IRAN: WHAT IS OBAMA THINKING?

It is becomingly increasingly more obvious that Iran has no intention of relinquishing its capability of creating a nuclear weapon. Increasingly more obvious to everyone, everyone that is, other than Obama and his administration. (Jay H. Ell has blogged on more than one occasion that this whole prolonged circus, in an attempt to create a solution to the Iranian nuclear deal, will be Obama’s achilles heel: Blog: “Netanyahu and Maybe Obama Too - Just Don’t Get It’). Obama has plodded on and on extending the date for a settlement again and again as Iran cheerfully lead him on a merry dance maintaining that there will be no deal, “that takes away Iran’s self respect”. Unhappily, that “self respect” extends to the Ayatollah’ s right to set up centrifuges wherever he likes and whenever he likes. More recently this whole crucial issue has been lost in the sideshow created by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who wishes to grandstand in Washington for domestic political purposes, Republican House Speaker Boehner, who never misses an opportunity to denigrate the Office of the Presidency and the POTUS, himself, who is now openly irritated by the antics of Bibi Netanyahu allowing it to cloud his judgement. 

It is time to return to what is really at stake here - the risk of making Iran a nuclear superpower thereby aiding its ambitions, first to neutralize then obliterate Israel, dominate the Muslim world and then become the other major political superpower on the planet.

HOW IT ALL STARTED.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA), as early as 2006, disclosed to the UNO that Iran was not in compliance with the International Treaty on non -proliferation. The saga has continued ever since then with the Security Council voting 4 times to inflict sanctions on Iran. However, the sanctions have really gained teeth with the US and the European Union upping the ante with financial restrictions thereby bringing the Iranian economy to its knees. 

In the interim all opposition to the regime within Iran has mercilessly been put down. The most celebrated revolt was in 2009 and 2010, following upon Ahmadinejad’s re-election, where blatant fraud was alleged. The Ayatollah Khomeini clamped down with an iron fist. Well over a 100 protestors were thought to have been killed and tens of thousands tortured and raped. Communication was cut off from the outside but it did not stop the carnage being broadcast across the world when the drama of a twenty - three year old lady, Neda Agha- Soltan's, cold blooded murder was downloaded onto You Tube for all the world to see. (How short are all our memories). 

Khamenei investigated the alleged fraud and found the election to be “ completely free” and a victory for Iran’s democracy. The subsequent uprising he attributed “to exuberance” such as seen after a soccer match. He failed to publicly applaud his highly effective crowd control operation which has allowed his totalitarian game to continue without further material interruption.

Then came the 2013 Iranian elections when the odious thug Ahmadinejad was replaced by the sweet smelling thug Rouhani. Really all irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when it is the Ayatollah who calls all the shots anyway. Rouhani the newly retreaded President of Iran, his country nearly out for the count with massive devaluation of its currency, the shelves of its stores empty and the Iranian natives surely restless, decided as an act of love, peace and reconciliation in November of 2013 to sign an historic Pact with the five members of the Security Council and Germany. (This represented the first such gathering, that included America, in the thirty four years since the Iran hostage crisis where the Iranians held 52 American diplomats for 444 days). 

The initial meeting of the “Geneva Interim Agreement” adjourned till February 18 - 20,  - 2014 that is, and then again adjourned till March 17,  - 2014 that is, and they have been adjourning ever since till March 17, -  2015 that is. 

Just to end this segment the way it was started the IAEA  reported to the six supervising countries last week that, “Iran has still not addressed specific questions from the Agency over whether it explored  the weaponization process in the past”.The IAEA report further stated that Teheran is still not co operating in two areas of their investigation. The IAEA has produced similar communiques over the years so this really nothing knew.

All this begs the question - What is the Obama administration thinking?

WHY OH WHY ARE WE HERE?

This whole Iranian deal is a relic of the original Obama dream - “…there are no red states or blue states only the United States” and the world really wants peace  - remember the receptions Barak received everywhere, in Berlin and then in Oslo when they gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for “Being There”. He was "the man". There is one thing being "the man: in everyone’s dreams but there is another delivering in political reality. Ironically, Obama has had his fantasy knocked out of him in “The United States” and most of the rest of the world but for whatever reason Iran lingers on. It lingers on because if he managed to persuade those crazies to see reason they should give him and, as their wont, the crazy that he does the deal with, a Nobel Peace Prize. So the more this dragged on the greater the stakes were for him to succeed. The longer it lasts the bigger the royal idiot he will be when it fails. Everyone has told him so, most significantly, the Grand Old Party and Bibi, of course. 

So for the POTUS the talks just cannot fail. He is supposedly desperate.  An anonymous Iranian report maintained that he has begged the Iranians for any deal so that he can save face. He better face the reality that an acceptable deal is just not going to happen.  

There is a kind of fall back position. Secretary of State John Kerry has just announced that the USA is ready to inflict more sanctions on Iran if they renege. Guess what?  That is what they have been threatening since day one. Sadly nobody believes a word the hardworking but ineffectual Kerry says. 

