All Change in the Middle East?

[Stavros]

The Middle East has not become an election issue in the US, and if it does, it is most likely to be the President crowing about his so-called achievements in the search for peace, and wondering aloud when he is going to get the Nobel Peace Prize, something he probably obsesses about because Obama got one, and he wants one too.

The recognitions by the UAE and Bahrain of Israel are not, in fact, part of a seismic shift in the region as far as relations with Israel go -both Bahrain (which has a long-established if small Jewish community and even a Synagogue, albeit non-functional)- and the UAE have had covert relations with Israel for years, so these acts of recognition merely formalize existing relations and do not therefore amount to anything more than a cosmetic excercise. Were there fraught negotiations in smoke-filled rooms that ran into the early hours or all night with tension and fears of collapse? No. Some billionares exchanged emails and slapped each on the other back for admitting in pubic what had previosly been sort-of secret.

In the short term, these acts are part of a 'Cold War' consolidation of the anti-Iran alliance that has been formed by Israel and Saudi Arabia. Bahrain has a long and difficult history with Iran because most of the population, but not the ruling famly, are Shi'a Muslims. The Briitish had more problems with Bahrain when it was one of the 'Trucial States' than any of the others that became indepedent in the 1970s -in 1956 Bahrainis demonstrated against the British attack on Egypt, and as a result firebrand Shi'a clerics who were held responsible were arrested and deported to the isand of St Helena. The anxiety in Bahrain has always been the fragile grip on power that the ruling al-Khalifa clan has, with the prospect that any form of 'democratic' rule would at least in theory favour Iran in terms of a balance of power in the Gulf, and given Qatar's trade relations with Iran, Saudi Arabia sees this area as 'sensitive' -with the additional fact that most of the Kingdom's Shi'a Muslims live in the North-East. At the moment, MbS cannot do much to change his country's relations with Israel as long as Salman is still aive, though recognizing Israel is the least of its problems (see below).

For Israel these measures are part of an historic rejection of regional peace treaties, Israel insisting, and so far getting, bi-lateral peace treaties with Egypt, the PLO and Jordan. From this perspective Israel needs these bi-lateral deals with the Arabs to weaken the Palestinians, but in this it has failed, as the core issues that concern the illegal siege of the Gaza District and the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory have not moved an inch. Moreover, 'Democatic' Israel not only appears to be endorsing dictatorship in the Middle East, neither the UAE nor Bahrain have actually got anything of note in exchange for recognizing Israel.

The US apppears to benefit, or does it? So far, in my estimation, not one single foreign or stategic policy decision of the US has been made that has a clear benefit to the USA -from its policies on Israel -moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing the illegal occupation by Israel of Syrian territory- to its abandonment of the Kurds- to its withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Accords and the Iran Nuclear Deal- and the withdrawal of the USA from the INF treaty and the Open Skies agreement -the US has demanded nothng in return for these moves, and received nothing.
This Repubican Government is a Something-for-Nothing Government, the USA is giving away its influence ad its Strategic Advantages for free, and returnng home with nothing other than a President and Under-President who think they have achieved what nobody else has.

Or it is a con trick: have these diplomatic acts been made to protect their family interests in Israel, given most of them, President and son-in-law and his other relations have financial investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories. Dare one suggest that this has always and only ever been about money? Their money?

So, no advance on Palestine. No advance on Syria and the Kurds, and no advance in the urgent need to end the war in Yemen. And so far from the US, not a lot of views expressed on the prospects of military or political conflict in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as Turkey, Greece and Israel compete for the Sea's gas resources. As for Libya -what is the US Administration's views on that failed state?

Lastly, I recommend Patrick Cockburns arguments that the Middle East is in the process of profound change as Petroleum declines as a source of revenue, and unelected Dictatorships struggle to deliver jobs and prosperity for a large and increasiingly young and restless population.

"The era characterised by the power of the oil states is ending. When the price of oil soared in the aftermath of the 1973 war, countries from Iran to Algeria, mostly though not exclusively Arab, enjoyed an extraordinary accretion of wealth. Their elites could buy everything from Leonardo da Vinci paintings to Park Lane hotels. Their rulers had the money to keep less well-funded governments in power or to put them out of business by funding their opponent.
It is this historic period that is now terminating and the change is likely to be permanent. Saudi Arabia and UAE still have big financial reserves, though these are not inexhaustible. Elsewhere the money is running out. The determining factor is that between 2012 and 2020 the oil revenues of the Arab producers fell from $1 trillion to $300bn, down by over two-thirds. Too much oil was being produced and too little was consumed pre-coronavirus and, on top of this, there is a shift away from fossil fuels. Cuts in output by Opec might go some way to raising the oil price, but it will not be enough to preserve a crumbling status quo."
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-israel-uae-palestinians-middle-east-oil-gulf-a9670926.html

[Stavros]

I wonder how many people who watched the early season Pantomime at the White House yesterday were fooled by the inflated claims made, when two Arab states formally recognized what for years has been an informal relationship with Israel? There they were, this Parade of Dunces, holding up the Accords -not treaties- which appeared to herald a new era in the Middle East. But look more closely, and you can see how much of it was just 'business as usual' in the Middle East.

For what is in those Accords? This being the Middle East, we -and the Citizens of Bahrain and the UAE- are not allowed to know, as was pithily put in this brief survey-

"What are the Details of the Agreements?
In short, we do not know. The wording of both deals has been kept secret due to the sensitivity of the content. However, this afternoon Emirati officials affirmed it will make reference to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. "
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-uae-bahrain-peace-deal-trump-netanyahu-b446885.html

The two-state solution? According to Prime Minister Netanyah, it's dead, and has been for him since c1993. Maybe Bahrain and the UAE are easiy fooled by their Ugly Sister, nether are Prince Charmings for the Middle East's permanent Palestinian Cinderella, and to claim that they have wrung a concession from Bibi, ok so we won't annexe the West Bank- is not even a joke, as Israel has had no legal right to be there since 1967. Oh, and all those Security Council Resolutions and treaties that Israel has ignored or betrayed? Not much of a boost to morale. Don't frame those Accords, Abdul, they might turn out to be an embarrassment

The triumph here, is that as usual, Israel is the prism through which Middle Eastern politics is viewed. For Under-President Kushner, who may have dual citizenship with the USA and Israel, and for his Daddy-in-Law, the optics could not be more in tune with their world-view if Stephen Sondheim or Lord loyd-Webber had written it: a Corrupt Prime Minister of Israel, flanked by two unelected Billionaires who treat their countries as a family business: one can imagine the song running through Kushner's head: Maybe this time? And one can even imagine the President, elevated by his triumph declaring he wants what they got: declare himself President for Life, abolish Congress, and appoint Junior, Skittles and Tiffany to important posts in his Revolutionary Government by Family. I mean, the Republican Party is a party of Family Values, right?

One can say with certainty, that neither the Prime Minister of Democratic Israel, nor the President of the USA are going to suggest, in public, that the Middle East is exhausted with 70-100 years of corrupt, unelected dictators, and that they will be promoting regime change and democracy in the Gulf. And did the two Americans not weigh up the financial benefits in the Accords which secure for a few more years their investments in Israel and the Occupied Territories?

Can you imagine if President Nixon had secured diplomatic recognition with China while having a stake in a Chinese bank? Or that Carter and Clinton signed peace treaties with countries in which they had invesments in banks and property? They would have been impeached beforre the ink was dry on the documents.

Peace treaties? The Siege of Gaza continues, the wars in Syria and Yemen continue, the chaos in Lebanon deepens, Iraq is not an integratated State, Libya has fallen to pieces. There is going to be change in the Middle East, as the article by Patrick Cockburn in my OP suggests, and it will be messy. I hope this new, more open coalition between Israel and some of its neighbouring Reservoir Dogs is not going to answer the question- "Are you going to bark all day, little doggy, or are you going to bite?" -by launching military strikes against Iran, but with a 'Herd Mentality' growing when the mental case is Mohammed bin Salman, who knows?

A Parade of Dunces- not a musical, no jokes, no laughs. Just a bunch of secret accords agreed by a couple of corrupt Billionaires who have never done a day's work in their lives. George Cohan, Irving Berlin, George Gershwin -from poverty to the stage-music you can sing along to and dance with. Compare those three to the Rent Collectors who went from one Palace to another, the World their Stage, accountable to nobody, producing shows empty of content, but an insult to everyone who believes freedom and democracy are values worth preserving.

[blackchubby38]

I just hope all these changes in the Middle East doesn't lead to Iran feeling isolated and one day they decide, "Fuck it, if we are going down, we are going down swinging".

[Stavros]

I just hope all these changes in the Middle East doesn't lead to Iran feeling isolated and one day they decide, "Fuck it, if we are going down, we are going down swinging".


I have heard this before, from someone who spent a summer on a Kibbutz and took the view if Israel felt it was going to be annihilated, it would take everyone down with them. The problem is that there is a grievance culture throughout the Middle East (Oman might be an exception), most of which stems from the fact that after the First World War and the end of Ottoman rule, the Arabs were denied the right -by force of arms as well as international diplomacy- to govern themselves as they wanted to, a denial that persists with regard to the Palestinians.

