Trump, frustrated by advisers, is not convinced the time is right to attack Iran

National security adviser John Bolton listens as President Trump meets with Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán in the Oval Office of the White House on Monday. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

By John Hudson ,Shane Harris,Josh DawseyandAnne Gearan-May 15 at 11:35 PM

The Trump administration has been on high alert in response to what military and intelligence officials have deemed specific and credible threats from Iran against U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

But President Trump is frustrated with some of his top advisers, who he thinks could rush the United States into a military confrontation with Iran and shatter his long-standing pledge to withdraw from costly foreign wars, according to several U.S. officials. Trump prefers a diplomatic approach to resolving tensions and wants to speak directly with Iran’s leaders.

Disagreements over assessing and responding to the recent intelligence — which includes a directive from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that some American officials interpret as a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East — are also fraying alliances with foreign allies, according to multiple officials in the United States and Europe.

Trump grew angry last week and over the weekend about what he sees as warlike planning that is getting ahead of his own thinking, said a senior administration official with knowledge of conversations Trump had regarding national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

“They are getting way out ahead of themselves, and Trump is annoyed,” the official said. “There was a scramble for Bolton and Pompeo and others to get on the same page.”

Bolton, who advocated regime change in Iran before joining the White House last year, is “just in a different place” from Trump, although the president has been a fierce critic of Iran since long before he hired Bolton. Trump “wants to talk to the Iranians; he wants a deal” and is open to negotiation with the Iranian government, the official said.

Under President Trump, United States-Iranian relations have taken a decisive turn for the worse. 
Here's a brief history of the tumultuous relationship. (Joyce Lee/The Washington Post)

“He is not comfortable with all this ‘regime change’ talk,” which to his ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the 2003 U.S. invasion, said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

[Analysis: A conflict with Iran would not be like the Iraq war. It would be worse.]

When asked about the accounts of Trump’s frustration with Bolton, National Security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said, “This reporting doesn’t accurately reflect reality.”

Trump is not inclined to respond forcefully unless there is a “big move” from the Iranians, a senior White House official said. Still, the president is willing to respond forcefully if there are American deaths or a dramatic escalation, the official said.

While Trump grumbles about Bolton somewhat regularly, his discontent with his national security adviser is not near the levels it reached with Rex Tillerson when he served as Trump’s secretary of state, the official added.

Amidst rising tensions with Tehran, President Trump warned May 13 there would be a "bad problem" for Iran if it tried anything against the United States. (Reuters)

Trump denied any “infighting” related to his Middle East policies in a tweeton Wednesday. “There is no infighting whatsoever,” Trump said. “Different opinions are expressed and I make a decisive and final decision — it is a very simple process. All sides, views, and policies are covered. I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.”

On Wednesday morning, the president attended a Situation Room briefing on Iran, a person familiar with the meeting said.

Pentagon and intelligence officials said that three distinct Iranian actions have triggered alarms: information suggesting an Iranian threat against U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad and Irbil; U.S. concerns that Iran may be preparing to mount rocket or missile launchers on small ships in the Persian Gulf; and a directive from Khamenei to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and regular Iranian military units that some U.S. officials have interpreted as a potential threat to U.S. military and diplomatic personnel. On Wednesday, the State Department ordered nonessential personnel to leave the U.S. missions in Baghdad and Irbil.

In Tokyo on Thursday, visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran was exercising “maximum restraint.”

“We believe that escalation by the United States is unacceptable and uncalled for,” Zarif told his Japanese counterpart, Taro Kono.

U.S. and European officials said there are disagreements about Iran’s ultimate intentions and whether the new intelligence merits a more forceful response than previous Iranian actions.

Some worry that the renewed saber-rattling could create a miscalculation on the ground, said two Western officials familiar with the matter. And Iran’s use of proxy forces, the officials said, means it does not have absolute control over militias, which could attack U.S. personnel and provoke a devastating U.S. response that in turn prompts a counter-escalation.

Bolton warned in a statement last week that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.”

Military officials have described themselves as torn between their desire to avoid open confrontation with Iran and their concern about the recent intelligence, which led the commander of the U.S. Central Command, Gen. Kenneth McKenzie Jr., to request a host of additional military assets, including an aircraft carrier and strategic bombers.

Multiple officials said uniformed officers from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led by its chairman, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., have been among the leading voices articulating the costs of war with Iran.

Other officials said the view that deterrence rather than conflict was required was “monolithic” across the Pentagon and was shared by civilian officials led by acting defense secretary Patrick Shanahan, whom Trump nominated last week to remain in the job but who has not yet been confirmed by the Senate. As the tensions have intensified, Shanahan has been in touch multiple times a day with other senior leaders, including Bolton, Pompeo and Dunford, officials said.

Some defense officials have described Bolton’s more aggressive approach as troubling.

Defense officials said that they are considering whether they will field additional weaponry or personnel to the Persian Gulf region to strengthen their deterrent against possible action by Iran or proxy groups, but that they hope additional deployments will prevent rather than fuel attacks.

Trump’s fears of entangling the United States in another war have been a powerful counterweight to the more bellicose positions of some of his advisers.

