Friday, April 8, 2022

Daily Mail EXCLUSIVE: Whistleblower who handed Hunter's abandoned laptop to congressmen and DailyMail.com reveals he has 450 gigabytes of DELETED material including 80,000 images and videos - and has fled to Switzerland fearing retaliation from White House - Josh Boswell

 

by Josh Boswell

Hat tip: Dr. Jean-Charles Bensoussan 

For the past two weeks, Maxey has been in hiding in Zurich, Switzerland, working with IT experts to dig out more data from the 'laptop from hell'

  • Whistleblower Jack Maxey gave DailyMail.com a copy of the hard drive from Hunter Biden's  abandoned laptop in the spring of 2021
  • DailyMail.com has published dozens of stories exposing Hunter's drug use, sex obsession and questionable business dealings 
  • For the past two weeks, Maxey has been in hiding in Zurich, Switzerland, working with IT experts to dig out more data from the 'laptop from hell' 
  • He says he intends to post them all online in a database in the coming weeks 
  • Maxey says he has found '450 gigabytes of erased material' including 80,000 images and videos and more than 120,000 archived emails 
  • The former podcast host says he fears retaliation from the Biden administration 
  • He says that after contacting DailyMail.com about the laptop last year, black suburban SUVs appeared outside his house

 

The source who distributed Hunter Biden's laptop to congressmen and media has fled the US to Switzerland, saying he fears retaliation from the Biden administration.

Jack Maxey gave DailyMail.com a copy of the hard drive from Hunter's abandoned laptop in the spring of 2021.

He also gave copies and material from it to the Washington Post, New York Times, and Senator Chuck Grassley in his role as ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee – but he claims they all sat on it for months.

For the past two weeks, Maxey has been in hiding in Zurich, working with IT experts to dig out more data from the 'laptop from hell'.

Maxey, a former co-host of ex-Donald Trump advisor Steve Bannon's podcast the War Room, claims he and his colleagues have found '450 gigabytes of deleted material' including 80,000 images and videos and more than 120,000 archived emails.

He said he intends to post them all online in a searchable database in the coming weeks.

Jack Maxey gave DailyMail.com a copy of the hard drive from Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop in the spring of 2021. For the past two weeks, Maxey has been in hiding in Zurich, working with IT experts to dig out more data from the 'laptop from hell'

Jack Maxey gave DailyMail.com a copy of the hard drive from Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop in the spring of 2021. For the past two weeks, Maxey has been in hiding in Zurich, working with IT experts to dig out more data from the 'laptop from hell'

Hunter's laptop is brimming with evidence of apparent criminal activity by him and his associates including drug trafficking and prostitution. This photo of him grabbing a unidentified woman's hair was recovered from his laptop

Hunter's laptop is brimming with evidence of apparent criminal activity by him and his associates including drug trafficking and prostitution. This photo of him grabbing a unidentified woman's hair was recovered from his laptop

Hunter abandoned his laptop at a Delaware computer store in 2019. The owner, John Mac Isaac, gave a copy to Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who passed it on to Maxey.

'I came here so that we could do a forensic examination of Hunter's laptop safely in a country that still respects human liberty and the ideals of liberal democratic principles,' he told DailyMail.com.

Hunter is seen in a photo with a crack pipe in his mouth as he sleeps. The photo was recovered from his laptop

Hunter is seen in a photo with a crack pipe in his mouth as he sleeps. The photo was recovered from his laptop 

'I do not believe this would have been possible inside the United States. We had numerous attempts on us from trying to do things like this there.'

Maxey said that after contacting DailyMail.com about the laptop last year, black suburban SUVs appeared outside his house, and former US intelligence officer friends he shared copies with told him they received strange calls.

'I showed this to a friend of mine in desperation in February [2021] because nobody would listen to me. No news organizations would take it. In fact, the very first major news organization to take it was the Daily Mail,' he said.

'Very dear friends of mine, the sharp tip of the spear, were making welfare calls to me every day, basically to see if I was still alive.'

Maxey claimed one former intelligence agency senior staffer told him soon after he received the hard drive in 2020: 'If you don't release enough of this, so that they know you can release all of it, I'm telling you brother, you're a dead man.'

Maxey took their advice in October 2020 and posted batches of emails and other files from the laptop on file sharing sites.

But after about an hour, the links were taken down.

Maxey said he believes the US government was hunting down files from the laptop posted online and flagged them to the companies.

'There were five drop boxes: two in the United States, one in New Zealand, two in the UK. All the same drop boxes in which they tell us child pornography is shared around the globe without any consequence because they can't look at it.

'These are all Five Eyes countries, English speaking countries in an intelligence sharing agreement. And they were all ripped down.

'​​So this means that our intelligence services, who still have not even acknowledged that they have Hunter Biden's laptop, were obviously diligently doing cache searches across the internet to find out if any of this stuff was being released.

'That should terrify every single decent person in the West.'

DailyMail.com has been unable to verify the claims.

 Emails between Hunter and Eric Schwerin, his business partner at consultancy Rosemont Seneca, show Schwerin was working on Joe's taxes. The emails were recovered from Hunter's laptop

Emails between Hunter and Eric Schwerin, his business partner at consultancy Rosemont Seneca, show Schwerin was working on Joe's taxes. The emails were recovered from Hunter's laptop

Maxey says he has found '450 gigabytes of erased material' including 80,000 images and videos and more than 120,000 archived emails

Maxey says he has found '450 gigabytes of erased material' including 80,000 images and videos and more than 120,000 archived emails

Maxey said one reason he chose Switzerland as a hideout was because the only file sharing site that did not take down the laptop files was Swiss Transfer, a file sharing service based in the historically politically neutral country.

The former Bannon podcast co-host said he is livid at the FBI, who he believes slow-walked their investigation into Hunter and failed to enter the laptop they received from Mac Isaac into evidence for months.

According to the New York Times, files from the laptop are now part of the evidence in Hunter's federal prosecution for alleged tax fraud, money laundering and illegal foreign lobbying.

Among the files on the laptop are a raft of emails and documents showing Hunter's dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian gas firm that became the center of Trump's first impeachment in December 2019.

The then-president was accused of pushing Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to announce investigations into the Bidens and Burisma for alleged corruption.

Maxey claims that had the FBI come forward in 2020 with the emails showing the details of Hunter's work for Burisma, Trump would have been vindicated.

'The FBI had this on the ninth of December 2019,' he said. 'I suppose the first person betrayed was a sitting US president in an impeachment hearing, when the FBI had the exculpatory evidence in their hands to have that end instantly, and they did nothing.

