Posted on by Nathan Riley

Who Won? Israel or Iran?

July 4th was a significant news day. Finally, there was hard news about who won the Israel-Iran War.

Seymour Hersch, who has a distinguished record writing about the U.S. military, had just made an extraordinary journalistic  prediction. On the Friday before Israel attacked Iran, that is, the day before the attack began, Hersch, in his Substack post, predicted the start of the war.

On July 4th, Hersch answered the question, “Did Israel and the U.S. destroy Iran’s nuclear preparations?” According to this veteran journalist, the Iranians moved their “more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas… [to] at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan…[that] was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine.” Trying to safely store its enriched uranium, Iran mistakenly moved it to a site that was “pulverized.” In Hersch’s view, the Iranian attempt at safeguarding its enriched uranium failed completely.

Most of Hersch’s article discussed the Defense Department’s leaks reaching the opposite conclusion. It hinted that Iran’s enriched uranium remained a threat. Not so, Hersch wrote. The United States and Israel denied their military success. They were inflating the Iranian threat.

Also on July 4th, the Financial Times looked back on the war and reached this conclusion: “Saudi Arabia sticks with Iran after Israel war.” The Saudis and Iran follow different branches of Islam. This led Saudi Arabia to lean towards the United States, but this changed in 2023 after China brokered normal relations with Iran. The war did not disturb these changes.

On Sunday, the New York Times concluded that China and Russia did not rush “to aid Iran during its war with Israel or when U.S. forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites.” According to the Times interpretation, Iran did not receive the support it should expect from an ally.

 The Times was not exploring an equally obvious conclusion. China and Russia refused to escalate a hot war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. If this interpretation wasn’t brought to the public’s attention, it certainly registered with keen international observers. The Times article embraced the idea that China and Russia should have joined the war if they were true allies of Iran. That is hardly obvious. Their choice to diffuse tensions is clearly reasonable and arguably in Iran’s best interest. Had the war gotten hotter, the damage to Iran would have been greater.

The current issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sketches the extensive damage done to Iran. Water supplies, the petroleum industry, and shopping centers were attacked. It seems likely that the Gulf states, China, and Russia will help Iran rebuild.

China, Russia, and North Korea, in all probability, will help Iran replace missiles and drones destroyed in the war. Tehran did not beat Israel, but its government was uplifted by demonstrations of support from Iranian citizens. Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region, but Iran demonstrated its ability to damage Israel.

Israel couldn’t deliver a death blow. Iran was fighting until the end and caused extensive damage, demonstrating that Israel’s vaunted missile shield could be penetrated.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst, prepared a map showing 17 sites in Israel that suffered extensive damage. Israel was as happy as Iran that the fighting stopped after 12 days. Israel has an edge over Iran, but it is no longer the undisputed military power in West Asia.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Normal Relations With Russia?

I am not pro Trump, but early indications offer convincing evidence that he is not a clown. His upheaval suggests he wants to change history and put the United States on a new path.

His policies may have their roots in isolationism. I am not a student of U.S. foreign policy, so I have no opinion on this subject, but from the start of this administration Trump challenged U.S. power centers.

The shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development dealt a hammer blow to a CIA operation. To be sure, the agency feeds starving children and stops the spread of disease. Its humanitarian work is praiseworthy, but it is also linked to soft power, a U.S. tactic.

USAID is tied to political demonstrations to oust foreign governments. Leaders were deposed in Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak left office in 2011. In 2014 U.S. Foreign policy mavens dreamed that if China crushed the Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution, it would revive the “unfortunate” memories of the massacre in Tiananmen Square. The most extravagant dreamers hoped sympathy demonstrations would leapfrog across China creating general instability.

At the other end of the globe, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution started in 2013, and by 2014 a new pro-European Union government would become a NATO proxy.  The pro-Russian government was ejected.

The sharp economic contraction following breakup of the Soviet Union, brought USAID into Ukraine in 1992 and by 2022 in addition to programs supporting health and education, 80% of Ukrainian media outlets relied on grants, mostly indirectly, from American sources like USAID. Ukrainian political commentary is funded by U.S. dollars.

Trump’s hostility to USAID is an attack on the deep state, and one of his first actions. A promise made a promise kept. His new Defense Secretary slammed the Military Industrial Complex by insisting on an 8% budget cut.

