Trump Has Allies Abroad-- Mostly From Enemies Of Democracy

 

Trump isn't generally admired around the world. In fact, he appears to be the most unliked American president in any of our lifetimes-- both by ordinary citizens and by most democratic governments. Just 6% of Danes, for example, want him to win reelection. With a still active fascist movement, Italians are the only people in Western Europe who back Trump with any strength at all-- and it's just 20%. Fascist governments in Hungary, Russia, Israel and Brazil, on the other hand, all think Trump is swell. In fact, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel covered an Eric Trump COVID-spreading event in a Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin bowling alley basement this week. Eric announced that the first person who "came out to wish" the president well was "Little Rocket Man," a reference to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

Little Rocket Man, who inherited his job from his father who had inherited it from his father, is, in effect, the king of one of Asia's poorest countries. But that doesn't mean he is. Kim was born into great wealth and it is estimated that he's much richer than Trump, with a personal fortune of at least $5 billion. The best paid workers in North Korea earn around $62 a month.

On the other hand, Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh is not a billionaire. He worked as a professor and then dean of Birzeit Universit, a non-profit school near Ramallah in the West Bank. It should come as a surprise to no one that the rabidly anti-Palestinian Trump doesn't many fans on the West Bank or Gaza. The Associated Press quoted him as saying "If we are going to live another four years with President Trump, God help us, God help you and God help the whole world."

The Palestinians have traditionally refrained from taking an explicit public position in American presidential elections. Shtayyeh’s comments reflected the sense of desperation on the Palestinian side after a series of U.S. moves that have left them weakened and isolated.

The Palestinians severed ties with Trump after he recognized contested Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in late 2017 and subsequently moved the American Embassy to the holy city. Trump has also cut off hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid to the Palestinians, shut the Palestinian diplomatic offices in Washington and issued a Mideast plan this year that largely favored Israel. The Palestinians have rejected the plan out of hand.

The Trump administration also has persuaded two Arab countries, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, to establish full diplomatic relations with Israel and promised that other Arab nations will follow suit. These deals have undercut the traditional Arab consensus that recognition of Israel only come in return for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal-- a rare source of leverage for the Palestinians.

Shtayyeh expressed hope that a victory by the Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden would raise prospects for a peace deal.

“If things are going to change in the United States I think this will reflect itself directly on the Palestinian-Israeli relationship,” he said. “And it will reflect itself also on the bilateral Palestinian-American relationship.”

The Taliban, on the other hand, is enthusiastically backing Trump's reelection. CBS News reported that in a phone interview Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid basically parroted dishonest and misleading Trump campaign talking points: "We believe that Trump is going to win the upcoming election because he has proved himself a politician who accomplished all the major promises he had made to American people, although he might have missed some small things, but did accomplish the bigger promises, so it is possible that the U.S. people who experienced deceptions in the past will once again trust Trump for his decisive actions. We think the majority of the American population is tired of instability, economic failures and politicians' lies and will trust again on Trump because Trump is decisive, could control the situation inside the country. Other politicians, including Biden, chant unrealistic slogans. Some other groups, which are smaller in size but are involved in the military business including weapons manufacturing companies' owners and others who somehow get the benefit of war extension, they might be against Trump and support Biden, but their numbers among voters is low."

What Will Congress Do About Annexation?

Historically, AIPAC has been aligned with the Democratic establishment-- and when progressive elements have rebelled and demanded even-handed policies towards Palestine, AIPAC has been able to successfully full smear campaigns-- unrelated to Israel-- against them and replace them with more malleable members of Congress. AIPAC, for example, destroyed the political careers of both Earl Hilliard (D-AL) and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Fear of AIPAC has kept Democrats in line. On Friday, The Forward wondered aloud if that is now over: AIPAC's Biggest Democratic Allies Break Ranks To Publicly Oppose Israeli Annexation.

It's worth mentioning that not all of AIPAC's biggest allies have broken ranks. Netanyahu's #1 ally in the House, Eliot Engel, chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee-- in the midst of a red-hot primary into which AIPAC is funneling over a million dollars for Engel-- has been silent. "Top congressional Democrats," wrote Aiden Pink, "have issued multiple public statements Thursday and Friday expressing their opposition to Israel’s plan to annex part of the West Bank. The pro-Israel organization AIPAC has publicly expressed its opposition to such statements, but some of the signatories include the lobby’s most prominent and longstanding Democratic allies."

Lockstep AIPAC shills Chuck Schumer, Bob Menendez and Ben Cardin released a joint statement opposing annexation:

As strong and dedicated supporters of the U.S.-Israel relationship, we are compelled to express opposition to the proposed unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank.

A sustainable peace deal that ensures the long-term security of Israel and self-determination for Palestinians must be negotiated directly between the two parties. Real diplomacy via direct negotiations, while an arduous road, is the only path for a durable peace. For that reason it has consistently been the long-standing, bipartisan policy in Congress to oppose unilateral action by either side. Unilateral annexation runs counter to those longstanding policies and could undermine regional stability and broader US national security interests in the region.

We are committed to sustaining a US-Israel relationship based on shared democratic values and our important security assistance partnership. We are also committed to continuing to engage Israelis and Palestinians to find ways to live together with peace, freedom, security and dignity and achieve a two-state solution.

Netanyahu has been threatening to unilaterally begin the process of proclaiming sovereignty over parts of the West Bank in two weeks. Trump and Pompeo are encouraging him. 115 House Democrats sent their own letter, authored by Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Ted Deutch (D-FL) and David Price (R-NC)-- all mayor Israel supporters-- to Netanyahu, Gantz and Ashkenazi last week.

We write as American lawmakers who are long-time supporters, based on our shared democratic values and strategic interests, of Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship. We firmly believe in, and advocate for, a strong and secure Jewish and democratic State of Israel, a state able to build upon current peace treaties and expand cooperation with regional players and the international community. We have consistently endorsed the pursuit of a negotiated peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians resulting in two states for two peoples and a brighter future for the Israeli people and the Palestinian people. In that vein, we write today to express our deep concern that the push for unilateral annexation of territory in the West Bank after July 1st will make these goals harder to achieve.

Longstanding, bipartisan U.S. foreign policy supports direct negotiations to achieve a viable two-state solution that addresses the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians, and their desire for long-term security and a just, sustainable peace. This position was twice reconfirmed by the U.S. House of Representatives last year. Our fear is that unilateral actions, taken by either side, will push the parties further from negotiations and the possibility of a final, negotiated agreement.

