Tag Archives: foreign policy

A Two State Solution

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden administration is looking to offer a “security alliance” to Saudi Arabia that would commit the US to “help defend” it in return for Saudi normalization of relations with Israel. Israel’s end in this deal centers on a quick end to the Hamas-inflicted war in the Gaza Strip and Israel’s commitment to a credible path to a two-state solution with the Palestinians. It’s well enough known that Israel’s current government, and more than a few predecessor governments, don’t like the idea of a Palestinian state on Israel’s border.

I have an idea on the matter, because in my awesomeness (and hubris) of course I do.

I’ve written before about what to do about governing the Gaza Strip once Hamas is destroyed (assuming that’s the outcome of Hamas’ war (which Israel is trying to achieve as quickly as possible despite the roadblocks the Biden administration keeps throwing up)). A Palestinian state next door to Israel might become more palatable to Israel (I obviously don’t speak for them) if more nations than just Israel had some skin in that outcome.

Thus: the defense/two-state commitment might become a serious thing for Israeli consideration if Saudi Arabia, the Abraham Accord nations other than Israel, and Egypt were as deeply involved in that pathway to a Palestinian state as Biden and those other nations want Israel to be.

Let Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Abraham Accord nations, less Israel, be the governing body of a nascent Palestinian state until there is a strong consensus among Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Abraham Accord nations, less Israel, that the Palestinian state is ready for self rule, and Israel agrees with that consensus.

Of course, I’m eliding the reliability of any Biden agreement with a nation that Progressive-Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden promised to treat like a pariah, but we’re already dealing in hopes and dreams; what’s one more in the mix?

One More Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

Politico is claiming that the Biden administration (and a couple of other nations, but it’s primarily the Biden administration) is being slow to train Ukrainian pilots in the F-16, which aircraft has been pledged by a variety of nations to Ukraine “soon.”

[T]he Biden administration has told Kyiv it lacks the school seats in its Arizona-based program to accept more than 12 pilot trainees at a time, according to three people with direct knowledge of the request.

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s rationalization rationale?

[T]he US has told the Ukrainian military that in addition to limited space, other countries are in line for F-16 training at the base and that it cannot break its commitments to those nations.

Because the convenience of peacetime training must take precedence over training pilots from a nation in a war for its own national survival.

If true, this is just one more disgusting Biden excuse to slow-walk aid to Ukraine.

The IAEA Grows Some…Independence

Posted on by
Reply

Even after the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had, in violation of its own claims as well as actual agreements, had enough enriched uranium to produce one bomb within a week and enough to produce nearly eight over a month, Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden pushed the Agency to look the other way and do nothing.

The IAEA did not look the other way.

The International Atomic Energy Agency passed a formal censure of Iran on Wednesday[.]

It’s good that this organization has stopped taking our unserious President seriously. Our nation’s enemies already don’t.

Continued Betrayal

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has decided to allow Ukraine to use artillery and to fire range-limited HIMARS rockets (but not the long-range HIMARS rockets) against command posts, arms depots, and other assets on Russian territory that are being used by Russian forces to carry out its attack on Kharkiv in northeastern Ukraine.

Oh, the magnanimity.

But nowhere else. Not in the east, in Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts which also border on Russia, opposite which in Russian territory, there also exist command posts, arms depots, and other assets preparing to attack, or actually attacking. Not against the Kerch Bridge which connects Russia with occupied Crime and allows reinforcement and resupply of the barbarians operating in Crimea, in Kherson and Zaporizhia Oblasts, and in Donetsk Oblast through Zaporizhia. Most especially not in Kyiv Oblast where Russian assets exist in Belorussia, in preparation for a renewed invasion from the north.

Instead, Biden continues to require Ukraine’s soldiers to only shoot back. Biden still is trying to deny Ukraine the ability to preemptively fire against shooters preparing to shoot, or shooters gathering in preparation to prepare to [sic] shoot.

Other targets in Russian (and Belorussian) territory that Biden will not allow American-supplied weapons to be used against: road and rail links connecting those Russian ammunition and fuel dumps; food and water accumulations; and soldiers, armor, and artillery being massed in staging areas, all of which then will move to enter Ukraine.

Biden’s rationalization for this:

The narrow geographic scope represents an effort by the Biden administration to help Ukraine better defend against Russia’s continuing offensive while limiting the risk that the conflict in Ukraine could escalate into a direct clash between Washington and Moscow.

“Better defend,” not seize the initiative and win.

Biden isn’t interested in an actual Ukrainian victory over the barbarian. He isn’t interested in Ukraine actually being able to preempt the forces enroute to joining Putin’s offensive, either in the Kharkiv Oblast or the coming ones into Donetsk and Luhansk, or the one currently being set up in Belorussia into Kyiv Oblast. No, Biden still is requiring Ukraine to fight with one hand tied behind its back; he’s only untied the little finger.

Biden still is kowtowing to Putin and his threats, or he’s still siding with Putin in the barbarian invasion of Ukraine.

Muddled?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden wants our European allies to desist from moving to “rebuke” Iran over its pushing forward its nuclear weapons program, a program that’s already nearing fruition. He is, through his nebulously identified administration,

arguing against an effort by Britain and France to censure Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s member state board in early June, the diplomats said. The US has pressed a number of other countries to abstain in a censure vote, saying that is what Washington will do….

On the other hand, Biden said through one of his officials,

We are increasing pressure on Iran through sanctions and international isolation….

Biden Those “officials” further claim that

Europe could do more to increase pressure on Iran, including cutting off Iranian banks that work on the continent and listing Iran’s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terror group. They note they have coordinated sanctions efforts with Europe against Iran over its missile and drone transfers.

But those aren’t rebukes. Nope.

This, from the article’s lede, though, gives the game away:

[The Biden administration] seeks to keep tensions with Tehran from escalating before the autumn’s US presidential election, according to diplomats involved in discussions.

And this, bookending the article:

A second US official said it was “totally false” that Washington is aiming to avoid disruption with Iran before the US elections.

There’s the official denial that confirms the rumor.

Maybe Biden’s policy here isn’t so muddled. More likely, this is just Biden kowtowing to the mullah and putting his personal political prospects far ahead of what’s good for our nation, what’s good for Israel, what’s good for the Middle East at large. That, in my humble opinion, is disgusting.

Voters should keep this in mind when they go to the polls this fall.