washingtonmonthly--2020-04-13--Donald Trump And His Fake Rebels

Donald Trump And His Fake Rebels

In June 2019 , the Hells Angels sold their New York headquarters in the East Village and found a new location in the Bronx .
It was probably a good thing they left , since they were known for punching people who parked near their bikes and one Angel shot a man for moving an orange cone .
The motorcycle club doesn ’ t seem to be getting along much better with their new neighbors in Throggs Neck .
Their annoying weekend parties have drawn complaints and there was a shooting in January .
Of course , this isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more interested in what a notorious motorcycle gang does in a time of coronavirus .
After all , the restrictions New York State put in place on March 22 , aren ’ t exactly consistent with the habits of the Hells Angels .
For example , these seem problematic : • Non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size for any reason ( e.g .
parties , celebrations or other social events ) are canceled or postponed at this time ; • Any concentration of individuals outside their home must be limited to workers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be practiced ; • When in public individuals must practice social distancing of at least six feet from others ; • Individuals should limit outdoor recreational activities to non-contact and avoid activities where they come in close contact with other people ; But , I scoured the interwebs and didn ’ t find a peep from any Hells Angels complaining about these restrictions .
That doesn ’ t mean their chapters are consistently complying but they aren ’ t making a show of defiance .
I can ’ t say the same for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2014 armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge is threatening to hold a large gathering on Easter in defiance of Idaho ’ s coronavirus stay-at-home mandate .
Ammon Bundy asked followers to show up at his ranch Sunday .
“ Our goal is to get enough people together and secure our rights , ” Bundy said , according to the New York Post .
“ We are not trying to provoke , we want people to be able to worship.
” Bundy seemed unconcerned about contracting or spreading the virus , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus , ” the paper quoted Bundy as saying .
“ I ’ m healthy , my family is healthy .
I ’ d rather have it now so my body is immune to it.
” It seems like there are a lot of people , all of a sudden , who want to do the “ Live Free or Die ” thing .
But most of them appear to be doing it as part of an effort to reopen the economy or to defend Trump ’ s initial assurances that COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Some are even getting retweeted by the president .
The right seems particularly apoplectic about restrictions put in place by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer , perhaps because they want to dirty her up in case she joins Biden ’ s ticket .
On Twitter , there ’ s no shortage of incredibly “ brave ” people who are suddenly born rebels fancying themselves as defenders of liberty .
When Hunter S. Thompson wrote his book about the Hells Angels back in the mid-1960s , he said , “ The Angels don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but they have learned to live with it .
‘ Yeah , I guess I am , ’ said one .
‘ But you ’ re looking at one loser who ’ s going to make a hell of a scene on the way out . '
” Right now , that ’ s a better description of the president and his supporters than the Angels .
You can be opposed to authority and devoted to freedom , or you can be an idiot .

In June 2019, the Hells Angels sold their New York headquarters in the East Village and found a new location in the Bronx. It was probably a good thing they left, since they were known for punching people who parked near their bikes and one Angel shot a man for moving an orange cone. The motorcycle club doesn’t seem to be getting along much better with their new neighbors in Throggs Neck. Their annoying weekend parties have drawn complaints and there was a shooting in January.
Of course, this isn’t my neighborhood, so I am more interested in what a notorious motorcycle gang does in a time of coronavirus. After all, the restrictions New York State put in place on March 22, aren’t exactly consistent with the habits of the Hells Angels. For example, these seem problematic:
Non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size for any reason (e.g. parties, celebrations or other social events) are canceled or postponed at this time; Any concentration of individuals outside their home must be limited to workers providing essential services and social distancing should be practiced; When in public individuals must practice social distancing of at least six feet from others; Individuals should limit outdoor recreational activities to non-contact and avoid activities where they come in close contact with other people;
But, I scoured the interwebs and didn’t find a peep from any Hells Angels complaining about these restrictions. That doesn’t mean their chapters are consistently complying but they aren’t making a show of defiance. I can’t say the same for the Bundy family:
The rancher behind the 2014 armed occupation of a federal wildlife refuge is threatening to hold a large gathering on Easter in defiance of Idaho’s coronavirus stay-at-home mandate. Ammon Bundy asked followers to show up at his ranch Sunday. “Our goal is to get enough people together and secure our rights,” Bundy said, according to the New York Post. “We are not trying to provoke, we want people to be able to worship.” Bundy seemed unconcerned about contracting or spreading the virus, the paper reported. “I actually want the virus,” the paper quoted Bundy as saying. “I’m healthy, my family is healthy. I’d rather have it now so my body is immune to it.”
It seems like there are a lot of people, all of a sudden, who want to do the “Live Free or Die” thing. But most of them appear to be doing it as part of an effort to reopen the economy or to defend Trump’s initial assurances that COVID-19 is no worse than the seasonal flu. Some are even getting retweeted by the president.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1249470237726081030
The right seems particularly apoplectic about restrictions put in place by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, perhaps because they want to dirty her up in case she joins Biden’s ticket.
On Twitter, there’s no shortage of incredibly “brave” people who are suddenly born rebels fancying themselves as defenders of liberty. When Hunter S. Thompson wrote his book about the Hells Angels back in the mid-1960s, he said, “The Angels don’t like to be called losers, but they have learned to live with it. ‘Yeah, I guess I am,’ said one. ‘But you’re looking at one loser who’s going to make a hell of a scene on the way out.’”
Right now, that’s a better description of the president and his supporters than the Angels.
You can be opposed to authority and devoted to freedom, or you can be an idiot.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-16--Does Biden’s Choice of a Running Mate Matter?

