Chris Hedges's Blog, page 220

Give Trump ‘Credit’ on Iran (But Not Much)

This piece originally appeared on antiwar.com.

The Donald made the right call. Now that’s a rare statement. Calling off – or at least delaying – a military strike on Iran was prudent. Nevertheless, there was something deeply unsettling about the whole thing. The system is broken, perhaps irreparably.

The president never even considered seeking congressional approval before playing emperor and unleashing death and destruction on a sovereign nation. Why would he? Essentially every president, since Truman, has done the same thing one time or another. Unilateral executive action has been the American norm pretty much since World War II wrapped up. Seen in this context, Trump isn’t so anomalous as many would like to believe. Korea kicked off the trend. But the Vietnam advisory mission, Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria – to name the highlights – were all undertaken without the constitutionally mandated consent of the legislature.

In that sense, a dozen or so more palatable and polite emperors, I mean presidents, paved the way for the coarser and more buffoonish reality TV star currently calling the shots in the White House. Americans’ collective sin of ignoring foreign policy and ceding unilateral power to the executive branch has truly, and definitively, come home to roost. That’s partly why I find the protestations from Democratic lawmakers to be more about partisanship than principles. Genuine legislators – that spent more time following international policy instead of obsessively raising money – would all revolt and restrain the president regardless of their political party. We’re unlikely to see that.

None of this should be seen as a defense or normalization of Trump. The manis scary. His threats, vagueness, and propensity to turn on a policy dime are genuinely disturbing. So is his blatant affinity for autocrats the world over. The point is that I shouldn’t have to give “credit” to Trump when he acts prudently and demonstrates restraint. I, we, should not have to hang on the words and pronouncements of any one man. The populace, the media, the congress should not be relegated to spectators held hostage by the whims of any one man.

It doesn’t necessarily matter whether that person is Donald Trump or Barack Obama, per say. The system, as designed in the Constitution, judiciously places the supreme power of warfare squarely on Capitol Hill, on the collective judgment of the peoples’ elected representatives. Discussion, debate, deliberation – these ought to be the hallmarks of any rather profound decision to kill and maim other humans. Instead, in 21st century America, we “elect” – not necessarily by the popular vote count – an emperor and then watch and see what he does with our military and, heck, our nuclear arsenal for that matter.

Which places this author, and all Americans really, in the awkward, and pathetic, position of having to praise the lunatic-in-chief for not doing the unthinkable. All of us feast on the decisional scraps of one Donald Trump. It’s been normalized to such an extent that hardly anyone notices any longer. All Americans are essentially too trapped in the Matrix of imperial war to recognize the crumbing of national institutions. It easy (and somewhat accurate) to blame congress, or the media, or various presidents themselves, but the rot runs much deeper. Average Americans have forgotten how to be true citizens, forgotten how to mobilize in the streets and demand change. Too busy eking out a living after forty years of working wage stagnation, and no longer required to serve in America’s imperial wars, the people have opted out. We’re all guilty, all complicit, in the hijacking of the Constitution. So it was that I personally endured combat in two ill-advised, immoral wars in the Greater Middle East.

See, there are consequences for executive overreach and popular apathy. We can count the costs to the tune of $5.9 trillion spent, some 7,000 American soldiers killed, and about 480,000 dead foreigners. All of this occurred with either a congressional rubber stamp or, often, no stamp at all. While congressmen and senators were busy dialing-for-dollars, my soldiers were in the field killing and dying in rather real wars. I’m sure thankful that I’m out of the business of death-dealing, but also remain deeply unsettled by the knowledge that any war in Iran will affect, and forever damage, a new generation of officers and soldiers. Americans will then vacuously thank, and hollowly adulate, the troops involved. Almost no one will ask why those servicemen were sent to war in the first place, or question the process by which they were sent. All the while, the last remnants of the American republic will continue to crumble.

So here we are, hostages to one – rather disconcerting – man, Mr. Donald Trump. We’ll collectively wait for his decision on whether to call off, delay, or launch a new Mideast war, this time with Iran. It’s absurd and need not be this way. Citizens, real citizens I mean, could hit the streets, flood their congressmen’s’ offices, and shut down the whole damn country until the president adheres to the Constitution. It’s genuinely possible, but, of course, will not happen.

Instead, we’ll all remain glued to our TVs and phones, wondering what the emperor will do next. And when that supreme leader decides, occasionally, to show restraint, I’ll be in the awkward and insane position of giving Donald Trump “credit” when he doesn’t embark on another illegal war in our name. And more’s the pity.

Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army officer and regular contributor to Antiwar.com. His work has appeared in the LA Times, The Nation, Huff Post, The Hill, Salon, Truthdig, Tom Dispatch, among other publications. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. Follow him on Twitter at @SkepticalVet.

Yemeni Rebels Strike Saudi Airport Ahead of Pompeo Visit

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates—One person was killed and seven others were wounded in an attack by Iranian-allied Yemeni rebels on an airport in Saudi Arabia Sunday evening, the Saudi military said, as the U.S. secretary of state was on his way to the country for talks on Iran.

Regional tensions have flared in recent days. The U.S. abruptly called off military strikes against Iran in response to the shooting down of an unmanned American surveillance drone on Thursday.

The Trump administration has combined a “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions with a buildup of American forces in the region following the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. A new set of U.S. sanctions on Iran are expected to be announced Monday.

The Sunday attack by the Yemeni rebels, known as Houthis, targeted the Saudi airport in Abha. Saudi Arabia has been at war with the Houthis in Yemen for more than four years.

A Houthi spokesman, Yahia al-Sarie, said earlier Sunday the rebels had launched drones targeting Saudi airports in the southern cities of Abha and Jizan.

Saudi Arabia’s military spokesman Col. Turki al-Maliki did not say what type of weapon was used in Sunday’s attack, which took place shortly after 9 p.m. local time. The Saudi Press Agency reported that a Syrian resident of Saudi Arabia had been killed, but did not identify the nationalities of those wounded.

It was the second attack in less than two weeks on Abha’s airport. The Houthis launched a cruise missile at the airport on June 12, wounding 26 passengers inside. The Iranian-backed Houthis also claimed responsibility for bomb-laden drone strikes that targeted a key Saudi oil pipeline in recent weeks.

Also Sunday, U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was traveling to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for talks on Iran. His meetings in Saudi Arabia will be in the Red Sea city of Jiddah, about 315 miles (505 kilometers) north of where the Saudi airport was struck.

Speaking to reporters before flying out, he said he’ll be talking to the two U.S. allies “about how to make sure that we are all strategically aligned” and how to build a global coalition to “push back against the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.”

At the same time, Pompeo reiterated that the U.S. was prepared to negotiate with Iran to ease tensions.

“We’re prepared to negotiate with no preconditions. They know precisely how to find us,” he said.

Meanwhile, U.S. national security adviser John Bolton was in Jerusalem on Sunday, where he said Iran should not “mistake U.S. prudence and discretion for weakness.” President Donald Trump has said he backed away from planned strikes after learning 150 people would be killed.

Bolton’s tough message seemed to be aimed not only at Tehran, but also at reassuring key U.S. allies that the White House remains committed to maintaining pressure on Iran. Israel, along with Arab countries in the Gulf, considers Iran to be their greatest threat, and Trump’s last-minute about-face appears to have raised questions about U.S. willingness to use force against the Islamic Republic.

On Sunday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani blamed the United States’ “interventionist military presence” for fanning the flames. He was quoted by the official IRNA news agency.

Bolton, a longtime Iran hawk, emphasized that the U.S. reserved the right to attack at a later point.

“No one has granted them a hunting license in the Middle East. As President Trump said on Friday our military is rebuilt, new and ready to go,” Bolton said alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, himself a vocal critic of Iran over the years.

Netanyahu, a longtime opponent of the nuclear deal, has remained uncharacteristically quiet throughout the current crisis between the U.S. and Iran. The Israeli leader appears to be wary of being seen as pushing the U.S. into a new Middle Eastern military conflict.

Standing alongside Bolton, Netanyahu said Iranian involvement in conflicts across the region had increased as a result of the nuclear deal, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for set limits on its uranium enrichment levels.

Netanyahu made no mention of the called-off airstrike and said he was “pleased” by U.S. plans for increased economic pressure. But some Israeli commentators said that Trump’s about-face was a cause for concern.

Iran’s foreign minister said Bolton was trying to force the U.S. into a conflict with Iran. Javad Zarif tweeted that the presidential adviser was “moments away from trapping” Trump into a “war,” before the U.S. president called off the strikes against Iran.

America’s European allies have expressed deep concern about the volatile standoff. A top British diplomat was in Tehran on Sunday to discuss preventing any “escalation and miscalculation,” according to the UK Foreign Office.

The two-day visit of Andrew Murrison, the UK’s minister of state for the Middle East, was aimed at “open, frank and constructive engagement” with his Iranian counterparts, according to the Foreign Office. This included reiterating the UK’s assessment that Iran almost certainly bears responsibility for recent attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, which Iran denies.

Murrison added that Iran must continue to meet its commitments under the nuclear deal.

