Les lèvres du juste connaissent la grâce et la bouche des méchants la perversité. Proverbes 10: 32
Il y a une chose plus terrible que la calomnie, c’est la vérité. Talleyrand
Il y avait la vérité, il y avait le mensonge, et si l’on s’accrochait à la vérité, même contre le monde entier, on n’était pas fou. Orwell
La liberté, c’est la liberté de dire que deux et deux font quatre. Lorsque cela est accordé, le reste suit. George Orwell
I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but it doesn’t happen often, but I do. I don’t know why Israel — it has been their capital since 1949. It is where their government is. They’ve won all the wars thrown against them. I don’t understand why they don’t get to have their capital where they want. Bill Maher
L’Amérique a l’un des meilleurs présidents de tous les temps. M. Trump. J’aime Trump. J’adore Trump parce qu’il parle franchement aux Africains. Je ne sais pas s’il a été mal cité ou quoi que ce soit, mais quand il parle, je l’aime parce qu’il parle franchement.(…). Si vous regardez l’Afrique, l’Afrique fait douze fois la taille de l’Inde, en termes de superficie, beaucoup de ressources, et sa population est en croissance. Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas rendre l’Afrique forte? Yoweri Museveni
Iran received more than $100 billion in sanctions relief from the nuclear deal. Obama administration officials promised the regime would not use the sanctions relief windfall to underwrite terrorism and war and develop advanced weapons. Instead, Obama and his underlings promised it would go to ordinary Iranians. Iranian prosperity, they offered, would cause the regime to become moderate and peaceful. On Thursday Iran sanctions expert Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tweeted, “A US official I spoke to today believes Iranian expenditures on foreign adventures, nuclear research and missiles, coupled with losses from graft and corruption, have cost the regime $150b.-$200b. since the signing of the [initial draft nuclear deal with Iran in late]… in 2013.” In other words, the regime is a parasite that has lived on international welfare and the wealth of its people. Instead of developing Iranian society, Khamenei and his henchmen steal the people’s wealth and national treasure and use both to line their pockets and pay for their wars abroad. In an interview with Lee Smith at RealClearPolitics, Iranian banking expert Saeed Ghasseminejad revealed that in addition to squandering their earnings from sanctions relief, the regime has been stealing the savings of the Iranian middle class. First, regime-controlled banks, (including those that will be barred from the international financial system if Trump reinstates the sanctions) gave large loans to regime officials who never repaid them. The losses were passed to the regular account holders. Second, Ghasseminejad related details of a regime-licensed Ponzi scheme. Private banks offering high interest rates appeared out of nowhere. Their high rates attracted middle class investors who deposited their life savings. When depositors tried to withdraw their money, the banks declared bankruptcy. No one has been prosecuted and a large number of formerly middle class Iranians are now impoverished. According to Ghasseminejad, these newly impoverished Iranians are now in the streets calling for the regime to be overthrown. If Trump decides to keep sanctions frozen, it will serve as a rebuke to the protesters. And if media reports that the protests are dissipating are to be believed, then a decision by Trump to certify regime compliance with the nuclear deal will be their death knell. It isn’t that there is no risk to killing the nuclear deal. As The Jerusalem Post reported this week, in an interview with Iranian television Wednesday, Behrooz Kamalvandi, the deputy chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, threatened Trump that if he reinstates sanctions, “Iran is ready to increase the speed of its nuclear activities in various areas, especially enrichment, several times more than [in the] pre-nuclear deal era.” And he may be telling the truth. But the financial pressure on the regime will be far greater and the headwinds now facing the protesters calling for its overthrow will become a tailwind if Trump walks away from the deal. Middle class families that have not joined the protesters are more likely to take to the streets if sanctions are reinstated. Not only will they be hurt financially, they will become convinced that the regime is not invincible. Whereas the deal’s proponents insist that leaving killing the deal will harm “moderates” in the regime, if the protests tell us anything, they tell us – once again – that there is no distance between so-called “moderates” like President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif, and so-called “extremists like Revolutionary Guard Corps terror boss Qassem Suleimani. Their theft of the wealth of the Iranian people, their corruption and sponsorship of terrorism is no different than Suleimani’s. The only way to help the Iranians on the streets is to weaken the regime as a whole, because the regime as a whole oppresses the Iranian people and robs them blind. Israeli experts who were close to the Obama administration are calling for Trump to keep the deal alive. A paper published on Thursday by the left-leaning Institute for National Security Studies called for Trump to keep the deal alive, but enforce it fully. Co-authored by Obama’s ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and former security brass who oppose the Netanyahu government, the paper claimed that the US should insist that Iran open its military nuclear sites to UN inspectors. The problem with the recommendation is that there is no chance it will be implemented. Iran refuses to open its military sites to inspectors, and the Europeans side with them against the