Mediaboss Marketing

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley has branded Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as "a war criminal,' who has been protected by Russia and Iran in the Security Council for far too long.

She told Fox News the Trump administration hopes Assad will be brought to justice for the overwhelming humanitarian crisis and continued carnage that has torn his nation apart.

She also blamed the Obama administration for not acting sooner to try and prevent the war.

"The previous administration needs to take responsibility for that, as well," she said. "First of all, Assadhe's a war criminal. He's used chemical weapons on his own people. He's not allowing aid to come in. He is very much a deterrence to peace. But then you look at the fact that the Security Council has to acknowledge when the chemical weapons -- we had proof that he used it three times on his own people. Why aren't we dealing with that?

"Then, you know, you have to look at the Iranian influence and the fact that we've got to get that out. Syria is in such sad shape, but it doesn't have to be that way. If you look back, so many things could have been done to prevent where we are today. And that's what we need to focus on now."

Haley, who resigned as governor of South Carolina when the Senate approved her nomination in January, has been a quick learner in her new arena, observers say, who has brought a blunt message from the Trump administration to the international diplomats at the world body on several issues.

She calls North Korea, "a threat to the world," and demands that Beijing impose sanctions on Kim Jong-un's regime for its continued nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

"It all comes down to China," Haley says. "They could put enough pressure on North Korea to get them to step back. Now it's time for them to prove it."

She is clear about her role at the U.N.

"I think that the United States has always been the moral compass of the world. And I think we are generous by nature. And we want to see people safe. We don't want to see people starve. We don't want to see people treated -- mistreated by their governments," she said, noting that her first goal is to bring American values...and the nation's voice...back to the organization that she says has gotten "stale."

Haley intends to focus on human rights, the U.N. budget, peacekeeping reform, and addressing the wrongs that have plagued the world body.

"Leadership is just letting them know what we're for, what we're against, have the backs of our allies and make sure they keep the backs of us, and then anyone that challenges us, call them out. Let them know what we think is wrong. That's all this is just making sure we're changing the culture to showing strength from the United States again, action and making sure that we show value in the United Nations. I think it's important for the American people."

The Trump administration has proposed deep cuts in the U.S. contribution to the U.N.'s budget. American taxpayers currently pay upwards of $2.8 billion to fund the world body's regular and peacekeeping operations. The White House has proposed slicing the U.S. contribution by almost half, $1 billion.

According to the U.N.'s own figures, the U.S. is responsible for just over 28 percent of the peacekeeping budget, which the Trump administration has sought to cut by 3 percent, for a total contribution of 25 percent. That amount, however, would still be more than double the next largest contributors, China and Japan...about four times more than Germany, France and Great Britain...and six times more than Russia.

Haley insisted any reductions will not harm the peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts, denying the fears expressed by some that refugees could starve, children will not get UNICEF innoculations, and peacekeeping deployments would be crippled.

"What we want is for people to be safe. We want the aid to get in," she sayid, noting that her fellow diplomats share the same goals.

"All of the other countries are saying, 'yes we think that too.' They want to see peacekeeping reform. They want to see management reform. They want to see the U.N. become more active and go back to the mission."

On Friday, the Security Council unanimously voted to slightly reduce the troop level of the peacekeeping forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Haley told Fox News that the biggest surprise since her arrival two months ago, is what she called the U.N.'s "anti-Israeli bias," citing meetings on the Middle East that focus only on the Jewish State.

"They're not talking about we would care about. They're not talking about Syria. They're not talking about Iran. They're not talking about North Korea. What they are talking about is Israel. Every single month, for 10 years, they've been Israel bashing. And that was something that I just couldn't believe they put the time and energy into doing that, when we have so many threats around the world."

"I think she's great," Haleys Israeli counterpart, Israel's United Nations Ambassador Danny Danon, told Fox News when asked how he thinks she is doing.

