HILLARY, THE MEDIA RUN PRESIDENTIAL RACE AND HER E MAILS

Hillary Clinton, love or hate her, is the odds on favorite to win the Democratic nomination and then the US Presidency in 2016. If one looks at the Dem polls she is ahead by 40 points from her nearest rivals. There is press hysteria about Elizabeth Warren as being a threat to Secretary Clinton in the Democratic Primary yet she is over forty points behind the front runner in the polls. In the Presidential race there is no GOP hopeful within 8 points of her and that represents an Electoral College massacre. 

At Ladbrokes the major betting operation in the world, even though Senator Clinton has not even announced her candidature, to win two dollars you have to lay out seven, that she will be the Democratic nominee. Gambling winnings are fully taxable, so even if you are in the 25% tax bracket you only get $1.50 in two years time for the money you lay out now. If Hillary decides not to even enter the race so as to babysit her grandchild you lose your money so Ladbrokes are not taking too many chances as they will invest your seven dollars over the two years and even if you win they won’t lose too much. 

So why all the hype? If the media is anything to go by this election is going to be another nail biter.

WHY THE 2016 POTUS MEDIA RACE IS NOT A YAWN

What Jay H. Ell is trying to convey is that that with nearly two years to go the 2016 Presidential Race  should be a massive yawn. Hillary is a foregone conclusion barring a miracle. Under these circumstances one would expect the media to be focussing on other issues and be giving the Presidential race a wide berth. However we are witnessing the very opposite as a result of two interdependent factors. Firstly, there is the vast sums of money that the Supreme Court has allowed individuals and companies to spend on candidates. For example, the Koch brothers, who apparently favor Governor Walker for President, have already committed a billion dollars for the 2016 elections. Sheldon Adelson the Casino billionaire apparently is pay rolling Lindsay Graham, who objectively is chanceless. Clinton for her part has already indirectly amassed a tidy sum in Political Action Committees. As Jay H Ell has blogged, “The 2016 Presidential Horse Race”, the new past time for billionaires is to “buy” a Presidential candidate rather than a horse. So conservatively the total spent on this race will run into the tens of billions. 

The other, even more important, factor that is ensuring non stop 24/7 coverage on the Presidential elections on the TV Channels is the fact that the studios have free copy and “actors” in their ongoing reality productions. The candidates and their hangers on either provide content, video material or appear in person for free, filling endless hours. All the media has to provide are “experts” who comment, interpret, prognosticate and yada yada on about what is going on and the impact that this, that and the other has on the reality that the network has created. The money that the Supreme Court has unleashed is going into media advertisements, particularly TV. So the media are not only the recipients of free programming content there is never ending advertising revenue from the campaigns - a double bonus!. 

So it makes sense for the media, especially the visual, to hype and distort the Presidential Race and morph it from being a boring foregone conclusion to a nail biting close race giving it the appearance of having to be decided by a photo finish. In order to effect this false reality the truth needs to be warped and circumstances twisted so as to create a consequence that ensures uncertainty and excitement. It is impossible to view the day to day catastrophes without this as a background and not take it all with a pinch of salt. 

So back to Hillary and the media and her e mails.

HILLARY

Hillary has no challengers and is waiting to be crowned Democratic Presidential challenger. It is possible that one or other nonentity will put up token resistance, which the media will give wall to wall coverage of but even they will be unable to turn it into a horse race. People forget the massive scrutiny the Clintons have already endured in the past. There were all manner of investigations - Whitewater and her alleged murder of Vince Vorster and the rest all of which came to naught. It did flush out Bill’s licentious behavior which was used against him and her. In fact in Republican circles it has been floated that they will use all Bill’s stuff against Hillary. That is desperation tactics as in spite of the impeachment Baba left the WhiteHouse the most popular modern day President and is the most popular political figure in the USA today . President number 42 will be an asset to her ticket as most people rightly or wrongly will think they are getting a “twofer”. 

In fact Clinton Inc is the most powerful political force in America today. In addition to their massive political tentacles that stretch across the country and even the world they are loaded. They either have or control billions. For this they are being pilloried by the Republicans who one might have thought would have cheered them on for it is the American way. So Hillary has a machine in place that is countrywide. Barack Obama has anointed her and in 2016 she won’t be an idiot like Gore was and toss aside the financial recovery that the POTUS will have bequeathed to her, so as to be her own man (sic). This taken into account coupled with the that  growing consensus that the next President should be a woman she looks a shoo in.

Going into a Presidential election it is hard to see any Republican triumphing. Firstly, the demographics are against them as well as every candidate being on the wrong side of history. Objectively the only possibility is Jed but he has work cut out to win the nomination and if he does by his own admission he will be too compromised to win. 

All this adds up to making it a tough job for the media to manipulate the proceedings into an ongoing breathtaking suspenseful horse race. 

HILLARY AND THE MEDIA

Before Hillary claims that there is a right wing conspiracy out to get her it is a media conspiracy and they are out to get everyone who interferes with their narrative that this is an ongoing close horse race. With the Republican race it is easy as someone or other will always be the "Anyone But Bush" candidate and as they are knocked off another contender will take his or her place. Or a variation of the latter, or maybe just Bush and Walker race from the word go?

Hillary, to cope with this inevitable avalanche that occurs every time she lifts a finger, goes somewhere or says something, is laying as low as possible. The old adage that all publicity is good publicity has given way to any publicity is bad because whatever it is there will be a million commentators looking for the angle to spin it in another direction. Doing nothing still evokes negativity cause the Clinton Foundation is attacked for having too much money, having expensive dos, (which one doesn’t to garner donations) and being so effective.

Jay. H. Ell’s advice to Hillary is to do her thing as if the media don’t exist. At the end of the day they cannot buck reality. They have been totally wrong in the last two elections calling them too close to call up to the last minute. 

HILLARY, THE  MEDIA  AND HER E MAILS

Recently, after the numerous Congressional investigations into the Benghazi incident yielded zilch other than the threat that she is going to be attacked for it in the election, all has been relatively quiet on the former First Lady front. That is till it was learned that she had used her own server and private e mail address as Secretary of State. It was an all out attack on Hillary before the matter could be explained, investigated or put into any context. At the outset it must be said that on it face it appears  inexplicable to Jay H. Ell that anyone in Public Office should do such a thing and it does hint at a loss of contact with the real world. It is akin to Bush 41 expressing amazement at the fact that they could scan an item at the check out counter and come up with the price. But while the latter requires very little context for explanation maybe before the incredible hysteria was unleashed at Hillary’s practice some research was needed. But apparently that need was dispensed with as we need a soap opera to keep up ratings not responsible journalism.