'The second group of people to be betrayed were all of the Democratic candidates in the spring primaries that year,' he added.

'The American people were utterly betrayed, because I guarantee you that Joe Biden couldn't run for dog catcher if the American people knew about this laptop.'

In emails from the hard drive Hunter and his business partners make apparent references to Joe's involvement in a multi-million-dollar deal with Chinese government-linked oil giant CEFC.

One infamous May 2017 email by Hunter's partner James Gilliar, he suggests 10% of the equity in the deal would go to 'the big guy' – a phrase consistently used throughout Hunter's communications to refer to his father.

Other emails show that Joe and Hunter shared a bank account and paid each other's bills.

Maxey also railed against the Senate Judiciary Committee and its GOP ranking member Chuck Grassley for failing to respond to his offer of the laptop last year.

'I have a lot of admiration for Chuck Grassley – or I did,' Maxey said.

'I wrote a very reasoned, rational, respectful letter to Chuck Grassley and delivered him a copy of the laptop that arrived on the eighth of July, I have the signed receipts.

'I never heard a word back from the Senate Judiciary Committee even once.'

Weeks before the New York Post first published material from the laptop in October 2020, Grassley co-wrote a report with Senator Ron Johnson publishing bank documents obtained by his committee evidencing millions of dollars sent by the Chinese to Hunter and his uncle, Joe's brother Jim Biden.

Grassley pointed to more documents showing the flow of funds from CEFC to Hunter and Jim in a speech to congress this week.

Maxey also gave a copy of the hard drive to the Washington Post in June 2021. The paper took nine months to authenticate it, publishing its first story announcing the validity of the laptop this week.

The paper hired experts using similar techniques to the top cyber forensics experts DailyMail.com used to validate the laptop last spring.

Maxey also gave hundreds of documents from the laptop to the New York Times, which finally admitted it was real in a story two weeks ago.

He claimed that even Fox News, which has covered stories arising from the laptop extensively, declined to take a full copy of the hard drive from him, receiving only batches of certain documents instead.

'If you have an honest press, who are willing to report the bad stories, and uncover the corruption, then we as voters are more informed about who we should have in elected office. And they failed us miserably,' Maxey said.

 One infamous May 2017 email by Hunter's partner James Gilliar, he suggests 10% of the equity in the deal would go to 'the big guy' – a phrase consistently used throughout Hunter's communications to refer to his father

 Extracts from one email published show how Hunter Biden was to be paid $850,000 in part of his arrangement  with a Chinese firm

In the prior months, both newspapers prominently reported claims the laptop was Russian disinformation.

More than 50 top former intelligence officials wrote an open letter casting doubt on the laptop's provenance in October 2020, claiming it 'has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.'

Signatories included former CIA directors or acting directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Gen. Michael Hayden, and former National Intelligence Director James Clapper.

'They essentially declared in their 'best opinion' – you notice how they always use weasel words – that this is a fabrication of elves in the basement of the Kremlin,' Maxey said.

'Still to this day, I can't understand how Panetta, Clapper, Haden and Brennan declared it to be a fabrication.'

Maxey believes the 'cover-up' of Hunter's laptop is a bipartisan problem and said he wants to see an entire new congress to investigate it in open hearings.

'We have an election coming up in the fall. And my prayer is that every member of the United States House and Senate who are running for office this year get replaced – Republicans and Democrats. We need to take back the country,' he said.

AUTHENTICATING THE LAPTOP

DailyMail.com commissioned cyber forensics experts at Maryman & Associates to examine the hard drive to determine its authenticity.

The firm's founder, Brad Maryman, was a 29-year veteran of the FBI, served as a Chief Information Security Officer and founded the bureau's cyber forensics unit. His partner, Dr. Joseph Greenfield, is an associate professor at the University of Southern California and helped write their degree program in intelligence and cyber operations. 

After an extensive analysis of the hard drive, Greenfield and Maryman produced a report for DailyMail.com detailing their findings.

Using the same forensic tools as federal and state law enforcement in criminal investigations, they found a total of 103,000 text messages, 154,000 emails and more than 2,000 photos.

- They found emails for multiple accounts on the laptop dating back to 2009, and other data which 'appears to be related to Mr. Biden' between 2016 and 2019.

 - The report's findings were consistent with the known timeline for the hard drive. A Wilmington, Delaware computer store work order with Hunter's signature shows he left his 2017 MacBook Pro laptop there on April 12, 2019.

- The Maryman & Associates report said the original 'Macintosh HD' drive was created on March 28, 2018

- Hunter's iCloud email address was added to the laptop's system on October 21 2018, as well as his work email at his firm Rosemont Seneca on February 2 2019. 

- The same day, a Gmail address he used to log onto sex cam sites, and another personal Gmail address belonging to Hunter, were also added. 

- Beau Biden's old Gmail account was added on February 7 2019.

- Emails addressed to Hunter's various email addresses dating from December 2009 to December 2020 were found on the system.

- An iPad with the name 'Hunter's iPad' and three email addresses associated with the Biden family was backed up on the laptop and on iCloud in January 2019 and again a month later.

- Greenfield found 818 call logs in this iPad backup with timestamps from June 2016 to February 2019. 

- There were 8,942 entries in the iPad's contacts book, created between April 2016 and January 2019.

- In February 2019 an iPhone XS was also synced with the laptop. Its serial number was consistent with the timestamps of the data on the phone. 

 In conclusion, 'The operating system timestamps appear to be authentic, and no evidence was found to suggest that the timestamps or data were altered or manufactured,' the report said. 'No indications were found that would suggest the data was manufactured.'

 

Josh Boswell

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10689445/Whistleblower-handed-Hunter-Bidens-laptop-congressmen-fled-Switzerland.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Robert Malley: Appeaser Extraordinaire - John Perazzo

 

by John Perazzo

The long disturbing record of Biden’s Special Envoy for Iran.

 


During his first few days as President, Joe Biden named Robert Malley as his U.S. Special Envoy for Iran. Malley has a long history of antipathy toward Israel, as well as a profoundly deep reserve of patience with Iran and other enemies of the Jewish state. Most notably, he helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 — known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — and he subsequently opposed the Trump Administration’s “maximum pressure” sanctions against Tehran. From the start of his tenure with the Biden Administration, Malley called for the U.S. to return to the JCPOA as swiftly as possible, and to fully dismantle the sanctions that Trump had reimposed on Iran.   