Even Iran, which was not part of the Anglo-French dispensation of power, has been in grievance mode for over a century. The weak and incompetent Qajar Dynasty sold 100% of its oil in a concession in 1901 because the Shah needed the money. It not only inserted the British Empire into the country -as the guarantor of the Oil Concesson -the British Government in 1914 took the majority shareholding in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

Because the Russians thought they had been tricked by the British -their Ambassador was away from Tehran hunting, and when he returned the contract between the British and the Persians was presented to him in the ancient Shikasta script which had to be sent away to be translated. After much protest, the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907 carved Persia into a Northern sphere dominated by the Russians, with the British taking the oil-rich south (as this was the climax of 'The Great Game' the Entente also included provisions for Afghanistan and Tibet).

Iranians thus not only gripe about how their country was subjected to imperial intervention, it got worse when in later years the Nationalist President Mosadeq was overthrown in a coup in 1953 financed by the Americans. It is a simple fact that Persia/Iran fell victim to Western Imperialism because its ruling class were incompetent and corrupt, but to Iranians all their problems stem from the pernicious intervetions of the West, whom they see hiding behind the Saudi Arabian dishdash.

For their part, the Saudis take great pride in repudiating British imperialism (though before 1914 Ibn Saud was happy to take British gold) and even trying to overthrow the British-backed Hashemites in TransJordan, but really this Sunni-Shi'a fault line became a violent rift when the Islamic Revolution in Iran inspired young Muslim radicals in the Kingdom and the Saudis felt that if they did not respond in kind their 'custody' of the Holy Places woud be in jeapordy.

I am not sure if there is likely to be a military conflict -John Bolton, who advocates regime change in Iran, believes swift and decisive military strikes on strategic targets are justified, as well as harsh and effective sanctions. But, unlike the boycott of Iranian oil in the years between 1951-1954 which shattered the Iranian economy, and depleted a lot of the support among the people Mosadeq had, these days Iran has maintained its supplies of oil to China and Japan, so that the prospect of the Russians and the Chinese offering security guarantees to Iran must be a factor the US Military has factored in, regardless of what the politicians shout about.

It is noticeable that Iran has not, so far retaliated against the US or its allies for the assassination of Qasem Suleimani -who, incidentally, was the strategic commander of the Iranian and Iraqi brigades that mounted damaging attacks on Daesh in Iraq- and in this election year with Covid 19 of more importance, no action in the near future seems likely, though some reckless figures in Iran might try it on -ironically, it would have been Suleimani in charge of any retaliation -maybe no figure of similar stature and influence has emerged to take his place in the Republican Guard.

I think sanctions might be tightened, unless Iran is part of the 'October Surprise' that is trotted out every election year. To be fair to Mohammed bin Salman, someone I consider the biggest threat to the region, there were reports that he wanted to end the hugely expensive war in the Yemen and thus was prepared to open talks with Iran. I don't know if this has been happening in secret, which is possibe, but what we do know is that the fall in the price of oil and demand for the Black Stuff is re-focusing minds in the region to what it is possible, rather than desirable, but where the region is concerned I tend to be a pessimist.

The final irony is that if here are secret talks taking place and the US brokers an end to the war in Yemen with a conference and/or treaty, the 45th President would meet some of the requirements for the Nobel Peace Prize -something Bill Clinton never got even though he was instumental in negotiating peace in Yugosavia, the treaties between Israel and the PLO and between Israel and Jordan, as well as being influential in the later stages of the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland. Nixon got nothing for the deal with Vietnam, Carter got his Nobel Prize mosty for the treaty between Israel and Egypt, so I assume Clinton didn't have the sponsors to make it happen even though, Woodrow Wilson aside, he deserved it more than Obama or Teddy Roosevelt, though this does not exactly attach much value to the prize, though we know the incumbent is obsessed with it.

[Paladin]

If the iranians ever get a-hold of the bomb, they are sending it straight to Tel Aviv come hell or high water. They've been saying this for over 40 years.

The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.

[filghy2]

The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.

Yes, it's a wonderful thing that the war between Israel and Bahrain and UAE has finally been ended. Trump should definitely get the Nobel Peace Prize, especially after his previous success in denuclearising North Korea.

[broncofan]

The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.
As someone who wants to see peace throughout the Middle East, I wonder what normalization means to some people. For Israel, I would have expected it means that the reaction of other states to it is conditioned on its conduct.

If Israel makes overtures towards peace and reconciliation (not tokens but not things beyond their control to unilaterally deliver), then other countries might create diplomatic relations with it. What did Israel give up other than the annexation plan which is illegal under international law? It shouldn't require saying but not doing something you're not legally permitted to do is not forbearance.

Also as Filghy's post indicates, what changed based on this "peace agreement"? If one was summing up the factional conflicts in the Middle East, hot and cold, would they have ever described the relations of Israel with Bahrain as the stress point?

While I understand the hypocrisy of nuclear states dictating who should have nuclear weapons, I still don't want to see the Iranians get a nuke. I've listened to the Ayatollah over the years and the previous Presidents from Ahmadinejad to Rouhani and don't like what I hear. But sanctions punish the people in a country and should never be imposed indefinitely unless you're a sadist. Trump ripped up the JCPOA, at the behest of Netanyahu and has probably pushed Iran towards the development of nukes.

[Stavros]

If the iranians ever get a-hold of the bomb, they are sending it straight to Tel Aviv come hell or high water. They've been saying this for over 40 years.

The two peace agreements were a good things. The first in over 25 years and all efforts to contain iran must be kept up, unlike what the prior administration did.

It might be legitimate to ask if nuclear energy should be part of the energy mix in the Midle East where there are shortages of water, but there is more than enough gas to go around. My view is that the Middle East should be a nuclear free zone. If Iran poses a threat why not Saudi Arabia? The US President supports nuclear development in the country that actually accounted for most of the 9/11 murderers, so why is he so opposed to Iran but not Saudi Arabia? Could it be because one gives him “lovely dollars” and the other does not?

[Paladin]

We can get into SA to verify, etc, but not iran. THINK!

[Stavros]

South Africa ended its nuclear development programme in 1989, and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons capability was complete by 1994. Iran has complied with the stipulations of the Joint Comperehensive Plan of Action, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency continue to enter the county to monitor Iran's compliance with the JCOP. Compare South Africa and Iran, with Israel, which continunes to deny it even has a nuclear weapons capability, and the US support for nuclear development in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Iran
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53922717

South Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-emirates-nuclearpower-exclusive-idUSKCN1R120L

[Paladin]

South Africa ended its nuclear development programme in 1989, and the dismantling of its nuclear weapons capability was complete by 1994. Iran has complied with the stipulations of the Joint Comperehensive Plan of Action, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency continue to enter the county to monitor Iran's compliance with the JCOP. Compare South Africa and Iran, with Israel, which continunes to deny it even has a nuclear weapons capability, and the US support for nuclear development in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Iran
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53922717

South Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qatar-emirates-nuclearpower-exclusive-idUSKCN1R120L

Let me know when the kool-aid you're drinking runs out.

[Stavros]

Let me know when the kool-aid you're drinking runs out.


When you engage with the facts you may change your mind, and one hopes that you do.

[Stavros]

Here we are again. In a documentary made after the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq, Tony Blair justified his involvement in that war with this claim: 'I took the view that we needed to remake the Middle East', as if 100 years of history had meant nothing, though in fairness, he was as ignorant of the region then as he has always been.

Thus last month at the UN Netanyahu declared Israel intends to remake the Middle East, but at least he made it clear that this is a military solution to problems, even though their origin is political.

The link below outlines what Netanyahu might mean when he refers to 'strategic change' which in summary means removing any and all threats to the security of Israel, whether it is from Palestinians, or Iran or Iran-backed groups in the region. There is a logic to this in military terms, but that doesn't mean the military solution does what it says on the box if Israel's wider ambitions are taken into account, viz the concept of 'Eretz Israel' that is the declared mission of Netanyahu's party, which he doesn't elaborate on much these days though the Settler movement is clear what it means.

HAMAS is not just a military organization, neither is Hizbollah in Lebanon -they can be, and to some extent have been weakened, though they are still capable of lobbing rockets into Israel, and it remains to be seen if small cells or individuals in HAMAS and Islamic Jihad in the Gaza District will find their way into Israel and do some bad things there -absolute security is a nonsense in Israel, though I feel Netanyahu's 'bring it on' attitude to such violence if it happens will merely justify some excessive response by the IDF or Mossad.

Again, Hizbollah is more than a military organization, it has social networks and MPs in the Lebanese Parliament, but yes it has been weakened. It is also the case that over a million Lebanese citizens are now homeless, as if it was their fault.