We remain steadfast in our belief that pursuing two states for two peoples is essential to ensuring a secure, Jewish, democratic Israel able to live side-by-side, in peace and mutual recognition, with an independent, viable, de-militarized Palestinian state.

Unilateral annexation would likely jeopardize Israel’s significant progress on normalization with Arab states at a time when closer cooperation can contribute to countering shared threats.  Unilateral annexation risks insecurity in Jordan, with serious ancillary risks to Israel. Finally, unilateral annexation could create serious problems for Israel with its European friends and other partners around the world. We do not see how any of these acute risks serve the long-term interest of a strong, secure Israel.

As committed partners in supporting and protecting the special U.S.-Israel relationship, we express our deep concern with the stated intention to move ahead with any unilateral annexation of West Bank territory, and we urge your government to reconsider plans to do so.

Pink wrote that "The list of 115 signatories 'runs the gamut from J Street Democrats to AIPAC Democrats,' a Democratic congressional source told Jewish Insider. Other members of Congress are reportedly expected to sign on before the letter is released to the public next week. The large number of AIPAC allies is surprising considering the lobby’s opposition to the letter. 'We have not taken a position on annexation,' an AIPAC spokesperson told Haaretz. 'However, we do not support this letter. It publicly criticizes Israel for potentially deciding upon a policy that would only be adopted with the approval of the U.S. government, it fails to reaffirm America’s full commitment to Israel’s security assistance, and it focuses only on what it sees as inappropriate Israeli behavior, while failing to note that Palestinian leaders have been unwilling to return to the negotiating table for nearly a decade.'"

A similar letter signed by 19 Democratic senators, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, was released two weeks ago. Individual Democratic senators, like Kamala Harris, have also written personal letters of their own to Netanyahu expressing their views.

“As the United States has repeatedly made clear, unilateral moves by either party, such as annexation, put a negotiated peace further out of reach,” wrote Harris, who is considered a leading contender for the Democratic vice presidential nomination. “Both Israel and the Palestinians must avoid unilateral moves in order to preserve prospects for an eventual peace.”

And how does Biden feel about annexation? He seems opposed, at least tepidly. One of his foreign policy advisors, Nicholas Burns-- an under secretary of state under George W. Bush-- told an Israeli foreign policy magazine that annexation "would greatly harm Israel, internationally and among its strongest supporters" and that annexation "is the one issue which could most harm the U.S.-Israel relationship."

Trump's foreign policy has been disjointed and chaotic... often influenced by bad actors with skin in the game happy to offer the notoriously corrupt Trump what amounted to bribes. Sunday night former national security advisor (#3), John Bolton, shared his thoughts about the disaster that is Trump with Martha Raddatz, just hours after announcing that he plans to vote for Joe Biden in November.

Who Expects ANYTHING Good To Ever Comes Out Of The Accursed Trump Regime-- Let Alone An Israel-Palestine Accord?

Did anyone ever think when Trump put his wormy and corrupt son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in charge the Middle East that peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be nigh? It isn't. His peace plan is a p.r. stunt and con job that has already been rejected by the Palestinians. The sickening, ass-kissing video above-- much of it based on lies the way everything that comes out of the Trumpist regime is-- is Jared being interviewed by Christiane Amanpour on CNN, completely out of his depth and seeming to claim Trump has brought Israel together-- the hell with the Palestinians, who he berated as losers for passing on past proposals. Kushner, who rarely speaks in public, is much, much dumber than even I thought-- and I know his high school tutor who told me he's a moron long ago.

The Palestinians already passed on the Trump p.r. stunt while protesters burned tires and pictures of Trump (impeached) and Netanyahu (indicted). In the words of the NY Times, "The peace plan would create a small, disjointed Palestinian state in the West Bank and allow Israel to annex nearly all the Jewish settlements in the territory. Abbas rejected the deal before it was announced saying the U.S. was hopelessly biased toward Israel. Jordan meanwhile warned against any Israeli 'annexation of Palestinian lands' and reaffirmed its commitment to the creation of a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines, which would include all the West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem. Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warned of 'the dangerous consequences of unilateral Israeli measures, such as annexation of Palestinian lands.'" Netanyahu intends to annex 30% of the West Bank, with Trump's approval, in the next few days. There is nothing about the proposal that is a serious peace plan.

Zack Beauchamp at Vox was the first to hit toenail right on the head: "The proposal is missing a signature feature of every prior peace plan: a path to a viable Palestinian state. It divides up the Palestinian territories and surrounds them by Israel, and gives Israel total control over Palestinian security-- allowing a future Palestinian government to exercise full control over its own land only when Israel deems it acceptable. It’s a kind of state-minus: a Palestine without much of its land and subservient to Israel for basic functions."

“Trump can try to make this a Palestinian state by calling it a state. But it ain’t ever gonna whistle,” writes Tamara Cofman Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for Middle East Policy.

Needless to say, the Palestinians cannot and will not agree to such humiliation, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has already ruled it out.

“No, no, and no,” he has said. “Jerusalem is not for sale. All of our rights are not for sale or bartering.”

In fact, the Trump administration didn’t even have a role in writing the plan: It was put together primarily by Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, in consultation with the Israeli government. The notion that this is a good-faith effort to make peace is laughable.

So if the “peace plan” isn’t a peace plan, then what is it?

First, it’s an effort to help Netanyahu, a staunch Trump ally, in advance of tightly contested March elections in Israel. The release of a plan so tilted to Israeli priorities helps the right-wing prime minister sell himself as the man best positioned to handle the vital US-Israel relationship. And it doesn’t seem like an accident that the plan was released on the same day that Israel’s attorney general formally indicted Netanyahu on bribery and corruption charges.

Second, and more insidiously, it is a plan to legitimize Israel’s ongoing effort to seize additional Palestinian land.

The United States, as Israel’s most important ally and the historic mediator in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, helps define the parameters of what counts as an acceptable outcome.

As soon as the Palestinians have rejected the plan-- and it took only minutes for them to do so-- the Israelis can say, “Well, we tried, but they wouldn’t deal.” And they can proceed with settlement expansion and land grabs, moving Israel toward “not peace, but apartheid,” as B’Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights group, put it in a press release on the proposal.

