US foreign policy
Subterms
More stories
- in US Politics
US condemns Putin nuclear deterrence order but cautiously welcomes talks report
US condemns Putin nuclear deterrence order but cautiously welcomes talks report
Psaki: Russia ‘manufacturing threats to justify aggression’
Analysis: Nuclear posturing requires west to tread carefully
Ukraine crisis – live coverage
The Biden administration on Sunday condemned Vladimir Putin’s decision to place Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert. The White House also faced growing calls from senior Republicans to target Russia’s energy sector with new sanctions.Vladimir Putin puts Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alertRead moreAs Russia’s invasion of Ukraine entered its fourth day, the US also expressed guarded optimism over talks between delegations from the two countries set to take place inside Ukraine, near the Belarusian border, on Monday.Speaking on ABC’s This Week, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, described the nuclear deterrence announcement as an example of Putin “manufacturing threats that don’t exist in order to justify further aggression”.In televised comments, Putin said he had ordered “the deterrence forces of the Russian army to a special mode of combat duty”, due to “aggressive statements” from Nato leaders. Analysts told the Guardian that while the order itself was not immediately clear, it was not indicative of preparation for a first strike.Psaki said: “At no point has Russia been under threat from Nato, has Russia been under threat from Ukraine, this is all a pattern from President Putin. And we’re going to stand up for it. We have the ability to defend ourselves, but we also need to call out what we’re seeing here from President Putin.”Biden administration officials expressed tentative support for planned talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations, as announced by the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.The US ambassador to the United Nations, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, told CNN’s State of the Union the US would “look forward to what comes out of those discussions.“As you know … we leaned in on diplomacy with the Russians throughout this process and we hoped that Putin would find a way to the negotiating table and he made the unfortunate decision of aggression over diplomacy.”Pressed on whether she believed the talks announcement indicated a good faith effort on behalf of Russia, Thomas Greenfield responded: “I can’t get into Putin’s head or into Russian reasoning, so it remains to be seen.”The talks announcement was tentatively welcomed by the Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, who told CNN he had “absolute and full confidence” in Zelenskiy’s judgment on “whether it is right to sit down and find a political solution”.But Stoltenberg also expressed concerns about Russia’s motivations.“It remains to be seen whether Russia is really willing to make some serious compromises and also to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine,” he said.Stoltenberg characterized Putin’s decision to order Russia’s nuclear deterrence forces on high alert as “dangerous rhetoric” and “a behaviour that is irresponsible”.The Biden administration has issued tough sanctions, targeting banks and the finances of some Russian oligarchs as well as restricting export of vital technologies key to Russian military and economic development.Over the weekend, the US and its European allies announced plans to target the Russian central bank’s foreign reserves and to block selected Russian financial institutions from the Swift messaging system for international payments.00:48But the sanctions have not yet targeted oil and gas exports, which reportedly accounted for 36% of Russia’s annual budget last year. That has lead to criticism both inside the Ukraine and in the US.On Sunday Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas and a prominent foreign policy hawk, urged the administration to continue to amplify sanctions.“It’s time for the president and some of our European partners to quit pussyfooting around,” he told ABC. “The financial sanctions announced last night are riddled with loopholes.”Donald Trump defends calling Putin ‘smart’, hints at 2024 presidential bidRead moreCotton was also grilled on Donald Trump’s stance on the war. Trump, who often praised Putin while he was in the White House, finally condemned the invasion during a speech on Saturday night, but also continued to praise the Russian leader.Cotton refused four times to condemn or comment on Trump’s record.The Biden administration has not ruled out further sanctions and has alluded to further measures being taken as the war progresses.“The purpose of the sanctions are to put as much pressure on the Russian economy as possible. And we want to do as much as we can to protect the impact on our own economy,” Thomas-Greenfield said.“But we’re continuing to look at new and even harsher measures against the Russians.”TopicsUkraineRussiaEuropeUS foreign policyUS national securityUS politicsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Biden and the west respond to Putin’s invasion: Politics Weekly America
In a historic week for Ukraine, Europe and the world, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Ivo Daalder, the former US ambassador to Nato, about how Biden is responding, and why – for the Ukrainians – it’s too late
How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know
Archive: BBC, Sky News, ITV, CSPAN Listen to Politics Weekly UK with John Harris Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com. Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts. More
- in US Politics
‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia – US politics live
Key events
Show
4.18pm EST
16:18
Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine
1.50pm EST
13:50
‘Putin chose this war,’ Biden says as he announces new sanctions against Russia
1.45pm EST
13:45
Biden delivers national address on Russian invasion of Ukraine
12.45pm EST
12:45
McConnell: withdrawal from Afghanistan was an invitation to autocrats to make a move
12.30pm EST
12:30
Today so far
12.05pm EST
12:05
House intelligence chairman calls for tougher sanctions against Russia
10.07am EST
10:07
Biden to address nation as Russia invades Ukraine
Live feed
Show
Show key events only
4.50pm EST
16:50
Dmytro Kuleba, the Ukrainian foreign minister, spoke to US Secretary of State Antony Blinken today to discuss the latest round of US sanctions against Russia in response to the invasion.
“Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine,” Kuleba said on Twitter.
“Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.”Dmytro Kuleba
(@DmytroKuleba)
Call with @SecBlinken on ways to stop Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine. Secretary informed me on the new U.S. sanctions on Russia, as well as plans to deliver new defensive weapons to help Ukraine defend itself. Ukraine holds ground. We need the world to help us.February 24, 2022
4.33pm EST
16:33
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican of South Carolina, sharply criticized Joe Biden for not issuing direct sanctions on Vladimir Putin in response to his invasion of Ukraine.
“We should not be seeking permission from allies to go after Putin and his cronies. We should move ahead forcefully against Putin, a war criminal, and demand our allies join us,” Graham said.
“When it comes to sanctions against Putin: If we are not doing everything possible, we are not doing enough. Time is not on our side.”
Biden said today that his administration is not eliminating the possibility of issuing direct sanctions against Putin, but he ignored questions about why he was not taking that step now.
Graham also reiterated that he would work with his congressional colleagues in both parties to quickly pass a bill providing emergency supplemental aid to Ukraine in response to the invasion.
“How we deal with Putin determines what happens in other regions like Asia and the Middle East,” Graham said. “We need to get this done in the Senate next week.”4.18pm EST
16:18
Obama condemns Russia’s ‘brutal onslaught’ against Ukraine
Barack Obama has released a new statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military actions represent a threat to democracies around the world.
“Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency,” the former president said.
“For exercising rights that should be available to all people and nations, Ukrainians now face a brutal onslaught that is killing innocents and displacing untold numbers of men, women and children.”Barack Obama
(@BarackObama)
Last night, Russia launched a brazen attack on the people of Ukraine, in violation of international law and basic principles of human decency. Here’s my statement on what it means, and what should happen next. pic.twitter.com/Wa0C8XGwvKFebruary 24, 2022
Obama warned that the invasion of Ukraine “threatens the foundation of the international order and security,” underscoring how the “forces of division and authoritarianism” are mounting an assault on global democratic values.
“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine shows where these dangerous trends can lead — and why they cannot be left unchallenged,” Obama said. “People of conscience around the world need to loudly and clearly condemn Russia’s actions and offer support for the Ukrainian people.”
Obama called on “every American, regardless of party” to support Joe Biden’s latest sanctions against Russia, which target some of the country’s largest banks and more elite Russian families.
“There may be some economic consequences to such sanctions, given Russia’s significant role in world energy markets,” Obama acknowledged. “But that’s a price we should be willing to pay to take a stand on the side of freedom.”3.56pm EST
15:56
House speaker Nancy Pelosi applauded Joe Biden’s latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, expressing support for the Ukrainian people.
“The leadership of President Biden and our allies to demonstrate overwhelming resolve is crucial in this moment of heartbreak and suffering for the Ukrainian people,” Pelosi said in a statement.