Now that it ’ s clear that Joe Biden will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020 , a lot of the chatter has turned to who he will choose as his running mate .
Pundits and political operatives are busy lobbying for their pick , while polls are being conducted and lists of candidates examined .
But the question that is seldom addressed is whether the choice of a running mate really matters .
According to political scientists Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko , not in the way that most people assume .
A vice-presidential candidate is not likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ garner votes from a particular demographic group .
According to Devine and Kopko , there ’ s only one way that the choice might actually matter .
The best example of how the choice of a running mate mattered was when John McCain chose Sarah Palin in 2008 .
While the Tea Partiers loved it , the decision reflected very badly on McCain ’ s judgement and came back to haunt those who made the recommendation .
So perhaps the most powerful way that a vice-presidential pick can affect a campaign is when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laid out a few criteria that will guide his decision .
His running mate will be : • able to step into the job of being president from day one , • someone who agrees with him in principle and philosophically , • someone who can make up for his weaknesses , • someone he can trust , and • someone who will tell him the truth , but will always have his back .
No one knows better than Joe Biden what it takes to be a successful vice-president and he has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chose from .
So he ’ s not likely to make a big mistake .
With all of that said , there is one way in which this choice of a running mate could differ from historical precedents .
Biden has hinted that he might only serve one term .
We ’ ll have to wait and see if that really happens .
But if it does , his vice-presidential pick would almost certainly become the presumptive presidential nominee in just four years .
That raises the stakes tremendously and is the ultimate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a running mate matters .

Now that it’s clear that Joe Biden will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020, a lot of the chatter has turned to who he will choose as his running mate. Pundits and political operatives are busy lobbying for their pick, while polls are being conducted and lists of candidates examined.
But the question that is seldom addressed is whether the choice of a running mate really matters. According to political scientists Christopher Devine and Kyle Kopko, not in the way that most people assume.
[T]he research laid out in our latest book on presidential running mates shows vice presidential selection generally has little direct effect on voters… What may be surprising is that running mates usually fail to deliver votes among targeted geographic or demographic groups.
A vice-presidential candidate is not likely to help Biden win a state or garner votes from a particular demographic group. According to Devine and Kopko, there’s only one way that the choice might actually matter.
Our research shows running mates matter, above all else, by shaping how voters view the presidential candidate who selects them… Ultimately, Biden’s vice presidential selection is important—electorally speaking—because of what it says about him.
The best example of how the choice of a running mate mattered was when John McCain chose Sarah Palin in 2008. While the Tea Partiers loved it, the decision reflected very badly on McCain’s judgement and came back to haunt those who made the recommendation. So perhaps the most powerful way that a vice-presidential pick can affect a campaign is when the candidate chooses badly.
Biden has laid out a few criteria that will guide his decision. His running mate will be:
a woman, able to step into the job of being president from day one, someone who agrees with him in principle and philosophically, someone who can make up for his weaknesses, someone he can trust, and someone who will tell him the truth, but will always have his back.
No one knows better than Joe Biden what it takes to be a successful vice-president and he has a lot of truly remarkable candidates to chose from. So he’s not likely to make a big mistake.
With all of that said, there is one way in which this choice of a running mate could differ from historical precedents. Biden has hinted that he might only serve one term. We’ll have to wait and see if that really happens. But if it does, his vice-presidential pick would almost certainly become the presumptive presidential nominee in just four years. That raises the stakes tremendously and is the ultimate reason why Biden’s choice of a running mate matters.


washingtonmonthly--2020-04-16--Even Before COVID-19, Black Americans Were Dying More

Black Americans are dying from the novel coronavirus at a shockingly disproportionate rate .
In majority-black counties , the Washington Post found , infection rates are triple that of majority-white counties .
Deaths among Black Americans , meanwhile , are six times higher than that of whites .
Yet long before the pandemic , Black Americans have been dying at far higher rates than other Americans .
They are victims of a longstanding epidemic of structural racism and unequal access to care .
Unfortunately , the disparate impact of COVID-19 is only the latest chapter in an ongoing national tragedy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brought into sharper relief .
Black Americans suffer from higher rates of diabetes , hypertension , and other underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of complications from the coronavirus .
What ’ s more , they also disproportionately work in jobs that put them on the front lines of the pandemic ; roughly 30 percent of bus drivers , for instance , are black , according to the Brookings Institution , as are 20 percent of food service workers , cashiers , and other now “ essential ” personnel .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compared to similarly situated whites , including those with the same levels of income and education .
A 2010 Department of Health analysis of New York City found that even in the city ’ s wealthiest neighborhoods , Black residents lived shorter lives than their white counterparts .
Overall , according to the Centers for Disease Control , the pre-pandemic death rate among Black Americans from all causes was 40 percent higher than the death rate for whites .
Heart disease , for example , kills 204 Black Americans per 100,000 people , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are also seven to nine times more likely than whites to die from HIV and at the same time suffer higher death rates for cancer , strokes , diabetes , and kidney disease .
Tragically , the same disparities exist among children .
The infant mortality rate for black infants is more than double that of whites .
In fact , the U.S. , black infants have a higher mortality rate than Libya , Argentina , and Thailand .
Even more shocking is the rate of maternal mortality .
According to an analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Black American mothers die at three to four times the rate of white mothers .
Unsurprisingly , all of this has contributed to white Americans enjoying significantly higher life expectancies than their black counterparts .
What ’ s causing this imbalance ?
For starters , higher poverty rates and a lack of access to care among Black Americans are principal drivers .
Among other things , poverty often means unhealthier living conditions , inadequate nutrition , fewer opportunities to exercise , and the inability to afford health insurance .
Before the Affordable Care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate among Black Americans was as high as 24.4 percent , according to the Commonwealth Fund , compared to 14.4 percent among whites .
While the ACA ’ s implementation has significantly narrowed this gap , the Commonwealth Fund also reports that black uninsured rates have been creeping upward since 2016 .
There are other causes of concern .
Black Americans are less likely to have a primary care provider than whites and less likely to have visited a doctor in the past year because of cost , according to the Centers for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have life-or-death consequences .
Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer , which could possibly have been detected earlier with a primary care doctor and health insurance .
Higher black mortality rates up and down the socioeconomic spectrum points to deeper problems in the quality of care available to Black Americans .
These are inequities that will need to be addressed aggressively in a post-COVID world .
In their responses to the coronavirus outbreak , states like Michigan and Maryland are taking the right steps to require the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and zip code..
This tracking will help ensure that all Americans have better access to testing and treatment of COVID-19—and point out the disparities that are resulting in one group of Americans dying at a far greater pace than others .
That ’ s why the effort to tackle these disparities should not end when the pandemic recedes .
Rather , the tragedy of COVID-19 should restart a national conversation to prevent the stark inequalities the current crisis has brought .

