Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Killed

President Trump teased the news last night, and this morning he's got the far-left media in a psychotic tizzy.

At the Other McCain, "Al-Baghdadi ‘Died Like a Coward’."

And the New York Times, via Memeorandum, "Special Operations Raid Said to Kill Senior Terrorist Leader in Syria."

Searing Moment in the Middle East

For the record, I'm not pleased with President Trump's handling of Syria and Turkey this past week or so. Not pleased at all. Yeah, I can dig the current public sentiment to wind things down, and end "regime change wars," but previous commitments should be honored and our dealings with allies should be respectful and up and up. It's especially disgraceful to cough up territory and control in places Americans have shed blood, to say nothing of fierce fighters like the Kurds.

Oh well.

At WaPo, "The hasty U.S. pullback from Syria is a searing moment in America’s withdrawal from the Middle East":

The hasty U.S. pullback from Syria is a searing moment in America’s withdrawal from the Middle East https://t.co/Gk8dYbpM2N

— Claire Berlinski (@ClaireBerlinski) October 17, 2019

BEIRUT — The blow to America’s standing in the Middle East was sudden and unexpectedly swift. Within the space of a few hours, advances by Turkish troops in Syria this week had compelled the U.S. military’s Syrian Kurdish allies to switch sides, unraveled years of U.S. Syria policy and recalibrated the balance of power in the Middle East.

As Russian and Syrian troops roll into vacated towns and U.S. bases, the winners are counting the spoils.

The withdrawal delivered a huge victory to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who won back control of an area roughly amounting to a third of the country almost overnight. It affirmed Moscow as the arbiter of Syria’s fate and the rising power in the Middle East. It sent another signal to Iran that Washington has no appetite for the kind of confrontation that its rhetoric suggests and that Iran’s expanded influence in Syria is now likely to go unchallenged.

It sent a message to the wider world that the United States is in the process of a disengagement that could resonate beyond the Middle East, said Hussein Ibish of the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington.

“There’s a sense that the long goodbye has begun and that the long goodbye from the Middle East could become a long goodbye from Asia and everywhere else,” he said.

Images shared on social media underscored the indignity of the retreat. Departing U.S. troops in sophisticated armored vehicles passed Syrian army soldiers riding in open-top trucks on a desert highway. An embedded Russian journalist took selfies on the abandoned U.S. base in Manbij, where U.S. forces had fought alongside their Kurdish allies to drive out the Islamic State in 2015.

“Only yesterday they were here, and now we are here,” said the journalist, panning the camera around the intact infrastructure, including a radio tower and a button-powered traffic-control gate that he showed was still functioning.

“Let’s see how they lived and what they ate,” he said, before ducking into one of the tents and filming the soldiers’ discarded snacks.

On Arab news channels, coverage switched from footage of jubilant Syrian troops to scenes of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s lavish receptions by the monarchs of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Washington’s most vital Arab allies in the Persian Gulf. The visits had been long planned, but the timing gave them the feel of a victory lap.

“This has left a bad taste for all of America’s friends and allies in the region, not only among the Kurds,” said a former regional minister who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to not embarrass his government, an American ally. “Many will now be looking for new friends. The Russians don’t abandon their allies. They fight for them. And so do the Iranians.”

It was the manner of the withdrawal, hastily called amid chaos on the battlefield as Turkish forces pushed deep into Syria, that gave the event such impact in the region, analysts said. Few had anticipated that the most advanced military in the world would make such a scrambled and hasty departure, even after President Trump signaled he would not endorse a war on behalf of the Kurds against a U.S. NATO ally.

Less than 48 hours before the withdrawal announcement, U.S. Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had given assurances that the troops would remain indefinitely, standing by their Kurdish partners to continue to hunt down the Islamic State.

 But the Turks’ capture Sunday of a key highway that served as the U.S. troops’ main supply line revealed the fragility of a mission that had narrowly focused on the Islamic State fight while neglecting regional dynamics, including the depth of Turkish animosity to the Kurdish militia with which the United States had teamed up...

More.

President Trump Blasts Jewish Democrats for 'Great Disloyalty' (VIDEO)

This is so stupid. Anyone with a brain understands exactly what Trump meant: If you're Jewish and voting Democrat, you're endorsing the vile anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hate agenda of the current Democrat Party, exemplified by the "squad." For media elites to turn this into the "dual loyalty" canard is reprehensible, but then, that's the state of partisan politics today.

The story's at the New York Times, of course, "Trump Accuses Jewish Democrats of ‘Great Disloyalty’."