So here we are awaiting yet another meeting of the two sides, with the background, that once again the Iranians have failed to honor the Geneva agreement. The initial arrangement allowed for a teaser easing of the economic pain in return for less uranium to be enriched by the fundamentalist state. The slight loosening of the monetary noose is there for all to see and all we have is Iran’s word that they are enriching less uranium, not the IAEA. 

WHAT ARE THE PRIZES?

 The big prize for Iran would be an accord heralding the lifting of the debilitating sanctions. Their fiscal plight has been mired even deeper this past year with the plunging price of oil. Iran can hardly shape up to its divine mission if it is desperately short of cash. For America and the rest of the Universe the jackpot would be the theocracy being unequivocably unable to produce a nuclear weapon. But as negotiations stand there is no way that this rational outcome is on the table. Instead a whole host of compromises are being floated to allow the Iranians “self respect”.

While supposedly the negotiations are in secret they are being freely debated in every media outlet. It appears that if Iran enriches only a low percentage of uranium for ten to fifteen years then they would be allowed to proceed with the nuclear energy program. After the ten to fifteen years Iran would be subject to the normal provisions of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Agreement. The problem is that “self respect" for this oil rich nation entails thousands of nuclear reactors. Now the IAEA has chimed in claiming that monitoring such a program would be impossible. They could manage a few hundred atomic facilities but the projected number would be impossible to inspect adequately. 

Jay H. Ell has another observation, it was Iran’s refusal to honor the nuclear pact in the first place that precipitated this crisis. He believes nothing in their subsequent behavior gives him any confidence that Iran has changed its belligerent attitude. What are the six nations going to do if Iran just continues defying the IAEA after sanctions have been lifted? Declare war and invade? Ostensibly the answer to that question is that compliance will not be entrusted to the Iranians but rather “technical parameters”. But that still begs the question what the six will do if Iran does break the deal as measured by technical parameters?

Another ticklish issue is where will the enriched uranium be sequestered - in Iran or in another country? All these unresolved concerns have not been finalized. It appears for the moment there are more booby prizes than big prizes in the offing.

The can is being kicked further and further down the road. Now by the end of the March there will be an agreed upon framework and by the end of June an agreed upon treaty.

OPPOSITION TO THE “PRE ARRANGEMENTS”

The above solutions are creating a sharp reaction from detractors. No- one seems to be buying the State Department disclaimer that as there is no accord yet all this speculation is irrelevant. Nor are they buying the State Department’s other contradictory lame response that they are not announcing details as Netanyahu is sure to focus on a few “bad” points and blow them out of proportion. Speaking of Bibi he needs no encouragement to verbalize how he really feels. He rightly scoffed at the claim that he didn’t know what was going on and feigned shock at the fact that the talks are still proceeding after the IAEA report. Netanyahu’s credibility has taken a knock with Mossad contradicting him on his assessments as to when Iran could produce a nuclear weapon. His estimate being a year and his Security people believing that it would be much longer. Also Netanyahu’s poor showing in the pre election polls has taken the gloss of his persona.

Of far greater significance than the Israeli PM’s pre election grandstanding, was the reaction of the Gulf Arab States and Egypt. The latter have made it crystal clear to Washington their opposition to the current deal that is floating around. They, more than anyone else, are aware of Iran’s territorial and political ambitions. Their most telling prediction to Obama is that this will trigger off a nuclear race in the Middle East. While, as yet, there is no formal alliance between the Israelis and this group they have a common agenda - the containment of the theocratic Republic of Iran.

In the unlikely event that a compromise is finally hammered out, it better be acceptable as Obama has a mad dog Congress baying at his heels ever on the look out for blood. The Commander in Chief had his work cut out to persuade the legislature to postpone voting additional sanctions on Iran a short while ago. If he presents a deal that they determine is a sell out he will hit a veto proof majority to stop it as this is an issue that there will be no problem garnering Democratic support. They don’t need Netanyahu’s counterproductive appearance and his proclaiming himself the messiah of all jews throughout the world has created a backlash. Netanyahu’s guest appearance may well persuade wavering Democrats to stay loyal to the POTUS while the Israeli Premier’s behavior has split the American Jewish Community that would otherwise been ad idem on this issue. No doubt in the event of Congress kiboshing the Iranian deal Netanyahu will claim full credit for the achievement.

AT THE END OF THE DAY 

The odds are heavily stacked against Obama and the leaders of the other five nations. The options appear to be a bad deal or no deal. Obama has wasted too much political capital on this issue. No one can claim that he hasn’t given it the good old college try. Granted the elephant in the room is that the Ayatollah controls the only army in the region that could take out ISIS. But at the end of the day ISIS is more of Iran’s problem than it is anyone elses. They represent the greatest threat to Iran’s territorial ambitions and are hobbling his allies Syria and Iraq. They are also commanding the attention and resources of their surrogate terrorist arm, Hezbollah. Iran is posturing much like Russia - they are on their knees yet they are brazening it out calling the shots. 

So come on Barak, what are you thinking? Tell them, the next time there is an impasse or if they want 15,000 centrifuges, to jump in the lake and up the ante by turning on the screws with more sanctions. You are dealing with a crowd who function in a different paradigm. Do you seriously think that they will allow ISIS to take a chunk out of their empire? A deal with them will anger several American ally Arab states even if you are angry with Bibi. Nor incidentally has Iran the slightest intention of abandoning their nuclear quest which is supposed to be the object of this exercise.

The sooner President Obama can call this charade to a close the better.

PUTIN DARES USA AND EU TO START COLD WAR 11

Vladimir Putin staring at the threat of Obama arming Ukraine, additional European sanctions and the economic chaos in his country, brazened out the recent peace talks in Minsk. First, he declared a truce and then attempted to delay it for ten days to allow the Russian separatists to capture a strategic railway hub on the Eastern border of Ukraine. This circumstance would have forced 8000 Ukrainian troops to surrender. The European negotiators, Merkel of Germany and Hollande of France, painted a grim picture of the prospects of peace when reporting back to their European colleagues in Brussels. No one believes that Putin is serious and will be deterred from his colonial objectives. In so doing he risks Obama following through on his ultimatum thereby precipitating Cold War 11.

Putin has signaled, again and again that he is not ultimately going to back down and regardless of the consequences he is going to take on the world - well at least most of it. He has bragged that he is a super power and that the world better believe it. This while each day that goes by his position becomes weaker and weaker. The Russian economy, the Russian ruble and the price of oil have all tanked leaving the country more and more vulnerable to Western sanctions. But the modern day Tzar continues to stride, strut, and posture on the world stage while furthering his territorial ambitions. As Jay H. Ell has pointed out previously, in this modern communication age you cannot bluff and bluster as everybody knows everything about everything. So with his strongest card, oil, trumped his hopes sill rest that it is not in Europe’s best interests to take him on and that Obama in his isolationist mood will, chicken out. Both these calculations are in fantasyland - Europe lead by Germany’s Angela Merkel have proposed additional sanctions and Obama has repeatedly threatened to arm Ukraine. Thus far the Russian proletariat have reveled in the resurgent glory of the motherland but there are indications that that can change.

PUTIN’S ANSWERS TO HIS SITUATION

Putin’s moves this far, other than his territorial ambitions in Ukraine, having snuffed out Chechnya and Georgia and bagged Crimea, is to cozy up to every enemy of the rest of the world whether it be Syria or Iraq. He is very empathetic to the predicament of any state that is anti the West and has most recently paid a very visible high power visit to Egypt’s Sissi who gave him the red carpet treatment. (Sissi and the USA are not exactly hitting it off these days). However, the problem is that the Kremlin leader has no largesse to hand out anymore, just love and sympathy.

Putin, as he did in Crimea, denies that he is aiding the separatists with troops in the battlefield that he refers to as “New Russia”. This when Russian troops, without insignias have been identified in the war zones. He no longer bothers to deny that it is his limitless weaponry that arms the separatists. This, too while he has troops in “war games” on the Russian side of the border. Putin doesn’t care that no one believes anything he says. It is like the good old USSR days when the propaganda from the self same neo colonialist fascist pigs was that everyone else were neo colonialist fascist pigs. In those days those who believed that the emperor had clothes were rewarded with goodies, but now the cupboard is bare. Inevitably, when the fighting continues he denies he has any control over the “rebels” who just battle on.

Putin’s denial mechanisms extends to his economic plight and his failure to adapt to sanctions. According to a Forbe’s report in the important area of food production the Russians have done nothing! Even if the consumer had full access to European food the Ruble can buy less than 50 percent of what it previously could. Mark Adomanis, the Russian economic expert that authored the Forbes article, ended with the following statement, “The Kremlin can of course, pretend, (his emphasis), that it’s economy hasn’t been impacted by the sanctions, that Russian consumers are rapidly and enthusiastically turning to Russian - made goods and that the Russian business sector are in rude health. But, Rosstat, (Russian sources), shows pretty clearly that Russia’s private sector have done a poor job filling the gap left by sanctions and the Ruble devaluation”. 

PUTIN’S PROLETARIAT BACK IN CHAINS

Putin does not to have much confidence in his comrades shutting up much longer as there has been an unprecedented crackdown on any criticism and dissidents. According to Marc Bennett of The Business Insider the Kremlin’s suppression is the most wide sweeping in post - Soviet Russian history. For practical purposes he has criminalized protest. A law has been put into effect that if a dissident is arrested twice for an unsanctioned protest,(which most are), within 180 days he has a mandatory 5 year prison sentence and several key dissidents are about to be nabbed. In addition to the draconian actions of the Kremlin a new pro establishment vigilante group  called Anti - Madian has graced the scene. The group was formed by a former pro Putin lawmaker. Their main objective is to prevent any camp that is against the Ukraine war. What polls that have come out of Russia have shown the proletariat to be at best lukewarm to the continued aggression. 

So any hope the West had of an internal revolt against Putin’s destructive megalomania have been dashed by the Russian leader’s preemptive totalitarian legislation and actions. There also have been the usual collection of “show” trials where for example a woman was charged for treason for allegedly informing the Ukrainian embassy that she had overheard a conversation where the possibility of Soviet troops being deployed was discussed. Tanya Lokshina, the deputy director of the Moscow office of The Human Right’s watch group agrees that this crackdown is the most sweeping since the dissolution of the USSR.

