You guys are probably right that it's more craven fear of bad headlines than it is revenge, on Biden's part. Although, more broadly, I'm not entirely willing to dismiss the latter; at the very least, think tank types and opinion columnists (the sort of people Biden is afraid of according to this explanation) have some strongly held views about "national honor" and such. At least if last summer's headlines are anything to go by.
I'd probably be amused by the irony if I wasn't so upset about the situation. The Afghanistan withdrawal was, from my perspective, Biden's major accomplishment thus far. It was a foreign policy decision I had been advocating for a very long time, and after he did it I found myself in the surprising position of defending the Biden administration, even from critics in his own party. Then, through sanctions and central bank theft, Biden managed to take the best thing he's done and turn it into the worst thing he's done; to take a decision worthy of praise and transform it into one meriting disgust and condemnation.
I'm just so disappointed. Hopefully the aid that is still getting in is enough to prevent mass death.
I think the way the Afghanistan withdrawal went down suggests that Biden is not nearly as concerned with the "national honour" stuff when it comes to this as basically everyone else in DC. But it also taught them how badly the media can hammer you over these issues. Both of which I think feed directly into the thinking going on here.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Because "Biden is making the people of Afghanistan starve because we got a black eye there" is such a better look for the US.
I think the vast majority of Americans would love to never hear the word Afghanistan ever, ever again.
In this particular instance, they need to be forced to hear it. To see the effects of the famine tearing through the country. To know that there is money to feed the people who are starving, but the US is keeping said money because fuck Afghanistan. If US citizens think other countries see us as Ugly Americans now, it's going to get far worse, and may come to bite us extra hard if we ever need help from those other countries.
Regarding bad headlines, try typing "afghanistan famine" into Google news.
"Joe Biden Cannot Abandon Afghanistan to Famine" - National Review
"U.S. freezing Afghan money for 9/11 victims is cruel and unjust" - MSNBC
"Biden Is Fine With Mass Civilian Death" - The Nation
"US policy is fueling Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis" - Vox
"Afghan diplomats in Washington impoverished due to 'colossal US betrayal', says envoy" - Times of India
"Washington is still ignoring Afghans’ suffering" - WaPo
As I recall, NYT published a piece advocating ending the economic warfare as well, though it didn't come up in that search. So the headlines are pretty bad anyway, because even the American press recognizes that starving millions of people to death is not a good thing to do. What am I to make of this? If bad press is the motivating factor here, why is Biden scared of Fox and Breitbart saying "BIDEN IS FUNDING THE TALIBAN" but not all the liberal papers saying "Biden is starving half a nation to death"?
Here's an article from a couple of days ago from International Rescue Committee:
Afghanistan’s slide towards catastrophe is primarily driven by the policies of the international community, rather than conflict or natural disaster. For millions of Afghans, survival depends on their ability to access humanitarian aid, but humanitarian aid cannot replace the functions of the state. Drastic cuts in aid have been compounded by the freezing of Afghan assets and confusion around international sanctions that are driving a financial crisis that reaches into every corner of Afghan life. Ordinary Afghans need more than aid - they need a functional banking system and economy so that businesses can withdraw cash to pay their employees, people can earn a living, pay for food at markets and support their families.
Right now, every day Afghans are being punished by international policies that are leaving millions on the brink of starvation.
It wouldn't even be hard to make the situation better. Give them back the money you're in the process of stealing, stop choking their economy to death. The US doesn't even have to fucking do anything here, it just has to stop actively making it much worse.
Because "Biden is making the people of Afghanistan starve because we got a black eye there" is such a better look for the US.
I think the vast majority of Americans would love to never hear the word Afghanistan ever, ever again.
If Afghanistan was suffering famine and the US was just ignoring it, this would apply more, insofar as it would go some way toward explaining the US position. I would still be appalled, because obviously we have a moral responsibility to try to avert famine if possible, wherever it occurs, and especially when the famine is the immediate aftermath of our 20 year occupation and war. But it's even worse than that! As the above quote by that aid group states, the US - the Biden administration - is not just letting Afghans starve, but is actively starving them. Depending on how bad it is, the famine might kill more people than did the past 20 years of war! Hundreds of thousands may die. Why? Bad headlines? A desire for punishment? In the end I hardly even care why they're doing it, it's horrible regardless.