“We are united with unprecedented strength and coordination in our commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Pelosi noted that House members received a briefing from the Biden administration on the Ukraine crisis today and will receive a classified, in-person briefing next week.
“President Biden has made clear throughout Russia’s escalation that we will continue to impose costs on Russia that will leave it weakened in every way,” Pelosi said. “The United States Congress joins President Biden and all Americans in praying for the Ukrainian people.”3.38pm EST
15:38
Adam Schiff, the House intelligence committee chairman, said the US sanctions against Russia need to go even further than those announced by Joe Biden today.
“I think the package of sanctions that the president announced is the most severe we’ve ever levied against Russia and many times more devastating than anything that was implemented after their last invasion in 2014,” Schiff told MSNBC.
“Nevertheless, I favor going further. I favor expelling them from Swift. I favor imposing sanctions directly on Vladimir Putin. This is an unprecedent situation, and even though we don’t generally sanction heads of state, on occasion we do, and I think it’s merited here.”
Biden said during his event this afternoon that direct sanctions on Putin were one possibility the US may explore, but he ignored a question about why he is not authorizing those sanctions now.Updated
at 3.39pm EST3.17pm EST
15:17
After his speech on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Joe Biden was asked by a reporter why the US and its allies are not moving to block Russia out of Swift (the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication).
“The sanctions that we have proposed on all of their banks are of equal consequence, maybe more consequence, than Swift,” Biden said.
He added, “It is always an option, but right now that’s not the position that the rest of Europe wishes to take.”
The West’s refusal to crack down on Russia’s use of Swift has outraged the Ukrainian government. The Guardian’s Daniel Boffey and Jessica Elgot report:Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, voiced his anger as EU heads of state and government appeared likely to decide against blocking Russia from an international payments system through which it receives foreign currency.
With casualties mounting, Kuleba warned that European and US politicians would have ‘blood on their hands’ if they failed to impose the heaviest toll on Moscow by cutting Russia from the so-called Swift payments system.
‘I will not be diplomatic on this,’ he tweeted. ‘Everyone who now doubts whether Russia should be banned from Swift has to understand that the blood of innocent Ukrainian men, women and children will be on their hands too. BAN RUSSIA FROM SWIFT.’2.57pm EST
14:57
The US Treasury noted that the latest sanctions against Russia will impact nearly 80% of all banking assets in the country, fundamentally threatening the Russian economy and weakening the Kremlin’s geopolitical posture.
“Treasury is taking serious and unprecedented action to deliver swift and severe consequences to the Kremlin and significantly impair their ability to use the Russian economy and financial system to further their malign activity,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said.
“Our actions, taken in coordination with partners and allies, will degrade Russia’s ability to project power and threaten the peace and stability of Europe.”
Yellen said the US is also “prepared to impose further costs on Russia in response to its egregious actions” if Vladimir Putin pursues further aggression against Ukraine.
“We are united in our efforts to hold Russia accountable for its further invasion of Ukraine while mitigating impacts to Americans and our partners,” Yellen said.2.43pm EST
14:43
The White House has released a fact sheet on the latest round of sanctions against Russia in response to Vladimir Putin launching a fuller-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The sanctions call for Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, to be severed from the US financial system, restricting the bank’s access to transactions made in the American dollar.
Meanwhile, full sanctions will be imposed on four other financial institutions, including Russia’s second-largest bank of VTB. That measure will freeze any of the banks’ assets touching the US financial system and prohibit Americans from dealing with them.The White House
(@WhiteHouse)
In response to President Putin’s unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, the United States, along with Allies and partners, is imposing severe and immediate economic costs on Russia.Read more: https://t.co/L83Q2uFwKx pic.twitter.com/kpxfNmQvxMFebruary 24, 2022
2.29pm EST
14:29
Joe Biden was asked whether Vladimir Putin’s latest military actions in Ukraine and the resulting sanctions on Russia represent a complete rupture in US-Russian relations.
