Neocons Powerless to Scuttle Nuclear Deal with Iran, but They'll Keep Trying

Now that Obama has locked in the support necessary to maintain a veto of any Congressional vote of disapproval of the P5+1 deal on Iran's nuclear program, discussion has quickly shifted to what the GOP and Likudnik Democratic dead-enders in the House and Senate can do to scuttle the agreement. The answer, based on Jennifer Steinhauer's story, "Republicans Weigh New Ways to Upend Iran Nuclear Deal," is very little. The principal idea at this point is reimposing economic sanctions:

Republicans have been thinking through alternatives for months, knowing that Mr. Obama would probably be able to fend off efforts to override his veto of a resolution scuttling the accord. The agreement’s implementation seemed assured Wednesday when Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland, came out in support, the 34th Democrat to do so, providing Mr. Obama with enough votes to prevent an override of a resolution of disapproval of the deal.

For its part, the House will also consider the disapproval resolution next week when Congress returns. Democrats hope to assemble enough votes to sustain a veto in that chamber, as well. A veto override must pass both the House and Senate by a two-thirds vote. 

Approving new sanctions, even many set to be lifted as part of the accord, is one possible path, said several aides to lawmakers, because it would both send a message to Tehran and the White House and put Democrats in a difficult position.

Under the agreement reached with six world powers, Iran would be released from congressionally imposed sanctions related to its nuclear program. Still, Congress could pass new, even tougher terrorism-related sanctions on key Iranian leaders. 

The White House has repeatedly said the lifting of current sanctions would not lessen Washington’s resolve to counter Iranian aggression in the Middle East. But approval of additional sanctions could undermine the legitimacy of the United States with its negotiating partners. 

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, alluded to the strategy just before Congress left for its August recess. 

“One of the first things Congress will do when we finish this debate, I would say give it 60 days, we will pass that extension” on sanctions, Mr. Corker told reporters after a briefing with Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz.

***

Senators Mark S. Kirk, Republican of Illinois, and Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, both opponents of the current Iran accord, introduced legislation this year that would extend the Iran Sanctions Act, which expires at the end of 2016, for another decade. 

While most lawmakers understand the need to have legal authority to “snap back” any sanctions that are lifted, Republicans would most likely move to enforce those sanctions, putting Democrats in a bind in an election year by pushing for a vote on legislation to punish Iran for killing Americans and Israelis, and for supporting Hezbollah, leaving the president little choice but to veto because if he signed it, the Iranians would say they are no longer bound by broader agreement. 

Even if these sanctions are never reimposed, Republicans could use the issue in an effort to divide Democrats in 2016.

This is a perfect example of Congress confusing talking points with reality, which, as you know, if you have ever read The Federalists Papers, was a concern of the Founding Fathers. Create a national government with its own national capital and you create a situation where elected representatives will leave home (and their watchful constituents) for long amounts of time and take up residence in a remote city where they will be beset by agents with special interests. These agents will replace issues concerning the general welfare with their own special interests.

If Congress reintroduces sanctions after the United Nations has already validated the P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran, so much the better for Europe, China and Russia. These countries won't have to concern themselves with competition from giant U.S. corporations.

At this point the only option remaining to the Saudis, Israelis and their neocon agents is war; and in order to have a war with Iran, control of the White House is a prerequisite. Hillary would be amenable to such an option, maybe a false-flag op that could be whipped into blackmailing Europe to readopt sanctions. Walker would do anything he was told by the neocons.

But the problem for the Saudis, Israelis and their neocon agents is the public has left them far behind. With the Taliban biding its time as the puppet government in Kabul gradually disintegrates, and with Islamic State celebrating the one-year anniversary of its caliphate in Syria and Iraq, not to mention U.S. participation in wars in Yemen and Libya, there is no appetite for more war. But since Congress and the Presidency exist at this point almost solely to wage war, they grow increasingly isolated from a public they are supposed to represent.

Menendez is Going to Jail, Unless Hillary Rides to the Rescue

Sometimes it is hard to find a silver lining in the morning's Gray Lady. Not today. Right out on the front page is Matt Apuzzo's wonderful "Senator Robert Menendez Indicted on Corruption Charges." One can almost hear the assholes collectively puckering in Washington D.C.:

The charges revolve around Mr. Menendez’s relationship with Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, a wealthy Florida eye surgeon and political benefactor. Dr. Melgen resisted entreaties by the Justice Department to testify against Mr. Menendez and was ultimately charged alongside him.

Prosecutors described Mr. Menendez’s offices on Capitol Hill as a hub of corrupt dealings, a place where the senator used his chief of staff to solicit gifts from Dr. Melgen, find out what he wanted in return and make sure it got done.

The indictment also reveals how the rise of super PACs, unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and subsequent legal changes, have opened a new channel for the wealthy to trade campaign cash for official favors.

Through his company, Vitreo-Retinal Consultants, Mr. Melgen directed $700,000 in corporate contributions to Majority PAC, a super PAC intended to help Democrats retain control of the Senate. Mr. Melgen instructed the group to use those contributions to aid Mr. Menendez’s 2012 re-election campaign.

Among the favors for Dr. Melgen, the department said, Mr. Menendez encouraged the Obama administration to change the Medicare reimbursement policy in a way that would make millions for the doctor. Prosecutors said he also tried to push a port security deal that Dr. Melgen was involved in, and helped the surgeon’s foreign girlfriends obtain travel visas to the United States.

A bribery charge is among the most serious accusations of corruption the federal government can make. Prosecutors often opt to file a lesser charge of accepting a gratuity, which is easier to prove. A bribe amounts to the purchase of an official act, while a gratuity is seen as a way to curry favor with powerful officials.

Mr. Menendez is the first senator to face federal bribery charges since another New Jersey Democrat, Harrison A. Williams Jr., was indicted in 1980 as part of the federal corruption investigation known as Abscam [played by Jeremy Renner in David O. Russell's American Hustle; maybe Menendez can look forward to his moment on the silver screen]. In 2002, an ethics scandal deterred Senator Robert G. Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, from a re-election bid.

To prove their case, prosecutors must show that Mr. Menendez’s actions and Dr. Melgen’s gifts were explicitly traded. The two men argue that they were longtime friends and that they exchanged gifts as part of that friendship.

“Prosecutors at the Justice Department don’t know the difference between friendship and corruption,” Mr. Menendez said on Wednesday.

The senator’s involvement in Dr. Melgen’s dispute with Medicare is the most damning element of the department’s indictment. Prosecutors cite emails showing that Mr. Menendez’s office was deeply involved in the dispute.

