Why Continuity

By Eve Mykytyn | August 13, 2019
Marissa Brostoff and Noah Kulwin wrote an opinion piece about the Epstein scandal in the self-described leftist outlet Jewish Currents. Entitled “The Right Kind of Continuity,” the article is a ‘who is to blame’ piece. Is Epstein’s scandal peculiarly Jewish? If so, which Jews are to blame? Not surprisingly, their analysis finds a few very rich and generally right wing Jews guilty. First the authors point to the number of Jews seemingly involved with Epstein, even noting that Woody Allen was the first name in Epstein’s little Black Book. But they dismiss the significance of the disproportionate number of Jews friendly with Epstein, concluding that since “[a]fter all, Epstein’s friends also included plenty of prominent non-Jews (Donald Trump, for instance),” Jews were not particularly to blame.
Instead, the authors find that Epstein presents a ‘Jewish’ scandal because most of the men alleged to have financed his operation are Jewish. Epstein was not, as this article and many others describe him, a ‘financier,’ a term Oxford defines as “[a] person concerned in the management of large amounts of money on behalf of [others].” As of now it is unclear if and how much money Epstein was ever authorized to invest. Epstein was a taker of money, and was long tied to billionaire Leslie Wexner and with a number of other wealthy Jews including Leon Black of Apollo Global Management and Glenn Dubion of Highbridge Capital.
Why did these wealthy men finance Epstein? Most have speculated that Epstein ran an intelligence operation or that he was blackmailing his benefactors. The authors take a different approach. They point out that Wexner, along with other Jewish billionaires such as Adelson and Bronfman (neither of whom are connected to Epstein), have given hundreds of millions of dollars to Jewish charities that fight assimilation. Apparently these men believe that ‘Jewish continuity’ is declining among American Jews as evidenced by statistics that “synagogue membership and affinity for Israel were in decline, interfaith marriage was up, and Jewish fertility rates were down.”
This claim is dubious, The Jerusalem Post recently noted that the rate of participation in Jewish Life by American Jews has been “remarkably stable”, and that the children of intermarried couples identify as Jews at the incredible rate of 80%.
But Steven M. Cohen, academic and demographer for Jewish charities, produced countless statistical reports of assimilation for wealthy donors emphasizing that “if they wanted American Jewish life to continue, they would have to prioritize the goals of “creating more Jewish marriages and filling more Jewish baby carriages.” (Cohen was himself dismissed from Hebrew Union College last year following accusations of serial sexual harassment.)
Reproduction, the article claims, both biological and social, is at the heart of ‘Jewish continuity’ programming.
In the weirdest story to emerge from the Epstein scandal, the New York Times wrote that Epstein was desperate to replicate himself and planned to use his New Mexico compound to fulfill his desire “to seed the human race with his DNA by impregnating [large numbers of] women…” The article claims Epstein’s desire for clones was different only in degree from the ‘Jewish continuity project, finding little difference between Epstein reproducing himself and the Jewish establishment that “poured millions of dollars into [reproducing] its own image.” After all, the authors ask, “Which is the greater narcissism?”
After finding the financial backers of ‘Jewish continuity’ guilty of self love, the authors present an extraordinary argument. They claim that since Jewish continuity requires women to gestate reproductions of Jewish men, all women are reduced to reproductive units, and that “the focus on reproductive project ha[s] continued … to enable the abuses that come along with it.” That is; all that money focused on replicating themselves had the effect of viewing women as baby making machines and that this characterization of Jewish women accounts for the sexual atrocities perpetrated by Epstein and his cohorts. This is, I think, too large a leap. How is it that the desire for more Jewish babies leads to abuse of women?
Where is the connection between fighting assimilation and having sexual encounters with underage non Jewish girls? Further, how do they explain the wealthy Jews involved with Epstein who have no connection to the Jewish continuity project ?
Why do the authors make this peculiar claim based on so little evidence? My guess is that the authors identify as Jewish, but they do not want to bear any responsibility for the behavior of some other Jews. They establish their innocence and that of most other Jews by sectioning off just a small number of very wealthy Jews and, finding them peculiarly focused on reproduction, claim they are prone to acts of sexual abuse. This makes the Epstein scandal not a Jewish problem, but a narcissistic fault in just a few Jews.
More likely, Epstein and many others operated with a sense of impunity. Some of these people were, as the article points out, enamored with reproducing themselves. The only connection I can see between Jewish continuity and Epstein is that the focus on Judaism might have contributed to the apparent belief among some Jews that non Jews are not important and that mistreatment of them is not a problem.
When I wrote this article, Epstein was alive and well in the hands of MCC. Now we have been informed that Epstein committed suicide, and we have no information on whether he left behind any little Epsteins.
The Chronicle of Yet Another North Korean Short Range Missile Launch
By Konstantin Asmolov – New Eastern Outlook – 13.08.2019
In late July – early August 2019, North Korea conducted a series of short range missile launches and large-caliber multiple rocket launcher firings. It caused a certain stir, but, before analyzing the international reaction, let us review the chronicle of the events.
Let us first note that all the launches took place against the backdrop of a decrease in the US-North Korean dialogue (the working groups agreed on at “the 2.5 summit” have not begun the work yet) and the coming military exercises of the US and South Korea. Certainly, their scale is significantly lower than earlier, but in terms of “violating the spirit of the agreement,” it is identical to the similar action of North Korea.