Trump has called the Iraq War a massive and avoidable blunder, and his political support was built in part on the idea that he would not repeat such a costly expenditure of American blood and treasure.

A new deal with Iran, which Trump has said he could one day envision, would be a replacement for the international nuclear compact he left last year that was forged by the Obama administration. 

Trump’s early policy on Iran, which predated Bolton’s arrival, was aimed at neutralizing the pact and clearing the way for an agreement he thought would more strictly keep Iran in check.

Trump’s administration has been frustrated, however, that Iran and the rest of the signatories to the nuclear agreement have kept it in force.

Trump’s anger over what he considered a more warlike footing than he wanted was a main driver in Pompeo’s decision last weekend to suddenly cancel a stop in Moscow and on short notice fly instead to Brussels, where he sought meetings on Monday with the European nations that are parties to the Iran nuclear deal, two officials said. Pompeo was not accorded the symbolic welcome of joining their joint Iran-focused meeting. Instead, he met with foreign ministers one by one.

Pompeo’s visit was meant to convey both U.S. alarm over the recent intelligence on Iran and Washington’s desire for diplomacy, not war, two officials said.

But European leaders, who have been watching the febrile atmosphere in Washington with alarm, have not been convinced, according to conversations with 10 European diplomats and officials from seven countries, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive assessments of Washington and Tehran.

Pompeo “didn’t show us any evidence” about his reasons Washington is so concerned about potential Iranian aggression, said one senior European official who took part in one of Pompeo’s meetings. The official’s delegation left the meeting unconvinced of the American case and puzzled about why Pompeo had come at all.

Many officials in European capitals said they fear that conflict with Iran could have a cascading effect on their relations with Washington, ripping open divisions on unrelated issues.

They distrust Trump’s Iran policy, fearing that key White House advisers are ginning up rationales for war. And leaders need to win reelection from citizens who hold Trump in low regard and would punish them for fighting alongside Americans on the Iran issue.

Democratic members of Congress, while traditionally strong supporters of pressuring Iran, have also raised questions about the intelligence and the administration’s apparent flirtation with combat. In a statement on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Sen. Robert Menendez (N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, demanded “answers from this administration about Iran . . . and about what intelligence this administration has.” So far, he said, the administration has ignored those demands and refused to provide briefings.

“We cannot, and we will not, be led into dangerous military adventurism,” he said.

Anxieties over the heightened threat environment spilled over into Capitol Hill on Wednesday during a classified briefing. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) argued that the intelligence warranted an escalation against Iran, said one person with knowledge of the briefing. In response, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton (Mass.) accused her of exaggerating the threat in what the person described as a “very heated exchange.”

A representative for Moulton declined to comment. A spokesman for Cheney said the congresswoman “will never comment on classified briefings and believes that any member or staffer who does puts the security of the nation at risk.” 

Michael Birnbaum in Brussels, Simon Denyer in Tokyo and Missy Ryan, Karen DeYoung and Carol Morello in Washington contributed to this report.

Theresa May to set her departure date after next Brexit vote

Gary Gibbon-16 May 2019Political Editor

It’s been confirmed that Theresa May will set a timetable for her departure after the Withdrawal Agreement vote in early June. Perhaps the least surprising announcement is that Boris Johnson will enter the fray to succeed her.

US: New group aims to 'shine light' on corruption in Middle East business world

Global Justice Foundation aims to root out corruption in business dealings in region, says founder Omar Ayesh
Omar Ayesh (centre) says new foundation will seek justice for victims of Middle East corruption (MEE)

By MEE staff- 16 May 2019

A new group has announced plans to tackle corruption in the Middle East, with a particular focus on helping victims of business fraud in the region.

During a news conference in Washington on Thursday, the Global Justice Foundation's founder, Omar Ayesh, said the group plans to focus first on the Middle East and later expand its efforts elsewhere.

It will seek to provide technical and financial support to people who say they have been the victims of government corruption, especially in the realm of international business, Ayesh said.

"Wherever there is a case with clear evidence of corruption, we will do an investigation and shine a light to help the authorities take the legal steps and do whatever is needed to take action and protect justice," he said.

Ayesh, a Palestinian-Canadian businessman living in the United States, told Middle East Eye that he has been a victim of white-collar crime, which he said was tied to government corruption in the United Arab Emirates.

'I am totally convinced that the kind of corruption we are talking about works perfectly in the dark, but it cannot work whatsoever in the light, so I need to shine the light'
- Omar Ayesh, founder of the Global Justice Foundation

He said he remains tied up in an ongoing, 11-year battle over one of his businesses.
The Emirati embassy in Washington could not immediately be reached for comment.

"In my case, the justice system has not been sufficient enough to give me my rights, so I had to look for some other tools in order to help push forward justice," Ayesh told MEE.

He said he started the foundation as a way to help others who lack the means to advocate for themselves.

"I am totally convinced that the kind of corruption we are talking about works perfectly in the dark, but it cannot work whatsoever in the light, so I need to shine the light and to send that message," he said.

Kenneth Starr, an ex-US circuit judge, former US solicitor general and independent counsel who investigated the Clinton administration, will serve as volunteer legal counsel for the foundation.