Firstly, to use private e mail was not illegal during Hillary’s tenure. Colin Powell used his own e mail and Condoleeza Rice hardly used it at all. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to exclusively use Government e mail. It is forgotten how new e mail is. E mail really only started at the time of Baba Clinton’s Presidency in1993 and was not common practice for some while. Apparently governmental agencies, as one might expect with bureaucracies, were way behind in their implementation of this important communication modality which has revolutionized the world. Colin Powell in fact commented on this when using his personal e mail. So that accounts for all the precedents in the e mail age.

When commentating on what they have turned into a horse race it is important to know how the other horses are reacting to a similar circumstance. If the going is muddy you don’t just say the front runner is floundering if the whole field is making heavy weather of the conditions. You report that the field appears to find the mud a handicap. So what of the Republican front runner Jeb Bush who criticized Hillary on this score? He apparently released a ton of his e mails and is smelling like a rose. That is until you pull back a petal or two. Jeb only released 10 percent of his e mails and he too used his personal e mail, from a server that he too owned, while he was Florida’s Governor. What off all the other runners in public office? Lindsay Graham has already volunteered that he doesn’t use e mail!

On the slightest delving into e mailgate it appears to be a storm in a teacup. What remains now is the political exploitation of the cause celebre. Feeding off the feeding frenzy, a Benghazi Congressional Committee have linked this to the Democratic frontrunner’s alleged cover up of her responsibility of the murder of the Benghazi Embassy personnel and have resuscitated their moribund investigation. The former first lady has offered to provide all her e mails but whatever she does will not be enough. She held a Press Conference on the matter that evoked even more questions. She confessed that she used the secure server that was created by her husband as a "convenience". It will eventually blow over, as it always does, as the Republican legislators huff and puff accompanied by endless coverage from the media who will opine that this brings her closer to the other "contenders". 

AT THE END OF THE DAY

Modern media communication especially of the visual type is geared for ongoing tension whether it be a coverage of a storm or a Presidential election. In some of the situations the coverage seems like a lampoon and gone is the serious investigative reportage. The Comedy “fake news” shows no longer have to invent satire, they just play snippets from the "real" news. Jon Stewart is going to leave a great void when he bids farewell. It is not by accident that a whole demographic trusted only him for their news. 

If the news world was a saner place then there would not be an almost four year continuing Presidential Election news cycle. This especially so when there isn’t much of race to talk about -  except the one the media is determined to make one way or another. The media is creating a situation where experience is something of a disadvantage. If you have been active as a First Lady both in the Governor’s House and the WhiteHouse, in the Senate and as a Cabinet Secretary there is always something to focus on without bothering to look at policy. There is always another angle on everything.

IRAN: BIBI’S CHURCHILLIAN FANTASY AND OBAMA’S LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

So Prime Minister Netanyahu has come and gone. In a sensational speech to Congress he outlined his worldview on Iran. However mesmerizing it was, it was very weak on specifics and strong on generalities - The deal with Iran was bad. He could, however, live with a deal that he couldn’t live with, but not this one, whatever it turned out to be. Implicit in his argument was that America, that is Obama, was wet behind the ears and being taken for a ride by the canny Iranians. This was music to the ears of those that had initiated this invitation.This like much of what they do is related to their own pathological hatred of Obama.  

In this blog, Jay H. Ell wants to explore Netanyahu’s delusional behavior and the destructive impact it has had and the answers that Obama must furnish before one can be reassured that the POTUS isn’t committing an unnecessary blunder in paving the way for a nuclear Iran.

Jay H. Ell, fears that Obama’s policy on Iran is unrealistic,  "Blog: Iran: What is Obama Thinking?”. He in fact believes that neither of he or Netanyahu are rational on the subject. (Blog: “Netanyahu and Maybe Obama Too - Just Don’t Get It”). Peter Beinart provides an insightful theory as to the behavior of the two protagonists in an article in Haaretz. Beinart postulates that they both need to solve the Iranian dilemma so as to ensure their legacies and this is what is dictating their divergent behavior. 

CONTEXT OF DRAMA

Just a few more contextural facts relating to the unfolding of this drama. This speech had its least impact back home in Israel where it is seen by the left and center as electioneering. Amongst the American populace, according to the Rasmussen polls, 66% of the Democrats and 61% agree with negotiations with Iran. These numbers are higher than those Bush 43 went into war with Sadam and can be considered the opinion of the electorate. This isn’t worrying the Republican lawmakers yet but it might in the future. Netanyahu maybe using up the goodwill that has allowed Israel to take its place among the nations. Bibi has consistently acted disdainfully towards it’s only ally, the all powerful America, who has ensured Israel’s survival both with its largesse and support. This it has done because of the rightness of Israel’s cause, at political cost and to the ire of the numerically superior Arab States. Bibi is foolishly taking that all for granted. Netanyahu has weakened the bargaining power of the six nations as the Iran negotiators have screamed that if there is no deal, like Netanyahu has recommended, they will go ahead with their nuclear program.

NETANYAHU THE CHURCHILL WANNABE

The megalomaniacal Netanyahu is unashamedly playing out a fantasy that he is his hero Winston Churchill. Like the British premier who literally saved civilization by going out on a limb in the early thirties by prophesying that Hitler and the Nazis were an existential threat to mankind his crusade relates to the danger of Khomeini’s Iran. Boehner for his own political ends played into this delusional narrative. To show you the extent of this pathetic charade the Republican Speaker presented the Israeli PM with a bust of his hero Winston Churchill following his inappropriate intervention. However, it is the height of arrogance for a foreign leader to interpose himself into the domestic squabbles of an ally. An ally that has been responsible for the survival of his own nation. Netanyahu has allowed himself to be a partisan tool in the American scene in order to indulge his paranoid delusions of grandeur. He has done this at great cost to Israel and the Jewish cause generally.