I think this is the worst thing the US has done since invading Iraq. It is worse than anything Trump did. I think it's worse than anything Obama did too. And those guys did some really shitty things. Not that they wouldn't be starving the Afghans if they were in Biden's position, I'm sure they would.
Because nobody cares about "Afghanis are starving" headlines but "Biden funds Taliban" they would is the calculus. And I'd agree with that part of it at least. Think of the difference between the impact of the headlines you are talking about on the media narrative right now compared to the bad headlines during the withdrawal and their effect on the narrative. You are gonna take way more of a beating for giving the Taliban money then you will for just not doing anything about bad shit happen to some people in a foreign country.
Biden is straight up exacerbating a humanitarian disaster because he doesn't want to maybe look bad in the soulless disgusting element of the beltway news cycle
It hurts my head that they're not just sending in food drops. Hell they can even get their grift on with bullshit supply contracts that way.
That's the plan basically. At least as far as I can tell. They are taking the money and instead of giving it to the Taliban they are dividing it up between "humanitarian aid for people in Afghanistan" and "money for 9/11 victims and their families".
It hurts my head that they're not just sending in food drops. Hell they can even get their grift on with bullshit supply contracts that way.
That's the plan basically. At least as far as I can tell. They are taking the money and instead of giving it to the Taliban they are dividing it up between "humanitarian aid for people in Afghanistan" and "money for 9/11 victims and their families".
The second part is pure BS. The first one is at least defensible.
It hurts my head that they're not just sending in food drops. Hell they can even get their grift on with bullshit supply contracts that way.
That's the plan basically. At least as far as I can tell. They are taking the money and instead of giving it to the Taliban they are dividing it up between "humanitarian aid for people in Afghanistan" and "money for 9/11 victims and their families".
The second part is pure BS. The first one is at least defensible.
I feel like at every step since taking office Biden has made the worst decision he could wrt Afghanistan. Like I've had the argument about "we needed to leave Afghanistan it was always going to be bad" and kudos on that, but man there's a less awful way to do it
Stealing the Afghan Central Bank's money and giving it to lawyers and lobbyists (oh, right, and 9/11 victims' relatives) is the most blatantly evil aspect of what the Biden administration is doing to Afghanistan - it's basically looting - but not the most harmful. The economic sanctions amount to Afghanistan not being allowed to have an economy. And they also hamper international aid programs; IIRC some waivers have been granted and have mitigated this part of the problem, but not completely solved it.
But if Afghanistan isn't allowed to build an economy or interact with the global economy, Afghanistan will always need aid. When a country's economy collapses and is legally prohibited from rebuilding, tons of people starving to death is not an unpredictable result. Aid programs are often insufficient. It's a crime against humanity to do this to a people. This policy towards Afghanistan is arguably as cruel as or crueler than the years of dropping bombs on the country.
We (Americans) bear so much responsibility for the current state of Afghanistan. This is the result of our failed 20 year occupation and alleged nation building project. We empowered a brutal, corrupt, and dysfunctional system that interfaced with our own brutal, corrupt, and dysfunctional system in all the wrong ways, and the simulacrum of a state we built immediately collapsed once we said we'd leave. Then when the whole thing has collapsed we say "No, you shall not rebuild. Starve."
7 billion doesn't even seem that much to nation states. The EU, Gulf States, or China could easily supply that if that's what it takes to stop the famine.
But instead the world will watch it happen instead.
7 billion doesn't even seem that much to nation states. The EU, Gulf States, or China could easily supply that if that's what it takes to stop the famine.
But instead the world will watch it happen instead.
Or the US could give Afghanistan back its money and not attempt to give half of it away to lawyers and lobbyists. The EU, the Gulf States, and China are not the ones who are holding onto the money.
France is withdrawing from Mali. They've had thousands of troops in the country and the Sahel region since 2013, when they intervened to retake northern Mali from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. AQIM had in turn taken control of the region after defeating Tuareg separatist rebels, who themselves had ousted the government from most of the north in the months prior. The French mission was initially successful and seemed to be well received by Malians, who were unhappy with AQ taking over half of their country. Since then, however, the insurgency has spread through the region, necessitating an increasingly widespread French force, a small EU force, and a large UN mission (which is the most violent UN peacekeeping mission in the world), in coordination with Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso and other regional states.. AQ/IS have seeded themselves into various local ethnic and political conflicts, and regions that had nothing to do with the initial conflict, such as northern Burkina Faso, the areas around Lake Chad, and even northern Benin and Cote d'Ivoire are now suffering from this violence.