"The foundation does not stand alone, increasingly across the world, there are foundations and institutes that are starting to speak out," ​​​​​​said Starr, who was the keynote speaker at Thursday's event in Washington.

"The lights are being turned on around the world," he said. 

Abortion – The Right Thing To Do

I am faced with two fundamental questions: is abortion murder which is tantamount to infanticide? Is this a criminal issue or a socio-economic issue or both? 

by Ruwantissa Abeyratne-16 May 2019

Writing from Montreal

 

They are like pimples on the backside of justice--disposing of the fate of people.

~ Maxim Gorky

 

Maxim Gorky used the word “seat” which I replaced with “backside”. And Gorky referred to teachers.

 

The issue of abortion has been bifurcated into two polarized camps: the conservative camp which advocates what is called “pro life” which is against abortion; and the liberal or libertarian camp which insists on “pro choice” advocating the right of the mother to decide on the fate of the fetus in her womb. This essay is not intended to take sides but is rather aimed at presenting some interesting and perhaps contentious points.

 

On Tuesday 14 May 2019 The Alabama state legislature – mainly controlled by conservative republicans – approved of a proposal to ban abortion in every circumstance, except in instances when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. CNN reported that the State’s Governor is expected to sign it into law. CNN goes on to opine that Alabama will become the state with the country's most restrictive abortion law and that the law will spark even more contention in the incendiary debate over the abortion issue.

 

In 1973 the United States Supreme Court handed down its “pro choice” decision in the case of Roe v. Wade which conferred upon a mother the right to abort a fetus during the first trimester of the pregnancy, when life of the fetus could not be sustained outside the womb of the mother. More about that later.

 

I commence this article in a somewhat perplexed state: wondering whether what Winston Churchill said of Russia – that it was a "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” would apply to the abortion debate: is it a political issue? Or is it a judicial issue? Should it be determined on the views of the scientific and medical professions? Are there socio-economic issues that this issue brings to bear? The abortion debate has been swinging from conservatism to liberalism, ending enigmatically in libertarianism. Everyone has had his or her point of view – particularly women from whose bodies the fetus is expelled. If anyone, they are the people who have a right to express their views on this issue. But then again do they?

 

Having no strong views on the matter except for an innate curiosity as to what the right thing to do in determining the right to life of a fetus, I am faced with two fundamental questions: is abortion murder which is tantamount to infanticide? Is this a criminal issue or a socio-economic issue or both? There are secondary issues that also emerge. What role should the courts play? Should it be left to the legislature to decide on pro life and pro choice?

 

Resolving the first is plain and straightforward. Murder is the intentional killing of a human being. In other words, it is the forceful cessation of human life of one by another. In this context, did the fetus expelled from the womb have life and was it extinguished by the abortion process? The second issue - on socio-economic considerations - is somewhat more complex where one wonders whether a parent could dispose of a fetus brought to bear by economic or social compulsion.

 

The Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade opted to stay neutral on the issue of when life begins and pronounced that the mother should be free to decide. Professor Michael Sandel of Harvard University disagrees and is of the view that neither the government nor the courts should be neutral in this matter which should be determined on grounds of morality and religious tradition. CNN reports the views of Dr. Joseph DeCook, a retired obstetrician-gynecologist and Executive Director of the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, a group of about 2,500 members, has explicitly said that an embryo is a living human being at the moment of fertilization. Doctor DeCook is reported to have said: “there’s no question at all when human life begins…when the two sets of chromosomes get together, you have a complete individual. It’s the same as you and I but less developed…. pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted on the uterine wall, but we’re not talking about pregnancy, the question you have to focus on, is when does meaningful, valuable human life begin? That’s with the union of the two sets of chromosomes. You have a complete human being that begins developing.”

 

Abortion presents a curious dimension from a socio-economic perspective as well. Super Freakonomics (Harper Collins:2009), a book written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner as a sequel to their earlier book Freakanomics (2005) looks at statistics and data in a manner that a conservative mind might not look at and brings to bear statistical anomalies that might get the reader to think from an entirely different perspective. Super Freakonomics shows us the hidden side of things and turns conservative perceptions on their heads.

 

As to why crime rates plunged in the United States in the nineties, one of the fascinating discussions revolve round the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. The Court, in deciding on a young mother’s right to abort her foetus, which was illegal in many States in the United States at that time, considered the detriment that the State would impose upon a pregnant woman by denying her the choice to abort. The result, in the mind of the Supreme Court, was bound to be a distressful life with an infant uncared for, who would grow up in destitution and deprivation. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the mental and physical health of the mother would suffer. The Court recognized the fundamental fact of anthropoid nature – that when a mother does not want a child, she usually has good reason. Therefore, the court gave a pro-choice decision, and accorded to mothers the right to abort their foetus provided they did so under medical and psychiatric care.

 

The authors record that in the first year after the Roe v. Wade decision, some 750,000 women had had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every 4 live births). By 1980 the number of abortions had reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births). The woman who was most likely to have taken advantage of the Roe v. Wade decision was, according to the authors of Freakonomics, a typically unmarried poor person, and her future child might have been 50 percent likely to have been brought up in poverty with no proper education. He would have been 60 percent more likely than the average child who had only one parent to care for him. All these factors would go to bring about a child who could easily be persuaded to take to crime. It is therefore reflected as an inexorable conclusion that, with the absence of such children, who would have turned out to be criminals, the crime rate would go down in the 1990s which would be the time the children born at the time the Roe v. Wade decision was handed down would have been teenagers.