JAY H ELL DID NOT KNOW CHURCHILL BUT BIBI IS NO CHURCHILL

Firstly, Churchill, in political isolation and to universal derision, made his dire forecasts about Hitler and the Nazis. He acted from a position of weakness risking any chance of making a political comeback. Netanyahu prognosticates, as Premier, from a position of power. Also there is a universal consensus on Iran, (that is why there are sanctions and UNO resolutions), that it is an evil empire and the issue is how to deal with that reality. There was no consensus on the German threat. The UK political establishment supported Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. The USA were not interested and their Ambassador to London was sympathetic to the Fuehrer. So Bibi is no prophet.

Bibi has been forecasting Armageddon since 1996, that is for nearly twenty years, prognosticating that Iran would have a nuclear bomb within a year. He has been consistently wrong being continually contradicted by his own Intelligence Agencies. He embarrassingly testified to Congress that invading Iraq would have a transformative impact for the balance of power in the region. So there is no parallel between Churchill’s Europe and Netanyahu’s Middle East. In addition the two were entirely different personalities  - Churchill in many ways humble and empathetic and Netanyahu arrogant and self centered. Churchill’s personal ethics were beyond reproach while Netanyahu has always been suspect and he and his wife are currently being investigated for financial malfeasance. Churchill beloved by the people and those around him Netanyahu at best admired and falling out with his peers with monotonous regularity.

So much for Bibi saving the world by telling them what they already know.  

There was no way on earth that Netanyahu’s controversial appearance in Congress could have turned into a triumph with his rare oratorical skills persuading Congress to adopt a policy on Iran that he dictated to the President of the United States of America. He knew it, Speaker Boehner knew it, the whole of Congress knew it as did the President of the United States of America. In fact it had to achieve the opposite. With his narcissism he has weakened Israel’s position in America. Where it had been politically untenable to oppose Israel in Congress he has opened a partisan divide. Nancy Pelosi the Democratic Leader in the House felt humiliated by his speech. Was it really worth it?

They can get all hysterical at AIPAC but the Jewish vote, which is far from monolithic, only represents just more than 2% of the electorate. Maybe a reality check is needed.

OBAMA OWES AN EXPLANATION

Bibi may have gone through the motions of kumbahya but Obama no longer cares. He called the Israeli Premier’s speech “theater” pointing out that he had offered no concrete proposals. As far as Netanyahu is concerned there should be no talks at all until certain preconditions are fulfilled. In fact if you parse all Netanyahu’s if’s and buts war should be declared tomorrow. 

 All of this does not relieve the POTUS of explaining how America’s policy changed from no negotiations and strict sanctions on Iran to be bargaining how many nuclear centrifuges they can have. No one can argue with negotiations as long as they don’t end up in capitulation. The fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear capability are real throughout America and the world. Many cannot he reassured by the bland statements that ,”A bad deal is worse than no deal”, “There is no way Iran will be allowed a nuclear bomb” or “At least they are being stopped for ten years”. This particularly so when the media is awash with details of the deal. 

* To help the President it is obvious that the impact of sanctions on Iran brought them to the table. Otherwise why are they there? They could have gone on curtailing their nuclear aspirations on their own if they so desired. The fact that wasn’t the way they were leaning is reaffirmed by the outburst of Premier Rouhani to Netanyahu’s speech. He threatened to go ahead with his nuclear development if a deal wasn’t reached. As this is all obvious why does one get the feeling that Iran is sitting in the pound seats and that to quote one source, they are getting 80% of what they asked for? Put another way what is it that none of us can see that gives Iran so much leverage? Is it ISIS? If it is that is not acceptable. Is it, as Beinart has postulated, Obama’s desire for a meaningful foreign policy legacy? That too will not past muster. 

Quite frankly Jay H. Ell, may appear insensitive, but he does not believe this landmark deal should be chisseled around Iran's "self respect".

* If x is the number of centrifuges allowed what is the science behind such a decision? Apparently the Secretary of Energy has attended these talks with his counterpart from Iran. Surely they can provide some input as to why x is “safe”? The impression gained thus far that a number is being argued about is a poker game unrelated to nuclear reality. The rationale please the rationale?

* What evidence is there that after 10 years or whatever Iran will move into a freedom loving state with no colonial, war mongering, terrorist and anti Israeli ambitions? They did after all blow up a mock US Battleship as recently as February 25, 2015. Jay H. Ell is worried about his grandchildren who will then just be entering their teens. Why, if a period had to be defined is this not predicated on monitoring, assurances and measurement of objective behavior?

* How is all this going to be overseen especially in the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s statement that they are unable to survey thousands of centrifuge operations and the fact that just two weeks ago they reported the Iranian regime to the Security Council for non compliance? 

* What assurances have the six nations received that if a deal is reached that the Arab Gulf States are not going to start a nuclear race?

* What is Plan B if there is no deal as the administration maintain that there is only a fifty percent chance of one?

* What is Plan C if there is a deal and it is broken? There has to be some credible mechanism in place because quite frankly Jay H. Ell really doesn’t trust this crowd. For example, how quickly can the economic sanctions be put in place. Is there anything that can be held as security for any violation such as a stockpile of oil or delayed payments on oil? 

* Has any thought been given to the fact that It is the six nations who hold the cards and if Iran walks out what they should put into effect and how quickly? 

* If the administration cannot discuss all of this publicly how about sharing it with a couple of the relevant legislative committees. In spite of the rabid partisanship on the hill if the POTUS has reasonable explanations it tends to lower the temperature of the debate.

AT THE END OF THE DAY

The GOP, sans administration transparency, were going to attempt to take control of the Iranian deal with or without the Israeli Prime Minister dazzling and clear cut oratory. The latter, who has a knack of alienating all and sundry, like unilaterally declaring himself King of all the Jews, has not helped the situation, rather he has succeeded in making Israel a partisan issue and split the Jewish Community in two not only here but in Europe. This incidentally makes it more difficult not less for the GOP to get the votes they need from Democrats to take over control of the Iranian policy. Notwithstanding all of that the POTUS needs to explain himself or hand the Republicans, on a plate, the one issue they may get public backing for. 

IRAN: WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING?

It is becomingly increasingly more obvious that Iran has no intention of relinquishing its capability of creating a nuclear weapon. Increasingly more obvious to everyone, everyone that is, other than Obama and his administration. (Jay H. Ell has blogged on more than one occasion that this whole prolonged circus, in an attempt to create a solution to the Iranian nuclear deal, will be Obama’s achilles heel: Blog: “Netanyahu and Maybe Obama Too - Just Don’t Get It’). Obama has plodded on and on extending the date for a settlement again and again as Iran cheerfully lead him on a merry dance maintaining that there will be no deal, “that takes away Iran’s self respect”. Unhappily, that “self respect” extends to the Ayatollah’ s right to set up centrifuges wherever he likes and whenever he likes. More recently this whole crucial issue has been lost in the sideshow created by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who wishes to grandstand in Washington for domestic political purposes, Republican House Speaker Boehner, who never misses an opportunity to denigrate the Office of the Presidency and the POTUS, himself, who is now openly irritated by the antics of Bibi Netanyahu allowing it to cloud his judgement. 

It is time to return to what is really at stake here - the risk of making Iran a nuclear superpower thereby aiding its ambitions, first to neutralize then obliterate Israel, dominate the Muslim world and then become the other major political superpower on the planet.

HOW IT ALL STARTED.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), as early as 2006, disclosed to the UNO that Iran was not in compliance with the International Treaty on non -proliferation. The saga has continued ever since then with the Security Council voting 4 times to inflict sanctions on Iran. However, the sanctions have really gained teeth with the US and the European Union upping the ante with financial restrictions thereby bringing the Iranian economy to its knees. 

In the interim all opposition to the regime within Iran has mercilessly been put down. The most celebrated revolt was in 2009 and 2010, following upon Ahmadinejad’s re-election, where blatant fraud was alleged. The Ayatollah Khomeini clamped down with an iron fist. Well over a 100 protestors were thought to have been killed and tens of thousands tortured and raped. Communication was cut off from the outside but it did not stop the carnage being broadcast across the world when the drama of a twenty - three year old lady, Neda Agha- Soltan's, cold blooded murder was downloaded onto You Tube for all the world to see. (How short are all our memories). 

Khamenei investigated the alleged fraud and found the election to be “ completely free” and a victory for Iran’s democracy. The subsequent uprising he attributed “to exuberance” such as seen after a soccer match. He failed to publicly applaud his highly effective crowd control operation which has allowed his totalitarian game to continue without further material interruption.

Then came the 2013 Iranian elections when the odious thug Ahmadinejad was replaced by the sweet smelling thug Rouhani. Really all irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when it is the Ayatollah who calls all the shots anyway. Rouhani the newly retreaded President of Iran, his country nearly out for the count with massive devaluation of its currency, the shelves of its stores empty and the Iranian natives surely restless, decided as an act of love, peace and reconciliation in November of 2013 to sign an historic Pact with the five members of the Security Council and Germany. (This represented the first such gathering, that included America, in the thirty four years since the Iran hostage crisis where the Iranians held 52 American diplomats for 444 days). 

The initial meeting of the “Geneva Interim Agreement” adjourned till February 18 - 20,  - 2014 that is, and then again adjourned till March 17,  - 2014 that is, and they have been adjourning ever since till March 17, -  2015 that is. 

Just to end this segment the way it was started the IAEA  reported to the six supervising countries last week that, “Iran has still not addressed specific questions from the Agency over whether it explored  the weaponization process in the past”.The IAEA report further stated that Teheran is still not co operating in two areas of their investigation. The IAEA has produced similar communiques over the years so this really nothing knew.

All this begs the question - What is the Obama administration thinking?

WHY OH WHY ARE WE HERE?

This whole Iranian deal is a relic of the original Obama dream - “…there are no red states or blue states only the United States” and the world really wants peace  - remember the receptions Barak received everywhere, in Berlin and then in Oslo when they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for “Being There”. He was "the man". There is one thing being "the man: in everyone’s dreams but there is another delivering in political reality. Ironically, Obama has had his fantasy knocked out of him in “The United States” and most of the rest of the world but for whatever reason Iran lingers on. It lingers on because if he managed to persuade those crazies to see reason they should give him and, as their wont, the crazy that he does the deal with, a Nobel Peace Prize. So the more this dragged on the greater the stakes were for him to succeed. The longer it lasts the bigger the royal idiot he will be when it fails. Everyone has told him so, most significantly, the Grand Old Party and Bibi, of course. 

So for the POTUS the talks just cannot fail. He is supposedly desperate.  An anonymous Iranian report maintained that he has begged the Iranians for any deal so that he can save face. He better face the reality that an acceptable deal is just not going to happen.  

There is a kind of fall back position. Secretary of State John Kerry has just announced that the USA is ready to inflict more sanctions on Iran if they renege. Guess what?  That is what they have been threatening since day one. Sadly nobody believes a word the hardworking but ineffectual Kerry says. 

So here we are awaiting yet another meeting of the two sides, with the background, that once again the Iranians have failed to honor the Geneva agreement. The initial arrangement allowed for a teaser easing of the economic pain in return for less uranium to be enriched by the fundamentalist state. The slight loosening of the monetary noose is there for all to see and all we have is Iran’s word that they are enriching less uranium, not the IAEA. 

WHAT ARE THE PRIZES?

 The big prize for Iran would be an accord heralding the lifting of the debilitating sanctions. Their fiscal plight has been mired even deeper this past year with the plunging price of oil. Iran can hardly shape up to its divine mission if it is desperately short of cash. For America and the rest of the Universe the jackpot would be the theocracy being unequivocably unable to produce a nuclear weapon. But as negotiations stand there is no way that this rational outcome is on the table. Instead a whole host of compromises are being floated to allow the Iranians “self respect”.

While supposedly the negotiations are in secret they are being freely debated in every media outlet. It appears that if Iran enriches only a low percentage of uranium for ten to fifteen years then they would be allowed to proceed with the nuclear energy program. After the ten to fifteen years Iran would be subject to the normal provisions of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement. The problem is that “self respect" for this oil rich nation entails thousands of nuclear reactors. Now the IAEA has chimed in claiming that monitoring such a program would be impossible. They could manage a few hundred atomic facilities but the projected number would be impossible to inspect adequately. 

