therealnews--2020-01-13--Turkey’s Bounty on Ex-Palestinian Security Chief Reveals Web of Intrigue

This is a rush transcript and may contain errors .
It will be updated .
Greg Wilpert : Welcome to the Real News Network .
I ’ m Greg Wilpert in Arlington , Virginia .
Few individuals in the Middle East embody the contradictions and backroom wheeling and dealing more than Mohammed Dahlan .
He ’ s someone straight out of a cold war spy novel it seems and whom Turkey last week placed a $ 700,000 bounty for his capture according to the newspaper Hürriyet and $ 1,700,000 according to the website Middle East Eye .
Dahlan is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Palestinian authorities chief of security between 1993 and 2007 , during which time he was also a prodigy of Palestinian leader , Yasser Arafat .
In 2007 when the Hamas Party took over the Gaza Strip , Dahlan was accused of funneling US weapons to Fatah fighters and of fueling a civil war between Hamas and Fatah .
Then in 2011 the Fatah Party expelled him after evidence emerged that he might have been involved in the poisoning of Yasser Arafat on Israel ’ s behalf .
Here at the Real News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Yemen when he cooperated with the Israeli ’ s bare operations group , mercenary company on behalf of the United Arab Emirates .
So even though Dahlan has been suspected of collaborating with the Israeli government and also with the CIA , he is now considered to be a candidate to replace Mahmoud Abbas as head of the Palestinian authority .
How is this possible and what does Dahlan represent in this complicated situation which involves not only Israel and Palestine but also Turkey , Egypt , Libya , the UAE and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to explore how Dahlan figures in all of this and what he represents for the situation in the Middle East is Antony Loewenstein .
He is an investigative reporter , filmmaker and author of the book Disaster Capitalism , making a killing out of catastrophe .
Last November Antony was also awarded the 2019 Jerusalem Al Quds Peace Prize .
Thanks for joining us again Antony and congratulations on winning the Peace Prize .
Antony Loewenstein : Thanks so much for having me on .
I appreciate that .
Greg Wilpert : So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complicated story .
Who would you say is Mohammed Dahlan and is he a private security contractor or is he a state agent of the UAE ?
Or what is he ?
Antony Loewenstein : So he ’ s a complicated figure and I think I preface my comments by saying that certainly when he used to be based in Gaza and of course as you said , he ’ s Palestinian from Gaza , his popularity was very mixed .
I mean keep in mind the fact that the Palestinian leadership has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yasser Arafat was not a Democrat , Mahmoud Abbas is not a Democrat .
So when 2007 , Dahlan was kicked out essentially when Hamas took over the Gaza Strip , at that stage he was very unpopular because essentially Hamas had won the election then .
And he was seen as trying to stymie that result .
I fast forward now so until 2020 , and Dahlan essentially has been in some ways a gun for hire .
The best way to describe him I think is a few ways .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including in the Israeli press that he regularly does speak to Israeli officials in Turkey particularly and elsewhere .
And that ’ s possible because keep in mind the fact that there ’ s now serious suggestion with evidence that Hamas has the presence in Turkey .
And Israel is interested in trying to target Hamas in that country and Dahlan is a middle man between those positions .
I mean the idea that he would become the next leader of the Palestine authority or ahead of Palestine on the one hand seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections yet that have been called in Palestine .
But we ’ ll come back to that later if you ’ d like .
And what ’ s also interesting is his main role in the last few years has been essentially a gun for hire for The UAE .
Managing various contracts for that country in Yemen and elsewhere , including alleged arms dealing for the UAE .
And clearly also working elements within the Egyptian government as well .
He owns a TV station .
And this is what it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turks are very upset at the moment , amongst other reasons , is that his network recently aired an interview with Gülen , the exiled Turkish leader in the US who the Turks alleged was behind the 2016 failed coup in their country .
Now Dahlan denies he has any involvement in that and it ’ s frankly impossible to know if that ’ s true or not , but in some ways it ’ s really , is not a question of one clean country trying to go after a thug .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea of very , very murky people going after each other .
Greg Wilpert : Yes .
That ’ s very interesting .
And I actually want to return to the point about the Palestinian election .
That is despite his cooperation with the Israeli security forces , Dahlan continues to express desire to return to Palestinian politics .
Now , what would you say does this mean ?
I mean , is he burned in Palestinian politics as a collaborator with the occupation or does he still have a base of support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a base of support , but I ’ d say it ’ s incredibly small .
And we shouldn ’ t forget when I was in Gaza the last time , a number of people I spoke to in fact , were quite fond of him .
But I think I should put that in context .
Not because I think he ’ s a great Democrat or a great person .
A lot of people , although not all , are incredibly disillusioned with Hamas .
And Hamas has been in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Gaza is incredibly tough .
Let ’ s make it clear .
That ’ s principally the fault of Israel , which has continued in inhumane siege now for all these years .
And of course the Egyptians , which are enforcing that .
So the idea of Dahlan is going to come in and save the day is a pipe dream .
But I think the idea that Dahlan could be a leader of the Palestinian people and somehow rally them around a cause , to me it ’ s delusional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his position ?
I mean essentially if you ’ re working for or with the Israelis , Israeli vision , if you can call it that , is in definite occupation .
There ’ s no Palestinian state , there ’ s no two state solution , there ’ s no democratic Palestine at all .
So if Dahlan ’ s vision somehow is to maintain or continue that status quo , a lot of young Palestinians , especially in the West Bank and Gaza are fed up with party politics for good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ s 85 , Sikh , smokes and really is running a police state in the West Bank essentially .
Hamas runs a police state in Gaza .
Here the options .
And the idea that someone ’ s going to come in and save the day like him , to me , I ’ m a Palestinian of course , but as it seems very unlikely .
Having said that , finally , it doesn ’ t mean that if there is an election that someone like him would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not be engineered to win .
Although the last election in 2006 was democratic , the Carter Center showed that the last Palestinian election .
It ’ s possible that Israel or the US or someone else would want to engineer a result .
Dahlan could be seen as a very favorite candidate , but to be clear , he ’ s not going to be bringing democracy to Palestine sadly .
Greg Wilpert : Now I want to turn to the larger context that is in which Dahlan might figure .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed a bounty , some say 700,000 some say it ’ s $ 1,700,000 on his head for his alleged involvement , as you said in the 2016 coup against Turkey ’ s president Erdoğan .
Meanwhile , Dahlan also figures in the Libyan civil war because he ’ s working with the UAE to support the rebel force that general Khalifa Hafter leads against the UN-backed government in Tripoli , which Turkey supports .
Now in a recently published article in Hürriyets written by [ Jase Melman 00:07:33 ] , he argues @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the context of the fight over the role of the Muslim brotherhood .
Which Turkey , Qatar and Hamas support and which Egypt , Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the United States oppose .
What do you think of that analysis ?
I mean , how does Dahlan fit into that context and the role of the Muslim brotherhood ?
Antony Loewenstein : Well , it ’ s interesting because on the one hand , I think Melman ’ s analysis is probably pretty spot on .
But of course it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he ’ s an enemy of Hamas in so many ways in terms of his attempts to try to overthrow the election result in 2006 and trying to support the Palestinian authority in Gaza .
And while at the same time Turkey is obviously also a big supporter of Hamas and in fact is allowing many Hamas providers to actually live and work in Turkey .
So Dahlan ’ s I think role is a strange one .
I mean the issue the Muslim brotherhood though is mixed .
What I mean by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years ago , many , many Arabs types , both leaders and people supported some kind of Arab nationalism , which sometimes was secular but often was religious .
It was both .