Besides, the US delivered two more fifth generation F-35A jet fighters to South Korea. These invisible planes are theoretically invincible for the present level of the North Korean missile defense.
On July 25, early in the morning, North Korea launched two short-range missiles in the direction of the Sea of Japan. The first missile covered a distance of 430 kilometers, the second one 690 km. Both missiles flew at an altitude of about 50 km and fell in the Sea of Japan.
What is important though is that the South Korean military regularly lost sight of the second North Korean missile and, judging by what was shown by the surveillance systems, it carried out complex maneuvers of evasion in the horizontal and vertical plane. It did not fall at a certain destination after flying along a parabola trajectory, but flew for much longer keeping at low altitudes in a rectilinear trajectory. Besides, a flight altitude of 50 km is in the blind zone of the South Korean military Patriot PAC-3 SAM systems and the THAAD missile defense systems. At this altitude, North Korean missiles had been already able to cover a distance of up to 500 km. But the mark of 600 km was reached this time: such a weapon can strike any point on the Korean peninsula and at the same time avoid the missile defense systems.
It means that North Korea has a short prestart cycle missile with a complicated trajectory capable of both striking facilities protected by the existing missile defense systems and destroying these very systems.
The military believe that the launches were made by means of a mobile launcher at a low angle and the missiles were of the same type as those launched in May – the North Korean version of the Russian Iskander missile which flies along a complicated trajectory as well, unlike usual ballistic missiles, and therefore has great ability to avoid interception.
However, it should be noted that when South Korean military equate KN-23 to Iskander, they are not being frank. With a comparable degree of verisimilitude, one could say that the North Korean missile is equivalent to the South Korean Hyunmoo-2B or the Ukrainian Hrim-2. In any case, Hyunmoo-2B was made with the assistance of Russian engineers and practically on the basis of Iskander, which, however, this did not prevent military PR staff from describing it as their own design. The US experts Melissa Hanham and Jeffrey Lewis also note that there are several types of short-range missiles which bear a strong similarity to new North Korean complexes and that, in fact, all missiles of this class are similar.
The media coverage of the launch was no less important: the Korean Central News Agency provided a detailed report about the way Kim Jong-un “organized and guided the fire of the new-type tactical guided weapon as part of the power demonstration to send a solemn warning to the south Korean military warmongers who are running high fever in their moves to introduce the ultra-modern offensive weapons into south Korea and hold military exercises in defiance of the repeated warnings from the DPRK.”
The North Korean leader openly explained the purpose of the launch, stating that “the ultra-modern weapons and equipment which the bellicose forces of the South Korean military are introducing with desperate efforts are definitely offensive weapons and their purpose is absolutely clear.” Thus, “the South Korean authorities are revealing such strange double-dealing behavior as producing a “handshake of peace” and fingering joint declaration and agreement and the like before the world people and, behind the scene, shipping ultra-modern offensive weapons and holding joint military exercises.” Therefore, “we cannot but dynamically develop super powerful weapons systems to remove the potential and direct threats to the security of our country that exist in the south.”
Thus, a very clear message (or piece of advice) was conveyed to Seoul, namely that “the South Korean chief executive [must] understand in time the danger the developments will possibly bring, stop such suicidal act as the introduction of ultra-modern weapons and military exercises and come back to the proper stand as in April and September last year […] The South Korean chief executive should not make a mistake of ignoring the warning from Pyongyang, however offending it may be.”
The South Korean press immediately noted that the term “power demonstration” had not been used for a long time. On the other hand, the word “missile” was replaced with the expression “new-type tactical guided weapon,” and all the warnings were addressed to Seoul, rather than Washington, which Pyongyang intends to continue the dialogue with.
The second act took place on July 31, early in the morning. Two more ballistic missiles were launched in the direction of the Sea of Japan from mobile launchers in the district of Wonsan again. Both missiles covered a distance of about 250 km, reaching the altitude of 30 km. The South Korean military believe that, since the missiles flew at lower altitudes and covered a short distance, a near target strike with bypassing the enemy antimissile systems was rehearsed.
The Korean Central News Agency again, though in less detail this time, reported how highly Kim had appreciated the launch performance. After that, South Korean media started using the term “short range projectiles” instead of the word “missile,” emphasizing that, judging by the modification and flying range, the launch of July 31 was aimed at South Korea regardless of whether it is a multiple rocket launcher or a ballistic missile unit.
The third launch of two unidentified short range projectiles in the direction of the Sea of Japan took place on the night of August 2, 2019. The projectiles covered a distance of about 220 km with the maximum speed of 6.9 Mach at an altitude of 25 km.
This time, the Korean Central News Agency even showed a photo of the device more similar to a large caliber multiple rocket launcher than to a missile unit, though many important details were blurred. The weapon was dubbed a “newly-developed large-caliber multiple launch guided rocket system,” and the launch was carried out for the purpose of checking the flight characteristics of mastering altitude, orbit control and target hit accuracy.
Kim Jong-un again “guided the test launch from an observation post.”
However, let us proceed with the conclusions:
- Despite the sanctions, North Korean military production is continuing and provides quite modern weapons.
- The launches are, certainly, a way to whip up Washington and to warn Seoul, as they represent an explicit real threat for South Korea due to the helplessness of its missile defense against this type of weapon.