The French mission has become more controversial/less popular with Malian people (and others in the region) over time. This quote from this AJE article makes the point well:
Dancing and waving French flags, locals chanted “Vive la France” as Hollande waved back at them. Even the muezzin of the 14-century mud mosque of Djinguereber, who recites the call to prayer five times a day, flaunted a scarf in the colours of the French flag as he shouted “Vive Hollande”. It was a joyful day in Mali.
Today, that seems like a distant memory. In Bamako, French flags are now considered a neocolonial symbol and are being burned during anti-France protests. The troops once referred to as liberators are now accused of splitting the country and training militias.
But the proximate causes for the withdrawal appear to be poor relations between the Macron administration and the post-coup Malian government, which has rebuffed French demands for a transition to civilian rule, and the decision by the Malian government to hire Russia's Wagner group as an additional military/security force.
French troops will remain present in some of the other countries in the region. Nonetheless, my impression was that Mali was sort of the center of the French military's presence in the region. I am not sure how well a rather unstable Mali is going to do at maintaining control of the country's north, or at containing the ethnic warfare in the center of the country. There is also a possibility that the French withdrawal will result in the other EU countries ending their mission as well, and in countries withdrawing from the 15,000 strong UN mission in light of the deteriorating security situation. I think France's decision to withdraw is the correct one; I don't see much evidence that their presence has actually improved the situation in the long run. But it will nonetheless leave a gaping hole in the regional security architecture, which Mali and local Tuareg militias might not be able to fill.
edit - the upside to this is that Mali has expressed a desire to engage in negotiations with the militant groups in their country, which France rejected out of hand, which to me always seemed a. awful and b. stupid on France's part. So ideally this withdrawal could lead to peace talks.
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel’s prime minister said Sunday that the emerging deal over Iran’s nuclear program is less stringent than the previous agreement, which was left in tatters after the U.S., goaded by Israel, withdrew.
*the world’s largest symphony of tiny violins starts playing*
The AP article goes into more details about their complaints. We can’t look at the deal so I don’t know if it’s actually true. But either it isn’t and the Israeli PM is lying, or it is true and that’s just classic getting what you asked for.
+9
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel’s prime minister said Sunday that the emerging deal over Iran’s nuclear program is less stringent than the previous agreement, which was left in tatters after the U.S., goaded by Israel, withdrew.
*the world’s largest symphony of tiny violins starts playing*
The AP article goes into more details about their complaints. We can’t look at the deal so I don’t know if it’s actually true. But either it isn’t and the Israeli PM is lying, or it is true and that’s just classic getting what you asked for.
The AP article isn't exactly overflowing with details. Near as I can tell, the only concrete items it mentions are the following:
In a speech to Jewish American leaders Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett warned that Iran has used the interim period to march ahead with its enrichment of uranium to levels approaching weapons grade.
He also noted the 10-year limits on enrichment and other key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program in the original deal are set to be lifted in 2025 — just two and a half years from now.
The first isn't exactly news. Iran made very loud noises every time they dialed up the centrifuges. That was the whole point, very publicly ramp up their enrichment efforts past the limits of the JCPOA in order to put pressure on the USA to return to the JCPOA. The second complaint refers to the original JCPOA, which isn't exactly in play at the moment.
Otherwise Bennett's complaints aren't much more detailed than a deal with Iran is bad because Iran is bad. It's the same crap Israel always says. Any agreement with Iran that doesn't require the entire political class to put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger (metaphorically or literally) will always be considered the worst thing that ever evered.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
My first guess at what's going on, given the Israeli PM's statement and the fact that Iran has been pushing forward with their program in the interim and that the original deal was set to expire in only a few years, is that the new deal is less strict in that it's working from current levels of Iranian development rather then the previous ones, but the US has managed to extend the timeline further.