 

Of course, these could turn out to be mere assumptions that are at best persuasive. The abortion issue hangs in the balance and what makes the issue a "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma” is the question as to why those responsible for decision making have not considered scientific and medical opinion on when life begins. This makes confusion worse confounded.

Malaysia’s own ‘Game of Thrones’

The 16th King of Malaysia, the sixth Sultan of Pahang, Al-Sultan Abdullah Ri'ayatuddin Al-Mustafa Billah Shah Ibni Sultan Ahmad Shah Al-Musta'in Billah, salutes beside Queen Tunku Hajah Azizah Aminah Maimunah Iskandariah binti Al-Marhum Al-Mutawakkil Alallah Sultan Iskandar Al-Haj, while Malaysia's Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (C) observes during the welcoming ceremony at the Parliament House in Kuala Lumpur on January 31, 2019. Source: MOHD RASFAN / AFP

14 May at 18:33 

AS IN earlier constitutional struggles in 1983 and 1993, Malaysia’s federal government under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is confronting the royal power and claimed prerogatives of the traditional rulers of the federation’s nine sultanate states.

This struggle between the elected national government and the heads of the precolonial Malay ruling houses now turns upon several intensely contested issues.First, the ousting of the Johor chief minister and the royal assertion of the right to nominate his successor.

Second, resistance by several of the sultans to the appointment of a duly selected new chief justice. And third, opposition to Malaysia acceding to the Statute of Rome treaty against war crimes, on the grounds that doing so might diminish Malay royal sovereignty.

Such tensions are a constant feature of modern Malaysian political life. As the standing of the once dominant Malay ruling party United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) has waned since the 12th general election (GE12) in 2008, the Malay sultans are increasingly playing a decisive backstage political role. In the defence of ‘Malay interests’, they are backed by a consortium of restless street-level Malay ethnocratic and ethno-sectarian forces.

These forces are eager to make — on behalf of the sultans but in the name of Malay supremacy — more expanded claims concerning the supposedly imperilled constitutional standing of the Malay royals. And as former prime minister Najib Razak stands trial on criminal charges, he and his now sidelined UMNO party (with whom many of these street-level forces are aligned) are joining the chorus upholding threatened Malay power as personified by the sultans.

SEE ALSO: Malaysia: What has become of Dr Mahathir’s promised reforms?

They do so with a common objective: political destabilisation. They aim to undermine the recently elected Pakatan Harapan (PH) administration’s political authority and its ability to govern.

But the issue has been in play well before 2008. Since independence in 1957, Malaysia has faced the problem — ripe for political agitation — of the relation between national constitutional sovereignty and royal prerogative. Does the Federal Constitution concede the old sultanate royals any entitlements outside the Constitution and beyond its reach? Does it give them any broad and far-reaching (as distinct from narrow and technical) powers within the Constitution?

FILE PHOTO: Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad speaks during an interview with Reuters in Putrajaya, Malaysia, March 30, 2017. Source: Reuters

Historically, the answer is no. Like all the nations launched into postcolonial independence after World War II, Malaya and then Malaysia’s constitution rests upon the principle of popular national sovereignty.

But ethno-supremacist and Islamist ideologues have emerged in more recent times asserting that the Constitution rests upon a different foundation: the doctrine of Islamically-sanctified Malay domination in a state governed by Sharia Law under Malay royal custodianship.

History tells its own story. After long opposing it, the old state Malay heads finally boarded the Merdeka (independence) train moments before it left the Colonial Office station without them. They suggested that independence was bestowed on the nation as their gift of royal grace and favour, and that they had now reposed their historic precolonial sovereignty within the new national political entity under their continuing customary patronage.

Along with the new royalist theorists who have emerged over recent years, they now argue that the precolonial sovereignty of the Malay sultans had remained intact and undiminished during the years of colonial rule, all the way back to 15th century Malacca. Their argument artfully conflates — or fatally fails to distinguish between — daulat, the cosmically-grounded aura of sanctity that traditionally infused Malay kingship and the person of the ruler, and kedaulatan, a modern term expressing the abstract idea of sovereignty in its jurisprudential sense.

Centrally important in the ‘new royalist’ doctrine are the rights and obligations of Malaysia’s head of state — the king, or Agong — as guarantor of the country’s Malay–Islamic authenticity. While the royal heads of the nine sultanate states enjoy a historic cultural standing that precedes the modern constitutions of their states, the position of the Agong — elected to five-year rotating terms by the nine rulers from among their own ranks — has no such pre-independence history. It is an artefact purely of the Federal Constitution itself, whose supremacy it is the Agong’s duty to personify and uphold.

Modern constitutional government is not merely government in accordance with the provisions of a constitution, but also government in accordance with the wishes of the elected representatives of the people. Yet in Malaysia, ‘We the Ruler’ has become entangled with ‘We the People’, and the attendant confusion has bedevilled Malaysian politics ever since. Exploiting that confusion is the key strategy of the PH government’s Malay adversaries.