Iran has threatened to break the limits set on its uranium stockpile by the deal in the coming days, if European powers don’t find a way to circumvent U.S. sanctions.

According to IRNA, Iranian officials told Murrison they hoped that European signatories to the nuclear deal will pursue “normal relations and trade” despite the sanctions.

Also Sunday, a top Iranian military commander warned that any conflict with Iran would have uncontrollable consequences across the region and endanger the lives of U.S. forces. Maj. Gen. Gholamali Rashid’s remarks, published by the semi-official Fars news agency, were made while addressing Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps during a field visit to a command center for Iranian radars and missile systems.

Throughout the recent crisis, Trump has wavered between bellicose language and actions toward Iran and a more accommodating tone. His administration is aiming to cripple Iran’s economy and force policy changes by re-imposing sanctions, including on Iranian oil exports.

He’s also dangled the prospect of eventually becoming an unlikely “best friend” of America’s longtime Middle Eastern adversary.

The regional tensions have prompted major international carriers, including Saudi Arabia’s state airline Saudia, to divert flight routes away from the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz.

The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Friday barred U.S.-registered aircraft from operating over parts of the Persian Gulf.

___

Superville reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Aron Heller in Jerusalem and Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran contributed to this report.

Landmark Istanbul Mayoral Loss a Blow to Turkey’s Erdogan

ISTANBUL—The opposition candidate for mayor of Istanbul celebrated a landmark win Sunday in a closely watched repeat election that ended weeks of political tension and broke President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party’s 25-year hold on Turkey’s biggest city.

“Thank you, Istanbul,” former businessman and district mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, 49, said in a televised speech after unofficial results showed he won a clear majority of the vote.

The governing party’s candidate, former Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, conceded moments after returns showed him trailing well behind Imamoglu, 54% to 45%. Imamoglu increased his lead from a March mayoral election by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Erdogan also congratulated Imamoglu in a tweet.

Imamoglu narrowly won Istanbul’s earlier mayor’s contest on March 31, but Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, AKP, challenged the election for alleged voting irregularities. He spent 18 days in office before Turkey’s electoral board annulled the results after weeks of partial recounts.

The voided vote raised concerns domestically and abroad about the state of Turkish democracy and whether Erdogan’s party would accept any electoral loss. AKP has governed Turkey since 2002.

“You have protected the reputation of democracy in Turkey with the whole world watching,” Imamoglu, his voice hoarse after weeks of campaigning, told supporters.

Following his second victory, tens of thousands of people erupted in mass celebration across Istanbul, including outside the offices of the Republican People’s Party, which backed Imamoglu.

Jubilant supporters chanted “Mayor again! Mayor again!” Others hung out of cars, blaring horns and waving red-and-white Turkish flags.

Erdogan campaigned for Yildirim in Istanbul, where the president started his political career as mayor in 1994. The ruling party still controls 25 of Istanbul’s 39 districts and a majority in the municipal assembly.

Imamoglu will have to work with those officeholders to govern Istanbul and promised Sunday to work with his political opponents.

AKP also lost control of the capital city of Ankara in Turkey’s March local elections, which were held as the country faced an economic downturn, battled high inflation and two credit rating downgrades in the past year.

Melahat Ugen said she switched her vote to the opposition because she could not afford to cover basic expenses.

“I’ve certainly never voted left before,” she said. “But I’m 62, and a bag of onions costs too much. Everything is imported and we can’t afford it.”

Analysts say the result would increase pressure on Erdogan’s government, which is grappling with a shaky economy and multiple international crises.

“The significance of Ekrem Imamoglu’s win in Istanbul cannot be understated…. he represents a much-needed change in political discourse,” Lisel Hintz, an assistant professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University SAIS, said.

Hintz said the mayor-elect withstood a divisive campaign by the government and prevailed with a positive message.

“We now have to wait and see whether Imamoglu’s tenure as mayor will be interfered with in any way, whether by cutting off funding and hampering his office’s ability to provide services or by removing him under some legal pretext,” Hintz said.

Addressing Erdogan in his speech, Imamoglu said, “I’m ready to work with you” to solve Istanbul’s problems. The president has previously signaled an unwillingness to do so.

Istanbul, a city of more than 15 million, draws millions of tourists each year and is Turkey’s commercial and cultural hub. Straddling Europe and Asia, Istanbul accounted for 31% of Turkey’s GDP in 2017.

Ozgur Unluhisarcikli, Ankara office director of the German Marshall Fund, argued that the loss of Istanbul is likely to fuel speculation of divisions within the ruling party and among its supporters.