The DOJ indictment raises the possibility of putting the whole sordid, venal system on display. It is a pay-to-play scheme, and Menendez is a skilled, extroverted practitioner. He basically advertised his senate office as a fee-for-service enterprise, soliciting foreigners to bring him their visa difficulties. I have assumed that Menendez has been under investigation for years, if not decades -- but possibly Menendez and Torricelli morphed together in my understanding.

Now that the other shoe has dropped one wonders how long Zionist groups will continue to run their full-page ads extolling the courage and friendship of Senator Menendez.

Unless Menendez pleads out, he is going to jail. His "friendship" defense is ridiculous. Government business is not supposed to be guided by personal like or dislike. Public opinion towards the U.S. political class is at a historic nadir; the same thing goes for the ostentatiously wealthy. If the Menendez case goes to trial, a lot of bombshells are in the offing. That is why puckering beltway assholes are well-nigh audible.

During the Obama years we have seen the creation of a new system of politics. Citizens United was a knee-jerk response to Obama's successful crowdfunding during the 2008 campaign. The rich realized that their overwhelming advantage in a democratic system -- their wealth -- could be neutralized by millions of small donations made via the Internet. The plutocrats dreamed nightmares of Che Guevara riding to power on the World Wide Web.

But after Citizens United no longer is a politician with national aspirations guided primarily by the math of voting blocs. Now the most important math is found in the bottom line of donations made by the super-rich, what is publicly referred to as the "billionaire primary." Candidates trundle off to Palm Springs or Las Vegas and prostrate themselves at the feet of a David Koch or a Sheldon Adelson.

A long, contentious federal bribery trial puts this new system in the spotlight. Everyone knows it is corrupt, spotlighting it will generate calls for reform. The plutocrats would prefer not to have to deal with deflecting such calls. So this morning I am sure the conversation Menendez is having is whether to dig in and wait for a new chief executive in 2017 to spike the DOJ case -- I'm sure either Hillary or whomever the GOP nominates would be amenable -- or, after reaping as many pledges of financial consideration as he can muster, falling on his sword and pleading to a lesser charge, serving out his penalty time in a comfortable federal prison looking out on green hills.

Obama Impugns Menendez's Virtue + U.S. Mendacity on Iran's Nuclear Program + KSA Spotlighted for Flogging Blogger + Dying Oceans

A juicy morsel this morning from Michael Shear, "Obama and Senator Robert Menendez Spar on How to Handle Iran," about a mano-a-mano face-off between the feckless POTUS Obama and the ultra-corrupt AIPAC shill Bob Menendez. It took place yesterday during a Senate Democrat Issues Conference at the Baltimore Hilton. According to Shear,

[Obama's] exchange with Mr. Menendez occurred near the end of a question-and-answer session after Senator Angus King of Maine — an independent who caucuses with the Democrats — asked for an update to the nuclear talks.

According to one of the senators and another person who was present, the president urged lawmakers to stop pursuing sanctions, saying such a move would undermine his authority and could derail the talks. Mr. Obama also said that such a provocative action could lead international observers to blame the Americans, rather than the Iranians, if the talks collapsed before the June 30 deadline.

The president said he understood the pressures that senators face from donors and others, but he urged the lawmakers to take the long view rather than make a move for short-term political gain, according to the senator. Mr. Menendez, who was seated at a table in front of the podium, stood up and said he took “personal offense.” 

Mr. Menendez told the president that he had worked for more than 20 years to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and had always been focused on the long-term implications. Mr. Menendez also warned the president that sanctions could not be imposed quickly if Congress waited to act and the talks failed, according to two people who were present.

There you have it, assuming the account is accurate: POTUS acknowledging that Iranian sanctions are donor driven, and in response, Bob Menendez, a prime recipient of AIPAC largesse and a co-sponsor of legislation calling for additional sanctions against Iran, bolts upright and claims his integrity has been impugned.

For a helpful summary of U.S. perfidy in regards to Iran's nuclear program take a moment to read Gareth Porter's "Four Ways the West Got the Iran Nuclear Issue Wrong." From the outset the idea that Iran has been secretly pursuing nuclear weapons has been a canard:

The first failure, which set in train all the others, involved the US trying to strangle the nuclear programme of the Islamic Republic in its cradle and then blithely acting as though it bore no responsibility for the resulting shift in Iranian nuclear policy. It all started with a decision by the Reagan administration early in the Iran-Iraq war in 1983 to put diplomatic pressure on its allies to stop all nuclear cooperation with Iran. France was pressed to forbid a French-based multilateral consortium from providing the nuclear fuel that Iran had counted on for its lone nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

The US State Department acknowledged at the time that it had no evidence that Iran was working on or even wanted nuclear weapons. That US effort to choke off any nuclear assistance to Iran thus represented an extremely serious violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which guaranteed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology.

Not surprisingly Iran responded to that US denial of its nuclear rights by defying US wishes and acquiring the technology to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel itself on the black market and later through negotiations with China and Russia. US aggressiveness toward Iran’s nuclear programme had backfired. 

But instead of recognising that it had made a serious error, Washington compounded the original policy blunder by treating the Iranian response as prima facie evidence of nuclear weapons intent. In 1995 Secretary of State Warren Christopher, in the course of explaining an order by President Bill Clinton banning all US trade and investment in Iran, accused Iran of having an “organised structure dedicated to acquiring and developing nuclear weapons.” That was an obvious reference to the Iranian efforts to acquire centrifuge and other enrichment technology. The Clinton administration thus acted as though there was no relationship between Iran’s interest in obtaining gas centrifuge technology and the US denial policy that preceded it.

Porter goes on to list several obvious and egregious U.S. intelligence blunders. But the principal argument for the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program is the Grand Ayatollah's fatwa:

The belief of Western governments that Iran must have pursued nuclear weapons has been based on their ignorance of a pivotal historical episode that should have caused them to question that belief. During the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, Saddam’s troops attacked Iran with chemical weapons many times, killing 20,000 Iranians and severely injuring 100,000. Yet Iran never retaliated with its own chemical weapons, as Joost Hiltermann’s A Poisonous Affair, the authoritative source on chemical attacks in that war, has documented.

That fact poses a fundamental challenge to the Western narrative on the Iran nuclear issue, because there is no credible explanation for the Iranian failure to retaliate with chemical weapons other than the fact that supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had forbidden the possession and use of all weapons of mass destruction as illicit in Islam. The Revolutionary Guards acted on their own to acquire the capability to produce mustard gas weapons, as the wartime Iranian Minister for military procurement has confirmed in a recent interview. But his account of his meetings with supreme leader Ayatollah Khomeini also confirms that Khomeini pronounced a fatwa against such weapons early in the war and repeated it in 1987.