Musk’s DOGE search for corruption and waste made it difficult for members of Congress to object. DOGE’s demands for personal details is not directed at you or me, but it is certain to make members of Congress cautious. At a U.N. security council vote the United States split with its European allies by refusing to blame Russia for its invasion of Ukraine. This was too much for a few Republican Congressmembers. Senator John Curtis, Republican of Utah, went on social media and said he was “deeply troubled by the vote,” which had “put us on the same side as Russia and North Korea.”

No Democratic leader would have taken on deep state institutions in this public fashion.

In West Asia, Trump’s personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, pushed Netanyahu into accepting a cease fire. Trump, his Vice-President, and new Defense Secretary challenged the Biden narrative that the Ukrainian invasion was unprovoked aggression by Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.

Trump will not make Russia an ally, but he will recognize that when Putin came to power Russia was broke and unable to guard its nuclear weapons. 35 years later Russia fought a war with a U.S. proxy, did not run out of weapons, and seized 20% of the disputed territory. Russia has reemerged as a great power, and President Trump is insisting that normal relations be established with Moscow. Putin is no longer an unspeakable dictator. He is President Putin.

It was revealed that under Biden the U.S. had virtually shut down the Russian Embassy in Washingon and ended diplomatic discussions, a mistake Trump quickly corrected. Putin insisted that Zelensky, the Ukrainian President, be excluded from negotiation and Trump refused to turn the Russian condition into a roadblock.

Biden had insisted Ukraine had stopped the Russian military; Trump said Ukraine had all but lost and could not act like a winner.  

Peace discussions over Eastern Europe were only one dramatic change in U.S. policy, the destruction of Gaza ended with Palestinians free to move in their own country and Hamas celebrated as heroes. Hostages were released. The ceasefire is holding, but its future is up in the air.

Trump’s preposterous suggestion that all Palestinians be removed prompted an Arab alliance and the drafting of a $20B plan to start the reconstruction of Gaza. The resumption of war is possible, even likely, but so far the ceasefire has cooled the fighting.

European nations are hesitantly considering negotiations with Russia as the U.S. President relaxes tensions with Moscow.

In a matter of weeks Trump has placed U.S. foreign policy on a new footing and opened the possibility of normal relations with Russia. Trump is not a clown, and he is challenging the deep state institutions that prospered during the Ukraine war while Russia was treated as an enemy.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Trump’s negotiating style Part 2

Trump has broken with the Democrats and their devotion to Ukraine. In a perceptive piece, Peter Baker writes “President Trump made clear that the days of isolating Russia are over and suggested that Ukraine was to blame for being invaded.”

Blame is an odd word for the harsh realities of internation relations. In Baker’s reporting the U.S. has in recent years adopted the view that Ukraine is the victim of Russian aggression. It’s a world of good guys and bad guys. Zelinsky is standing up for freedom and self-determination. Putin, “the dictator,” is the invader. Trump’s radical change: accepting Putin’s right to impose Russia’s will on the smaller good guys. A right often exercised by the United States.

Baker is surely right. Millions of Europeans and Americans accept the view that Russia is the invader and also accept the view that the callous Trump doesn’t care.

Trump has started peace negotiations on Ukraine and accepted the Russian agenda that excludes Zelinsky. Baker describes it as a scandal. My view is international relations are not for the faint of heart. A small country like Ukraine shouldn’t pick a fight with a great power like Russia. In fairness to Ukraine, Russia’s great power status was only recently confirmed. But a huge number of Ukrainians understood that provoking Russia was a disaster and fled the country after demonstrations (with CIA help?) ousted the pro-Russian government in 2014.

The war that turned hot in 2022 after the Russian invasion has basically shattered Ukraine while Russia’s industrial base has grown to supply their soldiers and improve their fighting force. It’s an unfair world, but Baker is wrong. The United States are not good guys; they are practitioners of great power politics.

While the Times and many Americans view Russia as the bully and Ukraine as the victim, American weapons and money supported Israel’s campaign against the Palestinians. A campaign so violent that it has provoked an investigation by the International Criminal Court into allegations that Israel is committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. The ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The rosy view of the U.S. as good guys is propaganda. Even if Ukraine did not cooperate with the CIA and rearm, it still should have seen the necessity of ignoring provocations and preserving a working relationship with their bigger neighbor: Russia. Perhaps a cooperative Ukraine might have avoided the February 2022 invasion.