I've generally thought that the Biden Admin's strategy here was to bring back JCPOA but with the end-time pushed further out.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
My first guess at what's going on, given the Israeli PM's statement and the fact that Iran has been pushing forward with their program in the interim and that the original deal was set to expire in only a few years, is that the new deal is less strict in that it's working from current levels of Iranian development rather then the previous ones, but the US has managed to extend the timeline further.
I've generally thought that the Biden Admin's strategy here was to bring back JCPOA but with the end-time pushed further out.
I don't think you can infer much about any possible Iran deal from the PM's statement other than that a deal might actually be close to completion. Netanyahu used similar rhetoric about the JCPOA back in the day, and while Bennett is better than Netanyahu, he's not that much better, and over the top gibbering about Iran always seems to play well. Whatever deal the USA and Iran are working on might be the same, tighter, or looser than the original JCPOA, but we're not going to get any useful information on that front from the Israeli PM.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Is Bennett actually better than Netanyahu? I'm no expert on the man, but I haven't really read anything that suggests that that is the case, at least in terms of policy or ideology.
Is Bennett actually better than Netanyahu? I'm no expert on the man, but I haven't really read anything that suggests that that is the case, at least in terms of policy or ideology.
The hope is he's not a narcissist who believes he's more important than the rule of law. Baby steps.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Hemedti choosing this moment to go to Russia and seek stronger ties, and lavish praise on Russia. Not content with the crimes and at home and getting us into Yemen, apparently they need to go global in crimes they’re involved in.
Israel apparently jealous of everyone else getting the asshole spotlight for once.
JAFFA, March 10 (Reuters) - Israel’s parliament on Thursday passed a law denying naturalization to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart.
The so-called citizenship law passed just before the Knesset disbanded for a holiday recess by a 45-15 majority vote that crossed coalition-opposition lines.
It replaced a similar temporary order that first passed during the height of a Palestinian uprising in 2003 and was renewed annually until it expired last July, when the Knesset failed to secure a simple majority needed to extend it.
Israel apparently jealous of everyone else getting the asshole spotlight for once.
JAFFA, March 10 (Reuters) - Israel’s parliament on Thursday passed a law denying naturalization to Palestinians from the occupied West Bank or Gaza married to Israeli citizens, forcing thousands of Palestinian families to either emigrate or live apart.
The so-called citizenship law passed just before the Knesset disbanded for a holiday recess by a 45-15 majority vote that crossed coalition-opposition lines.
It replaced a similar temporary order that first passed during the height of a Palestinian uprising in 2003 and was renewed annually until it expired last July, when the Knesset failed to secure a simple majority needed to extend it.
That article says the law passed with a 45-15 vote. That's a terrible margin, but it's only half the Knesset, why is that?
Not sure why the total number is so low, but as far as how the margins ended up where they did, The Times of Israel have more details.
On Thursday, the law passed with 45 votes in favor and 15 opposed. The left-wing Meretz and Islamist Ra’am parties voted against the rest of the coalition. But right-wing opposition lawmakers — including Likud and Religious Zionism — voted in favor, easily handing the coalition the necessary votes.
...
To pass the bill, the center and right-wing Zionist parties that make up Israel’s diverse coalition sought the support of the right-wing opposition. Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked worked with opposition figures — particularly Religious Zionism MK Simcha Rothman — to cut a rare deal.
As well as details on the cruelty of the state. Even when the law wasn't in effect, it was still in effect!
Palestinians in Israel on stay permits live precarious lives. They must constantly renew their documentation, which can be revoked at a moment’s notice. They cannot open a bank account or own credit cards, and often have little documentation that ties them to their children. If their Israeli spouse passes away or they divorce, they could become separated from their children.
When the Citizenship Law fell last year, many Palestinians married to Arab Israelis had hoped they would be able to apply for permanent residency in Israel.
...
But Shaked ordered the Interior Ministry to continue acting as though the law was still in place, arguing that she intended to pass the law again as soon as possible. Palestinians who arrived at government offices to apply for residency were often told that their applications could not be processed.
Saudi judiciary continues its very broad usage of the terror designation to execute people, and takes it to a new level. I imagine they think this is a good time to do as much as they want to, with less attention currently being paid to them.