US. Trump is right that he’s damned if he maintains Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and damned if he kills the deal. But his supporters are right on this issue and the Washington establishment, Europe and the media are wrong. If Trump walks away, he will empower the Iranians calling for a new regime. He will weaken the regime’s ability to maintain its global war against the US and its allies. He will force the Europeans to abandon their love affair with the corruption kings in Tehran by making them choose between the US market and the Iranian market. And he will accomplish all of these things while freeing himself from the quarterly requirement to either lie and pretend Iran is behaving itself and be pilloried by his supporters, or tell the truth about its behavior and be pilloried by the people who always attack him. Most important, by walking away from a deal built on lies, distortion and corruption, Trump can quickly pivot to a policy based on truth. Unlike the nuclear deal, such a policy would have a chance of ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of terrorism, and its oppression of its long-suffering people once and for all. Caroline Glick
The problem he’s got there is that what he is just reported to have done in respect of the Palestinian Arabs is so similar to what he did in respect of the Vietnamese communists. That was back in 1970, when, just off active duty from the Navy after his brief tour in Vietnam, he went to Paris and met there with representatives of the Viet Cong. There’s no record — and we are not suggesting — that Mr. Kerry used with the Viet Cong the same words (“be strong” and the like) he reportedly relayed to Mr. Abbas. Then again, he didn’t have to. When Mr. Kerry returned from that long-ago trip to Paris, he started plumping in public for the Viet Cong’s talking points. Then he clambered up Capitol Hill and accused American GIs, still in the field in Vietnam, of acting like Genghis Khan and committing war crimes. Mr. Kerry eventually tried to parlay his Vietnam war story into his first presidential campaign, and for a while it looked like he might get away with it. Then, in one of the most memorable moments in American political history, his ex-comrades among the veterans of the riverine war in the Mekong Delta organized themselves as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and exposed Mr. Kerry’s duplicitous nature. In our opinion, he should have hung up his hat then. Now it seems he wants to try for the presidency again in 2020. Maybe by then we’ll see what Mr. Kerry has been saying to the Iranian ayatollahs as President Trump seeks to fulfill his electoral mandate to unravel the unratified articles of appeasement that Mr. Kerry inked with Iran. Has Mr. Kerry been quietly urging the Iranians, too, to stay strong against America until the former state secretary can ride to the rescue in the next presidential election? The New York Sun
Pas plus tard qu’hier, plus de vingt civils, des enfants pour la plupart, ont été victimes de ce qui ressemble à une attaque au gaz chloré. Ces récentes attaques en Ghouta orientale font craindre que le régime syrien de Bachar al-Assad continue à recourir aux armes chimiques contre son propre peuple. Quels que soient les auteurs de ces attaques, au final c’est à la Russie que revient la responsabilité des victimes de la Ghouta orientale et des innombrables autres civils qui ont été la cible d’armes chimiques depuis que la Russie s’est engagée dans le conflit en Syrie. En septembre 2013, la Russie a poussé, négocié et accepté l’accord-cadre pour l’élimination des armes chimiques en Syrie – un accord diplomatique entre les États-Unis et la Russie qui exigeait la destruction vérifiable de l’ensemble du stock d’armes chimiques de la Syrie. (…) En outre, en mars 2015, la Russie a soutenu l’adoption de la résolution 2209 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, soulignant que ceux qui utilisent comme arme n’importe quel produit chimique toxique, y compris le gaz chloré, devraient rendre des comptes. La Russie n’a pas respecté ces engagements. Depuis 2014 – depuis avril 2014, il y a de plus en plus de preuves que la Syrie continue à posséder illégalement des armes chimiques et à les utiliser contre ses propres citoyens. La mission d’enquête de l’OIAC a confirmé de multiples incidents liés au recours aux armes chimiques en Syrie, notamment l’usage comme arme de gaz chloré, un produit industriel toxique. Certains de ces incidents, dont l’attaque au gaz sarin du 14 avril, ont été après coup attribués à la Syrie par le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint OIAC-ONU, un groupe d’experts indépendants et impartiaux établi en août 2015 par la résolution 2235 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, avec l’appui total de la Russie. On ne peut tout simplement pas nier que la Russie, en protégeant son allié syrien, a violé les promesses qu’elle avait faites aux États-Unis en tant que garant de l’accord-cadre. Elle a trahi la Convention sur l’interdiction des armes chimiques ainsi que la résolution 2218 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, et à ces occasions, opposé à deux reprises son veto à l’encontre de résolutions du Conseil de sécurité visant à mettre en œuvre le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint et à prolonger son mandat. L’incapacité de la Russie à résoudre le problème des armes chimiques en Syrie remet en question son aptitude à résoudre la crise dans son ensemble. Au grand minimum, la Russie devrait cesser d’opposer son veto et à l’avenir, s’abstenir lors des votes du Conseil de sécurité sur ce sujet. (…) Nous en appelons à la communauté des nations responsables et civilisées afin de mettre fin à l’usage des armes chimiques. C’est à vous de choisir. Les habitants de la Ghouta orientale vous observent, le monde entier vous observe. Rex Tillerson
