Sunday, June 15, 2014

Back to the Middle East for a second, there is the entire Israel - Palestine thing that refuses to relieve any threat in the region.

Saturday, 14 June 2014 15:21
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (click here) has demanded that the Palestinian Authority (PA) dissolve its unity pact with Hamas as a condition to resume peace talks, Israel Radio reported on Friday.
Earlier on Thursday, PA President Mahmoud Abbas said that he is ready to resume peace talks with the Israeli occupation on condition the latter releases the fourth batch of long-serving Palestinian prisoners.
Netanyahu's office subsequently issued a statement describing Mr Abbas's announcement is "meaningless," claiming that the new Palestinian government "is not considered as supportive of peace."
Palestinian-Israeli peace talks, brokered by the US, broke down in April 2014 when the Israeli occupation government reneged on a previous agreement to release the veteran Palestinian prisoners.
Palestine really isn't Israel's greatest worry. As a matter of fact, Palestine isn't even listed as a threat in 2013 and 2014. Interesting, isn't it?
Iran 2014
President Ruhani has heralded a shift in political momentum in Iran toward the center, but we do not know whether he heralds a reversal of the authoritarian trend in Iranian politics during the past many years. Iran’s economy will continue to struggle without comprehensive sanctions relief, which drives Ruhani and his team of technocrats to pursue nuclear negotiations. Since his election, Ruhani has had the support of the Supreme Leader, which has silenced some conservative critics. Hardliners, however, have consistently argued that sanctions fatigue will eventually break the international sanctions coalition and are wary of Ruhani’s engagement with the West, as well as his promises of social and political moderation. Ruhani must maintain the backing of the Supreme Leader in order to continue to advance his political agenda. (Information on Iran’s nuclear weapons program and intentions can be found above in the section on WMD and Proliferation.) 
The USA is inconsistent with it's policy in regard to authoritarian trends. It tolerated Mubarak just fine. It tolerates the King of Saudi Arabia without question. It affiliates strongly with the King of Jordan. So, how does the USA resolve the issue of being Anti-Authoritarian anywhere else?
See, it really isn't about authoritarian regimes, now is it? I mean Rumsfeld was Saddam's buddy right up to the point where he wasn't. The USA divides also along lines of human rights which in many regimes is an issue. But, human rights problems also encompass countries like Russia and China. But, until recently Russia was a member of the G8. It isn't really authoritarian regimes the USA has a problem with, it is nuclear capacity. So the entire idea there are threats by authoritarian governments is nonsense. The USA weighs it's acceptance of authoritarian governments by their nuclear capacity.
It is time get over the fact the Middle East has many authoritarian governments that are ethnically affiliated and the USA is suppose to do what exactly? Go to war every time there is an opening to assault Iran? Or Russia? Or China? Or Syria?
I tell you what. Why not challenge the authoritarian government of Wall Street and the 1 percent so the entire world can breath easier?
Better put, the USA needs to focus on peace and how to attain it for any region on Earth, rather than focusing on war and it's ability to kill and destroy. There is religious freedom in the USA, however, it doesn't seem to be the case in the Middle East. Why is that?
Iran will continue to act assertively abroad in ways that run counter to US interests and worsen regional conflicts. Iranian officials almost certainly believe that their support has been instrumental in sustaining Asad’s regime in Syria and will probably continue support during 2014 to bolster the regime. In the broader Middle East, Iran will continue to provide arms and other aid to Palestinian groups, Huthi rebels in Yemen, and Shia militants in Bahrain to expand Iranian influence and to counter perceived foreign threats. Tehran, which strives for a stable Shia-led, pro-Iran government in Baghdad, is concerned about the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Tehran is probably struggling to find the balance between protecting Shia equities in Iraq and avoiding overt actions that would precipitate greater anti-Shia violence. In Afghanistan, Tehran will probably seek its own additional security agreements with Kabul, promote pro-Iranian candidates in the 2014 presidential election to increase its influence at the expense of the United States, and maintain its clandestine aid to Afghan insurgent groups. Iran sees rising sectarianism as a dangerous regional development, but we assess that Iran’s perceived responsibility to protect and empower Shia communities will increasingly trump its desire to avoid sectarian violence. Hence, Iran’s actions will likely do more to fuel rather than dampen increasing sectarianism