Officials in Iraq and the U.S. gave different accounts of damage: A second U.S. official said there was no damage and no casualties at any U.S. government facility. Iraqi officials said several missiles hit the U.S. consulate, which is new and empty.
Note the last bit. I think someone is violently posturing.
Wait the Iraqis are claiming the Iranians shot missiles at an (empty) US consulate building, and the US is saying everything is fine? I'm struggling to imagine why Iran would even consider doing such a thing, if anything they should be upset with Russia for throwing a wrench into the recent talks.
Iran is not a monolithic entity. There are many factions and individuals within it.
I'm sure some of them do not want Iran to go along with a nuclear deal, and would rather the US and Iran continue to be at odds with each other.
I mean sure, but to be able to fire the reported dozen or so missiles without approval from on top? That sounds like a stretch to me, the Iranian military has never before demonstrated that kind of factionalism has it?
Anyway considering that there seem to be no injuries and an indeterminate amount of damage to a building, even if a faction within Iran did fire those missiles (with apparently amazing accuracy!) I kind of hope the US just ignores it.
Iran is not a monolithic entity. There are many factions and individuals within it.
I'm sure some of them do not want Iran to go along with a nuclear deal, and would rather the US and Iran continue to be at odds with each other.
I mean sure, but to be able to fire the reported dozen or so missiles without approval from on top? That sounds like a stretch to me, the Iranian military has never before demonstrated that kind of factionalism has it?
Anyway considering that there seem to be no injuries and an indeterminate amount of damage to a building, even if a faction within Iran did fire those missiles (with apparently amazing accuracy!) I kind of hope the US just ignores it.
I've seen some speculate that it has to do with the birthday of Soleimani (March 11).
Also Iran is a state with two armies because they don't trust the one army not to overthrow the goverment.
I've seen some speculate that it has to do with the birthday of Soleimani (March 11).
I assume it has to do with the IRGC officers that Israel killed in Syria earlier in the week. The IRGC claim is that they’re targeting an Israeli site in Erbil. Kurdish authorities say there are no such Israeli sites in Erbil or Kurdistan.
I guess Iran wants to retaliate against Israeli strikes, but doesn’t want to strike Israel proper (for now), so we end up with these odd targets.
“The US was not the intended target; press speculation otherwise is simply wrong.
US stating publicly that it doesn’t view itself as the target of those attacks. They go on to disapprove and point out it’s a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, etc. But it’s clear we’re going to avoid an Iran-US fight and hopefully this means no further complications to the on-going negotiations.
Wait the Iraqis are claiming the Iranians shot missiles at an (empty) US consulate building, and the US is saying everything is fine? I'm struggling to imagine why Iran would even consider doing such a thing, if anything they should be upset with Russia for throwing a wrench into the recent talks.
Some Iranians were already upset with Russia, before the war. There was pre-war commentary from non-hardline circles, that made it to the wider middle eastern media, that Iran should start directly talking to the US because Russia was exploiting its role as a go-between to push for its own self-interests. Can’t imagine the war and subsequent actions could have helped improve that view.
Posts
I'd probably be amused by the irony if I wasn't so upset about the situation. The Afghanistan withdrawal was, from my perspective, Biden's major accomplishment thus far. It was a foreign policy decision I had been advocating for a very long time, and after he did it I found myself in the surprising position of defending the Biden administration, even from critics in his own party. Then, through sanctions and central bank theft, Biden managed to take the best thing he's done and turn it into the worst thing he's done; to take a decision worthy of praise and transform it into one meriting disgust and condemnation.
I'm just so disappointed. Hopefully the aid that is still getting in is enough to prevent mass death.
I think the vast majority of Americans would love to never hear the word Afghanistan ever, ever again.
In this particular instance, they need to be forced to hear it. To see the effects of the famine tearing through the country. To know that there is money to feed the people who are starving, but the US is keeping said money because fuck Afghanistan. If US citizens think other countries see us as Ugly Americans now, it's going to get far worse, and may come to bite us extra hard if we ever need help from those other countries.