Real peace requires leaders who are willing to step forward, acknowledge hard truths, and make compromises. It requires leaders who look to the future, rather than dwell on past resentments. Above all, such leaders require courage. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was such a leader. (…) He said to the Israeli legislators, “You want to live with us in this part of the world. In all sincerity, I tell you, we welcome you among us, with full security and safety.” “We used to reject you,” he said. “Yet today, I tell you, and declare it to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in permanent peace based on justice.” (…) Compare those words to what Palestinian President Abbas said to the PLO Central Council 11 days ago. In his speech, President Abbas declared the landmark Oslo Peace Accords dead. He rejected any American role in peace talks. He insulted the American President. He called for suspending recognition of Israel. He invoked an ugly and fictional past, reaching back to the 17th century to paint Israel as a colonialist project engineered by European powers. (…) Curiously, President Abbas’ speech has gotten little attention in the media. I encourage anyone who cares about the cause of a durable and just peace in the Middle East to read President Abbas’ speech for yourself. A speech that indulges in outrageous and discredited conspiracy theories is not the speech of a person with the courage and the will to seek peace. Despite all of this, the United States remains fully prepared and eager to pursue peace. We have done nothing to prejudge the final borders of Jerusalem. We have done nothing to alter the status of the holy sites. We remain committed to the possibility and potential of two states, if agreed to by the parties. Just as it did with Egypt, peace requires compromise. It requires solutions that take into account the core interests of all sides. And that is what the United States is focused on for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hate-filled speeches and end-runs around negotiations take us nowhere. Ultimately, peace will not be achieved without leaders with courage. King Hussein of Jordan was another such leader. In 1994, he ended 46 years of war and entered into a peace agreement with Israel that holds to this day. (…) I ask here today, where is the Palestinian King Hussein? Where is the Palestinian Anwar Sadat? If President Abbas demonstrates he can be that type of leader, we would welcome it. His recent actions demonstrate the total opposite. The United States remains deeply committed to helping the Israelis and the Palestinians reach a historic peace agreement that brings a better future to both peoples, just as we did successfully with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. But we will not chase after a Palestinian leadership that lacks what is needed to achieve peace. To get historic results, we need courageous leaders. History has provided such leaders in the past. For the sake of the Palestinian and Israeli people, we pray it does so again. Nikki Haley
Attention: une prétendue collusion peut en cacher bien d’autres !
A l’heure où se confirment …
Pendant que nos médias nous bassinent avec la prétendue collusion de l’actuelle administration américaine avec la Russie …
Le mensonge, tu par la presse pendant 12 ans, sur les liens avec le leader antisémite noir Farrakhan d’un ancien président américain lui-même passeur de messages secrets à l’ennemi …
Comme avec le Vietcong il y a 40 ans et le régime iranien plus récemment, les trahisons de son ancien secrétaire d’Etat avec cette fois le président Abbas …
Ou, révélé au prix fort par le peuple iranien dans les rues il y a un mois, la corruption sans nom de leurs dirigeants …
Comme, mis au jour par le secrétaire d’Etat Rex Tillerson il ya cinq jours, les dissimulations de Poutine sur l’utilisation d’armes chimiques par ses affidés syriens …
Ou, de la part d’un président africain même, la réalité des récents propos volés du président américain sur les régimes faillis de la planète …
Comment ne pas se réjouir …
Le pauvre Bill Maher compris …
Après la parole de vérité du président Trump sur Jérusalem le mois dernier …
Des paroles libres et fortes de l’ambassadrice américaine à l’ONU il y a deux jours …
Au maitre-faussaire et négationniste Abbas …
Lui posant la seule question qui vaille et que personne n’avait osé lui poser depuis 40 ans :
Ou est le Sadat palestinien ?
L’ambassadrice des Etats-Unis aux Nations unies, Nikki Haley, a critiqué Mahmoud Abbas jeudi en estimant, devant le Conseil de sécurité, que le dirigeant palestinien n’avait pas le courage pour parvenir à un accord de paix.
“Nous n’allons pas courir après une gouvernance palestinienne qui n’a pas ce qu’il faut pour parvenir à la paix”, a estimé la représentante des Etats-Unis à l’ONU. “Pour obtenir des résultats historiques, nous avons besoin de dirigeants courageux”, a dit Nikki Haley.
M. Abbas “a rejeté tout rôle des Etats-Unis…Il a insulté le président américain”, a martelé l’ambassadrice. Tout en assurant que son pays était toujours “profondément engagé” pour parvenir à la paix.
“Où est le Anouar el-Sadate palestinien? Où est le Roi Hussein palestinien ?”, a fustigé la diplomate américaine.
La représentante s’est donc appuyée sur l’exemple de l’ancien Président égyptien Anouar el-Sadate. Elle a rappelé que, le 19 novembre 1977, il avait été le premier Chef d’État arabe à se rendre en Israël, où il avait pris la parole devant la Knesset pour dire de quelle manière il envisageait la paix. Elle a ensuite invoqué le Roi Hussein de Jordanie, qui a signé un traité de paix avec Israël le 26 octobre 1994. À la lumière de ces deux exemples, Mme Haley a désapprouvé les propos tenus récemment par le Président de l’Autorité palestinienne, M. Mahmoud Abbas, selon lesquels les négociations de paix seraient au point mort.