Talks between the Biden Administration and Iran began formally in Vienna in April 2021, but were paused shortly before Iran’s presidential elections in June. Then, in late November, Tehran dispatched to Vienna a new negotiating team whose diplomats made more demands and offered fewer concessions than had their predecessors. By December 3, the talks had stalled. Six days later, Malley, conveying the Biden Administration’s desperate desire to strike some sort of agreement, stated that U.S. negotiators would be willing to sit down with their Iranian counterparts “at any time and any place” – preferably “face-to-face.” America, said Malley, was “prepared to get back into the deal as soon as possible – as soon as Iran is.” “Then,” he added, “we would lift all of the sanctions that are inconsistent with the JCPOA.”

But as of today, no deal with Iran seems to be on the horizon. As recently as March 27, Malley admitted to having little faith that the JCPOA could be revived anytime soon. “I can't be confident it is imminent,” he lamented, noting how hard it is to bridge the gap.”

Americans can only hope and pray that Malley and his cohorts are not successful at reviving the JCPOA – or anything even remotely resembling it. Consider some of the highly troubling elements of the original agreement:

  • Iran was permitted to keep and operate more than 5,000 nuclear centrifuges, the machines necessary for enriching uranium to the degree necessary for the production of nuclear weapons.
  • Iran received $150 billion in revenue from sanctions relief, even though Obama-Biden acknowledged that Iran would likely use some portion of that money to fund its military and terrorist activities.
  • Iran was prohibited from purchasing weapons from other countries for five years, and from buying missile technology for eight years. But there were two enormously significant exceptions: Russia and China could continue to make weapons deals with Iran.
  • Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from its military installations.
  • Only inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites. Thus, there would be no American inspectors.
  • Sanctions were lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military, including a previously existing travel ban against Qasem Suleimani, leader of the terrorist Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  • Iran would not be required to renounce terrorism against the United States, as the Obama-Biden Administration deemed such an expectation “unrealistic.”
  • Iran would not be required to affirm its “clear and unambiguous … recognition of Israel’s right to exist” — a requirement that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had pleaded for.
  • Whatever restrictions were placed on Iran’s nuclear program, would expire — due to so-called “sunset clauses” — at various times over the ensuing 5 to 11 years.

In light of the fact that the man who helped negotiate the JCPOA monstrosity is today a key official in the Biden Administration, it is well worth exploring more deeply who this man actually is.

Malley was born in 1963 and lived in France from 1969-1980. His mother—a native New Yorker—worked for the United Nations delegation of the National Liberation Front, the leftist, anti-American political party that led the independence movement in Algeria in the 1950s and early ’60s. His father, the late Simon Malley, was a key figure in the Egyptian Communist Party. The elder Malley was bitterly anti-Israel; a confidante of PLO leader Yasser Arafat; an inveterate critic of “Western imperialism”; a supporter of various leftist revolutionary “liberation movements,” particularly the Palestinian cause; and a beneficiary of Soviet funding. He also published a radical magazine about Africa, titled Afrique-Asie, which supported a variety of leftist “liberation movements” as well as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Robert Malley earned a J.D. at Harvard Law School, which he attended at the same time as Barack Obama. Malley subsequently served as: a Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; a member of the U.S. National Security Council from 1994-96; National Security Advisor Sandy Berger’s executive assistant from 1996-98; and President Bill Clinton’s Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs from 1998-2001. In July 2000, Malley was a member of the U.S. peace team that participated in the Camp David Summit between Bill Clinton (who brokered the talks), Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. The talks ended without an agreement.

Malley has written numerous controversial articles—some of which were co-authored with Hussein Agha, a former advisor to Arafat—blaming Israel and exonerating Arafat for the failure at Camp David. For instance, in a July 2001 op-ed (titled “Fictions About the Failure at Camp David”) which was published in the The New York Times, Malley alleged that Israeli—not Palestinian—inflexibility had caused the previous year’s peace talks to fail.

Malley’s account of the Camp David negotiations is entirely inconsistent with the recollections of the key figures who participated in those talks, most notably then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, U.S. President Bill Clinton, and U.S. Ambassador Dennis Ross (Clinton’s Middle East envoy). According to Ross, the peace efforts failed for one reason only: because Arafat wanted them to fail. “[F]undamentally,” said Ross, “I do not believe he [Arafat] can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict. Arafat’s whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause … [F]or him to end the conflict is to end himself…. Barak was able to reposition Israel internationally. Israel was seen as having demonstrated unmistakably it wanted peace, and the reason it [peace] wasn’t … achievable was because Arafat wouldn’t accept.”

In 2007, Malley became a foreign policy advisor to Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama.

In January 2008, one U.S. security official, speaking on condition of anonymity, stated that Malley “has expressed sympathy to Hamas and Hezbollah and [has] offered accounts of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that don’t jibe with the facts.”

At that time, Malley was the Middle East and North Africa Program Director for the International Crisis Group (ICG), which has received extensive funding from the Open Society Foundations (whose founder, George Soros, has served on both the ICG Board and Executive Committee). Covering events from Iran to Morocco, Malley’s team of analysts focused most heavily on the Arab-Israeli conflict, the political and military developments in Iraq, and Islamist movements across the Middle East.

On May 9, 2008, the Barack Obama presidential campaign was forced to sever its ties with Malley after the latter told the Times of London that he had been in regular contact with the genocidal terrorist group Hamas as part of his work for ICG.

On November 5, 2008, Middle East Newsline reported that Obama had “sent senior foreign-policy advisor Robert Malley to Egypt and Syria over the last few weeks to outline the Democratic candidate’s policy on the Middle East.” The report added that Malley had “relayed a pledge from Obama that the United States would seek to enhance relations with Cairo as well as reconcile with Damascus.” “The tenor of the messages was that the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests,” said an aide to Malley.

At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 2010, Malley called for the U.S. “to unveil a set of parameters” that included the creation of a Palestinian state along the “1967 borders,” which would have been a suicidal move for Israel. He also advocated the deployment of third-party armed forces in Judea-Samaria, and the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in that region. And he said that Israel should relinquish control of the Golan Heights to Syria, on the premise that Syria was “unlikely to sponsor militant groups … [or] destabilize the region … once an agreement has been reached.”

After President Obama’s 2012 reelection, he appointed Malley to serve as his Senior Director for the Gulf Region and Syria. Obama pledged, however, that Malley would have no involvement in issues related to Israel and the Palestinians.

In February 2014, it was announced that Malley would become the next senior director of the National Security Council (NSC), where he would be in charge of managing relations between the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf. In March 2015, Obama appointed Malley to direct the NSC’s policy in relation to the entire Middle East, including Israel. In November 2015, Malley was named as President Obama’s senior advisor for America’s counter-ISIL campaign in Iraq and Syria.