Black Americans are dying from the novel coronavirus at a shockingly disproportionate rate. In majority-black counties, the Washington Post found, infection rates are triple that of majority-white counties. Deaths among Black Americans, meanwhile, are six times higher than that of whites.
Yet long before the pandemic, Black Americans have been dying at far higher rates than other Americans. They are victims of a longstanding epidemic of structural racism and unequal access to care. Unfortunately, the disparate impact of COVID-19 is only the latest chapter in an ongoing national tragedy, one that the virus has only brought into sharper relief.
Black Americans suffer from higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and other underlying conditions that put them at higher risk of complications from the coronavirus. What’s more, they also disproportionately work in jobs that put them on the front lines of the pandemic; roughly 30 percent of bus drivers, for instance, are black, according to the Brookings Institution, as are 20 percent of food service workers, cashiers, and other now “essential” personnel.
But Black Americans also die at higher rates compared to similarly situated whites, including those with the same levels of income and education. A 2010 Department of Health analysis of New York City found that even in the city’s wealthiest neighborhoods, Black residents lived shorter lives than their white counterparts.
Overall, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the pre-pandemic death rate among Black Americans from all causes was 40 percent higher than the death rate for whites. Heart disease, for example, kills 204 Black Americans per 100,000 people, compared to 162 whites. Black Americans are also seven to nine times more likely than whites to die from HIV and at the same time suffer higher death rates for cancer, strokes, diabetes, and kidney disease.
Tragically, the same disparities exist among children. The infant mortality rate for black infants is more than double that of whites. In fact, the U.S., black infants have a higher mortality rate than Libya, Argentina, and Thailand. Even more shocking is the rate of maternal mortality. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, Black American mothers die at three to four times the rate of white mothers.
Unsurprisingly, all of this has contributed to white Americans enjoying significantly higher life expectancies than their black counterparts.
What’s causing this imbalance? For starters, higher poverty rates and a lack of access to care among Black Americans are principal drivers. Among other things, poverty often means unhealthier living conditions, inadequate nutrition, fewer opportunities to exercise, and the inability to afford health insurance.
Before the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the uninsured rate among Black Americans was as high as 24.4 percent, according to the Commonwealth Fund, compared to 14.4 percent among whites. While the ACA’s implementation has significantly narrowed this gap, the Commonwealth Fund also reports that black uninsured rates have been creeping upward since 2016.
There are other causes of concern. Black Americans are less likely to have a primary care provider than whites and less likely to have visited a doctor in the past year because of cost, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That can have life-or-death consequences. Black women are more likely to be diagnosed with advanced-stage breast cancer, which could possibly have been detected earlier with a primary care doctor and health insurance.
Higher black mortality rates up and down the socioeconomic spectrum points to deeper problems in the quality of care available to Black Americans. These are inequities that will need to be addressed aggressively in a post-COVID world.
In their responses to the coronavirus outbreak, states like Michigan and Maryland are taking the right steps to require the reporting of infections and deaths by race and zip code. This tracking will help ensure that all Americans have better access to testing and treatment of COVID-19—and point out the disparities that are resulting in one group of Americans dying at a far greater pace than others.
That’s why the effort to tackle these disparities should not end when the pandemic recedes. Rather, the tragedy of COVID-19 should restart a national conversation to prevent the stark inequalities the current crisis has brought.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-07--Pompeo Aligns U.S. Foreign Policy With Christian Zionists

According to the Washington Post , it was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who talked Trump into the assassination of Qasem Soleimani , with an assist from Vice President Mike Pence .
They report that Pompeo first proposed the idea months ago , which is at odds with the administration ’ s claim that the strike was based on intelligence about an “ imminent threat.
” While the authors of that piece chronicle the fact that the secretary of state has been obsessed with Iran throughout his career in Congress , the CIA , and now at the State Department @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what motivates his interest .
As Kathryn Joyce pointed out last March , “ even amid an administration stacked with evangelical staffers and advisors , Pompeo stands out.
” At about that time , the secretary of state was in Jerusalem and sat down for an interview with reporters from the Christian Broadcast Network .
Chris Mitchell asked Pompeo , “ could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this , just like Queen Esther , to help save the Jewish people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As a Christian , I certainly believe that ’ s possible , ” Pompeo said .
On that occasion , Pompeo was reacting to a question from a reporter .
But a few months later , he gave a speech titled “ The U.S. and Israel : a Friendship for Freedom.
” He used the occasion to bring up the Biblical story of Esther himself .
A lot of people get spun up with the wrong ideas that American evangelicals want to impose a theocracy on America .
I wish they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has been happening in Iran for the last four decades .
The ayatollahs have grievously deprived the Iranian people of that most basic , simple , fundamental right , their right to worship .
That same twisted , intolerant doctrine that fuels persecution inside Iran has also led the ayatollah and his cronies to cry out , quote , “ death to Israel ” for four decades now .
This is similar to a cry that came out of Iran—then called Persia—many , many years ago .
It was in the 5th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advisor named King Xerxes .
A fellow named Haman hatched a plot to kill all the Jews in the Persian Empire .
He secretly wrote letters with the king ’ s seal to all the provincial governors , ordering the people to rise up and attack the Jews .
This edict , once issued , could not be revoked .
But thanks to the courageous intervention of Queen Esther , who begged the king to show mercy to her people , Haman ’ s plot was exposed and the Jews were ultimately spared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today for a couple of reasons , because similar threats to the Jewish people have marked other eras as well… Thank God we have a leader in President Trump—an immovable friend of Israel .
Pompeo went on to articulate the Trump administration ’ s pressure campaign on Iran as a demonstration of its support for Israel .
The secretary gave that speech to a group known as Christians United for Israel ( CUFI ) that was the brainchild of John Hagee .
Here is what Sarah Posner wrote about him back in 2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio , Texas , hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN .
He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God ’ s plan for both Israel and the West… With CUFI , which Hagee has said will cause a “ political earthquake , ” the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Rapture , Tribulation , and Second Coming of Christ .
Vice President Mike Pence addressed the same group in 2017 .
One of the things Hagee is known for is the elaborate charts he has created to predict the rapture and events leading up to the end times .
He also has a history of making bigoted statements about Catholics , Jews , and Muslims .
John McCain was forced to distance himself from the pastor after he received an endorsement for his presidential campaign in 2008 .
Clearly , neither Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his organization .
What we are witnessing is a secretary of state who is conducting U.S. foreign policy in alignment with Christian Zionism , with the support of the vice president .
While neoconservatives like John Bolton have their own twisted logic for wanting regime change in Iran , it is the belief that events in the Middle East align with Biblical prophecy about the end times that motivates Christian Zionists like Pompeo , Pence , and Hagee .
As I noted when the same crowd celebrated Trump ’ s decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rising tensions in the Middle East are a feature , not a bug , for these folks .
That ’ s because all of this was prophesied thousands of years ago as a prelude to the rapture .
In other words , they welcome the escalation .