Voir aussi:
Nikki Haley to the Security Council: Where is the Palestinian Anwar Sadat?
Unwatch
January 25, 2018
Click here for YouTube.
Full transcript:
During the past year, as the representative of the United States, I have most often taken the position that this monthly session on the Middle East is miscast. As I’ve pointed out many times, this session spends far too much time on Israel and the Palestinians and far too little time on the terrorist regimes and groups that undermine peace and security in the region, chief among them Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas. That remains my view. And I expect that in future months I will continue to focus on those threats from the Middle East that draw too little attention at the UN.
However, today I will set aside my usual practice. Today, I too will focus on the issue of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. What has changed?
The events of the past month have shed light on a critical aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian problem, and it is important that we do not miss the opportunity here at the UN to bring attention to it. The aspect I will address is the single most critical element to achieving peace. No, it’s not the issues of security, borders, refugees, or settlements. All of those are important parts of a peace agreement. But the single most important element is not any of those. The indispensable element is leaders who have the will to do what’s needed to achieve peace.
Real peace requires leaders who are willing to step forward, acknowledge hard truths, and make compromises. It requires leaders who look to the future, rather than dwell on past resentments. Above all, such leaders require courage. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was such a leader. Forty years ago, President Sadat did an exceptional thing. Egypt and Israel were still in a state of war. In fact, Sadat himself had led Egypt in war with Israel only a few years before. But Sadat made the courageous decision to pursue peace. And when he made that decision, he went to Jerusalem and delivered a speech before the Israeli Knesset. That he went to the Knesset was courageous in itself.
But what took real courage was what he said there. Sadat did not go to Jerusalem on bended knee. He spoke in no uncertain terms about the hard concessions he expected from the Israelis. And then he said the words that both he and the world knew marked a turning point. He said to the Israeli legislators, “You want to live with us in this part of the world. In all sincerity, I tell you, we welcome you among us, with full security and safety.”
“We used to reject you,” he said. “Yet today, I tell you, and declare it to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in permanent peace based on justice.”
These were the words that led to peace between Egypt and Israel. It was not an easy process. It took another 16 months of tough negotiations to reach a peace treaty, and both sides made difficult compromises. But Sadat’s words helped make Israel understand that it had a partner with whom it could make those painful compromises. Some have said these were the words that got Anwar Sadat killed. But no one can question that generations of Egyptians and Israeli citizens have enjoyed a peace that has stood the test of time.
Compare those words to what Palestinian President Abbas said to the PLO Central Council 11 days ago. In his speech, President Abbas declared the landmark Oslo Peace Accords dead. He rejected any American role in peace talks. He insulted the American President. He called for suspending recognition of Israel. He invoked an ugly and fictional past, reaching back to the 17th century to paint Israel as a colonialist project engineered by European powers.
Once more, let’s contrast Sadat’s words with Abbas’. President Sadat acknowledged that some Arab leaders did not agree with him. But he told them it was his responsibility to, “exhaust all and every means in a bid to save my Egyptian Arab People and the entire Arab Nation, the horrors of new, shocking, and destructive wars.”
President Abbas also acknowledged criticism from other Arab leaders – and he, too, had a message for them. His response was “Get lost.” Curiously, President Abbas’ speech has gotten little attention in the media. I encourage anyone who cares about the cause of a durable and just peace in the Middle East to read President Abbas’ speech for yourself.
A speech that indulges in outrageous and discredited conspiracy theories is not the speech of a person with the courage and the will to seek peace.
Despite all of this, the United States remains fully prepared and eager to pursue peace. We have done nothing to prejudge the final borders of Jerusalem. We have done nothing to alter the status of the holy sites. We remain committed to the possibility and potential of two states, if agreed to by the parties.
Just as it did with Egypt, peace requires compromise. It requires solutions that take into account the core interests of all sides. And that is what the United States is focused on for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hate-filled speeches and end-runs around negotiations take us nowhere. Ultimately, peace will not be achieved without leaders with courage.
King Hussein of Jordan was another such leader. In 1994, he ended 46 years of war and entered into a peace agreement with Israel that holds to this day. When King Hussein signed the peace treaty, he said this: “These are the moments in which we live, the past and the future. When we come to live next to each other, as never before, we will be doing so, Israelis and Jordanians, together, without the need for any to observe our actions or supervise our endeavors. This is peace with dignity; this is peace with commitment.”
I ask here today, where is the Palestinian King Hussein? Where is the Palestinian Anwar Sadat? If President Abbas demonstrates he can be that type of leader, we would welcome it. His recent actions demonstrate the total opposite.
The United States remains deeply committed to helping the Israelis and the Palestinians reach a historic peace agreement that brings a better future to both peoples, just as we did successfully with the Egyptians and the Jordanians. But we will not chase after a Palestinian leadership that lacks what is needed to achieve peace. To get historic results, we need courageous leaders. History has provided such leaders in the past. For the sake of the Palestinian and Israeli people, we pray it does so again.
Thank you.
Voir également:
Département d’État des États-Unis
Allocution du secrétaire d’Etat Rex Tillerson
Le 23 janvier 2018
Paris, France
LE SECRÉTAIRE D’ÉTAT TILLERSON : Encore une fois, je voudrais remercier le ministre des Affaires étrangères, M. Le Drian, d’accueillir aujourd’hui la cérémonie de signatures pour le lancement du Partenariat international contre l’impunité d’utilisation d’armes chimiques.
Cette rencontre avait deux objectifs : mettre fin aux attaques aux armes chimiques et refuser l’impunité à ceux qui utilisent ou permettent l’utilisation de ce type d’armes. Pour savoir ce que ces armes peuvent causer aux humains, il suffit de regarder tout près de nous, en Ghouta orientale, en Syrie. Pas plus tard qu’hier, plus de vingt civils, des enfants pour la plupart, ont été victimes de ce qui ressemble à une attaque au gaz chloré.
Ces récentes attaques en Ghouta orientale font craindre que le régime syrien de Bachar al-Assad continue à recourir aux armes chimiques contre son propre peuple. Quels que soient les auteurs de ces attaques, au final c’est à la Russie que revient la responsabilité des victimes de la Ghouta orientale et des innombrables autres civils qui ont été la cible d’armes chimiques depuis que la Russie s’est engagée dans le conflit en Syrie.
En septembre 2013, la Russie a poussé, négocié et accepté l’accord-cadre pour l’élimination des armes chimiques en Syrie – un accord diplomatique entre les États-Unis et la Russie qui exigeait la destruction vérifiable de l’ensemble du stock d’armes chimiques de la Syrie.
À travers cet accord, la Russie assumait un rôle de garant, responsable de veiller à ce que son allié syrien cesse toute utilisation d’armes chimiques et déclare sans réserve son stock d’armes chimiques en vue de sa destruction sous contrôle international.
L’accord-cadre diplomatique entre États-Unis et Russie était entériné, sur le plan légal, par une décision du conseil exécutif de l’Organisation pour l’interdiction des armes chimiques (OIAC) et par la résolution 2118 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU.
En outre, en mars 2015, la Russie a soutenu l’adoption de la résolution 2209 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, soulignant que ceux qui utilisent comme arme n’importe quel produit chimique toxique, y compris le gaz chloré, devraient rendre des comptes.
La Russie n’a pas respecté ces engagements. Depuis 2014 – depuis avril 2014, il y a de plus en plus de preuves que la Syrie continue à posséder illégalement des armes chimiques et à les utiliser contre ses propres citoyens.
La mission d’enquête de l’OIAC a confirmé de multiples incidents liés au recours aux armes chimiques en Syrie, notamment l’usage comme arme de gaz chloré, un produit industriel toxique. Certains de ces incidents, dont l’attaque au gaz sarin du 14 avril, ont été après coup attribués à la Syrie par le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint OIAC-ONU, un groupe d’experts indépendants et impartiaux établi en août 2015 par la résolution 2235 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, avec l’appui total de la Russie.
On ne peut tout simplement pas nier que la Russie, en protégeant son allié syrien, a violé les promesses qu’elle avait faites aux États-Unis en tant que garant de l’accord-cadre. Elle a trahi la Convention sur l’interdiction des armes chimiques ainsi que la résolution 2218 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU[1], et à ces occasions, opposé à deux reprises[2] son veto à l’encontre de résolutions du Conseil de sécurité visant à mettre en œuvre le Mécanisme d’enquête conjoint et à prolonger son mandat.
L’incapacité de la Russie à résoudre le problème des armes chimiques en Syrie remet en question son aptitude à résoudre la crise dans son ensemble. Au grand minimum, la Russie devrait cesser d’opposer son veto et à l’avenir, s’abstenir lors des votes du Conseil de sécurité sur ce sujet.
Plus de 25 pays partageant ces idées sont ici aujourd’hui pour faire en sorte que ceux qui recourent aux armes chimiques en seront un jour tenus responsables. La France, le Royaume-Uni, la Turquie et bien d’autres sont ici aujourd’hui pour faire respecter la Convention sur l’interdiction des armes chimiques et sa vision d’un monde débarrassé de ces armes abominables.
Nous utiliserons ce Partenariat pour faciliter les échanges de données sur les utilisations d’armes chimiques, y compris des informations sur les sanctions, pour collecter et préserver ces données et pour renforcer les compétences des États afin qu’ils puissent établir les responsabilités des acteurs impliqués. Cette initiative veut adresser un avertissement à ceux qui ont ordonné et exécuté des attaques à l’arme chimique : un jour vous devrez rendre des comptes de vos crimes contre l’humanité et justice sera rendue à vos victimes.
