Articles

With the Islamic State group on the march again and Baghdad under new threats, it is a good time take care of some unfinished business in Iraq.

Monday's reported explosion at Iran's secretive Parchin nuclear site - leaving two dead and shattering windows 12 kilometers away - is welcome news to those concerned about Tehran's nuclear progress, but it's likely a mere blip on what seems an increasingly smooth Iranian road to nuclear weaponry.

For a host of reasons, Washington is growing ever-more desperate for a nuclear deal through which to claim a diplomatic victory, while Tehran is growing less concerned about the ultimate outcome of the ongoing talks and, not surprisingly, more intransigent about offering new concessions.

The Obama administration’s strategy for destroying the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, forces the United States to take sides in Syria’s civil war. But in a three-way war, that can mean taking the wrong side.

The president sets U.S. foreign policy but, with regard to Ukraine, Congress has an opportunity to push the United States in a more fruitful direction by approving bipartisan legislation from the Senate that would give Kiev $350 million in military aid to help it fend off Moscow’s advances.

"We shall proceed with reform and opening up without hesitation," said Chinese President Xi Jinping to his country's top leaders at a symposium last month that marked the 110th birth anniversary of his predecessor Deng Xiaoping. At first glance, his pledge appeared sincere. In the two years since taking office, Xi has consistently advocated a reform agenda intended to continue the economic revitalization and restructuring that Deng started in 1978. Xi’s campaign includes plans to reduce government meddling in the economy by making it easier for private-sector firms to compete with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and allowing companies and individuals to invest and borrow more freely.

She was at her high school in Chibok, Nigeria when the Islamist monsters of Boko Haram arrived in April, brandishing their guns and forcing the girls onto trucks for an unknown destination.

Fearing where the trucks would take them, she and a friend jumped off during the trip, scampering into the forest. With her friend injured from the fall, they slept under a tree and then found a shepherd to help them find their way back to their village, where their parents and other relatives were weeping.

Quite suddenly, all eyes are riveted on the Islamic State (IS). Ever since its self-proclaimed “emir,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared the creation of a new “caliphate” during a speech in Mosul, Iraq this June, his group has become global public enemy number one.

Last week, President Barack Obama pledged to destroy the Islamic State group (also known as ISIS or ISIL). It is worth asking what that means, and whether the United States can actually do it.

What a difference a couple of months can make. This summer, the Bipartisan Policy Center released a new report from Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the original co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission. That study, titled "Today's Rising Terrorist Threat and the Danger to the United States," warned that America was running the risk of becoming a victim of its own counterterrorism success.

My fellow Americans:

I want to speak with you tonight about an issue of vital national security, and that's the challenge presented by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - the radical terrorist organization that has seized a vast amount of territory in those countries, and that has threatened to attack the United States.

Last fall, in a speech before the Organization of American States, Secretary of State John Kerry announced with great fanfare that the "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over." Kerry's pronouncement was a distinctly political one, intended to reassure regional powers that the heavy-handed interventionism that at times had characterized America's approach to Latin America was a thing of the past. But it was also very much a sign of the times, because the United States is in strategic retreat in its own hemisphere.

Ukrainian government and the Russian-directed separatist movement occupying parts of two Ukrainian provinces and Crimea. Few expect it to last because neither side is ready to live with the status quo.

Ukraine needs to resume fighting to prevent Moscow from permanently controlling separatist-occupied Ukraine. Moscow needs to resume fighting to achieve its further territorial ambitions in Ukraine. Further, if Russian President Vladimir Putin is stopped in Ukraine, it will complicate his designs on the territory of Kazakhstan, Belarus, Moldova and other parts of the former USSR. How is this likely to play out?

Don’t let the latest news out of Ukraine fool you; Russia actually invaded Ukraine six months ago. What is happening today is just an intensification of that assault.