After President Obama left office in 2017, Malley returned to the International Crisis Group, serving as its Vice President for Policy. He subsequently became the organization’s President and CEO, positions he held until January 2021.

According to a report in The Washington Examiner, Malley in July 2019 met secretly with Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif in an effort to: (a) undermine and sabotage the Trump Administration’s efforts to defuse tensions between the U.S. and Iran, and (b) lay the groundwork for a future relationship between Tehran and a Democratic American President. That Malley-Zarif meeting likely contributed to the failure, two months later, of a Trump attempt to open a back channel of communication with leading Iranian officials during the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York City. Says the Examiner:

“The attempt at counter-diplomacy offers a window into the deep relationships Mr. Zarif forged with influential U.S. liberals over the past decade. These relationships blossomed into what high-level national security and intelligence sources say allowed the Iranian regime to bypass Mr. Trump and work directly with Obama administration veterans that Tehran hoped would soon return to power in Washington.”

In January 2020, Malley condemned the Trump Administration’s targeted killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, who was actively planning additional attacks against U.S. interests in the Middle East. Malley claimed that the killing of Soleimani made it “more likely” that global tensions would eventually “drag the country into another Middle East war.” He was wrong.

In November 2020, Malley condemned the Trump Administration’s targeted killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a designated Iranian terrorist and a leading IRGC nuclear scientist, on grounds that his assassination would “make it all the more difficult for [President Trump’s] successor to resume diplomacy with Iran.”

Surely the Iranian government today is deliriously happy to be dealing, in its negotiations with the United States, with America’s appeaser extraordinaire, Robert Malley.

 

John Perazzo

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/robert-malley-appeaser-extraordinaire-john-perazzo/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

House Democrats raise alarm over Iran deal - Elad Benari

 

by Elad Benari

Rep. Elaine Luria: We can’t stay quiet about the deeply troubling turn that Iran talks have reportedly taken.

 

Nuclear talks in Vienna
Nuclear talks in Vienna                                                                            Handout, Reuters

House Democrats expressed concerns on Wednesday about the looming Iran nuclear deal, The Hill reports.

In a statement and a press conference, 18 lawmakers raised everything from concerns about the negotiations to outright opposition to reviving the deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was implemented in 2015.

“We understand that while the recent negotiations have not concluded, we feel that we can’t stay quiet about the unacceptable and deeply troubling turn that these results have reportedly taken,” Rep. Elaine Luria (D-VA) told reporters.

Rep. Grace Meng (D-NY), who opposed the deal in 2015, said she was again concerned by public information becoming available about the negotiations.

“Any new agreement with Iran must be based on the situation that is on the ground today, not the one from seven years ago,” Meng said. “This means an agreement that is comprehensive and addresses the full range of threats that Iran poses to the region including its nuclear program, ballistic missile program and its funding of terrorism.”

Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), said in a statement that he was concerned about the US lifting the foreign terrorist organization (FTO) designation against Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was placed on the list in 2019. He also raised concerns that the deal would allow Russia to continue doing energy business with Iran.

“Are we seriously going to let war criminal, Vladimir Putin, be the guarantor of the deal?” he said. “We must address the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, stand strong against terrorists, and protect American values and our allies.”

Some Democrats, such as Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN), said that they weren’t opposed to doing a deal, but opposed one that wouldn’t prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“I want to make something abundantly clear. I am not opposed to an agreement,” Phillips said. I am opposed to an agreement that does not absolutely, positively prevent Iran from either producing or obtaining nuclear weapon. I believe I speak for an overwhelming majority of the United States Congress to that end.”

Iran has gradually scaled back its compliance with the 2015 deal, in response to former US President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement in May of 2018, but has held several rounds of indirect talks with the US on a return to the agreement.

Negotiations nearly reached completion last month before Moscow demanded that its trade with Iran be exempted from Western sanctions over Ukraine, throwing the process into disarray.

On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he was "not optimistic" about the prospects to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.

“I would say simply that I’m not overly optimistic at the prospects of actually getting an agreement to conclusion, despite all the efforts we put into it and despite the fact that I believe … our security would be better off. We’re not there,” he told NBC News.

Lawmakers in Washington have several times expressed concerns about the pending Iran agreement.

Last month, a bipartisan group of 21 Members of Congress, led by Gottheimer, Luria and Tom Reed (NY-23), urged the Biden administration to address concerns surrounding the looming agreement with Iran.

The lawmakers noted that, with reports indicating that the Vienna negotiations are nearing conclusion, there are several critical concerning issues that remain on the table — including the potential lifting of the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and of sanctions placed on the Supreme Leader.

A month earlier, nearly 200 House Republicans wrote to Biden and warned that any nuclear deal made with Iran without Congress' approval "will meet the same fate" as the 2015 agreement.

 

Elad Benari

Source: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/325372

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

'When Will Biden See That His Mistakes Are Harming America's Interests?' - Khaled Abu Toameh

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

[T]here is no sane person in the region willing to take seriously any reassuring words issued by [US Special Envoy for Iran] Rob Malley and other officials in the US administration dealing with the Iranian portfolio.

  • "The UAE has allocated the bulk of the investments of its huge sovereign funds in the American markets, even excluding Asian and European markets, and has been keen to increase the volume of trade exchange with Washington. The UAE wanted to become America's No 1 trading partner." — Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, close associate of Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, United Arab Emirates, Mufakiru Al Emarat, March 29, 2022.

  • "This prompted the UAE and other countries not to rely on the US as a sole strategic partner. The UAE's relationship with the US partner is at stake.... the Biden administration... may be on the verge of losing a regional partner." — Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, Mufakiru Al Emarat, March 29, 2022

  • "He [Biden] has not learned the lessons from [former US President Barack] Obama's mistakes and disasters.... Biden is continuing to make more mistakes, particularly in his dealings with Russia and the Gulf countries." — Muhammed Al Mahmeed, Bahraini writer, Akhbar Al-Khaleej, April 3, 2022.

  • Veteran Lebanese journalist and political analyst Kheirallah Kheirallah said that there is no real difference between Biden and Obama. "Nothing has changed in Washington, from Barack Obama to Joe Biden. If anything has changed, it is for the worse." — Elaph, March 30, 2022.

  • "How can a US administration ... [refuse] to take note that northern Yemen has become an Iranian base for missiles and drones? These missiles and drones are.... now threatening navigation in the Red Sea as well." — Kheirallah Kheirallah, Elaph, March 30, 2022.

  • "[This US policy] has encouraged Iran to go far in threatening the countries of the region and their security with the help of the Revolutionary Guard Corps. To put it more clearly, there is no sane person in the region willing to take seriously any reassuring words issued by [US Special Envoy for Iran] Rob Malley and other officials in the US administration dealing with the Iranian portfolio. Every child knows that these American officials have nothing but appeasement for Iran...." — Kheirallah Kheirallah, Elaph, March 30, 2022.

  • "Worse than all of the above would be if Washington responds to the Iranian condition by removing the Revolutionary Guard Corps from the list of terrorist organizations, as it did with the terrorist Houthi militia." — Khorshid Delli, Kurdish researcher, Al-Ain, April 1, 2022.

  • "Biden's policy toward the Iranian nuclear is not acceptable to the allies in the Middle East and the Arab Gulf...." — Khorshid Delli, Al-Ain, April 1, 2022.

  • "We see what Iran's proxies are doing in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Kuwait." — Mashari Al-Thaydi, Saudi journalist Al-Ain, March 30, 2022.

  • Although many in the Arab world diplomatically refer to Biden's action as "mistakes," they appear to recognize that they are deliberate, and lacking in any consideration for the wellbeing of people who will have to continue living in the region -- which the Americans making these decisions for them will not.

  • The Biden administration's courtship of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, seems a replay of the same heartless, coldblooded lack of concern as the Americans showed for the people they were leaving behind when they pulled out of Afghanistan; and now, when the US is seen dragging its feet to avoid giving the Ukrainians enough weapons fast enough to defend themselves adequately from a Russian slaughtering army.

  • Many seem confused why the Biden administration would want this as their legacy.

The Biden administration's courtship of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, has many Arabs confused as to why the Biden administration would want this as their legacy. If the human rights record of Saudi Arabia seems a problem, Arabs ask themselves why the human rights record of Iran -- which has murdered so many Americans over the years -- from the Marine barracks bombing of 1983 to the attacks on 9/11 -- is considered any better. (Photo by Robert Giroux/Getty Images)

Many Arabs are continuing to express disappointment and frustration with the administration of US President Joe Biden, particularly its perceived appeasement of Iran's mullahs, failure to classify the Iran-backed Houthi militia as a terrorist organization and turning its back on America's erstwhile allies and friends in the Arab world.

These views, expressed in articles published in several media outlets, reflect the widespread concern among Arabs, especially those living in the Gulf states. Some of the Arab writers and political analysts behind these articles are close to the governments and leaders of the Arab countries. It is therefore safe to assume that these views also reflect the official positions of these leaders and governments.

One of the prominent writers, Emirati politician and academic Abdul Khaleq Abdullah, is closely associated with Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Abdullah revealed that since the Biden administration came to power one year ago, UAE-US relations have witnessed an "unprecedented deterioration."

"Misunderstanding [between the UAE and US] is at its highest, trust at its lowest, and mutual resentment has become public... A year ago, the partnership between the UAE and America was at the height of its strength, and they were on their way to a new level of deep strategic partnership, then suddenly an unexpected setback and divergence occurred."

Abdullah points out that the UAE has invested a great deal in its relations with Washington in the past 30 years. During that time, he added, the UAE was keen on strengthening the relationship, deepening trust, and consolidating mutual benefits.

"The UAE wanted to strengthen political understanding with the US through the Abraham Accords, and was planning to consolidate military and strategic cooperation through the F-35 deal... The UAE has allocated the bulk of the investments of its huge sovereign funds in the American markets, even excluding Asian and European markets, and has been keen to increase the volume of trade exchange with Washington. The UAE wanted to become America's No 1 trading partner."

The Emirati politician noted, however, that the Biden administration "did not behave well and did not appreciate what the UAE was doing." The Biden administration, Abdullah said, did not welcome the Abraham Accords "despite their historical importance and did not give them the attention they deserve."

He took the Biden administration to task for failing to embrace the UAE's political, humanitarian and military cooperation with the US during its withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Voicing deep disappointment with Washington's policies, he criticized the Biden administration for not supporting the UAE during the Houthi missile and drone attacks on the Gulf state, thereby confirming that the US is "an unreliable partner in times of crises."

"In light of these facts, the UAE has the right to feel doubly resentful of a volatile US partner whose commitments are not being respected... This prompted the UAE and other countries not to rely on the US as a sole strategic partner. The UAE's relationship with the US partner is at stake and it is facing difficulties it has not faced in 50 years, and it may be heading towards further divergence, rather than rapprochement. It is certain that the task of fixing the misunderstanding falls on the shoulders of the Biden administration, which may be on the verge of losing a regional partner."

Bahraini writer Muhammed Al Mahmeed wrote that President Biden continues to make mistakes and slips of the tongue," Mahmeed noted. "He has not learned the lessons from [former US President Barack] Obama's mistakes and disasters, but continues to do so. Biden is continuing to make more mistakes," particularly in his dealings with Russia and the Gulf countries.

"We are witnessing an absurd political behavior, which will only harm the interests of the US," he added.

Mahmeed too criticized the Biden administration for not supporting some Arab countries in the face of the Houthi attacks from Yemen.

"Biden's enthusiasm to support the efforts of some Arab countries to achieve security and stability has not been great... Instead, he is rushing to achieve reconciliation with Iran. When will President Biden realize that his continuous and mistakes and blunders will harm the American people?"

Veteran Lebanese journalist and political analyst Kheirallah Kheirallah wrote that there is no real difference between Biden and Obama.

"Nothing has changed in Washington, from Barack Obama to Joe Biden... If anything has changed, it is for the worse. The slogan raised in Washington is still that the Iranian nuclear issue reduces all crises in the Middle East and the Gulf, and that this file has nothing to do with the practices of the Islamic Republic in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen."

Echoing the widespread sentiments among Washington's Arab allies, Kheirallah asked:

"How can such an administration, which has abandoned its allies, including Saudi Arabia, succeed in responding to [Russian President] Vladimir Putin in Ukraine? How can a US administration gain the trust of its allies despite its refusal to take note that northern Yemen has become an Iranian base for missiles and drones? These missiles and drones are directed at the Arab Gulf states, and are now threatening navigation in the Red Sea as well. The Biden administration failed the Ukrainian exam. The tragedy is that it does not want to admit this and does not want to know why the allies do not trust it."

The Lebanese journalist described the Biden administration's policy in the Middle East and North Africa as "debilitated."

This US policy, he said, "has encouraged Iran to go far in threatening the countries of the region and their security with the help of the Revolutionary Guard Corps."

"To put it more clearly, there is no sane person in the region willing to take seriously any reassuring words issued by [US Special Envoy for Iran] Rob Malley and other officials in the US administration dealing with the Iranian portfolio. Every child knows that these American officials have nothing but appeasement for Iran, especially in light of the lukewarm American reaction to the recent attacks it carried out against Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates."