Malaysia’s Dr Mahathir Mohamad (c) reacts as he walks into the Parliament house flanked by Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng (L) and Deputy Prime Minister Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail for the tabling of the 2019 budget. Source: Fandy Azlan/Department of Informationn/AFP

Today’s battles are today’s, but the conflict between the elected PH government and royal power in Malaysia is driven by these historic disputes.

SEE ALSO: Now that Malaysia has a new government, the real work begins reforming the country

Under Mahathir, PH amassed sufficient popular support to win GE14 in 2018. But the PH bloc lacks the coherence and resolve to govern effectively. Should the PH government fail, there will be a terrible resentment-driven reversion. The old Malay–Islamic forces will return to rule with replenished determination — and royal blessing.

PH does not know how to succeed. Seeing that, its opponents are seizing opportunities — as in this clash over Malay royal power — to weaken it. They pose the question: how can the PH government possibly survive to win GE15 four years from now?

The idea of Malay royal power at the head of an increasingly Islamic state is central to Malaysian politics today. It has enormous mobilising power among a dominant yet resentful political majority with the psychological mindset, and resulting fears, of a threatened minority.

Dr Clive Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of New South Wales.

• This article has been republised from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons license.

Merkel dismisses speculation she could move to big EU job

German Chancellor Angela Merkel attends a session at the lower house of parliament Bundestag to mark the 70th anniversary of the German constitution, in Berlin, Germany, May 16, 2019. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

Paul Carrel, Michelle Martin-MAY 16, 2019

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany’s Angela Merkel reaffirmed on Thursday that she would leave politics after serving out her fourth term as chancellor, dismissing speculation that she could take a big European Union job in Brussels.

“I am not available for any further political office, regardless of where it is - including in Europe,” the 64-year-old Merkel told a joint news conference with visiting Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

Speculation about Merkel’s future swirled in Berlin after she told Thursday’s edition of the Sueddeutsche newspaper: “Many people are concerned about Europe – including myself. This means I feel even more duty-bound to join others in making sure that Europe has a future.”

She made clear at the news conference that she saw it as her responsibility in her role as chancellor to promote a “good, functional Europe given the situation we have and the polarisation”.

Anti-establishment, eurosceptic parties around the bloc see the May 23-26 European Parliament elections as a potentially defining moment and hope that a strong showing will bolster their efforts to slow European integration and return more power to national capitals.

Merkel has loomed large on the European stage since 2005, helping guide the EU through the euro zone crisis and opening Germany’s doors to migrants fleeing war in the Middle East in 2015, a move that still divides the bloc and Germany.

Europe’s longest-serving leader, Merkel announced last October that her fourth term as chancellor would be her last and that she would not seek any political post after her term ends, beginning a stage-managed gradual exit from politics.

In December, she then handed over the leadership of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to heir apparent Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

Earlier this week, Merkel said politicians should not hang on in office “until nobody wants to see you anymore”.

Kramp-Karrenbauer, sometimes dubbed “mini-Merkel”, said in comments published earlier this week that she had no ambition to succeed Merkel as chancellor until 2021, which is when the current German legislative term is due to expire.

“The chancellor and the government are elected for a full term and citizens are right to expect that they take this mandate seriously,” Kramp-Karrenbauer told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper in an interview.

“Speaking for myself, I can rule out that I am working in my own interest for a change.”

When Merkel came into office in 2005, George W. Bush was U.S. president, Jacques Chirac was in the Elysee Palace in Paris and Tony Blair was British prime minister.

Writing by Paul Carrel; Editing by Michelle Martin and Mark Heinrich

Between hope and fear: national security and the Indian elections

Author: Deepa Ollapally, George Washington University-14 May 2019

The drumbeat of national security is hard to miss in this Indian election season. If history is any guide for India’s current turbulent politics, Indian voters are rarely moved to cast their vote based on a party’s particular foreign policy. Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders are putting a lot of weight behind security issues, suggesting that they are not confident running on their five-year domestic record alone.

Their stance on national security has been linked to a more divisive and political brand of nationalism. Narendra Modi ran in 2014 on a strong platform of inclusive economic development that suggested a future of hope for all of India. In 2019, the fear of enemies outside and inside India seem to have replaced any message of hope. The BJP’s forcefulness this election is exemplified by the Indian counterattack inside Pakistan at Balakot after the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM)’s terrorist attack in Pulwama, Kashmir in February 2019.

Looking back at previous terrorist attacks, even in the heartland of India, their electoral aftermath shows that national security hardly figures in the minds of Indian voters.

In 2001, a high-profile attack on the Indian parliament by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT),  JeM and their Pakistani operatives led the first BJP government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee to commandeer the biggest peacetime military mobilisation in India’s history. For Indians, the strike on their very centre of power was shocking, outraging the public and media. From December 2001 to November 2003, 500,000 Indian troops amassed at the Indian–Pakistani border for a close deadlock. The crisis was diffused with Pakistan having to publicly back down and take measures against the Pakistan-based terrorist groups.

This dramatic show of force by the BJP government drew national accolades. Yet in the general elections just a few months later, Indian voters handed the Party a completely unexpected blow by voting it out. The Congress Party, which had been all but written off, then led a victorious coalition into government. Retrospectively, most analysts blamed the BJP’s defeat on rising inflation, especially in common consumer items like onions.