Thus the confrontation with Iran, which Yoav Gallant is justifying, begs the question: what for? The US has warned against Israel striking certain targets -Iran's petroleum resources, for example, while it has been argued only US bombs can reach the deep underground nuclear sites Iran has. Does Israel want regime change in Iran? Saudi Arabia does, the US does, and so do a lot of Iranians.

But regime change in Iran cannot be achieved with any better results than regime change in Iraq -does Israel intend to create so much homelessness and chaos in Iran that the regime there has to spend all its money and energy on internal struggles at the expense of its clients elsewhere in the region? John Bolton regularly advocated bombing Iran, and the US might even have done so if Trump had not chickened out of a response after the Iranian attacks on US troops in Iraq. Trump's natural cowardice when he was in office might become aggression if he wins this year, but who knows?

Israel is in the danger of strategic overreach, currently involved in direct operations in the Gaza District, Lebanon, Syria, Iran and to a lesser extent in Yemen. The US can do nothing to restrain Israel, in part because it supports these military operations, even as it look in despair at the human cost, frozen in its reaction whose only meaningful response would be to cut off financial and military aid, even if only to force some change in Israel's activities.

So, is Israel now the Supreme Power in the Middle East? It appears to be so, with the Palestinians looking increasingly like the Lakota, Algonquin, Apache and Iroquois of North America who were decimated and destroyed by European settlers. A settler fanatic told the Irish reporter for Channel 4 news, when they observed Gaza from a vantage point in Israel and he was asked what should happen to the Palestinians -they should leave for Ireland and the UK.

Should the US agree to take in every Palestinian from the Gaza District and the West Bank -say, 4 million? And why not?

But does this, in the long term, guarantee Israel's security? Does it in fact change the Middle East? Agreements between Israel and the unelected Governments of the Arabian Peninsula mask an obvious fact: Israelis don't trust the Arabs, Arabs don't trust the Israelis. HAMAS did all it can to make Palestinians hate Israelis, and in turn Israelis have done all they can to make their citizens hate Arabs: the cause of peace is further apart today than it was when Allenby walked through the Jaffa Gate in November 1917 to claim Palestine for the King and Empire.

Nothing has changed. And Netanyahu can't change it either, he has guaranteed it can not. And for all their rhetoric, neither Trump nor, if she becomes President, can Harris. But who will speak for the millions made homeless from Lebanon in the North to the Yemen in the South?

What does Netanyahu mean when talking about changing the strategic reality of the Middle East? – Middle East Monitor (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241003-what-does-netanyahu-mean-when-talking-about-changing-the-strategic-reality-of-the-middle-east/)

Middle East crisis live: ‘After we attack Iran, everyone will understand your preparations,’ Israeli defence minister tells troops (https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/oct/23/middle-east-israel-gaza-war-hamas-hezbollah-lebanon-hashem-safieddine)

[Paladin]

Well,,, hamas made some statement right after the election that they wanted to "end the war in
Gaza Now", I'm not sure exactly what they meant by that. I guess we will see, but the pasy 4 years with a spinless US administration from the dolt of a pres on down has emboldened AND enriched iran and all of their proxies, which is why we the current mess. Under the Trump admin, iran was down to about 100,000 bbls of oil exported per day, but since biden-harris basically offloaded all the sanctions on iran, that number shot up to 2,500,000 bbls / day. Where do you think all that money went??? It certainly did NOT go to the iranian people.

BTW, 4 years ago I was referring to Sauidi Arabia, not South Africa.

[Stavros]

Well,,, hamas made some statement right after the election that they wanted to "end the war in
Gaza Now", I'm not sure exactly what they meant by that. I guess we will see, but the pasy 4 years with a spinless US administration from the dolt of a pres on down has emboldened AND enriched iran and all of their proxies, which is why we the current mess. Under the Trump admin, iran was down to about 100,000 bbls of oil exported per day, but since biden-harris basically offloaded all the sanctions on iran, that number shot up to 2,500,000 bbls / day. Where do you think all that money went??? It certainly did NOT go to the iranian people.

BTW, 4 years ago I was referring to Sauidi Arabia, not South Africa.

I don't know where you are getting your figures from but you can find them in the links below which show that while the sanctions Trump imposed on Iran did have a significant impact on production and exports, it was not as low as 100,000 bbls a day.

The key point is that Trump's sanctions did not work. The aim was not just to hurt Iran and reduce if not halt its subsidies to Yemen, Syria and Lebanon, but to effect regime change through economic collapse. That Trump worsened the quality of life for most Iranians did not help the US cause at all, merely strengthened the supporters of Ayatollah Khamene'i and the acceleration of the nuclear developments that were both more controlled and observed by the IAEA as per the Joint Agreement that was sponsored by the Obama Administration.

The Biden Administration has tried a different track -easing the pressure on the economy, mostly through a revival of production and exports, in order to engage diplomatically which in theory was Trump's posture -squeeze them until they crawl to you to talk- but whatever the success or failure has been, and Iran has a reforming President again, the rogue operation by HAMAS on October 7th 2023 has changed the parameters of the policy, if there still is one.

Trump authorized the assassination of Qasim Suleimani, and in retaliation US troops based in Iraq were killed, but while John Bolton wanted to use this as a justification for direct attacks on Iran, President Trump got scared and backed down, being a natural coward, though it is doubtful that such a strike would have had any political impact other than to shore up the Ayatollahs, thus the opposite of long term US intentions.

My view is that there was a disconnect between the political leadership of HAMAS in Qatar, and the militants on the ground in Gaza where Israel's policy for years -as with the West Bank- has been to make life so miserable the people will just leave. It was like the outbreak of the Intifada in 1988 which took Arafat and the PLO in Tunis by surprise, though Fateh in particular moved rapidly to control the protests on the West Bank. Sinwar, detached from the palaces of the Gulf, and not even having direct communications with militants elsewhere, notably in Syria and Iraq, made the foolish assumption that Israel's retaliation, always excessive and illegal in international law, would produce a reaction similar to the 1973 War when OPEC seized control of production and pricing of oil, imposed a boycott on sales and sent the global economy into a tailspin.

It was never going to happen again, least of all with Mohammed bin Salman consumed by two things: spending billions on the internal development of Saudi Arabia to make it a tourist destination; and working (covertly) with Israel, not against it, to undermine and at some point neutralize the influence of Shi'a Islam on the region. Thus, HAMAS is fighting alone, and has been fighting a war it cannot win, but which Israel cannot win either, rather like the IRA and the British fighting each other until the point came when the only thing they had not done was sit down and talk, as also was the case with the PLO and Israel.

Netanyahu is not about to enter face to face talks with HAMAS, and the 'General's Plan' for Gaza that will partition the District is already in motion, though the end-game for what is now an uninhabitable land is the expulsion of every Palestinian, but where to nobody knows, and it seems, few care.

Trump is not about to ride in on a white horse and change the game, and bring peace to the Middle East. His primary concern is to make as much money as he can, from the investments he and the Kushner family have in Israel, to the sweetheart deals he thinks he can make with the Saudis.

The one game changer that has also not happened, is the anger of the average Arab at what Israel is doing -there is an outside chance of some assassination here or there attempting to destabilize Dubai, or Qatar or maybe even Saudi Arabia, but there is little sign of it yet.

Thus Israel reigns supreme in the Middle East, it can, and it will bomb at will, make millions homeless, and when the time comes to rebuild Gaza and Lebanon, the American tax payer will foot the bill.

Links on Iran's oil industry
Iran Oil Reserves, Production and Consumption Statistics - Worldometer (https://www.worldometers.info/oil/iran-oil/)

Analysis of Iranian Oil Sales Under President Trump vs. President Biden | UANI (https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/blog/analysis-of-iranian-oil-sales-under-president-trump-vs-president-biden)

The impact of Trump on Iran
Six charts that show how hard US sanctions have hit Iran - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48119109)

[Paladin]

None of the wars and other terrorist acts undertaken in the past 4 years would have happened in Trump was still the president. I'm just glad that the chicoms didn't go after Taiwan, although in their long view, they probably correctly decided that they don't / didn't need to.

[Stavros]

None of the wars and other terrorist acts undertaken in the past 4 years would have happened in Trump was still the president. I'm just glad that the chicoms didn't go after Taiwan, although in their long view, they probably correctly decided that they don't / didn't need to.

This not a serious comment. Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in a conflict for the best part of 100 years. Trump did absolutely nothing to change the situation, I don't know if he ever even mentioned Palestinians. But he did endorse Israel's illegal annexation of the 'Golan Heights' -the UN made the acquisition of territory by force illegal, not that Trump (or Putin) care about the law. We could put together a list of all the violence that took place when Trump was President, but what would it prove? He is a transactional man, he only does things if he can see them benefit him, either politically or financially. It could thus be said that before Trump Tony Blair led the so-called 'Quartet of Nations' seeking an end to the siege of Gaze -he did nothing. Trump was there for 4 years, he did nothing, and yet when HAMAS attacked Israel in 2023 it was the start of something, or rather, an extension of the conflict that has been going on for years -with Netanyahu's approval, given that he (and HAMAS) rejected the 1993 treaty.