Jay H. Ell has another observation, it was Iran’s refusal to honor the nuclear pact in the first place that precipitated this crisis. He believes nothing in their subsequent behavior gives him any confidence that Iran has changed its belligerent attitude. What are the six nations going to do if Iran just continues defying the IAEA after sanctions have been lifted? Declare war and invade? Ostensibly the answer to that question is that compliance will not be entrusted to the Iranians but rather “technical parameters”. But that still begs the question what the six will do if Iran does break the deal as measured by technical parameters?

Another ticklish issue is where will the enriched uranium be sequestered - in Iran or in another country? All these unresolved concerns have not been finalized. It appears for the moment there are more booby prizes than big prizes in the offing.

The can is being kicked further and further down the road. Now by the end of the March there will be an agreed upon framework and by the end of June an agreed upon treaty.

OPPOSITION TO THE “PRE ARRANGEMENTS”

The above solutions are creating a sharp reaction from detractors. No- one seems to be buying the State Department disclaimer that as there is no accord yet all this speculation is irrelevant. Nor are they buying the State Department’s other contradictory lame response that they are not announcing details as Netanyahu is sure to focus on a few “bad” points and blow them out of proportion. Speaking of Bibi he needs no encouragement to verbalize how he really feels. He rightly scoffed at the claim that he didn’t know what was going on and feigned shock at the fact that the talks are still proceeding after the IAEA report. Netanyahu’s credibility has taken a knock with Mossad contradicting him on his assessments as to when Iran could produce a nuclear weapon. His estimate being a year and his Security people believing that it would be much longer. Also Netanyahu’s poor showing in the pre election polls has taken the gloss of his persona.

Of far greater significance than the Israeli PM’s pre election grandstanding, was the reaction of the Gulf Arab States and Egypt. The latter have made it crystal clear to Washington their opposition to the current deal that is floating around. They, more than anyone else, are aware of Iran’s territorial and political ambitions. Their most telling prediction to Obama is that this will trigger off a nuclear race in the Middle East. While, as yet, there is no formal alliance between the Israelis and this group they have a common agenda - the containment of the theocratic Republic of Iran.

In the unlikely event that a compromise is finally hammered out, it better be acceptable as Obama has a mad dog Congress baying at his heels ever on the look out for blood. The Commander in Chief had his work cut out to persuade the legislature to postpone voting additional sanctions on Iran a short while ago. If he presents a deal that they determine is a sell out he will hit a veto proof majority to stop it as this is an issue that there will be no problem garnering Democratic support. They don’t need Netanyahu’s counterproductive appearance and his proclaiming himself the messiah of all jews throughout the world has created a backlash. Netanyahu’s guest appearance may well persuade wavering Democrats to stay loyal to the POTUS while the Israeli Premier’s behavior has split the American Jewish Community that would otherwise been ad idem on this issue. No doubt in the event of Congress kiboshing the Iranian deal Netanyahu will claim full credit for the achievement.

AT THE END OF THE DAY 

The odds are heavily stacked against Obama and the leaders of the other five nations. The options appear to be a bad deal or no deal. Obama has wasted too much political capital on this issue. No one can claim that he hasn’t given it the good old college try. Granted the elephant in the room is that the Ayatollah controls the only army in the region that could take out ISIS. But at the end of the day ISIS is more of Iran’s problem than it is anyone elses. They represent the greatest threat to Iran’s territorial ambitions and are hobbling his allies Syria and Iraq. They are also commanding the attention and resources of their surrogate terrorist arm, Hezbollah. Iran is posturing much like Russia - they are on their knees yet they are brazening it out calling the shots. 

So come on Barak, what are you thinking? Tell them, the next time there is an impasse or if they want 15,000 centrifuges, to jump in the lake and up the ante by turning on the screws with more sanctions. You are dealing with a crowd who function in a different paradigm. Do you seriously think that they will allow ISIS to take a chunk out of their empire? A deal with them will anger several American ally Arab states even if you are angry with Bibi. Nor incidentally has Iran the slightest intention of abandoning their nuclear quest which is supposed to be the object of this exercise.

The sooner President Obama can call this charade to a close the better.

PUTIN DARES USA AND EU TO START COLD WAR 11

Vladimir Putin staring at the threat of Obama arming Ukraine, additional European sanctions and the economic chaos in his country, brazened out the recent peace talks in Minsk. First, he declared a truce and then attempted to delay it for ten days to allow the Russian separatists to capture a strategic railway hub on the Eastern border of Ukraine. This circumstance would have forced 8000 Ukrainian troops to surrender. The European negotiators, Merkel of Germany and Hollande of France, painted a grim picture of the prospects of peace when reporting back to their European colleagues in Brussels. No one believes that Putin is serious and will be deterred from his colonial objectives. In so doing he risks Obama following through on his ultimatum thereby precipitating Cold War 11.

Putin has signaled, again and again that he is not ultimately going to back down and regardless of the consequences he is going to take on the world - well at least most of it. He has bragged that he is a super power and that the world better believe it. This while each day that goes by his position becomes weaker and weaker. The Russian economy, the Russian ruble and the price of oil have all tanked leaving the country more and more vulnerable to Western sanctions. But the modern day Tzar continues to stride, strut, and posture on the world stage while furthering his territorial ambitions. As Jay H. Ell has pointed out previously, in this modern communication age you cannot bluff and bluster as everybody knows everything about everything. So with his strongest card, oil, trumped his hopes sill rest that it is not in Europe’s best interests to take him on and that Obama in his isolationist mood will, chicken out. Both these calculations are in fantasyland - Europe lead by Germany’s Angela Merkel have proposed additional sanctions and Obama has repeatedly threatened to arm Ukraine. Thus far the Russian proletariat have reveled in the resurgent glory of the motherland but there are indications that that can change.

PUTIN’S ANSWERS TO HIS SITUATION

Putin’s moves this far, other than his territorial ambitions in Ukraine, having snuffed out Chechnya and Georgia and bagged Crimea, is to cozy up to every enemy of the rest of the world whether it be Syria or Iraq. He is very empathetic to the predicament of any state that is anti the West and has most recently paid a very visible high power visit to Egypt’s Sissi who gave him the red carpet treatment. (Sissi and the USA are not exactly hitting it off these days). However, the problem is that the Kremlin leader has no largesse to hand out anymore, just love and sympathy.