According to the Washington Post, it was Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who talked Trump into the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, with an assist from Vice President Mike Pence. They report that Pompeo first proposed the idea months ago, which is at odds with the administration’s claim that the strike was based on intelligence about an “imminent threat.”
While the authors of that piece chronicle the fact that the secretary of state has been obsessed with Iran throughout his career in Congress, the CIA, and now at the State Department, they failed to address the question of what motivates his interest.
As Kathryn Joyce pointed out last March, “even amid an administration stacked with evangelical staffers and advisors, Pompeo stands out.” At about that time, the secretary of state was in Jerusalem and sat down for an interview with reporters from the Christian Broadcast Network.
Chris Mitchell asked Pompeo, “could it be that President Trump right now has been sort of raised for such a time as this, just like Queen Esther, to help save the Jewish people from the Iranian menace?”… “As a Christian, I certainly believe that’s possible,” Pompeo said.
On that occasion, Pompeo was reacting to a question from a reporter. But a few months later, he gave a speech titled “The U.S. and Israel: a Friendship for Freedom.” He used the occasion to bring up the Biblical story of Esther himself.
A lot of people get spun up with the wrong ideas that American evangelicals want to impose a theocracy on America. I wish they would be concerned about the real theocratic takeover that has been happening in Iran for the last four decades. The ayatollahs have grievously deprived the Iranian people of that most basic, simple, fundamental right, their right to worship. That same twisted, intolerant doctrine that fuels persecution inside Iran has also led the ayatollah and his cronies to cry out, quote, “death to Israel” for four decades now. This is similar to a cry that came out of Iran—then called Persia—many, many years ago. It was in the 5th century B.C. There was a wicked advisor named King Xerxes. A fellow named Haman hatched a plot to kill all the Jews in the Persian Empire. He secretly wrote letters with the king’s seal to all the provincial governors, ordering the people to rise up and attack the Jews. This edict, once issued, could not be revoked. But thanks to the courageous intervention of Queen Esther, who begged the king to show mercy to her people, Haman’s plot was exposed and the Jews were ultimately spared. I wanted to tell this story today for a couple of reasons, because similar threats to the Jewish people have marked other eras as well… Thank God we have a leader in President Trump—an immovable friend of Israel.
Pompeo went on to articulate the Trump administration’s pressure campaign on Iran as a demonstration of its support for Israel.
The secretary gave that speech to a group known as Christians United for Israel (CUFI) that was the brainchild of John Hagee. Here is what Sarah Posner wrote about him back in 2006:
Hagee, who serves as head pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, hosts his own television program that is seen twice a day on TBN. He argues that the United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God’s plan for both Israel and the West… With CUFI, which Hagee has said will cause a “political earthquake,” the televangelist aims to put the political organizing muscle of the conservative evangelical movement behind his grand plan for a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation, and Second Coming of Christ.
Vice President Mike Pence addressed the same group in 2017.
One of the things Hagee is known for is the elaborate charts he has created to predict the rapture and events leading up to the end times. He also has a history of making bigoted statements about Catholics, Jews, and Muslims. John McCain was forced to distance himself from the pastor after he received an endorsement for his presidential campaign in 2008. Clearly, neither Pompeo nor Pence share those concerns about Hagee and his organization.
What we are witnessing is a secretary of state who is conducting U.S. foreign policy in alignment with Christian Zionism, with the support of the vice president. While neoconservatives like John Bolton have their own twisted logic for wanting regime change in Iran, it is the belief that events in the Middle East align with Biblical prophecy about the end times that motivates Christian Zionists like Pompeo, Pence, and Hagee.
As I noted when the same crowd celebrated Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, rising tensions in the Middle East are a feature, not a bug, for these folks. That’s because all of this was prophesied thousands of years ago as a prelude to the rapture. In other words, they welcome the escalation.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-06--The Democrats Need Forward Thinking on Iran