- However, the launches must be considered in the general context: against the backdrop of the development of the South Korean missile defense, it is no wonder that the opposite party reacted by designing missiles capable of bypassing this missile defense.
- As the missiles operate within short range, the recent tests cannot be considered a violation of the Pyongyang’s self-proclaimed moratorium on ICBM launches and nuclear tests which North Korea first introduced at the end of 2017 and then confirmed officially in early 2018.
- Certainly, the launches do not help reduce the tension, but North Korea is responding to the US and South Korean exercises and the import of new weapons to South Korea to the best of its ability.
Konstantin Asmolov, PhD in History, Leading Research Fellow at the Centre for Korean Studies of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Argentina’s Alberto Fernandez & Cristina Kirchner crush President Macri in ‘preliminary elections’

Presidential candidate Alberto Fernandez and his running mate former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner © Reuters / Agustin Marcarian
RT | August 12, 2019
Argentinian President Mauricio Macri has conceded defeat in the primary elections after suffering a massive loss to the center-left nominee Alberto Fernandez and his running mate, former president Cristina Kirchner.
“We’ve suffered a bad election,” right-wing Macri said on Sunday night, but vowed to “redouble” his efforts to secure the ‘real’ elections in October.
The nationwide primary election, introduced in Argentina in 2011, is held simultaneously for all parties and serves as a good indication of how the presidential race would swing when people cast their vote in the general election on October 27. The Sunday vote landed the incumbent president with 32.36 percent of support, while Fernandez obtained 47.22 percent. Center-right Roberto Lavagna came in third with 8.39 percent.
Fernandez, who served as the chief of the Cabinet of Ministers during Nestor Kirchner’s presidency, vowed to create a “new” Argentina. “Argentinians realized we are the change, not them,” Fernandez said during his victory speech in Buenos Aires, promising “to end this time of lies and give a new horizon.”
Fernandez’s running mate, former head of state Cristina Kirchner, feels optimistic about their chances of winning the general election and their ability to improve the socioeconomic situation in Argentina.
“We know of the difficult moment that the country is going through, of millions of Argentines who have lost their jobs, we have talked with so many, we know what it is. This gives us the responsibility that we have to reach everyone to give them absolute peace of mind,” she said.
Argentina’s economy continues to sink, with inflation rising to 55 percent and poverty levels increasing to 32 percent, from around 26 percent the previous year. The massive $57 billion deal Macri secured last year with the International Monetary Fund has so far failed to improve the situation.
China backs the opening of Kashmir file in UNSC
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 10, 2019
The “special and emergency visit” by Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi to Beijing on Friday August 9 has been highly successful in getting China to voice open support for Islamabad’s proposed move to raise the Kashmir issue in the UN Security Council.
From both Pakistani and Chinese accounts, the outcome of the meeting between the Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Qureshi conveys a significant “pro-Pakistan” shift in Beijing’s stance apropos the situation around J&K, which was more or less on neutral ground initially. (See my blog China reacts to J&K, India demands reciprocity.)
How far the reference to China’s “internal affairs” in the MEA spokesman’s remarks on August 6 (which appeared to be a knee-jerk reaction) provoked Beijing is a moot point now. Indeed, Qureshi’s air dash to Beijing signalled Pakistan’s desperate need of Chinese open support and China cannot afford to be seen wanting.
According to the Xinhua report, the cutting edge of Wang’s remarks lies in his listing of the UN Charter (which upholds international peace and security, fundamental human rights, adherence to international law and obligations of member states to adhere to treaties, etc.), relevant resolutions of the UN SC on Kashmir (on the status of J&K, holding of plebiscite, UNMOGIP, etc.) and the bilateral agreements between Pakistan and India (Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration) — in that sequence as the road map on Kashmir.
China has de facto pledged support to Pakistan when the latter raises the Kashmir issue in the UN SC. Wang doubled down on Beijing going the whole hog to support Pakistan: “China and Pakistan are all-weather strategic partners and have always understood and supported each other on issues concerning core interests, which is also a good tradition that both countries should cherish. China will continue to firmly support Pakistan in safeguarding its legitimate rights and uphold fairness for Pakistan in international affairs.”
Qureshi reciprocated subsequently by telling the media in Beijing, “Pakistan is not looking at the military option. We are rather looking at political, diplomatic and legal options to deal with the prevailing situation.” Wang reportedly advised Qureshi that Pakistan should prioritise its national development and peace in South Asia and seek a new path of peaceful co-existence with India.
The Radio Pakistan reported that the Wang-Qureshi meeting lasted for two and half hours, which suggests that substantive discussions took place regarding strategy on Kashmir. The Pakistani report said Wang also agreed that “steps taken by India are unilateral that have changed the status quo and structure” of J&K and “could jeopardize the peace and stability in the region.” It added that Wang “was in concurrence that Jammu and Kashmir has been recognized as a disputed region and its resolution should also be in the light of UN resolutions.”
The overt, dramatic shift in the Chinese stance against Indian interests would have taken into account the ambivalence in the US position on Kashmir. Against the backdrop of the controversial remarks by President Trump to mediate on Kashmir, the US state department spokesperson, when asked on Friday’s press briefing in Washington, blithely passed the buck to the White House.