GUNG HO PUTIN DARES "TAKE ME ON"

The Carnegie Foundation believes that US and Russian relations are at a point of rupture. Any reading of Putin’s personality and the mess he is in leads one to that inescapable conclusion. He will face no more internal opposition than Stalin or Kruschev did as he has already taken the necessary steps to prevent that. So he will play each day by ear all with the objective of hanging onto power. While there are massive reservations to arming Ukraine as they are not that stable either Obama obviously feels that, notwithstanding his European NATO partners’ opposition, he has to reassure the Eastern European countries that are new NATO members, that they are not going to fall victim of Putin’s “territorial ambitions”.

Obama, in spite of his laid back approach to military adventures, finds himself once again in an impossible situation. He cannot ignore the state of affairs much longer. Putin has obviously put himself on a path to self destruction. Heaven knows what he is thinking. When he embarked on this mayhem of neo colonialism he held many cards. The Russian economy was booming, he was the oil rig of Europe and able to hold over them the threat of disrupting their economies, There also was not much will to take him on. He mistook Obama’s lack of stomach to involve the USA in military adventures as him being soft on intervening. He failed to compute that so far Obama’s desire for love not war has not stopped him going in boots and all when he finally decides to. Most of all Putin failed to adapt to his precipitous financial fall. He declined to diversify his economy and all he has left is the vain hope that the price of energy will once again rocket.

He is cornered and like a long line of Russian rats he will bring down the proletariat with him. He still can come to a deal to stop this out of control train. He has so often in the past, declared victory even though he is in the jaws of defeat. He can after all point to the fact that Russia is hosting the World Soccer Cup in 1918!

In a moment of Zen, one has to reflect on the metamorphosis of Putin’s Russia morphing from a colossus that bestrode Eastern Europe just a year or so ago into a wounded swaggering giant. The acceleration into the abyss has been electrifying and must be reflective of modern day communication that is measured in nano seconds. While some empires held sway for centuries the new Russian domain is rapidly catapulting into oblivion with yet another madman at the helm. The tragedy is the many that will perish in the process of his doomed imperialistic ambitions.

AMERICAN SNIPER A LANDMARK MOVIE

Clint Eastwood’s American Sniper has opened to record breaking box office numbers. The cinematic tale relates the saga of an American sniper whose success in killing two hundred and sixty Iraqi insurgents lead to him being known as “The Legend”. The motion picture broke the record for a first night in icy cold January, ($35 million), it grossed $89.2 million for the traditional opening three days thereby beating the previous highest January opening by a hundred percent of any January movie, and within five weeks of the opening it was projected to be the highest grossing war film in American history.  Fandango, the online cinema booking agency, reported that the movie garnered seventy percent of its pre ticket sales which was a predictor of its ongoing success. It was screened in nearly four thousand cinemas making it the widest R rated film ever to be released. Finally, the celluloid was nominated for six Oscar awards including, best actor, Bradley Cooper, best picture and best adapted screen play, Jason Hall. 

However the production is slap bang in the middle of a partisan brawl as to its message, integrity of its central character and its artistic merit. With regard to the communication the production was said to deliver, it was argued - on the one hand, that it glorified violence and war and on the other, that it depicted the Iraqi war as futile and destructive. Chris Kyle, the legendary sniper, was either characterized as a psychopath or an empathetic hero. As to the story and how it was portrayed, from one vantage point it was nationalistic war porn and from another a valid reflection of reality as seen through the eyes of a patriot and his family.

ROLLING STONE’S WHOLESALE SLAUGHTER OF THE AMERICAN SNIPER

It suffices to detail Matt Taibbi’s review in the prestigious journal, Rolling Stone, to feel the full weight of the detractors of this war drama in each and every dimension. The assessment is that the message is perverted, “The Legend” is a phony braggart and the production is simplistic. 

The Stone critic headlined his piece, “American Sniper is almost to dumb to criticize”. The movie is compared to Forest Gump, who, “…in the face of terrible moral choices plays ping pong”, only it maintains that it sinks to even lower depths. The reviewer contends producing a “one - note fairy tale” to the setting of the “insane moral morass of the Iraq occupation is even dumber and more arrogant than George Bush or Dick Cheney ever tried”. The contention is that the story line should have depicted the moral dilemmas surrounding the war - the failed WMD search, Abu Ghraib and the “myriad of other atrocities” that helped to fuel ISIL. Taibbi continues in this vein throughout, believing that Eastwood’s portrayal of Kyle being spurred to greater action by the 9/11 bombings was corny, “…as if there was some logical connection between Iraq and 9/11”. Jay H. Ell could go on and on quoting chunks of the critic’s assessment but he is sure everyone gets the drift.

So the cinematic production was cheap and contrived while the message was totally off target, so what about the central character, Chris Kyle? The Rolling Stone contributor immediately quotes Michael Moore, who tweeted that his father was killed by a sniper in WW 11, and snipers were always regarded as cowards. Taibbi believes that it is “dangerous to be seduced by the pathos and drama of an individual soldier’s experience, because most wars are much larger than that”. He interprets, weaving between the book upon which this movie was adapted and the movie itself, that Kyle was in some sort of sick competition against the crack Iraqi insurgent sniper Mustafa. He mocks at, what has never been disputed, the fact that Kyle took out Mustafa from a mile away. (A circumstance that allowed the sniper to finally feel free to go home phoning his wife Taya, there and then, from the field announcing just that). Taibbi maintains that rather it ratified every idiot fantasy of every yahoo with a target rifle from Seattle to Savannah.