Putin, as he did in Crimea, denies that he is aiding the separatists with troops in the battlefield that he refers to as “New Russia”. This when Russian troops, without insignias have been identified in the war zones. He no longer bothers to deny that it is his limitless weaponry that arms the separatists. This, too while he has troops in “war games” on the Russian side of the border. Putin doesn’t care that no one believes anything he says. It is like the good old USSR days when the propaganda from the self same neo colonialist fascist pigs was that everyone else were neo colonialist fascist pigs. In those days those who believed that the emperor had clothes were rewarded with goodies, but now the cupboard is bare. Inevitably, when the fighting continues he denies he has any control over the “rebels” who just battle on.

Putin’s denial mechanisms extends to his economic plight and his failure to adapt to sanctions. According to a Forbe’s report in the important area of food production the Russians have done nothing! Even if the consumer had full access to European food the Ruble can buy less than 50 percent of what it previously could. Mark Adomanis, the Russian economic expert that authored the Forbes article, ended with the following statement, “The Kremlin can of course, pretend, (his emphasis), that it’s economy hasn’t been impacted by the sanctions, that Russian consumers are rapidly and enthusiastically turning to Russian - made goods and that the Russian business sector are in rude health. But, Rosstat, (Russian sources), shows pretty clearly that Russia’s private sector have done a poor job filling the gap left by sanctions and the Ruble devaluation”. 

PUTIN’S PROLETARIAT BACK IN CHAINS

Putin does not to have much confidence in his comrades shutting up much longer as there has been an unprecedented crackdown on any criticism and dissidents. According to Marc Bennett of The Business Insider the Kremlin’s suppression is the most wide sweeping in post - Soviet Russian history. For practical purposes he has criminalized protest. A law has been put into effect that if a dissident is arrested twice for an unsanctioned protest,(which most are), within 180 days he has a mandatory 5 year prison sentence and several key dissidents are about to be nabbed. In addition to the draconian actions of the Kremlin a new pro establishment vigilante group  called Anti - Madian has graced the scene. The group was formed by a former pro Putin lawmaker. Their main objective is to prevent any camp that is against the Ukraine war. What polls that have come out of Russia have shown the proletariat to be at best lukewarm to the continued aggression. 

So any hope the West had of an internal revolt against Putin’s destructive megalomania have been dashed by the Russian leader’s preemptive totalitarian legislation and actions. There also have been the usual collection of “show” trials where for example a woman was charged for treason for allegedly informing the Ukrainian embassy that she had overheard a conversation where the possibility of Soviet troops being deployed was discussed. Tanya Lokshina, the deputy director of the Moscow office of The Human Right’s watch group agrees that this crackdown is the most sweeping since the dissolution of the USSR.

GUNG HO PUTIN DARES "TAKE ME ON"

The Carnegie Foundation believes that US and Russian relations are at a point of rupture. Any reading of Putin’s personality and the mess he is in leads one to that inescapable conclusion. He will face no more internal opposition than Stalin or Kruschev did as he has already taken the necessary steps to prevent that. So he will play each day by ear all with the objective of hanging onto power. While there are massive reservations to arming Ukraine as they are not that stable either Obama obviously feels that, notwithstanding his European NATO partners’ opposition, he has to reassure the Eastern European countries that are new NATO members, that they are not going to fall victim of Putin’s “territorial ambitions”.

Obama, in spite of his laid back approach to military adventures, finds himself once again in an impossible situation. He cannot ignore the state of affairs much longer. Putin has obviously put himself on a path to self destruction. Heaven knows what he is thinking. When he embarked on this mayhem of neo colonialism he held many cards. The Russian economy was booming, he was the oil rig of Europe and able to hold over them the threat of disrupting their economies, There also was not much will to take him on. He mistook Obama’s lack of stomach to involve the USA in military adventures as him being soft on intervening. He failed to compute that so far Obama’s desire for love not war has not stopped him going in boots and all when he finally decides to. Most of all Putin failed to adapt to his precipitous financial fall. He declined to diversify his economy and all he has left is the vain hope that the price of energy will once again rocket.

He is cornered and like a long line of Russian rats he will bring down the proletariat with him. He still can come to a deal to stop this out of control train. He has so often in the past, declared victory even though he is in the jaws of defeat. He can after all point to the fact that Russia is hosting the World Soccer Cup in 1918!

In a moment of Zen, one has to reflect on the metamorphosis of Putin’s Russia morphing from a colossus that bestrode Eastern Europe just a year or so ago into a wounded swaggering giant. The acceleration into the abyss has been electrifying and must be reflective of modern day communication that is measured in nano seconds. While some empires held sway for centuries the new Russian domain is rapidly catapulting into oblivion with yet another madman at the helm. The tragedy is the many that will perish in the process of his doomed imperialistic ambitions.

AMERICAN SNIPER A LANDMARK MOVIE

Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper has opened to record breaking box office numbers. The cinematic tale relates the saga of an American sniper whose success in killing two hundred and sixty Iraqi insurgents lead to him being known as “The Legend”. The motion picture broke the record for a first night in icy cold January, ($35 million), it grossed $89.2 million for the traditional opening three days thereby beating the previous highest January opening by a hundred percent of any January movie, and within five weeks of the opening it was projected to be the highest grossing war film in American history.  Fandango, the online cinema booking agency, reported that the movie garnered seventy percent of its pre ticket sales which was a predictor of its ongoing success. It was screened in nearly four thousand cinemas making it the widest R rated film ever to be released. Finally, the celluloid was nominated for six Oscar awards including, best actor, Bradley Cooper, best picture and best adapted screen play, Jason Hall. 

However the production is slap bang in the middle of a partisan brawl as to its message, integrity of its central character and its artistic merit. With regard to the communication the production was said to deliver, it was argued - on the one hand, that it glorified violence and war and on the other, that it depicted the Iraqi war as futile and destructive. Chris Kyle, the legendary sniper, was either characterized as a psychopath or an empathetic hero. As to the story and how it was portrayed, from one vantage point it was nationalistic war porn and from another a valid reflection of reality as seen through the eyes of a patriot and his family.

ROLLING STONE’S WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF THE AMERICAN SNIPER

It suffices to detail Matt Taibbi’s review in the prestigious journal, Rolling Stone, to feel the full weight of the detractors of this war drama in each and every dimension. The assessment is that the message is perverted, “The Legend” is a phony braggart and the production is simplistic. 

The Stone critic headlined his piece, “American Sniper is almost to dumb to criticize”. The movie is compared to Forest Gump, who, “…in the face of terrible moral choices plays ping pong”, only it maintains that it sinks to even lower depths. The reviewer contends producing a “one - note fairy tale” to the setting of the “insane moral morass of the Iraq occupation is even dumber and more arrogant than George Bush or Dick Cheney ever tried”. The contention is that the story line should have depicted the moral dilemmas surrounding the war - the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib and the “myriad of other atrocities” that helped to fuel ISIL. Taibbi continues in this vein throughout, believing that Eastwood’s portrayal of Kyle being spurred to greater action by the 9/11 bombings was corny, “…as if there was some logical connection between Iraq and 9/11”. Jay H. Ell could go on and on quoting chunks of the critic’s assessment but he is sure everyone gets the drift.

So the cinematic production was cheap and contrived while the message was totally off target, so what about the central character, Chris Kyle? The Rolling Stone contributor immediately quotes Michael Moore, who tweeted that his father was killed by a sniper in WW 11, and snipers were always regarded as cowards. Taibbi believes that it is “dangerous to be seduced by the pathos and drama of an individual soldier’s experience, because most wars are much larger than that”. He interprets, weaving between the book upon which this movie was adapted and the movie itself, that Kyle was in some sort of sick competition against the crack Iraqi insurgent sniper Mustafa. He mocks at, what has never been disputed, the fact that Kyle took out Mustafa from a mile away. (A circumstance that allowed the sniper to finally feel free to go home phoning his wife Taya, there and then, from the field announcing just that). Taibbi maintains that rather it ratified every idiot fantasy of every yahoo with a target rifle from Seattle to Savannah.

Having completed an annihilating hatchet job on the award winning “American Sniper”, the reviewer summates with the statement, “Eastwood who could have cleared things up only muddies the water further. Sometimes a story is meaningless without context”.

JAY H. ELL’S TAKE

Rather than rely on other commentators Jay H. Ell would like to review this film from his world. Firstly, it should be made clear that this production did not purport to address the whole issue of war in general and the Iraqi abomination specifically. He has blogged on the latter issue again and again. (Blog: “The Iraq War Deception and Its Aftermath”). Rather it was the narrative of one central participant in the context of war, in this instance, the USA precipitated Iraq war. So to criticize Eastwood for not doing for what he did not set out to do is, at kindest, unfair. Then to interpret what he did as extolling war was ridiculous especially as Clint believes that his intent was just the opposite. Eastwood, a man of very few words, called American Sniper, “The biggest anti war statement any film can make”. He added that it focussed on the impact that it had on those left behind and on the combatants when they returned.  

It is not often that Jay H. Ell is ad idem with Clint Eastwood, nor would anyone else but Jay H. Ell care, but he does believe that Eastwood is an honest and highly talented artist. He remembers his Super Bowl ad where he hailed the American car industry recovery as indicative of the American psyche. Eastwood, an ardent Republican, was hammered for making a political statement supporting Obama’s bailout. He was unrepentant other to say that was not his purpose. 

So instead of arguing what type of screenplay Eastwood should have made let us examine the movie and see whether there is evidence to support whether Eastwood achieved what he set out to do.

AMERICAN SNIPER - THE MOVIE

Context

Anyone who has seen this movie and did not wish to impose his/her worldview on the context and just viewed the repetition of street battles where searches take place in home after home cannot but be struck by the senseless brutality of the exercise and the deaths that never seem to stop. There was the sheer monotony of scene after scene showing violence and bodies with no obvious purpose other than to go through the ritual of finding those were fighting against you and kill or be killed. There was no end in sight of this meaningless slaughter and the only closure was for individuals, in this instance Chris Kyle. It does not need much more to condemn the war that Kyle was in as everyone but everyone knows all about this phony war.

Chris Kyle 

So this is the story about an individual who is drawn into a situation, not of his making, functioning in terms of his own psyche and value system. The desire is to turn Chris Kyle into a personality that he wasn’t and to argue that he is an inane stereotype and not to accept that those disparaging Eastwood’s depiction wish to replace him by their own intellectual stereotype. So let us examine “The Legend” in terms of the Jason Hall script of “American Sniper” and see whether Bradley Copeland’s Chris Kyle hangs together as a “real person”.

At no stage was there any hint that Kyle was a rocket scientist. From the word go he was portrayed as an uncomplicated citizen. His job definition up until enlistment was a rodeo cowboy for G-d’s sake. After seeing terrorist attacks on television he decided to enlist and defend his country. It is learned at this early stage that he has aggressive tendencies - beating up someone he finds in his girlfriend’s bed however high that may be rated on the scale of aggressive behavior. 

When enlisting as a patriot he shows his determination that he isn’t “like most men” by volunteering for the elite Navy SEALS. Like anyone who survives the training he proves it. He doesn’t seek to be a sniper to satisfy his alleged psychopathic behavior. Rather his skill at long range shooting, one of the many exercises in training, qualifies him for this position. 

Kyle’s philosophy of life

At this point in the narrative it is constructive to share his simplistic philosophy of life which is reflected in a conversation with his sons:

“ There are three types of people in this world - Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.”

“Some people prefer to believe that evil does not exist in this world, and if hatred ever darkened they would not know how to protect themselves. These are the sheep”.

“Then you got the predators. These people use violence to prey on the weak. They are the wolves”.

“Then there are those who are blessed with the gift of aggression and overpowering need to protect the flock”. (Jay H. Ell’s emphasis).These are the rare breed that live to confront the wolf. They’re the sheepdog”.

“Now we are not raising any sheep in this family and I will whoop your fucking ass if you turn into a wolf…”

The American Sniper is true to that philosophy throughout the whole production. A philosophy that lead him to battle with the conflicting priorities of wife and family and duty to country and his “overpowering need to protect his flock,”, having been “blessed with the gift of aggression”.

Philosophy consistent throughout

The Sniper’s loyalty, empathy and care of his family, his brother, friends and marines he is entrusted to protect are on display from start to finish. In one very telling scene he remarks, “ .. (If),These marines keep rushing in like they been doing, they’ll get their asses shot off. They don’t clear corners…lets show them how to do it. I’ll lead a unit in the street.”