In November 2008 there was a terrorist attack launched from Pakistan by LeT suicide bombers on India’s iconic Taj Hotel in the country’s financial capital of Mumbai, killing scores. The unfolding episode was caught on real-time television for emotionally draining, non-stop viewing by both Indian and global audiences.

The ruling Congress Party had an immediate two-fold response. The first response was an international diplomatic campaign aiming to isolate Pakistan for being the base of these terrorist  organisations, which was largely successful. The next response was to send a clear domestic message that those responsible for the horrific attacks were India’s foremost external foes. A military response was absent. Five months later, national elections produced an almost unprecedented and unexpected result — Congress was re-elected.

The BJP’s military response did not help its elections, whereas the Congress Party’s lack of military action did not hurt its election chances. The circumstances were similar, with a high-profile terrorist attack on a major Indian city, but government responses and subsequent election results differed. The only common factor is that national security did not play a role in the electoral fortunes of either ruling party.

A more forceful reaction by the Modi government against Pakistani-based terrorism after the Pulwama attack could be viewed as justified and even overdue, given India’s past restraint. The ‘rally around the flag’ effect after the Balakot counterattack is also nothing unexpected. The use of national security to drive a wedge between domestic groups for short-term electoral gains spells danger for the country in the long term.

The government seems to be missing an opportunity to bring the country together using national security as a uniting factor, rather than a dividing one. Some affiliates of the ruling party have been going on the offensive with national security, using a fear-mongering election trope.

If there are electoral dividends from such tactics, they are likely negligible. They could come at great cost to the attractive idea of India as the world’s largest plural democracy, even as the rest of the world is looking on with a degree of awe at the unfolding of 900 million Indian voters in action.

Dr Deepa Ollapally is a Research Professor and the Director of the Rising Powers Initiative at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.

Is Labour right that the UK ‘has never been more unequal’?

“Our country has never been more unequal”

By Georgina Lee-15 May 2019

That was the claim in one of the Labour party’s official leaflets, titled “Election Communication London Region”.

There is no doubt that the UK faces significant inequality. Only yesterday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) launched a five-year inquiry into the problem, citing the fact that “income inequality in the UK is high by international standards”. Among major economies, only the US ranks worse on this score.

But Labour’s claim that the country has “never” been more unequal is hugely ambitious. Even if we confine our analysis to periods of history for which we have reliable records, the claim seems to be contradicted by a range of equality measures.

What is the basis of the claim?

It’s not clear from the leaflet what Labour mean by “unequal”, but FactCheck understands that the claim refers to income inequality and is based on two sources.

One is a 2017 FullFact article, which used IFS data from 2016 to conclude that “the gap between rich and poor is much larger” today than it was in the mid-1950s.

But the same analysis suggests that, by the particular measures of inequality used in the article, the UK was slightly more unequal in the late 1980s than it is today.

This graph from the FullFact piece shows the gap between the richest and poorest fifth of UK households hit a record high in 1989-90:

We see a similar trend in the UK’s “Gini score” since 1977 (where a higher score means greater inequality):

The same article notes that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) says there has been a “gradual decline in income inequality over the last decade”.

We understand that Labour’s claim is also based on research from the High Pay Centre.

The think tank says that CEOs of top UK companies now earn “120 times” more than average workers, compared to “10 or 20 times” more in the 1980s. They estimate that over the same period, “the share of total incomes accruing to the richest 1 per cent of the population increased from 6 per cent to 14 per cent”.

This suggests that inequality — or at least, the proportion of income going to the top 1 per cent — has got worse since the 1980s.

But that wasn’t Labour’s claim: the party asserted that the UK has “never” been more unequal. It’s not clear that the “1 per cent” measure supports such an ambitious statement.

Data from the IFS shows the proportion of national income going to the top 1 per cent of earners is certainly greater now than it was in the 1960s and 1970s, but is not currently at the record-high levels seen in 2008.

So by this measure, the UK is more unequal now than it was several decades ago, but slightly less unequal than it was ten years ago.
Here’s the IFS graph:

What about other types of inequality?

We understand Labour’s claim is based on the distribution of income across all individual earners and households. But there are myriad other ways to think about inequality.

We’re going to look at some of the most common: gender and ethnicity pay gaps, regional inequality, wealth inequality, and equality under the law.

Gender and ethnicity pay gaps

The latest ONS figures show there is still a gap between men’s and women’s earnings (17.9 per cent across “all work”, 8.6 per cent in full time work, and a 4.4 per cent gap in favour of women in part-time work).

But there’s no evidence that the gender pay gap is at a historic high: in fact, the recorded gender pay gap was at its widest in 1997, the year comparable records began.

And when it comes to getting a job in the first place, the IFS says “women’s employment has risen dramatically from 57 per cent in 1975 to 78 per cent in 2017”. Here’s our graph of ONS figures:

There’s also evidence of a BAME pay gap, although the government only began collecting comparable figures in 2013.

The latest stats suggest BAME workers earned 0.9 per cent less than white workers on average in 2017. The gap is much wider between white and Pakistani workers, with the latter group earning 16 per cent less on average.