The Trump vision is, in short, a truly Orwellian creation: a “peace plan” that actually is a plan to destroy the prospects for peace.

Trump's peace plan is a nonstarter

Prior to the Trump plan, the basic framework for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations had been relatively fixed. There would be two states, with the Palestinians taking control of the overwhelming bulk of the Palestinian-populated West Bank and Gaza Strip, and with Israel largely retreating to its current internationally recognized borders.

The two sides would come to agreement on thorny issues like which Israeli settlements in the West Bank could become part of Israel, and how exactly to share Jerusalem (a holy city for Judaism and Islam that both sides claim as their capital).

The Trump plan pretty much throws out this framework entirely.

Instead of allowing the two sides to negotiate solutions to these core disagreements, the plan lays out a detailed vision for final terms before negotiations have even begun.

On each of the four main issues-- West Bank borders/settlements, Jerusalem, justice for Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 war, and balancing Israel’s security needs with Palestinian sovereignty-- the plan is heavily tilted in Israel’s direction.

“Palestinians are being offered no state at all, just the box a state came in,” writes Hussein Ibish, the senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute. “Israel will be left in complete control of the entire area from the river to the sea. Pure apartheid.”

Perhaps the easiest way to see why is to look at the plan’s map for what final borders would look like. The proposed Palestinian state is in green; the little dots in the middle of the West Bank are Israeli “enclaves” that will remain part of Israel:

What you see is a Palestinian “state” that covers Gaza and a fraction of the West Bank, is surrounded by Israel, and is cut up even further by Israeli land. The plan seems to permit Israel beginning the process of annexing part of this land, starting with the Jordan Valley in the eastern part of the West Bank, an area that would cut off Palestinians from neighboring Jordan.

And the drawing actually understates how bad things will be, because it’s simply too zoomed out to illustrate how many different Israeli settlements there are and how much they’d screw up Palestinian development. This map alone would render the entire plan unacceptable to Palestinians.

“For the first time, the United States has unveiled a map with precise borders, and an Israeli leader has endorsed it. That map is a maximal vision of Israeli territorial control in the West Bank and Jerusalem,” Michael Koplow, the policy director of the Israel Policy Forum, writes in The Forward.

But it’s also terrible for Palestinians on the other three main contentious issues.

The plan states that “Jerusalem will remain the sovereign capital of the State of Israel, and it should remain an undivided city.” The Palestinians will be granted only a tiny fraction of the heavily Palestinian-populated part of the city known as East Jerusalem that excludes the religious holy sites; “all of Jerusalem’s holy sites should be subject to the same governance regimes that exist today,” as the plan euphemistically puts it.

On refugees, the Palestinians literally get nothing-- just a vague promise that some money might come up.

“Proposals that demand that the State of Israel agree to take in Palestinian refugees, or that promise tens of billions of dollars in compensation for the refugees, have never been realistic and a credible funding source has never been identified,” the plan explains. “Nevertheless, we will endeavor to raise a fund to provide some compensation to Palestinian refugees.”

Yet it is the security section that is perhaps most revealing. Not only would the future state of Palestine not be permitted to develop its own “military or paramilitary” forces-- ever-- but Israel would also maintain full security control over Palestinian territory until it decides not to. And if at any time Israel changes its mind, it is within its rights under the deal to retake military control.

“Once the State of Israel determines that the State of Palestine has demonstrated both a clear intention and a sustained capacity to fight terrorism, a pilot program will be initiated in an area of the West Bank portion of the State of Palestine, designated by the State of Israel, to determine if the State of Palestine is able to meet the Security Criteria,” the plan explains. “Should the State of Palestine fail to meet all or any of the Security Criteria at any time, the State of Israel will have the right to reverse the process outlined above.”

A peace plan is supposed to end Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank. By giving Israel full control, the Trump plan makes such a withdrawal nearly impossible to envision.

“If you put it in Israel’s hands it will never happen,” writes Ilan Goldenberg, the Middle East security director at the Center for a New American Security. “It’s a recipe for permanent occupation.”

The real purpose of the plan

Given these harsh terms and the total lack of Palestinian buy-in, there is no plausible reason to believe this plan could ever serve as the basis of an actual peace agreement for the two sides.

So what’s the purpose of releasing it with all this fanfare?

Part of the explanation is purely political: Trump wants to help his friend Netanyahu seem strong before Israel’s elections. The timing of the plan’s release makes this relatively transparent.

But the Trump administration wouldn’t go through all the trouble of drafting a plan just to interfere in a foreign election. There’s a deeper, even likelier explanation: that the right-wingers who make up Trump’s Israel-Palestine team have worked with the Israeli right to figure out a way to undo the peace process itself.

Israeli politics has tilted heavily against peace negotiations in the past two decades, largely as a result of the collapse of the 1990s-era peace process into the violence of the second intifada.

The March elections are primarily a contest between Netanyahu and the center-right Blue and White party, which itself has endorsed the idea of annexing part of the West Bank-- and celebrated the release of Trump’s plan as providing “a strong, viable basis for advancing a peace accord with the Palestinian.”

Consider the likely effect of this plan’s release on Israeli politics in this context. The Israel Policy Forum’s Koplow does a good job outlining it:

Israeli expectations have been permanently reset, and the trajectory of the Israeli position moving closer to the Palestinian one with each successive round of talks is over. Trump has destroyed any remaining hope that Israel will settle for the deal that peace processers have envisioned for a quarter century. In fact, Trump’s vision is weighted so far in one direction that it makes any deal at all hard to envision, particularly if Israel actually goes through with the annexation scenario that Trump has now greenlit.

Not only will Israeli leaders be hard-pressed to accept less than what Trump offered, the inevitable Palestinian rejection of Trump’s plan will give them the opportunity to start taking land on their own. The Israeli argument since Oslo has always been: “We tried to negotiate, but the Palestinians wouldn’t listen.” They’ll be able to say that this time around too, even though the negotiations were never offered in good faith.

What’s more, they can use the plan’s huge territorial concession-- that Israel will get to keep its West Bank settlements permanently-- as a justification for annexing at least part of it unilaterally. Netanyahu had vowed to annex the Jordan Valley prior to the plan’s release; Israel’s cabinet appears set to start the annexation effort as early as Sunday.

Such a land grab would force Israel down one of two dangerous one-state paths.