The implications of that historical episode for an understanding of the politics of WMD policy in Iran are obviously far-reaching. It lends strong credibility to the Iranian claim that the current supreme leader’s fatwa against nuclear weapons is an absolute bar to Iran possessing such weapons. But the news media has continued to dismiss the problem by clinging to an old narrative, which was based on false information that Iran not only had possessed chemical weapons but also had used them.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has landed some unwelcome attention over its flogging of a blogger, Raif Badawi. The UN high commissioner for human rights, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid al-Hussein of Jordan, yesterday called for a halt. Nicholas Kristof devoted a column, "An Islamic Reformer, Lashed," to it the other day, placing Badawi's flogging in the proper context of KSA's support for Islamic fundamentalism, the Charlie Hebdo massacre and Free Speech. It is hard for the United States to make a stink over human rights and press freedom in nations it regards as adversaries (Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela et al.) when a principal ally, if not the principal ally, is caning a blogger 50 lashes every Friday until 1000 lashes have been meted out (19 more Fridays, the end of May).

Fariborz Saremi has a piece, "Iran’s Changing Role," about the Islamic Republic's improved status among Gulf Cooperation Council member states relative to KSA and Bahrain:

Political and economic relations between the smaller Gulf states and Iran are rather diverse: Kuwait and Iran, for example have had positive relations since 1991 and are currently expanding their economic ties. Oman and Qatar have a long history of fairly good relations towards Iran. While the UAE has had a troublesome relation with Iran in the past, in particular due to the three island dispute, their relationship is currently improving. All this indicates that Saudi Arabia might not be able to hold its own house together when it comes to confrontation with a regional power like Iran. Many GCC states welcomed the election of President Rouhani but remain skeptical about the depth of change in Tehran especially the overall influence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Before signing off, let's quote at length from Carl Zimmer's "Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study Says" about a big, new study published yesterday in Science, "Marine defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean":

There are clear signs already that humans are harming the oceans to a remarkable degree, the scientists found. Some ocean species are certainly overharvested, but even greater damage results from large-scale habitat loss, which is likely to accelerate as technology advances the human footprint, the scientists reported.

Coral reefs, for example, have declined by 40 percent worldwide, partly as a result of climate-change-driven warming.

Some fish are migrating to cooler waters already. Black sea bass, once most common off the coast of Virginia, have moved up to New Jersey. Less fortunate species may not be able to find new ranges. At the same time, carbon emissions are altering the chemistry of seawater, making it more acidic.

“If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy,” Dr. Pinsky said. “In effect, that’s what we’re doing to the oceans.”

Fragile ecosystems like mangroves are being replaced by fish farms, which are projected to provide most of the fish we consume within 20 years. Bottom trawlers scraping large nets across the sea floor have already affected 20 million square miles of ocean, turning parts of the continental shelf to rubble. Whales may no longer be widely hunted, the analysis noted, but they are now colliding more often as the number of container ships rises.

Mining operations, too, are poised to transform the ocean. Contracts for seabed mining now cover 460,000 square miles underwater, the researchers found, up from zero in 2000. Seabed mining has the potential to tear up unique ecosystems and introduce pollution into the deep sea.

The oceans are so vast that their ecosystems may seem impervious to change. But Dr. McClenachan warned that the fossil record shows that global disasters have wrecked the seas before. “Marine species are not immune to extinction on a large scale,” she said.

Until now, the seas largely have been spared the carnage visited on terrestrial species, the new analysis also found.

The fossil record indicates that a number of large animal species became extinct as humans arrived on continents and islands. For example, the moa, a giant bird that once lived on New Zealand, was wiped out by arriving Polynesians in the 1300s, probably within a century.

But it was only after 1800, with the Industrial Revolution, that extinctions on land really accelerated.

Humans began to alter the habitat that wildlife depended on, wiping out forests for timber, plowing under prairie for farmland, and laying down roads and railroads across continents.

Species began going extinct at a much faster pace. Over the past five centuries, researchers have recorded 514 animal extinctions on land. But the authors of the new study found that documented extinctions are far rarer in the ocean.

Before 1500, a few species of seabirds are known to have vanished. Since then, scientists have documented only 15 ocean extinctions, including animals such as the Caribbean monk seal and the Steller’s sea cow.

While these figures are likely underestimates, Dr. McCauley said that the difference was nonetheless revealing.

“Fundamentally, we’re a terrestrial predator,” he said. “It’s hard for an ape to drive something in the ocean extinct.”

"Corruption is the Biggest Single Problem"

For a long time I have wanted to comment on the corruption in U.S. society. Every time you turn the page of the newspaper there seems to be a new -- big -- story about corruption. Yesterday, for instance, was a solid expose by Frances Robles ("Ecuador Family Wins Favors After Donations to Democrats") about how, at the behest of venal Senator Bob Menendez (Dem-NJ), the State Department under Hillary Clinton lifted a travel ban on one of the Isaías clan.

The Isaíases, led by brothers Roberto and William, are fugitives wanted by Ecuador for fleecing a bank there. Thanks to a lot of money donated to Obama's campaign coffers, USG has refused to extradite the pair, claiming, absurdly, a poorly written extradition request.

The Robles piece is a wonderful bit of reporting, a compact presentation of how corrupted our "pay-to-play" government actually is. You think Obama and Clinton are champions of clean, efficient government? Think again:

MIAMI — The Obama administration overturned a ban preventing a wealthy, politically connected Ecuadorean woman from entering the United States after her family gave tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic campaigns, according to finance records and government officials. 

The woman, Estefanía Isaías, had been barred from coming to the United States after being caught fraudulently obtaining visas for her maids. But the ban was lifted at the request of the State Department under former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton so that Ms. Isaías could work for an Obama fund-raiser with close ties to the administration. 

It was one of several favorable decisions the Obama administration made in recent years involving the Isaías family, which the government of Ecuador accuses of buying protection from Washington and living comfortably in Miami off the profits of a looted bank in Ecuador. 

The family, which has been investigated by federal law enforcement agencies on suspicion of money laundering and immigration fraud, has made hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to American political campaigns in recent years. During that time, it has repeatedly received favorable treatment from the highest levels of the American government, including from New Jersey’s senior senator and the State Department.

The Obama administration has allowed the family’s patriarchs, Roberto and William Isaías, to remain in the United States, refusing to extradite them to Ecuador. The two brothers were sentenced in absentia in 2012 to eight years in prison, accused of running their bank into the ground and then presenting false balance sheets to profit from bailout funds. In a highly politicized case, Ecuador says the fraud cost the country $400 million. 

The family’s affairs have rankled Ecuador and strained relations with the United States at a time when the two nations are also at odds over another international fugitive: Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, who has taken refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy in London.

 New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez played a crucial role in lobbying for the Isaías daughter:

For more than a year, Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, and his staff engaged in a relentless effort to help Ms. Isaías, urging senior government officials, including Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, to waive the ban. The senator’s assistance came even though Ms. Isaías’s family, a major donor to him and other American politicians, does not live in his state. 