The spokesperson also underscored, “Obviously, we just had Prime Minister (Imran) Khan here, not just because of Kashmir. That’s certainly an incredibly important issue and something that we follow closely, but we have a host of issues that we work with India on quite closely and that we work with Pakistan on quite closely. I would say that we are – as a State Department, we are incredibly engaged in Southeast Asia.”
During the coming week, two senior US officials are landing in Delhi at the same time — US deputy secretary of state John Sullivan (corresponding to ministerial rank) and Acting deputy secretary of state in charge of South Asia Alice Wells. Sullivan is reaching Delhi from Bhutan while Wells who was on a scheduled visit to Islamabad has extended her tour by travelling to India as well.
By the way, Sullivan becomes the highest ranking US official to visit Bhutan in decades. His visit signals a Churchillian approach in the US policies toward China lately — “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills.” Historically, this is the first time that Bhutan finds itself being courted as a frontline state in the Cold War cockpit.
Clearly, Sullivan’s visit augurs the same centrality to Bhutan in the US geo-strategy that Washington has lately begun attaching to Mongolia. In June, US National Security Advisor John Bolton visited Ulaanbaatar; in July, President Trump hosted Mongolian President Khaltmaa Battulga in the White House; by August already, the US Defence Secretary Mark Esper touched down in Ulaanbaatar on a daylong follow-up visit “to expand their military training, joint exercises and defense intelligence sharing”, according to Stratfor, US think tank wired into the security and defence establishment.
The big question is, whether Sullivan is delivering an invitation from Trump to the Dragon King of the Kingdom of Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.
Equally, there is the likelihood that the US may seek the establishment of intelligence outposts in Bhutan. En route to Mongolia, Def Secy Esper told reporters openly that the US is working to build relationships with key countries in the Indo-Pacific that share values and respect for each other’s sovereignty, “whether it’s Mongolia this trip, Vietnam, a future trip, Indonesia, other countries who I think are key.”
In a reference to China, Esper said, “We’ve got to be able to compete with them.” An AP report quoted a senior US official that the US seeks to expand its defense and intelligence cooperation with Mongolia, noting that its location makes it ideal for listening posts and monitoring stations for peering into both U.S. adversaries.
According to the US state department, Sullivan “will explore expanding and deepening our ties with the government and people of Bhutan.” Of course, any significant expansion of US-Bhutan relations can only happen with the concurrence and approval of India. This is where Chinese sensitivities arise.
Possibly, Beijing senses that Sullivan’s Bhutan trip figured in the meeting between foreign minister S. Jaishankar and his American counterpart Mike Pompeo in Thailand recently. Sullivan is expected to meet Jaishankar.
Most importantly, the state department announcement on Thursday implied that Sullivan’s visits to Thimpu and Delhi are a back-to-back mission with the aim “to advance the United States’ partnership with two nations that are critical to preserving the rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region.”
To be sure, Beijing would have taken note that the fizz has gone out of the Wuhan Spirit — with just a couple of months left for the visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping to India in October. The Wang-Qureshi meeting testifies to it.
Ecuadorian Court Orders Pre-Trial Detention for Former President Correa
Sputnik – August 9, 2019
Ecuador’s National Court of Justice has ordered pre-trial detention for former president Rafael Correa, who served as the country’s president from 2007-2017 over an alleged corruption scheme, a statement from the country’s prosecutor said.
“The judge of the National Court of Justice, Daniella Camacho, accepted the measures requested by the Prosecutor’s Office and issued pre-trial detention for former President Rafael C.”, the statement said.
Former vice president Jorge Glas and several other high-ranking officials are also on the detention list.
According to the prosecution, the former head of state is involved in the bribery and corruption case in the largest political party in Ecuador, PAIS Alliance, which he founded. The prosecutor’s office says that he refuses to cooperate with the investigation.
In response, Correa stated that the case was launched in order to prevent him from participating in the upcoming elections.
“The judicial proceedings against me are intended to prevent me from returning to the country and prevent my possible participation in the [2021] elections. They know that the polls show that we are doing very well. Do not underestimate hate. Some people live only for the sake of hate and I believe that this feeling is stronger than love. Some people live to hate me”, he said.
The ex-president is currently outside Ecuador. November 2018, the media reported that Correa allegedly requested asylum from Belgium, where he lived with his family, but the politician denied this information.
In the meantime, Correa called the request of the country’s prosecutor for his pre-trial detention merely a political show in an interview with Sputnik. He added that the case would not prevent him from continuing his career in Ecuador in the future.
Russia delivers electronic warfare systems to Iran
By Drago Bosnic | Fort-Russ News | August 3, 2019
Anzali, Iran – Russia just delivered the R-330Zh Zhitel SIGINT/jammer advanced electronic warfare system to Iran. The system saw combat use by DNR (Donetsk People’s Republic) and LNR (Lugansk People’s Republic) forces during the Ukrainian invasion. It gave the Novorussian forces an edge in fighting Ukrainian drones, scrambling their communications and offsetting artillery fire navigation which saved countless lives, military and civilian alike.
The R-330Zh Zhitel is a jamming communication station designed and manufactured by the Russian Company Protek. The whole system includes one Ural-43203 or KAMAZ-43114 truck and one shelter with four telescopic masts. The truck is the control center for the operators. The shelter is equipped with four telescopic active phased array transmitter antennas mounted on a four wheels trailer. The R-330Zh is designed for detection, analysis, direction-finding, and jamming of satellite and cellular phone communication systems operated in the frequency from 100 to 2,000 MHz. The jamming system provides analysis and selection of emitters’ signal parameters. The system’s jamming station was used successfully by the Russian army during the Crimean crisis in March 2014.
If Novorussian combat experience is taken into account, the Iranian military just got a crucial system which gives it a serious advantage over US troops stationed in the Middle East. Considering the fact that the US and their Persian Gulf allies are over-reliant on advanced communications and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) in order to conduct military operations, the Russian R-330Zh Zhitel electronic warfare system, if used properly, will give the Iranian military an edge which the potential invading forces cannot hope to overcome easily, if at all.
US Embassy meddled in Moscow anti-govt unrest by mapping protest locations online – FM
RT | August 9, 2019
The American diplomatic mission in Russia is meddling in domestic affairs, Moscow claims. The US had posted the locations and routes of recent massive opposition rallies in the capital, which saw scuffles with police and arrests.
The US Embassy had published a map of downtown Moscow that flagged sites where anti-government rallies were about to happen on August 3. The map went public a day before the protests, which led the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to believe that the US mission had known beforehand where the unrest would take place.
On Friday, the ministry summoned Tim Richardson, the head of the US Embassy’s political section, to voice its unease over the alleged US role in the demonstrations. Posting the chart on their website and Twitter account, the Embassy had tacitly encouraged residents to take to the streets, the foreign ministry statement reads.
This “was an attempt to interfere in the domestic affairs of our country,” it insisted.
Aside from the US embassy’s map, the publication in question listed the most frequently-visited parts of Moscow, warning US citizens to stay alert, be aware of their surroundings and carry a proper US passport with the Russian visa. “Given the possible size of the protest and the large police presence, US citizens should avoid the protest route,” it advised.
Moscow witnessed a string of opposition rallies on August 3 and, a week earlier on July 27, with opposition activists protesting the city’s decision to disqualify numerous independent candidates over alleged procedural fraud. Over 2,000 people were detained by police during both rallies.
Moscow’s opposition leaders plan to push ahead with more protests this Saturday. Activists in other big Russian cities are also likely to follow suit.
War on Iran will expose Israel to full-scale threat: IRGC chief
Press TV – August 8, 2019
The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) says the United States is not interested in waging war on Iran since it knows that any such confrontation would expose the Israeli regime to “full-scale threat.”
Major General Hossein Salami said on Thursday that Iran’s enemies could not keep any war with Iran confined to the country and would face “an eruption of war and fire and danger everywhere.”
Salami highlighted the growing power of the anti-Israel resistance front in the region, including Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine, saying, “The enemy is well aware that any new war may expose the Zionist regime to full-scale threat and irreversible collapse.”
“A number of US allies in the region would once encourage the US to wage war [on Iran] but later realized that a war with Iran would threaten their political systems, so they kept silent,” the commander added.
“I am certain that the Zionists and [the US’s] regional allies have no interest in war because they know the geographical scale of that war would be expansive and they know the result [of such a war],” he said.
Under the administration of President Donald Trump, the US has taken an increasingly hostile approach toward Iran. It has unilaterally pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, imposed rounds of sanctions against Tehran, and ordered the accelerated dispatch of an aircraft carrier to the region to counter an alleged threat from Iran.
Iran says it poses no threat to any country but will defend itself if attacked.
What if North Korea and Iran move in tandem
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 3, 2019
The sensational New Yorker story on August 2 by Robin Wright on the unpublicised meeting between Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif and the American senator Rand Paul (who is a member of the senate’s Foreign Relations Committee) in New York a few days ago details for the first time what transpired between the two leaders. Robin Wright is highly reliable, having good contacts with Iranian officials, and this account can be trusted as authentic.
What emerges is that Zarif and Paul had a substantive conversation, exchanging opinions on a confidential basis the broad contours of a negotiated end to the US-Iran standoff. Some of these details are already known — especially, Iran’s willingness to provide legal guarantee that it will not have a nuclear weapon programme, which comes as no surprise.
Paul is known to be close to President Trump and they both subscribe to the school of thought that the US should not get into any new Middle Eastern war. Paul is also supportive of Trump’s campaign against America’s ‘endless wars’. Evidently, his meeting with Zarif (at the Iranian ambassador’s residence in New York) took place with the prior knowledge and consent of Trump. Reports had appeared previously that Trump gave the go-ahead to Paul to negotiate with Iran.
Therefore, the surprising part in the New Yorker report is the invitation to Zarif, transmitted by Paul, to make a visit to the White House to meet Trump. Of course, Zarif parried, not rejecting the invite offhand but explaining that he needed instructions from Tehran.
The events since then — US imposing sanctions on Zarif — assume an added dimension now. Can it be that Trump felt insulted — and hit out? Or, more plausibly, he pulled back under pressure from within his camp, fearing media leaks and ensuing embarrassment? Either way, the US policy on Iran looks bizarre, lacking coherence, swinging wildly from one end to the other, completely unpredictable.
Tehran will think twice before engaging with Trump.
Meanwhile, Trump’s overture to Zarif and the ensuing snub comes at an awkward time for POTUS, who is lately facing taunts from North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. North Korea’s multiple ballistic missile tests (with range up to 450 kms and altitude of 50 kms) are highly damaging for Trump’s reputation who has been claiming that his personal diplomacy with Kim has persuaded the latter to end all missile (and nuclear) tests. (By the way, in the South Korean assessment, the newly-developed North Korean ballistic missiles are a “version” of Russia’s famous Iskander-M missile, which is a formidable road-mobile, surface-to-surface short-range ballistic missile capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional warheads and reputed to be highly manoeuvrable at the final stretch of their trajectory, thus allowing them to bypass the enemy’s air defences.)
Without doubt, Kim has signalled to Trump that Pyongyang’s patience has limits and Washington had better get back to the negotiating table and also get used to the reality that Pyongyang is not going to agree to full disarmament.
Trump, of course, has no choice but to downplay the latest series of North Korean missile launches, although he knows his claim of success with Kim as a singular foreign policy trophy of his presidency is in tatters. In a 3-part tweet, Trump said,
“There may be a United Nations violation, but Chairman Kim does not want to disappoint me with a violation of trust. There is far too much for North Korea to gain – the potential as a Country, under Kim Jong Un’s leadership, is unlimited.”
Trump then went on to praise Kim, saying he has a “great and beautiful vision for his country” and that, importantly, that vision can be realised only if Trump remains president. Trump concluded, “He (Kim) will do the right thing because he is far too smart not to, and he does not want to disappoint his friend, President Trump!”
Clearly, Trump’s reaction reflects that his approach to North Korea still emphasises personal diplomacy. Trump thinks Kim will fall for his flattery and for his offer to help out the North Korean economy.
The Trump administration’s approach to North Korea and Iran respectively has nothing in common. Trump is far more cautious about Pyongyang and shows much greater latitude. Of course, the critical difference is that North Korea is a nuclear weapon state which is capable of staging an attack on the US west coast and endangering the US bases in the Pacific and the Far East where over hundred thousand American military personnel are deployed. Besides, what makes the North Korea problem explosive is that the country is in reality having a stockpile of nuclear weapons whereas, in comparison, the US-Iran standoff is not really about nuclear non-proliferation but about the rise of Iran as a regional power.
To be sure, the US diplomacy will have a hard time coping with the North Korean front becoming kinetic at a juncture when the US’s standoff with Iran is also entering a dangerous phase. North Korea’s missile launch today was reportedly supervised by Kim in person. It implies that Trumps flattery had no effect on Kim, who has his own game plan worked out.
What happens if North Korea piles up pressure in the coming months even as Trump’s campaign for re-election shifts gear? The crunch time comes later this month. Pyongyang maintains that if the US goes ahead with its planned military exercise with South Korea in August, Washington will be violating an agreement between Kim and Trump. Indeed, if the exercises go ahead, all bets are off. Pyongyang may retaliate by ending its suspension of nuclear and ICBM tests.
Both North Korea and Iran are astute observers of the vicissitudes of regional and world politics. Therefore, while it seems improbable that North Korea and Iran would move in tandem in tackling Trump, such a likelihood cannot be brushed off, either. To be sure, the US-Iran standoff has created more space for Pyongyang to manoeuvre — just as the US-China tensions already have. And Kim must be aware of that.
On the other hand, so long as all was quiet on the North Korean front, the Trump administration had a relatively free hand to focus on the Iran front. But if both fronts come alive simultaneously, it becomes a new ball game. By pure coincidence, in August, one such situation may arise with Iran planning to make its third move to distance itself from the JCPOA and North Korea challenging the holding of the annual US-ROK military exercises.
Iran’s Zarif drives Trump to insanity
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 1, 2019
At a time when the Trump administration has no problem negotiating with the secretary of the Russian national security council Nikolai Patrushev, who is technically under US sanctions since April 2018, the cut and thrust of Washington’s move to sanction Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif needs to be understood properly.
How did US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo try to explain the dispatch of Zarif to perdition? Pompeo’s statement on Wednesday attributed to Zarif a singular sin: a) Zarif “acted on behalf of the Supreme Leader”; b) Zarif took “direction from the Supreme Leader and his office”; c) Zarif was “a key enabler of Ayatollah Khamenei’s policies throughout the region and around the world”; d) and, Zarif has been “a senior regime official and apologist” of Iranian government and has “for years now been complicit in these (Iran’s) malign activities”.
Basically, Pompeo’s grouse narrows down to this: Zarif is a disciplined dutiful, loyal Iranian public servant who abided by the Iranian system of government founded in the concept of velāyat-e faqīh (‘guardianship of the Islamic jurist’.)
Does that become a sin? Any foreign minister has his job cut out for him — even Pompeo himself. Pompeo has no pretensions that he is holding the job entirely at the pleasure and discretion of his supreme leader President Trump. Trump, in fact, is an unforgiving stickler for loyalty. Ask James Mattis or Rex Tillerson.
The US establishment knows very well how the concept velāyat-e faqīh operates, how the alchemy of political power is formed in Iran, and how the decision-making process is reached. Even Trump would know it. Which is why he even tried to get through to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and was duly snubbed.) So, where is the beef?
Simply put, Zarif per se is the problem. The Trump administration is desperately keen to put an end to Zarif’s contacts with the American elite. Zarif lived and worked for several years in America from the age of 17 — as a high school student, university student, and career diplomat, ending up as Iran’s representative at the UN from 2002 to 2007. He also kept closely in touch with the US academia and intellectual circles in his capacity as a professor and editor of scholarly journals in Tehran who has written copiously on disarmament, human rights, international law, and regional conflicts.
Indeed, what rankles the Trump administration is that Zarif has extensively networked with American intellectuals, politicians, think tankers and media persons — figures as diverse as Joseph Biden, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Hagel, Nicholas Kristof, Thomas Pickering, James Dobbins and Christian Amanpour.
Zarif took his job seriously and being a fluent English speaker, he could tweet and debate and spar with any American with delectable ease. Zarif outclassed the mediocre American foreign and security policy team.
Zarif’s periodical visits to New York (ostensibly to attend the UN events) increasingly became a nightmare for the Trump administration as he cast his net wide and ably put across Iran’s narrative. Trump singled out more than once that Zarif had meetings with Kerry, former state secretary who negotiated the 2015 Iran deal.
This is the crux of the matter. By imposing sanctions on Zarif, the US can deny visa to him and render unlawful (and liable to prosecution under law) any contact between him and any American national. Effectively, Trump instructed Pompeo to make sure that Zarif doesn’t come to New York between now and the 2020 November election so that his detractors and critics cannot hear from the horse’s mouth the Iranian narrative.
Trump feels exasperated that Iran is winning the information war. And he is worried that between now and November 2020, his re-election campaign may get booby-trapped. For any longtime observer of the US-Iran standoff, it is obvious that a sea change has appeared in the American discourses on Iran. There is an influential and ever growing body of opinion in the US today, which disagrees with Trump’s ‘maximum pressure’ strategy. This constituency rationally argues that Trump shouldn’t have dumped the 2015 deal.
Equally, there is a far better understanding today in the informed American opinion regarding Iran and its policies, and the zen of dealing with Persian nationalism beneath the veneer of Islamism. The surprising part is that such an awakening has happened despite the Herculean efforts by the Israeli Lobby to demonise Iran and to stymie all contrarian views in the media, think tanks and campuses — and the Hill.
Will Trump’s ploy work? Unlikely. The point is, Zarif is irrepressible. He will continue to tease, taunt, disparage, humiliate and expose and run down Trump’s Iran policies. Worse still, Zarif has driven a knife into the heart of the ‘B Team’ driving the US administration’s Iran policies currently.
Trump’s sanctions against Zarif will not set an example for any other country which has diplomatic relations with Iran. In the final analysis, Trump will have to deal with Zarif, whether he likes him or not.
The best way to counter Zarif would have been to handpick an intellectually resourceful, dynamic state secretary. A mediocrity like Pompeo stands no chance with Zarif. This is a dumb thing Trump has done. He should have known better.
In 2001, Zarif was Iran’s main representative at the Bonn Conference, which brought together regional players in the aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban. His American counterpart at the event, James Dobbins — who was later named as the Obama Administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan — wrote a memorable essay titled Negotiating with Iran: Reflections from Personal Experience in the Washington Quarterly about Zarif’s erudition, wit and charm — and his pragmatism, which helped the two gifted diplomats to thrash out “over morning coffee and cakes” a deal that led to the replacement of the Northern Alliance government in Kabul with a US-backed interim set-up under Hamid Karzai. (Burhanuddin Rabbani remarked bitterly at that time he hoped that would be the last time a foreign power ever dictated to Afghans.)
Washington has now sanctioned the man who played a pivotal role in that fateful transition in Kabul leading to the installation of the US’ client regime in the Hindu Kush. Some gratitude!
The Spy Game: It Ain’t What It Used to Be
By Philip Giraldi | Strategic Culture Foundation | August 1, 2019
The Tehran government has announced the arrest of seventeen Iranian citizens caught spying for America’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Some of those arrested have already been sentenced to death. It is the third major roll-up of CIA agents in Iran that I have been aware of, the first occurring in 1991 involved 20 American agents. The second episode in 2011 led to the arrest of 30 spies. The earlier arrests reportedly eliminated what were presumed to be the entire networks of American agents operating inside Iran and it is to be presumed that the recent arrests will have the same impact.
The Iranians presented a considerable quantity of evidence, including photos and business cards of US government officials, to back up their claim of American spying but President Trump dismissed the report as “totally false” and “just more lies and propaganda” — while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said: “I would take with a significant grain of salt any Iranian assertion about actions that they’ve taken.”
Iran’s press release on the arrests together with a briefing by an intelligence official supplemented by local media coverage provided some of the details. The seventeen reportedly had “sophisticated training” but those who had sabotage missions did not succeed. Other objectives included “collecting information at the facilities they worked at, carrying out technical and intelligence activities and transferring and installing monitoring devices.”
Some of the agents had reportedly been recruited by falling into what is referred to as a “visa trap” set by the CIA for Iranians seeking to travel to the US. This has long been the preferred tool for recruiting Iranian agents. The intelligence official handed out a CD with a video recording of an alleged CIA case officer speaking to an Iranian target, which was presumably recorded secretly. The video shows a blonde woman who speaks Persian with an American accent. The disc also included names of several US embassy staff in Dubai, Turkey, India, Zimbabwe and Austria who Iran claims were involved in the recruitment and training of the Iranian spies.
How exactly did the recruitments take place as there is no US Embassy in Tehran and few Americans resident in the country? Many of the Iranians were targeted when they walked into an American Embassy in a country to which they are free to travel, which includes Turkey and Dubai. In the words of the Iranian intelligence official, “Some were approached when they were applying for a visa, while others had visas from before and were pressured by the CIA in order to renew them.”
Others were targeted and recruited as spies while attending scientific conferences around the world. Those recruited received promises of money, eventual resettlement and a job in the US or medical assistance. To maintain contact with its agents inside Iran, the CIA would reportedly conceal spyware and instructions in containers that look like rocks, which would be planted in city parks or in rural areas. The Iranian agents would then recover the material, which might include false identification documents. It should be observed that fake rocks are a standard espionage tool. They are hollowed out to conceal spy-gear and communications. After they are in place, a signal is made to alert the agent that there is something ready to be picked-up. In the trade they are referred to as “dead drops.”
Why does the United States continue to spy on Iran with such ferocity? The Mullahs became a major intelligence target for Washington in the wake of the 1979 US Embassy hostage crisis, in which fifty-two American diplomats and intelligence officers were held for 444 days. The CIA mounted a major intelligence operation run from Europe that collected a wide range of information on the Iranian government and, increasingly, on its technical capabilities, including a suspected nuclear development program. In 2015 the CIA under President Barack Obama and Director John Brennan ramped up collection efforts against Iran as part of the verification process for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). More recently, Mike Pompeo, when CIA Director, further increased efforts against Iran when the Trump Administration withdrew from that agreement in the belief that Iran represented a rogue nation and a threat to United States interests and allies. In reality, of course, there is no real American vital interest relating to Iran and Trump has been acting on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of whom are hostile to Iran as a regional rival.
But running intelligence operations in a country without a US Embassy to serve as a base for spies proved difficult. Many spies have been caught, by one Iranian estimate, 290 agents arrested in recent years. Most often the exposure of the spies has been due to human error or technical problems in communications. Iran has benefited by boasting of those arrests and has long promoted its capacity to uncover American spy rings in the country. As the New York Times reports, Iran has recently aired a documentary featuring efforts to expose and rid the country of the CIA agents working there.
A recently produced and very popular Iranian fictional television series called “Gando” has also introduced the narrative of a perpetual fight against American spies into the country’s popular culture. The show features brave Iranian intelligence officials in pursuit of an American spy posing as a journalist.
According to a Yahoo News investigation, Iran was in 2009 enraged by reports that the CIA had possibly penetrated its nuclear program and its counter-intelligence agents immediately went on the hunt for moles. By 2011, Iranian officials had uncovered and arrested a network of 30 CIA sources, a fact that US officials later confirmed. Some of the accused informants were executed. The Iranian government was able to find the operatives because of failures in the systems and techniques that the CIA agents used to communicate with the agents. Once a flaw in communications is detected, it is possible to exploit that so one can sit back and wait and watch for all those linked to the network to reveal themselves.
One might observe that the continued massive American “maximum pressure” spying effort directed against Iran is a bit of an anachronism. It is agreed by nearly all observers that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and is unlikely to start one. The sanctions put in place against the country unilaterally by the US cannot produce a popular uprising that will bring down the regime, but they have indeed hurt the country’s economy badly and the people are suffering. Iran’s military cannot stand up against its neighbors, much less against the United States, and its ability to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors is extremely limited.
So, it is probably just as well that Iran has again rolled up most of the American spies in the country, though it will be a tragedy for the men and women involved. Many critics of the Agency have argued that the CIA has forgotten how to spy in an age of drones and electronic surveillance, which may be true. Certainly, the CIA record regarding Iran is nothing to brag about.
Germany won’t take part in US Strait of Hormuz initiative – FM
RT | July 31, 2019
Germany will refuse to take part in a US-led maritime mission in the Strait of Hormuz, Foreign Minister Heiko Maas announced. Maas said that there “cannot be a military solution” to the current crisis in the Persian Gulf.
Speaking in Warsaw, Poland on Wednesday, Maas said that Germany will turn down Washington’s request, which was revealed by the US Embassy in Berlin on Tuesday. The joint US, British, and French operation is aimed at protecting sea traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, and combating so-called “Iranian aggression.”
The mission was conceived following Iran’s seizure of the British-flagged Stena Impero oil tanker earlier this month, itself widely considered a tit-for-tat response to Britain’s seizure of an Iranian tanker off the coast of Gibraltar several weeks earlier.
That Germany would refuse to assist the American-led mission is no surprise. Washington’s request was the subject of intense debate in Berlin, with opposition parties on the left and right pressuring Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition government into saying no.
“We have to avoid further escalation in the Strait of Hormuz,” Maas said on Wednesday. “That has always been our position.” Compared to the United States and some of its allies, Germany has enjoyed relatively cordial relations with Tehran since the 1970s.
Germany remains party to the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA, or Iran nuclear deal), a landmark agreement that granted Iran sanctions relief in exchange for a curb on its nuclear weapons program. The United States unilaterally withdrew from the deal last year, precipitating the current standoff with Tehran.
Despite Germany’s refusal to join the US-led mission, some politicians in Berlin remain open to another kind of deployment. “The alternative is a European mission, if necessary without the British, if they decide for the US,” Norbert Roettgen, a member of Merkel’s CDU party, told German media on Tuesday.