“It’s now clear that a sizable portion of the AKP voters is seriously dissatisfied by policies of the AKP,” he said. “The (opposition) was a house that was united. The AKP house looked like one that was already divided.”

The loss, he argued, also has international implications. Erdogan was already at odds with Western allies over Turkey’s plans to buy the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system and its challenge of EU-member Cyprus over natural gas drilling rights.

___

Bulut Emiroglu and Ayse Wieting in Istanbul contributed.

 

Iran Had Every Right to Shoot Down That Drone

This piece first appeared on Truthout.

The New York Times is reporting that on June 20, President Trump ordered military strikes against Iran to retaliate for its shootdown of a U.S. drone, but then pulled back and didn’t launch them. Officials told the Times that Trump had approved attacks on Iranian radar and missile batteries.

Trump tweeted, “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone.”

Nevertheless, shortly after midnight on June 21, Newsweek reported that regional U.S. military assets have been put on 72-hour standby.

On June 19, an Iranian surface-to-air missile shot down an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone. The White House claimed that its drone was at least 20 miles from Iran, in international airspace, while Iran maintains the drone was in Iranian airspace. Iran presented GPS coordinates showing the drone eight miles from Iran’s coast, which is inside the area of 12 nautical miles that is considered Iran’s territorial waters under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Iran has the legal right to control its own airspace. The United States has no lawful claim of self-defense that would justify a military attack on Iran.

Both the U.S. and Iran are parties to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, which provides “that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.”

Iran’s sovereignty over its airspace includes the right to shoot down an unmanned drone present without consent. “Although there is no black letter law on the question, state practice suggests that a state can use force against unmanned drones that have entered its airspace without consent,” Ashley Deeks and Scott R. Anderson wrote at Lawfare.

“Assuming that for once Washington is telling the truth” about how far the U.S. drone was from Iran when it was downed, “it is still undeniable that Iran has the right to demand identification from any aircraft flying this near its territory,” H. Bruce Franklin, former Air Force navigator and intelligence officer, wrote on Facebook. U.S. Air Defense Identification Zones extend 200 miles from the U.S. border. “Any unidentified drone” which flew that close to the U.S. “would most likely be shot down,” Franklin added.

Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, Majid Takht-Ravanchi, wrote to the Security Council that the drone did not respond to several radio warnings before it was shot down.

A U.S. Attack on Iran Would Not Be Lawful Self-Defense

If the United States attacks Iran, it would act in violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval.

The International Court of Justice held in the 1986 Nicaragua case that an “armed attack” only includes “the most grave forms of the use of force.” No one was injured or killed when Iran shot down the U.S. drone since it was unmanned. Indeed, Trump told reporters it made “a big, big difference” that a U.S. pilot was not threatened.

Iran did not carry out an armed attack against the United States. Under the Caroline case, there must exist “a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” There is no imminent necessity for a U.S. military attack on Iran.

Congress Has Not Authorized a Military Attack on Iran

A U.S. strike on Iran would also violate the War Powers Resolution, which lists three situations in which the president can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostilities:

First, after a declaration of war by Congress, which has not occurred since World War II. Second, in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” The loss of a U.S. drone does not constitute a “national emergency.” Third, when there is “specific statutory authorization,” such as an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

In 2001, Congress adopted an AUMF that authorized the president to use military force against individuals, groups and countries that had contributed to the 9/11 attacks. In the past 18 years, three presidents have misused the 2001 AUMF to justify multiple military interventions.

This is happening again. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has mounted a campaign to link Iran to al-Qaeda in order to make a case that the 2001 AUMF would allow the U.S. to attack Iran. But, as Johns Hopkins professor Bruce Riedel told Al-Monitor, “Rather than being secretly in bed with each other as some have argued, al-Qaeda had a fairly hostile relationship with the Iranian regime.”

On June 19, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed a $1 trillion appropriations bill that includes a provision repealing the 2001 AUMF within eight months. Introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California), it says the AUMF “has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.” But the GOP-controlled Senate will not pass the bill with the AUMF repeal provision in it.

The U.N. Security Council Should Act

Tensions between the United States and Iran have been steadily escalating. One year ago, the U.S. pulled out of the multilateral 2015 nuclear deal, which was working to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Trump then reimposed devastating sanctions against Iran, whose oil exports have fallen by one-half.

After Trump designated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group in April, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of the world’s oil passes. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council designated the U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Trump ordered 2,500 additional troops and an aircraft carrier to the region.

On June 13, two oil tankers — one Japanese, the other Norwegian with a 50 percent Russian crew — were attacked in the Gulf of Oman. The United States blamed Iran, which denied responsibility for the attack. Neither Japan nor Norway have said Iran was responsible. “That Iran would target a Japanese and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous allegation,” Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, wrote on his blog.