"Joe Biden Cannot Abandon Afghanistan to Famine" - National Review
"U.S. freezing Afghan money for 9/11 victims is cruel and unjust" - MSNBC
"Biden Is Fine With Mass Civilian Death" - The Nation
"US policy is fueling Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis" - Vox
"Afghan diplomats in Washington impoverished due to 'colossal US betrayal', says envoy" - Times of India
"Washington is still ignoring Afghans’ suffering" - WaPo
As I recall, NYT published a piece advocating ending the economic warfare as well, though it didn't come up in that search. So the headlines are pretty bad anyway, because even the American press recognizes that starving millions of people to death is not a good thing to do. What am I to make of this? If bad press is the motivating factor here, why is Biden scared of Fox and Breitbart saying "BIDEN IS FUNDING THE TALIBAN" but not all the liberal papers saying "Biden is starving half a nation to death"?
Here's an article from a couple of days ago from International Rescue Committee:
It wouldn't even be hard to make the situation better. Give them back the money you're in the process of stealing, stop choking their economy to death. The US doesn't even have to fucking do anything here, it just has to stop actively making it much worse.
If Afghanistan was suffering famine and the US was just ignoring it, this would apply more, insofar as it would go some way toward explaining the US position. I would still be appalled, because obviously we have a moral responsibility to try to avert famine if possible, wherever it occurs, and especially when the famine is the immediate aftermath of our 20 year occupation and war. But it's even worse than that! As the above quote by that aid group states, the US - the Biden administration - is not just letting Afghans starve, but is actively starving them. Depending on how bad it is, the famine might kill more people than did the past 20 years of war! Hundreds of thousands may die. Why? Bad headlines? A desire for punishment? In the end I hardly even care why they're doing it, it's horrible regardless.
I think this is the worst thing the US has done since invading Iraq. It is worse than anything Trump did. I think it's worse than anything Obama did too. And those guys did some really shitty things. Not that they wouldn't be starving the Afghans if they were in Biden's position, I'm sure they would.
Biden is straight up exacerbating a humanitarian disaster because he doesn't want to maybe look bad in the soulless disgusting element of the beltway news cycle
That's the plan basically. At least as far as I can tell. They are taking the money and instead of giving it to the Taliban they are dividing it up between "humanitarian aid for people in Afghanistan" and "money for 9/11 victims and their families".
The second part is pure BS. The first one is at least defensible.
Its going to be indefensible in its execution
But if Afghanistan isn't allowed to build an economy or interact with the global economy, Afghanistan will always need aid. When a country's economy collapses and is legally prohibited from rebuilding, tons of people starving to death is not an unpredictable result. Aid programs are often insufficient. It's a crime against humanity to do this to a people. This policy towards Afghanistan is arguably as cruel as or crueler than the years of dropping bombs on the country.
We (Americans) bear so much responsibility for the current state of Afghanistan. This is the result of our failed 20 year occupation and alleged nation building project. We empowered a brutal, corrupt, and dysfunctional system that interfaced with our own brutal, corrupt, and dysfunctional system in all the wrong ways, and the simulacrum of a state we built immediately collapsed once we said we'd leave. Then when the whole thing has collapsed we say "No, you shall not rebuild. Starve."
But instead the world will watch it happen instead.
Or the US could give Afghanistan back its money and not attempt to give half of it away to lawyers and lobbyists. The EU, the Gulf States, and China are not the ones who are holding onto the money.
The French mission has become more controversial/less popular with Malian people (and others in the region) over time. This quote from this AJE article makes the point well:
But the proximate causes for the withdrawal appear to be poor relations between the Macron administration and the post-coup Malian government, which has rebuffed French demands for a transition to civilian rule, and the decision by the Malian government to hire Russia's Wagner group as an additional military/security force.
French troops will remain present in some of the other countries in the region. Nonetheless, my impression was that Mali was sort of the center of the French military's presence in the region. I am not sure how well a rather unstable Mali is going to do at maintaining control of the country's north, or at containing the ethnic warfare in the center of the country. There is also a possibility that the French withdrawal will result in the other EU countries ending their mission as well, and in countries withdrawing from the 15,000 strong UN mission in light of the deteriorating security situation. I think France's decision to withdraw is the correct one; I don't see much evidence that their presence has actually improved the situation in the long run. But it will nonetheless leave a gaping hole in the regional security architecture, which Mali and local Tuareg militias might not be able to fill.
edit - the upside to this is that Mali has expressed a desire to engage in negotiations with the militant groups in their country, which France rejected out of hand, which to me always seemed a. awful and b. stupid on France's part. So ideally this withdrawal could lead to peace talks.