Kurdish researcher Khorshid Delli also expressed concern over the Biden administration's lenient approach and readiness to make concessions to Iran:

"Biden practiced a very flexible policy towards Iran and seems determined to make all the necessary concessions in order to reach a new nuclear agreement with it, reviving the nuclear agreement signed in 2015 during the Obama era... Biden did not take into account the concerns of allies who were apprehensive about Iran's role and regional agenda, especially its ballistic missile program, which poses a threat to America's historical allies, particularly Israel. Biden turned into a 'peace dove' at the expense of America's allies, without any consideration for their security concerns. He accepted most of the Iranian conditions, on top of which is the lifting of various financial sanctions, which would lead to Iran getting billions of dollars frozen in Western banks. Worse than all of the above would be if Washington responds to the Iranian condition by removing the Revolutionary Guard Corps from the list of terrorist organizations, as it did with the terrorist Houthi militia."

Delli pointed out that Biden's policy towards the Iranian nuclear issue is not acceptable to Washington's allies.

"Biden's policy toward the Iranian nuclear is not acceptable to the allies in the Middle East and the Arab Gulf, and the ongoing diplomatic moves by these [Arab] countries on how to deal with this issue is an expression of the implicit rejection of this policy," he said.

Egyptian columnist Mamoun Fandy wrote that the Arabs are already worried about the actions of Iran and its terrorist proxies in the region. The Arabs, he advised, should take matters into their own hands and not wait for the US to help them.

"There are two threats coming from Iran," Fandy said.

"A nuclear Iran and the intervention in the internal affairs of the Arab countries. I do not claim that our countries, some of which are important regional powers (Egypt and Saudi Arabia, for example) should quarrel with the US, but we must be aware of our destiny."

He noted that the recent summit in the Jordanian port of Aqaba, which brought together the leaders of Jordan, Egypt, Iraq and the UAE, is a good nucleus for a serious Arab dialogue on Iranian threats to Arab countries. (Asharq Al-Awsat, March 28, 2022)

Saudi journalist Mashari Al-Thaydi wrote that the recent meeting in the Negev Desert in Israel between the foreign ministers of Egypt, Israel, the UAE and Bahrain, in addition to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, came because the Arabs noticed that the Biden administration is at a loss regarding the Iranian role in the region.

"The Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and others, have repeatedly tried to enlighten Washington with the reality of the Iranian threat," Al-Thaydi wrote.

"The Negev Forum approved a plan for joint cooperation in confronting common dangers and threats, especially combating ballistic missiles and drones launched by Iran and its proxies at Arab countries. We see what Iran's proxies are doing in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Kuwait."

It is clear from these views that the Arabs are sending the following messages: First, that the US is losing its Arab allies and friends; second, that one year after Biden came to power, the Middle East is less secure and stable because of the threats and attacks by Iran and its proxies; third, that the Arabs feel betrayed and abandoned by the US, which has lost its credibility and prestige in the Middle East; fourth, that a new nuclear deal with Iran would pose a real threat not only to Arabs, but to Israel and the US as well.

Although many in the Arab world diplomatically refer to Biden's action as "mistakes," they appear to recognize that they are deliberate, and lacking in any consideration for the wellbeing of people who will have to continue living in the region -- which the Americans making these decisions for them will not.

The Biden administration's courtship of Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism, seems a replay of the same heartless, coldblooded lack of concern as the Americans showed for the people they were leaving behind when they pulled out of Afghanistan; and now, when the US is seen dragging its feet to avoid giving the Ukrainians enough weapons fast enough to defend themselves adequately from a Russian slaughtering army.

Many seem confused why the Biden administration would want this as their legacy.

If the human rights record of Saudi Arabia seems a problem, Arabs ask themselves why the human rights record of Iran -- which has murdered so many Americans over the years -- from the Marine barracks bombing of 1983 to the attacks on 9/11 -- is considered any better.

It remains to be seen whether the Biden administration will pay heed to these messages, or whether it will continue to march lock-step into the blood-covered arms of Iran's mullahs and their terrorist groups – Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It is time for the Biden administration to decide which side it is on -- the terrorists and their masters in Tehran, Moscow and Beijing, or Washington's traditional and trustworthy allies in the Arab world.

  • Follow Khaled Abu Toameh on Twitter

 

Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18402/arabs-biden-mistakes

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Zelensky Addresses UN Security Council - Joseph Klein

 

by Joseph Klein

Challenges UN to take action against Russian aggression.

 

United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres addressed the UN Security Council on April 5th to kick off the Security Council’s meeting on Ukraine. He took Russia to task for what he condemned as “the full-fledged invasion, on several fronts, of one Member State of the United Nations, Ukraine, by another, the Russian Federation – a Permanent Member of the Security Council – in violation of the United Nations Charter, and with several aims, including redrawing the internationally-recognized borders between the two countries.”

The Secretary General said that he would “never forget the horrifying images of civilians killed in Bucha.” Those images included scenes of civilian bodies, some with their hands bound, lying in the streets of Bucha. Russia’s military forces had occupied Bucha before withdrawing and leaving their killing field behind.

Secretary General Guterres then pulled his punches. He called for “an independent investigation to guarantee effective accountability” and left it at that.

Calling for an independent investigation is fine for the longer term. An impartial judicial body should determine, based on careful gathering and assessment of evidence, the legal responsibility of specific individuals who are accused of ordering and committing acts of carnage in Bucha and other parts of Ukraine. The International Criminal Court has already announced the launching of an investigation into charges of war crimes in Ukraine.

However, the Secretary General’s call for an independent investigation is not mutually exclusive with his calling out the Russian regime now for its egregious war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is not enough for Mr. Guterres to rely on the statement of his High Commissioner for Human Rights who has spoken of “possible war crimes.” (Emphasis added) It is the moral duty of the Secretary General, as the leader of the United Nations, to speak truth to power and denounce the Russian regime, ruled by its brutal autocrat, for systematically massacring innocent Ukrainian civilians.

Russia's military has engaged in indiscriminate bombardments and missile attacks on hospitals, residential buildings, and schools. Russia’s military has laid siege to Mariupol, cutting off the supply of food and vital medical supplies to civilians trapped in that city. Russian soldiers have stopped humanitarian shipments from reaching the people in dire need still in Mariupol and blocked civilians from escaping the devastation that the Russian regime has wrought.

As the expression goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Following the moving speech that Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered virtually to the Security Council, Ukraine’s delegation presented a video showing close-up images of dead civilians in Bucha and other Ukrainian cities.