How many wars did the US get involved in when Jimmy Carter was President?

[Paladin]

It's been more like 1200 years.

Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since 1967. Where have you been?

Trump didn't "do nothing". There were no massive attacks like the one on Oct 7 2023 while Trump was in office, additional countries recognized Israel's right to exist, and KSA was moving (slowly) along the same path. I detect more than a little antisemitism on your part.

If the UN is so concerned by forceful annexation, why didn't they do something about the Crimea???

[Stavros]

It's been more like 1200 years.

Israel has occupied the Golan Heights since 1967. Where have you been?

Trump didn't "do nothing". There were no massive attacks like the one on Oct 7 2023 while Trump was in office, additional countries recognized Israel's right to exist, and KSA was moving (slowly) along the same path. I detect more than a little antisemitism on your part.

If the UN is so concerned by forceful annexation, why didn't they do something about the Crimea???

If by my reference to Israel and the Palestinians you mean Jews and Arabs, it makes no sense to refer to 1200 years, not knowing where this figure comes from. If you knew more about the history of the Middle East - and you know less than I do- you would not make such a comment, or you could cite the occasions during Ottoman rule when Jews and Arabs were at war with each other. Good luck on that one.

Trump did nothing to end the siege of Gaza, a statement so obvious I don't understand your response. Do you think during Trump's tenure there were no violent incidents between Israelis and Palestinians as a direct consequence of Trump's policy ? What happened when Trump decided to move the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem?

Terror attacks tripled after Trump Jerusalem recognition, Shin Bet stats show | The Times of Israel (https://www.timesofisrael.com/terror-attacks-tripled-after-trump-jerusalem-recognition-shin-bet-stats-show/)

Trump Jerusalem move sparks Israeli-Palestinian clashes - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-42265337)

Israel attacks Gaza again amid continued tensions over Trump plan | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/6/israel-attacks-gaza-again-amid-continued-tensions-over-trump-plan)

The UN made the acquisition of territory by force illegal. There have been multiple occasions when this law has been broken. If you have even the slightest understanding of politics and international law you will know why there have been actions to reverse the acquisition or none at all.

For example, the 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine was rejected by the Arabs (for good reasons) and accepted by the Jewish Agency, which then participated in a war as a result of which they occupied more land than the Plan had awarded to the Jews, violating the very Plan they agreed to, indeed on this basis it could be argued that the Declaration of the State of Israel in 1948 was a violation of international law. The response which saw Jordan occupy the West Bank was also illegal, but hey, since when did anyone think Palestinians should rule themselves?

Partition at the time was a favoured option, as happened, with disastrous result when East and West Pakistan were severed from India.

Just one more obvious example: when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN Security Council put together a 'Coalition of the Willing' which included Syria and Saudi Arabia, who paid for the whole shebang. The law was clear: the acquisition of territory by force was illegal, and steps were taken to reverse it, and to punish the aggressor.
When the Foreign Secretary of the UK, Douglas Hurd was asked why the 'international community' went to war to reverse Iraq's act but not against Israel for its violations of international law, he replied 'because there was a Security Council resolution'. Again, if you know how international relations work you will understand why Israel could seize territory from Syria and nothing was done, whereas Israel's illegal occupations of the Sinai after the Suez War, and its occupation of Southern Lebanon after the 1982 were both reversed.

The so-called 'Abraham Accords' were a nothing -the Gulf States merely formalized what already existed, with the shameful addition that the Trump and Kushner families both had, and have financial investments in Israel, thus making this a deal that was more in the interests of the Family than the USA. It is a matter of conjecture if the Oct 7 events and the massive attack on Gaza by Israel leads Saudi Arabia any closer to recognition of Israel, not least because MBS has described Israel's war on Gaza as 'Genocide'.

[Paladin]

Every arab / muslim nation in the world (except probably Indonesia) declared war on Israel in 1948, and sever are still at war with Israel and want it to be wiped off the map. Israel still handed them their collective asses.

Suez war - do you mean 1956? Sure, after Egypt nationalized the Suez canal and blocked it, it was the UK and France that invaded, Israel just covered their flank. It wasn't very well thought out, but it did result in the downfall of nassar, which was a good thing.

[Stavros]

Every arab / muslim nation in the world (except probably Indonesia) declared war on Israel in 1948, and sever are still at war with Israel and want it to be wiped off the map. Israel still handed them their collective asses.

Suez war - do you mean 1956? Sure, after Egypt nationalized the Suez canal and blocked it, it was the UK and France that invaded, Israel just covered their flank. It wasn't very well thought out, but it did result in the downfall of nassar, which was a good thing.

Another post which merely highlights your ignorance, and it seems, a lack of interest in the history as recorded. I won't go into the details because I don't think they interest you, and if I do offer links, it is just to show you where you can go to read about these matters, setting aside the thousands of books and articles in learned journals that you won't read, thus
Part I (1917-1947) - Question of Palestine (https://www.un.org/unispal/history2/origins-and-evolution-of-the-palestine-problem/part-i-1917-1947/)

One example: it is true that Moroccans were not happy with Ben-Gurion's Declaration of the State of Israel in 1948, given that Morocco had one of the largest Jewish communities in the world outside the USA. It is also true it led to some clashes -but the Monarchy opened secret relations with Israel in 1948 so your assertion, which must include Morocco, is false. Thus

"While official ties had previously not existed due to the Arab–Israeli conflict (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict), the two countries maintained a secretive bilateral relationship on a number of fronts following the 1948 Arab–Israeli War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War). For many years, Moroccan king Hassan II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_II_of_Morocco) facilitated a relationship with Israeli authorities, and these ties are considered to have been instrumental in stabilizing Morocco and striking down possible anti-monarchy threats within the country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_Morocco)."
Israel–Morocco relations - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Morocco_relations)

As for this-

"after Egypt nationalized the Suez canal and blocked it, it was the UK and France that invaded, Israel just covered their flank. It wasn't very well thought out, but it did result in the downfall of nassar, which was a good thing"

An amazing re-write of history. The Suez War was a triumph for Nasser, who went on to become the effective leader of the Arab world at what might be termed the 'high tide' of Arab Nationalism -the same Nationalism at the root of modern Israel (both 19th century inventions) -Nasser even engineered the creation with Syria of the United Arab Republic in 1958. Nasser was on the radio all the time when we lived in the region, I remember it well as well as the enthusiasm of the young man in the shop where we bought our groceries.

Nasser's downfall was largely a result of the hubris that dazzled his judgment after 1956, and the fact that while he accepted arms from the USSR they were ineffective. I recall a talk in which Indar Rikhye pointed out that in 1967 there were only two pilots in Egypt who could fly the MIG fighters they got from the USSR, and they were Indian.

Should you be interested in this period -1956-1967- try this book which was a sensation in the Middle East when it was published but only translated into English in 2011-

Self-Criticism after the Defeat – Saqi Books (https://saqibooks.com/books/saqi/self-criticism-after-the-defeat/)

Your opinions are free, and welcome, but can we not agree the facts are sacred?

[Paladin]

OK, so Morocco didn't declare war in 1948, I need to get this omelette off my face. How many did??? Morocco DID send forces to fight: Morris, Benny (2008), 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (https://archive.org/details/1948historyoffir00morr/page/332), Yale University Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University_Press), p. 205, New Haven, ISBN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)) 978-0-300-12696-9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-300-12696-9).

Let's see 1956 was a "triumph for Nasser, but you also write that "and the fact that while he accepted arms from the USSR they were ineffective."

Those are self contradictory statements. 56 was a disaster for Egypt and Nasser. But I'm ignorant, so it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, wikipedia - the most reliable source of information on the planet. Sure.....

[Stavros]

OK, so Morocco didn't declare war in 1948, I need to get this omelette off my face. How many did??? Morocco DID send forces to fight: Morris, Benny (2008), 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (https://archive.org/details/1948historyoffir00morr/page/332), Yale University Press (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University_Press), p. 205, New Haven, ISBN (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISBN_(identifier)) 978-0-300-12696-9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0-300-12696-9).

Let's see 1956 was a "triumph for Nasser, but you also write that "and the fact that while he accepted arms from the USSR they were ineffective."

Those are self contradictory statements. 56 was a disaster for Egypt and Nasser. But I'm ignorant, so it doesn't matter.

Oh yeah, wikipedia - the most reliable source of information on the planet. Sure.....

Your link to the book by Benny Morris does not state what you claim -yes, some Moroccans went to Egypt to fight Israel, but as Morris points out, they never got there, being deported because they were 'restive and argumentative' (page 85).