Trump recognizes Russia’s great power status. Something that Congress and the Democrats resisted. This has had a dramatic effect on Europe, the United States, and Ukraine. The new administration in Washington believes Putin’s agenda is a workable basis for negotiations. The Russian president believes Zelensky’s leadership is illegal under Ukrainian law. Putin wants elections. Normally a U.S. demand.

As a result, Zelensky is excluded from the negotiations and will face demands that he resign. This is a concrete result of Trump’s five-week-old administration. 

At a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group in Brussels Pete Hegseth, the self-proclaimed warrior, and new Secretary of Defense announced policies that met Russia’s President Vladimir Putin agenda for opening negotiations.

Ukraine would not join NATO, it would cede to Russia provinces conquered during Ukraine’s misguided war against Russia.

Should an international force watch over Ukraine, Hegseth said it would be a “non-NATO Mission.” No countries were named but clearly China, a Russian ally would qualify, ditto for U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. Journalists reported Europe gave the proposal a chilly reception.

Negotiations have started; Hegseth spoke publicly on Wednesday Feb. 12 . Privately Steve Witkoff, Trumps special mediator, was in Moscow. The next day Trump and Putin had a long phone call that Trump called productive.

By Thursday, Hegseth was soothing Congressional critics and U. S. allies. His ideas would be subject to change during negotiations. He wasn’t announcing hard and fast positions. It would be up Trump to decide what “to allow or not allow.”

A possible major event has Putin and Trump holding direct talks in Moscow on May 9 for the celebration of the 80th anniversary of the German surrender to Russia in 1945, when Russia and the United States were allies against Hitler.

The President promised to engage in nuclear talks once “we straighten it all out” in the Middle East and Ukraine. The President is breaking with a costly Biden administration plan to modernize the armed forces. He told reporters, “There’s no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons…We already have so many you can destroy the world 50 times over.”

Talks about peace in Ukraine started on Feb 18 in Saudi Arabia. Ukraine was not invited. The location was odd for Ukrainian peace talks but a sensible one for involving Egypt in a Palestinian peace process.

At this initial meeting Moscow and Washington agreed to expand their embassy staffs. It would have the practical effect of making it easier for each country to obtain accurate information and permit non-binding discussion of tentative plans.

Perhaps another Putin hope was being realized. According to a Moscow statement, “The two sides expressed their mutual willingness to interact on pressing international issues, including the settlement around Ukraine.” Putin is eager to establish a framework for discussing major issues with the United States.

A neutral Ukraine might model itself after Austria. That country’s founding documents provide that “In all future times Austria will not join any military alliances and will not permit the establishment of any foreign military bases on her territory.”

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Will the Democratic Love-Fest Continue?

The worriers were wrong. The Democrats replaced Joe Biden without a fight, without disruption. Sixth grade civics won out: the President is sick, the Vice-President takes over.

Party unity was jolted, fed by enthusiasm. Kamala Harris for President was greeted by Democrats with an immense sigh of relief: she looked healthy and able to do the job. Almost immediately, stories leaked about what the Wall Street Journal called her ten-hour telephone “marathon” after Biden pulled out of the race. Over one hundred calls, so the story went, and it carried a double message. She was organized, had the phone numbers, and could reach hundreds of Democratic decision-makers. She asked for support, and as everybody has heard, they gave it to her. Her energy also made it clear that she could reach out and help party members with their problems. Her White House would be accessible.

The fast turnover made it clear that supporters of an open convention, where candidates would have an opportunity to be heard, were offering bad advice. The doctor would have been prescribing chaos. Instead, Joe Biden endorsed Kamala and, more to the point, turned over his campaign staff and hundred-million-dollar bank account to her. Hickety-split the turnover fell into place.

Kamala is talking the language of continuity. For the left, there is hope that their friends at the National Labor Relations Board and Federal Trade Commission will continue their policies for another four years.

Foreign policy will divide Democrats: Ukraine and Gaza. The United States has not chosen peace, but in these places it has chosen sides. In the Ukraine, it is the pro-Western government; in Gaza, it is Israel. The results are catastrophic. Gaza is being demolished, and Ukraine’s infrastructure is crumbling. It seems certain that U.S. foreign policy will receive sharp scrutiny. How Democrats cope with these decisions will be a major problem for the next President. Trump or Harris will confront this grave predicament.

The left appears committed to peaceful solutions. It can make friends or in an extreme case look unreliable. Turning American foreign policy in a new direction is no easy matter. It should provide many opportunities for gaining friends and entering into mutually beneficial arrangements. Plainly it will be a dominant issue in January 2025.