That's not true. Hamas finally agreed to let Israel monitor the Philadelphi corridor and to keep a buffer zone.
Hamas also finally released an actual list with names of who they would release.
Those were the changes the made the deal. Israel did not change their position.
If you think you are right, then tell me: What did Hamas want that they didn't get before, than now because of Trump Israel agreed to? There's not a single thing, but I'll let you have a chance to find something.
Trump wanted the war to end, and I'm sure Netanyahu was doing his Netanyahu thing.
Posting that video was Trump's way of telling Netanyahu that he will burn him by turning him into public enemy #1 with his base. That's how he got him to agree.
Netanyahu destroyed his reputation within the Democratic base and it did not concern him in the slightest. Because Israel stopped truly needing the approval of the US a long time ago.
And so the idea that he is suddenly worried about what the Trump base thinks has no basis in fact. Especially when the Trump base is not 1-1 with the Republican base i.e. the majority of the Congress still supports Israel.
Also shows that Israeli electorate/Jewish diaspora now likely a distinct/separate entity from US Jewish population...drifting apart since at least 2008 if not earlier.
Utterly wrong. Netanyahu’s base loves Trump. They believe Dems are out to get them and would like to cut aid to Israel. Netanyahu absolutely can not get on trumps bad side because his base would eviscerate him.
Snowden sacrificed a comfortable life to expose a criminal enterprise in Washington that deprived Americans of their constitutional rights.
Why should he accept to be judged by the criminals he exposed?
He initially wanted to go to a different state, for your information, because he knew there would be people who would use his refuge in Russia to question his loyalty.
The good news is that Americans on the street are overwhelmingly on his side and against the corrupt and unaccountable cabal running the country.
I was giving an example of one of the things I liked in particular. Text on a flag to me is usually a no-no but in Iraq’s case it works (and Iran’s too, but a bit more subtle). Sorry I should’ve been clearer :-)
The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country.
If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
Here's a guy who was raised as a prince. Dropped out of two universities. Then got a BSc in political science from private persian professors. Never had to work for anything, and then waited until other people started a movement and then he somehow has a claim to the movement once it started. His supporters then went on to attack anyone that suggested that should he really want to be a part of the movement he should put himself up to vote.
Not only that, but all his addresses where through representatives, never publicly decided to speak, probably because he would fail without his DC speechwriters and you sit here and tell us that he has majority support? In which universe?
It's funny how everyone keeps shouting how great democracy is, but then when it comes to actually putting themselves up for vote, they're "naaah, why would I risk not being elected".
There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too.
And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on equating Iran and Iraq? They are different countries, demographics, cultures, political systems, etc...with very different circumstances. The Iraqi National Congress was setup and funded by the CIA (after the invasion of Iraq by US military), with a banking elite as it's figurehead.
The coalition being built in and outside of Iran is an organic, cross-class, cross-cultural network that is the result of years of activism. Within it, you will find figures like Masih Alinejad, a world-renowned journalist and women's rights activist, and Hamed Esmaeillion, a representative for the families of PS752 (the plane that was shot down by the Islamic Regime with 170+ souls on board). To equate this to a CIA-backed coup is not well-founded.
1. Any political movement will attract people who are hungry for power-for-power’s-sake or to inflate their own ego. Naiveté about this is malpractice in the same way that US naïveté about Chalabi was malpractice.
Iranians who are naive to the point of self-deception will be as misleading as those who are willfully deceptive. Discernment without undue cynicism is necessary but hard.
From the perspective of the US/UK, Iran and Iraq are pretty culturally similar. They are strangers to us. Lets not pretend to be more anthropologically/politically knowledgeable than we are.
2. We don’t have access to reliable intelligence. It is wise to be humble about our ability to sort fact from myth from falsehood.
3. If we want this to succeed, then we want marginal (in the sense of “swing voters”) and civic-minded Iranians to switch to supporting this. Those Iranians will have “CIA-backed coup” as a historical memory so it is worth empathizing with them.