Besides being illegal, a U.S. attack on Iran would prove disastrous to the entire region, and indeed, the world. Congress should repeal the 2001 AUMF and assert its authority under the War Powers Resolution. The Security Council must convene immediately and act to fulfill its duty under the Charter to restore international peace and security to the Gulf region.

Robert Reich: The Majority of Americans Are ‘Radicals’ (Video)

This piece first appeared on RobertReich.org.

Donald Trump, Fox News and Republicans in Congress label proposals they disagree with “fringe,” “radical” or “socialist.”  Well, let’s see where the American people actually stand:

On the economy, 76 percent of Americans favor higher taxes on the super-rich, including over half of registered Republicans. Over 60 percent favor a wealth tax on fortunes of $50 million or more. Even Fox News polls confirm these trends.

What about health care? Well, 70 percent want Medicare for All, which most define as Medicare for anyone who wants it.  60 percent of Republicans support allowing anyone under 65 to buy into Medicare.

92 percent want lower prescription drug prices. Over 70 percent think we should be able to buy drugs imported from Canada.

On family issues, more than 80 percent of Americans want paid maternity leave. 79  percent of voters want more affordable child care. And that includes 80 percent of Republicans.

60 percent of Americans support free college tuition for those who meet income requirements.

62 percent think climate change is man-made and needs addressing.

84 percent think money has too much influence in politics. 77 percent support limits on campaign spending. And that includes 71 percent of Republicans.

I could go on.

So why do the powerful call these policy ideas “fringe,” or “radical,” or “socialist?”

Money. Many of these initiatives would cost them – requiring either higher taxes on the rich (many could be achieved by repealing the giant Trump tax cut for the wealthy and corporations), or regulations that might cut into their corporate profits.

So you can bet that as these proposals become even more popular, the powerful are going to intensify their attacks.

But just remember: the “center” is not halfway between what most Americans want and what big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy want.

The “center” is what the vast majority of Americans want.

Devastating Rain Spells Are on Their Way

Canadian scientists have examined an exhaustive collection of rain records for the past 50 years to confirm the fears of climate scientists: bouts of very heavy rain are on the increase.

They have measured this increase in parts of Canada, most of Europe, the U.S. Midwest and Northeast, northern Australia, Western Russia and parts of China.

From 2004 to 2013, worldwide, bouts of extreme rainfall rain increased by 7%. In Europe and Asia, the same decade registered a rise of 8.6% in cascades of heavy rain.

The scientists report in the journal Water Resources Research that they excluded areas where the records were less than complete, but analyzed 8,700 daily rain records from 100,000 stations that monitor rainfall worldwide. They found that from 1964 to 2013, the frequency of catastrophic downpours increased with each decade.

“Our study of records from around the globe shows that potentially devastating bouts of extreme rain are increasing decade by decade”

“By introducing a new approach to analyzing extremes, using thousands of rain records, we reveal a clear increase in the frequency of extreme rain events over the recent fifty years when global warming accelerated,” said Simon Papalexiou, of the University of Saskatchewan’s college of engineering.

“This upward trend is highly unlikely to be explained by natural climate variability. The probability of this happening is less than 0.3% under the model assumptions used.”

As temperatures rise, evaporation increases. A warmer atmosphere can absorb more moisture: capacity increases by 7% with each extra degree Celsius on the thermometer. Moisture absorbed into the atmosphere will inevitably fall again.

Flash flood threat

The world has warmed by at least 1°C in the last century, thanks to ever-increasing use of fossil fuels, and hydrologists, engineers and planners have been warning  for years that human settlements and low-lying terrains have a rainfall problem, in the form of flash floods that can overwhelm sewage treatment plants and increase water contamination: rain-induced floods have claimed half a million lives since 1980.

Such floods – and other studies have confirmed their increase – trigger landslides, wash away crops, overwhelm buildings and bridges, flood homes and block road transport.

And they could be expected to increase even more because of the phenomenal growth of the world’s cities, covering more ground with brick, tile, cement and tarmacadam, to reduce the available marsh, forest and grassland that usually absorbs much of any downpour.

Scientists have measured alarming increases in rainfall in urban Australia, linked the catastrophic floods delivered by Hurricane Harvey in 2017 over Houston in Texas to global warming, and warned more and worse is on the way.

Start planning now

“If global warming progresses as climate model projections predict, we had better plan for dealing with frequent heavy rain right now.

“Our study of records from around the globe shows that potentially devastating bouts of extreme rain are increasing decade by decade,” Papalexiou said.