“There is a complete rupture right now in US-Russian relations if they continue on this path that they’re on,” Biden said.CSPAN
(@cspan)
President Biden: “There is a complete rupture right now in U.S.-Russian relations…It’s going to be a cold day for Russia.” pic.twitter.com/GbVF9jW81fFebruary 24, 2022
Addressing the possibility of another Cold War starting, Biden said the vast majority of the world does not support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
“So it’s going to be a cold day for Russia,” Biden said. “You don’t see a whole lot of people coming to his defense.”
After taking several questions from reporters, Biden concluded the event and walked away from his podium in the East Room.2.23pm EST
14:23
Another reporter pressed Joe Biden on the fact that Vladimir Putin has so far been undeterred by the threat of sanctions, asking what might be effective at stopping the Russian leader.
“No one expected the sanctions to prevent anything from happening. This could take time, and we have to show resolve so he knows what’s coming, and so the people of Russia know what he’s brought on them. That’s what this is all about,” Biden said.
“He’s going to test the resolve of the West to see if we stay together, and we will. We will, and it will impose significant costs on him.”2.15pm EST
14:15
Joe Biden warned that Vladimir Putin is likely looking far beyond Ukraine as Russia launches a full-scale invasion of its neighboring country.
“He has much larger ambitions than Ukraine. He wants to, in fact, re-establish the former Soviet Union. That’s what this is about,” Biden said.
“And I think that his ambitions are completely contrary to the place where the rest of the world has arrived.”2.13pm EST
14:13
Joe Biden took several questions from reporters after finishing his prepared remarks on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which included an announcement of additional sanctions on Russia.
Asked whether he intends to speak to Vladimir Putin in the near future, Biden said, “I have no plans to talk with Putin.”CSPAN
(@cspan)
President Biden: “I have no plans to talk with Putin.” pic.twitter.com/ZicZMrsRySFebruary 24, 2022
Another reporter asked Biden whether the US is urging China, which has traditionally aligned itself with Russia, to help the West isolate Putin.
“I’m not prepared to comment on that at the moment,” Biden said.2.08pm EST
14:08
Joe Biden pledged that Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine would cost Russia “dearly, economically and strategically,” as the US and its allies announce new sanctions against the country.
“Putin will be a pariah on the international stage,” Biden said, warning that any countries affiliating themselves with Russia would be “stained by association”.
“When the history of this era is written, Putin’s choice to make a totally unjustifiable war on Ukraine will have left Russia weaker and the rest of the world stronger,” Biden said.2.04pm EST
14:04
Joe Biden emphasized the importance of the US and its allies standing up to Russian aggression, arguing that Vladimir Putin’s military maneuvers in Ukraine threaten freedom everywhere.
“This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse,” Biden said. “America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.”CSPAN
(@cspan)
President Biden: “This aggression cannot go unanswered. If it did, the consequences for America would be much worse. America stands up to bullies. We stand up for freedom. This is who we are.” pic.twitter.com/cXTN5XltahFebruary 24, 2022 More
Elimination of IS Leader Is a Positive, But Not a Final, Step
On January 3, the United States announced the elimination of Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, the leader of the so-called Islamic State (IS) during a counterterrorism raid in Atmeh, a town in Syria’s Idlib province close to the Turkish border. In an address to the nation, US President Joe Biden said that the operation had taken “a major terrorist leader off the battlefield,” adding that special forces were used in the operation in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties.
Why Now?
The raid comes after IS conducted an attack on al-Sinaa prison in the northeastern city of Hasakah in January in an attempt to break free its fighters. In the assault, several Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters were killed. According to SDF officials, IS was planning the attack for six months. Nevertheless, the US-backed SDF recaptured the prison about a week later.
Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona suspects that the attack on the prison “was the catalyst that led to the decision to act on what was obviously already known location intelligence on … al-Qurayshi.” Francona, who served as the US military attaché in Syria from 1992 to 1995, notes that “Over the past few months, there has been an increase in ISIS activity — more widespread and bolder in nature. This also comes at a time when Iranian-backed militias have also stepped up attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.”