Having completed an annihilating hatchet job on the award winning “American Sniper”, the reviewer summates with the statement, “Eastwood who could have cleared things up only muddies the water further. Sometimes a story is meaningless without context”.

JAY H. ELL’S TAKE

Rather than rely on other commentators Jay H. Ell would like to review this film from his world. Firstly, it should be made clear that this production did not purport to address the whole issue of war in general and the Iraqi abomination specifically. He has blogged on the latter issue again and again. (Blog: “The Iraq War Deception and Its Aftermath”). Rather it was the narrative of one central participant in the context of war, in this instance, the USA precipitated Iraq war. So to criticize Eastwood for not doing for what he did not set out to do is, at kindest, unfair. Then to interpret what he did as extolling war was ridiculous especially as Clint believes that his intent was just the opposite. Eastwood, a man of very few words, called American Sniper, “The biggest anti war statement any film can make”. He added that it focussed on the impact that it had on those left behind and on the combatants when they returned.  

It is not often that Jay H. Ell is ad idem with Clint Eastwood, nor would anyone else but Jay H. Ell care, but he does believe that Eastwood is an honest and highly talented artist. He remembers his Super Bowl ad where he hailed the American car industry recovery as indicative of the American psyche. Eastwood, an ardent Republican, was hammered for making a political statement supporting Obama’s bailout. He was unrepentant other to say that was not his purpose. 

So instead of arguing what type of screenplay Eastwood should have made let us examine the movie and see whether there is evidence to support whether Eastwood achieved what he set out to do.

AMERICAN SNIPER - THE MOVIE

Context

Anyone who has seen this movie and did not wish to impose his/her worldview on the context and just viewed the repetition of street battles where searches take place in home after home cannot but be struck by the senseless brutality of the exercise and the deaths that never seem to stop. There was the sheer monotony of scene after scene showing violence and bodies with no obvious purpose other than to go through the ritual of finding those were fighting against you and kill or be killed. There was no end in sight of this meaningless slaughter and the only closure was for individuals, in this instance Chris Kyle. It does not need much more to condemn the war that Kyle was in as everyone but everyone knows all about this phony war.

Chris Kyle 

So this is the story about an individual who is drawn into a situation, not of his making, functioning in terms of his own psyche and value system. The desire is to turn Chris Kyle into a personality that he wasn’t and to argue that he is an inane stereotype and not to accept that those disparaging Eastwood’s depiction wish to replace him by their own intellectual stereotype. So let us examine “The Legend” in terms of the Jason Hall script of “American Sniper” and see whether Bradley Copeland’s Chris Kyle hangs together as a “real person”.

At no stage was there any hint that Kyle was a rocket scientist. From the word go he was portrayed as an uncomplicated citizen. His job definition up until enlistment was a rodeo cowboy for G-d’s sake. After seeing terrorist attacks on television he decided to enlist and defend his country. It is learned at this early stage that he has aggressive tendencies - beating up someone he finds in his girlfriend’s bed however high that may be rated on the scale of aggressive behavior. 

When enlisting as a patriot he shows his determination that he isn’t “like most men” by volunteering for the elite Navy SEALS. Like anyone who survives the training he proves it. He doesn’t seek to be a sniper to satisfy his alleged psychopathic behavior. Rather his skill at long range shooting, one of the many exercises in training, qualifies him for this position. 

Kyle’s philosophy of life

At this point in the narrative it is constructive to share his simplistic philosophy of life which is reflected in a conversation with his sons:

“ There are three types of people in this world - Sheep, wolves and sheepdogs.”

“Some people prefer to believe that evil does not exist in this world, and if hatred ever darkened they would not know how to protect themselves. These are the sheep”.

“Then you got the predators. These people use violence to prey on the weak. They are the wolves”.

“Then there are those who are blessed with the gift of aggression and overpowering need to protect the flock”. (Jay H. Ell’s emphasis).These are the rare breed that live to confront the wolf. They’re the sheepdog”.

“Now we are not raising any sheep in this family and I will whoop your fucking ass if you turn into a wolf…”

The American Sniper is true to that philosophy throughout the whole production. A philosophy that lead him to battle with the conflicting priorities of wife and family and duty to country and his “overpowering need to protect his flock,”, having been “blessed with the gift of aggression”.

Philosophy consistent throughout

The Sniper’s loyalty, empathy and care of his family, his brother, friends and marines he is entrusted to protect are on display from start to finish. In one very telling scene he remarks, “ .. (If),These marines keep rushing in like they been doing, they’ll get their asses shot off. They don’t clear corners…lets show them how to do it. I’ll lead a unit in the street.”

His minder, to no avail remonstrates that he should stay put maintaining that he is “too valuable”. His caretaker then pleads with him asking him whether he has, “Some kind of savior complex”. Kyle counters that he just wants to get the bad guys and he can’t shoot them if he can’t see them and proceeds to successfully train the street unit.