In the photo, Daniel Tragerman stands proudly next to his Lego tower. He wears a blue-and-white Lionel Messi jersey, dark shorts and sandals; brown bangs tickle his forehead, and he looks at us with a charming half-smile. He seems, like most four-year-olds, soft, innocent and irresistibly huggable.

The State Department says that Islamic State terrorists were not sending the United States a message when they beheaded American photojournalist James Foley.

Uh, yes, they were.

On Tuesday, Russian president Vladimir Putin will meet with his Ukrainian counterpart, Petro Poroshenko, in Minsk, Belarus in an effort to bring an end to the crisis in Ukraine. The summit is shaping up to be a critical turning point in the six-month-old conflict over the soul of Ukraine.

American politician and poet Eugene McCarthy once said that the media are like blackbirds on a telegraph pole. Once the impulse goes through, they all jump in the same direction. Fortunately for McCarthy, the Washington punditocracy was not as developed then as it is now.

Is America headed back to Iraq? On August 7, President Obama took the first step in that direction when he authorized the use of air strikes to prevent the further advance of the militant Islamic group once known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) and now known as the Islamic State. Since then, the U.S. military has commenced a limited bombing campaign against Islamic State detachments in northern Iraq and added 130 military advisers to the 300 already stationed in the country.

As the recent hostilities in Gaza demonstrate, Israel stands at the forefront of a new kind of warfare. Israel is not alone in the need to confront radical forces that include terrorist organisations and oppressive regimes who deliberately seek civilian casualties on all sides as the core element of their military strategy; this is a long-term battle that other liberal societies will ultimately have to fight.

Today the world continues to focus on Moscow’s brazen aggression in Ukraine and its blatant disregard for international law. However, Russia’s imperial delusions and energy dependence are also creating major problems elsewhere in the world, including in the Arctic — a vast, energy-rich region where the Kremlin has both great ambitions and is pursuing dangerous policies.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I was struck by your recent observation about the Israel-Hamas conflict: “The world is watching tragic moment after tragic moment unfold and wondering when both sides are going to come to their senses.”

I can only imagine your dismay, in light of the hopes that President Obama and you had placed in Israeli-Palestinian peace, and all of your jet-setting, tongue-flapping and arm-twisting to make it happen. To encourage both sides to come to their “senses,” however, I suggest that not only do they have important roles to play. So, too, do you.

The downing of Malaysia Airline Flight MH17 cast a harsh, lurid and revealing light upon Russia's war in Ukraine.

Its most immediate effect was to place the brutality of Russian-led forces in full view.

It was a century ago this summer – on June 28, 1914 – that Serbian nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the "shot heard round the world," assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian empire, in Sarajevo. The killing served as a catalyst for conflict, bringing long-simmering tensions between various European nations to a boil. The result was a conflagration that was both global in scale and massive in its human toll. All told, more than 37 million souls perished in what became known as the "war to end all wars."

Earlier this summer, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani paid a very public two-day visit to a surprising locale: Ankara, Turkey. The June trip — the first of its kind in nearly 20 years — represented a significant evolution of the political ties between Iran and Turkey.

With time for nuclear diplomacy between Iran and the P5+1 nations (the U.S., UK, Russia, China, France and Germany) running out, and with the White House scrambling to cobble together some sort of deal with Tehran, it's perhaps not surprising that Pentagon's latest annual assessment of Iran's military capabilities has so far garnered little attention, either within the Washington Beltway or outside it.

"The indiscriminate rocket attacks from Gaza on Israel are terrorist acts, for which there is no justification," the nation's leader said this week. "It is evident that Hamas is deliberately using human shields to further terror in the region." He added, "Failure by the international community to condemn these reprehensible actions would encourage these terrorists to continue their appalling actions," saying that his nation "calls on its allies and partners to recognize that these terrorist acts are unacceptable and that solidarity with Israel is the best way of stopping the conflict."

Only two weeks after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush addressed the media in the White House Rose Garden and declared "war" on terrorism financing. "Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," he told reporters.[1] "Today, we are asking the world to stop payment." A few weeks later, the Treasury Department—the agency that would become the weapon of choice of the White House in this new economic conflict—boasted in a press release, "The same talent pool and expertise that brought down Al Capone will now be dedicated to investigating Usama bin Laden and his terrorist network."[2]

Don't look now, but Moscow is winning the media war.

Since the start of the crisis over Ukraine some four months ago, Russia has waged a massive, sustained media campaign to shape global perceptions about events taking place on the ground there. This offensive—carried out en masse via state-run outlets like Russia Today and through an onslaught of print, radio and television reports—has included everything from blatant mischaracterizations of Ukraine's political parties to outright fabrications about the extent of the pro-Russian sentiment that exists in the south and east of the country.

As the parents of three Israeli teens live their worst nightmare, their sons the latest victims of terror, the drama can now follow a well-worn path of Palestinian triumphalism, Israeli revenge and global moral blindness. It is but another teaching moment - lest anyone still needs one - about why Israeli-Palestinian peace will not come soon and why the basic assumptions behind the "peace process" are so off-base.

Sometimes, tragedies can provide moments of clarity. The brutal deaths of teenagers Eyal Yifrach, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel – whose bodies were discovered on Monday half-buried in an open field north of the city of Hebron – represent more than just a national disaster for the state of Israel. They are also an inflection point for Palestinian governance, as well as a litmus test for the true prospects for peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Is al-Qaeda really on the run? Since the death of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama administration has actively promoted the narrative that it has gained the upper hand in its struggle with the world’s most dangerous terrorist group.

The poll numbers are undeniable. Disillusioned by Afghanistan and Iraq, focused on domestic concerns, Americans increasingly want their nation to reduce its global footprint and stop trying to solve the problems of others. A cautious, poll-driven President Obama responds predictably, defining America’s global interests more narrowly and eschewing calls to address humanitarian horror, protect human rights and advance freedom far from home.

It’s hard not to notice that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is on the skids. Increasingly, the critiques leveled at the administration from both left and right share a common theme: that U.S. foreign policy has become characterized by strategic drift, with serious consequences for American interests abroad.

German statesman Otto von Bismarck famously observed that Europe represented merely a geographical notion, not a unified political entity. Russia's annexation of Crimea has again validated this acerbic insight. And, amid the absence of any Western or European unity, the sale of the France's highly advanced Mistral-class warships to Russia looms large.

Not all that long ago, Barack Obama seemed to have big plans for the Middle East. Back in June of 2009, the president traveled to Egypt to unveil what he promised would be a “new beginning” between America and the Muslim world. In a major address at Cairo’s famed Al-Azhar University, he proposed a new, more harmonious U.S. approach toward a region that had been roiled by nearly a decade of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The new Palestinian unity government of Fatah and Hamas puts the lie to fundamental assumptions on which the U.S. approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace have long rested, most prominently within the Obama administration.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the recent national election in Ukraine is just how significant a reversal of fortune it represents for Russia.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has called Russia’s invasion, occupation and annexation of the Crimean peninsula. along with its incitement of a civil war in Eastern Ukraine. a game-changer. One region where this description could possess particular resonance is Central Asia. All Central Asian governments have considerable reasons for alarm in the wake of Russia’s actions and the supine Western response. In this context, Vladimir Putin’s speech to the Duma of March 18, 2014 represented a landmine under the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all five Central Asian states with the threat of Russian military action should they somehow threaten the dignity and honor of Russians who are citizens in their states.

Will the real Hassan Rouhani please stand up? Since his election last summer - and especially since the start of nuclear negotiations with the West last fall - Iran's new president has become a darling of the U.S. and European diplomatic set. The soft-spoken leader who now serves as Iran's political face is widely viewed as a "moderate" counterpoint to his firebrand predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as well as a guarantor of a much-sought-after nuclear deal with the West.