And someone like Dahlan I think in some ways represents this idea that you can have a maybe less religious or less overtly Islamic political movement .
But in some ways , what does he represent ?
I mean he ’ s not representing democracy .
He ’ s not representing the idea of somehow bringing freedom to his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he ’ s working for dictatorships around the world .
That ’ s a known on the record fact .
And what ’ s interesting also I think is that in many ways , the 2016 coup , which he ’ s alleged to have supported in some ways .
The evidence for that by the way , is pretty murky .
I ’ m not suggesting he wasn ’ t involved , but the evidence that I ’ ve seen doesn ’ t exactly prove that point .
So we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Turkish court to be proven in court .
Is that the brotherhood in some ways , Dahlan is close to Sisi in Egypt .
And as many viewers will be aware , what Sisi has been doing in Egypt in the last year is conduct one of the most brutal crackdowns of not just democracy , but the Muslim brotherhood and Islamists .
Anyone associated with that organization , anyone who expresses support for their rights or freedoms .
Tens of thousands of people are in prison in that country .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palestine looks to Dahlan as some kind of savior to help them bring freedom or peace to Palestine or Gaza or the West Bank , I would say they ’ re looking at the wrong person .
But again , as I said before , it does not mean that he would not be welcome to run Palestine if he was supported by say the UAE or Saudi or Israel or the US .
Because in some ways those countries , they want reliable thugs .
That ’ s what they want .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to deliver certain goals .
And Abass for long time was that , Mahmoud Abbas .
I would argue in some ways he still is .
I mean the Palestinian authority still runs to an extent .
I mean it ’ s deeply corrupt .
It ’ s deeply undemocratic .
Hasn ’ t been an election since 2006 .
Dahlan ’ s roll in that is minimal at best .
But quietly at least there are many in the Israeli , both intelligence and political elites , that would love someone like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaza and East Jerusalem because he ’ s reliable .
But reliable to their interests , not Palestinian .
Greg Wilpert : Yeah .
In that context I think it ’ s interesting to note that on the one side you have a number of governments and individuals supporting essentially both secular and theocratic governments are opposed to the Muslim brotherhood , brotherhood .
Such as I mean basically Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the UAE working together in the United States .
And then on the other hand you have forces such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be more moderate usually supporting the Muslim brotherhood .
So just want to see if you have a comment about this strange coalition of horses .
Antony Loewenst : Well , just briefly also , I mean the irony is that someone like Egypt that claims to be opposed to the Muslim brotherhood still supports other Islamist forces or ideas .
It ’ s particularly the brotherhood .
And let ’ s not forget the context of this .
The brotherhood of course took over Egypt after Mubarak fell .
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prison , was overthrown by Sisi who now runs the country for the last number of years .
So there ’ s a lot of hatred by the Egyptian elites again , the brotherhood for daring to try to run the country .
And the irony is that many Arab States in the Middle East are supporting Islamists .
I mean Saudi Arabia is a classic example of that .
So much of the funding for Al Qaeda and ISIS for that matter are coming from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ s always coming from the top , but it ’ s coming from a lot of individuals with serious power in both those countries .
Now both Al Qaeda , ISIS and other militant groups in the Middle East and elsewhere are Islamists , some extreme Islamists .
And let ’ s not forget Egypt and Saudi are close American and Western allies .
So there ’ s a double game being played here and sadly I often get frustrated with the media coverage about this .
That you see uncritical stories about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrorism .
What terrorism are we talking about ?
The world ’ s biggest terrorism , in my view , in many people ’ s views is actually being funded and supported by some of the West ’ s biggest allies in the region , namely Saudi Arabia and others .
So hypocrisy is kind of the name of the game in the Middle East , which is why it ’ s finally so many people in this part of the world are rising up and trying to protest as much as they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different kinds of governments that are far more democratic .
Greg Wilpert : Well , it ’ s a fascinating issue to figure out how Dahlan fits into all of this , but we ’ re going to have to leave it there for now .
I ’ m speaking to Anthony Loewenstein , investigative reporter , filmmaker and author .
Thanks again , Anthony for having joined us today .
Antony Loewenstein : My pleasure , Greg .
Thank you .
Greg Wilpert : And thank you for joining the Real News @ @

Palestinian security chief Mohammed Dahlan was involved in mercenary operations in Palestine and Yemen, and was expelled from Palestine’s Fatah party. Evidence of his involvement in the 2016 coup attempt in Turkey reveals his operations are more extensive than previously thought.
Story Transcript
GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Arlington, Virginia.
Few individuals in the Middle East embody the contradictions and backroom wheeling and dealing more than Mohammed Dahlan. He’s someone straight out of a cold war spy novel it seems and whom Turkey last week placed a $700,000 bounty for his capture according to the newspaper Hürriyet, and $1,700,000 according to the website Middle East Eye. Dahlan is a Palestinian from the Gaza strip and was the Palestinian Authority’s Chief of Security between 1993 and 2007, during which time he was also a prodigy of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. In 2007, when the Hamas Party took over the Gaza Strip, Dahlan was accused of funneling US weapons to Fatah fighters and of fueling a civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Then in 2011, the Fatah Party expelled him after evidence emerged that he might have been involved in the poisoning of Yasser Arafat on Israel’s behalf.
Here at The Real News Network we have previously discussed his role in Yemen when he cooperated with the Israeli’s bare operations group, mercenary company on behalf of the United Arab Emirates. So even though Dahlan has been suspected of collaborating with the Israeli government and also with the CIA, he is now considered to be a candidate to replace Mahmoud Abbas as head of the Palestinian authority. How is this possible? And what does Dahlan represent in this complicated situation which involves not only Israel and Palestine but also Turkey, Egypt, Libya, the UAE and the United States?
Joining me now to explore how Dahlan figures in all of this and what he represents for the situation in the Middle East is Antony Loewenstein. He is an investigative reporter, filmmaker and author of the book Disaster Capitalism, making a killing out of catastrophe. Last November Antony was also awarded the 2019 Jerusalem Al Quds Peace Prize. Thanks for joining us again Antony and congratulations on winning the Peace Prize.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Thanks so much for having me on. I appreciate that.
GREG WILPERT: So help us make sense of this very complicated story. Who would you say is Mohammed Dahlan? And is he a private security contractor or is he a state agent of the UAE? Or what is he?
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: So he’s a complicated figure. And I preface my comments by saying that certainly when he used to be based in Gaza and of course as you said, he’s Palestinian from Gaza, his popularity was very mixed. I mean keep in mind the fact that the Palestinian leadership has been undemocratic arguably since its beginning. Yasser Arafat was not a Democrat; Mahmoud Abbas is not a Democrat. So when 2007, Dahlan was kicked out essentially when Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, at that stage he was very unpopular because essentially Hamas had won the election then. And he was seen as trying to stymie that result. I fast forward now so until 2020, and Dahlan essentially has been in some ways a gun for hire.
The best way to describe him I think is a few ways. One, a lot of stories suggest–including in the Israeli press–that he regularly does speak to Israeli officials in Turkey particularly and elsewhere. And that’s possible because keep in mind the fact that there’s now serious suggestion with evidence that Hamas has the presence in Turkey. And Israel is interested in trying to target Hamas in that country and Dahlan is a middleman between those positions. I mean the idea that he would become the next leader of the Palestine authority or ahead of Palestine on the one hand seems unlikely because there’s no actual elections yet that have been called in Palestine. But we’ll come back to that later if you’d like.