Option one would be to give the vote to Palestinians and make them full citizens of Israel, leading to an Arab demographic majority and thus ending Israel’s status as a Jewish state. This is not only a recipe for violence between Muslims and Jews but also unacceptable to Israel’s current leadership, who care much more about the state’s Jewish character than its democratic one.

The other option is indefinite Israeli rule over Palestinians without granting them citizenship. There’s a word for keeping an ethnically defined part of your population in permanent second-class citizenship: apartheid.

And that is the most fundamental effect of the Trump plan: to grant legitimacy to the move toward apartheid, to give America’s imprimatur to something its government once saw as impermissible.

They are destroying any prospect for a just peace plan in the name of saving it.

Can Congress Prevent Trump From Making The Situation In Israel/Palestine Worse?

Last week, Andy Levin (D-MI), one of Congress' foremost foreign policy experts, penned a very strong letter to the Trump Regime asking them to reverse their new position virtually encouraging an Israeli annexation of the West Bank by reversing 4 decades of bipartisan American policy towards the settlements. Levin immediately had 106 co-signers, all Democrats. Let's start with the letter itself:

The Honorable Mike Pompeo Secretary

U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C., 20520

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We write to express our strong disagreement with the State Department's decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank by repudiating the 1978 State Department legal opinion that civilian settlements in the occupied territories are "inconsistent with international law." This announcement, following the administration's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem outside of a negotiated agreement; its closure of the Palestinian mission in Washington, D.C. and U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem; and its halting of aid Congress appropriated to the West Bank and Gaza, has discredited the United States as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, severely damaged prospects for peace, and endangered the security of America, Israel, and the Palestinian people.

U.S. administrations from both parties have followed the 1978 guidance because settlement expansion into the occupied West Bank makes a contiguous Palestinian state inviable, jeopardizing Israel's future as a secure, democratic homeland for the Jewish people. The State Department's unilateral reversal on the status of settlements, without any clear legal justification, therefore has offered a tacit endorsement of settlements, their expansion, and associated demolitions of Palestinian homes. In addition, one day after the Department's decision, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to advance a bill to annex the Jordan Valley. As annexation and the United States' approval thereof would destroy prospects for a two-state solution and lead to a more entrenched and possibly deadlier conflict, this decision erodes the security o f both Israel and the United States.

This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not "deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." In ignoring international law, this administration has undermined America's moral standing and sent a dangerous message to those who do not share our values: human rights and international law, which have governed the international order and protected U.S. troops and civilians since 1949, no longer apply. If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.

Given these serious implications, we strongly urge you to reverse this po)jcy decision immediately.

Many of Congress' Jewish members, like Levin himself and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), John Yarmuth (D-KY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Jamie Raskin (D-MD) and Alan Lowenthal (D-CA) signed on, as did Muslims Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).

Haaretz, and all the major Israeli newspapers, gave the letter major coverage, even if U.S. media generally didn't.

The letter is the latest example of the growing opposition within the Democratic Party to the alliance between President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, particularly on the issue of settlements. Netanyahu promised during the previous Israeli election to annex parts of the West Bank to Israel; the Trump administraiton’s change of policy regarding the settlements was interpreted by politicians and leading analysts in Israel as a “green light” for such a step, despite denials from the White House that this was the administration’s intention.

Earlier this week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. will no longer accept the legal opinion that settlements are illegal under international law, and will instead accept the position of Israel’s legal system on the subject. The announcement came at the height of political coalition negotiations in Israel on the formation of a government, and the Trump administration denied allegations that the timing was meant to help Netanyahu remain in power. 

Netanyahu Could Be Sentenced To 10 Years In Prison... But 2 Years Or Less Is More Likely

On Wednesday it became official-- neither Benjamin Netanyahu nor Benny Gantz has been able to form a government. Basically, that means a third election of the year for a politically dysfunctional Israel. And hours after the announcement that Gantz was giving up, Prime Minister Netanyahu was indicted on bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges in a set of long-running corruption cases. He's not legally required to step down. "But," according to the NY Times, "with Israel’s political system already in uncharted territory, having failed to settle upon a new prime minister despite two elections and three attempts at forming a government since April, the criminal case against him could make it far more difficult for him to retain power."

The Jerusalem Post explained that "Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit announced his final indictment on Thursday against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, making him the first prime minister in Israeli history to be indicted while still in office. Bezeq and Walla! owner Shaul Elovitch and his wife, Iris, were also indicted for bribery and obstruction of justice. In addition, the owner of Yediot Ahronot, Arnon Nuni Mozes, was indicted for bribery. The indictment decision could alter the course of negotiations over forming a new government and who will be the new prime minister in the current 21 days Knesset process on the issue."

The attorney-general ultimately indicted Netanyahu for bribery in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla! Affair, for breach of public trust in Case 1000, the Illegal Gifts Affair and for breach of public trust in Case 2000, the Yediot Ahronot-Yisrael Hayom Affair.

The biggest moving pieces had been what the charge would be in Case 4000 and whether Case 2000 would remain a breach of trust charge as in Mandelblit's initial February announcement, or whether it would be closed.

Ultimately, the decision to indict Netanyahu for bribery is the most decisive one.

It means that his trial will be in a district court, known for being tougher than magistrate's courts and that he could face a potential jail sentence of years instead of months or mere community service.

Moreover, it means that any petition to the High Court of Justice-- which will doubtless soon be filed-- to remove him from power, has a much better chance.

As early as 2017-2018, the Jerusalem Post received multiple indications that an indictment for bribery could bring down Netanyahu even if he did not voluntarily step down, and that this serious consequence was part of what was making the investigatory process take longer.

However, the decision to keep Case 2000 as an indictment for breach of public trust, despite this being the case which Mandelblit was never a fan of, was also significant.

In Case 4000, Netanyahu is accused of involvement in a media bribery scheme in which Walla! owner Shaul Elovitch gave him positive coverage in exchange for Netanyahu making government policies favor Elovitch's Bezeq company to the tune of around NIS 1.8 billion.

In Case 1000, Netanyahu is accused of receiving hundreds of thousands of shekels in gifts from rich tycoons, mostly from Arnon Milchin, in exchange for a variety of help with business and personal-legal initiatives. The charge itself is for acting in situations in which Netantahu had a conflict of interest, since no actual quid pro quo could be proven.