“We know that rainfall-induced floods can devastate communities, and that there are implications of increasing bouts of heavy rain for public health, agriculture, farmers’ livelihoods, the fishing industry and insurance, to name but a few.”

House Progressives Vow to Oppose All Funding for ‘Hateful Border Agenda’

Even as President Donald Trump on Saturday afternoon abruptly announced the “delay” of anticipated raids by U.S. immigration enforcement agents that were slated to begin this weekend, a group of progressive House Democrats earlier in the day vowed to pull their support from legislation proposed by their own party that would provide billions for border security and the president’s so called “deportation force.”

“We must abolish ICE. We must invest in community-based alternatives to detention. We must end the system of mass detention and deportation of immigrants. We must create an immigration system that reflects our values and respects the dignity and humanity of all.”

—Reps. Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley, and Tlaib in a joint statement, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)—all freshman who have been outspoken in their criticism of both the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CPB) and the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agencies—denounced the president’s planned raids which reports indicated would take place in 10 major cities across the U.S. beginning on Sunday.

“The Trump Administration would rather criminalize immigrants, separate families, and detain refugees than practice empathy and compassion,” the group of four lawmakers said. “Recent reports of a massive deportation operation, targeting thousands of immigrant families in major cities across the country are further evidence that this President will stop at nothing in order to carry out his hateful agenda.”

As immigrant rights groups mobilized to provide resources to targeted communities ahead of the expected raids—and several mayors of the cities thought to be prime targets said they would not participate carrying them out—Trump took to Twitter on Saturday afternoon to say that, “at the request of Democrats,” he was suspending the raids at least temporarily.

At the request of Democrats, I have delayed the Illegal Immigration Removal Process (Deportation) for two weeks to see if the Democrats and Republicans can get together and work out a solution to the Asylum and Loophole problems at the Southern Border. If not, Deportations start!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 22, 2019

In response to Trump’s announcement, critics noted that neither postponing nor cancelling the raids does anything to undo the damage that planning them or announcing them is intended to cause:

Also these announcements of large-scale impending raids are intended to terrorize communities so they are *successful* just by being announced.

— #EndCarceralFeminism (@prisonculture) June 22, 2019

Meanwhile, the progressive lawmakers pressed their case against the Trump adminisration’s approach—and the Democratic legislation which they oppose—on social media:

The GOP has supported building mass concentration camps on the southern border. Kids & families are dying.

Now they want money for more – w/ ZERO negotiation on how $ is spent.

We can’t do that. They‘ve shown that when they get more money, they build more camps. #CloseTheCamps https://t.co/DYhXuU9Crz

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 22, 2019

We should not be giving one more dollar to support this President’s deportation force that openly commits human rights abuses and refuses to be held accountable to the American people.

Kids and families can’t continue to die & be terrorized.

We have an obligation to speak up! https://t.co/y42W4bFLWn

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) June 22, 2019

The proposal in question, put forth by House Democrats on Friday, is their version of an emergency border supplemental bill that would provide an additional $1.2 billion in funding to CBP and $128 million to ICE. An alternative to a Senate version, as reporting by The Hill explained,

the House bill would provide hundreds of millions of dollars for processing facilities, food, water and medical supplies for migrants being held along the southern border.

But the House bill also includes a slew of restrictions on how funds can and cannot be used, including conditions for how children should be treated, reporting and oversight requirements and reinstating aid to Central American countries that the Trump administration had cut off.

Despite those increased restrictions and increase in oversight, however, Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley, and Tlaib said they would not support providing the CBP or ICE with any additional funds under the current circumstances.

“These radicalized, criminal agencies are destroying families and killing innocent children,” they said in their statement. “It is absolutely unconscionable to even consider giving one more dollar to support this President’s deportation force that openly commits human rights abuses and refuses to be held accountable to the American people.”

“That is why in good conscience,” they continued, “we cannot support this supplemental funding bill, which gives even more money to ICE and CBP and continues to support a fundamentally cruel and broken immigration system.”

Comparing the abuses now happening at the U.S. southern border and in immigration detention centers nationwide as the kind of atrocities that the U.S. government would rightly condmen if they were happening elsewhere in the world, the lawmakers said such violations by agencies of their own government cannot be ignored.

“We must be equitable in our outrage,” they stated. “We must abolish ICE. We must invest in community-based alternatives to detention. We must end the system of mass detention and deportation of immigrants. We must create an immigration system that reflects our values and respects the dignity and humanity of all.”