Embed from Getty Images
Both Qurayshi and his predecessor, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were eliminated in Idlib province, in areas under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Previously, HTS was known as Jabhat al-Nusra, affiliated with al-Qaeda and initially aligned with IS. In 2013, however, it split from IS and has been at war with the group since 2014. In 2016, it also broke relations with al-Qaeda and rebranded itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS). The following year, JFS assumed its current iteration as it merged with other groups.
During much of the past decade, Idlib served as a hideout for extremists. In 2017, then-US envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, stated that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Following Baghdadi’s elimination in 2019, former US President Donald Trump suggested Baghdadi was in Idlib as part of a plan to rebuild IS. Indeed, it was surprising to see Qurayshi hiding in Idlib as well.
According to David Lesch, professor of Middle East History at Trinity University in Texas and author of “Syria: A Modern History,” “it seems strange that al-Baghdadi and al-Qurayshi were killed in [a] province largely controlled by its rival HTS and overseen by Turkey, but on the other hand it is the only area not under the control of the Syrian government and its allies or the US-supported SDF, all of whom are opposed to ISIS.”
“Idlib is now home to thousands of IDPs, therefore it was easier for the two to blend in, live secretively, and not be identified as outsiders since most everyone in certain areas of the province are outsiders,” Lesch explains. “Yet they were still found because despite all this they lived in an area still teaming with enemies who were obviously directly or indirectly assets to US intelligence.”
Embed from Getty Images
The recent US operation in Idlib, which was reportedly planned over several months, has been the largest of its kind in the country since the 2019 raid that eliminated Baghdadi. Although Qurayshi was less charismatic than Baghdadi, the fact that he was targeted in the US raid confirms his importance.
It is worth noting that Qurayshi was named as the leader of IS in 2019, following the death of Baghdadi. While IS called on all Muslims to pledge allegiance to Qurayshi as the new “caliph,” it did not provide much information about his bona fides. The use of the name “Qurayshi” seemed to be an attempt to trace his lineage to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a tactic that was also used vis-à-vis Baghdadi with the aim of legitimizing his leadership role. Qurayshi’s real name is Amir Muhammad Said Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla but he is also known as Hajji Abdullah and Abdullah Qaradash.
As the US continues to create an impression that it is minimizing its presence in the region, especially following its withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, the raid seems to have been used to demonstrate US reliability to reassure Washington’s partners. It also comes as a needed win for Biden at a time when the Ukraine crisis remains unsolved.
However, while Qurayshi’s elimination is a positive development, it may simply be a “symbolic victory,” as Sean Carberry suggests in The Hill. While the operation against Qurayshi may create internal chaos within IS, ultimately, the terror group is likely to name a new leader and move on, which is what took place following Baghdadi’s assassination. Although IS was militarily defeated, the group has not been eliminated and remains a threat. In fact, there have been increased indications, such as the attack on al-Sinaa prison, suggesting that the group is in a state of resurgence. The militants might also seek to use the recent US raid to encourage revenge attacks.
US Policy in Syria
The Biden administration’s policy vis-à-vis Syria seems to indicate that the official approach will be “markedly timid,” as Abdulrahman al-Masri and Reem Salahi suggest. It should not be surprising to learn that Syria does not constitute a top diplomatic priority for President Biden. Yet while the US does not want to remain engaged in endless regional wars, it seems to believe that a political settlement in war-torn Syria would only empower President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington would never back.
Moreover, the US and the Kurds are partners, and Washington would not want to portray an image that it has abandoned those who have shouldered the fight against the Islamic State. This was the overall perception when Trump announced the withdrawal of US forces from Syria in 2019, and Biden seems keen to remedy that controversial decision.
Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries
It is worth noting that during President Barack Obama’s tenure, Vice President Biden was one of the skeptics when it came to what the US could achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, it should not be taken as a given that as president, Biden may be in favor of removing all US forces from the country. For instance, he criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria, saying it granted IS “a new lease on life.” In the same year, Biden also said he supports keeping some forces in eastern Syria for the foreseeable future.