"She comes with her values, her tools, and that's what we need at the U.N., to bring the U.N. back to its core values. The U.N. is a good institution, but it was kidnapped by evil forces and I believe with Ambassador Haley, and my team, we can work together, and maybe, maybe change the U.N. and bring it back to what it should be."

Haley points to several changes that have occurred under her watch, from preventing the appointment of a former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority until the P.A. engages in peace talks, to the resignation of a U.N. official who released a report branding Israel as an "apartheid state."

"Its changing, and the tone is getting better," she notes.

"And not only that, I think they're tired of me yelling at them about Israel bashing."

Ben Evansky contributed to this report.

Follow Eric Shawn on Twitter: @EricShawnTV

More here:
Haley: Assad a 'war criminal' protected by Russia, Iran - Fox News

Iran has expressed reservations about the appointment of former Pakistan Army chief Gen Raheel Sharif as head of the Islamic Military Alliance created by Saudi Arabia, prompting Islamabad to step up efforts to assuage Tehran.

We are concerned about this issue...that it may impact the unity of Islamic countries, Mehdi Honardoost, Irans envoy to Pakistan, told the media. This was the first time Iran publicly expressed its displeasure on the issue.

Pakistan contacted Iranian officials before issuing a no-objection certificate to Sharif to take up the position of head of the 39-nation military alliance, but this did not indicate that Iran was satisfied with this decision or it had accepted the same, Honardoost was quoted as saying by state-run IRNA news agency.

Defence minister Khawaja Asif said earlier this month the Pakistan government had cleared Sharif to take up the job following a formal request from Saudi Arabia.

Islamabads decision is set to further complicate fraught Pakistan-Iran relations, especially at a time when Saudi Arabia and Iran are jockeying for influence in hot spots across the Middle East.

Read more

Foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua said on Tuesday that the Islamic Military Alliance wasnt against any country and that Sharif will not act against Iran. She told a parliamentary committee on foreign affairs: The Islamic alliance is against terrorism, not any country.

She added Pakistan is making efforts to reduce tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is difficult for Pakistan to maintain equal relations with both countries but Pakistan will not go against Irans interests, she said.

Pakistani officials confirmed they intend to reach out to the Iranian government to address Tehrans concerns. Officials told the media that Pakistan has clearly informed Saudi Arabia that it would not become part of any campaign against any country, including Iran.

Gen Qamar Bajwa, the current Pakistan Army chief, took the Iranian leadership into confidence and Sartaj Aziz, adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairs, travelled to Tehran in late February to address Irans concerns. Bajwa might also visit Iran to assuage the fears of the Iranian leadership over the controversial alliance.

Raheel Sharif reportedly accepted the offer to head the alliance on the condition that countries such as Iran would be invited to join it in order to make it a broad-based initiative and dispel impressions about its sectarian outlook.

But Iranian envoy Honardoost said Tehran had informed Islamabad that Iran would not become part of such a military alliance. Iran had not been extended an offer to join a coalition of this sort, he added.

He proposed that all important Islamic countries come together to form a coalition of peace to resolve issues rather (than) forming a controversial military alliance.

Read more

Iran is known to have opposed the Saudi initiative because of its serious differences over the current unrest in the Middle East, particularly in Syria and Yemen.

Just days before Pakistan issued the no-objection certificate to Raheel Sharif, the Iranian envoy visited the General Headquarters, where Gen Qamar Bajwa gave him a categorical assurance that Islamabads decision would not hurt Tehrans interests.

Bajwa also informed Honardoost that Pakistan values its bilateral ties with Iran, The Express Tribune reported. Bajwa also said Pakistan had never objected to Irans close ties with India and, therefore, Islamabad expected Tehran to respect the decision over the Saudi alliance.

Pakistan has found itself in the crosshairs of Middle Eastern politics as Saudi Arabia named it part of the military alliance without first getting Islamabads consent. After initial ambiguity, Islamabad confirmed its participation in the alliance.

Sharifs appointment had been criticised by some politicians, retired army officers and intellectuals, who questioned the former army chiefs decision. Opposition parties, including the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, too are skeptical of Sharifs role in the alliance.