This source confirms that Morocco did not participate in the War of 1948
"In contrast to the Arab consensus, Morocco, which was not independent in 1948 and did not take part in the War of Independence, established clandestine relations with Israel."
OccasionalPapers-Issue1.pdf (https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/azrieli/docs/OccasionalPapers/OccasionalPapers-Issue1.pdf)

I don't see any contradiction in what I wrote. After Suez, Nasser accepted arms and support from the USSR, it was part of the Cold War in the region, but while there had been a Communist Presence (the CP of Palestine was formed in 1923, the party in Iraq was formed in 1934) Arab Nationalism was the dominant position of most of the frontline states, not so much the Arabian Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Suez far from being a disaster marked the rise of Nasser, and was the basis on which he not only attempted to expand Egypt's influence in the Arab world, but also the means whereby he crushed the Muslim Brotherhood at the time -such as the execution of Sayid Qutb in 1966. For some people, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, a close associate of Nasser, was as much about the Nationalist crushing of the Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s as it was the 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel.

Nasser's ascendancy was thus fundamental to the overthrow of the 'Imamate' in Yemen in 1962, and the war with Saudi Arabia that followed. And it was because Egypt was seen as a client of the USSR that the US sent arms through Israel to the Saudi backed forces who were as useless then as they are now. The war dragged on until 1970, the Imams never regained power. Yemen split into two countries, and is broadly speaking one of the most ungovernable places in the world.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions, whether they are based on facts, conjecture, or just some weird idea you have of what happened, but I do think a little more reading would help, and you don't need Wikipedia, which I agree can sometimes be unreliable. I am sure that even in your country there are libraries which have books, in fact I am certain of it.

[Paladin]

Your link to the book by Benny Morris does not state what you claim -yes, some Moroccans went to Egypt to fight Israel, but as Morris points out, they never got there, being deported because they were 'restive and argumentative' (page 85).

This source confirms that Morocco did not participate in the War of 1948
"In contrast to the Arab consensus, Morocco, which was not independent in 1948 and did not take part in the War of Independence, established clandestine relations with Israel."
OccasionalPapers-Issue1.pdf (https://www.concordia.ca/content/dam/artsci/azrieli/docs/OccasionalPapers/OccasionalPapers-Issue1.pdf)

I don't see any contradiction in what I wrote. After Suez, Nasser accepted arms and support from the USSR, it was part of the Cold War in the region, but while there had been a Communist Presence (the CP of Palestine was formed in 1923, the party in Iraq was formed in 1934) Arab Nationalism was the dominant position of most of the frontline states, not so much the Arabian Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Suez far from being a disaster marked the rise of Nasser, and was the basis on which he not only attempted to expand Egypt's influence in the Arab world, but also the means whereby he crushed the Muslim Brotherhood at the time -such as the execution of Sayid Qutb in 1966. For some people, the assassination of Anwar Sadat, a close associate of Nasser, was as much about the Nationalist crushing of the Brotherhood in the 1950s and 1960s as it was the 1979 Peace Treaty with Israel.

Nasser's ascendancy was thus fundamental to the overthrow of the 'Imamate' in Yemen in 1962, and the war with Saudi Arabia that followed. And it was because Egypt was seen as a client of the USSR that the US sent arms through Israel to the Saudi backed forces who were as useless then as they are now. The war dragged on until 1970, the Imams never regained power. Yemen split into two countries, and is broadly speaking one of the most ungovernable places in the world.

Once again, you are entitled to your opinions, whether they are based on facts, conjecture, or just some weird idea you have of what happened, but I do think a little more reading would help, and you don't need Wikipedia, which I agree can sometimes be unreliable. I am sure that even in your country there are libraries which have books, in fact I am certain of it.

Read? Garbage can't read; I'm the uneducated, deplorable, undeserving poor, up against middle class morality for all time. I feel more and more like Doolittle, guvna.

[Stavros]

I am linking to this post a rational assessment of the ceasefire agreement that the US has brokered between Israel and Hizbollah in Lebanon. I think it does a good job of explaining how, this time around, it is a lose for Iran and Hizbollah, if not the end of the never-ending story that has shaped Middle Eastern politics since Allenby walked through the Jaffa Gate in 1917.

Here is a key assessment

"it is the entire strategic environment that has considerably changed, in large part in Israel’s favour, due to its relentless military machine and virtually unconditional US support. Israel has never used its military might like this before, nor has Washington provided it with such unreserved support.Hezbollah and its ally Iran (https://www.theguardian.com/world/iran) will never admit it, but they have suffered a strategic setback. Their aim was to link all the regional battlefields in which Iran had influence to bleed and overwhelm Israel. But Israel has blocked that goal, rather successfully, through brute force.
Until very recently, Hezbollah’s condition to stop its attacks was for Israel to end its campaign against Hamas. Yet by agreeing to the terms of the ceasefire, which clearly dissociates Lebanon from Gaza, Hezbollah has essentially abandoned Hamas and with it the whole notion of strategic interdependence, at least for now."
The ceasefire in Lebanon doesn’t ensure a lasting victory for Israel, but does signal a strategic setback for Iran | Bilal Saab | The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/27/ceasefire-lebanon-victory-israel-strategic-setback-iran-hezbollah-hamas)

As usual, the Palestinians are left on their own, their fate looking even more gloomy today than it was yesterday. But the elephant in this room is the continued absence of any real debate on who benefits from this current wave of violence, because in the short to medium term it may be Israel and the US, but Saudi Arabia remains the enigma which needs to be addressed.

It is the case that MbS is modernizing the Kingdom, he is keen to reduce the influence of Wahabi clerics and their distorted education in schools/madrassas in the Kingdom and elsewhere, in part because he can see how counter-productive it is to Saudi Arabia's image, and in part because the alliances he is building in the Kingdom and elsewhere have feared a repeat of the 'Salafi' violence of ISIS and al-Qaeda, two movements that, like HAMAS and Hizbollah have been weakened but have not disappeared.

Salman is still King, but while MbS will slot into the role when the time comes, one should not underestimate the seething anger of the Arab street to what has happened in Gaza and is happening on the West Bank, or Israel if you prefer. Normalizing relations with Israel is not on the cards right now, and while Trump might have access to both Israel and the Kingdom, everyone knows he is only there for 4 years and that their problems are too complex for such a limited intelligence to understand. What if the Kingdom decides it has to see off Iran, but the consequence is chaos in that country with implications for its allies in Russia and China? What would be the impact on the oil price, and so on.

Every time someone thinks a corner has been turned in the Middle East, a new road block appears in the distance. While we may all sigh in relief that one party to this conflict is for the time being at rest, the worm in this apple is still there, rotting within.

[Paladin]

I'm just trying to calculate how many days before hezbollah violates the cease fire. Right now, I'm thinking early Jan.

And admit it, they would not have agreed to this if Trump hadn't won the election. If this cease fire falls apart, and I'm thinking it will, it will be another bitch slap to biden.

[Stavros]

I'm just trying to calculate how many days before hezbollah violates the cease fire. Right now, I'm thinking early Jan.

And admit it, they would not have agreed to this if Trump hadn't won the election. If this cease fire falls apart, and I'm thinking it will, it will be another bitch slap to biden.

Trump had nothing to do with it.

It is all about Israel, for Netanayahu is in command, elevated by what he believes has been Israel and the USA's ability to neutralize Hizbollah and deal a severe blow to HAMAS. For the time being indeed, for Hizbollah is not just an armed group but a political movement with representatives in the Lebanese Parliament. The domestic Lebanese aspect of this current round of war has yet to play out. There was a lot of resentment inside Lebanon at the way Hizbollah was muscling in on domestic affairs, but it is not on the same order of the resentment with the PLO that evolved from sympathy in 1967 to civil war in 1975. Whether or not Lebanese politics can remain so divided is a question with a long history, and no answers. Sometimes people are just focused on day to day survival.

Two sources made the difference here:
Iran, which has been doing what it can to decrease tensions with Israel, and which I believe in the absence of Nasrallah has meant the remaining leaders in Lebanon don't have the same level of support from Tehran. Iran is looking at other options, not least because the support it gives to Russia is not paying off, after all it doesn't need Russian oil in the way that India and North Korea do. It can take a harder line on nuclear development because this makes sense: it is the doctrine of Nuclear Deterrence that shaped policy throughout the Cold War, and which Iran concludes means it needs a nuclear weapon to deter an attack from Nuclear Israel. But on other issues I think the new Prime Minister is more willing to change, eg with regard to relations with Saudi Arabia.

And Biden. Without Biden's total support for Israel, without even a modest restraint on what Netanyahu is doing in Gaza, would we see so much deliberate destruction of life and property? Lebanese returning to their homes in the South see no homes, only rubble, ditto Palestinians in Gaza.
America did this, and America will pay -you, Paladin, will pay for it, as you have done since 1967. The same people who want to stop funding foreign wars only mean Ukraine, they will continue to pour billions of tax payer dollars to Israel. Your dollars.

As for Hegseth, though I don't think he will get Senate confirmation, he doesn't think the US has gone far enough -to do what? At what point does Israel concede anything? Netanyahu wants to 're-shape the Middle East', but only if it means Israel is supreme. Israel has done well out of the misery of October 7 2023, but the fundamental problem was created when the Ottoman Empire formed an alliance with the German Empire in 1914, and 100 years and more later, the consequences continued to be a problem some think cannot be solved.

If you support Israel, you should be praising Biden. If he wasn't such a hypocrite and self-obsessed con-man, so would Trump.

