Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
We’re Winning in the Middle East
In Iran / Syria last week:
- President Trump withdrew from the Iran deal.
- Iran responded by firing missiles into Israel.
- Israel responded by destroying much of Iran’s military assets in Syria.
- Russia responded by announcing that on second thought they would not be sending arms to Iranian forces in Syria. That is, they were reducing their support for Iran in Syria.
- Saudi Arabia’s proxy Bahrain explicitly affirmed the rights of all states, including Israel, to defend themselves. A remarkable comment from a country that doesn’t recognize the state of Israel.
A few days earlier Bahrain and UAE were Tweeting their happiness to be in Jerusalem to participate in an international bike race. This is new.
With Hamas on Monday:
- Hamas sent tens of thousands to riot and attempt to breach the Israeli border, with the express stated goal of trying to kill Israeli civilians on the other side.
- Israel fought back.
- The United States government stood firmly with Israel.
- Much of Western media revealed their depravity, but no one who mattered was particularly moved.
- Egypt ordered Hamas to stop.
Hamas’ efforts can only succeed if they convince the Israeli left or the US to stop Israel from winning. That’s not happening.
We’re learning a few things about President Trump:
- He deals with the bosses, not their proxies. In this case, Russia, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
- His goal is we win, you lose. When you’re ready to sue for surrender, we can talk. We’ll even let you save face.
- He stands with his allies.
- He enjoys standing up to the “international community” and “the experts.”
- He apologizes to no one.
Those traits may be over the top when dealing with McCain and Morning Mika but they are mostly fantastic when dealing with Iran and Hamas.
Meanwhile the Saudi Arabian crown prince has been semi-publicly calling on the Palestinians to take whatever deal they’re offered.
The New York Times (a former newspaper) is calling on Palestinian Authority President Abbas to step down following nasty comments about Jews and the Holocaust.
The Times’ willingness to suddenly stop lying about Abbas should encourage us on other issues too. It’s like when they suddenly realized that Russia was flawed. One day maybe they’ll realize the same about Marxism. But I digress. The Times calling for Abbas to be replaced is further indication that a deal is being forged with some other “Palestinian leaders.”
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, and the United States seem to have mostly worked out the contours of a peace deal which they and some Palestinian leaders will sign. It won’t be a final status Messianic Utopian all-is-solved deal. But it will likely include an official end to hostilities between Israel and some of her Arab neighbors, even if not immediate full normalization. It will bring greater freedom and prosperity, though not much democracy, to Palestinians and other Arabs across the region. It’s apparently not many months away.
Of course it could still all go to hell. But right now it’s looking awfully promising.
Published in Foreign Policy
Erdogan is doing his best to screw things up:
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/05/15/561820/Turkey-OIC–Binali-Yildirim–Recep-Tayyip-Erdogan
Maybe it’s time to boot Turkey out of NATO . . .
A very encouraging post! (And I love Klavan’s “the New York Times, a former newspaper.”) Thank you.
That’s called a good start.
I really hope you are right. I guess it might make me feel even better about the situation if Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain and/or Jordan would come out a publicly decline Turkey’s invitation to this summit.
It’s not Stalinist, because Trump isn’t having them round up and shot. OTOH, it’s very refreshing to see the MSM commentators and RINOS called by names they’re used to calling others . . .
To be clear, you have no problem describing media personalities and US senators who are mean to the president as “Enemies of the State”?
The North Korean summit is not necessarily off. The NK bluster about routine, annual exercises is routine. Exercises every year, over the top bluster every year. Stay calm and summit on.
Hence, my use of the words “for now.”
Not to rehash this. Only to clarify. If you go back to my post and read it. I put McCain in the “obstical” category. Not the “enemy” catagory. Small but important point. Some will still be aghast. But, Jimmy crack corn.
So, McCain and Brzezinski are “obstacles of the Republic” whereas Iran and Hamas are “enemies of the Republic”?
If so, clarification accepted.
Mika most certainly is.
How quickly can we get Turkey kicked out of NATO? What would be the procedure?
en·e·myˈenəmē/noun
There are enemies that would like to burn down your house and shoot you when you come running out. This could be Kim or the mullah’ s .
Then there are those who wish your livelihood taken. To have you discredited and silenced if you don’t capitulate to their world view. To many victims of this to list.
Then there is the co-worker who works against your interests.
Conserning the Republic. Mika falls in the ruin you category. She thinks she does the Lords work.
IMHO.
None.
Well, at least that’s clear.
The way NATO was written there is not actually a procedure for the removal of a member.
https://ipolitics.ca/2016/03/16/what-would-it-take-to-kick-turkey-out-of-nato/
Hummmmmm, Do you consider Afghanistan the middle east? And not geographically (its not) but as part and parcel of that whole regions miasma and our place in it? I think, yes, it is……And, we (and Afghan. gov.) are getting our asses kicked into our hats.
The 4th estate is a 5th column…is that more…amenable to you?
That is an interesting take on Trump and a it’s a new one. I appreciate it.
So do you think that eventually the good news will break through the veil of the media or not? Or has it already?
Fair point. I don’t know enough about Afghanistan, perhaps we are losing there. But I think there is more reason for confidence now that Trump / Pompeo / Mattis are running things and not Obama / Bush / Hillary / Kerry / Rhodes / Rice / Power and the foreign policy establishment.
Thanks. I think it is breaking through. I think it will break through more and more. But hey, I’m an incurable optimist.
When the next Republican PotUS is elected, Trump will become “that good Republican,” meaning he can do no more harm. Or perhaps it will be after he dies. But for most of the media, it will never break through. Most real people see it, though.
As far as I know, it depends on how you define success. If success is merely keeping the Islamists out of power, we’re doing pretty well. If success means liberal democracy and rule of law, that probably won’t happen in our lifetimes.
It’s worthy of explanation. Calling people names is merely a war of words. Taking action (such as using the government to spy on candidates)? Well, that’s another thing. Trump has reasons for the name calling, and it’s refreshing to see the left get a taste of the receiving end of their usual vitrolic namecalling.
Thanks. Sounds like the rest of the Middle East (and North Korea). I think we’ll see more freedom, prosperity and peace. But one of the ways we’ll get this is that Trump is not pushing for democracy. On the contrary, he’s making deals with the dictators. Which is one reason I find it so jarring when some pundits (like the Commentary crowd) claim Trump is repeating Bush / neocon foreign policy. I give people the benefit of the doubt that they’re smart and insightful, until they prove me otherwise. Many of the insiders and cheerleaders of Bush & Obama foreign policies have been really scaring me that the people guiding US foreign policy for decades were frighteningly blind about it. Some people laugh at Ben Rhodes and the Obama people while celebrating the Bush people. And I’m sure these guys are smart and noble in other contexts. But goodness gracious, these people insist that Trump and Bush have the same MidEast policy when Bush’s was centered on liberating the people from their tyrants so peaceful democracies could emerge, while Trump’s is based on dealing with dictators.
I think you’re taking those commentators too literally. Maybe you’ve read some things I haven’t, but I think when Trump gets compared to Bush it’s only in the sense that he hasn’t been the isolationist he ran as.
Fair. I don’t usually get much past their Tweets & headlines like “Trump and America’s Centripetal Foreign Policy: A return to the familiar.” I’m interpreting these as Trump and Bush’s foreign policies aren’t all that different. But fair, their central point is that he isn’t an isolationist. But he didn’t run as one. He said he’d hire the best generals and crush ISIS. He promised a muscular foreign policy that achieved US interests at minimal cost to the US. And that’s what he’s doing.