The UN Security Council has held its first-ever meeting on LGBT rights. US Ambassador Samantha Power called it a sign that gay rights are “being injected into the mainstream at the United Nations,” as she called on all countries, including
A vote against the Iran deal will not bring war, in spite of what President Barack Obama says.
Critics of the Iran deal have pointed out that President Barack Obama has imposed a false choice on Congress: accept a bad deal, or go to war—as if those are the only two alternatives. In fact, Obama has imposed a second false choice: either cooperate with the international community, or go it alone.
President Barack Obama boasted last week that his administration forced Iran to accept an eight-year delay in the lifting of ballistic missile sanctions, when Iran wanted those restrictions canceled immediately. (Never mind that Iran made the demand at the last minute, raising a “non-nuclear” issue of the sort Obama says the U.S. could not make with regard to American captives.) Now, Obama’s brag turns out to have been a lie. There are no ballistic missile restrictions in the deal: Iran is merely “called upon” to refrain, voluntarily, from such technology.
The United Nations Security Council voted 15-0 on Monday to pass Resolution 2231, which endorses the Iran nuclear deal–“the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [JCPOA] signed in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Council, plus Germany, the European Union and Iran.” However, there are already sharp disagreements between Iran and the rest of the world as to what that deal actually means.
The United Nations Security Council is expected to hold discussions on Israel before approving the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 world powers (U.S., UK, Germany, France, China, and Russia).
Iran’s parliament, the Islamic Constituent Assembly, or Majlis, holds the power to revise or delay key parts of the nuclear deal with Iran–even as President Barack Obama and world powers seek a UN Security Council resolution before the U.S. Congress can review the deal.
With one month left for talks, news has emerged that the P5+1–six powers negotiating with Iran (Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany and the U.S.)–have reached a deal on “snap-back” Iran sanctions–i.e. sanctions that would be removed as part of a nuclear deal but which would automatically be restored if Iran broke the agreement, due June 30. Reuters suggested that all that remained was for Iran to agree, and a major obstacle would be gone. Yet the snap-back “deal” has three fatal flaws.
Just as the U.S. presence in Yemen has finalized its complete withdrawal, factions within in the country—such as the Iran-backed Shiite Houthis and Sunni government forces—are said to be preparing to engage in a full-scale civil war to determine who will rule the Gulf state.
The Obama administration is using Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s remark on the campaign trail about the impossibility of a Palestinian state as an excuse to increase diplomatic pressure on Israel for deep concessions at the UN. Though Netanyahu has made efforts to smooth over the dispute, the White House is refusing to forgive him, suggesting that it is pursuing a plan for retribution, regardless. The result will be to deny Israel strategic depth as it faces new threats.
President Barack Obama is determined to be the last person on earth to congratulate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on winning re-election. In addition, the administration says, there will have to be consequences for the way Netanyahu won–for raising concerns about Arab voters being bused to the polls by foreign-funded non-profits, for committing not to agree to a Palestinian state that would hurt Israel’s security. These are bizarre, self-destructive threats.
The 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution demanding that the Iran-backed Houthi rebels “immediately and unconditionally” cede power in Yemen.
The Obama administration might indeed allow a UN Security Council resolution on a Palestinian state to pass, provided some wording could be found that would accommodate the terms of Resolutions 242 and 338, which encourage a negotiated peace.
Secretary of State John Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power are being credited for their efforts in lobbying members of the UN Security Council to vote against a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. Yet if they had been on top of their game, the vote never would have been held.