It ’ s true that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have different things they like to emphasize when they talk about foreign policy on the campaign trail , but they have substantive differences , too .
It seems like only the former distinction was of any interest to Sydney Ember and Katie Glueck when they wrote this piece for the New York Times .
The article goes into a lot of detail about Biden ’ s pitch that he ’ s best prepared to serve as commander-in-chief and Sanders ’ pitch that he has a consistent record of opposing our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These are both important considerations for Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers .
But the headline of the piece says : Biden and Sanders Differ on Foreign Policy .
They ’ re Happy to Tell You So .
On that score , the article never delivers .
At the heart of our current problems with Iran is President Trump ’ s disdain for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( JCPOA ) , also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal .
The agreement was the crown jewel of the Obama-Biden administration ’ s foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to respect the agreement ’ s provisions , tensions with Iran have been on the uptick , and now they have exploded in spectacular fashion with the president ’ s decision to assassinate Qassim Suleimani .
Most analysts now believe that the JCPOA is dead and can not be revived , but it ’ s important to know whether Biden and Sanders agree with this assessment .
It ’ s also important to know what they plan to do with the American troops who are presently in the region .
With Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ convinced the Iraqi parliament to vote unanimously , 170-0 , to ask us to leave their country , but he also made certain that there are no longer any groups in Iraq ( or Syria ) that can be trusted to protect and ally with our soldiers .
Having disempowered the Sunnis by overthrowing Saddam Hussein , America was heavily dependent on the Kurds .
But Trump abandoned them and demonstrated that we are not a reliable ally .
The Shiite militias are now hellbent on revenge .
Our troops are still ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunni-run areas like Kuwait , Bahrain , Qatar , the U.A.E.
, and Saudi Arabia—but not in Iraq or Syria .
If we beat a retreat , the allies we still have will see us as largely useless and look to China and Russia for arms and protection .
For this reason , it will be tempting to decapitate the Iranian government—not only to maintain our relevancy and influence .
The collapse of the nuclear agreement and Iran ’ s decision not to abide by uranium enrichment prohibitions means that a nuclear-armed Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The pressure to avoid that development will be immense , and without any obvious way to get Iran ’ s leadership back to the bargaining table , regime change will look to many like the most prudent option .
That ’ s certainly what Iran hawks like John Bolton , Mike Pence , and Mike Pompeo are counting on .
Whether they get their wish or not on their own watch , a future Democratic administration will face the same conundrum with the same limited options .
Do Biden and Sanders differ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
I suspect they do differ , but there ’ s no effort to delve into this in the New York Times article .
It ’ s tempting to say that these are mostly problems of Trump ’ s own making and that he should be the one to come up with solutions .
The administration Biden served left a solid internationally-backed nuclear non-proliferation treaty in effect , and relations with Iran were warmer than at any time in the recent past .
Trump destroyed all that , and he should take all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the region today .
But I doubt that a Democratic presidential candidate will have the luxury of looking solely through the rearview mirror .
They must explain how they ’ ll salvage something from this mess .
If their plan is to disengage from the Middle East , they ’ ll have to explain why we can live with a nuclear Iran , or a Syria dominated by Russia , or the loss of Sunni allies to the Chinese or Russian orbit .
That won ’ t be an easy sell , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in retaliatory acts that shock and terrorize the American public .
On the other hand , the public is weary of military action in the Middle East and Central Asia , and a candidate who seeks to maintain or even escalate our presence there will have to explain why it won ’ t amount to more of the same .
I believe Biden and Sanders have starkly differing viewpoints on these issues , and they will probably come to the fore in the coming weeks .
The other major candidates will fall , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this divide or the other .
One risk is that no one has any good answers .
Another risk is that the side that is convincing to Democratic voters is ultimately unconvincing to the general electorate .
The people will be pulled between dovish and isolationist impulses and a desire to be protected from a genuinely scary set of developments .
The scarier things get , the less likely it will be that the dovish side wins out .
However things shake out , the best way forward has little to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or interventionists and isolationists .
It will require a complex vision for how to redirect America and its role in the world at a time of real peril .
I don ’ t know that either Biden or Sanders are known for new and innovative thinking .
Everyone can agree that Trump made this mess and should be tossed out of office with extreme prejudice .
But what else can we agree about ?

It’s true that Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden have different things they like to emphasize when they talk about foreign policy on the campaign trail, but they have substantive differences, too. It seems like only the former distinction was of any interest to Sydney Ember and Katie Glueck when they wrote this piece for the New York Times. The article goes into a lot of detail about Biden’s pitch that he’s best prepared to serve as commander-in-chief and Sanders’ pitch that he has a consistent record of opposing our ill-fated adventurism in the Middle East. These are both important considerations for Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers. But the headline of the piece says: Biden and Sanders Differ on Foreign Policy. They’re Happy to Tell You So. On that score, the article never delivers.
At the heart of our current problems with Iran is President Trump’s disdain for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran Nuclear Deal. The agreement was the crown jewel of the Obama-Biden administration’s foreign policy. Ever since Trump decided not to respect the agreement’s provisions, tensions with Iran have been on the uptick, and now they have exploded in spectacular fashion with the president’s decision to assassinate Qassim Suleimani.
Most analysts now believe that the JCPOA is dead and cannot be revived, but it’s important to know whether Biden and Sanders agree with this assessment. It’s also important to know what they plan to do with the American troops who are presently in the region. With Trump’s brash act, he not only convinced the Iraqi parliament to vote unanimously, 170-0, to ask us to leave their country, but he also made certain that there are no longer any groups in Iraq (or Syria) that can be trusted to protect and ally with our soldiers. Having disempowered the Sunnis by overthrowing Saddam Hussein, America was heavily dependent on the Kurds. But Trump abandoned them and demonstrated that we are not a reliable ally. The Shiite militias are now hellbent on revenge. Our troops are still (somewhat) welcome and safe in some Sunni-run areas like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the U.A.E., and Saudi Arabia—but not in Iraq or Syria.
If we beat a retreat, the allies we still have will see us as largely useless and look to China and Russia for arms and protection. For this reason, it will be tempting to decapitate the Iranian government—not only to maintain our relevancy and influence. The collapse of the nuclear agreement and Iran’s decision not to abide by uranium enrichment prohibitions means that a nuclear-armed Iran could become a reality in short order. The pressure to avoid that development will be immense, and without any obvious way to get Iran’s leadership back to the bargaining table, regime change will look to many like the most prudent option. That’s certainly what Iran hawks like John Bolton, Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo are counting on. Whether they get their wish or not on their own watch, a future Democratic administration will face the same conundrum with the same limited options. Do Biden and Sanders differ in how they’d approach this?
I suspect they do differ, but there’s no effort to delve into this in the New York Times article.
It’s tempting to say that these are mostly problems of Trump’s own making and that he should be the one to come up with solutions. The administration Biden served left a solid internationally-backed nuclear non-proliferation treaty in effect, and relations with Iran were warmer than at any time in the recent past. Trump destroyed all that, and he should take all the blame for where we are in the region today.
But I doubt that a Democratic presidential candidate will have the luxury of looking solely through the rearview mirror. They must explain how they’ll salvage something from this mess. If their plan is to disengage from the Middle East, they’ll have to explain why we can live with a nuclear Iran, or a Syria dominated by Russia, or the loss of Sunni allies to the Chinese or Russian orbit. That won’t be an easy sell, and it will be harder if Iran engages in retaliatory acts that shock and terrorize the American public.
On the other hand, the public is weary of military action in the Middle East and Central Asia, and a candidate who seeks to maintain or even escalate our presence there will have to explain why it won’t amount to more of the same. I believe Biden and Sanders have starkly differing viewpoints on these issues, and they will probably come to the fore in the coming weeks. The other major candidates will fall, more or less, on one side of this divide or the other.
One risk is that no one has any good answers. Another risk is that the side that is convincing to Democratic voters is ultimately unconvincing to the general electorate. The people will be pulled between dovish and isolationist impulses and a desire to be protected from a genuinely scary set of developments. The scarier things get, the less likely it will be that the dovish side wins out.
However things shake out, the best way forward has little to do with simplistic dichotomies between hawks and doves or interventionists and isolationists. It will require a complex vision for how to redirect America and its role in the world at a time of real peril. I don’t know that either Biden or Sanders are known for new and innovative thinking.
Everyone can agree that Trump made this mess and should be tossed out of office with extreme prejudice. But what else can we agree about?