In Case 2000, Netanyahu was accused of working with Yediot and Yisrael Hayom to reduce Yisrael Hayom's competition with Yediot in exchange for positive coverage for Netanyahu in Yediot. The deal never went through, but the law has crimes of attempted bribery and breach of trust which can apply even if a deal does not go through.

Yesterday Haaretz asked what everyone in Israel-- and beyond-- is wondering: Can Netanyahu remain prime minister and thereby get immunity from prosecution? "In the coming weeks and months, the political system will also have to adapt to the new situation. Netanyahu is seeking immunity from indictment. This is a serious issue Israeli lawmakers will have to tackle-- perhaps via legislation... Netanyahu has 30 days to request that the Knesset plenum grant him immunity so that he may avoid criminal trial. He is expected to ask to be granted this immunity, but if he does not do so within the allotted time, the legal proceedings against him will begin."

Right now, there isn't a Knesset body authorized to make this decision.

As long as a discussion isn't held by the House Committee regarding a request by the premier to give him immunity, the indictment against him cannot be filed. Consequently, the court will not be able to start any hearings related to his cases.

The Knesset could decide to appoint a House Committee especially in order to hold a session on Netanyahu's request for immunity. Alternately, the discussion by such a committee could be postponed until a new government is formed. In any case, Netanyahu's request for immunity and any decision to approve it must be justified on the basis of the reasons for immunity as stated by the Israeli law.

The first such reason is that the applicant has substantive immunity, which cannot be revoked. This substantive immunity covers offenses committed while the defendant served as a Knesset member.

The second pretext is the argument that the indictment was not filed in good faith-- i.e., it is tainted by political motivations or by intent to harass, for example. Another pretext is that his actions could be examined by an internal Knesset forum as a disciplinary offense. The fourth reason is that the criminal proceeding could substantially harm the functioning of the Knesset.

Even if the Knesset House Committee and plenum decide to grant Netanyahu immunity, Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit or any other citizen could appeal the decision to the High Court. By the same token, Netanyahu could appeal to the High Court if the Knesset denies his request for immunity.





The High Court has intervened in the past in decisions involving the granting of immunity on the grounds that the Knesset exceeded its authority, that the decision to grant immunity was unreasonable or that that there had been a shortage of evidence to support any of the causes to grant immunity. Any decision by the Knesset regarding immunity for Netanyahu will likely be followed by a petition to the High Court.

...Does Netanyahu have to resign if he is indicted?

This issue has never been decided in court. It would be precedent-setting for an indictment to be filed against a sitting prime minister. Section 18 of Basic Law: The Government stipulates two situations in which a prime minister ought to cease serving in his position in wake of an offense: The first is a decision by a majority of the Knesset after a trial court has convicted him of an offense involving moral turpitude; and the second situation is a conviction that has been confirmed at every appellate level. According to the Basic Law, in both cases, the prime minister’s resignation would occur following a conviction, and not during the indictment stage.

However, a Supreme Court ruling from 1993 could change matters entirely. Twenty-six years ago, the court ruled in what has since become known as the "Dery-Pinchasi precedent" that then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had to fire Minister Arye Dery and his deputy Rapahel Pinchasi due to a serious indictment against them.

Evoking this ruling, the court could order Netanyahu to resign despite the stipulations dictated by law. The High Court could use the legal interpretation which says that if such a rule applies to ministers, it should certainly be applied to prime ministers.

Another argument to be made is that a prime minister’s decision to remain in office once indicted and in the midst of legal proceedings seriously impacts his ability to do his job on behalf of the public.

Nonetheless, there is a significant difference between a minister and prime minister, as the latter is not appointed but rather elected. Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot say that a certain party’s decision to fire him or refrain from firing him is unreasonable. There is a legal opinion which says that it is up to the prime minister to decide whether to resign or not, and therefore the court may criticize the reasonability of his decision. An interim possibility the High Court has is to compel Netanyahu to declare temporary incapacity.

...What possible sentence may be given for the offenses Netanyahu is charged with?

The maximum sentence for bribery is 10 years in prison. In practice, the court has never imposed the maximum sentence on elected officials who were convicted of bribery. Olmert was sentenced to 19 months in prison for bribery. Former minister Shlomo Benizri was convicted of accepting a bribe and was sentenced to four years in prison. Deri was convicted of bribery, fraud and breach of trust and sentenced to three years in prison. The maximum sentence for offenses of fraud and breach of trust is three years in prison.

One interest Netanyahu will have in trying to delay the legal proceedings concerns his age at the time of sentencing: If by the time a trial concludes Netanyahu is 77, the court will likely take the defendant’s age into consideration when issuing the sentence.

Will the U.S. National Security State Work to Defeat Jeremy Corbyn?

The implementation of Israel's one-state solution is nearly complete (discussion here)

by Thomas Neuburger

I've been writing both publicly and privately about regime change and the U.S. national security state lately, most recently here. Bottom line: They do it and they like doing it. It seems no country is immune from being targeted — according to Secretary of State and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo, even the UK.

This find stems from a leaked recording of a conversation Pompeo had with British Jewish leaders who are worried about Corbyn's supposed "antisemitism" — in reality, Corbyn's even-handedness when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which represents a break from the U.S.-UK position of always siding with Israel and against the Palestinian people, despite stories like this: "Annexation: Israel Already Controls More Than Half of the West Bank."

Here's Telesur's version of Pompeo's leaked remarks:

US Will ‘Do Its Best’ To Stop Corbyn From Being Elected as Prime Minister: Pompeo

In the most recent showcase of United States (U.S.) meddling in foreign governments, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo pledged, in a leaked conversation with British Jewish leaders, that his country will “push-back” against Labour’s party leader Jeremy Corbyn's bid to get elected as Prime Minister.

“It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected,” Pompeo is heard saying. “It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

The recording was leaked to The Washington Post and revealed on Sunday after sustained accusations of antisemitism within the party. These allegations have mainly being driven by mainstream media and certain pro-Israeli groups against Labour’s leadership.

Corbyn has long been a campaigner against Israeli occupation and supporter of Palestinian rights, which many journalists have labeled as anti-semitic.

Note that Telesur quotes the Washington Post, which broke the story, but which also interpreted the remarks differently. Here's the Post's Pompeo-friendly headline: "Pompeo pledges not to wait for Britain’s elections to ‘push back’ against Corbyn and anti-Semitism." No hint of a threat of regime change or election interference is suggested.

Here's the Post's version of Pompeo's remarks with context:

During his meeting with Jewish leaders in New York, Pompeo was asked if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?”