Trump Accuses Jewish Democrats of ‘Great Disloyalty’ via ⁦@juliehdavis⁩ https://t.co/ugcTHz0gBa

— Annie Karni (@anniekarni) August 21, 2019

Here's the video, and Caroline Glick's response below:

I find it stunning that the left taking over the Democratic can libel the Jewish state, slander Israel's Jewish supporters in the US, use BDS to push American Jews out of public spaces and then attack @realDonaldTrump for calling them out.../

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) August 21, 2019

We are watching the Corbynization of the Dem party. Rather than protest and take the party back, American Jews are laying down and letting it happen and then deliberately misinterpreting Trump's words to accuse him of the very Jew hatred they refuse to fight on the left.../

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) August 21, 2019

Trump wasn't calling American Jews disloyal to America but to their interests as Jews. And he's right. American Jews have the right to the same freedoms as everyone else. BDS, that Tlaib, Omar, AOC, etc., are promoting aims to take those rights away.../

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) August 21, 2019

Trump speaks uncarefully but you have to really want to misunderstand him to believe he was calling Democratic Jews disloyal. Which brings us back to the Jewish Dems who don't want to see BDS, Tlaib, Omar, JVP, IfNotNow, etc. for what they are.../

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) August 21, 2019

By all means, stay in the Democrat party, but for heaven's sake, stop being doormats. Stop accepting the libels. Stand up for yourselves. BDS isn't about Israel. It's about you. Fight back.

— Caroline Glick (@CarolineGlick) August 21, 2019

Also at Memeorandum.

President Trump Approved Strikes on Iran, Then Pulled Back From the Brink (VIDEO)

At the New York Times, "Strikes on Iran Approved by Trump, Then Abruptly Pulled Back."



And at Free Beacon, "U.S. Expected to Strike Back for Iran’s Downing of Drone":

The United States is likely to take military action against Iran in the coming days for Tehran's downing a U.S. drone in international airspace on Wednesday near the Strait of Hormuz.

The Central Command said an RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile system while operating in international airspace around 7:35 p.m. on Wednesday.

President Trump suggested retaliation for the attack is coming. "Iran made a very big mistake," the president tweeted.

Later during an Oval Office meeting with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau, Trump was asked about a military strike against Iran and repeated that Iran "made a very big mistake" because the drone was flying over international waters.

"Iran made a big mistake. This drone was in international waters, clearly," he said. "We have it all documented scientifically, not just words. And they made a very bad mistake."

Trump suggested that the drone was mistakenly shot down and noted that "I have a big, big feeling" an Iranian air defense operator erred in attacking the drone, someone "loose and stupid who did it."

Asked what will come next, the president said "You'll find out."

Air Force Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, commander of Central Command air forces, said the RQ-4 drone was conducting surveillance over the Gulf of Oman and the Strait of Hormuz in international airspace near recent IRGC attacks on two tankers. The drone was struck by an IRGC surface-to-air missile fired from a base near Goruk, Iran, he said.

"This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset that had not violated Iranian airspace at any time during its mission," Guastella said in a statement. "This attack is an attempt to disrupt our ability to monitor the area following recent threats to international shipping and free flow of commerce."

The three-star general also said that Iran falsely claimed the aircraft was shot down over Iran. "The aircraft was over the Strait of Hormuz and fell into international waters."

"At the time of the intercept, the RQ-4 was operating at high-altitude approximately 34 kilometers from the nearest point of land on the Iranian coast," he said. "This dangerous and escalatory attack was irresponsible and occurred in the vicinity of established air corridors between Dubai, UAE, and Muscat Oman, possibly endangering innocent civilians."

"Iranian reports that the aircraft was over Iran are false," said CENTCOM spokesman Capt. Bill Urban. "This was an unprovoked attack on a U.S. surveillance asset in international airspace."

Tensions have increased with Iran since last week when the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Tehran's shock troops, were caught removing a limpet mine from the hull of a Japanese tanker that had been hit by other mines the United States has concluded came from Iran.

Another tanker also was attacked with the magnetic mines last week.

Several earlier Iran-linked attacks were carried out, including mines on the ships, an attack on a Saudi pipeline, a rocket firing near a U.S. embassy, and an attack on a NATO convoy in Afghanistan.

White House National Security Adviser John Bolton said in an interview last week the United States is set to retaliate for Iranian military provocations.

"The National Security Strategy lists Iran as one of the four top threats and we just need to be sure we've got the capability to deter them from these kinds of activities, threatening American lives and facilities, threatening the international oil market," Bolton said when asked about the Pentagon's plan to dispatch around 1,000 additional troops to the region.

"They would be making a big mistake if they doubted the president's resolve on this," Bolton added, echoing the president's tweet.

The latest confrontation sent crude oil prices higher over concerns of a new Middle East war. Oil prices increased more than $3 to $63 a barrel, Reuters reports.

U.S. national security officials have been debating how to respond to the recent Iranian military attacks carried out through proxies in a bid to avoid a head-on conflict with the United States.

Options are expected to range from covert action against Iranian military targets using special forces commandos to airstrikes against Iranian bases.

The administration is weighing what it regards as proportional responses to recent Iranian actions...

Iran Shoots Down U.S. Military Drone Over Strait of Hormuz (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz."

At the Washington Post, "Iran shoots down US surveillance drone, heightening tensions." And "Iran shoots down U.S. naval drone in Persian Gulf region amid tensions between countries."

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shot down a U.S. surveillance drone Thursday in the Strait of Hormuz, marking the first time the Islamic Republic directly attacked the American military amid tensions over Tehran’s unraveling nuclear deal with world powers.