Nous en appelons à la communauté des nations responsables et civilisées afin de mettre fin à l’usage des armes chimiques. C’est à vous de choisir. Les habitants de la Ghouta orientale vous observent, le monde entier vous observe.
Je vous remercie.
[1] Résolution 2118 du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU
[2] La Russie a opposé trois fois son veto à ces résolutions de mise en œuvre du Conseil de sécurité
Voir de même:
Our World: Curing Trump’s quarterly Iran headache
Trump is right that he’s damned if he maintains Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and damned if he kills the deal
Caroline B. Glick
The Jerusalem Post
January 11, 2018
It’s that time of the year again. In accordance with the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act, by Sunday US President Donald Trump must either certify that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal his predecessor Barack Obama concluded with the Iranian regime, or he must announce that Iran is breaching the accord.
Last October, after angrily certifying compliance at his two previous deadlines, Trump decertified Iranian compliance.
Trump could have walked away from the nuclear deal by reinstating the sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas industries, its banking sector and other foundations of Iran’s economy that were lifted when the deal was implemented. Doing so would have effectively killed the nuclear accord.
But Trump opted instead to pass the burden on to Congress. He gave lawmakers 90 days to put together a new sanctions bill that he would sign that could punish Iran’s misbehavior while presumably leaving the nuclear deal intact.
Congress failed to respond. No sanctions were passed. Democrats, keen to protect Obama’s most significant foreign policy legacy, have promised to filibuster any sanctions bill.
So now it is Trump’s problem to deal with, again. And he faces the same options.
Trump can stick with the deal, or he can walk away.
Media reports from the past two days indicate that Trump has opted to stick with the deal. Trump’s National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster has convinced him to certify Iranian compliance.
Reportedly, Trump’s biggest problem with the nuclear deal is not that it gives Iran a clear path to the bomb inside of a decade. It is that the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act requires him to revisit the issue every 90 days.
The certification process puts Trump in a no-win situation. If he certifies Iranian compliance, he angers his supporters and the overwhelming majority of Republican lawmakers. If he refuses to certify Iranian compliance, he will face the wrath of the media, the Washington foreign policy establishment, and the European Union.
All of the deal’s defenders argue that canceling it will destabilize the international security environment while empowering Iran’s “hard-liners.”
On Wednesday The Washington Free Beacon reported that McMaster, together with Sens. Bob Corker and Ben Cardin, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, respectively, are lobbying Trump to agree to a package that would amend the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act to strip him of the need to recertify Iranian compliance every 90 days. As for sanctions, the amended law would call for sanctions to be reinstated in six years, if Iran is not complying with the agreement.
The implications of McMaster’s reported proposal are enormous. Trump would lose his power to abrogate the deal, while Iran would be immune from sanctions until a really long time from now. The US would lose its leverage against the deal in respect not only to Iran but toward the Europeans, Russians and Chinese as well.
On the face of it, McMaster is right to want to keep the Iranian nuclear issue on the back burner. After all, there is the nuclear crisis with North Korea to consider. Moreover, the Europeans are dead set on protecting the deal.
On Thursday, the EU’s Foreign Affairs Commissioner Frederica Mogherini and her French, British and German counterparts met in Brussels with Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif to pledge their allegiance to the nuclear deal and stand as one against a possible US pullout from the agreement.
The Europeans will certainly be very angry if Trump walks away from the deal they made with Obama. But then, it isn’t clear why that should matter. Aside from passive aggressively voting against the US at the UN, as they did last month, Mogherini and her comrades don’t have much leverage. Will they prefer economic deals with Iran to their trade with the US?
THIS BRINGS us to North Korea.
Iran and North Korea are partners in nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation. They partnered in building the nuclear installation in Syria that Israel reportedly destroyed in September 2007. Iran’s ballistic missiles are based on North Korean designs. Iranians have reportedly been present during North Korea’s nuclear tests.
All of this information is public knowledge, and we can only speculate how much deeper their collaboration actually is. Given what is known and must be assumed about their collaboration, it is beyond foolish to treat the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs as unrelated to each other.
If North Korea cannot be set aside, neither can Iran.
Then there is the fact that hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been on the streets for weeks calling for the overthrow of the regime due to its squandering of Iran’s national wealth on wars and graft.
Nuclear deal supporters insist that reinstating sanctions will only harm the protesters. The regime, they argue, is not harmed by sanctions. The regime passes the economic losses Iran incurs from sanctions onto ordinary citizens. They suffer while the regime prospers through whatever sanctions busting trades they concoct with the Turks, Qataris, Russians and Chinese.
This claim is both morally repugnant and contradicted by the protests themselves.
If the regime were able to support itself without pilfering from the public, there wouldn’t be any protesters on the streets calling for Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to die.
Iran received more than $100 billion in sanctions relief from the nuclear deal. Obama administration officials promised the regime would not use the sanctions relief windfall to underwrite terrorism and war and develop advanced weapons. Instead, Obama and his underlings promised it would go to ordinary Iranians. Iranian prosperity, they offered, would cause the regime to become moderate and peaceful.
