LyrArc Article Gist
DJT on Iran and the midterms-  "voters understand that" about Iran not having a nuclear weapon and calls for Saudis, Qatar, Pakistan, Oman, Turkey, to sign the Abraham Accords. He says the electon results in some states May 26 showed Republicans and much of the Nation with large majorities for candidates endorsed by DJT- voters understand the president's policy to not let Iran go for a nuclear weapon. This WSJ report cites concerns of Republicans about the midterms yet as soon as it appeared that the president was about to reach a  deal that would be similar to Obama's- that failed and financed Iran's third effort for nuclear weapons- over the weekend, as soon as this appeared to be the course many Republicans and the WSJ Editorial Board, said this was a bad idea. The president paused that effort. At a Cabinet meeting DJT said  about the Arab states signing the Abraham Accords- the Saudis and Qatar, Oman, Turkey,Jordan, “I think they owe that to us to be honest.”  “I’m not sure we should make the deal if they don’t sign." On Iran getting funds from the US which could go right into making a nuclear weapons program again as it did after the Obama administration did this, DJT had this to say- “We’re not talking about any easing of sanctions, no giving money. When they behave properly…we’ll let them have their money.” Repeatedly at campaign events and rallies across the country for 10 years DJT has said Obama made a serious mistake in handing over funds that were put right into building a nuclear weapons program with a ballistic weapons program, for a third time. This has happened before in North Korea. Obama allowed 11 tons of uranium enriched at 20% to be shipped to Russia- that did not stop Iran from a new nuclear weapons program and a threat to Israel. There is also considerable Republican skepticism about any deal that does not remove nuclear weapons. About sending the Iranian uranium to Russia or China DJT said- “No. That would not make me comfortable.”  About Iran's economy DJT said inflation is "at 250% "and they are negotiating on fumes." DJT calls it a "conflict" (the blockade not committing US troops) and not an open ended war. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof reminds readers of the NYT that the more that the British acted to suppress the American insurgents, the more that fueled the insurgents fighting the British. After all the land they were on was theirs they felt and not Britain's. The same is true for the $0 million Pastuns on both sides of the border, the Afghan side and the Pakistan side. He says Americans are not sensitive enough to nationalism abroad. The war in Afghanistan is costing $60 billion ayear. Adding another 40,000 troops will cost $10 billion, enough to send 2 million disadvantaged children to a solid preschool, or could be as high as $40 billion extra, which over 10 years would pay for almost half of health care reform. Kristof doesn't see the 40,000 troops doing enough to change the picture much, except increasing support for Taliban as the American footprint grows as foreign occupiers. He mentions that standard counterinsurgency ratios of troops to civilians would require 650,000 troops including Afghans.

LyrArc Article Gist
Indian finance minister Sitharaman announces Rs. 60 billion ($857 million) in equity for the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund to provide Rs. 1000 billion  ($14.2 billion) debt financing for infrastructure to 2025. This is part of a wide ranging stimulus 3.0 package for creating jobs, providing aid to borrowers during the pandemic, aid to farmers, and aid for the informal economy including street vendors and small retail. With the largest population in the world the Indian Ocean region of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Burma, and Indonesia from the former British and Dutch empires, requires a resilient response to the coronavirus pandemic. This is crucial for the future revival of the world economy. 

LyrArc Article Gist
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman's view of Afghnistan differs significantly from New York Times correspondent Filkins understanding from years of reporting going back about a decade. Filkins sees the complexities of Pastun country inside Afghnistan and Pakistan and the military and ISI's involvement, and other correspondents have pointed to the narcotics trade and corruption. Kerry's simplistic view is that the Taliban do not enjoy much support, when actually Americans are seen on the ground as foreign occupiers. These correspondents in the field point to this as an everpresent danger, which would tilt support to those fighting foreigners, with nationalist and Muslim sentiment prevailing over everything else. And Kerry appears to be too willing to dismiss allegations of narcotics involvement of the Karzai administration with the "show me" comment. For critics of the Bush administration this is simply astounding, when so much is at stake. Does patient mean digging in one's heels slowly? But that is how the Vietnam intervention ran into trouble, without public sentiment in support of the plans....

LyrArc Article Gist
This picture essay in The Guardian shows the 700,000 additional people displaced inside Afghanistan in 2021 in addition to the 2.9 million displaced people by 2020. The British stayed out of Afghanistan except for brief forays from concern about Russia entering close to British India. Not much happened till Zahir Shah, the King of Afghanistan was seen as not doing much for a famine that struck the country in 1972. Drought struck much of the country in 1972 leading to the deaths of over 100,000 people from starvation. The King had ruled since 1933. And for a brief period his cousin and brother-in-law Daud Khan had actually run the administration between 1953 to 1963, before being dismissed with a new constitution adopted not allowing the royal family to rule the country without consulting parliament. The poor handling of famine relief led to the fall of the government appointed by King Zahir Shah in 1972. In 1973 Daud Khan violates this constitution and assumes control of the country. British India was in 1972 the India of the Nehru period, with his daughter Indira Gandhi the democratically elected prime minister. India fought a brief war with Pakistan in 1971 that set up the new nation of Bangladesh from territory of East Bengal. India preoccupied with Bangladesh refugees did not do what the British had done to keep outside powers out of Afghanistan and maintain a stable monarchy. Daoud Khan's repression of Communist party leaders led to Communist party military factions in the army taking over the country in 1978. The Afghan military led by officers in the army's Communist factions had little support in the traditional Islamic nature of the countryside for their land reforms. Leading to a rebellion and entry of Soviet troops under a friendship treaty signed in 1978 with Soviets under Leonid Brezhnev. It is this disrupting of the stability of the Afghan monarchy or the entry of Soviets or Americans or any other foreign influence that was carefully prevented in British India by Britain's India policy, which resulted in a period of peace and stability in that region. The events of 1974 with the fall of the monarchy, and the entry of Russia in 1978 broke two of the main rules the British had observed from 1750- a stable monarchy and no outside influence in Afghanistan. A policy the British also followed for Tibet. When China entered Tibet in 1950 Nehru was too preoccupied with the millions of refugees from Pakistan and failed to prepare in the years 1947-50 for following British policy on Tibet by preparing or anticipating the entry of foreign powers. The entry of China into Tibet in October 1950 led to the Sino India border war of 1962, and led to the current situation of India facing a Chinese army all along the border of Arunachal Pradesh, Ladakh, Nepal and all the way in the Himalayas to Kashmir. The result has been billions of dollars spent by the US every week starving domestic priorities, as president Biden observed this week, and a burial place for empires. Ten years for Russia, and twenty for the US with the same result. It has left the whole region poorer and in humanitarian crisis for 50 years, and created crises for Russia, Pakistan, India, and the US. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Declan Walsh describes the role of the military in Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan which has marginalized political parties and democratic process. The shift in Pakistan towards a democratic state shows the limits of the military's role in politics. Throughout Asia and Latin America, beyond just the Arab world, S. Korea, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, the movement is towards democratic processes of government. As political parties mature a more centrist position was adopted in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Islamist parties in Turkey, a similar trend is likely in the rest of the Muslim world as political parties are able to mature and deliver in economic terms and improving living conditions. The Saudis and UAE may be able to deliver in economic terms because of oil prices and supplies, each country and the people in the region has to determine how it will tackle its economic problems and move forward or fall behind in a rapidly developing global economy. Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey and India are no exception....