The two countries disputed the circumstances leading up to an Iranian surface-to-air missile bringing down the U.S. Navy RQ-4A Global Hawk, an unmanned aircraft with a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737 jetliner and costing over $100 million.

Iran said the drone “violated” its territorial airspace, while the U.S. called the missile fire “an unprovoked attack” in international airspace over the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf and President Donald Trump tweeted that “Iran made a very big mistake!”

Trump later appeared to play down the incident, telling reporters in the Oval Office that he had a feeling that “a general or somebody” being “loose and stupid” made a mistake in shooting down the drone.

RTWT.

Also at ABC News, via Memeorandum, "Trump says Iranian shootdown of US military drone may have been a ‘mistake’."

Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz

This piece, from Professor Caitlin Talmadge at International Security from 11 years ago, remains timely.

See, "Closing Time: Assessing the Iranian Threat to the Strait of Hormuz":

How might Iran retaliate in the aftermath of a limited Israeli or U.S. strike? The most economically devastating of Iran’s potential responses would be closure of the Strait of Hormuz. According to open-source order of battle data, as well as relevant analogies from military history and GIS maps, Iran does possess significant littoral warfare capabilities, including mines, antiship cruise missiles, and land-based air defense. If Iran were able to properly link these capabilities, it could halt or impede traffic in the Strait of Hormuz for a month or more. U.S. attempts to reopen the waterway likely would escalate rapidly into sustained, large-scale air and naval operations during which Iran could impose significant economic and military costs on the United States—even if Iranian operations were not successful in truly closing the strait. The aftermath of limited strikes on Iran would be complicated and costly, suggesting needed changes in U.S. force posture and energy policy.

The full article is available in pdf format here.

Likely Indictments Hang Over Benjamin Netanyahu and Imperil His Political Career

At LAT, "How will Netanyahu’s legal woes affect U.S.-Israeli relations and peace efforts?":

How will Netanyahu's legal woes affect U.S.-Israeli relations and peace efforts? https://t.co/xChELRpaGp

— L.A. Times World (@latimesworld) March 2, 2019

Even as likely indictments hang over Benjamin Netanyahu and imperil his political career, the embattled Israeli prime minister is receiving the enthusiastic endorsement of his good buddy and leader of the free world, Donald J. Trump.

“He has been a great prime minister,” President Trump said in Hanoi on Thursday after a nuclear summit with North Korea as plans to charge Netanyahu in three felony corruption cases were about to be announced in Jerusalem. “He's done a great job as prime minister. He's tough, he's smart, he's strong.”

Since becoming president more than two years ago, Trump has been a loyal, unquestioning ally of Netanyahu and his right-wing Israeli government. He has taken numerous steps in favor of Israel and promised to look out for Netanyahu’s interests as his son-in-law and other administration officials seek a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Trump has called that long-elusive goal the “ultimate deal.” But Netanyahu’s political and legal predicament has added even more complexity to what was already a tortured, long-shot process.

Netanyahu, who has dominated Israeli politics for more than a decade, also faces a tough reelection bid. He is running for a fourth consecutive term as head of the government in voting that takes place in 40 days, on April 9.

The fate of Netanyahu and the still-secret U.S.-crafted peace plan are in many ways intertwined. How he fares in the final weeks of the election campaign, whether his party continues to hold on to its lead or slips substantially, is likely to influence whether he welcomes a peace plan or turns his back on any such effort to appeal to his hard-line, ultra-hawkish base, Israeli and American political analysts say.

Trump handed the project of writing a peace plan to son-in-law Jared Kushner and Jason Greenblatt, a former Trump Organization attorney named special envoy for the Middle East. The two this week ended a second tour through Persian Gulf states attempting to find support for their ideas, which some leaders in the region have rejected for appearing overly pro-Israeli, disregarding Palestinian demands.

Kushner said he would not make the plan public before the Israeli election. It could, however, be published in the postelection period, a frenzied time when, in Israel’s parliamentary system, political parties who have won seats make alliances in an attempt to form a government that selects the prime minister.

At that point, analysts said, Netanyahu could appeal to a broader group of politicians, insisting he was the best leader to make peace while not sacrificing Israel’s security or other interests.

“There is a devil’s theory that Kushner and company will try to do a rollout to help Bibi form a coalition,” said Daniel Kurtzer, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel who teaches Middle East policy at Princeton University, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname.

Or, if it would help Netanyahu more, Kushner “is likely to tiptoe back to Washington so he does not hurt Bibi,” Kurtzer said.

If Netanyahu loses in the election, there may be pressure for the Trump administration to delay releasing the peace plan to another date, if ever, because of the uncertainty and especially if a center-left government takes over, said Ilan Goldenberg, a Middle East expert at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Yet if Netanyahu thinks his career depends on it, he could probably go harder right, Goldenberg and others said, which might render any peace plan dead on arrival because few governments and especially those in the Arab world would be willing to work with such a coalition.

Already, Netanyahu stunned many people in the U.S. and in Israel when he brought three extreme right-wing fringe parties into his coalition last week. One of the parties, Jewish Power, believes in Jewish supremacy and is led by disciples of Meir Kahane, the ultra-right-wing American-born rabbi who won a seat in the Israeli parliament, or Knesset, before he was banned from politics in 1988 for advancing a racist agenda. He was assassinated two years later.

No criticism was forthcoming, however, from the Trump administration. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo said that “we’re not about to get involved” in a democratic country’s election. Those statements came four days before Trump’s endorsement of the “tough, smart, strong” Netanyahu.

Prior to being formally indicted, Netanyahu is allowed to challenge the charges against him, which involve bribery and other corruption aimed at promoting his image and helping him hold on to power. If indicted, Netanyahu could continue to campaign, but whether he could serve effectively as prime minister remains unclear.

Initial polling after Atty. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit announced his intention to indict Thursday was grim for Netanyahu and his Likud Party...

President Trump Still Committed to Syria Withdrawal

At LAT, "Trump still committed to Syria troop withdrawal, despite mixed signals":

Lindsey Graham outlined three conditions he said Trump had set down for a full withdrawal:
-permanent destruction of the Islamic State militants
-protection for Syria’s Kurds
-curbs on Iran
Those requirements would be extremely difficult to meet. https://t.co/eqnQGgtJ1I

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) January 1, 2019

President Trump’s already confusing policies toward Syria have become even more difficult to parse, both in Washington and in the region convulsed by nearly eight years of civil war, after a flurry of contradictory statements over the last 72 hours.

On Sunday, Trump met with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a vocal critic of the president’s plan to pull troops out of Syria. After the meeting, Graham said he “felt a lot better” about the situation, describing the withdrawal plan as being “in a pause situation.”

Graham later outlined three conditions he said Trump had set down for a full withdrawal: permanent destruction of the Islamic State militants; protection for Syria’s Kurds, whose militias have been the main U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State; and curbs on Iran. Those requirements would be extremely difficult to meet.

On Monday, Trump tweeted praise for himself, claiming he should be getting more plaudits for the decision to pull out — a move that has spooked Republican foreign policy hawks and prompted Defense Secretary James N. Mattis’ sudden resignation.

In his tweets, the president alluded for the first time to a timetable that could be slower than the 30-day withdrawal he first suggested.

“If anybody but Donald Trump did what I did in Syria, which was an ISIS loaded mess when I became President, they would be a national hero,” Trump wrote, referring to Islamic State.

“ISIS is mostly gone, we’re slowly sending our troops back home to be with their families, while at the same time fighting ISIS remnants......”

According to multiple administration officials, however, neither Graham’s comments nor Trump’s tweet mean that the president is abandoning his plan to withdraw the 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria.

What remains unsettled is how and when the withdrawal will take place, matters that national security advisor John R. Bolton will take up with the leaders of Israel and Turkey when he travels to the region for meetings this week. The administration’s special representative for Syria, James Jeffrey, is scheduled to accompany Bolton.

In the region, meanwhile, all the warring factions already have begun repositioning themselves for a Syria without the United States — while keeping an eye on the mixed signals from Washington.

Iran, which sees Syria as a crucial link to its allies in Lebanon, stands to gain from having U.S. forces out of the area. Its officials expressed satisfaction with Trump’s move.

A U.S. withdrawal will lead to “strengthening stability in the region,” Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, the Iranian armed forces chief of staff, said.

“America's withdrawal from Syrian territories is a humiliating retreat for Washington, which had put its forces in Syria without the permission of its government or people,” he said.

“Americans cause chaos everywhere they go,” he added.

By contrast, America’s main ally in the Syrian fighting, the Kurdish militia groups, have much to fear.

Under U.S. protection, the Kurds have carved out a de facto state covering a large swath of northern and eastern Syria, territory that includes roughly 90% of the country's gas as well as essential water and hydroelectric resources.

But they fear attack from Turkey, which is also a U.S. ally, but which sees the Kurds as a national security threat because of the large Kurdish minority in its territory.

The Kurdish areas are now under threat from all sides, which has caused Kurdish militia leaders to move closer to Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, who is allied with Iran and Russia and whose forces the U.S. has fought.

Protecting the Kurds has been a chief concern for U.S. military officials and for Graham.

After his meeting Sunday, Graham suggested that Trump would slow down the withdrawal to make sure the Kurds were not harmed.

“I think we’re in a pause situation where we are reevaluating what’s the best way to achieve the president’s objective of having people pay more and do more,” Graham said, referring to Trump’s call for Middle Eastern countries to pay the cost of rebuilding Syria after nearly a decade of war...

Still more.

Syria Withdrawal and Push for Border Wall Demonstrate Trump's 'America First' Worldview

Leftist media outlets have been slobbering all over themselves the last 24 hours, with a concatenation of news events they hope will damage the White House.

Actually, a lot of this is good news. The Mattis resignation isn't out of the ordinary at all. The economy's actually strong and markets are betting on the future, especially Federal Reserve moves that could dampen growth. Fact is, final 3rd quarter numbers show the economy humming along at 3.5 percent growth. Travel numbers for the season are at record numbers and it should be a booming Christmas shopping season.