On Thursday Iran sanctions expert Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies tweeted, “A US official I spoke to today believes Iranian expenditures on foreign adventures, nuclear research and missiles, coupled with losses from graft and corruption, have cost the regime $150b.-$200b. since the signing of the [initial draft nuclear deal with Iran in late]… in 2013.”
In other words, the regime is a parasite that has lives on international welfare and the wealth of its people. Instead of developing Iranian society, Khamenei and his henchmen steal the people’s wealth and national treasure and use both to line their pockets and pay for their wars abroad.
In an interview with Lee Smith at RealClearPolitics, Iranian banking expert Saeed Ghasseminejad revealed that in addition to squandering their earnings from sanctions relief, the regime has been stealing the savings of the Iranian middle class. First, regime-controlled banks, (including those that will be barred from the international financial system if Trump reinstates the sanctions) gave large loans to regime officials who never repaid them. The losses were passed to the regular account holders.
Second, Ghasseminejad related details of a regime-licensed Ponzi scheme. Private banks offering high interest rates appeared out of nowhere. Their high rates attracted middle class investors who deposited their life savings.
When depositors tried to withdraw their money, the banks declared bankruptcy.
No one has been prosecuted and a large number of formerly middle class Iranians are now impoverished.
According to Ghasseminejad, these newly impoverished Iranians are now in the streets calling for the regime to be overthrown.
If Trump decides to keep sanctions frozen, it will serve as a rebuke to the protesters. And if media reports that the protests are dissipating are to be believed, then a decision by Trump to certify regime compliance with the nuclear deal will be their death knell.
It isn’t that there is no risk to killing the nuclear deal. As The Jerusalem Post reported this week, in an interview with Iranian television Wednesday, Behrooz Kamalvandi, the deputy chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, threatened Trump that if he reinstates sanctions, “Iran is ready to increase the speed of its nuclear activities in various areas, especially enrichment, several times more than [in the] pre-nuclear deal era.”
And he may be telling the truth.
But the financial pressure on the regime will be far greater and the headwinds now facing the protesters calling for its overthrow will become a tailwind if Trump walks away from the deal. Middle class families that have not joined the protesters are more likely to take to the streets if sanctions are reinstated. Not only will they be hurt financially, they will become convinced that the regime is not invincible.
Whereas the deal’s proponents insist that leaving killing the deal will harm “moderates” in the regime, if the protests tell us anything, they tell us – once again – that there is no distance between so-called “moderates” like President Hassan Rouhani and Zarif, and so-called “extremists like Revolutionary Guard Corps terror boss Qassem Suleimani. Their theft of the wealth of the Iranian people, their corruption and sponsorship of terrorism is no different than Suleimani’s. The only way to help the Iranians on the streets is to weaken the regime as a whole, because the regime as a whole oppresses the Iranian people and robs them blind.
Israeli experts who were close to the Obama administration are calling for Trump to keep the deal alive. A paper published on Thursday by the left-leaning Institute for National Security Studies called for Trump to keep the deal alive, but enforce it fully.
Co-authored by Obama’s ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro and former security brass who oppose the Netanyahu government, the paper claimed that the US should insist that Iran open its military nuclear sites to UN inspectors.
The problem with the recommendation is that there is no chance it will be implemented. Iran refuses to open its military sites to inspectors, and the Europeans side with them against the US.
Trump is right that he’s damned if he maintains Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran and damned if he kills the deal. But his supporters are right on this issue and the Washington establishment, Europe and the media are wrong.
If Trump walks away, he will empower the Iranians calling for a new regime. He will weaken the regime’s ability to maintain its global war against the US and its allies. He will force the Europeans to abandon their love affair with the corruption kings in Tehran by making them choose between the US market and the Iranian market.
And he will accomplish all of these things while freeing himself from the quarterly requirement to either lie and pretend Iran is behaving itself and be pilloried by his supporters, or tell the truth about its behavior and be pilloried by the people who always attack him.
Most important, by walking away from a deal built on lies, distortion and corruption, Trump can quickly pivot to a policy based on truth. Unlike the nuclear deal, such a policy would have a chance of ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its sponsorship of terrorism, and its oppression of its long-suffering people once and for all.
Voir encore:
Deafening is the word for the silence that has greeted the report that Secretary of State Kerry has sent a message urging the Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas to stay strong and resist American policy in the Middle East. This supposedly took place at a meeting between Mr. Kerry and an longtime ally of Mr. Abbas, Hussein Agha, who has long been involved on the Palestinian side of the so-called peace process.
At that meeting, according to reports in the Israeli newspaper Maariv and the Jerusalem Post, Mr. Kerry asked Mr. Agha to encourage Mr. Abbas to “hold on and be strong” in the face of “Trump’s demands.” And to “play for time.” Mr. Kerry sought to reassure his interlocutor with the news that he was considering making another run for the presidency in 2020, the implication being that if so, things would go better for the Palestinian Arabs.