The Obama administration then reversed its decision and gave Ms. Isaías the waiver she needed to come to the United States — just as tens of thousands of dollars in donations from the family poured into Mr. Obama’s campaign coffers.

An email from Mr. Menendez’s office sharing the good news was dated May 15, 2012, one day after, campaign finance records show, Ms. Isaías’s mother gave $40,000 to the Obama Victory Fund, which provided donations to the president and other Democrats. 

“In my old profession as a prosecutor, timelines mean a lot,” said Ken Boehm, a former Pennsylvania prosecutor who is chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog. “When a donation happens and then something else happens, like the favor, as long as they are very, very close, that really paints a story.” 

In 2012, the Isaías family donated about $100,000 to the Obama Victory Fund. Campaign finance records show that their most generous donations came just before a request to the administration.

Ms. Isaías’s mother, María Mercedes, had recently donated $30,000 to the Senate campaign committee that Mr. Menendez led when she turned to him for help in her daughter’s case. At least two members of Mr. Menendez’s staff worked with Ms. Isaías and her father, as well as lawyers and other congressional offices, to argue that she had been unfairly denied entry into the United States. 

Over the course of the next year, as various members of the Isaías family donated to Mr. Menendez’s re-election campaign, the senator and his staff repeatedly made calls, sent emails and wrote letters about Ms. Isaías’s case to Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mills, the consulate in Ecuador, and the departments of State and Homeland Security.

After months of resistance from State Department offices in Ecuador and Washington, the senator lobbied Ms. Mills himself, and the ban against Ms. Isaías was eventually overturned. 

Mr. Menendez’s office acknowledged going to bat for Ms. Isaías, but insisted that the advocacy was not motivated by money. [!]

“Our office handled this case no differently than we have thousands of other immigration-related requests over the years, and to suggest that somehow the senator’s longstanding and principled beliefs on immigration have been compromised is just plain absurd,” said Patricia Enright, the senator’s spokeswoman. 

Ms. Enright said Mr. Menendez’s office worked on the case because Ms. Isaías had previously been allowed to travel to the United States six times despite the ban, and the decision to suddenly enforce it seemed arbitrary and wrong. She said the senator routinely acted on cases he got from across the nation.

Mr. Menendez is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for his advocacy on behalf of another out-of-state campaign donor, Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, who ran afoul of federal health officials for unorthodox Medicare billing.

I cite at length Robles' well-written and well-sourced story because it is interesting to note that in the aftermath of Obama's announcement that the U.S. will normalize, after more than 50 years, relations with Cuba the go-to crtitical quote from a Democrat is from Bob Menendez, and nowhere is Menendez described as being under investigation for corruption. Take this Peter Sullivan story for The Hill, "Senate Dem: Cuba trade rewards 'brutal behavior'":

Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is slamming President Obama over the deal to release an American held in Cuba.

“President Obama's actions have vindicated the brutal behavior of the Cuban government," Menendez, known for his tough stance on Cuba, said in a statement.

"There is no equivalence between an international aid worker and convicted spies who were found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage against our nation." 

American aid worker Alan Gross, who was held in Cuba for five years for trying to set up Internet for a small Jewish community, was released on Wednesday as the U.S. released three Cuban agents convicted of spying.

Menendez said the move "sets an extremely dangerous precedent." 

"It invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use Americans serving overseas as bargaining chips. I fear that today’s actions will put at risk the thousands of Americans that work overseas to support civil society, advocate for access to information, provide humanitarian services, and promote democratic reforms." 

Obama's move to begin normalizing relations with Cuba is reverberating across the political world, with members of both parties blasting the decision. 

Asked about Menendez's statement, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said that although the administration "obviously have tremendous respect" for the senator, they rejected his characterization of the deal. 

"We fundamentally disagree, and there's no soft-pedaling that," Earnest said. 

Earnest insisted Menendez was wrong to describe the release of the three Cuban spies as a swap for Gross. Earnest argued that Gross was freed humanitarian grounds, while the spies were freed in exchange for a U.S. intelligence asset who had been jailed in Cuba for nearly 20 years. 

"There was no concession. Mr. Gross was released on humanitarian grounds."

It is a bizarre world we live in when the White House spokesman is instructed to kiss the ring of a politician broadly acknowledged (the front page of the Gray Lady) to be venal, and it passes without comment. To me, this is proof that corruption is accepted as a normal and natural part of the functioning of the state. We are in a digital age of Robber Barons. We have plenty of muckrakers but no legislative apparatus to translate the investigative journalism into social change. It is what Nader said motivated him to run for president. Every day a new bombshell story would hit the front page detailing one element or another of corporate or state corruption and nothing was ever done about it.

Last Friday Naked Capitalism posted a short piece by Joe Firestone, "The Lawless Society." In introducing it, Yves Smith quotes from her Skunk Party Manifesto:

Corruption is the biggest single problem. Until we tackle that, frontally, it will be impossible to get any good solutions or even viable interim measures to the long and growing list of problems we face. Conduct that would have been seen as reprehensible 40 years ago, like foreclosing on people who were current on their mortgages, or selling drugs even when the company knows they increase heart heart attack and stroke risk enough to be fatal for a meaningful percentage of patients, barely stirs a raised eyebrow today.

I agree. We need a political rebirth, the formation of a new party. We all need to read Plato's The Republic and Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals. There is a Good that cannot be bought and sold. There is something higher and more noble than power and money. The people in power have lost all understanding of this.

Oil-Price Drop Russian Currency Collapse: The Lunacy of the Washington-Riyadh Axis

A top story today is the collapse of Russia's currency. Yesterday, despite the central bank raising interest rates to 17%, the ruble reached the depths of 80 to the dollar before climbing back to 68. The ruble has lost half its value since the beginning of the year. 

What's the cause of this panic? The oil-price drop engineered by the Saudis. Saudi Arabia has refused to cut production despite demands from others in OPEC. Mike Whitney has a helpful primer on the issue, "The Oil Coup: US-Saudi Subterfuge Send Stocks and Credit Reeling," which appeared yesterday on the Counterpunch web site:

Here’s what’s happening: Washington has persuaded the Saudis to flood the market with oil to push down prices, decimate Russia’s economy, and reduce Moscow’s resistance to further NATO encirclement and the spreading of US military bases across Central Asia. The US-Saudi scheme has slashed oil prices by nearly a half since they hit their peak in June. The sharp decline in prices has burst the bubble in high-yield debt which has increased the turbulence in the credit markets while pushing global equities into a tailspin. Even so, the roiled markets and spreading contagion have not deterred Washington from pursuing its reckless plan, a plan which uses Riyadh’s stooge-regime to prosecute Washington’s global resource war. Here’s a brief summary from an article by F. William Engdahl titled “The Secret Stupid Saudi-US Deal on Syria”:

The details are emerging of a new secret and quite stupid Saudi-US deal on Syria and the so-called IS. It involves oil and gas control of the entire region and the weakening of Russia and Iran by Saudi Arabian flooding the world market with cheap oil. Details were concluded in the September meeting by US Secretary of State John Kerry and the Saudi King . . . 