Trump Can’t Stay on Script About Iran to Save His Life

Julian Borger at The Guardian reports that Trump said Saturday to reporters, “They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon. We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon. When they agree to that, they’re going to have a wealthy country. They’re going to be so happy, and I’m going to be their best friend. I hope that happens.”

Trump can’t get the conservative script right to save his life. The argument warmongers made for breaching the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) was that it did not address a range of Iranian behavior beyond nuclear matters, such as its military intervention in Syria or (they allege) Yemen, or its ongoing work on ballistic missiles, or its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Few argued that the JCPOA was useless in deterring Iran from making a nuclear weapon. Some worried about a 15-year sunset provision to the deal, but it was envisioned the UN inspections would continue.

Trump is now citing Iran’s non-existent bomb-making as the reason for his breach of the treaty and not mentioning any of the things the hawks mind.

Iran isn’t making a bomb and gave up 80% of its civilian nuclear enrichment program in the JCPOA.

In fact, there have been no US intelligence assessments that Iran had decided to try to make a bomb since Tehran admitted in early 2003 that it had an enrichment program (it was supposed to report the program to the UN under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran had signed).

Uranium comes in nature in two isotopes, U-238 (very common and relatively inert) and U-235 (rarer and much more volatile). In order to use uranium to fuel a nuclear reactor, it has to be enriched to roughly 3.5% of U-235. If it is enriched to 95% U-235, it can be made to blow up in a thermonuclear explosion, as the US did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Iran knows how to enrich uranium, but has never enriched to levels above what is considered “Low Enriched Uranium.” The cut-off is above 20% U-235. It has a medical reactor that uses 19.5% enriched uranium.

Although the US CIA has not assessed that Iran has during the past decade and a half had a nuclear weapons program, its civilian enrichment capacities were potentially dual use, so that there was always a chance Tehran might decide to militarize.

I can’t get anybody to believe me on this, but Iran is a Shiite theocracy led by an Ayatollah, and Ali Khamenei has given several fatwas (fatwas or considered legal rulings can be oral) in which he has forbidden the making, stockpiling or use of nuclear weapons. Khamenei rules according to Islamic law, which disallows the deliberate infliction of mass casualties on civilian noncombatants in war. Nuclear weapons obviously target the populations of whole cities and so the ayatollahs consider them tools of Satan.

On the other hand, having the world know that you could whip up a nuclear bomb in short order is a form of deterrence against invasion. Japan has that capability. Iran probably had that capability before 2015.

The 2015 agreement attempted to forestall any move by Iran to develop a nuclear weapons enrichment program (again, it has never done so and says it never would).

Still, for the suspicious, the JCPOA took away the option of quick militarization with four steps:

1. Regular UN inspections of sites for signatures of high-enriched uranium or for plutonium

2. Reduction of the number of centrifuges to 6,000, which would take a year to make bomb-grade uranium even if they were turned to that purpose

3. The bricking in and abandonment of a proposed heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak. Heavy water reactors can accumulate fissile material for a bomb faster and easier than light water reactors, so Obama and the UN team insisted on this step for Iran.

4. The stockpiles of low-enriched-Uranium (LEU) built up for the medical reactor (and which had come to much exceed the actual needs of that reactor) were cast in a form that prevented further enrichment, and much of it was exported.

Under these circumstances, there is no way Iran can make a bomb without everybody knowing it is trying. It would have to kick out the UN inspectors, build thousands more centrifuges under the gaze of US satellites, etc., etc.

So if what Trump wanted was no Iranian nuke, he had that when he was sworn into office in 2017. By breaching the treaty and refusing to reward Iran’s good behavior by ceasing sanctions, Trump put the US on a war footing with Iran.

He has stopped Iran from selling its oil, a form of blockade that probably amounts to an act of war. He is also stopping European concerns from investing in Iran.

It is frustrating that Trump is dancing on the brink of a war for a purpose that had already been attained. This is why it is bad to elect people to high office who have mental health problems.

 

After Drone Shootdown, U.S. Struck Iranian Computers

WASHINGTON—The Latest on Iran and cyberattacks (all times local):

7:30 p.m.

Related Articles











Donald Trump Owns This Iran Crisis



by Juan Cole

Officials say U.S. military cyber forces earlier this week launched a retaliatory cyber strike against Iranian computer systems amid escalating tensions between the two countries.

Three U.S. officials tell The Associated Press that the operation on Thursday evening disabled Iranian computer systems that controlled Iran’s rocket and missile launchers.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. Yahoo News first reported the cyber strike.

Two of the officials say President Donald Trump authorized the cyber strike even as he called off a conventional military response to Iran’s downing of a U.S. surveillance drone.

The officials say defense officials had prepared such a cyber response as a contingency plan for weeks preceding the attack.

___

8:45 a.m.

Cybersecurity firms say Iran has increased its offensive cyberattacks against the U.S. government and critical infrastructure as tensions have grown between the two nations.

CrowdStrike and FireEye, which regularly track such activity, say in recent weeks hackers believed to be working for the Iranian government have targeted U.S. government agencies, as well as sectors of the economy, including oil and gas.

The firms say the hackers have sent waves of spear-phishing emails.

It is not known if the hackers managed to gain access to the targeted networks with the emails, which typically mimic legitimate emails but contain malicious software.

The cyber offensive is the latest chapter in ongoing cyber operations between the U.S. and Iran. The recent sharp increase is occurring after the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the Iranian petrochemical sector this month.

At South Carolina Convention, Sanders Hammers Centrist Democrats

COLUMBIA, S.C.—The Latest on Democratic presidential candidates in South Carolina (all times local):

2:15 p.m.

Bernie Sanders is striking back at a centrist Democratic group he says is dismissing him as an “existential threat” to the party’s 2020 hopes.

The Vermont senator and second-time presidential candidate hammered Third Way as a corporate-financed group as he spoke Saturday at the South Carolina Democratic convention.

Some of the group’s members have garnered fresh attention for warming toward liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren. She is perhaps Sanders’ biggest threat for support on the Democrats’ left flank.

Sanders argued Saturday that he can win a general election against President Donald Trump not by winning over the middle of the traditional electorate but instead by attracting millions of new voters. “We defeat Trump by running a campaign of energy and enthusiasm that substantially grows voter turnout … in a way we have never seen,” he said.

___

12:03 p.m.

Elizabeth Warren is getting a warm welcome from South Carolina Democrats as she argues that her campaign for “big ideas” can appeal across the political spectrum.

The Massachusetts senator said she can “draw in Democrats and Republicans” who want to “make government work for everyone.”

Warren has spent months building her campaign in the key early primary state whose Democratic electorate is dominated by black voters and moderate whites.

She didn’t mention front-runner Joe Biden. But her emphasis counters the former vice president’s fundamental claim that he’s the best general election option to oust President Donald Trump.

___

11:35 a.m.

California Sen. Kamala Harris is taking a prosecutor’s case straight at President Donald Trump as she campaigns in South Carolina.

The former local district attorney and state attorney general told thousands at the South Carolina Democratic Party convention on Saturday that Trump has a long “rap sheet” that Democrats’ 2020 nominee must be able to use against him in a general election.

She hammered Trump for everything from tax policy benefiting the rich and trade policies hurting farmers to a lack of civil rights protections for marginalized Americans.

Harris added that Democrats shouldn’t “turn back the clock” and instead “start the next chapter.”

She never mentioned Democratic front-runner Joe Biden, but her spirited speech seemed to attack the former vice president’s argument that he’s the Democrat with the best shot to defeat the president.

___

11:30 a.m.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is telling South Carolina Democrats that his city will recover from the racial wounds exposed after a South Bend police officer shot and killed a black man last week.

Buttigieg told a large crowd, including hundreds of black voters, that South Bend, Indiana, “is full of people who believe in safety and justice.” He said an independent investigation of the incident will help the city “become stronger in the broken places.”

The mayor spoke at the South Carolina Democratic Convention a day after being jeered and protested in his home city.

Buttigieg’s relationship with black South Bend residents has gotten more scrutiny in recent months. Black voters historically cast more than half of South Carolina’s presidential primary ballots.

___

9:05 a.m.

Nearly the entire Democratic presidential field will address hundreds of South Carolina Democrats on Saturday as the candidates look to make connections in a key early nominating state.

The South Carolina state party convention is part of a big political weekend for the South’s first primary state, with more than 20 candidates campaigning at various party events.

Most of the candidates also will appear Saturday at a separate Planned Parenthood forum on abortion rights.

South Carolina offers the largest Democratic primary electorate of the four early nominating states, and it’s the only early primary historically dominated by older black voters and white voters who trend more moderate than the national party.

___

1:00 a.m.

Almost the entire sprawling Democratic presidential field of more than 20 candidates took the same stage in the South’s first primary state, looking to make connections in a primary battleground that has helped propel the party’s last two nominees.

Former Vice President Joe Biden reintroduced himself to South Carolina voters at gatherings he’s attended many times before. His rivals tried to convince a boisterous throng at a Friday event to consider a new path.

House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn’s annual fish fry, a longstanding event that this year has blossomed into a centerpiece ahead of the 2020 election. The weekend events include the state party convention and a Planned Parenthood forum on abortion rights Saturday.