For the leftist establishment take on Mattis see NYT, via Memeorandum, "Defense Secretary Jim Mattis Resigns, Rebuking Trump's Worldview."

And for the America First viewpoint, make sure you're following Diana West on Twitter:

There is nothing to win in the Islamic world and everything to lose at home. https://t.co/398cEasuM7

— Diana West (@diana_west_) December 21, 2018

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Trump's decision to withdraw from Syria and build a border wall instead marks a key moment for his 'America first' view":

Trump's decision to withdraw from #Syria and build a border wall instead marks a key moment for his '#AmericaFirst' view: #ThankYouTrump #SyriaWithdrawal https://t.co/15SlZSdHwM @diana_west_

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 21, 2018

President Trump, in a pair of tweets Wednesday summarizing his worldview, justified his decision to order American troops withdrawn from Syria while promising that the military would instead put resources into building the wall he’s long espoused along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” Trump tweeted, shortly before his press secretary announced that “we have started returning United States troops home as we transition to the next phase of this campaign.”

That declaration from Trump came shortly after another Twitter missive in which he declared that “because of the tremendous dangers at the Border, including large scale criminal and drug inflow, the United States Military will build the Wall!”

The joint tweets offered perhaps the clearest distillation to date of Trump’s “America first” policy: a simple and abrupt vow to disengage from one of the world’s most nettlesome conflicts, with a potentially premature declaration of victory over the militants of Islamic State, also known as ISIS, coupled with an unlikely promise that the world’s most sophisticated fighting force would be deployed to build a literal fortification around the homeland.

The order to withdraw the roughly 2,000 troops currently in Syria provided the latest example of how Trump’s instinct to turn inward, whatever the risk and costs to the United States’ influence and reputation abroad, may clash with the views of the generals and foreign policy experts who serve inside and outside his administration.

Defense Secretary James N. Mattis, for example, a retired four-star general who once commanded American forces in the Middle East, was pushed aside by President Obama for advocating more forceful engagement in the region. Pentagon officials over the last two years have repeatedly clashed with Trump’s desires to limit the kind of muscular U.S. role in the Mideast that Mattis has advocated in the past.

Trump’s announcement raised fears among national security professionals that he might follow the Syria decision with a troop drawdown in Afghanistan, something he has long wanted to do.

Either exit involves a strategic gamble by Trump and could also cost the president politically if Islamic State violence resurges or the region destabilizes during the 2020 election campaign.

“It is a major blunder,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). “If it isn’t reversed, it will haunt this administration and America for years to come.”

As is often the case, many officials worked Wednesday to mitigate the immediate impacts of Trump’s declaration, by slowing the withdrawal timeline and following his instructions only approximately. Others who have grown accustomed to Trump’s splashy promises and the fluidity of his decision-making cautioned that Wednesday’s announcement may not come immediately to fruition or could be tempered by the time the military implements it.

Trump’s about-face came only weeks after some of his own advisors said U.S. troops would remain in Syria until Iran, a key backer of Syrian President Bashar Assad, agreed to remove its own troops from the country. That expanded mission appeared to reflect the wishes of anti-Iran hard-liners, including national security advisor John Bolton, rather than Trump’s views.

A senior administration official who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity put the matter bluntly. Asked about the cascade of recent statements by Bolton and others vowing to stay in Syria as long as Iran remained engaged, the official said that Trump is doing what Trump wants to do.

“The issue here is that the president has made a decision,” the official said. “He gets to do that. It’s his prerogative.”

The official conceded that the Islamic State threat has not been eliminated from the region beyond Syria’s borders, even if the militants have been significantly hobbled inside.

Some of Trump’s closest allies in the Republican Party oppose his plan...

Still more.

The Case for Spending More to Help Israel (VIDEO)

This is excellent.

It's U.S. Gen Chuck Wald, for Prager University.

How Many Times Can You Justify the Murder of Jews before CNN Fires You?

At FrontPage Magazine, "Marc Lamont Hill’s Years of Anti-Semitism Finally Catch Up to Him."

And here it is, Marc Lamont Hill calling for a "free Palestine from the river to the sea" (video via @bennyavni) pic.twitter.com/E7ugrByKyf

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) November 28, 2018

The Marc Lamont Hill speech is such an easy test for my friends on the left but they’re gonna fail it and I will go on loving them just as much but drinking a bit more

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) November 29, 2018

Using "Palestine from the river to the sea," is a fairly strong analogy to dropping a "1488" into your Twitter account in terms of what its import is intended to mean to its target audience. Any person who act differently reveals themselves to be an idiot or...worse.