His minder, to no avail remonstrates that he should stay put maintaining that he is “too valuable”. His caretaker then pleads with him asking him whether he has, “Some kind of savior complex”. Kyle counters that he just wants to get the bad guys and he can’t shoot them if he can’t see them and proceeds to successfully train the street unit.

He is devastated by the death of his close friend Biggles who provides the only questioning of the Iraq mission in the production. At his dying friend’s hospital bed, to the latter’s amazement, he declares he is going back to revenge, “What they did to you”. 

Biggles's inconsolable mother at his funeral, reads from the deceased SEAL’s letter written prior to his death. “My question is when does the glory fade away and become a wrongful crusade. When does it become an unjustified means by which one becomes completely consumed”. To the obvious angst engendered in Taya by this devastating course of events, Chris counters that these doubts lead to Biggles dropping his guard. ( All of this echoes of Lord Tennyson's iconic poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade - 

“ Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make a reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do or die”).

When a marine approaches him, when he is back home, hailing him as a hero who had saved his life by carrying out him of danger, he is embarrassed by the effusion and he modestly only discusses the wounded soldier’s welfare.

Finally, when confronted by a psychiatrist offering the commonest reason for a soldier battling to adjust from the mandatory savagery of war to the ordered civilian world - “My guess is you saw things or did things that you wish you didn’t. Some soldiers can cope other’s can’t. The Legend responds,  “That isn’t me…I ended some evil men, and I will stand before my creator and answer for every shot I took. It’s the guys I couldn't save. Those are the faces I see. That is my regret that I couldn’t stay there any longer”. 

Filmatic strategy

The action is divided into cutting back sharply from the war to visits home by “The Legend” who grows more and more remote from his family. To a distraught wife remonstrating with him not to keep returning, he counters that he is doing what he is doing to protect them. In an earlier encounter with Taya, then his future wife, he has already forewarned her as to why he is a SEAL and would lay down his life, “Cause it is the greatest country in the world”.  

The tension mounts with each homecoming and she even threatens to leave him. These “respites” are punctuated by the four tours of duty where the nauseating mindless killing and door to slaughter continues. This, to the background of disturbing screams from the terrified locals, some of whom could potentially wipe the American “saviors” off this earth the moment they dropped their guard. At no stage do you see Kyle enjoying his deathly role as a sheepdog. In fact it either shatters him like the “taking out” of a child and his mother, who were about to blow a troop of marines to smithereens, or he is  deadpanned.  

The only reference to the juxtaposition of these two irreconcilable existences is when, after returning for a duty, he is informed that there is a $180,000 bounty on his head. His rejoinder, “Don’t tell my wife, she might take that number right now!”.

The Unravelling of Kyle with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.(PTSD).

In spite of all his protestations the evidence that the Iraqi war was taking a continuing and worsening toll on him was there for all to see. His remoteness, his brooding and continued fixation with what was happening in the theater of war impact heavily on his relationship with his long suffering wife Taya on each and every encounter that he is back home. On one visit he screams uncontrollably at a nurse who is ignoring his crying baby. Even when he permanently calls it quits he is too frightened to go home. 

Two events seem to shatter his denial that he is ok. The first when he is about to kill a dog that is playfully on top of his child. The other when he has a car accident he realizes that it could have resulted in the death of his beloved family. 

It takes a psychiatrist’s suggestion that he fulfills his need to “protect his flock” by caring for wounded veterans thereby, finally, allowing him to rid himself of his demons. Taya then can marvel at her caring husband - she enduringly has him back. The irony is that in the end, having survived four tours of war evading all the "wolves", he is killed by one of his own flock.

HIS WIFE TAYA’S READ OF AMERICAN SNIPER

Taya Kyle was enthralled with the production and exclaimed that it brought her husband back to life. She had alwys trusted Bradley Cooper and Clint Eastwood and was visibly moved by the initial viewing in Washington DC. “You’ll see in this movie Bradley is Chris. I have no idea how he pulled it off. People who knew Chris and who have seen the movie have said one word over and over: eerie. It is almost eerie how much it is really Chris. I will never be able to thank Bradley enough for that. Not only did he do his research and the physical part and get the dialect, which is such an odd mix of places that Chris lived. But then he took this man, who is truly one of a kind and is charismatic and soft and tough and strong and has the biggest heart of anyone that I have ever met. And he brought that to the screen in a way that you will know Chris at the end of the movie”.

CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO VIEWED AMERICAN SNIPER POSITIVELY

Bradley Cooper echoed Eastwood when he felt the objective was to bring home the impact of what the one percent and their families that remained went through to the ninety - nine percent who had no idea of what those who were sacrificing their lives endured. 

Jason Hall who wrote the screenplay and spent endless hours with Chris, before he died, in addition to interviewing Taya and the family before and after, and in addition interacting with many SEALS to get into the soul of the real man, maintained that some of the statements that were in Kyle’s book did not accurately reflect the man. The time he spent with Kyle lead him to the conclusion that The Legend was far more affected by the war than he let on. Several of his explanations in his biography were as a result of pressure to keep his macho image.  Consequently Hall portrayed him as someone struggling to regain equilibrium. To anyone who criticizes Hall for not putting, what they perceive to be, the whole story out there he retorts, “You know what, I bled for this thing”.

So not only did Kyle hang true to character throughout the American Sniper, the screen writer, who had the privilege of working with him and his family to establish what made him tick busted a nut to get it right. His wife who had lived through it all with Chris, agreed that Hall’s script was the real deal. 

Michelle Obama hailed the fact that the production connected society with the Vets. She conceded that there had been criticism of the picture but she argued that this film touches on many of the emotions and feelings that she had heard first hand from military families over these years. She hoped that the country would welcome back the veterans by integrating them back into their communities.

So to those who believe that the Iraq war was a disgrace, and there are many, this was not the movie to make the point directly. It was the story of a patriot who viewed life in black and white and felt a responsibility to wipe out evil. Evil, being defined as anyone who wanted to kill his flock who were on the side of good. 

From Eastwood’s point of view, he certainly achieved what he set out to do, but from whatever viewpoint this epic is considered it is a disturbing and riveting experience and is likely to continue to evoke powerful emotions one way or another.