US Secretary of State John Kerry sought to secure a pause in Yemen’s war as he arrived in Saudi Arabia Wednesday to meet with the king and other top officials, citing increased shortages of food, fuel, and medicine that are adding to a crisis that already has neighboring countries bracing for a mass exodus of refugees.
What he didn’t say out loud was that disturbing the Houthis was disturbing his Iranian friends.
The Arkansas Republican‘s [first-term Senator Tom Cotton] tactics have drawn praise from his conservative supporters, but irritated some GOP colleagues when his moves have conflicted with their efforts.
And
Mr Cotton has drawn unusual attention, particularly for inserting himself into negotiations with Iran.
Possibly Republican (and Democrat) Senate old heads should be a bit less comfortable in their seniority roles and get a bit more comfortable in their own skins and with the requirements of their employment—their constituents’ instructions. The quality of ideas and of actions don’t stem from whom their authors are; they’re intrinsic in those ideas and actions.
Several Arab states, members of the Gulf Security Council, are looking for
major new weapons systems and security guarantees from the White House in exchange for backing a nuclear agreement with Iran, according to US and Arab officials.
There are a lot of valid arguments on both sides of that question in The Wall Street Journal article at the link (RTWT), but one thing jumps out at me, and it wasn’t addressed in the article.
Suppose the GSC nations get those security guarantees and promises of delivery of those weapons systems. On what basis do they think this administration would deliver on those commitments?
This administration pulled the rug out from under Poland and Czech Republic on missile defense systems. This administration pulled the rug out from under Ukraine, refusing to send them the equipment they need to defend themselves. This administration refused to take meaningful action against the Assad régime in Syria after painting a bright red line around the use of chemical weapons. This administration pulled the rug out from under Israel in the PA’s terror war against Israel just last summer. This administration currently is pulling the rug out from under Israel in agreeing to a framework that lets Iran obtain nuclear weapons.
A commitment to those Arab nations regarding security and weapons would be just another line this administration would shy away from in the moment of truth.
The Air Force says that if an amendment to the defense funding bill that extends the operational life of the A-10 makes it into the final budget, it’ll have to mothball a bunch of F-16s or maybe delay deployment of the F-35.
The F-35 is overpriced and undercapabled. I vote for delaying that—or cancelling it altogether.
Or a choice not currently on the table: the F-22 is even more overpriced than the F-35, and it’s even less capable; albeit it’s less capable in an air-to-air environment rather than the A-10’s or F-35’s air-to-mud milieu. Cancel that albatross, too.
There is a bill beginning its long journey through the House that instructs DoD to deploy within two years (which is “promptly” as such things— both legislative and arms—go) systems capable of handling Russian cruise missiles and other weapons systems that Russia has been developing in direct violation of the decades old Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
The House Armed Services Committee attached this to the 2016 defense authorization bill. This legislation is significant enough in its own right, but the motivation behind it is interesting for another reason, too.
Here’s Congressman Mike Rogers (R, AL), Chairman of the Armed Services Committee’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee:
For years, we’ve been urging the Obama administration to get serious about Russia’s violation of the INF treaty.
Its response: we’re talking to Russia. While Obama talks, Putin cheats on treaties and invades his neighbors. We must take Russia’s actions seriously, and this authorization of DOD funding does just that. The United States will not be unilaterally bound by any treaty.
Another group of Congressmen have recognized the need to talk directly to foreign governments, since this administration seems incapable of doing so in any serious manner.