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-06--Trump’s Strategy With Iran: Be the Bigger Bully

After the news broke that the U.S. had assassinated Qassem Soleimani , there was a lot of chatter about what the president ’ s strategy was for dealing with the aftermath .
Many of Trump ’ s critics assumed that he didn ’ t have one .
But pretty quickly , we saw that was wrong .
He does have a strategy , and it ’ s important to recognize what it is .
On Saturday , Trump tweeted : “ If Iran strikes any Americans , or American assets , we have targeted 52 Iranian sites ( representing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago ) , some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture , and those targets , and Iran itself , WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD .
The USA wants no more threats !
” On the Sunday talk shows , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued that Trump never threatened to destroy Iranian culture sites , presumably because that would be a war crime .
But the president reiterated the threat on Sunday night , telling reporters : “ They ’ re allowed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people .
And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural site ?
It doesn ’ t work that way.
” The strategy behind those threats was captured by a State Department official during a background briefing .
The assumption is that , by assassinating a military leader , the U.S. is “ speaking in a language ” that the Iranian regime understands , which will cause them to back down from retaliation .
But just to be clear , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same assumption .
In response to Trump ’ s threat , Hossein Dehghan , the military adviser to Iran ’ s supreme leader , said that “ the only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted.
” Jonathan Chait points out that this is the principle that defines Trump ’ s foreign policy .
That explains everything from Trump ’ s embrace of war crimes to his fascination with dictators , who he views as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted back in 2014 , that kind of reverence for dictators and war crimes didn ’ t start with this president .
Three decades ago , right-wing French intellectual Jean-Francois Revel published a call to arms entitled “ How Democracies Perish , ” which quickly became a key text of the neoconservative movement and an ideological blueprint for the Reagan administration .
Revel argued that the Soviet Union ’ s brutality and immunity from internal criticism gave it an inherent advantage over the democratic West—the United States and Europe were too liberal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soft to defeat the resolute men of the Iron Curtain .
“ Unlike the Western leadership , which is tormented by remorse and a sense of guilt , ” wrote Revel , “ Soviet leaders ’ consciences are perfectly clear , which allows them to use brute force with utter serenity both to preserve their power at home and to extend it abroad.
” That way of thinking about the world was not new three decades ago .
It was the ravages of two World Wars that led to a rethinking of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strength and power were based—and the development of what is often referred to as a new liberal world order .
President Obama addressed that shift back in 2014 during a speech in Brussels after Russia invaded Ukraine .
In many ways , the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas , both within nations and among nations .
The advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully , and even among the most civilized of societies , on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barbarism .
This morning at Flanders Field , I was reminded of how war between peoples sent a generation to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the First World War .
And just two decades later , extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once again—with populations enslaved , and great cities reduced to rubble , and tens of millions slaughtered , including those lost in the Holocaust .
It is in response to this tragic history that , in the aftermath of World War II , America joined with Europe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past and build a new architecture of peace .
Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan .
Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO Alliance that would become the strongest the world has ever known .
And across the Atlantic , we embraced a shared vision of Europe—a vision based on representative democracy , individual rights , and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets ; a social safety net and respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds .
These are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heart of the questions we face today .
One is based on dominance via threats and violence .
The other one is based on shared values , democratic freedoms , and partnership .
In the current escalation between the U.S. and Iran , we essentially have two bullies who assume that their threats of violence will cause the other side to back down .
That is the kind of thinking that led Mahatma Gandhi to say , “ An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind , ” which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Traveling back to a 19th century world view is exactly what Vladimir Puttin was hoping for in helping to elect Donald Trump .
The Steele dossier got this one exactly right .
Over the years , American culture has taught a lot of people to revere the kind of chest-thumping against our adversaries—both foreign and domestic—that is at the heart of that out-dated patriarchal view of the world .
What worries the rest of us is that we are about to get yet another lesson on its abject failure to do anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both lives and treasure .
Many of us thought we were on the brink of choosing another way up until November 2016 .
As tensions mount between the U.S. and Iran , we need to be clear about why this is happening .
It all comes down to the idea that power is captured through dominance expressed via threats and violence , which is basically a bully mentality .
As long as that is the strategy , we ’ ll never see an end to the forever wars .