President Zelenskyy told the Security Council that more than 300 Ukrainians were tortured and killed in Bucha alone. He recited Russia’s multiple war crimes. “They shot and killed women outside their houses,” President Zelenskyy said. “They killed entire families, adults and children, and they tried to burn the bodies.”

“The civilians were crushed by tanks while sitting in their cars in the middle of the road,” Ukraine’s president added in listing the charges of atrocities committed by Russia's military. “They cut off limbs, cut their throats, slashed their throats. Women were raped and killed in front of their children. Their tongues were pulled out only because the aggressor did not hear what they wanted to hear from them.”

The Russian regime has the blood of the murdered civilians in Bucha and of many other Ukrainians on its hands as a result of its unprovoked war of aggression.     

The attempt by Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia to place the blame on Ukraine for these killings and to accuse Ukraine of “criminally” staging the photographed bodies in Bucha is laughable. So is the Russian ambassador’s claim that not one civilian was killed by Russian forces during Russia’s occupation of Bucha. Ambassador Nebenzia’s assertion that Russia came into Ukraine “not to claim land but to bring peace to Donetsk and remove the Nazi tumor” is beneath contempt.

Ukraine’s UN ambassador threw Nebenzia’s lies back in his face and said that it was the Russian regime that has committed acts reminiscent of the Nazi era. Other members of the Security Council also pushed back at Russia’s actions and falsehoods. Nevertheless, it is time for the UN Secretary General himself to use his global platform to finally issue his own unambiguous condemnation of Russia’s war crimes, crimes against humanity, and its web of lies.

On April 4th, the day before the Security Council meeting, I asked Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary General, whether the Secretary General had any doubt that Russia is responsible for the atrocities committed while Russia occupied Bucha. Mr. Haq ducked the question.

“It's not a question of doubting one side or doubting what the visual evidence we have at hand is,” Mr. Haq replied, “but we do believe, as always, that these need to be thoroughly investigated. And we will make our evaluations based on the results of what those investigations entail.”

I then followed up with this question regarding how far the Secretary General is willing to go in condemning Russia:

“Why is he not prepared to go as far as many world leaders, including President Biden, and acknowledge the elephant in the room that Russia is, by all accounts, largely responsible for these atrocities in Ukraine, including the ones in the images we've seen in Bucha? Why can't he take that additional step as a moral conscience of the United Nations?”

Here was Mr. Haq’s response:

“Speaking as the moral conscience of the United Nations, the Secretary‑General has said some very strong things, including about Russia's actions, and I would just turn you over to look at what he said in the past weeks. They're very clear. They're very strong.

At the same time, like I said, we, as an organization, believe in waiting for the evidence to be thoroughly investigated, and we do that as a point of principle. It's not a question of doubting any side. It's that we need to make sure that the facts verify what the visual evidence seems to show.”

Later during the April 4th press briefing, Mr. Haq was asked to clarify whether or not Secretary General Guterres supported suspending Russia from its membership on the UN Human Rights Council as the U.S. delegation to the UN has suggested. After saying that this was a matter for the Member States to decide, Mr. Haq expressed the UN Secretariat’s concern about the “precedent” that would be set if such an action were taken.

After a UN correspondent pointed out that there was already such a precedent – Libya’s suspension from the Human Rights Council in 2011 – Mr. Haq replied, “I think you and I both know what the difference is.”

The difference is that the United Nations bureaucracy, right up to its highest level, is afraid to go too far in antagonizing Russia.

In any case, suspending Russia from the dysfunctional Human Rights Council, whose membership includes China, Cuba, Venezuela, and Sudan, would end up being a feel-good, symbolic gesture at best.

While Articles 5 and 6 of the UN Charter allow for the suspension and expulsion of a Member State from the UN in certain circumstances upon the recommendation of the Security Council, that is a non-starter in light of Russia’s veto power as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Ukraine’s president challenged the United Nations to live up to the principles of the UN Charter and take action against Russia's aggression or dissolve itself. “Where is the security that the Security Council needs to guarantee? It’s not there,” he said. “Where is the peace?”

President Zelenskyy called for fundamental reform of the UN’s global security system. Referring to Russia’s ability to block any binding action by the Security Council to address Russia’s aggression, he said that “The U.N. system must be reformed immediately so the veto isn’t the right to die. There can be no more exceptions or privileges.”

Will Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the free world heed this demand from the leader of a country under brutal attack by Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council? We will have to wait and see.

 

Joseph Klein

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/04/zelensky-addresses-un-security-council-joseph-klein/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Biden's Weakness on the Ukraine-Russia War is a Threat to America - Daniel Greenfield

 

by Daniel Greenfield

Biden calls for regime change and war crimes trials for Putin, and then slow walks shipments of weapons and refuses to transfer planes to Ukraine.

  • Afterward [after Putin invaded Crimea], Obama called Putin to warn him that Russia's actions were in "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and that "in coordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions."

  • Those "sanctions" consisted of buying twice as much Russian oil in Jan 2015 as in Feb 2014.

  • Biden, like his former boss, keeps insulting and threatening Putin not from a position of strength, but as an admission of weakness. Biden calls for regime change and war crimes trials for Putin, and then slow walks shipments of weapons and refuses to transfer planes to Ukraine.

  • Moscow isn't paying attention to what Washington D.C. says, but what it does. And the real message from Biden is that he's afraid of Putin, but looking to cover it up with tough talk.

  • Biden has once again wrecked America's credibility, making public commitments and private disavowals, putting our honor on the line for a war he has no intention of winning or even getting involved in. Putin understands that even a partial victory in Ukraine means not just a defeat for that country, but for the United States and Europe as paper tigers.

  • Biden has... no intention of properly arming... [Ukraine] to win on the battlefield.

  • What that really means is that Biden and his administration have set up America to lose.

  • The administration's fearful dithering gave Putin the impression that he could quickly take Ukraine and win. After giving Putin permission for a "minor incursion" as his version of Obama's red line, Biden was confronted with a full invasion and after a month still hasn't made it clear to either Russia or Ukraine, or any of our allies, what they can expect America to do about it.

  • Strong nations make it clear what they will and won't fight for. And they don't send mixed signals that only communicate weakness. Nor do they talk about how fearful they are of a fight.

  • [T]he best way to avoid foreign wars is.... as a choice made from a position of strength, not the catastrophic conclusion to a series of inept entanglements that alternately convince our enemies we won't fight and that they have nothing to worry about even if we do.

  • In Ukraine, Biden, like Obama, is hiding behind the Europeans, who are hiding behind us, for a global show of cowardice.