He is devastated by the death of his close friend Biggles who provides the only questioning of the Iraq mission in the production. At his dying friend’s hospital bed, to the latter’s amazement, he declares he is going back to revenge, “What they did to you”. 

Biggles's inconsolable mother at his funeral, reads from the deceased SEAL’s letter written prior to his death. “My question is when does the glory fade away and become a wrongful crusade. When does it become an unjustified means by which one becomes completely consumed”. To the obvious angst engendered in Taya by this devastating course of events, Chris counters that these doubts lead to Biggles dropping his guard. ( All of this echoes of Lord Tennyson's iconic poem, The Charge of the Light Brigade - 

“ Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make a reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do or die”).

When a marine approaches him, when he is back home, hailing him as a hero who had saved his life by carrying out him of danger, he is embarrassed by the effusion and he modestly only discusses the wounded soldier’s welfare.

Finally, when confronted by a psychiatrist offering the commonest reason for a soldier battling to adjust from the mandatory savagery of war to the ordered civilian world - “My guess is you saw things or did things that you wish you didn’t. Some soldiers can cope other’s can’t. The Legend responds,  “That isn’t me…I ended some evil men, and I will stand before my creator and answer for every shot I took. It’s the guys I couldn't save. Those are the faces I see. That is my regret that I couldn’t stay there any longer”. 

Filmatic strategy

The action is divided into cutting back sharply from the war to visits home by “The Legend” who grows more and more remote from his family. To a distraught wife remonstrating with him not to keep returning, he counters that he is doing what he is doing to protect them. In an earlier encounter with Taya, then his future wife, he has already forewarned her as to why he is a SEAL and would lay down his life, “Cause it is the greatest country in the world”.  

The tension mounts with each homecoming and she even threatens to leave him. These “respites” are punctuated by the four tours of duty where the nauseating mindless killing and door to slaughter continues. This, to the background of disturbing screams from the terrified locals, some of whom could potentially wipe the American “saviors” off this earth the moment they dropped their guard. At no stage do you see Kyle enjoying his deathly role as a sheepdog. In fact it either shatters him like the “taking out” of a child and his mother, who were about to blow a troop of marines to smithereens, or he is  deadpanned.  

The only reference to the juxtaposition of these two irreconcilable existences is when, after returning for a duty, he is informed that there is a $180,000 bounty on his head. His rejoinder, “Don’t tell my wife, she might take that number right now!”.

The Unravelling of Kyle with Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.(PTSD).

In spite of all his protestations the evidence that the Iraqi war was taking a continuing and worsening toll on him was there for all to see. His remoteness, his brooding and continued fixation with what was happening in the theater of war impact heavily on his relationship with his long suffering wife Taya on each and every encounter that he is back home. On one visit he screams uncontrollably at a nurse who is ignoring his crying baby. Even when he permanently calls it quits he is too frightened to go home. 

Two events seem to shatter his denial that he is ok. The first when he is about to kill a dog that is playfully on top of his child. The other when he has a car accident he realizes that it could have resulted in the death of his beloved family. 

It takes a psychiatrist’s suggestion that he fulfills his need to “protect his flock” by caring for wounded veterans thereby, finally, allowing him to rid himself of his demons. Taya then can marvel at her caring husband - she enduringly has him back. The irony is that in the end, having survived four tours of war evading all the "wolves", he is killed by one of his own flock.

HIS WIFE TAYA’S READ OF AMERICAN SNIPER

Taya Kyle was enthralled with the production and exclaimed that it brought her husband back to life. She had alwys trusted Bradley Cooper and Clint Eastwood and was visibly moved by the initial viewing in Washington DC. “You’ll see in this movie Bradley is Chris. I have no idea how he pulled it off. People who knew Chris and who have seen the movie have said one word over and over: eerie. It is almost eerie how much it is really Chris. I will never be able to thank Bradley enough for that. Not only did he do his research and the physical part and get the dialect, which is such an odd mix of places that Chris lived. But then he took this man, who is truly one of a kind and is charismatic and soft and tough and strong and has the biggest heart of anyone that I have ever met. And he brought that to the screen in a way that you will know Chris at the end of the movie”.

CONSENSUS OF THOSE WHO VIEWED AMERICAN SNIPER POSITIVELY

Bradley Cooper echoed Eastwood when he felt the objective was to bring home the impact of what the one percent and their families that remained went through to the ninety - nine percent who had no idea of what those who were sacrificing their lives endured. 

Jason Hall who wrote the screenplay and spent endless hours with Chris, before he died, in addition to interviewing Taya and the family before and after, and in addition interacting with many SEALS to get into the soul of the real man, maintained that some of the statements that were in Kyle’s book did not accurately reflect the man. The time he spent with Kyle lead him to the conclusion that The Legend was far more affected by the war than he let on. Several of his explanations in his biography were as a result of pressure to keep his macho image.  Consequently Hall portrayed him as someone struggling to regain equilibrium. To anyone who criticizes Hall for not putting, what they perceive to be, the whole story out there he retorts, “You know what, I bled for this thing”.

