Israel receives money from the U.S. for defense purposes. However, any money Israel receives is essentially fungible, meaning it just mixes with Israel's own tax revenue. Who are all the ultimate funders of AIPAC? We really do not know and have no way of knowing. It is very possible and likely that the state of Israel funds AIPAC through various backdoors and donors. AIPAC lobbies for more U.S. funding being sent to Israel. So the U.S. taxpayer is likely paying to lobby for itself to give more taxpayer dollars to Israel. A nice profitable circle of interest and money that Israel has had going for some time. U.S. taxpayers are being hoodwinked.
What I like reading in your comments is not only your often different perspective and your years of knowledge, but that you always remind us of the religious and tribal factors that must be taken into consideration with everything in the Middle East.
Many in the U.S. just want to simply ramp-up America's military involvement in the region, but they fail to understand what that means in terms of who America is attacking and supporting (Shia and/or Sunni) and what that would mean to the broader religious populations.
Your entire statement is based on the fact that you think that the U.S. should have stood in the way of the people of Syria and Libya from rising up and attempting to overthrow their dictators. Impossible and nonsense.
I think what Prof. Cole is saying/showing is that ISIS is being systematically picked apart and isolated. You can see what the strategy is. Looks like ISIS is being allowed to expand and over extend itself and then will collapse from within. A swamp sucking in jihadists from all over the world (like a trap) and then the swamp will be drained. ISIS has no future. They are up against too much and have no strategic assets or real advantages other than die-hard religious believes, but that will only take you so far.
I would add that Netanyahu does not have AIPAC to back him in Europe, so he has less political leverage in Europe from which to stop sanctions from being lifted by Europeans. That is more significant at this point than anything that happens in the U.S.
I think the U.S. is irrelevant with regard to these negotiations. Netanyahu biggest problem is not that he has pissed off about half of Americans, but that he has pissed of most in Europe with his behavior. If a deal is done or maybe even if it is not done, the Europeans, Russians and Chinese may reduce or eliminate their sanctions on Iran, regardless of what Republicans think in the U.S. Even if the U.S. keeps its sanctions on, that will not mean much, if the rest of the planet starts to trade with Iran again.
Here is an interesting piece in The Atlantic that deals with many of the points Juan has made and does not necessarily agree with what Juan has written makes above.
Hilarious post..! a bunch of psychotic criminals in pick-up trucks. they completely run away and get their ass handed to them after only a few U.S. bombs dropped on them... anyone who joins that gang of criminals is likely to meet a quick and sudden death. ISIS has no future.
Why would al-Abadi really care about helping out the Sunnis and eliminating Islamic State? After all it is the Sunnis who are being occupied by Islamic State. Eventually, it actually might be the Sunnis who beg for help to get rid of Islamic State. I cannot image the Sunnis will want to live under Islamic State very long with no economy, no freedom and no government services and only strict Islamic rule. I think al-Abadi has all the cards and not the Sunnis, after all it was the Sunnis area, with largely no oil, that was taken over by Islamic State. al-Abadi will only want to keep strategic assets and areas like the Mosul Dam, the refineries and oil producing areas out of the hands of Islamic State. Islamic State pounding down the Sunnis under occupation may actually help the Shia.
As we watch Iraq fall apart, I am wondering if Bush still feels that the invasion was the right thing to do? I bet he does not, but would never publically admit it. I bet Iraq will haunt Bush till the day he dies. Although those unnecessary young Americans and Iraqis who died. Just a big and constant mess that Bush and his neocons left Obama to deal with...
You should read some of Juan Cole's other posts. It is not a caliphate just because the ISIS leader declares it. It is very much a "so-called" caliphate. This so-called "caliphate" or "Islamic State" has no religious legitimacy. That why it is a "so-called".
"The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). "
"The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries"."
Just because Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says he is a caliph does not make it so. He has absolutely no backing by any significant Muslim religious leaders and was not elected by Muslims to the role. It is also far from clear he was chosen by "God". There is no Sunni consensus by the majority that al-Baghdadi should be the caliph.
It sent a message...
Paul, Assad has been buying oil from ISIS. It is documented.