During U.S Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's recent trip to China, China's Minister of Defense, General Chang Wanquan, warned that Beijing would make "no compromise, no concession, [and] no trading" in the fight for what he called his country's "territorial sovereignty." Chang told Hagel: "The Chinese military can assemble as soon as summoned, fight any battle, and win." The comments come amid an escalating campaign by Chinese nationalists to alter the status quo in the Western Pacific that has raised alarm in capitals across the region.

Tucked away in a busy corner of the Pentagon is a little-known bureau known as the Office of Net Assessment. Headed by Andrew W. Marshall, the legendary nonagenarian strategist who has advised every American president since Richard Nixon, it serves as the U.S. military's in-house think tank on a broad range of foreign policy and defense issues. Its specialty, however, is a very specific discipline: the study of the different ways in which the United States can identify and exploit emerging trends in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment.

The future path of U.S.-led nuclear negotiations with Iran, which have now reached a crucial stage, may be foreshadowed in the U.S. agreement with Syria to dismantle its chemical weapons program. Any U.S.-Iranian deal-making that follows the Syrian model, however, would prove nothing more than a pyrrhic victory, leaving the Middle East more dangerous and, ultimately, the United States less secure.

Human rights and liberal values are under threat in a small, little-known country most people would be hard-pressed to find on a map. Brunei Darussalam, following the radical vision of Usama bin Laden and his followers, became an Islamic state under strict Sharia law this past week, with punishments of death by stoning for adulterers and severing of limbs for thieves. Policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic have yet to focus on the challenges posed by radical Islamic regimes, much less tackle them effectively.

Remember the U.S.-Turkish alliance? Not long ago, President Obama was proclaiming that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan was his favorite Middle Eastern statesman, and one of very few foreign leaders with whom he had forged a "bond of trust." Yet today, ties between Washington and Ankara are unmistakably on the downswing. The culprits are a quartet of issues that cumulatively have soured relations between Washington and Ankara — and which promise to keep the once-vibrant relationship at a low ebb, at least for the foreseeable future.

Recent Israeli-Palestinian peace talks raise questions as to why Washington invested so much in such a misbegotten venture, but they brought one salutary result - they laid bare the Obama Administration's hostility to the Jewish state

Give the Iranian regime credit for creativity. In the midst of extensive nuclear negotiations with the West, officials in Tehran have apparently hit upon a new way to play for time.

The most recent developments in Ukraine as of April 25 betray a mounting series of dangerous paradoxes. First, Russian officials from Putin down have consistently denied reports of Russian troops either in Crimea or now Eastern Ukraine. But Putin in his call-in show on April 17 admitted that they were present in Crimea and even linked that presence to the subsequent referendum though he claimed it was a fully democratic exercise where nobody was intimidated. Meanwhile, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Putin and his officials deny the presence of Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

It seems more apparent that Russia's war against Ukraine also aims to impose a new ideological-political order in Russia if not the entire Commonwealth of Independent States. At home, this war has featured a massive, unrelenting propaganda offensive depicting Ukraine as a Hobbesian nightmare of civil anarchy and Russia as a unique Christian civilization under siege from the secularizing and nihilistic West. Russia explains the siege against it in geopolitical terms — as an effort to prevent the country from becoming a great power again. Russia also presents the attack in ideological terms— as an attempt to foist an alien and corrupt Western civilization and culture upon it.

In the current debate over the Iranian bomb, the White House is staying quiet about its concerns over the regime’s progress on missile development. It’s the dog that isn’t barking.

Richard Falk, the current rapporteur for Palestine of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), is set to step down in the coming days. Falk’s primary legacy will be his consistent hounding of Israel, which he has accused, among other things, of engaging in genocide and apartheid against the Palestinians. Unfortunately, Falk never placed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in its proper context, nor did he properly compare Israel’s actions to those of the more serious violators of human rights, including Syria, North Korea and Sudan. He has thus made a mockery of the U.N. and done a disservice to the Palestinian people.