And what’s also interesting is his main role in the last few years has been essentially a gun for hire for the UAE. Managing various contracts for that country in Yemen and elsewhere, including alleged arms dealing for the UAE. And clearly also working elements within the Egyptian government as well. He owns a TV station. And this is what it comes down to, that the reason the Turks are very upset at the moment, amongst other reasons, is that his network recently aired an interview with Gülen, the exiled Turkish leader in the US who the Turks alleged was behind the 2016 failed coup in their country. Now, Dahlan denies he has any involvement in that, and it’s frankly impossible to know if that’s true or not. But in some ways it really is not a question of one clean country trying to go after a thug. It’s in some ways the idea of very, very murky people going after each other.
GREG WILPERT: Yes. That’s very interesting. And I actually want to return to the point about the Palestinian election. That is, despite his cooperation with the Israeli security forces, Dahlan continues to express desire to return to Palestinian politics. Now, what would you say does this mean? I mean, is he burned in Palestinian politics as a collaborator with the occupation or does he still have a base of support there?
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Look. There is a base of support, but I’d say it’s incredibly small. And we shouldn’t forget when I was in Gaza the last time, a number of people I spoke to in fact, were quite fond of him. But I think I should put that in context. Not because I think he’s a great Democrat or a great person. A lot of people, although not all, are incredibly disillusioned with Hamas. And Hamas has been in control now since 2007. And life in Gaza is incredibly tough. Let’s make it clear.
That’s principally the fault of Israel, which has continued in inhumane siege now for all these years. And of course the Egyptians, which are enforcing that. So the idea of Dahlan is going to come in and save the day is a pipe dream. But I think the idea that Dahlan could be a leader of the Palestinian people and somehow rally them around a cause. To me it’s delusional, not least because: what exactly is his position? I mean, essentially, if you’re working for or with the Israelis–Israeli vision, if you can call it that, is indefinite occupation. There’s no Palestinian state, there’s no two state solution, there’s no democratic Palestine at all. So if Dahlan’s vision somehow is to maintain or continue that status quo, a lot of young Palestinians, especially in the West Bank and Gaza are fed up with party politics for good reason. Because they see Mahmoud Abbas who’s 85, Sikh, is running a police state in the West Bank essentially. Hamas runs a police state in Gaza.
And the idea that someone’s going to come in and save the day like him, to me–I’m a Palestinian, of course… It seems very unlikely. Having said that, finally, it doesn’t mean that if there is an election that someone like him would not be on the ballot and someone like him could not be engineered to win. Although the last election in 2006 was democratic, the Carter Center showed that the last Palestinian election, it’s possible that Israel or the US or someone else would want to engineer a result. Dahlan could be seen as a very favorite candidate. But to be clear, he’s not going to be bringing democracy to Palestine, sadly.
GREG WILPERT: Now I want to turn to the larger context that is in which Dahlan might figure. As I mentioned earlier, Turkey has placed a bounty, some say 700,000 some say it’s $1,700,000 on his head for his alleged involvement, as you said in the 2016 coup against Turkey’s president Erdoğan. Meanwhile, Dahlan also figures in the Libyan civil war because he’s working with the UAE to support the rebel force that general Khalifa Hafter leads against the UN-backed government in Tripoli, which Turkey supports. Now in a recently published article in Hürriyet, it argues that all of this must be understood in the context of the fight over the role of the Muslim Brotherhood; which Turkey, Qatar and Hamas support and which Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE and the United States oppose. What do you think of that analysis? I mean, how does Dahlan fit into that context and the role of the Muslim brotherhood?
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Well, it’s interesting. Because on the one hand, I think Melman’s analysis is probably pretty spot on. But of course it’s ironic in a way because he’s an enemy of Hamas in so many ways in terms of his attempts to try to overthrow the election result in 2006 and trying to support the Palestinian authority in Gaza. And while at the same time Turkey is obviously also a big supporter of Hamas and in fact is allowing many Hamas providers to actually live and work in Turkey. So Dahlan’s role is a strange one. I mean the issue the Muslim brotherhood though is mixed. What I mean by that is that until many, many years ago, many, many Arabs types, both leaders and people supported some kind of Arab nationalism, which sometimes was secular but often was religious. It was both.
And someone like Dahlan I think in some ways represents this idea that you can have a maybe less religious or less overtly Islamic political movement. But in some ways, what does he represent? I mean he’s not representing democracy. He’s not representing the idea of somehow bringing freedom to his own people or the UAE. In fact, he’s working for dictatorships around the world. That’s a known on the record fact. And what’s interesting also I think is that in many ways, the 2016 coup, which he’s alleged to have supported in some ways. The evidence for that by the way, is pretty murky. I’m not suggesting he wasn’t involved, but the evidence that I’ve seen doesn’t exactly prove that point. So we’ll see if it ever comes to a Turkish court to be proven in court. Is that the brotherhood in some ways, Dahlan is close to Sisi in Egypt.
And as many viewers will be aware, what Sisi has been doing in Egypt in the last year is conduct one of the most brutal crackdowns of not just democracy, but the Muslim brotherhood and Islamists. Anyone associated with that organization, anyone who expresses support for their rights or freedoms. Tens of thousands of people are in prison in that country. So if anyone in the Middle East or Palestine looks to Dahlan as some kind of savior to help them bring freedom or peace to Palestine or Gaza or the West Bank, I would say they’re looking at the wrong person.
But again, as I said before, it does not mean that he would not be welcome to run Palestine if he was supported by say the UAE or Saudi or Israel or the US. Because in some ways those countries, they want reliable thugs. That’s what they want, and someone who can be relied on to deliver certain goals. And Abbas for long time was that, Mahmoud Abbas. I would argue in some ways he still is. I mean the Palestinian authority still runs to an extent. I mean it’s deeply corrupt. It’s deeply undemocratic. Hasn’t been an election since 2006. Dahlan’s roll in that is minimal at best. But quietly at least there are many in the Israeli, both intelligence and political elites, that would love someone like Dahlan to run the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem because he’s reliable. But reliable to their interests, not Palestinian.
GREG WILPERT: Yeah. In that context I think it’s interesting to note that on the one side you have a number of governments and individuals supporting essentially both secular and theocratic governments are opposed to the Muslim brotherhood, brotherhood. Such as I mean basically Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the UAE working together in the United States. And then on the other hand you have forces such as Turkey and Qatar which is considered to be more moderate usually supporting the Muslim brotherhood. So just want to see if you have a comment about this strange coalition of horses.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: Well, just briefly also, I mean the irony is that someone like Egypt that claims to be opposed to the Muslim brotherhood still supports other Islamist forces or ideas. It’s particularly the brotherhood. And let’s not forget the context of this. The brotherhood of course took over Egypt after Mubarak fell. It was then Morsi who died recently in Egyptian prison, was overthrown by Sisi who now runs the country for the last number of years. So there’s a lot of hatred by the Egyptian elites again, the brotherhood for daring to try to run the country. And the irony is that many Arab States in the Middle East are supporting Islamists. I mean Saudi Arabia is a classic example of that.
So much of the funding for Al Qaeda and ISIS for that matter are coming from the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. I’m not saying it’s always coming from the top, but it’s coming from a lot of individuals with serious power in both those countries. Now both Al Qaeda, ISIS and other militant groups in the Middle East and elsewhere are Islamists, some extreme Islamists. And let’s not forget Egypt and Saudi are close American and Western allies. So there’s a double game being played here and sadly I often get frustrated with the media coverage about this. That you see uncritical stories about Saudi Arabia fighting terrorism or Egypt fighting terrorism. What terrorism are we talking about?
The world’s biggest terrorism, in my view, in many people’s views is actually being funded and supported by some of the West’s biggest allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia and others. So hypocrisy is kind of the name of the game in the Middle East, which is why it’s finally so many people in this part of the world are rising up and trying to protest as much as they can for change. And that means different kinds of governments that are far more democratic.