. . . [T]he kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has been flooding the market with deep discounted oil, triggering a price war within OPEC… The Saudis are targeting sales to Asia for the discounts and in particular, its major Asian customer, China where it is reportedly offering its crude for a mere $50 to $60 a barrel rather than the earlier price of around $100. That Saudi financial discounting operation in turn is by all appearance being coordinated with a US Treasury financial warfare operation, via its Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, in cooperation with a handful of inside players on Wall Street who control oil derivatives trading. The result is a market panic that is gaining momentum daily. China is quite happy to buy the cheap oil, but her close allies, Russia and Iran, are being hit severely . . . 

According to Rashid Abanmy, President of the Riyadh-based Saudi Arabia Oil Policies and Strategic Expectations Center, the dramatic price collapse is being deliberately caused by the Saudis, OPEC’s largest producer. The public reason claimed is to gain new markets in a global market of weakening oil demand. The real reason, according to Abanmy, is to put pressure on Iran on her nuclear program, and on Russia to end her support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria….More than 50% of Russian state revenue comes from its export sales of oil and gas. The US-Saudi oil price manipulation is aimed at destabilizing several strong opponents of US globalist policies. Targets include Iran and Syria, both allies of Russia in opposing a US sole Superpower. The principal target, however, is Putin’s Russia, the single greatest threat today to that Superpower hegemony.

The danger of the the Washington-Riyadh oil-price-drop strategy to bring Russia to heel is that the panic will spread globally. The Dow has already dropped close to 1,0000 points in a week, while yesterday European markets were roiled. As Jack Ewing reports in "Anxiety Over European Banks Amid Ruble Crisis," companies perceived to have exposure to Russia took a hit. Ewing makes clear this is panic selling. European banks are much less exposed to Russia than, say, for instance, tiny Greece. Part of the problem is lack of information. When the European Central Bank ran its stress tests earlier this year it failed to include Russian loans because the ruble was perceived to be stable. Now -- after a year that saw a U.S.-backed coup in Kiev, the EU herded into a sanctions campaign against Russia following Crimea joining the Russian Federation, a civil war in Ukraine, and the recent oil-price drop -- things look very different.

Adding to the nervousness on Tuesday was the lack of precise, up-to-date information about which European banks might have large holdings of, say, Russian government debt. When the European Central Bank began its examination of the resilience of eurozone lenders at the beginning of the year, a ruble decline seemed like a remote possibility. Hardly anyone anticipated the steep fall in energy prices that would undercut the Russian economy. 

As a result, the European Central Bank did not include a ruble crisis among the hypothetical scenarios it used to test banks’ ability to withstand stress. Data released by the central bank in October following the bank review provide detailed information on individual banks’ exposure to the government debt of countries like Malta or Slovenia, but not Russia. 

The European Central Bank declined to comment on Tuesday, but a person with knowledge of its bank supervisory arm said that officials were closely monitoring banks that are exposed to the Russian economy or Russian debt.

In the vacuum of public data, investors ganged up on banks and other companies known to have large Russian holdings. The targets included Raiffeisen Bank International in Vienna and the Danish brewer Carlsberg. 

Shares of Carlsberg, whose Baltika brand is the biggest selling beer in Russia, fell 7.5 percent. A Carlsberg spokesman declined to comment, except to refer to an earnings report published last month that described the Russian market as “difficult.” Shares of Raiffeisen Bank, which earned more than 70 percent of its pretax profit from its Russian subsidiary in the first nine months of this year, fell more than 8 percent on Tuesday. 

“All financials with exposure to Russia are currently suffering,” Ingrid Krenn-Ditz, a Raiffeisen spokeswoman, said in an email. “In Russia we continue to pursue a policy of selective underwriting” with a focus on customers, she added.

The flames of panic are being fanned, and on top of this the U.S. Congress has weighed in with a new sanctions bill which also includes $350 million in direct military aid to the Kiev junta. Peter Baker writes ("Obama Signals Support for New U.S. Sanctions to Pressure Russian Economy") that the legislation empowers Obama to go after Gazprom (I wonder if this means that U.S. citizens can no longer purchase Gazprom stock); it also provides for tens of millions in "democracy promotion" in the former Soviet Union:

The legislation also authorizes the president — but does not require him — to impose sanctions on international companies that invest in certain types of unconventional Russian crude-oil energy projects and to further restrict the export of equipment for use in Russia’s energy sector. And it authorizes the president to bar investment or credit to Gazprom, the Russian state energy giant. 

In addition, the legislation authorizes the provision of lethal arms to the Ukraine government, including antitank weapons, tactical surveillance drones and counter-artillery radar. Mr. Obama has resisted sending weaponry to Kiev on the theory that it would only escalate the fighting in eastern Ukraine, so it is not clear whether he will follow through on the authorization. 

The measure went beyond only penalties to authorize $10 million in each of the next three fiscal years to counter Russian propaganda in the former Soviet Union and prioritize Russian-language broadcasting in Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia. And it authorized $20 million in each of the next three years to promote democracy, independent news media, uncensored Internet access and anticorruption efforts in Russia.

But under pressure from the Obama administration, lawmakers removed elements that would have tied the president’s hands, including a provision that would have barred lifting sanctions until Russia was not only out of Ukraine but Moldova and Georgia, too, where lingering conflicts are not likely to be resolved soon. 

“President Putin bears responsibility for any outcomes that flow from his actions and breach of the international order,” said Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who pushed for the sanctions along with the panel’s senior Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee. “The United States Congress stands with Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression,” Mr. Menendez said.

What we need are some of those millions of dollars to be spent here at home, starting with Menendez's New Jersey. If only we could have real democracy in New Jersey then the planet wouldn't be cursed with a blatantly corrupt, bought-and-paid-for neocon machine pol like Bob Menendez. The nation would also be spared the likes of dangerous Chris Christie.

And the reason I have hope is that we are on the cusp of a democratic awakening here in the United States. I am almost convinced that popular consciousness has been raised to a level sufficient to reject Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy. What this portends -- merely a GOP victory, another false Dem messiah (Elizabeth Warren?), or an actually split in the Democratic Party with the possibility for a third-party alternative movement -- is yet to be determined. Something is definitely happening here. The power elite are out of touch to such extent that they think they can jigger and job their way out of the mess that they have created and maintain their death grip on the control switch. The status quo is so bent and corrupted the people in charge will blow up the planet to maintain the power they have amassed

P5+1 Talks to Continue but Future Still Clouded by War

The charade has been played out. Though it was a foregone conclusion that the P5+1 talks on Iran's nuclear program would be extended again, the canard had to be maintained that negotiators were making a hard charge to finalize a comprehensive agreement by today's deadline. Now, thankfully, that is behind us.