So not only did Kyle hang true to character throughout the American Sniper, the screen writer, who had the privilege of working with him and his family to establish what made him tick busted a nut to get it right. His wife who had lived through it all with Chris, agreed that Hall’s script was the real deal. 

Michelle Obama hailed the fact that the production connected society with the Vets. She conceded that there had been criticism of the picture but she argued that this film touches on many of the emotions and feelings that she had heard first hand from military families over these years. She hoped that the country would welcome back the veterans by integrating them back into their communities.

So to those who believe that the Iraq war was a disgrace, and there are many, this was not the movie to make the point directly. It was the story of a patriot who viewed life in black and white and felt a responsibility to wipe out evil. Evil, being defined as anyone who wanted to kill his flock who were on the side of good. 

From Eastwood’s point of view, he certainly achieved what he set out to do, but from whatever viewpoint this epic is considered it is a disturbing and riveting experience and is likely to continue to evoke powerful emotions one way or another. 

NETANYAHU IS THE ISSUE IN CRUCIAL ISRAELI ELECTIONS

Israelis face a crucial election on March 17 this year. (Unlike in the States the electioneering is mercifully not a two year process.) The election was called by Prime Minister Netanyahu as he could not hold his coalition together. He fired two Cabinet Ministers Tzipi Livni and Yapir Lapid who were key members in his coalition government. The former is now an intractable opponent while Lapid is weighing his options. Netanyahu has managed, not surprisingly, to antagonize a wide range of Israeli politicians. That together with his asinine decision to address the US Congress, which has brought about opposition across the Israeli political spectrum and his in your face style, help make him the central issue in these elections. 

He has always faced a very vigorous opposition on his Settlement and Palestinian policies and is the recipient of much criticism on the recent Hezbollah “incident”. The country is war and Netanyahu weary and that sometimes bodes for a change. Thus while Bibi is still the favorite to cobble together a coalition the situation is more fluid than ever before. (BLOG: ISRAEL AT A CROSSROADS WHILE ABBAS GOES OFF THE RAILS). He will have to overcome the “Anyone but Bibi “ sentiment that is pervasive at present. Of course the security situation in Israel can change and then all bets are off.

 American and Israeli relationships, (a.k.a Netanyahu and the POTUS), are at there worst in living memory, and the Israeli electorate are taking this into account in casting their ballots. As the weeks roll by the action will be ratcheted up between the two allies. As a start Bibi has announced, in the eye of the storm, the building of four hundred and fifty more houses on the West Bank and the WhiteHouse have countered that they have no further use for the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. 

ISRAEL’S FAR TOO DEMOCRATIC DEMOCRACY

The Israeli democratic process involves proportional representation allowing for all sections of the population to be in the Knesset. This means religious groups and pro settlement factions, for example, in addition to the Parties that represent clear cut political alternatives are all in the mix. That is all very well and lovely and may be dandy in the Garden of Eden municipal elections but with two dozen entities having a presence in the final shakeup it makes it very difficult to form a stable government. It is projected that Netanyahu’s Likud and Herzog’s Hatnua/Labour amalgamation will both have a similar number of seats, approximately twenty - four in the 120 member Chamber. 

So the choices of the other parties, that tally to two thirds of the Legislature, become crucial in the final outcome as to who forms the government. Parties come and parties go in this highly fluid environment so anything could happen. Also the invective and smears have reached a new high for Israeli politics with the Israeli Premier’s wife, never very popular, being accused of corruption and the leader of Labour being confronted with allegations that he is being backed by foreign money,

NETANYAHU COULD JUST LOSE OUT

On the face of it Netanyahu , according to the Brooking’s Institute, has a natural coalition of 71 votes but it is a bit wobbly. This would be himself, Bennet’s Settlement party, Kaldon’s Kulani party, the religious parties and Lieberman’s Yishai.  Bibi has managed to antagonize a whole host of key players. Besides Livni and Lapid, who is ostensibly undecided but politically is of the center, the right winger Moshe Kahlon had a right royal row with Netanyahu and his own new party Kuhlanu is projected to get about 10 seats. Then two of the religious parties, (10 - 12 representatives), are really angry with the current PM whom they believe sold out on them to the secular orthodox. The Meretz Party with six legislators are out and out anti Netanyahu together with an Arab coalition, (who are projected  to garner a dozen seats) will not be in the PM’s camp. Even Lieberman whose Party has taken a big knock because of corruption allegations claims to be moving to the center. So the potential is there to unseat the incumbent regime and its leader. 

NETANYAHU’S BIG BLUNDER

As followers of Jay H. Ell may have picked up he has never been a big fan of Bibi. He regards him as an arrogant and confrontative bull in a china shop, an opinion shared by most Israelis as, after all these years only about a sixth of them bother to vote for him and his Likud Party. Ironically, he has more support in America than he has back home. This especially in Congress where to date he has been every one’s poster child. The Israeli PM enjoys mixing in American politics relishing in the pro Israeli sentiment which he misinterprets as adulation of his eloquence and charisma. He has been childishly “running against” Obama since time immemorial and to date has gotten away with it. (BLOG: NETANYAHU AND MAYBE OBAMA TOO JUST DON’T GET IT).  