[Paladin]

Sure, Trump didn't do Anything. He just got elected and now all the baddies are having "oh shit" moments.

Biden waffled more than a busy Residence Inn on a Sunday morning. He delayed munitions and put limitations on their use constantly, and now has "permitted" land mines!?!?!

Land mines are the most insidious of all and will kill and main for decades after the fighting finally stops.

It was biden's non enforcement of oil and other sanctions against iran, and dumping more case on them, that gave them the hard currency to fund h, h, & h to do what they have been doing. They, and the ruskies, sensed his overall weakness after the disastrous exit from Afghanistan in 2021 and went for it. And now we all have to deal with it.

[Stavros]

May I suggest you keep up with the news? I was surprised at the decision to supply land mines to Ukraine, but it remains to be seen if and where they use them. I think this is a dangerous phase of the war, because of the desperate state of the Russian economy and Putin's desperation.

As for Iran, can you not check first before claiming the US has not sanctioned Iran's petroleum industry?

"In the aftermath of Iran’s unprecedented October 1 attack against Israel, the United States made clear that we would impose consequences on Iran for its actions. To that end, we are taking steps today to disrupt the flow of revenue the Iranian regime uses to fund its nuclear program and missile development, support terrorist proxies and partners, and perpetuate conflict throughout the Middle East.
The Department of State is imposing sanctions on six entities engaged in Iranian petroleum trade and identifying six vessels as blocked property. Concurrently, the Department of the Treasury, in consultation with the Department of State, is issuing a determination that will lead to the imposition of sanctions against any person determined to operate in the petroleum or petrochemical sectors of the Iranian economy.
Additionally, Treasury is sanctioning ten entities and identifying 17 vessels as blocked property for their involvement in shipments of Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products in support of U.S.-designated entities National Iranian Oil Company or Triliance Petrochemical Co. Limited.".
State Department Sanctions and Identification of the Petroleum and Petrochemical Sectors of Iran’s Economy - United States Department of State (https://www.state.gov/state-department-sanctions-and-identification-of-the-petroleum-and-petrochemical-sectors-of-irans-economy/)

With one exception nobody in the Middle East is scared of a preposterous coward like Trump. Read Bolton's book on the incidents that followed the assassination of Qasem Suleimani. Bolton has advocated bombing Iran for years, Trump couldn't bring himself to do it.

The one exception is those Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank who believe Trump will not himself do anything for them, he doesn't even know who they are, but will not oppose the radical settler lunatics from forcing a formal annexation of the West Bank with the rider that expulsions from the territories follow, as part of the Likud's concept of 'Greater Israel' or 'Erez Israel' which views all Biblical lands as the right of Israel to occupy.

This is what Smotrich has said

"Israel (https://www.middleeasteye.net/countries/israel)'s far-right finance minister on Wednesday said Gaza could be emptied of half its population through "voluntary" migration within two years.
Addressing a meeting (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/urging-occupation-smotrich-says-voluntary-migration-could-halve-gazas-population-in-2-years/) of the Yesha Council, a committee overseeing a number of settlements in the occupied West Bank, Smotrich said Israel “can and must occupy the Gaza Strip”.
“We don’t need to be scared of this word [occupation],” he said.
“It’s possible to create a situation in which Gaza will have less than half its current population within two years."
He said the “voluntary migration” of Palestinians from Gaza could also serve as a “model” for the West Bank."
Bezalel Smotrich says Israel can empty half of Gaza through 'voluntary' migration | Middle East Eye (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-can-empty-half-gaza-bezalel-smotrich-says)

And also said this

" In an interview with Arte, the European cultural channel that broadcasts in French and German, Israel’s finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, (https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/smotrich-calls-israels-borders-extend-damascus) said that Israel would be expanding “little by little” until it reaches Damascus.".
It's time for the US to stand up to Israel (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5011980-israel-gaza-war-crimes-us/)

Ok so it is possible that the money-waving Saudis could take Trump to one side and give him options -give the Israel the go-ahead we won't give you our dollars, or something like that. Given Trump sees everything as a transaction which leaves him better off than before, and given that he LOVES Saudi dollars, even Israel might come second in this scenario. But Saudi Arabia would not be doing it out of sympathy for the Palestinians, but to promote its right -as it sees it- to control the Holy Places of Islam, including the mosques of Oman and Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, currently the job of the Hashemite King in Jordan.

A space that needs watching!

[Paladin]

iran IS sanctioned wrt oil, but the biden admin is not enforcing it.

[Paladin]

iran IS sanctioned wrt oil, but the biden admin is not enforcing it. Sure they started up somewhat after last October, but for THREE years they just let it slide.

Saudi oil dollars? We don't need them, whoever if they cut production it will affect you all over there a lot more...

[Stavros]

iran IS sanctioned wrt oil, but the biden admin is not enforcing it. Sure they started up somewhat after last October, but for THREE years they just let it slide.

Saudi oil dollars? We don't need them, whoever if they cut production it will affect you all over there a lot more...

Saudi oil dollars buy a lot of your debt, and there is a whole load of that, and under Trump will soar to new heights.

You might not need Saudi dollars, Trump loves 'em, as does FIFA and other sporting bodies. How long before the Superbowl is played in Riyadh?

And you don't need Canadian pertroleum and its products? No need to go East to see oil problems, just look North.

[Paladin]

Just note this. If the US economy crashes, everyone eles's will BURN. That's the 2nd half of crash 'n burn.

[Stavros]

Just note this. If the US economy crashes, everyone eles's will BURN. That's the 2nd half of crash 'n burn.

I am sure you remember when Speaker Paul Ryan had a 'Debt Clock' designed to undermine the Obama Presidency. Where is that clock, and why has nobody asked questions about the Debt?

Trump has been in debt ever since he took over daddy's firm; he thrives on debt, and enjoys either not paying his debts, or stringing repayments out over years. If he runs the US next time like he ran his companies, the US could go bankrupt, but I doubt it as he is not in total control of the economy.

What this has to do with the Middle East I don't know, but then it is not only the Arabs who own so much of the USA's debt, but China too. If the 21st Century is no longer an American Century, whose will it be?

[Stavros]

Brief thought on the resurgence in Syria -Russia has had its naval base on the Syrian coast, but I wonder, if this current phase drags on, Russia, committed to supporting the Asad regime, will be in a state of 'strategic overreach' and if this will further undermine its campaign in Ukraine.

[Paladin]

Syria: It's getting to be an unmanageable mess over there. russia is in over its head and this will not end well for them or the region.

US debt. It's out of control, but biden added MORE to the debt than trump has and he still has one more month to go.

Trump Paid his loans to Deutsch Bank - early.

[Stavros]

Trump Paid his loans to Deutsch Bank - early.

The opposite is the case

""As a result of the Trump Organization's failure to respond, Deutsche Bank decided to exit its relationship with the company." (this is in January 2020)
"The formal decision was made by three bank executives during a Skype call on the afternoon of May 27, 2021, another of James' filings (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23132598-deutschebankskypecall) reveals. It would take a year, until May, for Trump to retire most of his debt, as demanded.
Flush with cash from the $375 million sale of his DC hotel, Trump paid off the Old Post Office loan in full, and refinanced the $125 million borrowed for his 2011 purchase of Trump National Doral, his Miami golf course, as Forbes' Dan Alexander first reported in July. (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2022/07/29/donald-trumps-great-escape-how-the-former-president-solved-his-debt-crisis/?sh=3f69a8c33970)".
Trump's Secret, Ugly Breakup With Deutsche Bank Revealed - Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-secret-ugly-breakup-with-deutsche-bank-revealed-2022-10)

If you want you can read about the Deutsche Bank loans here, and note some of the loans were repaid with money Trump borrowed from other sources, not his own-
How Donald Trump got his Deutsche Bank loans (https://qz.com/how-donald-trump-got-his-deutsche-bank-loans-1849580784)

Deutsche Bank loaned Trump $2bn despite multiple red flags, new report claims | World Finance (https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/deutsche-bank-loaned-trump-2bn-despite-multiple-red-flags-new-report-claims)

Forbes has done a review of the money Trump currently owns-
Forbes Daily Briefing: Here’s How Much Money Trump Owes—And Who Stands To Collect | Former President Donald Trump owes more money today than he ever did during his first presidency, according to a Forbes analysis. Read more:... | By Forbes | Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/forbes/videos/forbes-daily-briefing-heres-how-much-money-trump-owesand-who-stands-to-collect/952836843337313/)

There is only one Middle East angle to this, given this is a thread on the Middle East. The Saudis or Kushner's mates in the Gulf dreaming up some scheme whereby Trump or some outfit gets the money he owes and pays them off, in exchange for some grubby deal on the Yemen, as Trump is now threatening to attack Gaza with even more ferocity than Israel, though it echoes the hysterical threats he made to North Korea before falling in love with Kim.

The man lives on borrowed money and borrowed time.

[filghy2]

US debt. It's out of control, but biden added MORE to the debt than trump has and he still has one more month to go.