Michael Gordon and David Sanger report this morning, "Negotiators Plan to Extend Talks on Iran’s Nuclear Program," that

Hours away from a Monday deadline for completing a new accord to curb Iran’s nuclear program, negotiators planned to extend negotiations and expected to reconvene next month, a Western diplomat said. 

A location for the December talks has yet to be chosen, but over the past month, Secretary of State John Kerry has met with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, in Muscat, Oman, and in Vienna. 

American officials and their negotiating partners have yet to explain if any substantial progress was made in the latest round of talks here and what gaps remain. President Obama had said in a television interview on Sunday that there were still “significant” differences between the two sides. 

It was also unclear how long the talks would be prolonged, as negotiators try to resolve crucial issues, including how much nuclear fuel Iran could produce, how long the accord would last and how intrusive inspections would be. 

“Given progress made this weekend, talks headed to likely extension with experts and negotiating teams reconvening in December at a yet to be determined location,” said a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions related to internal planning.

The reason why the P5+1 negotiations have to be maintained is the alternative is either more sanctions emanating from the U.S. Congress or an Israeli attack. As Sasan Fayamanesh noted in
"Is Israel Losing the Battle to Wage War on Iran? On the Long-Term Agreement Between Iran and the P5+1," which appeared on the Counterpunch online weekend edition, Israel has been trying mightily to derail the P5+1 process:

Failing to stop the JPA [last November's breakthrough Joint Plan of Action], Israel then tried to nullify it by passing a new and severe set of sanctions through the US Congress. The move was led by Kirk and Menendez, two senators who often appear on the list of the biggest recipients of campaign cash from pro-Israel public actions committees. The Kirk-Menendez bill, titled “Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act,” was introduced on December 19, 2013, with the sole purpose of ending the agreement between Iran and the P5+1. The bill gained momentum as various Israeli lobby groups, particularly AIPAC, exerted pressure in the Senate. On January 4, 2014, AIPAC had a summary of Kirk-Menendez bill on its website and was instructing its members to “act now.”

The number of senators signing the Kirk-Menendez bill rose from 33 in early January to 59 in mid-January, 2014. This was despite the fact that some officials in the Obama Administration, including Secretary Kerry, referred to the bill as an attempt to push the US into a war with Iran. This was also in spite of Obama’s threats to veto the bill. On January 28, 2014, in his State of the Union Address, Obama reiterated his stance on any congressional bill intended to impose a new set of sanctions on Iran and stated that “if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. ”

Israel, its lobby groups and its conduits in Congress, nevertheless, pushed for passing the resolution. However, they could not muster the strength to get the two-thirds majority in the Senate to make the bill veto-proof. They threw in the towel and AIPAC declared on February 6, 2014: “We agree with the Chairman [Menendez] that stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support . . . and that there should not be a vote at this time on the measure.” As many observed, this was the biggest loss for Israel, its lobby groups and its conduits in the US Congress, since Ronald Reagan agreed, contrary to Israel’s demand, to sell AWACS surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia. Subsequent attempts to nullify the JPA also failed. This included an attempt by some Senators, a few days before March 2014 AIPAC policy conference, to include elements of “Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act” in a veterans’ bill.

In the end, Israeli lobby groups had to settle for a few letters written by US law makers to President Obama, telling him what the final deal must look like. The AIPAC-approved letter in the House of Representative on March 3, 2014, was circulated by Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer. The Senate letter was posted on AIPAC website, dated March 18, 2014, and, as many Israeli affiliated news sources joyously reported, the letter gained 82 signatures. Finally, 23 Senators also signed the Cantor-Hoyer letter, as Senator Carl Levin’s website posted it on March 22, 2014. If some of the harsh measures proposed in these letters were to be adopted by the Obama Administrations, no final deal could be reached with Iran.

The JPA was supposed to lead to a final settlement in six months, and, consequently, there were many rounds of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 before the deadline. The final and the most intense negotiations that took place behind closed doors in July 2014 lasted for more than two weeks. However, in the end there were “significant gaps on some core issues,” as a statement by EU Representative Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif read on July 19, 2014. It was therefore decided to close the so-called gaps by November 24, 2014.

We are now approaching the 2nd deadline for reaching a long-term agreement between Iran and the P5+1. It is unclear whether the gaps can be bridged. It is also unclear how much of these gaps are due to the relentless Israeli pressure that is still being exerted even on the Obama Administration and its team of negotiators. We know that these negotiators, as they have readily admitted, consult Israel before and after every meeting with Iran. Indeed, even after the latest round of meetings between Iran and the US in Muscat, Oman, Kerry called Netanyahu to “update” him on the negotiations. Yet, we also know that Israel does not have the clout that it once had in the White House. The most influential Israeli lobbyists have left the Obama Administration and their policy of tough diplomacy is in tatters. Israel has also been unable to stop the short-term P5+1 agreement with Iran, it has failed to nullify the agreement after it passed, and it has not even been able to garner the two-thirds majority in the Senate to make veto-proof a Congressional bill designed to start a war with Iran. In other words, in the past two years Israel has been losing the battle to engage the US in another military adventure in the Middle East. But has Israel lost the war to wage war on Iran? The newly configured US Senate is already seeking a vote on another Israeli sponsored war bill called “Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act of 2014.”

As long as negotiations are underway Obama can easily veto any war bill coming out of the Republican-controlled Congress and expect that the veto will not be overridden. A veto becomes more difficult to maintain if the P5+1 process breaks down.

There is something unsavory about Kerry racing to the airport in Geneva to personally fellate the Saudi foreign minister. Gordon and Sanger reported yesterday, "Iran Nuclear Negotiators, Facing Key Differences, Weigh Extending Deadline" that

Mr. Kerry also rode to the airport here Sunday to talk with Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister. While Saudi Arabia is not involved in the talks, it has long been worried that an agreement might allow Iran to keep more of its nuclear infrastructure than Saudi Arabia is comfortable with. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, also flew here to join the talks.

The reality is that U.S. foreign policy is dominated by the Saudis and Israelis. This isn't to say that they get every single thing they want; rather, they wield enormous influence and, because of their pull with a pay-to-play Congress, can effectively block any administration initiative.

This is prominently displayed with regards to Syria. Obama cannot cut a deal with Assad to roll up the jihadis because Israel and the Gulf monarchies won't allow it.

So what you get is a dissociative identity disorder where the United States is at war with itself. One part of USG is at war with another. The covert campaign run by the CIA to oust Assad metastasizes into region-wide war that requires a Department of Defense intervention.

It is the Al Qaeda formula that goes back to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The U.S. and Israel support Al Qaeda in southern Syria, while the U.S. battles its epigones elsewhere. It is a formula for perpetual war.

As Obama green-lights a combat mission for U.S. forces in Afghanistan through the end of next year, reneging on his pledge to end fighting there by December, it should be apparent to even the laziest of observers that the U.S. is first and foremost a warfare state.

How to sell this to the voting public?

I don't think it can. That's why you will see continuing efforts to disenfranchise the poor while exacerbating the impact of dark money.

Eventually there is going to be some sort of reaction, whether in the form of a popular democratic uprising or a Thai military-type coup.

****

I'm out of town for the rest of the week; back Friday.

U.S. Prefers New Cold War and a Ukraine Modeled on Kosovo

Fighting continues in Slovyansk. Both the Associated Press and David Herszenhorn of the New York Times turn once again to putsch interior minister Arsen Avakov's Facebook page for the details. According to the AP account:

Ukrainian military operations that began Monday to expunge pro-Russia forces from the city of Slovyansk were the interim government’s most ambitious effort so far to quell weeks of unrest in Ukraine’s mainly Russian-speaking east. 4 government troops and 30 militants were killed in the gun battles, Ukraine’s interior minister said Tuesday. The pro-Russia militia said 10 people were killed, including civilians. There was no immediate way to reconcile the figures. Interior Minister Arsen Avakov gave the death toll on his Facebook page Tuesday, adding that 20 government troops were also injured during fighting in Slovyansk. He said about 800 pro-Russia forces in and around Slovyansk used large-caliber weapons and mortars on Monday. By Tuesday morning, Ukrainian forces had taken hold of a key checkpoint north of the city, dealing a blow to insurgent lines of communication.

Herszenhorn's story, "As Ukrainian Election Looms, Western Powers and Russia Campaign for Influence," outlines the West's attempt to push through the May 25 Ukrainian presidential election despite an active military campaign in the southeast:

Russia has made clear that it wants the election to be delayed. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov pressed the point again on Tuesday, insisting that the interim government end bloodshed and amend the Constitution to devolve power to the regions — and that it do so before Ukrainians are asked to choose a new leader. 

Such changes would presumably address the demands by some pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine for a new system that would weaken the central government and expand the authority of regional and local officials. 

“Holding elections in a situation where the armed forces are being used against part of the population is rather unusual,” Mr. Lavrov said at a news conference in Vienna, where about 30 foreign ministers met under the auspices of the Council of Europe to discuss the situation in Ukraine. 

“The criteria of any process involving citizen choice are well known to all,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to the Interfax news service. “Elections and referendums must be free and fair, and they must proceed in a situation excluding violence and under objective and unbiased international monitoring.” 

At the Vienna meeting, the British foreign secretary, William Hague, said that Russian worries about violence were disingenuous as the Kremlin had fed the conflict in Ukraine to undermine the presidential election. “Russia is clearly intent on preventing or disrupting those elections,” he told reporters, according to The Associated Press. He added that the foreign ministers at the meeting supported the vote being held without outside interference.

I suppose Hague doesn't consider the United States underwriting the Ukrainian presidential election to the tune of $11 million as "outside interference."

The U.S. is threatening Russia with another round of sanctions if it doesn't support the May 25 poll and if it does support the upcoming autonomy referendums in Donetsk and Lugansk. The noxious Victoria Nuland appeared yesterday before uber-corrupt Bob Menendez's Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Let's recall here what the United States and its EU toadies are trying to accomplish. You have a Kiev junta that came to power via a violent putsch led by neo-Nazi organizations. An interim government, the current junta, was hastily slapped together with input from the U.S. It is a combination of corrupt Fatherland Party politicians and neo-Nazis from Svoboda and Right Sector. The May 25 election is meant to confer legitimacy on the putschists.

The problem with this is Ukraine is historically divided between a Ukrainian-speaking west and a Russian-speaking east. The junta has no representation from the east. To deny this, to argue that an election can proceed while a western-dominated Kiev junta is attacking with heavy armor "Occupy"-type protests rocking the country's east is delusional.

My feeling is that the U.S. suffers from this delusion because for decades it has been able to rely on unchallenged force, usually air power, to terrorize its enemies into submission. The overarching precedent here seems to be Kosovo and the bombing of Belgrade. USG planners forever seem to be returning to that NATO campaign as a template for success. It was the model for Libya, and it was constantly being bandied about in the run up to the aborted attack on Damascus last summer.

But the reality of Kosovo is that it was not a success. The Chinese embassy in Belgrade was blown up, risking relations with China, and NATO Commander Wesley Clark almost began World War III when he ordered troops to attack Russian forces at the Pristina airport. And, after near cataclysm, at the end of the day, today, you have a tiny, criminal rump state that exists at all because of United Nations administration. Is this the future we want for a large, important state like Ukraine? Apparently the U.S. does.

But it is not clear that the important member states of the European Union do. The Kosovo template breaks down immediately when you try to apply it to Ukraine. First, and critically, Putin is no Milosevic, a politician that was easily cowed. Second, the citizens of the Donbass will never agree to be subjects of the Kiev junta. A real federalized system for the regions, along with Ukrainian neutrality, is the only way forward. The U.S. is unwilling to let this happen. It prefers a New Cold War and a dysfunctional Ukraine on the Kosovo model.

Cold War Renaissance

Administration officials said the internal debate was not whether to penalize Russia for its actions — there is broad consensus for that, one that hardens with each passing day — but when, and how hard. Beyond freezing assets of individuals, the administration could sanction banks and potentially cut the country off from the dollar economy.

Peter Baker                                                   

"Obama Team Debates How to Punish Russia"

The putschist prime minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk peddles ass today in D.C. In addition to an Oval Office ménage à quatre with Biden, Kerry and Obama (scheduled for 2:45 PM EST), "Yats" will indulge in an evening orgy on Capitol Hill hosted by New Jersey's finest "Rent-a-Senator," Bob Menendez. There is a competition underway in Congress between the House and the Senate to see who can bring back the Cold War back the quickest. Menendez, as Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, is backing legislation that, if passed, would guarantee future hostilities with Russia. He outlined his bill in a Washington Post opinion piece yesterday:

Our policies toward Russia require urgent reexamination. Congress has a particular role to play. Legislation I’m offering includes the following components: 

●It provides for loan guarantees for Ukraine, consistent with the $1 billion announced by the Obama administration in recent days and mirroring just-passed House legislation. 