Israel receives money from the U.S. for defense purposes. However, any money Israel receives is essentially fungible, meaning it just mixes with Israel's own tax revenue. Who are all the ultimate funders of AIPAC? We really do not know and have no way of knowing. It is very possible and likely that the state of Israel funds AIPAC through various backdoors and donors. AIPAC lobbies for more U.S. funding being sent to Israel. So the U.S. taxpayer is likely paying to lobby for itself to give more taxpayer dollars to Israel. A nice profitable circle of interest and money that Israel has had going for some time. U.S. taxpayers are being hoodwinked.
Juan,
What I like reading in your comments is not only your often different perspective and your years of knowledge, but that you always remind us of the religious and tribal factors that must be taken into consideration with everything in the Middle East.
Many in the U.S. just want to simply ramp-up America's military involvement in the region, but they fail to understand what that means in terms of who America is attacking and supporting (Shia and/or Sunni) and what that would mean to the broader religious populations.
Your entire statement is based on the fact that you think that the U.S. should have stood in the way of the people of Syria and Libya from rising up and attempting to overthrow their dictators. Impossible and nonsense.
I think what Prof. Cole is saying/showing is that ISIS is being systematically picked apart and isolated. You can see what the strategy is. Looks like ISIS is being allowed to expand and over extend itself and then will collapse from within. A swamp sucking in jihadists from all over the world (like a trap) and then the swamp will be drained. ISIS has no future. They are up against too much and have no strategic assets or real advantages other than die-hard religious believes, but that will only take you so far.
I would add that Netanyahu does not have AIPAC to back him in Europe, so he has less political leverage in Europe from which to stop sanctions from being lifted by Europeans. That is more significant at this point than anything that happens in the U.S.
I think the U.S. is irrelevant with regard to these negotiations. Netanyahu biggest problem is not that he has pissed off about half of Americans, but that he has pissed of most in Europe with his behavior. If a deal is done or maybe even if it is not done, the Europeans, Russians and Chinese may reduce or eliminate their sanctions on Iran, regardless of what Republicans think in the U.S. Even if the U.S. keeps its sanctions on, that will not mean much, if the rest of the planet starts to trade with Iran again.
Here is an interesting piece in The Atlantic that deals with many of the points Juan has made and does not necessarily agree with what Juan has written makes above.
link to theatlantic.com
Hilarious post..! a bunch of psychotic criminals in pick-up trucks. they completely run away and get their ass handed to them after only a few U.S. bombs dropped on them... anyone who joins that gang of criminals is likely to meet a quick and sudden death. ISIS has no future.
Why would al-Abadi really care about helping out the Sunnis and eliminating Islamic State? After all it is the Sunnis who are being occupied by Islamic State. Eventually, it actually might be the Sunnis who beg for help to get rid of Islamic State. I cannot image the Sunnis will want to live under Islamic State very long with no economy, no freedom and no government services and only strict Islamic rule. I think al-Abadi has all the cards and not the Sunnis, after all it was the Sunnis area, with largely no oil, that was taken over by Islamic State. al-Abadi will only want to keep strategic assets and areas like the Mosul Dam, the refineries and oil producing areas out of the hands of Islamic State. Islamic State pounding down the Sunnis under occupation may actually help the Shia.
As we watch Iraq fall apart, I am wondering if Bush still feels that the invasion was the right thing to do? I bet he does not, but would never publically admit it. I bet Iraq will haunt Bush till the day he dies. Although those unnecessary young Americans and Iraqis who died. Just a big and constant mess that Bush and his neocons left Obama to deal with...
You should read some of Juan Cole's other posts. It is not a caliphate just because the ISIS leader declares it. It is very much a "so-called" caliphate. This so-called "caliphate" or "Islamic State" has no religious legitimacy. That why it is a "so-called".
"The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives. Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God (Allah) from the Ahl al-Bayt (the "Family of the House", Muhammad's direct descendents). "
"The caliphate was "the core leader concept of Sunni Islam, by the consensus of the Muslim majority in the early centuries"."
Just because Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi says he is a caliph does not make it so. He has absolutely no backing by any significant Muslim religious leaders and was not elected by Muslims to the role. It is also far from clear he was chosen by "God". There is no Sunni consensus by the majority that al-Baghdadi should be the caliph.