After the news broke that the U.S. had assassinated Qassem Soleimani, there was a lot of chatter about what the president’s strategy was for dealing with the aftermath. Many of Trump’s critics assumed that he didn’t have one. But pretty quickly, we saw that was wrong. He does have a strategy, and it’s important to recognize what it is.
On Saturday, Trump tweeted: “If Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
On the Sunday talk shows, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo argued that Trump never threatened to destroy Iranian culture sites, presumably because that would be a war crime. But the president reiterated the threat on Sunday night, telling reporters: “They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural site? It doesn’t work that way.”
The strategy behind those threats was captured by a State Department official during a background briefing.
The assumption is that, by assassinating a military leader, the U.S. is “speaking in a language” that the Iranian regime understands, which will cause them to back down from retaliation. But just to be clear, it appears that Iran is making the same assumption. In response to Trump’s threat, Hossein Dehghan, the military adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, said that “the only thing that can end this period of war is for the Americans to receive a blow that is equal to the blow they have inflicted.”
Jonathan Chait points out that this is the principle that defines Trump’s foreign policy.
Trump’s plan is to collapse the moral space between America and its enemies… This is Trump’s deepest belief about foreign policy: The things that separate the United States from terrorists and dictatorships are not a source of strength, but of weakness. Our enemies are stronger and tougher, willing to do the hard things that must be done in order to win. To defeat them, we must become like them.
That explains everything from Trump’s embrace of war crimes to his fascination with dictators, who he views as strong and tough. Yet as Chait noted back in 2014, that kind of reverence for dictators and war crimes didn’t start with this president.
Three decades ago, right-wing French intellectual Jean-Francois Revel published a call to arms entitled “How Democracies Perish,” which quickly became a key text of the neoconservative movement and an ideological blueprint for the Reagan administration. Revel argued that the Soviet Union’s brutality and immunity from internal criticism gave it an inherent advantage over the democratic West—the United States and Europe were too liberal, too open, too humane, too soft to defeat the resolute men of the Iron Curtain. “Unlike the Western leadership, which is tormented by remorse and a sense of guilt,” wrote Revel, “Soviet leaders’ consciences are perfectly clear, which allows them to use brute force with utter serenity both to preserve their power at home and to extend it abroad.”
That way of thinking about the world was not new three decades ago. It was the ravages of two World Wars that led to a rethinking of the whole premise on which our ideas about strength and power were based—and the development of what is often referred to as a new liberal world order. President Obama addressed that shift back in 2014 during a speech in Brussels after Russia invaded Ukraine.
In many ways, the history of Europe in the 20th century represented the ongoing clash of these two sets of ideas, both within nations and among nations. The advance of industry and technology outpaced our ability to resolve our differences peacefully, and even among the most civilized of societies, on the surface we saw a descent into barbarism. This morning at Flanders Field, I was reminded of how war between peoples sent a generation to their deaths in the trenches and gas of the First World War. And just two decades later, extreme nationalism plunged this continent into war once again—with populations enslaved, and great cities reduced to rubble, and tens of millions slaughtered, including those lost in the Holocaust. It is in response to this tragic history that, in the aftermath of World War II, America joined with Europe to reject the darker forces of the past and build a new architecture of peace. Workers and engineers gave life to the Marshall Plan. Sentinels stood vigilant in a NATO Alliance that would become the strongest the world has ever known. And across the Atlantic, we embraced a shared vision of Europe—a vision based on representative democracy, individual rights, and a belief that nations can meet the interests of their citizens through trade and open markets; a social safety net and respect for those of different faiths and backgrounds.
These are the two views of power that are at the heart of the questions we face today. One is based on dominance via threats and violence. The other one is based on shared values, democratic freedoms, and partnership.
In the current escalation between the U.S. and Iran, we essentially have two bullies who assume that their threats of violence will cause the other side to back down. That is the kind of thinking that led Mahatma Gandhi to say, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind,” which is precisely what the two World Wars accomplished.
Traveling back to a 19th century world view is exactly what Vladimir Puttin was hoping for in helping to elect Donald Trump. The Steele dossier got this one exactly right.
Source C, a senior Russian financial official, said the Trump operation should be seen in terms of Putin’s desire to return to Nineteenth Century “Great Power” politics anchored upon country’s interests rather than the ideals-based international order established after World War II.
Over the years, American culture has taught a lot of people to revere the kind of chest-thumping against our adversaries—both foreign and domestic—that is at the heart of that out-dated patriarchal view of the world. What worries the rest of us is that we are about to get yet another lesson on its abject failure to do anything other than cause destruction in terms of both lives and treasure.
Many of us thought we were on the brink of choosing another way up until November 2016. As tensions mount between the U.S. and Iran, we need to be clear about why this is happening. It all comes down to the idea that power is captured through dominance expressed via threats and violence, which is basically a bully mentality.
As long as that is the strategy, we’ll never see an end to the forever wars.


washingtonmonthly--2020-01-06--The Iran-Contra Affair Never Ended

The Iran-Contra Affair Never Ended

Before the U.S. Government killed Qassem Soleimani , they killed his good friend Imad Mughniyeh .
I know this because for some reason practically everyone with some knowledge of Mughniyeh ’ s 2008 death on the streets of Damascus decided to tell journalist Jeff Stein about the sordid details in 2015 .
This was a bit startling because Mughniyeh was murdered with a specially crafted bomb designed by the CIA ’ s Office of Technical Services .
They parked the car in front of Muhgniyeh ’ s apartment and waited months for him to walk past it alone with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived , the results were exactly what they were looking for : Finally , on the night of February 12 , 2008 , after two months of round-the-clock surveillance , they caught Mugniyah alone .
“ They made a positive ID .
Click .
One , one thousand ; two , one thousand… ka-boom .
It separated Mr. Mugniyah ’ s arms , legs , and head from the remainder of his torso , which was catapulted about 50 feet through a window , ” the participant said .
“ It worked exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was chosen to tell us about this because he ’ s trusted by the CIA .
A member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers , Stein earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam .
Yet he ’ s written articles that were probably not welcomed at CIA headquarters .
In particular , I am thinking of the piece he wrote just before the 9/11 attacks on Claire George ’ s eight-year campaign to destroy the life of a freelance journalist named Janice Pottker .
If you vaguely remember the name Claire George , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retired ” as deputy director of operations at the CIA after he was caught lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair .
Eventually , he was found guilty on two counts of making false statements .
He was among the key Iran-Contra figures President George H.W .
Bush pardoned on Christmas Eve in 1992 .
Even before he was pardoned , however , he had taken a job as a “ consultant ” for the Ringling Bros. circus .
It was in that role that he oversaw a plot to prevent Ms. Pottker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s treatment of animals and children entertainers .
If you really want to go down a rabbit hole , I suggest you start looking into this , for the shits and giggles if nothing else .
Anyway , Claire George was at once stationed in Beirut which was the venue for Imad Mughniyeh ’ s most spectacular and horrific terrorist activities .
These would be , specifically , the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks , and the 1984 kidnapping and extensive torture of the CIA ’ s station @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bit of a grudge about this , for understandable reasons : In a video taken approximately seven months after the kidnapping , [ Buckley ’ s ] appearance was described as follows : Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch .
His words were often incoherent ; he slobbered and drooled and , most unnerving of all , he would suddenly scream in terror , his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking .
The CIA consensus was that he would be blindfolded and chained at the ankles and wrists and kept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coffin .
Buckley died in 1985 , probably of a heart attack .
Claire George died in 2008 , the same year that the CIA separated Mughniyeh ’ s head , arms , and legs from his torso .
So it goes .
While he lived , Mughniyah didn ’ t content himself with operating in Lebanon , however .
He was also involved in the 1983 bombings in Kuwait , which you may not remember .
The man he allegedly put in charge of that operation died in the same drone strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Airport .
Interestingly , the Kuwaitis arrested 17 people in connection to the 1983 bombings .
The primary reason Hezbollah began kidnapping Americans in the mid-1980s was to trade them for the release of these 17 prisoners .
It was Ronald Reagan ’ s desperation to secure the release of these hostages that led him to approve weapons sales to Iran , leading to the Iran-Contra scandal that ruined Claire George ’ s career .
In the end , the 17 prisoners escaped when Iraq invaded Kuwait .
They made their way back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly , I believe , that one act of violence leads to another .
What we ’ re seeing go on now is inextricably connected to things that happened decades ago .
The U.S. government took out Mughniyah in 2008 , and they took out his long-time collaborators in 2020 .
But this all ties back to 1983 .
And the bombings back then were a response to the U.S. green-lighting the Likud government in Israeli ’ s decision to invade and occupy Lebanon in 1982 .
Others will want to go further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA ’ s 1953 plot to reinstall the Shah in power in Tehran .
However you want to subdivide the history , there seems to be no end to the resulting violence and misery .
Some on each side of the conflict may celebrate when a new character in the saga meets their demise , but it won ’ t end the cycle .
At some point , peacemakers need to get the upper hand and put a stop to this endless nightmare .