●It directs the Obama administration to assist the Ukrainian government in identifying, securing and recovering assets linked to acts of corruption by former prime minister Viktor Yanu­kovych, members of his family or other former or current Ukrainian government officials. 

●It authorizes $50 million for democracy, governance and civil society assistance and $100 million for enhanced security cooperation for Ukraine and other states in Central and Eastern Europe. 

●It provides for additional sanctions, complementing the president’s executive order, against Ukrainians and Russians alike responsible for violence and serious human rights abuses against anti-government protesters and those responsible for undermining the peace, security, stability, sovereignty or territorial integrity of Ukraine. 

●It imposes sanctions on Russians complicit in or responsible for significant corruption in Ukraine.

●It includes needed reforms to the United States’ participation in the International Monetary Fund, which would allow Washington to leverage significant support from the IMF for Ukraine today and for similar crises in the future. 

Russian actions at home and abroad must be viewed in a broader context, not as isolated incidents but as connected events in a troubling pattern of behavior that cannot continue unchecked.

Arguing against this approach, which funds more skullduggery in the form of "democracy" and "civil society assistance,"  is the United States Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers. This is from the Peter Baker story at the top of the post:

But American businesses are warning against overreaction. Representatives of groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States-Russia Business Council have been holding meetings at the White House or in Congress to share their views. 

They are urging policy makers to be sure that any sanctions would actually have an impact on Russian behavior, that the costs not outweigh the benefits and that they be multilateral. “We are working closely with policy makers on both sides of the aisle to safeguard manufacturing employees and manufacturers’ investments around the world,” said Jay Timmons, president of the manufacturers association. 

Although the United States does only $40 billion in trade with Russia each year, American businesses argue that the amount understates the real economic ties. Ford, for instance, has two assembly plants in Russia that make cars with material that comes from Europe, so that would not be reflected in import-export figures. 

Boeing has sold or leased hundreds of planes in Russia and projects that the republics of the former Soviet Union will need an additional 1,170 planes worth nearly $140 billion over the next 20 years. Moreover, the company has a design center in Moscow, has just announced new manufacturing and training facilities in Russia and depends on Russia for 35 percent of its titanium.

The Deep State battle shaping up is between the hawks (the neocon national security state) versus the doves (in this case, American big business).

Then there is Europe. To my mind, though Germany, France and Britain are making the appropriate noises of fealty to the U.S. and the idea of economic warfare on Russia, I don't see how they can go along with the kind of Nouveau Cold War advocated by Menendez and the neocons. Europe's level of economic integration with Russia is too significant to hurtle thirty-years backward.

But in the end, I think that is the dynamic we are going to be dealing with -- the United States wants a return of the global polarity provided by the Cold War -- great powers locked in a long struggle marked not by World War III but covert warfare in the developing war -- a replay of Uncle Sam's salad days following World War II. I think this is what Obama's Asia pivot was designed to do to begin with. Some form of great power theater is demanded if only to obscure what has become obvious over the last year in Syria: our purported existential enemy, Al Qaeda, is actually an irregular force dispatched by Uncle Sam's partners in the Persian Gulf, the wealthy oil sheikhdoms. Like Hydra or A.I.M. in Marvel Comics, the Wahhabis provide a perpetual foil for our superheroes in the national security state. So the comic books keep coming . . . .

But the problem with the Nouveau Cold War is Europe. Europe cannot go along with this comic book. And in that there is hope; hope that after the vote in Crimea on Sunday and the U.S. responds by slapping economic sanctions on Russia, we will catch the first glimpse of a new multi-polar world, as Europe goes her own way.

The Neoconservative-Qaeda Connection

Yesterday I was too optimistic in my assessment that the United States would not stand by idly and let Iraq be fractured by a Saudi-backed Al Qaeda uprising; that the recent events in Anbar had sparked a push-back by Realists in the Obama administration, evidence of which could be found on the frontpage of the New York Times in the form of rare overt attacks on the credibility of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Today's frontpage offering, "Grim Sequel to Iraq’s War," by Peter Baker provides proof of Neoconservative support in Congress for Al Qaeda's ascension in Iraq. Senator Bob Menendez (Dem-NJ), an old-fashioned corrupt machine politician from Hudson County, has been blocking the sale of Apache helicopters to the al-Maliki government. And while today there is a story, "Senator Signals Support for Sending Helicopters to Iraq," that says that Menendez has been mollified and now supports shipping the Apaches, it reads more like a "rope-a-dope" to me:

Mr. Menendez received a three-page letter last week from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq responding to his concerns and received an urgent call from the State Department on Tuesday promising a further response. Although committee officials said the answers so far do not go much further than Mr. Maliki or the administration have in the past, Mr. Menendez was convinced that they are serious about dealing with the concerns given the latest strife in Anbar Province. 

“The administration is now addressing concerns first raised in July that required responses before this sale could proceed,” said Adam Sharon, the senator’s spokesman. “Provided these issues are sufficiently addressed, Chairman Menendez will be ready to move forward.”

The Obama administration has proposed selling 20 to 30 of the helicopters to the Iraqi government, but, because it could take years for them to be built, it has also asked to lease up to 10 aircraft in the interim. Administration officials said the Apaches could be useful in targeting fighters affiliated with Al Qaeda like those who have taken over parts of Fallujah and Ramadi in recent days. But even if Mr. Menendez dropped his objections, it could take until April to deliver them, and officials noted that pilots would still need to be trained.

It is fashionable in Congress to blame al-Maliki for the Qaeda florescence in Anbar. It is a mantra similar to the "blame al-Assad" mantra. One can't help but notice that there is not a "blame el-Sisi" mantra after every bombing in the Sinai.

The al-Maliki blame game goes something like this: al-Maliki was not inclusive enough of Sunnis; this led to an estrangement of the population in Anbar, which gave Al Qaeda its current foothold. So, see, it's al-Maliki's fault.

But that's just a thin cover story. What is really going on is that Congress is pay-to-play territory occupied by Israel and the House of Saud. Senator Menendez, as rotten as they come, is a reliable mouthpiece and water carrier for Israel, and apparently Israel doesn't want Iraq to have Apache attack helicopters and drones with the ability to fire missiles.

The game then is Realists vs. Neocons. The Realists are winning in Syria. Syria's joining the Chemical Weapons Convention was an enormous blow to the Saudi/Israeli/Neocon axis. (ISIS has been expelled from Aleppo in internal fighting between jihadi groups; jihadi groups are attacking Syrian chemical weapons sites.) So the Neocons shifted to Anbar and have planted their black flag there.

It is all amazing. Straight out of the pages of comic books and right off the silver screen. The United States' great allies -- Saudi Arabia and Israel -- with fulsome support from politicians here at home -- are actively supporting our latest existential foe, Al Qaeda.

Keep your eyes focused on Anbar. That's where the Great Game is being played out.