Middle East expert and former US State Department analyst, Gregory Aftandilian doesn’t see the US leaving Syria anytime soon. Aftandilian, who is also a non-resident fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, thinks “It is doubtful [Biden] will do more than the anti-ISIS campaign and humanitarian aid. In light of the attempted prison break in northeastern Syria he may put pressure on some countries to take back ISIS prisoners.”
For the US to play a role in stabilizing Syria, there needs to be a clear strategy. Unfortunately, at the moment, that strategy is largely lacking. While the elimination of Qurayshi is a positive step, much more work needs to be done to stabilize the country.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More
- in US Politics
US embassy in Russia urges Americans to have evacuation plans
US embassy in Russia urges Americans to have evacuation plans
Threat of attacks in Moscow cited as Ukraine crisis deepens
Ukraine crisis – live coverage
The US embassy in Russia has cautioned Americans to have evacuation plans as the crisis over Ukraine deepens, citing the threat of attacks in Moscow and along the border with the neighbour Russia seems likely to invade.Blinken: US still believes Putin has decided to invade UkraineRead moreThe move drew a rebuke from the Russian foreign ministry.In a message to Americans in Russia on Sunday, the US embassy said: “There have been threats of attacks against shopping centres, railway and metro stations, and other public gathering places in major urban areas, including Moscow and St Petersburg as well as in areas of heightened tension along the Russian border with Ukraine.“Review your personal security plans. Have evacuation plans that do not rely on US government assistance.”A spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry, Maria Zakharova, questioned if the US had passed on the information about possible attacks to Russia.“And if not, how is one to understand all of this?” Zakharova said.TopicsRussiaEuropeUkraineUS foreign policyUS politicsnewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Sledgehammer review: David Friedman comes out swinging on Trump and Israel
Sledgehammer review: David Friedman comes out swinging on Trump and IsraelThe former US ambassador has written a predictably unsubtle memoir, aimed squarely at the 2024 Republican primary David Friedman was Donald Trump’s ambassador to Israel. But that job title alone fails to adequately convey his proximity to the 45th president and his impact on US policy. Their time together marked a repudiation of Barack Obama’s vision for the Middle East. Sledgehammer, Friedman’s memoir, reminds the reader of all of this as insistently as its title suggests.Trump risked disaster with Abbas praise in key Israel meeting, ambassador saysRead moreWith Friedman’s assistance, the US helped forge the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and four Arab countries. The US also moved its embassy to Jerusalem and left the Iran nuclear deal. As for the Palestinians, put it this way: they no longer occupy rent-free space in the Republican conscience.Unlike other Trump appointees, Friedman was often in the room when it happened. To all intents and purposes, he was not subordinate to Rex Tillerson, Trump’s first secretary of state. And as an enthusiastic backer of Israeli settlements in occupied territories, he had little interest in preserving the status quo.More than a half-century had elapsed since 1967 and the six-day war. Israel’s hold on the West Bank had grown organic. The Oslo Accords gave way to the second intifada and Gaza continued to smolder, despite Israel’s withdrawal more than a decade before. Godot had failed to arrive. Friedman’s book with its unsubtle title has a subtitle too: “How Breaking with the Past Brought Peace to the Middle East”.Obviously, he overstates. The Palestinians are not, of course, content. War rages in Yemen. Drones and missiles hit the Emirates. Things between Israel and Iran can get worse and probably will.Friedman was Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer. When Trump announced his presidential campaign, Friedman was doubtful. Both men venerated their fathers but, as Friedman acknowledges, they had little else in