In response, Pompeo said, “It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best,” he said to fervent applause from attendees.

“It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened,” he said.

Was Mike Pompeo promising to interfere in the coming UK election to make sure Corbyn was defeated? Or promising just to protect "Jews in the UK" if life becomes "difficult" for them (whatever that means) after Corbyn takes office?

Pompeo's quoted comment  contains a tell: "You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back." He, Corbyn, can't "do those things" — make life difficult for Jews in the UK — until after he's Prime Minister. What would "push back" mean prior to Corbyn taking office? What "things" would there be, what actions could Corbyn possibly take prior to his election — that could be pushed back against, except the election itself?

Stay tuned. If Pompeo makes good on his promise and the U.S. security state is caught meddling — Russia-style or worse — in the election of the UK prime minister, the consequences will be varied and great on both sides of the ocean.

At that point, things could get very interesting indeed. Look for UK heads to swivel in outrage and anger, whether Corbyn is elected or not. And look for U.S. heads to divert attention from the obvious and recent contradictions.
 

Foreign Correspondent: The ‘Trump Doctrine’ Is Sinking Fast

U.S. sanctions have caused the cost of some food items to jump 3 times in the last year. Here, bakers in Isfahan.
by Reese Erlich

The Iranian government saw the President’s vacillation as a sign of weakness, one journalist tells me, “Iran was ready to retaliate on an unbelievable scale.”

-by Reese Erlich

Tehran resident Dariush is exactly the kind of person that the Trump Administration claims to be supporting. He is a middle-class businessman who hates the clerical regime. The White House thinks Iranians like Dariush would welcome the overthrow of their government. But when I talked to Dariush by phone, he was more angry at President Donald Trump.

Dariush’s mother requires regular injections of medicine. The cost of the drug has increased threefold in the past year, and he must buy it for her on the black market. He blames inflation on the US sanctions: “They are just hurting normal people.”

I ask his reaction to Trump’s on-again, off-again threats of war against Iran. “If a war happens,” he says, “I will defend my country. I don’t like my government, but I will fight.”

Over the past several weeks, the Trump Administration has managed to infuriate ordinary Iranians, traditional US allies, and US war hawks. The emerging “Trump Doctrine” uses economic sanctions and tariffs to bully other countries, accompanied by fiery threats of military action without actual attacks. Not only is the doctrine foolhardy, it isn’t working.

Of ships and drones

Since May, six oil tankers in the Persian Gulf area have come under attack. The Trump Administration immediately blamed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps for attaching mines to the ships, and provided grainy video as evidence. Iran denies attacking the tankers.

Then, on June 20, Iran shot down a U.S. Global Hawk surveillance drone, which cost an estimated $130 million. The US claimed the drone was flying over international waters. Iranian officials said the drone entered Iranian airspace and displayed drone wreckage at a press conference to bolster their argument.

The next day, in a bizarre sequence of events, Trump ordered the Pentagon to attack an Iranian missile battery, and then called back the planes at the last minute. He claimed this was because he had learned the raid could cause 150 Iranian casualties, but an investigation by the Daily Beast revealed he had known the body count prior to green-lighting the attack.

Rightwing hawks in the U.S. criticized Trump for calling off the attack. Liberal Democrats pointed out that he started the whole mess by withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Trump supporters tried to pass off the flip flop as a brilliant tactical move that threw the Iranians off balance.

In fact, the Iranian government saw Trump’s vacillation as a sign of weakness, according to a Tehran journalist with close government ties, who is not authorized to speak to the media.

“Iran was ready to retaliate on an unbelievable scale,” the journalist tells me in a phone interview. “After the first US missile launch, Trump wouldn't be able to control the consequences, not only in the Persian Gulf but from Saudi Arabia to Israel.”

So, instead of dropping bombs on Iran, Trump announced new sanctions claiming to seize financial assets of top officials such as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since the sanctioned leaders don’t have western bank accounts or other such assets, the sanctions mean nothing.

Yet they were an insult not only to Iran but to Shia Muslims, according to William Beeman, an Iran expert at the University of Minnesota.

“Ayatollah Khamenei is Iran's spiritual leader,” he says. “Trump is attacking Shia Islam itself with this move, and that is how it will be interpreted in Iran.”

The Trump Doctrine

Now the Trump Administration is caught in a bind of its own creation. It would have great difficulty invading and occupying Iran because of the huge financial cost and potential for an astronomical death toll on both sides. So-called limited military strikes can destroy installations, but they also rally people to support their government.

Unilateral sanctions won’t work either because, among other reasons, no European or Asian country supports them. Harsh sanctions can cause a lot of human suffering, but they won’t lead Iranians to rise up and install a pro-US regime.

So Trump is stuck trying to come up with new sanctions and ever more bombastic ways to threaten military assaults without actually doing so. Trump has turned Teddy Roosevelt’s famous slogan on its head: talk loudly but carry a teensy-weensy stick.

Of course it’s possible that Trump’s ultra-right wing advisors will persuade him to launch an attack, according to Professor Foad Izadi, an expert on US-Iran relations at the University of Tehran. If he did, he tells me by phone, “There would be a major military response.” Iran can't afford to look weak, he says. “The US must understand the cost is high.”

More crises ahead

The European signers of the nuclear accord, including the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, object to the US pulling out of the 2015 nuclear accord and oppose unilateral US sanctions. But they haven’t done anything in practice to live up to the legally binding agreement.

Iran has given those countries until July 8 to lift their de facto sanctions on Iran, specifically, to facilitate trade in Iranian oil and gas. Russia and China have taken such steps, so could Europe.

If nothing changes by July 8, Izadi says, Iran will take a number of calibrated steps to increase the amount of enriched uranium used for generating electrical power, and increase the level of enrichment to as high as 60 percent. That would bring Iran closer to the 90 percent level needed to produce a nuclear bomb. Even with enough uranium for a bomb, however, experts say Iran has no ability to build one. Iran would increase production as a bargaining chip.