Before the U.S. Government killed Qassem Soleimani, they killed his good friend Imad Mughniyeh. I know this because for some reason practically everyone with some knowledge of Mughniyeh’s 2008 death on the streets of Damascus decided to tell journalist Jeff Stein about the sordid details in 2015. This was a bit startling because Mughniyeh was murdered with a specially crafted bomb designed by the CIA’s Office of Technical Services.
“It went from being a traditional car bomb, with a load of C-4 or Semtex or something packed into car chassis, into a very narrowly focused, very tailored weapon, which turned into basically a very large claymore mine, if you will, a shaped charge” hidden in the center of a rear tire mounted on the back of a Toyota or Mitsubishi SUV, a source said. “It was designed to throw out everything in a specific direction.”
They parked the car in front of Muhgniyeh’s apartment and waited months for him to walk past it alone with no bystanders nearby. When the opportunity finally arrived, the results were exactly what they were looking for:
Finally, on the night of February 12, 2008, after two months of round-the-clock surveillance, they caught Mugniyah alone. “They made a positive ID. Click. One, one thousand; two, one thousand… ka-boom. It separated Mr. Mugniyah’s arms, legs, and head from the remainder of his torso, which was catapulted about 50 feet through a window,” the participant said. “It worked exactly like it was supposed to.”
Stein was chosen to tell us about this because he’s trusted by the CIA. A member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers, Stein earned a Bronze Star in Vietnam. Yet he’s written articles that were probably not welcomed at CIA headquarters. In particular, I am thinking of the piece he wrote just before the 9/11 attacks on Claire George’s eight-year campaign to destroy the life of a freelance journalist named Janice Pottker.
If you vaguely remember the name Claire George, it’s probably because he “retired” as deputy director of operations at the CIA after he was caught lying to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. Eventually, he was found guilty on two counts of making false statements. He was among the key Iran-Contra figures President George H.W. Bush pardoned on Christmas Eve in 1992.
Even before he was pardoned, however, he had taken a job as a “consultant” for the Ringling Bros. circus. It was in that role that he oversaw a plot to prevent Ms. Pottker from writing a book on the circus’s treatment of animals and children entertainers. If you really want to go down a rabbit hole, I suggest you start looking into this, for the shits and giggles if nothing else.
Anyway, Claire George was at once stationed in Beirut which was the venue for Imad Mughniyeh’s most spectacular and horrific terrorist activities. These would be, specifically, the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine Barracks, and the 1984 kidnapping and extensive torture of the CIA’s station chief William Buckley. The CIA held a bit of a grudge about this, for understandable reasons:
In a video taken approximately seven months after the kidnapping, [Buckley’s] appearance was described as follows: Buckley was close to a gibbering wretch. His words were often incoherent; he slobbered and drooled and, most unnerving of all, he would suddenly scream in terror, his eyes rolling helplessly and his body shaking. The CIA consensus was that he would be blindfolded and chained at the ankles and wrists and kept in a cell little bigger than a coffin.
Buckley died in 1985, probably of a heart attack. Claire George died in 2008, the same year that the CIA separated Mughniyeh’s head, arms, and legs from his torso. So it goes.
While he lived, Mughniyah didn’t content himself with operating in Lebanon, however. He was also involved in the 1983 bombings in Kuwait, which you may not remember. The man he allegedly put in charge of that operation died in the same drone strikes that killed Qassem Soleimani at the Baghdad Airport.
Interestingly, the Kuwaitis arrested 17 people in connection to the 1983 bombings. The primary reason Hezbollah began kidnapping Americans in the mid-1980s was to trade them for the release of these 17 prisoners. It was Ronald Reagan’s desperation to secure the release of these hostages that led him to approve weapons sales to Iran, leading to the Iran-Contra scandal that ruined Claire George’s career. In the end, the 17 prisoners escaped when Iraq invaded Kuwait. They made their way back to Iran.
All of this demonstrates clearly, I believe, that one act of violence leads to another. What we’re seeing go on now is inextricably connected to things that happened decades ago. The U.S. government took out Mughniyah in 2008, and they took out his long-time collaborators in 2020. But this all ties back to 1983. And the bombings back then were a response to the U.S. green-lighting the Likud government in Israeli’s decision to invade and occupy Lebanon in 1982.
Others will want to go further back, to Operation Ajax, the CIA’s 1953 plot to reinstall the Shah in power in Tehran.
However you want to subdivide the history, there seems to be no end to the resulting violence and misery. Some on each side of the conflict may celebrate when a new character in the saga meets their demise, but it won’t end the cycle.
At some point, peacemakers need to get the upper hand and put a stop to this endless nightmare.