common. The author is still married to his first wife. Religion is central to his life. He is an Orthodox Jew, the son of a rabbi. While ambassador, his daughter made aliyah. That is, she moved to Israel and became a citizen.Friedman quotes a senior but unidentified state department aide as telling him: “Don’t be so Jewish. You represent the United States of America … Just a free word of advice.” Suffice to say, Friedman was not amused. Although he held a presidential appointment, he was not part of the club.Sledgehammer is also about ethnic grievance and expectations of Jewish solidarity – perhaps misplaced. Before joining the Trump administration, Friedman branded Obama antisemitic and trashed J Street, a liberal Jewish group, as “worse than kapos” – Jewish prisoners who worked as guards in Nazi concentration camps. Such intemperate comments came with a political cost. The Senate confirmed him by the narrowest of margins, 52-46.On the page, Friedman says those were sincere expressions. He used the term “kapos”, he says, because he felt “J Street had betrayed the Jewish people”. Elsewhere, he admonishes American Jews against criticizing the Israeli government. He laments a growing schism among US Jews, even while describing his own testy relationship with the Reform movement.In 2020, American Jews went for Joe Biden by nearly 40 points but Trump was the clear favorite in Orthodox enclaves. In Israel, Trump is lionized. “Loved” is Friedman’s word.He likes wielding his sledgehammer at the left. The right, not so much.He castigates Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, progressive Democratic congresswomen, for hostility to Israel. As ambassador, he was fine with an attempt to stop them entering Israel as part of a congressional delegation.On the other hand, he has nothing to say about Charlottesville in August 2017, its tiki torches and cries of “Jews will not replace us” and Trump’s view that there were “very fine people” on the neo-Nazi side on that day of violence and shame.Friedman’s outrage appears selective.He is also silent on Trump delivering a tart “fuck him” to Benjamin Netanyahu – Israel’s former prime minister and a Friedman friend – in an interview memorialized in Barak Ravid’s book, Trump’s Peace.Instead, Friedman swings repeatedly at Mahmoud Abbas, challenging the Palestinian leader’s desire to reach an agreement with Israel.Once again, Trump might well disagree. Trump told Ravid he believed Netanyahu “did not want to make peace. Never did.” As for Abbas, “We spent a lot of time together, talking about many things. And it was almost like a father. I mean, he was so nice, couldn’t have been nicer.”Friedman was particularly close to Netanyahu, so much so that lines could blur. According to Ravid, Friedman sat in on Israeli government meetings until he was tossed out by cabinet members. Friedman’s memoir does nothing to dispel that report.He describes his efforts to help Netanyahu cobble together a government. He zings Avigdor Lieberman, former Netanyahu confidant and current Israeli finance minister, for refusing to come to the struggling prime minister’s rescue. The fact Netanyahu was then under a legal cloud and now stands on trial for corruption escapes real mention.‘Apartheid state’: Israel’s fears over image in US are coming to passRead moreElsewhere, Friedman criticizes Benny Gantz, Israel’s defense minister and Netanyahu’s jilted coalition partner. Although Gantz had been chief of staff of Israel’s military, says Friedman, he was not the politician Netanyahu was. Then again, Friedman also expresses his gratitude for his relationship with Gantz, who he describes as “6ft 4in and ruggedly handsome, an unusual look for an Israeli politician”. Trump too has praised Gantz, albeit at Netanyahu’s expense.What Friedman does next will be interesting. Like Trump, he has left New York for Florida. His book jacket posts a blurb from Nikki Haley, formerly governor of South Carolina and a potential candidate for the Republican nomination if Trump does not seek it. Friedman has also described Ron DeSantis, of Florida, as Israel’s greatest friend among all 50 current governors.Friedman is far from finished. Sledgehammer is not just a memoir. It is a well-written audition for 2024 and beyond.