How Trump could end the crisis

In keeping with Trump's doctrine of avoiding large troop commitments, I offer the following handy hints on how to resolve the Iran crisis:

• Fire National Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and other hawks whose bankrupt policies will lead to yet another war in the Middle East. The US now has acting heads of the Defense Department, Homeland Security and dozens of other agencies. Nobody will notice a new acting National Security Advisor or a missing Secretary of State.
• Declare that his campaign of “maximum pressure” is a great success and has forced Iran not to build nuclear weapons. Then rejoin the 2015 nuclear accord, which does exactly that.
• In further celebration of the U.S. victory and Trump’s brilliant tactics, lift all unilateral sanctions imposed on Iran.
• In a man-to-man summit with President Hassan Rouhani, Trump should sit down for serious negotiations on a grand bargain. The comprehensive agreement could create a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, pull all foreign troops out of Syria, normalize U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations and help combat terrorist organizations such as ISIS.

You don’t think such plans would work? Hey, they have no worse chance than Trump’s current policy plans.

                                                                   * * * *

Remember Trump's "plan of the century" that would solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict once and for all? Well, the White House finally revealed the plan this week at a meeting in Bahrain. The plan promises Palestinians economic improvements through $50.7 billion in foreign aid and private investments, although the U.S. would provide no funds.

There's no mention of the key political issues such as creating a Palestinian state, stopping settlements and returning occupied West Bank land, the status of Jerusalem or returning the Golan to Syria. The plan was denounced by all Palestinian political parties and leaders. The plan is an insult to the Palestinians and everyone else in the Middle East.

But when it comes to Trump grand plans, what else is new?

The Two-State Solution Is Dead. What Next?

Control of the region recently called Palestine from 2000 BCE to the present (source; click to enlarge)

by Thomas Neuburger

There are two possible futures for Israel and Palestine: one close to the vision of Isaiah — “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” — and one reminiscent of the prophecy of the Sibyl of Virgil’s Aeneid: “wars, horrendous wars,” the Jordan “foaming with tides of blood.” It’s a simple choice. Let’s choose peace.
     —Presidential candidate Mike Gravel (source)

The part of the Middle East formerly known as Palestine is lost as a two-state region. The Israelis are "systematically" driving toward a single regional state: the State of Israel. Below is a map showing Israel proper, the West Bank region, Palestinian population centers and the growing incursion of Israeli settlements which are "eating" the West Bank.

"A State Department map shows Palestinian population centers in the West Bank. Obama was surprised to see how 'systematic' the Israelis had been at cutting them off from one another." (source, click to enlarge)

The outcome of this long process of territorial integration, barring any implementation of an alternative to the "two-state solution," will be as Mike Gravel says, "horrendous war, the Jordan foaming with blood." The monomaniacal drive by Israel's leaders to recover the western part of their Iron Age kingdom has now made peace impossible, sans intervention.

If the two-state idea is dead, what alternatives are left? Just one. Below I list the main points of presidential candidate Mike Gravel's proposal, offered as the only non-military, non-ethnic-cleansing way forward. Is this solution "practical"? No, it's not, in the sense that the current leaders of the U.S., Israel and Palestine will not accept it.

But yes, it is practical, in the sense that a bloodbath in the region — and it will come to that — a bloodbath that will wash over all of the Middle East, is the only other alternative. If a war of this magnitude is itself "impractical" in the extreme, Gravel's solution is imminently practical. I, like Gravel, see this as the only way out.

Here are Gravel's main points, as offered in a recent Mondoweiss piece:

• Move toward creating a secular, democratic binational state — "Most American diplomats will, in their more candid hours, admit that the two-state idea is long dead. Prudence dictates that America acknowledge that on the world stage and begin the search for other solutions. The most obvious and humane path forward is the creation of a secular, democratic, binational state with equal rights for all. That is the model the U.S. government, with its partners in the region, should work toward and publicly highlight as the ideal outcome."

Gravel recognizes that the above proposal would disappoint everyone in the region. Yet it's the only peaceful way forward: "Both visions serve an abstract nationalism rather than the actual needs of Israelis and Palestinians living in the area, and a state along the lines of the idealized United States model, one with no prized ethnicity or religious character, is the solution all those seeking a humanitarian alternative should support. There would be no need for the byzantine arrangements (land swaps, dual city ownership, etc.) upon which most attempts to resolve the conflict have hinged: it would simply be the decision—an admittedly difficult one—to live together, Muslim, Jew, and Christian, in a peaceful, democratic, egalitarian society."

• Force AIPAC and similar pro-Israel groups to register as foreign lobbies — "The first step should be mandating that AIPAC register as a foreign lobby under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). AIPAC manages to skirt American laws about foreign lobbying by claiming that it represents Americans who happen to support Israel. But the shockingly close ties between the governing Likud Party and AIPAC give a lie to this legal fiction; AIPAC will always stand closer to Israeli interests than American ones. Such an arrangement would prevent AIPAC from influencing American elections, and would require it to report all of its contacts with Congress, along with details of its spending, to the Department of Justice."

The point about preventing influence in American elections is important — the present arrangement skirts very close to the line marked by our present panic over "foreign interference in our democracy," if it doesn't cross well over it. Without Israeli influence in the U.S. electoral process, a wider world of foreign policy and peace-making options is open to us.

Yes, I know this proposal is anathema in the current environment — witness the immediate and bipartisan vilification of Rep. Ilhan Omar — but Gravel merely says out loud what everyone in D.C. knows, but won't repeat with a microphone nearby. Nevertheless, we in the "reality-based community" should acknowledge this fact.

• End military support for Israel — "Next, the U.S. should end military aid to Israel, citing the Israeli military’s complicity in crimes against the Palestinian people. It should call for a gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine, and should be clear with the Israeli government that the days of Israel-right-or-wrong are over. Future outrages by either side will receive an even-handed response without bias. Accordingly, it should demand that Israel bring itself into compliance with international law and end the harassment of dissidents..."

This proposal, actually two proposals in one, is highly controversial to say the least. Cries of "but Israel needs to be able to defend itself" will be loud enough to cause deafness. In response, I would add to Gravel's call my own proposal that we end all military support in the region. Note that ending U.S. military aid does not mean immediate disarmament for any of these nations; far from it. Israel can do quite nicely without U.S. dollars swelling their military coffers — and besides, as the only nuclear-tipped army in the region, it still has the deciding advantage.

The region's militarization, in fact, underscores the importance of the second part of his proposal, a "gradual demilitarization of Israel and Palestine." Recall again the aforementioned atrocities and "crimes against the Palestinian people." Those do have to stop or be made to stop. If they don't, the region is on the road to ethnic cleansing, and that won't end well for anyone, including the U.S. and Europe.