*the world’s largest symphony of tiny violins starts playing*
The AP article goes into more details about their complaints. We can’t look at the deal so I don’t know if it’s actually true. But either it isn’t and the Israeli PM is lying, or it is true and that’s just classic getting what you asked for.
The AP article isn't exactly overflowing with details. Near as I can tell, the only concrete items it mentions are the following:
The first isn't exactly news. Iran made very loud noises every time they dialed up the centrifuges. That was the whole point, very publicly ramp up their enrichment efforts past the limits of the JCPOA in order to put pressure on the USA to return to the JCPOA. The second complaint refers to the original JCPOA, which isn't exactly in play at the moment.
Otherwise Bennett's complaints aren't much more detailed than a deal with Iran is bad because Iran is bad. It's the same crap Israel always says. Any agreement with Iran that doesn't require the entire political class to put a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger (metaphorically or literally) will always be considered the worst thing that ever evered.
I've generally thought that the Biden Admin's strategy here was to bring back JCPOA but with the end-time pushed further out.
I don't think you can infer much about any possible Iran deal from the PM's statement other than that a deal might actually be close to completion. Netanyahu used similar rhetoric about the JCPOA back in the day, and while Bennett is better than Netanyahu, he's not that much better, and over the top gibbering about Iran always seems to play well. Whatever deal the USA and Iran are working on might be the same, tighter, or looser than the original JCPOA, but we're not going to get any useful information on that front from the Israeli PM.
The main reason Netanyahu is out is because he was so obviously corrupt and an embarrassment, rather than rejecting his ideology.
The hope is he's not a narcissist who believes he's more important than the rule of law. Baby steps.
At least regarding Palestine they would probably agree on almost everything, as far as I can tell.
Account of general Dagalo, #2 in the current ruling junta of Sudan.
Israel apparently jealous of everyone else getting the asshole spotlight for once.
A right to return for me, but not for thee.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Not sure why the total number is so low, but as far as how the margins ended up where they did, The Times of Israel have more details.
As well as details on the cruelty of the state. Even when the law wasn't in effect, it was still in effect!
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
There are no quorum requirements
Saudi judiciary continues its very broad usage of the terror designation to execute people, and takes it to a new level. I imagine they think this is a good time to do as much as they want to, with less attention currently being paid to them.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AP/status/1502825064735068161
Note the last bit. I think someone is violently posturing.
I'm sure some of them do not want Iran to go along with a nuclear deal, and would rather the US and Iran continue to be at odds with each other.
I mean sure, but to be able to fire the reported dozen or so missiles without approval from on top? That sounds like a stretch to me, the Iranian military has never before demonstrated that kind of factionalism has it?
Anyway considering that there seem to be no injuries and an indeterminate amount of damage to a building, even if a faction within Iran did fire those missiles (with apparently amazing accuracy!) I kind of hope the US just ignores it.
I've seen some speculate that it has to do with the birthday of Soleimani (March 11).
Also Iran is a state with two armies because they don't trust the one army not to overthrow the goverment.
They very much have issues with factionalism.
I assume it has to do with the IRGC officers that Israel killed in Syria earlier in the week. The IRGC claim is that they’re targeting an Israeli site in Erbil. Kurdish authorities say there are no such Israeli sites in Erbil or Kurdistan.
I guess Iran wants to retaliate against Israeli strikes, but doesn’t want to strike Israel proper (for now), so we end up with these odd targets.
US stating publicly that it doesn’t view itself as the target of those attacks. They go on to disapprove and point out it’s a violation of Iraq’s sovereignty, etc. But it’s clear we’re going to avoid an Iran-US fight and hopefully this means no further complications to the on-going negotiations.
Good call by the Americans.
Some Iranians were already upset with Russia, before the war. There was pre-war commentary from non-hardline circles, that made it to the wider middle eastern media, that Iran should start directly talking to the US because Russia was exploiting its role as a go-between to push for its own self-interests. Can’t imagine the war and subsequent actions could have helped improve that view.
Edit: example from January
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-nuclear-talks-russia-negotiator-ulyanov-unpopular