But again, this is not the highest pay disparity on record: in 2015, the white-BAME gap was 6.6 per cent, and in 2014 the white-Pakistani gap was 26.6 per cent.

Gender and ethnicity pay gaps do exist in the UK, but the best evidence we have suggests the gaps are smaller today than they have been in the recent past.

Regional inequality

There’s no single measure of regional inequality. But one popular approach is to consider how London’s dominance over the rest of the country has changed over time.

A 2017 IFS report finds that “the gap between average incomes in London and the South East and the rest of the country has not changed much over the past 40 years.” In other words: Londoners have always earned more than the rest of the country and continue to do so.

But that assessment doesn’t account for the cost of housing. When we do that, the picture’s rather different.

IFS figures show that in the mid 1970s, a Londoner’s income “after housing costs” was 10 per cent higher than that of the average Brit. But today, it’s slightly below the GB average. The Financial Times summarise the current position as “after paying a lot for very small homes, Londoners have no higher incomes than the UK average.”

This suggests that on one measure at least, London’s earning premium compared to the rest of the country has waned in recent decades.

But what about when we compare UK regions with one another? Again, it’s a mixed picture.
Dr David Nguyen, an economist at the National Institute of Social and Economic Research, told FactCheck: “it is fair to say that regional economic disparities in the UK are large and have been large since at least the last half a century”.

Are these disparities greater than in previous years? Dr Nguyen says there’s “some evidence suggesting that they are becoming worse, though some places such as Northern Ireland, Scotland or East Anglia have improved considerably.”

“Looking at average regional incomes per capita for UK regions after 1966, we can say that the absolute difference between the best performing region (London) and the worst performing region (Northern Ireland) has decreased considerably, suggesting lower inequality.”

But at the same time, he says the “dispersion between regions has increased […] suggesting exacerbating regional inequalities”.

Wealth inequality

Labour’s claim was based on measures of income inequality — how much individuals and households earn from work and benefits. But if you’re concerned about equality, the distribution of wealth is also important because it takes account of property and other assets.

A report by Credit Suisse estimates that the top 1 per cent owned about 24 per cent of UK national wealth in 2016. The World Inequality Database has figures going back to 1896 that show the proportion of UK national wealth owned by the top 1 per cent peaked in 1901 at 73.8 per cent.
Here’s how the wealth of the UK’s top 1 per cent changed over the twentieth century:

We see similar downward trends for the share of wealth owned by the top 10 per cent:

So on another key measure — the proportion of national wealth owned by the very richest — it is clear that the UK is significantly more equal today than it was at the turn of the last century.

Legal inequality

So far we’ve looked at financial forms of inequality, but what about equality under the law?

It was only in 1965 that the first legislation was introduced to prevent racial discrimination. Until 1967, homosexual acts were illegal in England and Wales and until 2014, same-sex couples were not able to get married. Before the Equal Pay Act of 1970, which was brought in by a Labour government, it was legal for employers to pay men and women different wages for the same work.
Looking further back, it wasn’t until the end of the First World War that all men aged 21 were granted suffrage. Hitherto, men could only vote if they owned property and women couldn’t vote at all. In 1918, the franchise was extended to some women, but only reached parity with men in 1929.

It’s fair to say that legally speaking, the UK has been — for the majority of its history — a more unequal place than it is today.

FactCheck verdict

Labour’s “Election Communication” leaflet for the “London Region” includes the claim “our country has never been more unequal”.

It’s not clear from the leaflet what this means, but FactCheck understands that the claim refers to income inequality and is based on two sources.

One is a FullFact article using Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) data that concludes “the gap between rich and poor is much larger” today than it was in the mid-1950s. But the same analysis finds that the UK was slightly more unequal in the late 1980s than it is today.

The second source is research from the High Pay Centre that finds the proportion of income earned by the “top 1 per cent” has risen dramatically between the 1980s and today. But IFS data shows the proportion of national income going to the top 1 per cent of earners is still lower than the record-high reached in 2008.

There is no doubt that the UK faces significant inequality, and ranks poorly compared with other advanced economies.

But Labour’s claim that “our country has never been more unequal” does not stand up to scrutiny when we look back across UK history at a range of equality measures, including those upon which Labour have based their assertion.

The party may have been better served by a more precise claim, for example “the gap between the poorest and richest fifth of households is greater today than it was in the 1950s” or “the top 1 per cent of earners take home more as a proportion of national income than they did in the 1980s”.

The most dangerous man in the world is at Trump’s right hand

When National Security Adviser John Bolton demanded military plans to oust the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, Trump demurred, reportedly saying his national security adviser was trying to pull…

 written by Jefferson Morley / Independent Media Institute May 16, 2019

When National Security Adviser John Bolton demanded military plans to oust the government of Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, Trump demurred, reportedly saying his national security adviser was trying to pull him “into a war.”

 

When Bolton demanded “regime change” in Iran and the Pentagon produced a plan to put 120,000 troops into the region, Trump demurred again.

 

 

“He is not comfortable with all this ‘regime change’ talk,’ which to his ears echoes the discussion of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the 2003 U.S. invasion,” one unnamed official told the Washington Post.

