Iran

Trump’s giving the green light to Turkey to massacre our allies the Kurds is both evil and hurts our national security. ISIS may rise again because of this, and who will be our allies on the ground to help us beat them back? No one, because no one will trust us to have their back in the future. Retired Four-Star General and head of CentCom, Joseph Votel, and terrorism expert Elizabeth Dent wrote this about the danger of abandoning our partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces. consisting mainly of the Kurds.

Over four years, the SDF freed tens of thousands of square miles and millions of people from the grip of ISIS. Throughout the fight, it sustained nearly 11,000 casualties. By comparison, six U.S. service members, as well as two civilians, have been killed in the anti-ISIS campaign. Key to this effective relationship was mutual trust, constant communication, and clear expectations. The partnership was not without its difficulties. That included working through the December 2018 announcement of our sudden departure and our subsequent agreement with Turkey to pursue a security mechanism for the border areas. But each time, the strong mutual trust built on the ground between our military members and the SDF preserved our momentum. The sudden policy change this week breaks that trust at the most crucial juncture and leaves our partners with very limited options. . . .

NASA has proven that it is easier to find liquid water on Mars than to find a major Republican politician who will admit that the U.S. is at least partially to blame for Iran's hostility to the U.S.  It's easier to denounce Iranians when they scream "Death to America" than to acknowledge that they have some justification for their anger.  It's easier for us to threaten war with them than for us to leave our warm cocoon of self-righteousness and take a good hard look at our own behavior.  

We now face a new worst-case scenario if  Iran-hawks like Senator Tom Cotton manage to torpedo a nuclear deal with Iran.  Proponents of the deal have argued that the Framework agreement was better than expected and that we should be happy if the final deal closely mirrors it while filling in some gaps.  Iran gave up more than we expected it to and we are unlikely to get anything more.  The hawks have said that the Framework is not good enough.

Israel and the U.S. are at odds over two issues--how to deal with Iran's nuclear program and Israel's occupation of the West Bank.  Below are key events that every American should know in order to understand how we got here.  Of course, this list is incomplete--one could write a several hundred page book on these topics.  And Israel's defenders will no doubt come up with a list just as long defending Israel's actions and highlighting the evil deeds of Iranians and Palestinians.

Joshua Muravchik is a neoconservative fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University's School of Adanced International Studies. He recently wrote a Washington Post op-Ed advocating war with Iran. Usually neocons say something along the lines of

We can't have a deal with Iran! The deal that Obama is negotiating is a bad deal! (They say that, even BEFORE knowing the details of the deal.) Better no deal than a bad deal!

There is no doubt that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave a great campaign speech yesterday, and I'm sure he was very convincing to those who don't follow events in the Middle East and the nuclear talks closely.  But put aside his soaring rhetoric and perfect delivery and ask yourself one question: Is his approach a realistic way to deal with Iran's nuclear program, or is he just shooting at the best chance for a peaceful resolution with a Bibi gun?

Write something critical about Israel and you are almost guaranteed that an Israeli apologist will say, "Why are you attacking Israel when all the Arab/Muslim countries surrounding it are so much worse?" They are likely to follow up that since you are focusing your criticism on Israel--the only Jewish nation in the world instead of focusing on countries like Saudi Arabia or Iran or terrorist groups like Hamas or ISIS, you must be an anti-Semite. This attack is used so often because it is one of the most effective tools a hasbarist has to discredit Israel's critics.

The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act  was introduced in the Senate on December 20, 2013.  It gained steam rapidly and by January 14 the bill had 59 co-sponsors--43 Republicans and 16 Democrats.  Then something funny happened.  Outsiders actually read the bill and it became apparent that the bill was "designed to torpedo the Nov. 24 first step nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1".

The Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act  is to diplomacy what Sharknado is to meteorology or ichthyology.  Well, that's not a perfect analogy.  Both the NWFIA and Sharknado are jokes, but Sharknado was so bad it was good, whereas the NWFIA is just bad.  The NWFIA would institute a new round of crippling sanctions should we fail to reach an agreement with Iran or if Iran fails to negotiate in good faith.  This in and of itself sounds reasonable--at least to American ears, and it might not nec