— Jeff B. (@EsotericCD) November 29, 2018

On Tuesday @CNN aired a devastating report on antisemitism in Europe. Today CNN's @marclamonthill echoed Jihadist calls for Israel's violent annihilation, calling for "resist[ance]" to achieve "a free Palestine from the river to the sea." Not a great look. pic.twitter.com/r26Q1BU0lR

— Avi Mayer (@AviMayer) November 29, 2018

I'm shocked, shocked to find you burying your company's scandal again.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 29, 2018

"Free Palestine from the river to the sea"

I get that it's hard to spin your call for genocide but this is just a sorry effort https://t.co/ey38YYPS5S

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) November 29, 2018

And there it is: Marc Lamont Hill appears out at CNN https://t.co/Dh2vrvk7qo

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) November 29, 2018

Lamont Hill called for the elimination of the State of Israel from the map. Previously he expressed his admiration for antisemite Louis Farrakhan. MLH is a racist, a bigot, an antisemite. The fact that he is all this while in the payroll of @CNN and @TempleUniv is appalling

— Dani Dayan (@AmbDaniDayan) November 29, 2018

You said Palestine should be "from the river to the sea," not that Israel should return to the 1967 borders alongside a Palestine. You didn't call for an Israel and a Palestine. You said Israel should be replaced by Palestine. It is on video. This is what we call "gaslighting." https://t.co/TQJH5J99cH

— (((Yair Rosenberg))) (@Yair_Rosenberg) November 29, 2018

"River to the sea" isn't the point, @MarcLamontHill. It's a free country; you can call for anything you wish.
But have the integrity to stand by your words. You have repeatedly justified murderous #Palestinian violence against #Israel. Don't pretend now to be a champion of peace. https://t.co/455TVpzAO0

— Jeff Jacoby (@Jeff_Jacoby) November 30, 2018

Jonathan Neumann, To Heal the World?

"A devastating critique of the presumed theological basis of the Jewish social justice movement―the concept of healing the world..."

From Jonathan Neumann, at Amazon, To Heal the World? How the Jewish Left Corrupts Judaism and Endangers Israel.

American Peter Beinart Detained for Questioning at Ben-Gurion Airport Upon Entering Israel

This was a news story a few weeks back.

But Carolyn Glick's putting the kibosh on this self-serving anti-Israel promotion.

See, "Peter Beinart’s latest publicity stunt":

There has been a lot of hand-wringing in official Israel over the brief questioning of anti-Israel author Peter Beinart at Ben-Gurion Airport this week. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a statement on the episode calling it “an administrative mistake.”

Netanyahu added, “Israel is an open society which welcomes all – critics and supporters alike.”

Deputy Minister for Public Diplomacy Michael Oren said Beinart’s questioning is grounds “for an immediate examination of all policy towards the entry of political activists.”

Speaking to Israel National News, Oren said, “Detaining American Jewish reporter Peter Beinart is an example of how acting unwisely causes both strategic and PR damage.

“Beinart is a top-rate American media person. Most of his opinions about Israel disgust me, but he does not support BDS, and in fact defines himself as a Zionist.”

Oren’s position is problematic first and foremost because it is factually wrong.

Beinart is a major supporter of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel. Indeed, he is a central figure in the movement. This mere fact renders Beinart’s protestations of Zionism disingenuous, to put it mildly.

In 2012, Beinart published an oped in The New York Times calling for the boycott, divestment and sanction of all Israeli goods produced by Israeli Jews in Judea and Samaria.

His crass insensitivity towards Israeli Jews in Judea and Samaria was striking: “If moderate settlers resent being lumped in with their more ideologically driven counterparts deep in occupied territory, they should agitate for a two-state solution that would make possible their incorporation into democratic Israel. Or they should move.”

Beinart described the boycott as part of an overall political warfare strategy that American Jews should undertake against Israel and its American supporters.

“We should lobby to exclude settler-produced goods from America’s free-trade deal with Israel,” Beinart said. “We should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities. Every time an American newspaper calls Israel a democracy, we should urge it to include the caveat: only within the green line.”

Even Beinart’s most fervent admirers viewed his call for BDS against Jewish products in Judea and Samaria as a transparent means to facilitate BDS against Israel as a whole.

Jane Eisner, editor of the far-left The Forward newspaper wrote, the “optics of Beinart’s proposal” are “dangerous,” because they provide “implicit support for the broader BDS movement.”

But as has since become clear, that was his goal.

Beinart devotes great energy to mainstreaming anti-Israel activists who reject Israel’s right to exist...

Keep reading.

BONUS: Watch, at i24NEWS, "Peter Beinart on His Detainment at Israel's Ben Gurion Airport: Left-wing Jewish American writer Peter Beinart discusses his interrogation by the Shin Bet security services, the latest in a series of such incidents involving leftist personalities, with i24NEWS' Tracy Alexander."

Jeremy Corbyn is Too Extreme to Be Prime Minister

From Sohrab Ahmari, at Commentary, "Never Corbyn."

Dear Britons: For the love of all that is good and just, please don't elect Jeremy Corbyn--the Hamas-hugging lunatic from the People's Republic of Islington--to No. 10 Downing Street. https://t.co/KRhvs7j2dT

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) August 14, 2018

Trump Administration Revives Tough Sanctions on Iran

Good.

At LAT, "Trump administration reviving tough sanctions on Iran in effort to replace nuclear pact":

The Trump administration Monday announced it is reimposing harsh economic sanctions on Tehran as part of a strategy to replace the landmark 2015 nuclear deal with what it hopes will be a stronger agreement to curb the Islamic Republic’s ability to build a nuclear bomb.