Not as a share of the economy, which is what matters
Dec 2016 105% of GDP
Dec 2020 126% of GDP
Sep 2024 123% of GDP
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/

[Stavros]

There was a time when Syria was thought of as the cradle of Arab Nationalism. The same Nationalism that developed in Europe after the Napoleonic era, was evident in both the emergence of 'Political Zionism' through Moses Mendelssohn and Theodor Herzl, and of Arab Nationalism, mostly in Syria in the last quarter of the 19th century.

The argument is that Arab Nationalism has been eclipsed by Political Islam, a phenomenon that was dormant in the region until the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, but that Islamist movements have been divided within and between themselves, and after scoring early successes have collapsed in an orgy of violence and misrule. The Syria dimension is particularly complex because of the diversity of its social fabric, the enduring appeal of Arab Nationalism for the secular forces in the country, and of course the external intervention in its domestic politics which makes any rational settlement almost impossible to achieve, not least because the country's resources are owned for the most part by one family and their cronies.

But if Russia is now stretched too far and cannot protect the Asad family indefinitely, the most likely scenario is comparable to Libya with geographical and political divisions exacerbating the absence of any unifying force in the country. Turkey would have claims of self-defence in the North where it retains a troop presence, largely to contain what it sees as a threat from Kurdish independence groups. Israel has annexed parts of Syria it occupied in 1967 -with the approval of the USA- and could see a collapse in Syria as the opportunity to extend its territorial acquisition which it will say is for reasons of 'self-defence', but what we don't know is how much longer the rebel forces can last, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, who got burned when they first tried to manipulate the Syria opposition to their advantage in 2011, could in theory have another go, but with whom as their candidate it is not known, unless they decide they are better off with Asad.

I suspect Syria will continue to melt down over the next year, with the grim thought that in reality few people care about the place to do anything radical.

[Paladin]

If it's so great, then move there...

[Stavros]

If it's so great, then move there...

A post that underlines your lack of interest in Syria and the region, having previously demonstrated your ignorance. If you are referring to Syria I did not even imply it is a great place to live, that should be obvious.

[Stavros]

As the situation in Syria changes, if not by the hour, by the day, intriguing outcomes suggest that a fractured country will not be healed.

Consider the argument, aired on Channel 4 News in the UK this Friday evening (Dec 6th) that the Turks were aware that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) were planning their operations in Aleppo and Hama, and cautioned their leader against them. But now that HTS has so far succeeded in gaining control of those two cities, with the prospect of Homs falling over the weekend, Turkey must now be revising its own ambitions. Having occupied parts of Northern Syria as a 'buffer zone' which it claims helps it defend Turkey from militant Kurds, the success of the Kurdish Syrian Defence Forces in maintaining their control of Deir-al-Zour could lead to an agreement with Turkey. In spite of its hostility to Kurdish Nationalism, Turkey would prefer the SDF to remain in control of the East because it is stable, and it would prefer Syrian Kurds to remain in Syria, and more than anything else, prevent displaced Syrians from seeking refuge in Turkey. Moreover, as HTS says displaced Syrians in Idlib who fled there from Aleppo and other areas can now return to their homes (if they still exist), so Turkey could envisage Syrian refugees in Turkey also leaving to 'go home'.

Part of the reasoning is based on the claims of HTS that it is not al-Qaeda or ISIS reborn, that they have learned the lesson of the past and wish to be more inclusive. But this also would be a win-win for Turkey, as they key element, the Asad family business, looks like it is coming to an end, which gives Turkey a lot of power in the North and East of the country.
Who are Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, HTS, the rebels seizing control of Aleppo? - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce313jn453zo)

The Asad regime clearly failed to consolidate its 'victory' over ISIS and the rebels, while the Russians also did not consolidate their presence, rescuing the Asad regime, as their military base and naval base are poorly managed with one claim that Russian ships have been leaving the base at Tartus on the coast, and it is no secret that Russia needs all the manpower and weaponry it has for it Ukraine operations. If the Russians do abandon Asad, can he and his family business survive?
Russia ‘will not come to Assad’s rescue’ as it orders citizens to leave Syria (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/russia-not-come-assad-rescue-172820264.html)

For Israel the obvious problem is that an unstable Syria poses a threat, but not because of the use of Hizbollah militias in defence of Asad. With Iran weakened and Hizbollah with it, Israel could in theory welcome the fall of Asad, but what is not clear is how Saudi Arabia and the Gulf will response, as both got severely burned when they intervened in Syria in 2011. The anti-Iran alliance that Saudi Arabia formed with Israel may not longer be strong enough to guarantee no incursions from Syria into Israel, given that right now HTS is more interested in consolidating its rule in Syria, if it succeeds in demolishing the Asad regime. Saudi Arabia could even support HTS, giving it a leg up in Syria, and persuade Trump to go along with it, or at least remain neutral about a new situation in Syria, and especially if it can persuade HTS not to attack Israel -which can be backed up with Saudi money, an intriguing step on the road to Saudi Arabia's historic claim to rule all of the Middle East.

Syria will remain fractured, and the situation could get even worse if Trump and Israel agree to the claim that Trump will endorse the formal annexation by Israel of the West Bank in exchange for ending the war in Gaza as reported here-

"With Trump’s reelection, the Middle East could soon witness a deal of extraordinary cynicism: Ending the war in Gaza in exchange for Israeli annexation of parts of the West Bank.
For Netanyahu, such a move would be the ultimate exercise in narrative manipulation. It would allow him to claim that he not only subdued Hamas, but also reshaped the map of the Middle East. At the same time, it would deflect attention from the devastating security failures of Oct. 7, 2023. For Trump, it would be a theatrical masterstroke — an opportunity to stage a grand deal early in his second term, feed his base with the optics of strength and cement his legacy as a “master negotiator.”".
Netanyahu and Trump may cut a cynical and costly Gaza deal (https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5024261-netanyahu-and-trump-may-cut-a-cynical-and-costly-gaza-deal/)

But just as an event in one part of the region sets off something elsewhere, so these changes in Syria do nothing for the Palestinians, indeed, if the annexation goes ahead, and Smotrich and Ben-Gvir want Palestinians out of both Gaza and the West Bank, this presents Jordan with its own existential crisis -where are 4 million Arabs going to live?

"a major refugee crisis along the west bank of the River Jordan would unfold and the Jordanian government would come under tremendous pressure from its partners, especially the US, to change its policy. Refusing to do so would risk severely harming relations with the Trump White House."
The return of Donald Trump is bad news for Jordan | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank (https://www.chathamhouse.org/2024/11/return-donald-trump-bad-news-jordan)

The potential outcome here is the end of the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan, something Saudi Arabia would support (it tried to depose King Abdullah via one of Hussein's sons a few years ago), while Jordan would lose its legal right to control the Haram es-Sharif in Jerusalem, a win for Netanyahu.

But chaos in Jordan is not a win for anyone. In the end, there might be regime change in Syria, though we cannot yet know how if it wins, HTS will rule, or even where, if it does or does not accept Kurdish autonomy in the North-East. We can assume Russia and Iran throw in the towel, as is already evident. We can't be sure Israel will stop bombing Syria, but again and again Palestinians remain at the core, and while Israel might claim victory over its long established claim that 'Jordan is Palestine', does it really want millions of angry Palestinians separated by what used to be called the River Jordan, in some places more like a stream you can jump over.

Long way to go and lots of unknowns to deal with.

[Stavros]

Reports claim Asad has fled the country, I think they are true.

What we don't know is if, or how HTS can Govern, if they claim the right to do so. There are multiple factions in Syria, as there have been in Libya, and HTS does not and will not have total territorial control for some time.

The key player in this, in my humble opinion, is Saudi Arabia. This is an opportunity for the Kingdom to begin its long cherished dream of ruling all of the Middle East, from Turkey in the North to Yemen in the South, from Israel in the West, to Iraq in the East.
For the time being, Israel is safe as there is too much money and technology there for MbS to intervene there, and I daresay MbS has channels to Netanyahu, though one notes Smotrich saying Israel would not stop at Gaza or the West Bank until it reaches Damascus, the sort of Braggadoccio that now seems fanciful, though I don't doubt Israel will continue to bomb parts of Syria even if only to make it clear to HTS that it can.

HTS says it is not ISIS or al-Qeda, but that remains to be seen, but it has a mammoth job on its hands -and where has all the Asad Family Business money gone?

Others winning here: Turkey, as per my previous post.

Unknown: how, if they do, Russia and Iran react, if not now, over the next year.

And the US. We have already had a statement of stunning ignorance from the Idiot-

""Syria is a mess, but is not our friend, & THE UNITED STATES SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT," Trump said on Truth Social.
The President-elect added, "THIS IS NOT OUR FIGHT. LET IT PLAY OUT. DO NOT GET INVOLVED!"",
'There are 900 U.S. troops stationed there': Experts outraged after Trump's latest comment (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/there-are-900-u-s-troops-stationed-there-experts-outraged-after-trump-s-latest-comment/ar-AA1vspKU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=EDGEESS&cvid=17991762d49c44f9b6b77fdc89db42b5&ei=6)

So if President Biden withdraws US troops from Syria, will the sky fall in on Fox News, will it be 'another' humiliation?