GREG WILPERT: Well, it’s a fascinating issue to figure out how Dahlan fits into all of this, but we’re going to have to leave it there for now. I’m speaking to Anthony Loewenstein, investigative reporter, filmmaker and author. Thanks again, Anthony for having joined us today.
ANTONY LOEWENSTEIN: My pleasure, Greg. Thank you.
GREG WILPERT: And thank you for joining The Real News Network.
Studio: Cameron Granadino, Adam Coley
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Adam Coley
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-13--Who Profits when Iran and America Fight?

TAYA GRAHAM : Welcome to The Real News Network .
I ’ m investigative reporter Taya Graham .
Are progressive Democrats just as responsible for the current warmongering as their Republican counterparts ?
Well , that ’ s what the mainstream media seems to keep avoiding in their coverage of a possible war in Iran .
But the truth is a much more nuanced and ugly conversation .
The House Representatives just passed a resolution that would limit President Trump ’ s ability to order military action in Iran without Congress ’ s approval .
It ’ s been described @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the majority of the House .
However , critics see it as an impotent , symbolic attempt to atone for past complicity .
In December of 2019 , Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a $ 1.4 trillion spending bill that included a Pentagon budget increase .
But why are Democrats voting for increasing the military budget while they criticize Donald Trump ’ s aggression towards Iran ?
Why are even isolationist Republicans turning the other cheek as more monies are appropriated for military expansion ?
Well , I ’ m speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pink , to better understand U.S.-Iran Relations and to understand if there ’ s a possibility for peace in our time .
Benjamin has been part of a worldwide antiwar movement for over 30 years and has written books on Iran , Saudi Arabia , and drone warfare .
Medea , thank you so much for joining us .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Thank you for having me on , Taya .
TAYA GRAHAM : We really appreciate it .
So let ’ s get started .
Can you help explain to us exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republicans voted for with this War Powers Resolution ?
And maybe tell us a little bit about how it ’ s different than the similar resolution that Congress voted on in April regarding Yemen .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well , this is a resolution that says that the president does not have the authority to go to war in Iran , that he has to go to the Congress and get authorization first .
There is another bill that Bernie Sanders has introduced that would cut off the funding for going to war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s called a Privilege Resolution , so it ’ s not clear that , that will even get a vote .
They used this War Powers Act before in the case of Yemen , which is a very important thing to use .
It ’ s something that hadn ’ t been used since the Vietnam War in 1973 .
But as will probably happen in this case , when it got to the desk of Donald Trump , it was vetoed .
Now , the bill that just passed yesterday does have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BENJAMIN : And we have no idea if we can get enough Republicans to vote along with the Democrats to get it passed .
In any case , it will go to the President ’ s desk .
If it gets that far , he will veto it , and then unfortunately we ’ re not going to have a majority number of Congress people to allow us to override his veto .
In any case , it ’ s still important to do this .
Anything we can do to show opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran , is part of building up a groundswell of opposition to try to avoid an all out war .
TAYA GRAHAM : So as we discussed , Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a $ 1.4 trillion spending bill , but it also affected an amendment from Representative Ro Khanna and Matt Gaetz that could have blocked Trump from attacking Iran without approval from Congress .
Now , Representative Khanna pointed out that some people have a vested interest in not restricting the President ’ s ability to go to war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Representative Khanna and then I ’ m going to give you a chance to respond .
“ If you were wondering who benefits from endless wars , take a look at how stocks for weapons manufacturers began to rise as soon as Soleimani was killed .
Defense contractors spent $ 84 million lobbying Congress last year and it certainly wasn ’ t to promote diplomacy and restraint.
” So how do you respond to this essential indictment of this system of profiteering that ’ s become part of our system surrounding our military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amazing how quickly the stock market reacts and the weapons companies ’ stocks go up as soon as there is a threat of a new conflict .
There was a very good article that Sarah Anderson from the Institute for Policy Studies did that show it how the CEOs of the top weapons companies became a hell of a lot richer just in a couple of days because their pay is tied to stock options .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : So there certainly is a whole industry out there that loves war , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from it .
And we should also say that it ’ s the media , the mainstream media , not the Real News , but the mainstream media that profits from war as well because more people watch the news when they sensationalize the issues and their ratings go up as well .
So they ’ re part of the industry that benefits from war .
TAYA GRAHAM : That ’ s an excellent point .
And I ’ m sure it ’ s one that the mainstream media is not going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let me ask you this .
Do you think that this is all part of a distraction from impeachment or do you think it ’ s a continuation of the hawkish policies towards that region ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well Taya , I think it ’ s both .
The timing , one has to question why it ’ s done at the exact same time that the impeachment process is going to the Senate .
And certainly it has taken impeachment off the front and center of the news .
MEDEA BENJAMIN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because Donald Trump campaigned saying that this nuclear deal was awful , and he said he was going to rip it up when he got in .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : He has done the bidding of his friends in Israel and in Saudi Arabia and some of the big donors like Sheldon Adelson .
He has gone even further , not only withdrawing from the deal , but imposing the most stringent sanctions that you can imagine that not only say that U.S. companies can ’ t do business with Iran , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do business with Iran , wants to make it so Iran is not able to sell one drop of oil in the international markets .
And so this squeezing of the Iranian economy is a form of warfare .
It ’ s an economic warfare .
So for the Iranians , the war has been going on for almost two years now .
And that ’ s why it ’ s important to recognize that the aggressor in all of this is Donald Trump from the minute that he withdrew from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Now , there is criticism coming from Congress , but is it coming from Congress about doing war the right way , or is there actually an anti-war movement in Congress ?
I mean , are there any real anti-war politicians present in either party ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Yes , there are .
I think there are people like Ilhan Omar .
There are people like Jim McGovern , the two co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal , they are anti-war .
Pramila Jayapal was an ant-war activist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are certainly people and I could name more of them , Barbara Lee , Jan Schakowsky .
But then you look at the majority of the party and you look at the voices that are being lifted up right now in the party and unfortunately , many of them are the voices of people who just want to be consulted .
And so it is always a gamble when you say that Donald Trump has to go to Congress first before he ’ s allowed to wage war .
I think we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wage war .
The American people don ’ t want it .
It ’ s terrible for Iran .
It ’ s terrible for the world community , period .
And we have to get the voices in Congress to not just be saying you don ’ t have authorization , but to also be saying , no war with Iran , period .
Lift the economic sanctions , period , and bring all of the troops home from the Middle East .
The Iraqi government is calling for our troops to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
They are after all a government that we helped put in place .
And the rest of the region , we ’ d be better off with the troops coming home .
So we have to move these demands forward .
TAYA GRAHAM : And it seems almost redundant to say this but President Trump did of course promise to bring these troops home and has actually added more troops to the region .
But let me focus on something different .
Where did the escalation with Iran actually begin when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal ?
Can you recount kind of a recent history of moments where the U.S. began to destabilize its relationship with Iran ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Well , let ’ s recognize that you really should go back to 1953 if you want to look at how the U.S. has de-stabilized Iran by overthrowing their democratically elected government because it wanted to nationalize its oil .
And then fast forward to the 1979 Revolution , which was really a direct response from that decades later , and the animosity with United States that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internal affairs continues to this day .
Economic sanctions were imposed since 1979 but they ’ ve gone up and they ’ ve gone down .
And the real breakthrough was the Iran nuclear deal that was signed in 2015 when it wasn ’ t just the U.S. and Iran .
It was the world community .
It ’ s important to recognize that , that was a given an approval from the entire U.N. Security Council as well as the entire European Union .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : So it was an international @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that is a violation of international law .
So really , we have to look to May of 2018 when Donald Trump got out of that deal and imposed these sanctions that every six months since then he has added new , more onerous sanctions .
TAYA GRAHAM : You pointed out something really interesting there and I want to dig into it .
You actually went to Iran in early 2019 .
In 2019 , can you tell us what you saw there and what it was like in Iran under U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We saw that , on the one hand , Iran is used to dealing with sanctions because they ’ ve been dealing with them for over 40 years .
On the other hand , this is a new level of sanctions that has made it basically an economy that functions in the global black market .
And so who benefits from that ?
It ’ s ironic that the U.S. says it ’ s going after the Iranian government , but not the people ; but it ’ s the businesses that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large entities are the ones that actually benefit from the sanctions , because they have the corner on the market .
It is the clerics who have large economic entities that can find ways to go around these sanctions that also benefit .
But we saw that businesses after businesses were closing their doors , that young people are having a very difficult time finding jobs these days .
The jobs don ’ t pay nearly enough to keep up with the inflation .
The medicines such as cancer medicines are hard to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single day because of these sanctions .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : So the lives of ordinary people are the ones that are most effected .
And the U.S. thinks that this is going to cause people to rise up and overthrow the government .
And sure enough , there have been street protest when the Iranian government announced an increase in the price of gasoline .
Those were brutally put down by the government .
But now that is considered in the past because after the killing of Soleimani , the Iranian people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fashion .
And now those who are protesting against their own government in Iran are now protesting against the United States .
TAYA GRAHAM : Right .
So you pointed out something important there .
The death , the assassination of Soleimani , has actually united the Iranian people in a way they weren ’ t previously .
Is there any way to pull ourselves back from the break ?
Is there any path towards peace and maybe not even just peace , but maybe even a partnership with Iran ?
MEDEA BENJAMIN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important question , is how do we get this man ’ s man in the White House to step back ?
And there are a couple of things .
One is that we have to get other countries to step up .
We have been working with members of parliament in the European Union and telling them we need them to come out much stronger than they have so far .
We need the Russians and the Chinese to intervene and try to dial this back .
But we also need a movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people will not stand for another war .
It is a positive sign that just two days after this increase in the conflict , we manage to get protests in over 80 cities around the country .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : And then just yesterday there were over 300 protests that happened around the country .
We have a global day of action that we ’ re calling for January 25th and getting tremendous response from our friends in Europe and Latin America and other parts of Asia because they want to show that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Donald Trump doesn ’ t care what the world thinks , but he does care about his own election coming up .
And that ’ s why it ’ s important to reflect what the polls show , which is the American people don ’ t want another war but have it be visible on the streets .
And we also have to go to our members of Congress and push them to take further steps .
We should be going to our City Councils and passing resolutions against war .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , our faith based groups , all of these ways that we can get them to come out with statements saying they ’ re against a war with Iran .
This is so critical right now , Taya .
I can ’ t tell you how important I think it is .
We have a breather right now ; which we didn ’ t think we would have .
We ’ re not in the all-out war this moment , but we could be any day .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : So while we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , weeks , and hopefully months , we have to really build this movement to show Donald Trump that it would be not in his interest to take this country to war .
TAYA GRAHAM : Medea , I think that is absolutely the perfect place to leave our conversation , but I hope our conversation will continue .
And I think what you said was really going to inspire people to keep the pressure on in this anti-war movement .
Because you ’ re right , we ’ re in a unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to prevent the war from happening .
And this is a unique moment for us .
Medea , I want to thank you so much for joining me today .
MEDEA BENJAMIN : Thank you .
And please encourage people to go to codepink.org to find out about the protests , the webinars , the teach-ins , all the other things that we ’ re doing .
Thank you .
TAYA GRAHAM : Thank you .
My name is Taya Graham .
And I want to thank you so much for joining me @ @ @ @ @ @

We spoke to Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin after Thursday’s War Powers resolution vote. Whose interests are driving the narrative around conflict with Iran?
Story Transcript
TAYA GRAHAM: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m investigative reporter Taya Graham.
Are progressive Democrats just as responsible for the current warmongering as their Republican counterparts? Well, that’s what the mainstream media seems to keep avoiding in their coverage of a possible war in Iran. But the truth is a much more nuanced and ugly conversation. The House Representatives just passed a resolution that would limit President Trump’s ability to order military action in Iran without Congress’s approval. It’s been described as a sharp rebuke to the President from the majority of the House. However, critics see it as an impotent, symbolic attempt to atone for past complicity.
In December of 2019, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a $1.4 trillion spending bill that included a Pentagon budget increase. But why are Democrats voting for increasing the military budget while they criticize Donald Trump’s aggression towards Iran? Why are even isolationist Republicans turning the other cheek as more monies are appropriated for military expansion?
Well, I’m speaking with Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, to better understand U.S.-Iran Relations and to understand if there’s a possibility for peace in our time. Benjamin has been part of a worldwide antiwar movement for over 30 years and has written books on Iran, Saudi Arabia, and drone warfare. Medea, thank you so much for joining us.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Thank you for having me on, Taya.
TAYA GRAHAM: We really appreciate it. So let’s get started. Can you help explain to us exactly what it was that both Democrats and Republicans voted for with this War Powers Resolution? And maybe tell us a little bit about how it’s different than the similar resolution that Congress voted on in April regarding Yemen.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, this is a resolution that says that the president does not have the authority to go to war in Iran, that he has to go to the Congress and get authorization first. There is another bill that Bernie Sanders has introduced that would cut off the funding for going to war, but that is not what’s called a Privilege Resolution, so it’s not clear that, that will even get a vote. They used this War Powers Act before in the case of Yemen, which is a very important thing to use. It’s something that hadn’t been used since the Vietnam War in 1973. But as will probably happen in this case, when it got to the desk of Donald Trump, it was vetoed. Now, the bill that just passed yesterday does have to go to the Senate.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: And we have no idea if we can get enough Republicans to vote along with the Democrats to get it passed. In any case, it will go to the President’s desk. If it gets that far, he will veto it, and then unfortunately we’re not going to have a majority number of Congress people to allow us to override his veto. In any case, it’s still important to do this. Anything we can do to show opposition to the President, a war with Iran, is part of building up a groundswell of opposition to try to avoid an all out war.
TAYA GRAHAM: So as we discussed, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a $1.4 trillion spending bill, but it also affected an amendment from Representative Ro Khanna and Matt Gaetz that could have blocked Trump from attacking Iran without approval from Congress. Now, Representative Khanna pointed out that some people have a vested interest in not restricting the President’s ability to go to war. Let me read you a tweet from Representative Khanna and then I’m going to give you a chance to respond. “If you were wondering who benefits from endless wars, take a look at how stocks for weapons manufacturers began to rise as soon as Soleimani was killed. Defense contractors spent $84 million lobbying Congress last year and it certainly wasn’t to promote diplomacy and restraint.” So how do you respond to this essential indictment of this system of profiteering that’s become part of our system surrounding our military?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: It’s amazing how quickly the stock market reacts and the weapons companies’ stocks go up as soon as there is a threat of a new conflict. There was a very good article that Sarah Anderson from the Institute for Policy Studies did that show it how the CEOs of the top weapons companies became a hell of a lot richer just in a couple of days because their pay is tied to stock options.
TAYA GRAHAM: Exactly.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: So there certainly is a whole industry out there that loves war, that loves conflict, and that profits tremendously from it. And we should also say that it’s the media, the mainstream media, not the Real News, but the mainstream media that profits from war as well because more people watch the news when they sensationalize the issues and their ratings go up as well. So they’re part of the industry that benefits from war.
TAYA GRAHAM: That’s an excellent point. And I’m sure it’s one that the mainstream media is not going to be bringing up anytime soon. So let me ask you this. Do you think that this is all part of a distraction from impeachment or do you think it’s a continuation of the hawkish policies towards that region?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well Taya, I think it’s both. The timing, one has to question why it’s done at the exact same time that the impeachment process is going to the Senate. And certainly it has taken impeachment off the front and center of the news.
TAYA GRAHAM: Exactly.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: But it is also a continuation because Donald Trump campaigned saying that this nuclear deal was awful, and he said he was going to rip it up when he got in.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: He has done the bidding of his friends in Israel and in Saudi Arabia and some of the big donors like Sheldon Adelson. He has gone even further, not only withdrawing from the deal, but imposing the most stringent sanctions that you can imagine that not only say that U.S. companies can’t do business with Iran, but wants the rest of the world not to do business with Iran, wants to make it so Iran is not able to sell one drop of oil in the international markets. And so this squeezing of the Iranian economy is a form of warfare. It’s an economic warfare. So for the Iranians, the war has been going on for almost two years now. And that’s why it’s important to recognize that the aggressor in all of this is Donald Trump from the minute that he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal.
TAYA GRAHAM: Now, there is criticism coming from Congress, but is it coming from Congress about doing war the right way, or is there actually an anti-war movement in Congress? I mean, are there any real anti-war politicians present in either party?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Yes, there are. I think there are people like Ilhan Omar. There are people like Jim McGovern, the two co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus Ro Khanna and Pramila Jayapal, they are anti-war. Pramila Jayapal was an ant-war activist before she became a Congresswoman. So there are certainly people and I could name more of them, Barbara Lee, Jan Schakowsky. But then you look at the majority of the party and you look at the voices that are being lifted up right now in the party and unfortunately, many of them are the voices of people who just want to be consulted. And so it is always a gamble when you say that Donald Trump has to go to Congress first before he’s allowed to wage war. I think we should say Donald Trump is not allowed to wage war. The American people don’t want it.
It’s terrible for Iran. It’s terrible for the world community, period. And we have to get the voices in Congress to not just be saying you don’t have authorization, but to also be saying, no war with Iran, period. Lift the economic sanctions, period, and bring all of the troops home from the Middle East. The Iraqi government is calling for our troops to go home. We should listen to them. They are after all a government that we helped put in place. And the rest of the region, we’d be better off with the troops coming home. So we have to move these demands forward.
TAYA GRAHAM: And it seems almost redundant to say this but President Trump did of course promise to bring these troops home and has actually added more troops to the region. But let me focus on something different. Where did the escalation with Iran actually begin when the U.S. pulled out of the Iran deal? Can you recount kind of a recent history of moments where the U.S. began to destabilize its relationship with Iran?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, let’s recognize that you really should go back to 1953 if you want to look at how the U.S. has de-stabilized Iran by overthrowing their democratically elected government because it wanted to nationalize its oil. And then fast forward to the 1979 Revolution, which was really a direct response from that decades later, and the animosity with United States that resulted from the U.S. interference in their internal affairs continues to this day. Economic sanctions were imposed since 1979 but they’ve gone up and they’ve gone down. And the real breakthrough was the Iran nuclear deal that was signed in 2015 when it wasn’t just the U.S. and Iran. It was the world community. It’s important to recognize that, that was a given an approval from the entire U.N. Security Council as well as the entire European Union.
TAYA GRAHAM: That’s an important point.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: So it was an international agreement. Donald Trump pulling out of that is a violation of international law. So really, we have to look to May of 2018 when Donald Trump got out of that deal and imposed these sanctions that every six months since then he has added new, more onerous sanctions.
TAYA GRAHAM: You pointed out something really interesting there and I want to dig into it. You actually went to Iran in early 2019. In 2019, can you tell us what you saw there and what it was like in Iran under U.S. sanctions?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Yes. We saw that, on the one hand, Iran is used to dealing with sanctions because they’ve been dealing with them for over 40 years. On the other hand, this is a new level of sanctions that has made it basically an economy that functions in the global black market. And so who benefits from that?
It’s ironic that the U.S. says it’s going after the Iranian government, but not the people; but it’s the businesses that have been most hurt. And the government-owned large entities are the ones that actually benefit from the sanctions, because they have the corner on the market. It is the clerics who have large economic entities that can find ways to go around these sanctions that also benefit. But we saw that businesses after businesses were closing their doors, that young people are having a very difficult time finding jobs these days. The jobs don’t pay nearly enough to keep up with the inflation. The medicines such as cancer medicines are hard to find and so people are dying every single day because of these sanctions.
TAYA GRAHAM: That’s terrible.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: So the lives of ordinary people are the ones that are most effected. And the U.S. thinks that this is going to cause people to rise up and overthrow the government. And sure enough, there have been street protest when the Iranian government announced an increase in the price of gasoline. Those were brutally put down by the government. But now that is considered in the past because after the killing of Soleimani, the Iranian people have come together in a much more unified fashion. And now those who are protesting against their own government in Iran are now protesting against the United States.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right. So you pointed out something important there. The death, the assassination of Soleimani, has actually united the Iranian people in a way they weren’t previously. Is there any way to pull ourselves back from the break? Is there any path towards peace and maybe not even just peace, but maybe even a partnership with Iran?
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Well, that’s the important question, is how do we get this man’s man in the White House to step back? And there are a couple of things. One is that we have to get other countries to step up. We have been working with members of parliament in the European Union and telling them we need them to come out much stronger than they have so far. We need the Russians and the Chinese to intervene and try to dial this back. But we also need a movement from the grassroots to say the American people will not stand for another war. It is a positive sign that just two days after this increase in the conflict, we manage to get protests in over 80 cities around the country.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: And then just yesterday there were over 300 protests that happened around the country. We have a global day of action that we’re calling for January 25th and getting tremendous response from our friends in Europe and Latin America and other parts of Asia because they want to show that the world says no to war. But Donald Trump doesn’t care what the world thinks, but he does care about his own election coming up.
And that’s why it’s important to reflect what the polls show, which is the American people don’t want another war but have it be visible on the streets. And we also have to go to our members of Congress and push them to take further steps. We should be going to our City Councils and passing resolutions against war. We should be going to our labor unions, our faith based groups, all of these ways that we can get them to come out with statements saying they’re against a war with Iran.
This is so critical right now, Taya. I can’t tell you how important I think it is. We have a breather right now; which we didn’t think we would have. We’re not in the all-out war this moment, but we could be any day.
TAYA GRAHAM: Right.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: So while we have a chance in these next days, weeks, and hopefully months, we have to really build this movement to show Donald Trump that it would be not in his interest to take this country to war.
TAYA GRAHAM: Medea, I think that is absolutely the perfect place to leave our conversation, but I hope our conversation will continue. And I think what you said was really going to inspire people to keep the pressure on in this anti-war movement. Because you’re right, we’re in a unique moment. We actually have a chance to prevent the war from happening. And this is a unique moment for us. Medea, I want to thank you so much for joining me today.
MEDEA BENJAMIN: Thank you. And please encourage people to go to codepink.org to find out about the protests, the webinars, the teach-ins, all the other things that we’re doing. Thank you.
TAYA GRAHAM: Thank you. My name is Taya Graham. And I want to thank you so much for joining me for The Real News Network.
Studio: Bababtunde Ogunfolaju, Taylor Hebden
Production: Genevieve Montinar, Taylor Hebden, Andrew Corkery
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-14--CLEAN Future Act Is ‘Shameful’ and ‘Greenwashing,’ say Climate Justice Groups

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee recently published a 15-page summary of the CLEAN Future Act , the culmination of a year of public hearings , with a goal of “ net zero ” carbon emissions and a carbon-free power sector by the year 2050 .
Democrats have called it a likely preview of what they would push for if they win the Senate and White House in the 2020 election .
Climate justice groups have slammed the CLEAN Future Act , calling it “ shameful ” and saying it “ could wind up greenwashing ” dirty energy sources @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cite both its 100 % renewable energy by 2050 timeline for taking action and its lack of an explicit phaseout of fossil fuel production in the United States .
An often-cited 2018 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stipulates that , by 2030 , the world must see a 45 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid locking in some of the worst impacts of climate change .
Another critique says the legislation allows for a “ technology-neutral ” approach to electricity supply , depending on market mechanisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an approach long critiqued by climate justice advocates and even recently the United Nations .
Brett Hartl , Government Affairs Director for the Center for Biological Diversity , says that Democrats on the committee have worked under a wrong-headed timeline from the start .
“ I think it ’ s really disingenuous that the House Dems are saying ‘ 100 % renewable by 2050 aligns with what the UN IPCC says , ’ ” he said .
“ It ’ s like , well yes , but they also said more recently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years to get on the right path .
That was the whole thing about the special report…urgent action is needed by 2030 because if you don ’ t make the cuts now , the carbon budget is blown and odds of hitting net zero by 2050 are almost nothing.
” Food & Water Watch , too , slammed the committee ’ s 100 % by 2050 plan .
“ There is absolutely no doubt that the world desperately needs bold policies to address the climate crisis , ” Mitch Jones , climate and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ & Water Watch , said in a press release .
“ This proposal falls well short of this need .
The proposed clean electricity goal represents an insufficient timeline , and could wind up greenwashing an array of dirty energy sources—everything from nuclear power to fracked gas with so-called ‘ carbon capture.
’ ” However , others in the environmental movement lauded the bill , including the groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund , who have been criticized as being part of the ‘ Big Green ’ network of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far-sighted plan can launch the power , resources and determination of our nation to meet , and overcome , the rising dangers from climate change , ” John Bowman , managing director of Government Affairs for NRDC , said in a press release .
“ It sends a message that we need to move , and rapidly , to a future powered by clean energy and transportation sources .
And it puts into action ready-to-go solutions , so our children don ’ t inherit a world of rising seas , punishing drought , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same groups have also championed the work of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis , which has faced criticism from climate justice groups .
House Leader Nancy Pelosi ( D-CA ) helped craft the Select Committee as a corporate-friendly response to climate justice groups ’ push for a Select Committee on Green New Deal .
Even the 100 % by 2050 goal included in the bill has a caveat , creating a market-based credit auctions system without clarifying if it will be cap-and-trade , or something else .
Climate justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ pay to pollute ” oriented system .
“ The draft legislation stipulates that [ energy ] suppliers must possess a sufficient quantity of ‘ clean energy credits ’ at the end of each year , or may otherwise make an ‘ alternative compliance payment , ’ ” the press release for the bill explains .
“ Suppliers may buy and trade clean energy credits from one another or purchase them via auction .
The mandate is technology-neutral , allowing electricity suppliers ample flexibility and freedom of choice.
” Jones worries that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased fossil fuel energy production in the years ahead : “ A ‘ technology-neutral ’ approach leaves us primed for decades more greenhouse gas emissions , ” he said in the press release .
“ A bold climate plan must call for a ban on fracking and all new fossil fuel infrastructure , and a swift and just transition to 100 percent clean , renewable energy across all sectors of the economy .
We have no time to rely on market-based schemes , dubious offset programs or unproven carbon capture technologies designed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry.
” Hartl worries that the 100 % by 2050 goal does not touch production of fossil fuels or consumption of them in ways other than on the electricity grid : “ Even if we decarbonize , but we continue sucking fossil fuels out of the ground , they go places and they get exported , ” he said .
“ We ’ ve already become a net exporter of fossil fuels.
” Beyond the 100 % carbon-free power supply goal , the legislation also calls for mandated energy efficiency for the building @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas emissions by 2050 .
It also includes environmental justice language , calling for frontline impacted communities to have a voice in “ permitting and regulation of petrochemical facilities in their neighborhoods , ” as well as calling for more stringent coal ash disposal requirements .
Further , it calls for a “ codification ” of the environmental justice principles for minority and low-income populations currently found in a 1994 executive order signed by President Bill Clinton .
“ That order established an interagency working group on environmental justice and required federal agencies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and develop comprehensive , agency-wide environmental justice strategies , ” the committee states in the legislative outline .
“ The bill codifies those requirements in response to recommendations provided by the Government Accountability Office that codification could improve compliance and effectiveness.
” For methane emissions from oil and gas production , the bill would mandate a phaseout of the practice of flaring of natural gas as an emitted non-profitable waste byproduct of drilling by 2028 .
It also calls for an 80 percent reduction of 2017 levels for flaring by 2025 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ national climate bank , ” modeled after state- and local-level green banks .
The idea was inspired by a bill recently introduced by U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell ( D-MI ) , which calls for creation of a $ 35 billion climate bank that some say could balloon to a value of $ 1 trillion .
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has also championed such a fund as part of her climate platform .
Its goal : provide funding for “ low- and zero-emissions energy technologies ; climate resiliency ; building efficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modernization ; agriculture projects ; and clean transportation , ” the outline for the legislation explains .
“ The provision requires the Bank to prioritize investments in communities that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change , including frontline , rural , low-income , and environmental justice communities , ” the outline further details .
“ In addition , the Bank must ensure that all investments are accompanied by strong labor protections.
” U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. ( D-NJ ) , the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he sees it as an ambitious plan to tackle the climate crisis .
“ Today we are providing the kind of serious federal leadership this moment requires , ” said Pallone Jr. “ This plan represents our commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas pollution .
For the sake of the American people , the long-term sustainability of our economy , and public health , we must act boldly , and that is exactly what we intend to do.
” While Hartl acknowledges that he thinks all of the things found in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terrible , ” he disagrees that it counts as bold action , saying that he believes it ’ s “ so timid ” and that “ we could be there much , much faster.
” “ I think the reality is that these bills have so little substance and requirements that it could be business as usual for 2049 , ” said Hartl .
“ And then we wave a magic wand .
And then the last year we do all the hard work .
So it ’ s like procrastinating on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to this bill is taking.
” The U.S. House Committee on the Climate Crisis will also release its policy framework and recommendations by its legally mandated deadline at the end of March .
Climate justice groups already fear the policies recommended will again fall short , pointing to shortcomings in the framing of its request for information from stakeholder groups , which will serve as fodder for the final report .
“ Unfortunately the Select Committee ’ s Request for Information fails to solicit information on two of the most critical components @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) addressing structural inequities that perpetuate injustice and the disproportionate impacts to frontline communities , and ( 2 ) ending fossil fuel production – the major driver of climate change , ” 250 climate justice groups wrote in a Nov. 22 letter to the Select Committee which called for , instead , Green New Deal legislation .
“ After decades of inaction and defeatist rhetoric about what is possible , our planet can no longer afford incremental or isolated policy tweaks that appear safe to Members of Congress , most of whom will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the disastrous choices that they have made .
”

Photo Credit: House Energy & Commerce Committee
The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee recently published a 15-page summary of the CLEAN Future Act, the culmination of a year of public hearings, with a goal of “net zero” carbon emissions and a carbon-free power sector by the year 2050.
Democrats have called it a likely preview of what they would push for if they win the Senate and White House in the 2020 election. Climate justice groups have slammed the CLEAN Future Act, calling it “shameful” and saying it “could wind up greenwashing” dirty energy sources.
Critics of the CLEAN Future Act cite both its 100% renewable energy by 2050 timeline for taking action and its lack of an explicit phaseout of fossil fuel production in the United States. An often-cited 2018 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stipulates that, by 2030, the world must see a 45% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid locking in some of the worst impacts of climate change. Another critique says the legislation allows for a “technology-neutral” approach to electricity supply, depending on market mechanisms to offset emissions from carbon-intensive fuel sources, an approach long critiqued by climate justice advocates and even recently the United Nations.
Brett Hartl, Government Affairs Director for the Center for Biological Diversity, says that Democrats on the committee have worked under a wrong-headed timeline from the start.
“I think it’s really disingenuous that the House Dems are saying ‘100% renewable by 2050 aligns with what the UN IPCC says,’” he said. “It’s like, well yes, but they also said more recently and more direly that we have 10 years to get on the right path. That was the whole thing about the special report…urgent action is needed by 2030 because if you don’t make the cuts now, the carbon budget is blown and odds of hitting net zero by 2050 are almost nothing.”
Food & Water Watch, too, slammed the committee’s 100% by 2050 plan.
“There is absolutely no doubt that the world desperately needs bold policies to address the climate crisis,” Mitch Jones, climate and energy program director for the group Food & Water Watch, said in a press release. “This proposal falls well short of this need. The proposed clean electricity goal represents an insufficient timeline, and could wind up greenwashing an array of dirty energy sources—everything from nuclear power to fracked gas with so-called ‘carbon capture.’”
However, others in the environmental movement lauded the bill, including the groups Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund, who have been criticized as being part of the ‘Big Green’ network of political establishment-oriented climate groups.
“This far-sighted plan can launch the power, resources and determination of our nation to meet, and overcome, the rising dangers from climate change,” John Bowman, managing director of Government Affairs for NRDC, said in a press release. “It sends a message that we need to move, and rapidly, to a future powered by clean energy and transportation sources. And it puts into action ready-to-go solutions, so our children don’t inherit a world of rising seas, punishing drought, deadly wildfires and raging storms.”
These same groups have also championed the work of the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, which has faced criticism from climate justice groups. House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) helped craft the Select Committee as a corporate-friendly response to climate justice groups’ push for a Select Committee on Green New Deal.
Bill Details
Even the 100% by 2050 goal included in the bill has a caveat, creating a market-based credit auctions system without clarifying if it will be cap-and-trade, or something else. Climate justice groups have for decades called cap-and-trade a “pay to pollute” oriented system.
“The draft legislation stipulates that [energy] suppliers must possess a sufficient quantity of ‘clean energy credits’ at the end of each year, or may otherwise make an ‘alternative compliance payment,’” the press release for the bill explains. “Suppliers may buy and trade clean energy credits from one another or purchase them via auction. The mandate is technology-neutral, allowing electricity suppliers ample flexibility and freedom of choice.”
Jones worries that a market-oriented scheme of this sort could mean increased fossil fuel energy production in the years ahead: “A ‘technology-neutral’ approach leaves us primed for decades more greenhouse gas emissions,” he said in the press release. “A bold climate plan must call for a ban on fracking and all new fossil fuel infrastructure, and a swift and just transition to 100 percent clean, renewable energy across all sectors of the economy. We have no time to rely on market-based schemes, dubious offset programs or unproven carbon capture technologies designed to prolong the life of the fossil fuel industry.”
Hartl worries that the 100% by 2050 goal does not touch production of fossil fuels or consumption of them in ways other than on the electricity grid: “Even if we decarbonize, but we continue sucking fossil fuels out of the ground, they go places and they get exported,” he said. “We’ve already become a net exporter of fossil fuels.”
Beyond the 100% carbon-free power supply goal, the legislation also calls for mandated energy efficiency for the building sector and “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
It also includes environmental justice language, calling for frontline impacted communities to have a voice in “permitting and regulation of petrochemical facilities in their neighborhoods,” as well as calling for more stringent coal ash disposal requirements. Further, it calls for a “codification” of the environmental justice principles for minority and low-income populations currently found in a 1994 executive order signed by President Bill Clinton.
“That order established an interagency working group on environmental justice and required federal agencies to integrate environmental justice into their missions and develop comprehensive, agency-wide environmental justice strategies,” the committee states in the legislative outline. “The bill codifies those requirements in response to recommendations provided by the Government Accountability Office that codification could improve compliance and effectiveness.”
For methane emissions from oil and gas production, the bill would mandate a phaseout of the practice of flaring of natural gas as an emitted non-profitable waste byproduct of drilling by 2028. It also calls for an 80 percent reduction of 2017 levels for flaring by 2025.
The bill also calls for the creation of a “national climate bank,” modeled after state- and local-level green banks. The idea was inspired by a bill recently introduced by U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), which calls for creation of a $35 billion climate bank that some say could balloon to a value of $1 trillion. Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has also championed such a fund as part of her climate platform.
Its goal: provide funding for “low- and zero-emissions energy technologies; climate resiliency; building efficiency and electrification; industrial decarbonization; grid modernization; agriculture projects; and clean transportation,” the outline for the legislation explains.
“The provision requires the Bank to prioritize investments in communities that are disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change, including frontline, rural, low-income, and environmental justice communities,” the outline further details. “In addition, the Bank must ensure that all investments are accompanied by strong labor protections.”
“Procrastinating on Your Homework”
U.S. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that’s proposing the bill, said he sees it as an ambitious plan to tackle the climate crisis.
“Today we are providing the kind of serious federal leadership this moment requires,” said Pallone Jr. “This plan represents our commitment to achieving net zero greenhouse gas pollution. For the sake of the American people, the long-term sustainability of our economy, and public health, we must act boldly, and that is exactly what we intend to do.”
While Hartl acknowledges that he thinks all of the things found in the bill’s outline are “not terrible,” he disagrees that it counts as bold action, saying that he believes it’s “so timid” and that “we could be there much, much faster.”
“I think the reality is that these bills have so little substance and requirements that it could be business as usual for 2049,” said Hartl. “And then we wave a magic wand. And then the last year we do all the hard work. So it’s like procrastinating on your homework. And that’s the approach to this bill is taking.”
The U.S. House Committee on the Climate Crisis will also release its policy framework and recommendations by its legally mandated deadline at the end of March. Climate justice groups already fear the policies recommended will again fall short, pointing to shortcomings in the framing of its request for information from stakeholder groups, which will serve as fodder for the final report.
“Unfortunately the Select Committee’s Request for Information fails to solicit information on two of the most critical components of the climate fight: (1) addressing structural inequities that perpetuate injustice and the disproportionate impacts to frontline communities, and (2) ending fossil fuel production – the major driver of climate change,” 250 climate justice groups wrote in a Nov. 22 letter to the Select Committee which called for, instead, Green New Deal legislation. “After decades of inaction and defeatist rhetoric about what is possible, our planet can no longer afford incremental or isolated policy tweaks that appear safe to Members of Congress, most of whom will not live to see the consequences of the disastrous choices that they have made.”
Related
Republish This Story Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.


therealnews--2020-01-15--CNN Attacks Sanders in Iowa Dem Debate

CNN Attacks Sanders in Iowa Dem Debate

All donations in the US and Canada are tax deductible .
To make a secure donation by credit or debit @ @ @ @ @ location , or select PayPal .

Close window X
We encourage republication of our original content. Please copy the HTML code in the textbox below, preserving the attribution and link to the article's original location, and only make minor cosmetic edits to the content on your site.