Sledgehammer: How Breaking With the Past Brought Peace to the Middle East, is published in the US by Broadside Books
TopicsBooksPolitics booksUS politicsRepublicansTrump administrationDonald TrumpUS foreign policyreviewsReuse this content More - in US Politics
Biden releases $7bn in frozen Afghan funds to split between 9/11 families and aid
Biden releases $7bn in frozen Afghan funds to split between 9/11 families and aidMoney would go toward humanitarian efforts for Afghan people and to US victims of terrorism, keeping it out of hands of Taliban Joe Biden signed an executive order on Friday releasing $7bn in frozen Afghan reserves to be split between humanitarian efforts for the Afghan people and American victims of terrorism, including relatives of 9/11.In a highly unusual move, the convoluted plan is designed to tackle a myriad of legal bottlenecks stemming from the 2001 terrorist attacks and the chaotic end of the 20-year war in Afghanistan, which ignited a humanitarian and political crisis, the New York times reports.But critics warned that it could tip Afghanistan’s already-strained banking system over the edge into systemic failure and deepen a humanitarian crisis that has left millions facing starvation and almost the entire country – 98% – short of food.“You’re talking about moving toward a total collapse of the banking system,” Dr Shah Mohammad Mehrabi, a longtime member of the bank’s board and economics professor at Montgomery College in Maryland, told the New York Times. “I think it’s a shortsighted view.”Cash shortages have already led to strict weekly limits on how much of their savings people can withdraw, deepening the economic crisis as inflation soars.In August the Taliban seized control and the former government collapsed, leaving behind just over $7bn in central bank assets deposited in the US Federal Reserve bank in New York. As Afghanistan’s top officials, including the president and central bank governor, fled the country, the Fed froze the account as it was unclear who was legally authorised to access the funds.The Taliban took over the central bank – known as Da Afghanistan Bank – and immediately claimed a right to the money, but under longstanding counter-terrorism sanctions it is illegal to engage in financial transactions with the organisation. Furthermore, the US does not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.As the Biden administration mulled over what to do with the funds, a group of relatives of victims of the September 11 attacks, who years ago won a default judgment against the Taliban and al-Qaida, sought to seize the Afghan bank assets. In a case known as Havlish, the plaintiffs persuaded a judge to dispatch a US marshal to serve the Federal Reserve with a “writ of execution” to seize the Afghan money.The Biden government has intervened in the lawsuit, and is expected to tell the court that the victims’ claims for half the money should be heard (several other victims’ groups have also asked for a share). If the judge agrees, Biden will seek to direct the remainder toward some sort of trust fund to be spent on food and other humanitarian aid in Afghanistan – while keeping it out of the hands of the Taliban.The process is likely to be long and messy, with advocates and some 9/11 victims arguing that the Afghan assets should all go to help the Afghan people who are facing mounting hardship.The money – which includes currency, bonds and gold – mostly comes from foreign exchange funds that accumulated over the past two decades when western aid flowed into Afghanistan. But it also includes the savings of ordinary Afghans, who are now facing growing violence and hunger with the economy and rule of law in freefall.“The 9/11 victims deserve justice but not from the Afghan people who themselves became pawns caught in the middle of the US-led ‘war on terror’ and an oppressive Taliban regime,” said Adam Weinstein, research fellow at the Quincy Institute, who also served as a US marine in Afghanistan.“The idea that overnight, the central bank reserves went from belonging to the Afghan people to being the transferable property of the United States is nothing short of colonial.”In another sign of the desperate humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, the World Health Organization said on Friday that a raging measles outbreak had infected tens of thousands and killed more than 150 people last month alone.The UN health agency said the outbreak was particularly concerning since Afghanistan is facing massive food insecurity and malnutrition, leaving children far more vulnerable to the highly contagious disease.“Measles cases have been increasing in all provinces since the end of July 2021,” a WHO spokesman, Christian Lindmeier, told reporters in Geneva.He said cases had surged recently, ballooning by 18% in the week of 24 January and by 40% in the last week of the month.In all, 35,319 suspected measles cases were reported in January, including 3,000 that were laboratory confirmed, and 156 deaths. Ninety-one per cent of the cases and 97% of the deaths were children under the age of five.Lindmeier stressed that the measles-related deaths were probably underreported and the numbers were expected to swell. “The rapid rise in cases in January suggests that the number of deaths due to measles is likely to increase sharply in the coming weeks,” Lindmeier said.TopicsAfghanistanJoe BidenSeptember 11 2001US foreign policyUS politicsFederal ReserveTalibannewsReuse this content More