Even in an age as cynical as ours, this is an appalling thing from a former state secretary. “It is hard to imagine anything more contemptible. Or delusional,” writes John Hinderaker of Powerline in one of his understatements. Yet there has been reaction from neither President Obama, who employed Mr. Kerry as state secretary, nor Hillary Clinton, Mr. Kerry’s predecessor at Foggy Bottom and theoretical head of what’s left of his political party.
It may be, of course, that Mr. Kerry is going to turn around and deny the report. Good luck with that. The problem he’s got there is that what he is just reported to have done in respect of the Palestinian Arabs is so similar to what he did in respect of the Vietnamese communists. That was back in 1970, when, just off active duty from the Navy after his brief tour in Vietnam, he went to Paris and met there with representatives of the Viet Cong.
There’s no record — and we are not suggesting — that Mr. Kerry used with the Viet Cong the same words (“be strong” and the like) he reportedly relayed to Mr. Abbas. Then again, he didn’t have to. When Mr. Kerry returned from that long-ago trip to Paris, he started plumping in public for the Viet Cong’s talking points. Then he clambered up Capitol Hill and accused American GIs, still in the field in Vietnam, of acting like Genghis Khan and committing war crimes.
Mr. Kerry eventually tried to parlay his Vietnam war story into his first presidential campaign, and for a while it looked like he might get away with it. Then, in one of the most memorable moments in American political history, his ex-comrades among the veterans of the riverine war in the Mekong Delta organized themselves as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and exposed Mr. Kerry’s duplicitous nature. In our opinion, he should have hung up his hat then.
Now it seems he wants to try for the presidency again in 2020. Maybe by then we’ll see what Mr. Kerry has been saying to the Iranian ayatollahs as President Trump seeks to fulfill his electoral mandate to unravel the unratified articles of appeasement that Mr. Kerry inked with Iran. Has Mr. Kerry been quietly urging the Iranians, too, to stay strong against America until the former state secretary can ride to the rescue in the next presidential election?
Voir encore:
Le photographe, Askia Muhammad, a déclaré au Trice Edney News Wire qu’il avait «laissé tomber la photo à ce moment-là et qu’il avait essentiellement juré de garder le secret».
« Après que la nomination aot été assurée et tout le chemin jusqu’à l’inauguration; puis pendant les huit années qu’Obama a été président, cette photo a été gardée à l’abri « , a déclaré Muhammad.
Interrogé pour savoir s’il pensait que la publication de la photo aurait affecté la campagne présidentielle d’Obama, Muhammad a déclaré: « J’insiste. Cela aurait absolument fait une différence. »
Voir enfin:
Alors que les propos attribués au président américain à l’endroit des pays africains continuent de susciter une vague d’indignation sur le continent et au-delà, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni n’a pas hésité à déclarer que Trump «parle franchement aux Africains». Une déclaration annoncée par le président ougandais en début de semaine devant les membres du Parlement des pays d’Afrique de l’Est (AEC) qui tenait sa réunion à Kampala, la capitale ougandaise.
Pour Museveni, «l’Amérique a l’un des meilleurs présidents de tous les temps. M. Trump. J’aime Trump», a-t-il déclaré.
«J’adore Trump parce qu’il parle franchement aux Africains. Je ne sais pas s’il a été mal cité ou quoi que ce soit, mais quand il parle, je l’aime parce qu’il parle franchement.(…). Si vous regardez l’Afrique, l’Afrique fait douze fois la taille de l’Inde, en termes de superficie, beaucoup de ressources, et sa population est en croissance. Pourquoi ne pouvons-nous pas rendre l’Afrique forte?», a ajouté Yoweri Museveni.
Des propos que le président ougandais tient à assumer en s’appuyant sur ces propres arguments. « C’est la faute des Africains s’ils sont faibles. Ils ont cet immense Continent et ils devraient donc être plus forts».
Nouvelle polémique
La vidéo de l’allocution du président ougandais, du haut de la tribune où se tenait l’évènement, a été aussitôt relayée par les médias du pays et a fait le tour du web suscitant divers commentaires. Si certains s’accordent à reconnaître à Trump le mérite d’être un «un homme qui parle avec franchise, peu importe les réactions des autres», d’autres mettent en avant le mérite du président ougandais d’avoir déclaré tout haut ce que beaucoup d’Africains pensent tout bas des déclarations attribuées à Trump.
Les dires du président américain ont en effet provoqué un véritable tollé sur le Continent et plusieurs chefs d’Etat se sont joints à l’indignation généralisée contre les propos que le président Trump n’a jamais assumés. Le 45e président des Etats-Unis a toutefois reconnu que même s’ils n’ont pas été bien rapportés, les propos qu’il a tenus «étaient certes très durs».
Le président Museveni a lui-même été accusé de n’être pas le mieux placé pour donner des leçons de morale au regard de son parcours politique, en particulier ses années à la tête du pays. En poste depuis 1986, puis réélu en 2016, Museveni vient, encore une fois, de faire repousser, par le Parlement, la limité d’âge qui l’empêchait jusque-là de briguer un sixième mandat à la tête du pays.