All to play for now, only this is not a game.

[Stavros]

This article in today's Telegraph offers an interesting perspective. How Sinwar's gamble set off a domino effect, but not the one he wanted.

Is this a victory for Israel? In the short term, it does neutralize Iran, but does this 're-shape the Middle East' as Netanyahu said he wants Israel's actions to achieve?

Iran could 'retreat' and limit its support for Hizbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthi in Yemen, but it could also enter negotiations with the US, in which it argues that if it stops supporting these groups, and indeed, goes further to distance its relations with Russia, then the reforming Govt could also say to the US 'see, we are doing what you want' -and even suggest a rapprochment is on the cards, though Ayatollah Khamane'i doesn't want it -tensions in Iran could determine this. But I think in return, if Iran agrees with other OPEC -ie Saudi Arabia- on oil production which benefits all, it might still insist on having its own nuclear weapon, or even agree to stop it if the US becomes a friend -Trump is known for seeing everything as a transaction and could agree to something that will shock people in the US as well as the world.

The problem for Israel is that all of its achievements were funded and armed by the US, and while there is scope for a deal with Saudi Arabia, the problem that just won't go away is right in front of everyone: the Palestinians, and on that Israel and Saudi Arabia cannot agree.

So in the medium to long term, we have no idea how the changes in Syria will pan out. Will the displaced inside Syria 'return home', as might be the case with the refugees in Jordan and Turkey?

Here is the Telegraph article

How Oct 7 led to the fall of Syria - and the retreat of Iran (https://uk.news.yahoo.com/iran-proxies-torn-shreds-may-170330552.html)

[Paladin]

Immaterial. The sheer higher amount, coupled with the much higher fed interest rates, brought on by the feckless foppish dolt's asinine policies which put inflation at 40 year highs for several years running, makes the interest due each year MUCH higher than in was in 2020.

[Paladin]

There was a time when Syria was thought of as the cradle of Arab Nationalism. The same Nationalism that developed in Europe after the Napoleonic era, was evident in both the emergence of 'Political Zionism' through Moses Mendelssohn and Theodor Herzl, and of Arab Nationalism, mostly in Syria in the last quarter of the 19th century.

The argument is that Arab Nationalism has been eclipsed by Political Islam, a phenomenon that was dormant in the region until the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, but that Islamist movements have been divided within and between themselves, and after scoring early successes have collapsed in an orgy of violence and misrule. The Syria dimension is particularly complex because of the diversity of its social fabric, the enduring appeal of Arab Nationalism for the secular forces in the country, and of course the external intervention in its domestic politics which makes any rational settlement almost impossible to achieve, not least because the country's resources are owned for the most part by one family and their cronies.

But if Russia is now stretched too far and cannot protect the Asad family indefinitely, the most likely scenario is comparable to Libya with geographical and political divisions exacerbating the absence of any unifying force in the country. Turkey would have claims of self-defence in the North where it retains a troop presence, largely to contain what it sees as a threat from Kurdish independence groups. Israel has annexed parts of Syria it occupied in 1967 -with the approval of the USA- and could see a collapse in Syria as the opportunity to extend its territorial acquisition which it will say is for reasons of 'self-defence', but what we don't know is how much longer the rebel forces can last, while Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, who got burned when they first tried to manipulate the Syria opposition to their advantage in 2011, could in theory have another go, but with whom as their candidate it is not known, unless they decide they are better off with Asad.

I suspect Syria will continue to melt down over the next year, with the grim thought that in reality few people care about the place to do anything radical.

It only took a couple days.

I was on 4 star command HQ staffs for a while and have a deep interest and knowledge of the area. But it's all TS. To coina phrase, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

[Stavros]

It only took a couple days.

I was on 4 star command HQ staffs for a while and have a deep interest and knowledge of the area. But it's all TS. To coina phrase, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

Why make so much effort to buff up your ego, and even kill someone when all that is required is informed comment? If you know Syria so well.

[Paladin]

Why make so much effort to buff up your ego, and even kill someone when all that is required is informed comment? If you know Syria so well.

No egos here (except maybe yours, because you're always insulting me). It's just that you don't know what I know and you're not going to know.

[Stavros]

No egos here (except maybe yours, because you're always insulting me). It's just that you don't know what I know and you're not going to know.

Sounds like John Cage 'I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it', only in your case I don't think it's Zen. I don't think my disappointment with you is insulting, but a reflection, in part of your rejection of historical fact, in part your lack of real interest, and in part your need to post meaningless phrases. But as I think I have said before, this reflects the poor quality of American education, though there is always time for you to read a book or a journal and not rely on vacuous innuendo.

Hard to believe that a weekend of such momentous events in the Middle East cannot excite a debate, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Paladin]

Sounds like John Cage 'I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it', only in your case I don't think it's Zen. I don't think my disappointment with you is insulting, but a reflection, in part of your rejection of historical fact, in part your lack of real interest, and in part your need to post meaningless phrases. But as I think I have said before, this reflects the poor quality of American education, though there is always time for you to read a book or a journal and not rely on vacuous innuendo.

Hard to believe that a weekend of such momentous events in the Middle East cannot excite a debate, but nothing surprises me anymore.

It's an inside military joke that enlisted folks like to pull off on Officers. I even fell for it once when I was a LT, but after I got TS/SCI clearance, that no longer worked. You don't / didn't get it, so that's all.

I have a lot of other issues much closer to home to deal with and my middle east service is (I hope) all in the past.

[filghy2]

I was on 4 star command HQ staffs for a while and have a deep interest and knowledge of the area. But it's all TS. To coina phrase, I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.

I believe I found some film of you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

[Paladin]

I believe I found some film of you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1KvgtEnABY

Wrong answer. I was Slim Pickens riding the bomb down.

[Paladin]

Think about this. For months now the biden admin was trying to force a cease fire down Israel's throat which would have left hezbollah at new their full strength. But instead, Israel blew up their pagers, the ultimate, literal "in your face" if there ever was one, killed their top commander, and now with syria in meltdown status hezbollah is all but done in.

[filghy2]

Wrong answer. I was Slim Pickens riding the bomb down.

That figures. You probably didn't realize the film was a satire on gung ho types like you.

[filghy2]

Think about this. For months now the biden admin was trying to force a cease fire down Israel's throat which would have left hezbollah at new their full strength. But instead, Israel blew up their pagers, the ultimate, literal "in your face" if there ever was one, killed their top commander, and now with syria in meltdown status hezbollah is all but done in.

It's only been 21 years since the last time the problems of the Middle East were going to be solved by military force, so why not try it again? I'll bet you were a big fan of the Iraq invasion.

[Paladin]

That figures. You probably didn't realize the film was a satire on gung ho types like you.

Proving again that you know Nothing about me.

Did you ever even watch it? It was a satire about the inflexibility and path to destruction that could possibly happen, not about "gung ho types" .

[Paladin]

It's only been 21 years since the last time the problems of the Middle East were going to be solved by military force, so why not try it again? I'll bet you were a big fan of the Iraq invasion.

I was there dumass, nearly got my a$$ blown away twice. I'll keep my opinions on they entire 20+ year catastrophe to myself.

[filghy2]

I was there dumass, nearly got my a$$ blown away twice. I'll keep my opinions on they entire 20+ year catastrophe to myself.

It's always interesting how you avoid the subject on anything that doesn't fit your simplistic worldview - eg deafening silence on Trump's plans for Ukraine.

Poor old Plod. Came back for a bit of gloating about the election, and now you're stuck because you can't bear to lose face.

[Paladin]

What's YOUR plan for Ukraine?

As for having a simplistic world view, I'm just dumbing it down for the audience here.

[filghy2]

Why the fuck would I have a plan? You are the one who is claiming to be some kind of expert in geo-political strategy, yet you have nothing of substance to say on the reported plans of the incoming President. All we get is these pathetic evasions. What a phoney.

[fred41]

What's YOUR plan for Ukraine?

As for having a simplistic world view, I'm just dumbing it down for the audience here.

I would think any negotiations would start off with - what amount of Ukrainian territory would be ceded for guaranteed NATO coverage of the rest. That’s the starting line. There is no way to say how it should end after that, because it comes down to willing negotiations. However, this war can’t go on forever…no matter how much equipment, armaments or global commitments one side has over the other…someone’s going to simply run out of soldiers…period. So it has to start with a cease fire for negotiations. The negotiations are “the plan”.

[Paladin]

Why the fuck would I have a plan? You are the one who is claiming to be some kind of expert in geo-political strategy, yet you have nothing of substance to say on the reported plans of the incoming President. All we get is these pathetic evasions. What a phoney.

Then butt out.

Trump hasn't made any detailed statements / policy decisions yet. The no-mind-left current pres hasn't done anything but throw money at the problem and look where that's gotten things.