Engel, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and panel Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., plan to introduce legislation to counter the Kremlin's global campaign by revitalizing the Cold War-era structure of U.S. international broadcasting, which Royce said is currently just "a thimble of journalistic credibility in an ocean of Russian-driven news distortion."
"[Obama] is willing to grant Iran access to funds that equate to about 10% of its GDP just for signing a deal. That percentage boost is equivalent to a $1.7 trillion injection into the U.S. economy today (which is twice the dollar amount of the 2009 stimulus package)," explains JINSA CEO Michael Makovsky.
Is President Barack Obama right that the so-called framework nuclear agreement with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) announced on April 2, will “cut off every pathway Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon”? Some will assess the truth of his statement by crunching the centrifuge and uranium stockpile numbers. However vital such analysis will be, it is important not to lose sight of the nuke for the centrifuges.
Experts on intelligence matters in the United States are brushing off last week's allegations from anonymous Obama administration sources alleging Israeli espionage concerning the multilateral nuclear negotiations. Scholars such as Michael Makovsky at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) dismissed the allegations, first published in The Wall Street Journal, and accusations that Israel was feeding illicitly obtained information to lawmakers on Capitol Hill as nothing more than normal behavior hyped by the White House to besmirch the Jewish state.
News reports over the past few days have featured a string of once unimaginable concessions from the P5+1 in the Iran nuclear talks. (One can imagine the French are feeding the media a steady diet of leaks. It is the French who have expressed the most concern about the bonanza of concessions, so leaks and ensuing public outrage is an understandable strategy if one is trying to stop a bad deal.)
At times President Obama sounds almost incoherent on Iran. On one hand he says, like the Israeli prime minister, that he does not see a peace deal in the near future. ("What we can't do is pretend that there's a possibility for something that's not there. And we can't continue to premise our public diplomacy based on something that everybody knows is not going to happen at least in the next several years.") So they are on the same page? Nope.
Despite the obvious rush to a deal Democrats have not reconsidered whether it might be best to vote on Corker-Graham before a deal is struck, not after, or whether the administration might benefit from some guidelines as to what might be an acceptable deal.
The US military must be prepared to confront hybrid threats, best defined as non-state entities equipped with advanced weapons normally associated with conventional militaries. These non-state entities routinely co-locate command centers and other military targets in urban environments and deliberately endanger civilians to generate sympathy and support within the international community.