 

When push comes to proverbial shove, Trump balks at shoving.

 

When U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido attempted to lead a popular uprising on April 30, Trump did not lend his voice to the call. As Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cited the alleged danger of Russian involvement, the president rubbished his message saying Vladimir Putin was “not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela.”

 

The uprising failed, and Bolton moved on to Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

Last week, Bolton warned the Tehran government that “any attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” On Wednesday, Trump spoke of negotiations, saying, “I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.”

 

The national security adviser wants war, but his boss doesn’t want to be a war president. Trump’s combination of bluster (“bomb the shit out of them”) and antiwar rhetoric (“Bush lied”) is a political asset he doesn’t want to squander. Bolton’s job isn’t in any danger, because to Trump, tough talk is good politics. Insults, threats, sanctions, and covert operations are fine—as long as they don’t lead to an actual shooting war.

 

Some hope it’s a “good cop/bad cop” routine, designed to get Trump to the global stage of negotiations. But that is not how Bolton thinks. He has never suggested that any negotiated settlement between the United States and any adversary is worth pursuing.

 

When Trump came to office, official Washington hoped generals like Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster would act as the “adults in the room.” In Washington-speak, the phrase expressed the bipartisan hope that Trump’s non-interventionist instincts, grounded in domestic politics, would be curbed.

 

Now, the dynamic has flipped. Now the generals are gone, replaced by Bolton and Boeing lobbyist Patrick Shanahan. As Bolton pursues regime change in Venezuela and Iran, the only restraining force is Trump himself.

 

It’s a thin orange line. Will it hold?

 

Trump’s Obama-like determination to stay out of wars shouldn’t be underestimated. Hillary Clinton, who advocated strongly for Timber Sycamore, would never have abruptly withdrawn 2,000 U.S. troops from Syria as Trump did in December.

 

While Obama refused direct U.S. involvement in Syria, he did acquiesce to the CIA’s $1 billion covert arms transfer program, code-named Timber Sycamore. The goal was to aid the “moderate” rebels, who, unfortunately, did not exist. The program flooded the country with weapons, many of which wound up in the hands of Al-Qaeda and its offshoots, funded by U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf.

 

Trump ended Timber Sycamore in the summer of 2017. His withdrawal order in December 2018 not only triggered Mattis’ resignation; it also deprived Bolton of real estate from which he planned to confront Iran. Bolton has been trying to walk back Trump’s order ever since, with some success. Approximately 400 U.S. troops remain in the country.

 

On Venezuela, it was Trump who started talk of “military option” in August 2017 before Bolton had even joined his administration. Bolton escalated confrontation, with the help of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, repeatedly saying “Maduro must go” and that his “time is up.” Trump, pondering the reality that U.S military intervention can only undermine the goal of ousting Maduro, now resists the option he put on the table.

 

The problem for the war-wary Trump is threefold.

 

First, Bolton is, objectively speaking, a warmonger. He has favored attacking Iran and North Korea, just as he favored attacking Iraq in 2003. The disastrous consequences of the invasion have had no effect on his impermeable thinking. He doesn’t want any advice on his schemes, and he doesn’t get any. If the policy doesn’t work, he changes the subject, not directions.

 

Second, because Bolton’s policies are developed in private, without the usual input from other sectors of the government, especially the military, they are underinformed and unsustainable. In Venezuela, Bolton failed to understand Venezuelan political realities leaving talk of military intervention as the only face-saving option.

 

Third, and most important, Trump’s regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are also seeking to goad the U.S. into taking action against Iran, their regional rival.

 

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought authority to attack Iran in 2011, only to be thwarted by the opposition of President Obama and his own security Cabinet. Obama is gone and Trump has given Netanyahu everything he wanted: an embassy in Jerusalem and recognition of the Golan Heights. Why not a unilateral attack on Iran to degrade its infrastructure?

 

Saudi Arabia is openly calling for war. After four oil tankers last week suffered damage from some kind of attack, the United States and Saudi Arabia blamed Iran. Why? The New York Times reported that “Israeli intelligence had warned the United States in recent days of what it said was Iran’s intention to strike Saudi vessels.” The Times said the information came from a “senior Middle Eastern intelligence official.”

 

An Iranian parliamentary spokesman described the attacks as “Israeli mischief.” To date, there is no conclusive evidence about who was responsible.

 

Nonetheless, the Arab News, a Saudi outlet owned by the brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is now calling for “surgical strikes” on Iran.

 

It is one thing for Trump to privately rebuke Bolton. If and when Netanyahu and MBS ask for war, Trump will have more difficulty saying no—which is what Bolton is counting on.

 

It is no exaggeration to say Bolton is the most dangerous man in the world. It is a title he will only lose if Trump wants it.

 

Jefferson Morley is a writing fellow and the editor and chief correspondent of the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has been a reporter and editor in Washington, D.C., since 1980. He spent 15 years as an editor and reporter at the Washington Post. He was a staff writer at Arms Control Today and Washington editor of Salon. He is the editor and co-founder of JFK Facts, a blog about the assassination of JFK. His latest book is The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster, James Jesus Angleton.

 

This article was produced by the Deep State, a project of the Independent Media Institute.