Both parties consider the decision a violation of a parliamentary resolution passed in April 2015 that called for Pakistan to maintain a policy of neutrality, particularly in the conflict in Yemen.

Link:
Iran upset with Pakistan's Raheel Sharif heading Islamic Military Alliance - Hindustan Times

Tensions in the Gulf are increasing. In the past two months alone, several incidents have been reported of Iran "harassing" foreign navy ships.

On March 25, United States Navy commanders accused Iran of harassing warships going through the Strait of Hormuz. Two weeks earlier, several Iranian assault craft came dangerously close to both a US and a British navy ship. A similar incident occurred earlier that same month.

Commanders of Irans armed forces have had mixed reactions. They have variously rejected some accusations, thrown the blame on to the other side or issued warnings. In the latest statements, Brig Gen Masoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of Irans armed forces, said: "We emphasise that the Americans would be responsible for any unrest in the Gulf and again warn that the US military must change its behaviour."

All this may lead to the belief that there is going to be a direct armed confrontation between Iran and the US in the Gulf. However, it is extremely unlikely that these minor clashes and rhetoric would lead to what would be a grave military miscalculation that would turn Gulf tensions into a regional conflagration.

The major reasons for my argument are anchored in the history of Iran-US relations in the Gulf, as well as the fact that it is not in the political interests of Irans ruling clerics to engage in a war with the US, despite the rhetoric.

First, Americas military capabilities are much superior to those of Iran. The US military could single-handedly destroy, or significantly damage, Iran's conventional armed forces and military infrastructure in a matter of weeks. In any hypothetical war other global and regional powers are more likely to ally with the US because Tehran has repeatedly threatened to shut the Strait of Hormuz, which is vital to the oil trade, and inflict damage on other Gulf states. Such a war would significantly damage Irans economy because nearly 70 per cent of its revenues originate from oil exports passing through the strait. Moreover, Irans leaders are aware that a large number of their own people are disenchanted and disaffected with the government. An external war might offer a ripe environment for civil unrest.

Tehran might employ its asymmetric warfare capabilities; it may sporadically hit some targets in the Gulf with its missiles, or affect the global oil market by causing prices to rocket. But all these consequences are temporary and can be contained.

We should remember that the key objective of Irans ruling political establishment is to hold on to power. A Gulf war would be suicidal and have devastating strategic, political and economic consequences for Tehran.

So why does Irans Revolutionary Guard Corps provoke and make dangerous military manoeuvres in the Gulf?

First of all, Iranian leaders are attempting to set the tone with the Trump administration by resorting to the classic tactic of rhetoric and showing off.

In the past four decades, Iran has learnt that tactics such as harassing US ships or taking American navy hostages have always made the US back away.

Tehran is also attempting to show how strategically important it is. For Iran, projecting power over the Strait of Hormuz and reminding the world of its nuclear programme are the way to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republics political establishment from foreign threats.

Finally, Iranian leaders are attempting to appeal to the nationalistic sentiments of their own population. Broadcasting Iranian generals bragging about Irans power and how they forced the US to retreat is a powerful domestic tool.

Since 1979, Iranian media has directed headlines towards its "enemies" in the Gulf and beyond, and it has created a state of constant emergency regarding national security to divert attention from domestic problems such as economic mismanagement, poverty, corruption and unemployment.

Dr Majid Rafizadeh is an Iranian-American political scientist and president of the International American Council

The rest is here:
Iran's agitation in the Gulf hides defeat at home - The National

By Phil Stewart | QAYYARA WEST AIRFIELD, Iraq

QAYYARA WEST AIRFIELD, Iraq President Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner traveled with the top U.S. general to an Iraqi base 10 miles (16 km) from Mosul on Tuesday, and voiced hope the city's eventual recapture from Islamic State would be "a victory for the world".

Kushner was on the second day of a trip to Iraq as the guest of Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff. The visit to the Hammam al-Alil base allowed them to get an operational briefing from Iraqi and U.S. commanders.

The trip has demonstrated the far-reaching portfolio of Kushner, 36, who is part of Trump's innermost circle and who has been given a wide range of domestic and foreign policy responsibilities, including working on a Middle East peace deal. His views on Iraq could shape Trump's own opinions.

It comes as Trump is examining ways to accelerate a U.S.-led coalition campaign that U.S. and Iraqi officials say has so far been largely successful in uprooting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

Mosul is by far the biggest city ever to have been held by Islamic State, and winning it back would largely destroy the Iraqi part of the group's "caliphate", proclaimed from a Mosul mosque in 2014.

Although Trump campaigned on defeating Islamic State, he has not yet announced any major changes to war strategy. The Mosul battle, the biggest in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, has been under way since October, with 100,000 Iraqi troops, Kurdish fighters and Shi'ite militiamen seeking to drive out the militants with the support of U.S.-led air strikes.

Speaking after lengthy battlefield reports from two Iraqi generals, Kushner sounded upbeat about the campaign and said the partnership between U.S. and Iraqi troops was "very impressive". He also expressed hope that partnership would be enduring, signaling White House interest in longer-term U.S. military assistance.

"I hope the victory that you have in Mosul in the near future will not just be a victory for the American and Iraqi troops but it will be a victory for the world," Kushner said.

ISLAMIC STATE CALLS TRUMP "IDIOT"

On Tuesday, Islamic State issued its first official remarks referring to Trump since he assumed the U.S. presidency in January, describing him as an "idiot".

"You (the U.S.) are bankrupt and the signs of your demise are evident to every eye," spokesman Abi al-Hassan al-Muhajer said in a recording released on the messaging network Telegram.

"...There is no more evidence than (that) you being run by an idiot who does not know what Syria or Iraq or Islam is."

Kushner's trip is his first to Iraq and the visit to Hamman al-Alil, where U.S. advisors and artillery are positioned to assist the battle in Mosul, was also the closest Dunford has gotten to Mosul since the campaign began.

Iraqi security forces are engaged in fierce, house-to-house fighting in Mosul. Nearly 290,000 people have fled the city to escape the fighting, according to the United Nations, and it has had a heavy toll on civilians trapped in the city.

The advance has been slowed since March 17, when scores of people sheltering from air strikes were killed in a blast. The United States has acknowledged it may have had some kind of role in the incident but also said Islamic State may be to blame. A U.S. investigation is ongoing.

Dunford assured the Iraqi generals of continued U.S. support despite the civilian deaths.

Although the loss of Mosul would deal a major defeat to Islamic State, U.S. and Iraqi officials are preparing for smaller battles even after the city is recaptured and expect the group to go underground to fight as a traditional insurgency.

(Reporting by Phil Stewart; editing by Peter Graff)

WASHINGTON U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that his administration is working on changes to Dodd-Frank banking regulations that will make it easier for banks to loan money.

WASHINGTON President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress lurched between repealing Obamacare or rewriting the U.S. tax code as their top priority, with House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday dampening White House hopes for a quick vote on healthcare legislation.

NEW YORK A U.S. judge said he will inquire further into whether former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey can represent a Turkish gold trader charged with conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions against Iran.

More:
In Iraq, Trump's son-in-law Kushner goes to base 10 miles from Mosul - Reuters

Fourteen years ago this week, President George W. Bush addressed the American people from the Oval Office as the first U.S. bombs were being dropped on Baghdad in Operation Iraqi Freedom. U.S. forces, Bush declared, were leading the civilized world against a dictator in Saddam Hussein who committed so many human rights violations and crimes against his own people that he was a direct threat to human decency.

In the words of the president, "American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." The United States of America, the greatest country on earth, would bring the Iraqi people the freedom that all men and women are preordained for.

As we've learned over the intervening years, the invasion of Iraq, while well-intentioned, did not turn out as anticipated.

Although Hussein was deposed in less than a month, the picture of a clean, easy and historical achievement predicted by neoconservatives proved to be a grossly incompetent assessment that strained America's armed forces and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Iraq today is more volatile and dangerous than in 2003, and Iran has increased its influence in the country and throughout the region.

The problem, of course, wasn't that the war was simply mismanaged; it was that the invasion shouldn't have happened in the first place. The tactics were wrong, the strategy was wrong, and the idea that the United States could simply overthrow a regime and replace it with a Western-style parliamentary democracy with relative ease was so devoid of history that one wonders who would conjure up the thought.

By the time President Obama pulled out all U.S. combat troops from Iraq in December 2011, the U.S. nation-building project was for all intents and purposes an unmitigated failure.

The problem wasn't that U.S. troops couldn't perform at a stellar level. Far from it; the men and women who volunteered to serve their country did everything that policymakers in Washington ordered them to do, at a considerable cost to their own lives and their mental health.

More than 4,800 U.S. soldiers gave their lives to a mission that was strategically doomed to fail from the start. Twenty-something from the heartland were all of a sudden thrust into a highly charged environment and asked to build schools, pave roads, teach Iraq's warring communities to stop shooting at each other; help manufacture an accountable, transparent and corruption-free government; and protect Iraqis from pervasive sectarian violence, some of which was enabled by their own government.

U.S. soldiers were ordered to act as social engineers and guidance counselors, hoping that just enough poking, prodding and pleading would guide Iraq's political leaders toward the right path.

This is not to suggest that there weren't accomplishments for the United States in Iraq there were plenty at the tactical level. Al Qaeda was swept from Fallujah in the most intense urban warfare that the U.S. Marine Corps experienced since the Vietnam War. The infusion of 20,000 additional U.S. troops during the 2007-2008 surge helped temporarily decrease sectarian violence in Baghdad.

These tactical achievements deserve recognition, for they were only made possible due to the dedication and sacrifice of the corporals, sergeants and captains on the ground.

Unfortunately, all the tactical victories in the world could not and did not persuade Iraq's political leaders to act responsibility and govern for the good of all Iraqis rather than for their own parochial and sectarian interests.

The zero-sum mentality of Iraqi politics persists to this day.

To many national-security hawks in Washington, both inside the U.S. government and in the think-tank universe, Americans have overlearned the legacy of Iraq. Yet the entire Iraq imbroglio was such a blunder and such a disaster to regional stability that it would be foolish for policymakers to discard the hard-learned lessons of that conflict.

History need not repeat itself.

The Iraq experiment was more than just an unfortunate chapter in American history. In fact, we ask for a repetition of the Iraq experiment if we take the hawks' advice going down the road yet again where regime change and democratic promotion at the point of a gun is viewed as a plausible policy option for the United States.

Our elites fail to understand how the unwise Iraq invasion worsened America's national security interests in the Middle East.

The lessons from this well-intentioned but misguided operation are numerous and applicable to this day. We dismiss them at our own peril: Blind hubris should never be substituted for clear-eyed analysis in our foreign policy deliberations.Understanding the proper use and limitations of military power would enhance our security and save us perhaps trillions of dollars.

War planning must constantly face rigorous questioning; policymakers must always think three steps ahead; assumptions must be challenged at every turn; and regime change, a failed and costly pursuit, should be avoided unless absolutely necessary and authorized by Congress.

Fourteen years after Bush declared a fight for freedom, democracy and humanity against a blood-curdling dictator, the legacy of Iraq still hovers over Washington like a dark storm cloud.

And hover it should. It is a clear example of noble intentions getting mugged by reality, and how dangerous it can be to let spreading democracy guide our foreign policy rather than a sober analysis of America's vital national security interests.

Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow atDefense Prioritiesand a Middle East and foreign policy analyst at Wikistrat. He has written for The National Interest, Rare Politics and The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter@dandepetris.

The views of contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

See the original post here:
14 years later, have we really learned from Iraq? - The Hill (blog)