the issue, like everybody else. Under all the "my daughter is Jewish, I have the best Jews, blah blah", I see a man that sees the DC establishment's postrating to Israel as a weakness to be exploited. "Walls work, ask Israel!" pretty much shut down the line of attacking The Wall as a humanitarian crisis.
Israel bombing Syria occasionally I think is a very minor factor in DC thinking wrt Syria. And Syria is so messy nobody will even remember a few months ago when there's some new crisis.
If there's another uprising in Gaza or the West Bank though? And hell one is possible any day if things keep going like this. Then it would be, to Trump I think, a very clear example of The Terrorists. It would be a great chance for him to get fellow Republicans back on side by taking a harsh line. Though predicting Trump is a fool's errand I know.
Their desire to cut off activists at the knees is distributed because it ensures it's much harder for any political pressure to build up independent of them. So they have no desire to do anything about Israel and actively take hostile measures against anyone who could make that more politically feasible.
It's disgusting.
Vox reporter.
You have a right to express your opinion against colonialism and we have a right to attempt to jail you for it. These people are despicable.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/al-aqsa-palestinian-killed-jerusalem-protests-rage-170721113840496.html
Palestinians, who don't want to give the bodies of the dead over the Israelis, attempted to hide one in a hospital, Israeli troops stormed the hospital. Perhaps also looking to arrest some of the injured.
There's a video of a group of men struggling to get the body wrapped in bloodied sheets over the fence, but not gonna link that here.
Anyways, Israel is a great and democratic state, I also love America.
Edit: now over. The bits about the diversification of the economy is mostly rhetorical, they're not going to be doing anything they weren't already doing. He probably did make a good decision to not give any speeches until the crisis played itself out. In the end he didn't embarrass himself like everyone else did.
I guess he ... didn't go to Jared
8-)
Yeah cutting off all contact would mean receiving no cash, no "security assistance". It could maybe mean closing the borders, which given how many settlements there are would cut the West Bank even further into tiny little sections.
Abbas is trying to win political points here. In a real uprising, he'd be one of the first to go.
AJE just reported that at least three Israelis are dead and one wounded by a Palestinian attacking with a knife in a West Bank settlement town.
Yeah uh
That flagrantly flies against free speech.
Jesus Christ I don't understand the mindset of some politicians
Little bubbles, you know a few Jewish people or Israelis, you're aware that a lot of people hate one or the other, or both for no fucking reason at all. You know that there's a lot of organised hate against these people, so decide to kill two birds with one stone - reiterate that it's a crime to commit a hatecrime against your friends, and attempt to blunt the worst of the organised side at the same time by targeting beyond what an individual can deal with.
Same as any other bad policy, simple response to a more complicated question. But a bad answer a lot of people will just reflexively agree with as there's nothing wrong in their mind with the intention of the law and understanding of the situation.
But, like, Richard Spencer gets less shit from the US Goverment that anybody that dares to displease AIPAC. And he's an actual anti-semite.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/07/21/trump-assigns-white-house-team-to-target-iran-nuclear-deal-sidelining-state-department/amp/
Not good. I was surprised at what appeared to be a smooth certification process and was wondering what changed in the White House's thinking about Iran. If this is true, and we'll see in October, then the answer is nothing changed.
I wonder how the rest of the JCPOA signatories will react to this. I can't imagine anyone is excited about the prospect of another war in the Middle East.
I presume other countries will just drop it and start dealing with Iran again.
Also, the son of the Taliban's current emir suicide bombed Afghan government forces in Helmand. Was sorta surprised to read that one.
Trade-wise, this is what the Eurasian Economic Union is hoping for. Compliance with western sanctions were a longstanding obstacle to bridging Iran, which Russia and Armenia were both strongly in favor of. I do not at all believe it's a coincidence that creation if an EEU-Iran free trade zone became possible this year, and seems close to being finalized. I'm really not an economist, but I think the worry about a new wave of sanctions of Iran managed to outweigh longstanding disagreements in details between Iran and the EEU member states.
Well. Obviously Iran is the enemy considering how their explicit offer of support for that Terrorist nation Qatar was one of the reasons that the good Saudis and their shiny globe of world conq friendliness got derailed. Their support terrorist Qatar obviously means that Iran itself is terrorist and we can't have peace with terrorists, so clearly we have to appoint our own commission to derail any attempt to normalize Irans foreign relations.
Sad.
It's almost like he's taking his cues from the Richard Hawks Guide to Being The President.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
And in Syria, the rebel held province of Idlib has been experiencing widespread fighting between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (hardline Islamic faction led by a former al-Qaeda branch) and Ahrar al-Sham (another militant Islamic group, but less tied to AQ and less hardline). The two were rivals for control of the province, and people debated who was stronger, but this latest fighting has largely settled the question: Ahrar has withdrawn from Idlib City and most of the rest of the province, leaving Hayat Tahrir al-Sham in control of most northern rebel territory. There are also reports of large defections from Ahrar to HTS.
The fact that the most radical of rebel groups (if you don't count ISIS) appears to have won is unfortunate for multiple reasons, but the worst is that now I don't see any path for a political solution in Idlib. If Ahrar and other Turkish-friendly groups had come out on top, it's possible that some sort of deal could have been reached, but it's not clear how much negotiation is even possible with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. If the Syrian government attempts to retake Idlib and its surroundings through war, it will be a brutal and grueling struggle, among the bloodiest phases of the war yet.
on twitter
jesus fucking christ this fucking neophyte
admitting it, in general, is the worst possible intel op security
like, yeah everyone knows it's going on. but admitting it is basically almost admitting to going to war with assad.
He's just trying to one up Geraldo and his gaffe while imbedded in Iraq.
I'm more and more convinced that Trump is the living embodiment of the Hold My Beer meme with the Situation's fashion and skin care regimen.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
I don't think the GOP and media's concern about intelligence handling in 2016 was sincere, you guys.