The sanctions will target numerous areas of Iranian economic activity, including the automotive and precious metals industries. They go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday, senior administration officials said.

In a statement Monday, President Trump called the 2015 pact “a horrible, one-sided deal, [that] failed to achieve the fundamental objective of blocking all paths to an Iranian nuclear bomb, and it threw a lifeline of cash to a murderous dictatorship that has continued to spread bloodshed, violence, and chaos.”

Supporters of the deal say that, while flawed, it has successfully prevented Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon in the medium term. United Nations inspectors, whom Iran agreed to admit regularly, say Iran has largely complied with the deal's restrictions.

The revived sanctions ban most transactions with Iran’s central bank; its network of ports and insurance companies; the purchase of Iranian sovereign debt; and trade in gold, graphite, aluminum and other precious metals.

The hard-fought Iran nuclear deal, signed by the U.S. with China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany and France, required Iran to dismantle its nuclear-production infrastructure, mothballing centrifuges used to enrich uranium, disabling its plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor and getting rid of nearly its entire stockpile of enriched uranium.

In exchange, crippling U.N. sanctions on Iran were eased and billions of dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen and returned. Tehran was allowed to rejoin the world economy, trading oil and participating in financial markets.

But Trump disdained the deal, saying it did not do enough to curb Iran’s other “malign behavior,” including support for militant groups in the region and repression of domestic opposition.

In May, Trump withdrew from the deal, despite intense lobbying from Europe not to do so. Europeans and others said they will attempt to keep the deal alive, but they risk being penalized by Washington if their companies continue to do business with Iran.

“Individuals or entities that fail to wind down activities with Iran risk severe consequences,” Trump warned Monday. “We urge all nations to take such steps to make clear that the Iranian regime faces a choice: either change its threatening, destabilizing behavior and reintegrate with the global economy, or continue down a path of economic isolation.”

Administration officials, who briefed reporters Monday on condition of anonymity, rejected the criticism that the revived U.S. sanctions will be less effective than the earlier Obama-era package because other key world leaders like China and the European Union are not onboard...

I don't believe Iran "largely complied" with the agreement. There was no independent outside verification procedures. Iran could cheat.

But keep reading.

And see the Times of Israel, from last month, "Seized archive shows Iran nuke project was larger than thought, had foreign help: Israel showcases to US reporters parts of trove Mossad spirited out of Tehran; 'These guys were working on nuclear bombs,' confirms ex-IAEA inspector on seeing the material.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism

Here's the statement, at IHRA's home page, "Working Definition of Antisemitism."

I'm posting in response to the controversy of the U.K. Labour Party's rejection of the IHRA definition, with the significant political fallout thereof, as well as the push by the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace to redefine hateful racist criticism of Israel and acceptable and non-anti-Semitic.

See the Jewish News Service, "Three-dozen far-left pro-BDS Jewish groups urge rejection of anti-Semitism definition":

I have no words... Disgraceful.

Three-dozen far-left pro-BDS Jewish groups urge rejection of anti-Semitism definition https://t.co/YcbvTb0EHi via @JNS_org

— Andreas Fagerbakke (@afagerbakke) July 17, 2018

(July 17, 2018 / JNS) Three-dozen far-left pro-BDS Jewish groups from around the world have signed a statement rejecting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of anti-Semitism over its alleged conflation of anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel.

The statement, spearheaded by the anti-Israel U.S.-based group Jewish Voice for Peace, said that the IHRA definition, which has been adopted by a number of Western countries, “is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.”

The statement said the conflation “undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism.”

“It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law,” the statement said. “Israel does not represent us and cannot speak for us when committing crimes against Palestinians and denying their UN-stipulated rights.”

Among the other U.S.-based groups that signed the letter are Jews for Palestinian Right of Return, Jews of Color & Sephardi/Mizrahi Jews and Jews Say No!

The statement by the far-left Jewish groups comes amid an intense debate within the United Kingdom’s Labour Party over the adoption of the IHRA definition...

And see the Jerusalem Post, "Outcry by UK Jewry as Labour adopts controversial antisemitism guidelines."

And just today, at Sky News, "Jeremy Corbyn to take action against MP Margaret Hodge, who branded him an 'anti-Semite'."

And Tal Ofer, on Twitter:

It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to terminate my membership of the Labour Party – A party I have supported throughout my life, a party I stood for as a candidate in local elections, a party that that was the natural home for British Jews #LabourAntisemitism pic.twitter.com/QfCLemaKmw

— Tal Ofer (@TalOfer) July 17, 2018

'The Labour party was my home – but anti-Semitism is forcing me to leave it'https://t.co/zSCRSqeGHX @NewStatesman @LabourAgainstAS @AntisemitismOut #LabourAntisemitism #EnoughIsEnough @BoardofDeputies

— Tal Ofer (@TalOfer) July 18, 2018

Barack Obama Bent Over Backwards to Advance Islamic Totalitarianism in Iran

This is a must-read.

From Sohrab Ahmari, at Commentary, "Anything for the Ayatollah":

My column on Obama bending over backward to help the mullahs cash in on the Iran deal made @RealClearNews this morning. Read it here. https://t.co/aHdMaE1c6n

— Sohrab Ahmari (@SohrabAhmari) June 7, 2018

The full history of the Obama administration’s nuclear dealings with Iran has yet to be written, not least because many of the details remain shrouded in secrecy. The bits of the story that do seep out into the public sphere invariably reinforce a single theme: that of Barack Obama’s utter abjection and pusillanimity before Tehran, and his corresponding contempt for the American people and their elected representatives.

Wednesday’s bombshell Associated Press scoop detailing the Obama administration’s secret effort to help Tehran gain access to the American financial system was a case study. In the months after Iran and the great powers led by the U.S. agreed on the nuclear deal, the Obama Treasury Department issued a special license that would have permitted the Tehran regime to convert some $6 billion in assets held in Omani rials into U.S. dollars before eventually trading them for euros. That middle step—the conversion from Omani to American currency—would have violated sanctions that remained in place even after the nuclear accord.

That’s according to the AP’s Josh Lederman and Matthew Lee, citing a newly released report from the GOP-led Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Lederman and Lee write: “The effort was unsuccessful because American banks—themselves afraid of running afoul of U.S. sanctions—declined to participate. The Obama administration approached two U.S. banks to facilitate the conversion . . . but both refused, citing the reputational risk of doing business with or for Iran.”

Put another way: The Obama administration pressed American banks to sidestep rules barring Iran from the U.S. financial system, and the only reason the transaction didn’t take place was because the banks had better legal and moral sense than the Obama Treasury.

This was far from the first instance in which the Obama administration bent over backward, going far beyond the requirements of the deal, to help the Iranian regime cash in on the deal...

Still more.

Sebastian Gorka: President Trump is Not an Interventionist (VIDEO)

I, for one, am happy we're bombing in Syria. It reverses the previous administration's red line and puts Russian and Iran on notice.

I like Sebastian Gorka, in any case. He's a good guy and well spoken.

At Fox & Friends:

U.S. Launches Military Strike on Syria

The leftist hypocrisy on Syria is mind-boggling.

#Trump says U.S. is striking #Syria over its use of chemical weapons https://t.co/jIt6Zz378q

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) April 14, 2018

Congressional Democrats blasted President Trump for circumventing Congress in authorizing U.S. strikes against Syria, calling it "unconstitutional" and questioning the strategy. https://t.co/1rJ1hBJx2S

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 14, 2018

It's as if 2009-2017 never happened. https://t.co/o5emKk1ly8

— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) April 14, 2018

Far-left conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow suggests President Donald Trump launched the strike against Syria to divert attention away from a "catastrophic domestic scandal."pic.twitter.com/sr81UnpryL

— Ryan Saavedra 🇺🇸 (@RealSaavedra) April 14, 2018

Ana Navarro Accuses Trump Of Striking Syria To Distract From Comey And Cohen News https://t.co/1lnUfGdLEr pic.twitter.com/mUixObJck2

— The Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) April 14, 2018

Tehran's Advantage in a Turbulent Middle East

From Vali Nasr, at Foreign Affairs, "Iran Among the Ruins":

A must read:
Iran among the ruins: @vali_nasr on Iran’s regional strategic calculus. https://t.co/WbZyJ6N0YZ

— Rula Jebreal (@rulajebreal) February 17, 2018

Over the last seven years, social upheavals and civil wars have torn apart the political order that had defined the Middle East ever since World War I. Once solid autocracies have fallen by the wayside, their state institutions battered and broken, and their national borders compromised. Syria and Yemen have descended into bloody civil wars worsened by foreign military interventions. A terrorist group, the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), seized vast areas of Iraq and Syria before being pushed back by an international coalition led by the United States.

In the eyes of the Trump administration, and those of a range of other observers and officials in Washington and the region, there is one overriding culprit behind the chaos: Iran. They point out that the country has funded terrorist groups, propped up Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, and aided the anti-Saudi Houthi rebels in Yemen. U.S. President Donald Trump has branded Iran “the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism,” with a “sinister vision of the future,” and dismissed the nuclear agreement reached by it, the United States, and five other world powers in 2015 as “the worst deal ever” (and refused to certify that Iran is complying with its terms). U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has described Iran as “the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East.” And Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir has charged that “Iran is on a rampage.”

Washington seems to believe that rolling back Iranian influence would restore order to the Middle East. But that expectation rests on a faulty understanding of what caused it to break down in the first place. Iran did not cause the collapse, and containing Iran will not bring back stability. There is no question that many aspects of Iran’s behavior pose serious challenges to the United States. Nor is there any doubt that Iran has benefited from the collapse of the old order in the Arab world, which used to contain it. Yet its foreign policy is far more pragmatic than many in the West comprehend. As Iran’s willingness to engage with the United States over its nuclear program showed, it is driven by hardheaded calculations of national interest, not a desire to spread its Islamic Revolution abroad. The Middle East will regain stability only if the United States does more to manage conflict and restore balance there. That will require a nuanced approach, including working with Iran, not reflexively confronting it.

You can see why leftists love this article, heh.

More.