  • Vladimir Putin understands that wars are something you win, while the D.C. establishment doesn't fight wars, but commits American forces to implementing multilateral values.

  • That's why we never win. If you don't fight a war, how can you possibly win one?

  • Are we involved to keep energy and bread prices low, or to avoid a future war on worse terms?

After Putin invaded Crimea, Obama called Putin to warn him that Russia's actions were in "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and that "in coordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions." Those "sanctions" consisted of buying twice as much Russian oil in Jan 2015 as in Feb 2014. Pictured: Obama and Putin meeting at the UN headquarters in New York City on September 28, 2015. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Putin invaded Ukraine under Obama in February 2014 and Biden in February 2022.

The invasions, eight years apart to the month, are not a coincidence. Both times Vladimir Putin was facing a lame duck Democrat who had just flinched away from a military engagement.

Each time Putin smelled weakness and he struck.

Obama, after declaring a red line in Syria, had panicked and backed away in 2013. He then cheered on Ukrainian protests against a pro-Russian regime in Kiev and Moscow responded by calling his bluff and seizing Crimea. Afterward, Obama called Putin to warn him that Russia's actions were in "violation of Ukraine's sovereignty" and that "in coordination with our European partners, we are prepared to impose additional costs on Russia for its actions."

Those "sanctions" consisted of buying twice as much Russian oil in Jan 2015 as in Feb 2014.

The latest Russian invasion followed the Fall of Kabul and the pathetic spectacle of American forces abandoning their own citizens to Taliban terror which helped make Biden a lame duck.

Would we be watching a war in Ukraine if not for Biden's disgrace in Afghanistan?

Apart from the questions of what we should have done in Afghanistan or Syria is the issue of basic national credibility. Nations can do smart or stupid things abroad, but the one thing they can't afford is not to be taken seriously. When the president of the United States says something, the world should sit up and take notice, instead of yawn and change the channel.

Putin is, despite the claims from the administration and its media, a rational actor. Like every tyrant, he sees no value in rhetoric except as assertions of strength or admissions of weakness.

Biden, like his former boss, keeps insulting and threatening Putin not from a position of strength, but as an admission of weakness. Biden calls for regime change and war crimes trials for Putin, and then slow walks shipments of weapons and refuses to transfer planes to Ukraine.

The message is the same as when Obama condemned Putin's invasion of Crimea and then refused to provide meaningful armaments to Ukraine while slow walking shipments of boots.

Putin understands the message the same way a big dog understands when a little dog yaps.

Moscow isn't paying attention to what Washington D.C. says, but what it does. And the real message from Biden is that he's afraid of Putin, but looking to cover it up with tough talk.

Biden wants all the political benefits of siding with Ukraine, with none of the military risks. Like Obama, he's trying to prop up an international order centered around the United States while pretending that it can be done through diplomacy and sanctions without the use of force.

The real world doesn't work that way.

The false choice between globalism and isolationism is just that. Foreign policy is not an ideology, it's a balance. When nations embrace ideological foreign policies, they court disaster. Putin's disaster in Ukraine put ideology ahead of strategy, embracing wishful thinking that ignored the realities of the battlefield and the cost of war. That's something we know about.

But whatever damage Putin inflicts on Russia in Ukraine, Biden has inflicted more on us.

Beyond the economic pain, Biden has once again wrecked America's credibility, making public commitments and private disavowals, putting our honor on the line for a war he has no intention of winning or even getting involved in. Putin understands that even a partial victory in Ukraine means not just a defeat for that country, but for the United States and Europe as paper tigers.

And Moscow may be willing to sacrifice ten or twenty thousand men for that strategic objective.

Biden has put America in the terrible position of having committed to a war that only a third party can win. And he has no intention of properly arming that third party to win on the battlefield.

What that really means is that Biden and his administration have set up America to lose.

Like Obama, the Biden administration has dragged us through a series of international humiliations that appear calculated to weaken us as a world power and wipe out our credibility.

Biden has clumsily deployed sanctions and weapons shipments behind Putin's strategic schedule, playing catch up with the pace of events while letting Russia take the lead. That hasn't made the war any better or safer, instead it's become more agonizing for everyone.

If Russia is defeated after all, Biden will claim all the credit and deserve none of it.

The administration's fearful dithering gave Putin the impression that he could quickly take Ukraine and win. After giving Putin permission for a "minor incursion" as his version of Obama's red line, Biden was confronted with a full invasion and after a month still hasn't made it clear to either Russia or Ukraine, or any of our allies, what they can expect America to do about it.

These mixed signals convinced both sides that they can still win and have prolonged the war.

If Biden believes that it's in our national interest that Russia be defeated, then he should say it and act like it, instead of empty babble about who should run Moscow, something he has no say in, or even more hollow threats of war crimes trials. If he wants to arm Ukraine, then he should do it properly or stop altogether because a halfway approach will just kill more people.

Washington D.C. can reduce Ukraine, like Boko Haram and ISIS, to a hashtag war, but China and Iran are watching and drawing their lessons from what is happening. And if we treat Taiwan and the Middle East, our tech and energy regional lifelines, as disposable, there will come a war that we will have to fight. And heaven help us if we try to fight it with hashtags and sanctions.

Strong nations make it clear what they will and won't fight for. And they don't send mixed signals that only communicate weakness. Nor do they talk about how fearful they are of a fight.

That doesn't mean that foreign wars are a good idea or should be embraced as a policy.

But the best way to avoid foreign wars is by having meaningful red lines and doctrines that clearly lay out national interests, and by viewing war as a choice made from a position of strength, not the catastrophic conclusion to a series of inept entanglements that alternately convince our enemies we won't fight and that they have nothing to worry about even if we do.

Instead Biden has continued the failed policy of ambiguous global commitments under the guise of international law and the even more implausible values of the international community that have no clear red lines for engagement or disengagement. In Ukraine, Biden, like Obama, is hiding behind the Europeans, who are hiding behind us, for a global show of cowardice.

Vladimir Putin understands that wars are something you win, while the D.C. establishment doesn't fight wars, but commits American forces to implementing multilateral values.

That's why we never win. If you don't fight a war, how can you possibly win one?

Putin understands why he's in Ukraine. Do we? What are our national interests there or anywhere? How does our employment of military force make us safer, stronger, or wealthier? Are we involved to keep energy and bread prices low, or to avoid a future war on worse terms?

These are basic questions and the failure to answer them sets us up for defeat every time.

Two Democrat administrations have sent a message to our allies, enemies, and countries wondering which of these they might want to be that the American era has come to an end.

This article was first published by Frontpage Magazine

 

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18401/biden-weakness-ukraine-russia

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter