In this week's selection of news and opinion from outside the US mainstream media, we look at the Iran nuclear talks, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Sources include The Guardian, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Mother Jones.
In an October 16 article, The Guardian reports on the signs of progress in the initial discussions on Iran's nuclear program. "Iran signalled the possibility of significant concessions over its nuclear programme in talks that closed on Wednesday, bringing the prospect of a breakthrough closer than at any time in the last decade, according to western diplomats." The talks which ended Wednesday will reconvene November 7. "Those discussions will focus on Iranian indications in Geneva that Tehran could agree limits on its nuclear programme that ensure it can be used for peaceful purposes, and ultimately accept more stringent international monitoring. Iran has also requested that the US delegation bring financial experts to go into detail on how the economic straitjacket on Iran could be loosened."
In a report dated October 15, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace discussed the increasing friction between Saudi Arabia and the US over recent US foreign policy moves in the Middle East - in Egypt, in Syria and in the recent slight warming of relations with Iran. Of the latter, CEIP's Frederic Wehrey writes: "That mild rapprochement brought to the fore an old specter: an U.S.-Iranian breakthrough that marginalizes the Gulf states and erodes their long-standing position as beneficiaries of U.S.-Iranian hostility." Saudi political commentators "raised the fear of Iran reassuming the role of the Gulf’s policeman that it played during the era of the shah, with Obama’s backing. For others, it is not so much the danger of rapprochement—they agreed that U.S.-Iranian reconciliation would be good for regional peace—but rather the fact that the Gulf states are being sidelined, especially on a potential regional settlement of the Syrian crisis."
Also discussed at CEIP in an October 17 article is a way forward to peace in Syria. Marc Pierini writes that "The Syrian war is being played out in Moscow, Tehran, and Washington. To achieve further progress, the three capitals cannot avoid working together on a diplomatic solution." Speaking of Russia's long-time support for the Syrian regime, Pierini writes that this "may soon become a liability for Russian President Vladimir Putin." Putin, currently chair of the G20, wants to be considered a "key broker in the new world order." Pierini writes: "The Russian leadership believes in the supremacy of the UN system...It also believes in political stability—that is, preserving the Syrian state—and Putin fears the rise of Islamist brigades in Syria, which have developed as a result of regime violence. Seen from this wider perspective, it may be argued that Putin’s ambitions in terms of world leadership can hardly be served by associating with thugs of a defunct era. If so, Bashar al-Assad is bound to constitute a major impediment to Russia’s policies." As for the West, "...the United States, along with France and the United Kingdom, had no real choice but to entertain a plan to dismantle the arsenal of chemical weapons under the control of the rogue Syrian regime, as the weapons could well fall into jihadist hands as the regime crumbles or retreats to a smaller territory." Finally, he notes "Iran’s primary objective is to regain its place in the international community and, according to recent statements, to exercise its full right to develop civilian nuclear reactors, not a nuclear weapons program. With this priority in mind and a dialogue just launched in Geneva with Western powers on Tehran’s nuclear program, a certain amount of Iranian moderation is needed on the Syrian issue...Iran is therefore expected to exercise a moderating influence on the Syrian regime." Russia, Iran and the United States all have a stake in making the chemical weapons regime work. "Beyond chemical weapons, ending the Syrian nightmare clearly requires a few indispensable ingredients: maintaining strong Russian pressure on Assad; including Iran in the discussions about Syria’s future, under certain conditions; safeguarding the Syrian state, though without Assad in the final stage; marginalizing jihadist forces; and holding the Geneva II conference with all concerned stakeholders."
Now that Congressional Republicans are through with trying to deny access to health insurance to poor people, Mother Jones in an October 17 article reminds us of another of their continuing assaults against the vulnerable in this country. "Shutting down the government and threatening a default in an attempt to block poor people from getting health insurance isn't the only thing House Republicans did over the past two weeks. They also continued their push to defund food stamps...last weekend, Democratic and Republican leaders in the House selected the lawmakers that will negotiate with the Senate to hammer out a final version of the farm bill, the massive bill that funds agriculture and nutrition programs. The main stumbling block for months has been how much money the bill should devote to food stamps; the House wants to strip $39 billion from the program, and the Senate wants to cut just $4 billion. The fact that Republicans in the House named one of the most anti-food stamp members of Congress [Florida Republican Steve Sutherland] to the committee that will decide the future of food stamps does not bode well for the program." An estimated 3.8 million people will be removed from the food stamp program if the House cuts are enacted. There is no need to do any of this, just as there was no need to threaten to default on the government debt other than the Republicans' refusal to raise taxes on the wealthy or even deny them their current loopholes and favorable treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment