World News Insights
1-3 Minute Gist

Browse Articles or use Lyrarc's US patented "Groups" and "Links" for new insights. A Lyrarc Group of Articles on a topic gives insights into particular angles shown in the Group Title. A Lyrarc Link shows more specific insights for 2 articles.

All Topics Articles

LyrArc brings in selected articles from many of the world's top publications.

Articles are selected by experts and you can see the gist of the important articles.


The Guardian Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This analysis by Julian Borger of the Guardian newspaper cites experts including former Defense Secretary Perry, on the problems with the Trump escalation of rhetoric with North Korea. The U.S. president promised "fire and fury" in a tweet he made, after the increased sanctions passed in the United Nations had already raised the pressure on the North. Perry says the president has no plans to back up what he says, which hurts U.S. credibility posture. The North Koreans responded by saying they are looking at an attack on the U.S. Guam air and naval base in the Pacific. Other experts warn of the danger of stumbling into something unprepared, and increasing the unpredictability with and adversary who is unpredictable to begin with. Wolfsthal, an expert from the earlier administration under president Obama, says the risk of escalation becomes very high because a miscalculation could take place. Rex Tillerson, the U.S. Secretary of State, tried to tamp down the stressful situation by saying that no action is planned. The U.S. insists it is open to negotiating, but the condition is North Korea putting the ending of its nuclear weapons and missile program on the table. The North Koreans have conveyed their opennesss to negotiate at a meeting in Manila, objecting to the U.S. "hostile" policy as an obstacle.    ...
dw.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's SPD Deputy Chancellor says in Kiev on August 25, 2025 after the abortive effort by DJT in Alaska for peace talks that improved Russia -US relations as two leading world nuclear powers but did not have the basics in place for Ukraine- Russia direct talks, with Putin asking for territory in the east. "In the three and a half years that this war has been going on, we have always shown that we are not ducking away, but stand by the side of the Ukrainians. And that will also apply to security guarantees."  The big change is that the SPD under Klingbeil in Germany is now working with CDU's Merz to build up Germany's defense forces to act as a deterrent for Europe. There is a change in the mood in Germany and in Europe, from Sweden and UK , France, Italy, for concerted action in Europe that was not seen before. By taking on responsibilities for Europe with 2-5% defense expenditures this has removed the differences between the US and Europe. It means a prolongation of the war but also means this may lead to a stronger Europe, better Russia- US relations, and a Russian and Ukraine more willing to come to a peace agreement based on terms where no side appears to be the loser. Klingbeil added- It is important to have a "really strong Ukrainian army that is also capable of defense. And the second thing is that armaments production is also being ramped up here in Ukraine as well, thereby putting Ukraine in a position to defend itself and deter attacks." If European history since 1400 is any guide when the powers on either side were eventually counterbalanced the power that took a an aggressive position early had to settle for a peace settlement with both sides not appearing the loser. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Most experts are critical of president Trump's use of language "fire and fury" to North Korea for its missile tests and threats to the U.S.  The closest one gets is the language used by Harry Truman during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.  Mr. Feaver, a national security expert and Senator Cardin say Mr. Trump is using the same language that the north Korean leaders is using and this simply raises the tensions. Feaver was adviser to President George W. Bush on the National Security staff. He says Bush's statement "bring 'em on" to Baath loyalists and militants targeting U.S. troops was a mistake, as well as some other Bush statements in the war against Saddam Hussein who Bush said he wanted "dead or alive."  Victor Cha, a former National Security Council official under president Clinton, says Bill Clinton used language that acted as deterrance to the the North Korean government when he said at the demilitarized zone in Korea, any attack would be "the end of their country." Cha sees Trump's language as a form of deterrence to avoid any miscalculation. Feaver says the language is dangerous, and the only way he can see it being thought out is that 30 years of diplomatic effort have left us with little improvement with North Korea, and the idea that lets try using the same language as the other side. Yet even here he sees it as escalating the rhetoric when nuclear missiles are involved. ...
SPIEGEL ONLINE Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Most of the reporting on Ukraine follows the war. Questions are asked how will this conflict end? This report in Der Spiegel is one of the rare reports that looks at the Ukrainian economy with images and reporting from the ground that answer that question. If the Ukrainian economy is surviving in 2023 then Ukraine will continue long after a peace settlement is reached. It shows for instance that supermarket shelves are well stocked. It shows energy from half a million generators keeps the lights on and companies working in Ukraine. The steel industry is mostly destroyed yet the software industry continues to grow. Unemployment is 30% even after hundreds of thousands of younger Ukrainians are at the war front. Of about $62 billion promised by US and European countries about $31 billion has actually been transferred to Ukraine. The IMF has created an exception for aid to Ukraine with offices in Kviv and Brussels. All defense needs are covered from the Ukraine budget. Before the invasion in Feb 2021 defense took up 9% of the budget, now it takes up 42% of the budget. Another 16% for public security. For social benefits 16%, and another 26% for other expenditures. By having an economy that is functioning and life even in light from generators and solar energy, with supermarkets well stocked and providing office space for workers, with aid mechanisms working. Ukraine has already emerged as part of Europe, tried, tested and come through adversity of the worst sort. It is supposed to join the European Union, yet Der Spiegel says it is already tightly integrated into the EU. Its power grid was integrated with the EU power grid before the war, and nuclear power was sent to the EU from Ukraine before Russian attacks on the nuclear plant. Then transmission lines brought energy to Ukraine from the EU. The EU takes in 80% of Ukraine agricultural exports compared to 20% before the war. Even at the risk of lower prices and hurting farmers in Poland, the Polish government has allowed large imports of agricultural products into Poland. The close links with countries of the EU that share a border with Russia have increased. The problems now are that Ukraine after this war will have severe shortage of manpower. Already with the fall of the Soviet Union Ukraine lost about 8 million people and population was 44 million before the war. About 8 million people moved to Ukraine in the one year following Russian invasion. Of this 1.5 million stayed in Poland, the rest went on to other countries in the EU or returned. The countries such as Germany, Finland, Czech Republic have labor shortages of their own and encourage refugees to stay. Rebuilding is estimated to cost $131 billion. Yet as is evident in Poland after most of the damage from the second world war in Poland it was rebuilt using modern technology. Ukraine survives, its life goes on, is the message from Der Spiegel. In this way the war's outcome is already evident. Much of it comes from the European Union having sensed that attacks made with impunity would endanger all of the European countries when made by any dominant power. This is also what Cambridge historian Brendan Simms has shown about European history for the past 500 years in History of Europe- The struggle for Supremacy 1452 to the present. No one country says Simms was able to act with impunity and pose athreat to its neighbors as all other countries in Europe rallied to prevent this. This war is no exception.   ...
Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Southport killings in the UK where a delinquent 17 year old youth attacked children leading to riots in the UK in 2024 has led to a public inquiry. 

Terrorism was previously dominated by terrorist groups, yet the new threat Starmer says was of “acts of extreme violence perpetrated by loners, misfits, young men in their bedroom, accessing all manner of material online, desperate for notoriety. Sometimes inspired by traditional terrorist groups. But fixated on that extreme violence, seemingly for its own sake.” 

Experts say there have been a number of such attacks before in Reading in 2022, and in the killing of a Tory MP. Neil Basu, former head of Counter Terrorism UK says when he retired in 2021, the “mixed, unclear or unstable” suspect category — someone who did not align with a particular ideology but was set on violent activity was about 40 per cent of casework.

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
In his foreign policy address following the northeast state primaries Donald Trump outlines a policy with less foreign engagement in trouble spots, and greater reliance on partners in Europe and Asia contributing to joint defense. It also includes building up the military and nuclear arsenal. It criticizes the Bush administration for intervention in Iraq that benefitted Iran, and the Obama administration for policies that led to the rise of Islamic State. Because Trump is not for supporting foreign engagements in trouble spots the difference in Trump's policies is not announcing or signalling in advance what U.S. response would be, instead keeping it unpredictable. It is not clear how much this would work given that any president would inherit the situation before him, and also the complexity of the situation would not change, such as the need to have Iranian cooperation and Saudi cooperation to tackle Islamic State. The Bush administration started with a similiar intention to focus on domestic policy, till the 9/11 surprise attack steered it away towards nationbuilding overseas. The pendulum swung in the latter years of the Bush adminstration to the Iraq intervention, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, followed by a swing in the other direction to allowing Libya and Syria disntegrate leading to millions of refugees. Complexity, surprises, and swings of popular opinion, are unlikely to go away, even as caution is exercized and military capabilities enhanced....
The Indian Express Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar says- “The cessation of firing was agreed between the military commanders of both sides through direct contact.” In fact that is what India asked the US - that Pakistan initiate by its general calling the Indian general asking for the war to stop only then would India agree to stop the war, as India had clearly informed Pakistan that it was not targeting Pakistan military only selected terrorist bases inside Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir. Jaishankar was responding in an interview with a European news reporter about his question on whether the nuclear aspect was kept in mind. It was an interview with German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.  Jaishankar made this clear to Dutch Broadcaster NOS- “We made one thing very clear to everybody who spoke to us, not just the US but to everybody, saying if the Pakistanis want to stop fighting, they need to tell us. We need to hear it from them. Their General has to call up our General and say this. And that is what happened.” "We have sent a clear signal to the terrorists that there is a price to be paid for carrying out such attacks, as they did on us in Kashmir in April. The firing was then started by the Pakistani military. We fired back in self-defense and once the Pakistanis understood that they were taking a harmful course, we were able to stop firing. This situation has not changed for two weeks, that is the status.”   ...
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
The Washington Post editorial board warns against repeating the mistake made by president Obama of an hasty withdrawal from trouble spots in the Middle East. Many of the negative events in 2014-2017 were a result of a lack of action where needed or hasty withdrawal leading to the refugee crisis in both Syria and the European Union, and an increase in terrorism, This also led to the rise of extreme politics in many countries, and outside interventions that have worsened the situation.

NYTimes.com Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Sabotage of two tankers in the Persian Gulf and reports of activity of Iranian proxy forces in Iraq and Syria have led to an American response with the dispatch of a aircraft carrier and other forces to the region.  This report in the NYT says Defense Secretary Shanahan has prepared plans for deployment of American forces in the region with one plan calling for 120,000 troops to be dispatched to the region. As president Trump is against American involvement in land wars in distant places, the force is designed as a precaution in case of an Iranian attack through proxy forces in Syria or Iraq and not for a land operation. National Security Adviser Bolton has taken a strong position on Iran since the days of the Bush administration. The U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the sanctions on Iranian oil, are part of a new policy of the Trump administration. The European Union countries have followed a policy of preserving the nuclear deal of 2015, even though the U.S. is pressuring EU countries. The oil sanction have led to a sharp drop in oil exports and is hurting the Iranian economy. President Rouhani of Iran says Iran may withdraw from parts of the Iran nuclear deal and the Iranian response is leading to heightened tensions in the region.  It was only recently that the Democratic party Obama administration pursued the Iranian nuclear deal with opposition from Republicans in Congress and skepticism of Israel. The election of president Trump who says the deal was a bad one has reversed U.S. policy leading to a complete change in policy and a possible confrontation with Iran. U.S. policy can veer back and forth depending on the party or president in power who completely different perceptions of the region. Obama had sharp difference with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and a different perception of Iran. Trump and Bolton see Iran as a threat to the U.S. After Iran shipped most of its nuclear fuel out of the country in 2016 in exchange for lifting of economic sanctions under president Obama's nuclear deal it would take over a year for new uranium enrichment facilities to produce the materials for a nuclear bomb, according to this report in the NYT. When the Obama administration negotiated with Iran the window had shrunk to a few months.   ...
WSJ Original article ›
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Attacks by Houthi rebels in Yemen on Sauid Arabia's Aramco oil company installations are adding to geopolitical tensions. Houthi rebels in Yemen are supported by Iran and are in a war with a Saudi Arabia led coalition. This report says that the three year conflict has reached a point where instead of targeting Riyadh with missiles the Yemeni rebels in Sanaa are now targeting oil installations of Saudi Arabia. The rebels ousted a Said supported government in Sanaa and the the Saudis have failed to oust them from Sanaa, yet the conflict continues. The increase in geopolitical tensions between Iran and Saudis is pushing up oil prices along with the collapse of Venezuela's oil industry and production. Prices reached $75 a barrel in April 2018. Damage from a Yemeni missile hit a Saudi tanker in the Red Sea, a latest sign that the conflict could disrupt oil tanker traffic going towards the Suez Canal.  Trump administration plans to scuttle the Iran nuclear deal or renegotiate it are also increasing tensions. France's Macron favors renegotiating it compared to scuttling the whole deal, a point he made at the U.S. Congress this week, saying also that France will respect the nuclear deal with Iran. Tensions throughout the Middle East are now part of the rival powers Iran and Saudi Arabia and their proxy allies in the region seeking more influence. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ looks at the 75 years of the US Saudi Arabia relationship that started when US president Franklin Delano Roosevelt met Saudi king Ibn Saud at Bitter Creek, Egypt, on a US Navy destroyer ship in 1945. It has gone through many phases over this period and mainly involved the Saudi kingdom maintaining its supply of oil to the US and Western Europe. This relationship went through an oil embargo during tense periods of Israeli Palestine conflict as in 1983 with an oil embargo that pushed up oil prices. What is different this time is the situation in Yemen where Iranian supported Houthi rebels near the border with Saudi Arabia are engaged in a conflict with the Saudis. Democratic administrations under first Obama and Biden today support reaching a deal with Iran on nuclear weapons development and limit US military support for the war in Yemen. The Saudis for their part are not keen on a regional war and turned down efforts by president Trump to respond to attacks from Yemen. Mr. Biden's envoy has arranged for a deal to reduce tensions between the Houthis in Yemen and Saudis. The diplomatic impasse in relations stems from the Kashoggi incident and president Biden's concern for the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. Other factors making relations difficult are the economic interests of the two countries diverging. The relationship Roosevelt started in 1945 has changed in its fundamental character. Oil supplies for imports into the US is no longer a factor for the US which was the original interest of president Roosevelt in Saudi Arabia. This changed by 2015 as the US fracking industry enabled US to become self sufficient in oil and able to supply LNG to western Europe. Instead of the US Saudi oil now goes to China. Russian oil also goes to China as its industry expanded with American investment. This has led to a new Saudi relationship with China which has changed the dynamic of the American Saudi relationship. Some of the new aspects of this can also be seen in Saudi relationship with South Asia. Saudi ties have increased with India and India in 2021 was the first country to provide vaccine supplies to Saudi Arabia. Saudis, Qatar, United Arab Emirates are building relationships with India as a close neighbor in the region. Relationships are in some ways improving in the Asian region compared to the period when oil was simply exchanged as a commodity for defense supplies from the US without regard to cultural, educational and other changes in Saudi society. In a sense US and Western Europe paid little attention to the huge democracy of over 1 billion people right in the middle of Asia and followed policies that led to major investments in China and little or no investment in India, and without realizing it followed a policy that the British had pursued in the British Empire of treating different communities and religions as separate as opposed to one community of people in South Asia that were engaged in modernizing, building infrastructure and changing centuries old ways of living. The British Empire was sustained by this kind of thinking, and as long as Indians were complacent and lacked the will to make their aspirations for a better life and infrastructure for modernization this kind of thinking prevailed. The economic crises in Asia have reinforced the idea that there is one community entirely focused on development and modernization in South Asia. The people in South Asia care most about the cost of living and the infrastructure and services for the quality of life they live and their children can aspire for- same in European Union that chose the Greens and chancellor Scholz, and same in the US that chose president Biden to invest infrastructure and people, the same in China and the same in India and the rest of Asia. This is the situation that the US and Britain, and the European Union are now beginning to learn and adapt to that is a constructive aspect of these changes to rebuild the connections and supply chains that were sorely neglected before now. ...
WSJ Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Reited Gen Gantz appears to be the likely head of a new government after winning the most seats in parliament. Policy towards Iran is not likely to change. But a Gantz led government is likely to reduce the divisiveness in the country, and provide a more unifying effort in Israeli society. The role of religious groups in daily life would also be held back. Better relations with Jewish people in America would result and peace negotiations with Palestinians would be encouraged. The prime minister would concentrate less power in his hands. By temperament Gantz is a quiet leader who preferred not to engage in the back and forth attacks in the election campaign even when Mr. Netanyahu  did not hesitate to do so. As the head of the military from 2011 to 2015 he also has the confidence of people in Israel looking for a new start after a long period of Netanyahu rule. The current prime minister could be indicted soon after a hearing next month on charges of bribery and fraud. Mr. Trump has said that U.S. relationship is not with any leader but with the country Israel. Gantz makes it clear after Netanyahu's style of politics has rocked Israel for many years- "We will bring about a real change in priorities, and heal Israeli society in all its parts." Mr. Gantz has said that he think the Obama administration could have done more in securing a better nuclear deal with Iran. Yet at an event in 2015 when the deal was being set, Mr Gantz said he also saw "the half full part of the glass." That the deal would keep Iran 10 or 15 years from making a nuclear weapon "with the right price." At this juncture in world affairs this is important because Mr. Trump has shown flexibility in dealing with Iran following the firing of National Security Adviser Bolton. Trump held back on a response at several points during the attacks in the Straits of Hormuz and the taking of ships hostage by Iran and the UK. The attacks on Saudi oil facilities and the difficulty of protecting oil installations in the region, Iran's increasingly difficult position under tight U.S. sanctions and pressure on Asian buyers of Iranian oil to cut back purchases, the efforts of Japan and India dependent on Saudi and Iranian oil to reduce tensions, all point to a new policy in the region with a new Israeli government playing a useful role to keep policy control in the hands of Asian countries dependent on oil supplies for their economies, and in the hands of a U.S. president better informed about a policy course that is in U.S. interests of avoiding unnecessary engagements overseas when there are other pressing priorities. ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mohammed bin Salman, 31 years old, is made the successor to his father King Salman. Prince Nayef, 57, the crown prince is removed from this position. Nayef was Interior Minister. After the current king assumed office in Jan. 2015, he promoted his son to the position of defence minister, overseeing the state oil company and overseeing economic affairs. He put together a plan Saudi Vision 2030, and the kingdom has taken a larger role in international affairs under his leadership as the U.S. under the Obama administration moved away from the Saudi policies in Bahrain, Egypt, and Yemen. Under Salman the Saudi kingdom has moved to confront Iran in Syria and Yemen supporting opposite sides in the conflict, and with Saudi aircraft bombing targets in Yemen.  Recap- for more depth see groups and links and search. In international affairs the Saudis grew restive as the Obama administration failed to setup a no fly zone in Syria to protect its Sunni population. Following the chemical weapons attacks in Syria the lack of a U.S. response led to the Saudis turning down a Security Council seat.  Early confrontation occurred in Bahrain with a Shiite population and Sunni government. The Saudis then intervened to support Sissi in Egypt against the Muslim Brotherhood government as the liberals drifted away from the Brotherhood. With Iranian and Russian support for the Syrian government in Damascus against rebels, the Saudis began to use oil policy leading to an effort to let oil prices fall by loosening production limits, believing it would hurt their rivals even more. This hurt Iran, Russia and Saudis, each in a different way. Some of the roots of the Russian involvement in Syria are also related to this. Russia responded to the oil price drop by relying less on exports, and letting devaluations help the Russian economy become more self sufficient. Iran by working to get a deal with the Obama administration on nuclear development to get out of the sanctions regime that hurt Iran's economy. The Saudis cut some subsidies and Prince Salman led the effort for an initial public offering for Saudi state oil company Aramco. As time progressed the Arab Spring with protests in Tunisia, Egypt, and even before that in Iran for greater freedom, morphed into a sectarian struggle between Shiites and Sunnis. The roots of Islamic State are in the unrest in Mosul, Iraq's largest city, with the Shiite government of a pro-Shiite prime minister, leading to the fall of the city to the militants. He was replaced by the current prime minister Abadi to accomodate U.S. insistence on keeping out sectarian sentiment. This is why the problem is so intractable. Desire for freedom plays a role, but religion also plays a role, not only that but there are two versions of Islam in the region.  Remember Gandhi's admonition- "an eye for an eye that makes the whole world blind," as India struggled to set up a democracy in the South Asian region, after the British left.         ...
The New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson calls Russia "incompetent" for letting Syria hold onto chemical weapons even after a deal to remove the weapons was made and implemented. Tillerson was also critical of Russian attempts to influence elections in France and Germany.

The Duel of Despots

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Pierre Razoux, a French historian provides this account of the Iran-Iraq war that lasted from 1980 to 1988, at a cost of 680,000 people killed and $1.1 trillion in war destruction and money diverted from the economy. In 1980 Saddam Hussein of Iraq launched the war by attacking Iran which had just come under the Ayatollah Khomeini with the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979. The war dragged on for 8 years with Khomeini persisting in the war. With U.S. and Saudi policy to increase production bringing the price of oil down from $30 to $10 designed to bring Iran and Iraq to the peace talks, as well as the Soviet Union to withdraw from Afghanistan, all three being major oil producers. The dollar also weakened by 37% during this period. The diplomatic isolation of the Khomeini regime made it more difficult for Iran to buy arms on credit than Iraq could, leading to the war ending with Iran finding it no longer possible to continue the human losses. The Carter administration, particularly with National Security Advisor Brzezinski, tilted towards Iraq to oppose Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Saudis also supported Iraq during the early period. Under president Reagan the U.S. began covert and direct assistance to Iraq to prevent an Iraqi defeat early in the war. Rumsfeld visited Baghdad in December 1983 and March 1984 to organize the U.S. effort to oppose Iran. This may have laid the seeds for future conflicts that lasted through the administrations of the elder and junior Bush. As Razoux points out the Revolutionary Guards became entrenched from this period in Iran's history, making it difficult for election process to work or elected governments to operate. 23 months following the end of that war in 1988 Saddam Hussein launched a war on Kuwait, leading to the U.S. led Gulf war and the entry of the U.S. into a ground combat role, which was followed by the invasion of Iraq under George Bush after 9/11 attacks. The twin wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost the U.S. over 1 trillion dollars. The result today is largely the division on the ground into Shia regions under the Revolutionary Guards and the Shiite government in Baghdad, and Sunni regions led by Islamic State and autonomous Iraqi Sunni tribes, ignoring the Iran-Iraq boundaries set in the colonial period by the French and the British. In all the amount spent in the Khomeini-Saddam war of $ 1 trillion being about $2 trillion in today's money, and the $1 trillion spent by the U.S., means about $3 trillion has gone into the wars in this region. This comes at a time of deficits in government budgets in the U.S. and a deep recession in the U.S. and Europe. It also explains why the U.S. public is reluctant to take even the minor action such as giving a standoff "no-fly zone" protection to the rebels in Syria, and supported the Obama administration in its reluctance to keep even the basic military force in place to protect its diplomatic mission in Libya, where the cost would be small relative to earlier enlarged military missions under the two elder and junior Bush administrations. The result is that refugees are pouring into Europe from Syria and Libya, through Turkey. Turkey itself is host to millions of refugees in camps along its border. The vacuum and the withdrawal of the Obama administration from the region has led to the rise of Islamic State with covert assistance from Sunni regimes in the region to counteract the growing influence of Shiite Iran. It also may explain the Iranian people's support for the nuclear weapons effort through years of sanctions, leading finally to an agreement with the Obama administration that relaxes sanctions in exchange for a future possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons. Lost in the conflict is the Arab Spring of 2012-2013, with the Tunisian democracy the only surviving result of that movement for democracy and awakening among Arab peoples. The Reagan administration in its aggressive anti-Soviet position made large errors- including ignoring human rights abuses and use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, by supporting Iraq and reversing position after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, having a disastrous effect on the entire region decades later. Much of the Obama administration's reluctance for any action may stem from the U.S. role in this period and its consequences of protracted conflict. ...
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Prof. Dershowitz says a stronger statement to Iran was warranted than that contained in President Obama's address at the General Assembly in Sept. 2012. Iranian president Ahmadinejad stated in his address that Israel will be "eliminated."
WSJ Original article ›
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Mitt Romney on the weaknesses of America's position in the Middle East in policies for Syria, Libya, Egypt and the rest of the Arab world. The problems with Iran and the lack of results in bringing an end to Iran's nuclear program.
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....
Wall Street Journal Original article ›
Washington Post Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This televised debate of Republican presidential candidates focussed on Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. Rick Perry said he would impose sanctions on Iran's central bank, something the Obama administration is reluctant to do because it might disrupt international oil markets. Romney and Gingrich said they would use military action if other measures failed. Huntsman called for a complete withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, saying: "This nation's future is not in Afghanistan. this nation's future is not in Iraq." Ron Paul said hw opposed military interventions in conflicts overseas. Perry and Gingrich said U.S. aid to Pakistan should be suspended because Pakistan was not a reliable partner.

A Serious Bombing Strategy

Wall Street Journal Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
This Journal editorial points to the 3 page letter from Gen. Dempsey that make a U.S. response in Syria seem difficult and laborious, cost $1 billion a month, and endless. Gen. Keane points to the Syrian air force operating from just 6 main air strips and with about 50 aircraft out of 100 operational, using this to terrorize the opposition and the countryside indiscriminately including civilian population. Taking these out with cruise missile and other strikes is all that is needed, not even a no-fly zone says Keane. Short of a proper response the U.S. and the Obama administration could only end up leaving the Assad regime in place for longer, says the Journal. Aid to rebel groups that can then do the work of completing the transition is the right strategy, says the Journal.
New York Times Original article ›
New York Times Original article ›
LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman on the $110 billion to fight wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan that does little to advance American interests and values. Especially today when the peoples of the Middle East are struggling to be free of the corrupt military regimes that have ruled their countries, and are trying to setup democratic processes in their countries. The pressing needs at home which are better attended to with these funds. The need to redirect some of this to help young people in the Muslim world bring new hope, development and democratic processes to their countries.

Support LyrArc

We took a different way to help millions around the world build educated informed mindsets that affects and shapes their lives. For a future that is open, global and digital, with everyone having access to high quality information. We believe in the renewal of America, renewal of Europe, the renewal of India, the rest of Asia, Latin America and Africa. The renewal of our supply chains, health, education, infrastructure, as we rebuild our countries after the pandemic. Literacy and knowledge we believe cannot thrive and grow in a world of web bots, web crawlers, or AI. This requires human curiosity, human learning, and human imagination. We take as inspiration the saying- “One has to be free, and as broad as sky. One has to have a mind that is crystal clear, only then can truth shine in it.” Every contribution whether big or small is precious- in this crisis and ahead.

Support Lyrarc from as small as $1


Copyright © 2006 - 2026 Intelilinks LLC
Terms and Conditions | Copyright Policy | Privacy Policy | Contact Us