Latest news with #JudgingFreedom
Watani
28-06-2025
- Politics
- Watani
US strikes on Iran: Point of no return?
The early hours of 22 June carried news and photographs of an arrogant, jubilant President Trump announcing that the U.S. had offered Israel the logistic and military support that enabled it to strike three nuclear reactor sites in Iran. Mr Trump praised the strike and lauded its masterful execution by Israel, sarcastically saying that that would not be a standalone operation, but would be followed by others if needs be. Other operations, he said, would naturally be easier given that Iran's claws have been clipped by the first strike and its nuclear capabilities curtailed. The American-led strike took many by surprise since Mr Trump had, just on the eve of the strike, talked of giving Israel and Iran 15-days to negotiate in Muscat, Oman, an agreement on Iran's nuclear programme. Yet I say it was no surprise, given that lies have recently gained ground as a modern means of strategic deception in conflict management, and promises of peace are made while preparing for stabs in the back. I see no excuse for the Iranians to have swallowed the US bait a second time, following the initial strike by Israel on 12 June. Now, with the second strike on Iran that targeted three nuclear sites, have we reached the point of no return? Does Iran have any power to avenge itself against Israel? And will any other country rush to support Iran just as the US supported Israel? As I write this, I see the coming days bringing on severe hazards that do not point at any peace between Iran and Israel. There are fears that Iran might, in desperation, execute some irrational retaliatory action; it brings to mind the saying: the hero is the one who's lost everything.. who has nothing left to lose. Today, I bring to my readers excerpts from a rich dialogue that, even if it took place prior to the US strike on Iran, introduced arguments that are still valid. The dialogue, which was broadcast on 20 June on Judge Andrew Napolitano's podcast 'Judging Freedom' under the title 'What if the US does attack Iran', took place with John Mearsheimer, 77, American political scientist and international relations scholar, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at University of Chicago. Judge Napolitano started by asking: Is Israel prevailing in its war against Iran, as the mainstream in the West claims? In reply, Prof Mearsheimer said: 'No, Israel is in serious trouble… President Trump said Israel is winning… but the question is: what does winning mean?' To win, the Professor said, is to have a goal and the strategy to achieve it. Israel, he explained, has three stated goals: to eliminate the nuclear capability of Iran, to bring about a regime change and, as articulated by President Trump himself, unconditional surrender by Iran. The first goal cannot be achieved by Israel without US support, and even then Irans's nuclear programme, the uranium enrichment cannot be eliminated. As to the second goal, he said, regime change can never be achieved without invading Iran, something no one in his right mind would do. The third goal of unconditional surrender is laughable, because Iranians will fight till the last person before that happens. So Israelis have no way of achieving the goals they set out to do. Do any serious players actually believe that Iran has nuclear weapons? 'There's no evidence now that Iran has nuclear weapons… but there's no question that Iran has significant nuclear enrichment capabilities that takes them close to having a bomb… but they're a good distance from that now. But you can't tell that to Trump and Netanyahu.' Do you foresee a circumstance under which the Russians or the Chinese will get involved militarily? 'If you're talking about them getting directly involved in the fight, absolutely not. If you're talking about diplomatic, economic, or military support, the answer is certainly yes.' He explained that there is a vested interest for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran to stick together against the US, Israel and Ukraine. So they will support one another but not get into the fight. Shouldn't there be in America a great debate about the nature and extent of our involvement in a war that could be disastrous? Why should a person who changes his mind every 10 minutes meet with five people who tell him what he wants to hear make this decision rather than great debates in the House and the Senate on America's role in the world? 'Oh it's very simple. You can't have a great debate on any issue involving Israel. It's just impermissible; the lobby won't allow it. And the reason is that if you have a debate it won't come out in Israel's favour, and this cannot be allowed.' The Professor joined Judge Napolitano in decrying the state of freedom and democracy in the US, and the manner in which decisions are taken. It all ran against the elevated principles that once prevailed in the West, they said, but which are now never upheld, even as the Israeli lobby wields authority over politicians and mainstream media, and as wars, destruction, and genocide are unashamedly promoted under false pretexts. This, they agreed is how the wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, are explained off. Watani International 27 June 2025 Comments comments
Watani
10-02-2025
- Politics
- Watani
Grandstanding aside.. Trump under scrutiny
It has been three weeks on President Donald Trump in the White House, starting his second term as President of the US. The world has since kept busy attempting to read into the impact of his decisions, policies and stances on various issues, be those US domestic concerns that affect American citizens, or global issues that impact US foreign relations, international interests, and war hotspots. Before I go into President Trump's political outlook on various global issues, let me note that, even though this is not the focus of what I write today, I do not overlook Mr Trump's declarations or decisions regarding the Palestinian cause, especially where his harassment of Egyptian policies and national security is concerned, hence the title of this article 'Grandstanding aside'. In fact, I wholeheartedly commend Egypt's national response in rejecting and renouncing the US President's declarations. So let us place our full confidence in the insight and prudence with which the Egyptian political leadership handles the situation, putting the country's national security and interests at the forefront, above everything else. We should realise that there are hidden intentions to create a rift between the Egyptian people and their leadership, so we must not get dragged into acquiescing to such endeavours, but must remain tightly united in face of those who save no effort in attempting to confine Egypt to internal conflict and struggles. Apart from Mr Trump's Egypt predicament however, I today review his political declarations and outlook as viewed by American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs, Colombia University Professor. Mr Sachs was hosted on 23 January 2025–three days after Mr Trump was sworn in as President—by Judge Andrew Napolitano on his podcast Judging Freedom, in an episode titled 'Can there be Peace with Netanyahu?' Judge Napolitano: President Trump was recently harshly critical of President Putin saying he's ruining Russia, he's lost a million men in Ukraine; I don't know where he got that number from. Then he threatened Putin saying: If you don't come and sit down and negotiate meaningfully with President Zelenskyy, I'm going to impose more sanctions on Russia. The latter was met with laughter in the Kremlin. Does he know what he's talking about when it comes to President Putin? Professor Sachs: 'Well we never know exactly, that you know you kick it in his head… But what is probably true bottom line, is that this war is coming to an end, and the reason I say it is that it seems to me inconceivable that Donald Trump and the Republican Congress would vote more military support for Ukraine… And without that, this war is ending, Ukraine cannot continue the war now… I think that we're seeing the last weeks of this war… There's no reason whatsoever for a day more of fighting, and as always I've emphasised this war will end when the United States says absolutely clearly and unequivocally NATO will not enlarge to Ukraine, Ukraine will be a neutral country… I hope that the people around Trump and the President himself understand this: no more games, no more talk about ceasefires, no more talk about we'll have an armistice line, and then NATO or maybe not NATO… If they play that game after all this time, it would be a huge mistake.' Is President Zelenskyy delusional when he says [in the World Economic Forum]: 'Will president Trump listen to Europe, or will he negotiate with Russia and China without Europe? Europe needs to learn how to fully take care of itself so that the world can't afford to ignore it?'… Does he think that Europe, either the EU or NATO or individual European countries, could replace American largesse if Trump in fact does turn the spigot off? 'Europe could not do so in sheer military terms, it doesn't have the material, it doesn't have the production capacity. So whatever he may think, if the United States stops supporting Ukraine the war is over. What he says by the way about Europe having a foreign policy I agree with… The Biden Administration pursued its completely failed approach in Ukraine which was continued war. Nobody in Europe stood up and said this doesn't work. The war could have ended had Europe had a foreign policy, so on this I happen to agree with Zelenskyy, he's delusional about a lot of things or desperate, let's put it that way, he would desperately like the United States to be directly fighting this war, great way to have World War III… He wants Western troops on Ukrainian soil fighting Russians directly. That's delusional, that's absolutely tantamount to global war. So the truth of the matter is his disastrous failure came in March 2022 when he and Putin had negotiated a draft agreement and the United States came in and said don't do it, and Zelenskyy at that moment should have said I am President of Ukraine, I will reach this agreement with Putin. Had he done so he would have saved hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives. The Biden administration pursued this absolutely disastrous course at Ukraine's expense. This whole war and its extension past March 2022 could have ended in a month but because of the United States it has continued until today. I believe though that it's coming to an end now.' I'm going to segue to Israel… How stable in your view is the Netanyahu government today? 'I think it's going to fall soon; one party has already left. There are two extremist parties utterly extremist to the genocidal intent level of extremism. One of them left upon the signing of the ceasefire, saying I'll come back if the war starts again. The other threatens to leave if the second stage of the ceasefire goes forward… But I think that President Trump is basically gonna say we are not funding, backing or going to be complicit in the collapse of this agreement, we want actually this problem to be ended. I don't think Trump wants this bloodshed to continue and he wants to do a lot of other things… I don't think Trump wants this kind of war on his watch… I think the Netanyahu legitimacy is over. There's lots of talk in Israel that this has been a horrific debacle, several Israeli Defense Forces senior officials have recently resigned over the debacle, but implicitly that's pointing at the responsibility of the boss and that's Netanyahu. So I don't see him having a long shelf life as prime minister.' It looks like there is some sort of division within the Trump administration; one camp believes in Greater Israel as a solution to the Middle East predicament, while the other believes in the two-State solution. Commenting on that, Mr Sachs said: 'The entire world other than the United States and Israel believes in the two-State solution… The Arab League countries, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which is 57 Muslim-majority countries, the G20, the BRICS countries, the UN General Assembly by more than 170 countries, the International Court of Justice. Everybody believes in the two-State solution except this radical government in Israel… The US also supposedly does as well. In other words, there is global near unanimity other than extremists in Israel. So the question is will there be peace or will there be continued war?' Watani International 7 February 2025 Comments comments
Watani
06-02-2025
- Business
- Watani
Political upheavals in 2024: NATO destroys EU?
As I delve into 2024 political upheavals, I today review the viewpoint of American economist and public policy analyst Jeffrey Sachs, Colombia University Professor. Mr Sachs was hosted by Judge Andrew Napolitano on his podcast Judging Freedom on 3 December 2024; their discussion centred on the issue of whether NATO is destroying the EU. However, let me start by Judge Napolitano's call which he addressed to his fellow Americans at the start of the episode. I could have skipped mentioning it had it not been for President Trump's declarations during his address on 20 January after he took oath. Mr Trump showered Americans and the world with his pledges to bring back to the US its glory, reinstating American economy as the world's strongest economy and the USD as its strongest currency. Let alone other pledges of the likes of refraining from granting US citizenship to those born on American soil as per the 14th amendment of the American Constitution, which was opposed by the federal court and many Americans as well. Judge Napolitano in fact sounded an alarm to Americans regarding their USD savings. He called them to shift their savings to gold and silver after the recent decline in USD value. The ratio of US national debt to GDP has exceeded 120 per cent and, since 2001, the US economy no longer achieved surplus. US federal debt reached an unprecedented USD33.1 trillion by the end of 2023. According to Judge Napolitano, the Fed keeps giving orders to print dollars without economic cover; they boast that USD is enough cover and does not need the gold cover of which it was freed in 1957. We must realise though that this blow to the US dollar owes much to US policies since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, including economic sanctions and boycott against Russia, which the US imagined would break Russia economically and subsequently militarily. But Russia achieved military triumph over Ukraine, and gained economic independence from the hegemony of the US dollar. Subsequently BRICS, which was originally formed of Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, added more countries as members, including Iran, Egypt and UAE. We cannot overlook BRICS's announced intention of creating a strong political and economic entity that would put an end to the hegemony of the single American superpower over the world order, and bring back a dual-polar order within a competitive yet harmonious climate that would guarantee restoration of world peace. In this context, BRICS announced their plan to come up with an alternative to the USD, whether through resorting to their local currencies, or by minting a new unified currency to be used by BRICS countries, similar to the Euro which replaced the local currencies of EU countries. The US has only itself to blame for the state of its currency, and for the prospective retraction of its hegemony over world economy. But back to Judge Napolitano's talk with Professor Sachs. Judge Napolitano: Can you give us a background please of the conflagration in Syria, starting with whatever President Obama and Secretary Clinton determined to do there about 10 years ago? Professor Sachs: 'In fact the Syrian conflict and the US engagement in it goes back even before 2011 when the United States began an active programme to overthrow the government of Syria, this goes back to 2001 or even before; again Israel not surprisingly features in a significant way. The problem is that Israel with its government led by Netanyahu who's been Prime Minister for 17 of the years since 1996, is dead set against any kind of peace compromise with the Palestinian people… Now we know that after 9/11 a list was made for seven countries to be overthrown in five years of US war and covert action, and that list included Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Wesley Clark who was the former commander of NATO in Europe, was told at the Pentagon soon after 9/11 that the United States would take out seven governments in five years. He was completely shocked… In fact, Iraq war in 2003 was the first of the seven, and it was supposed to happen quickly, and then go on to Syria and then Lebanon then Iran and so forth… These basic facts are kept from the American people, routinely because that's how the CIA operates—it operates in secrecy and without accountability… Our country has been used repeatedly by Israel for aims that are not legitimate, not legal and not working.' Surely Syria poses no threat to the national security of the United States, just like Iran poses no such threat. 'Of course not, it never had to do with US national security. These are games, these people think that they're playing the board game Risk, they want their pieces on the board… It's extraordinarily dangerous, US security really determined by whether NATO is in Ukraine or not… This has been a core American aim of the deep State going back to 1994, we're in the 30th year of this terrible idea. It's never been explained once by a single president to the American people, and certainly the risks have never been once explained. This is the problem with our political system right now; it is secretive. Core true national security issues, meaning the ones that put us into profound insecurity of the possibility of a nuclear war, are not explained at all to the American people.' Switching to Ukraine, NATO and the EU, I want to play a clip for you from President Zelinski [late November 2024]: 'The fact is that it is a solution to stop the hot stage of the war because we can just give the NATO membership to the part of Ukraine that is under our control… but the invitation must be given to Ukraine within its internationally recognised border. You can't give invitation to just one part of a country.' Isn't this delusional if he thinks the war would have as its outcome Ukraine membership in NATO? 'Well, what it is is a deliberate attempt to engage the US in World War III… Russia obviously would not stop a war based on NATO declaring that Ukraine is now part of NATO… But what it would do is to engage the US under Article 5 of NATO Treaty, ostensibly to go to war directly with Russia. So it's madness, cruel and stupidity… Administration after another has brought us closer and closer to nuclear war, because again they're playing games, they've already played games to the extent of about 600,000 Ukrainian dead and hundreds of thousands certainly gravely wounded. For them it's a game… What is happening and has been happening now for 30 years is that Russia has said do not put US military bases, US missile systems, NATO military bases on our border with Ukraine… US backed coups and other adventures in order that the United States can pursue its objective of putting its military into Ukraine… President Trump and Vice President-elect Vance have said we will make peace, then they have to understand a basic point and that is the way to make peace is to say Ukraine will be safe and secure but not a member of NATO… Put away the Risk board game and get real and keep a space between the United States and Russia so that we're not playing World War III… The United States stopped neutrality in March 2022… You make peace by understanding what the US promised to the Soviet Union and to Russia 34 years ago, that NATO would not move one inch eastward.' Watani International 31 Jannuary 2025 Comments comments