It's a simple choice: demilitarize or keep on the current path. There's no middle ground. Once the main goal is shifted to a peaceful secular state, the need for demilitarization between Israelis and Palestinians is inescapable.

• Finally, end U.S. attempts to stifle BDS, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement — "the U.S. should refuse to take unconstitutional steps to stifle BDS. Whatever one’s personal thoughts on BDS, an individual or group’s decision not to associate with another group or country is a legitimate exercise of the freedoms of speech and association guaranteed by the Constitution, and using the power of the government to influence those decisions is wrong. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Cory Booker should be ashamed of themselves for supporting federal laws to restrict BDS. (It is perhaps no coincidence that Booker and the president of AIPAC 'text message back and forth like teenagers,' by Booker’s own admission.)"

Bottom Line

If peace in the Palestinian region is the goal, and if you're clear-headed about what it will take to get there, these are the most practical steps, and in fact the only ones, no matter how objectionable they will be to everyone involved in the conflict.

First, the goal must recognized realities on the ground. If a two-state solution is impossible, the only alternatives are an increasingly cleansed Greater Israel, with intifada after growing intifada revenging within its borders, or a peaceful secular state. One cannot have a religion-dominated Israel as the only state in the region and still have peace. One may as well want a bird that can fly to the moon.

Next, if the second alternative, a peaceful secular state, is to be achieved with U.S. leadership, the U.S. political process much be cleared of the protected intervention of the Israel lobby. If not, its paid politicians will win almost every battle, neutering every attempt at make peace, until peace itself is a dream of the past and war is the fact on the ground, the "foaming tide of blood" Gravel seeks to avoid.

Neither of the alternatives, a one-state region dominated by religion and cleansing, or a one-state region of diversity and tolerance, will be achieved without great pain. But I were the one choosing between them, a road that leads to a foaming tide of blood would be last on the list, if it even made the list at all.
    

Foreign Correspondent: Russia Sees Through Trump’s Iran Bluster, But Has Middle East Problems of its Own

By trying to isolate Russia and Iran, the US is only isolating itself.

-by Reese Erlich

MOSCOW --

President Donald Trump won’t go to war with Iran. That was the prediction of Russian experts I interviewed in Moscow during the height of the US-Iran crisis in May. They were right.

To date, Trump has threatened military action against North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. But,  while he has caused tremendous damage to ordinary people with tariffs and economic sanctions, he hasn’t started any new wars. Countries around the world can now, after two years of Trump, distinguish between genuine military aggression and bluster.

Russian analysts say an outright occupation of Iran would be a disaster for the US military because of the tremendous loss of life and treasure. Even a so-called limited attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would rally the Iranian people in support of their government, says Vladimir Sazhin, an Iran specialist at the Institute for Oriental Studies in Moscow.

“The results will be the opposite of American intentions,” he tells me.

Certainly, some powerful factions in the Trump Administration advocate war as a means to overthrow the Iranian government. National Security Advisor John Bolton personally announced that Washington would send an aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf. Pentagon officials then planned to deploy Patriot missile batteries. War threats reached a peak when the Defense Department considered sending up to 120,000 troops to the region.

But US saber-rattling came under withering criticism at home and abroad, even from conservatives. Trump backed down. “Right now, I don’t think Iran wants to fight, and I certainly don’t think they want to fight with us,” he told reporters. He then announced plans to deploy 1,500 troops to the region, which included extending the stay of 600 soldiers who are already there.

Russian officials believe such erratic swings reflect a fundamental weakness in the American empire under Trump. I humbly agree. But that doesn’t mean all is hunky-dory between Russia and Iran.

For the last several years, Russia and Iran have allied against the US as a common enemy. Both support Bashar al Assad in Syria, oppose US military action in Venezuela, and oppose US sanctions on various countries. Both have a vested interest in keeping oil prices high to benefit their major export. Russia has defended the lifting of sanctions on Iran as called for by  the seven-nation nuclear agreement. Trump unilaterally withdrew from the accord and imposed harsh new sanctions.

But Ivan Konovalov, head of the Center for Studies of Strategic Trends, notes that each country has its own political, military, and economic interests in the region.

Russia, he tells me, has three important national interests in the Middle East: “Preventing Mideast terrorists from gaining a foothold in Russia; maintaining the large Russian navy and air force bases in Syria; and keeping channels open for trade in oil and natural gas.” Those “national interests” look suspiciously like US justifications for maintaining its hegemony in the Middle East. The people of the region don’t benefit from the presence of military bases and high oil company profits—regardless of whether they are American or Russian.

That desire for hegemony limits the level of longterm Russia-Iran cooperation. The two countries, Sazhin says, don’t have a strategic alliance but rather “a situational partnership.” Differences may emerge in the future over a number of issues.

While leaders in both Iran and Russia support Assad, they don’t agree on what kind of constitution and government should ultimately govern Syria. Iran appeals to the religious sector, including the small Shia Muslim community and the Alawite supporters of Assad. Russia has more influence among secular Syrians, particularly the military and intelligence services.

“Russia doesn’t care who the new leaders are so long as the bases stay,” Sazhin says.

More importantly, the two countries differ about Israel. Iran doesn’t recognize the existence of the Jewish state, while Russia has close ties with Israel. In the old days, the USSR sided with Arab nationalists and sought to isolate Israel. Not anymore.

Out of Israel’s total population of nine million people, some one million are former Soviet citizens or their descendants. President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have met at least eleven times since 2015. For Netanyahu, that’s more than with any other world leader.

In practical terms, that means Russia has reached an informal compromise with Israel over its actions in Syria. Israel frequently bombs targets in Syria it claims are controlled by Lebanese Hezbollah or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. But it has not attacked Russian bases.

“We close our eyes when the Israeli Air Force attacks Syria as long as there’s no attack on Russian installations,” Sazhin says. “It’s a gentleman’s agreement.”

Russia’s alliance with Israel has also led to downplaying support for the Palestinians. Russia rarely raises the issue, while Iranian authorities provide political and economic support to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

“Palestinians have a legitimate complaint about Russian policy,” Konovalov says. “Everybody has forgotten about the Palestinians.”

For the moment, however, such differences are ignored or downplayed in light of the US threat. The Trump Administration uses harsh sanctions and tariffs in an attempt to impose its will on the region. But by trying to isolate Russia and Iran, the US is only isolating itself.