Israeli Criticism

Be that as it may, he may finally have just overstepped the mark by agreeing to address a joint Congress meeting at the invitation of House Speaker Boehner on the Iranian nuclear project. (Incidentally, sections of the American media seem to think that the Israeli Ambassador to America had more than a bit to do with Boehner’s invitation). Netanyahu has everything to lose and nothing to gain. He had almost unanimous American support already so why go and risk anything by this rude interlude? The opposition to Netanyahu’s American projected sojourn is almost unanimously condemned by every sector of the Israeli society. 

Right Wing Condemnation.

No one has summed the lunacy up better than the right wing, pro settlement TV talk show host, Avi Perry who in an op ed piece in the pro Netanyahu Newspaper, Arutz Sheva, gave him the following advice in telling him to abandon his March 17 Washington suicide mission:

“The PM will only broaden the existing chasm between the Israeli PM and the American Administration. What is more Netanyahu’s speech may spread the rift to areas beyond the Iranian nuclear problem. It might even set off an emotional need for retribution by the White House.” Sheva continued, "In a no win situation there is a path to a lose lose situation”. His advice to Netanyahu, whom he buttered up in most of his piece, was to cancel his speech to Congress citing “security or domestic issues”. He ends by pleading to his leader, “To decline being manipulated by the Republican leadership in Congress. This political maneuver is merely to provoke the President, devoid of attaining any genuine meaningful fallout”.

Sheva must know better than anyone else that no one manipulates Bibi and this just a sycophantic contrivance to allow him to back off with some ego intact. 

Former Mossad Head’s Scathing Criticism

The former Head of the Israeli Secret Service. Meyer Degan, was not nearly as subtle. He angrily responded to the Israeli PM’s meddling, “I don’t trust Netanyahu, his actions will cost us”. He and Bennett are leading us to a binational State and disaster… and his actions might extract an unbearable price from us in the future ”. He should know as protecting Israeli’s security is what he did for a living. Degan gave some insight as to Netanyahu’s megalomaniac personality when he recalled a conversation he had with him during his tenure where Netanyahu had complained, “ Why don’t you indulge me? You are my subordinate. I told him I am his subordinate but loyal to the State”. Degan made it quite clear that Israel would prevail regardless and all but said that the current Israeli PM’s assessment of the Iranian threat and his threatened responses were not sound.

Left wing and center criticism

Needless to say the Israeli left and center believe that Netanyahu’s hubris has reached new heights. The largest circulation newspaper in Israel, Yedioth Ahronoth, was highly critical of the Israeli Premier’s crass intervention, banner headlining the whole sorry saga, with the assessment that Bibi was “Losing America”. Nahum Barnea, a columnist of that newspaper, argued that, “It is dangerous, it’s toxic  and it’s not so funny anymore”. Not unexpectedly Netanyahu’s main political rival Yitzhak Herzog retorted strongly - “What Netanyahu is doing with his brutish behavior is deliberately hurting Israel’s security interests. The American political system cannot stand this behavior”.

A potential key coalition partner also weighed in. Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu “..of destroying our strategic relations with America for an election speech”. Left wing leader of the Meretz Party filed a complaint with the election commission to bar Netanyahu’s Congressional speech in the media because the electoral laws ban electioneering within two weeks of the election.

Michael Oren, the immediate past Israeli Ambassador to the United States urged Netanyahu to cancel his speech.

American criticism

Netanyahu has finally succeeded in having any criticism of him and by extension Israel stilled. His acceptance of Boehner’s unprecedented request has resulted in a storm that is gathering momentum. Any fantasy he and Boehner may have had of reversing Obama’s foreign policy has been quashed. If anything the converse has happened. The Democratic Senator Menendez, a leading hawk on Iran, has stated that he would not vote for his own motion increasing sanctions on Iran pending the President’s negotiations. Nine of the pro sanction Democrats in the Senate have supported his stand. These actions have axed any possibility of the Republicans getting the necessary sixty votes to even question the President’s foreign policy.

 Nancy Pelosi the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives has stated that Netanyahu’s projected speech would send the wrong message and hinder diplomatic efforts to obtain a satisfactory solution to the current Iranian impasse. She echoed Obama’s objection that this invitation was within two weeks of the Israeli election and that Boehner had made the overture, unilaterally, without consulting all leaders in the Congress let alone the WhiteHouse. Harry Reid the Democratic leader in the Senate remonstrated with Netanyahu arguing that his actions had resulted in several Democrats withdrawing their support for sanctions on Iran. Reid, an avid protagonist of Israel  warned, “I am not telling you what to do or what not to do but Boehner’s invitation was not the right thing to do”. 

Richard Cohen writing in the Washington Post says he will tell as it is. Netanyahu has allied himself with the Republican Party who want to destroy the President and “who hate his guts”. “Netanyahu will be a delegate from abroad at the next Republican National convention”, Cohen maintained. Cohen listed the long list of displays of open contempt Netanyahu has executed towards Obama. Netanyahu he argued will break up the Congresses bipartisan policy on Israel.

The WhiteHouse spokesmen in a masterpiece of understatement labelled the affair, “A departure from protocol”, while the President and Secretary Kerry have refrained from criticizing Boehner for his challenging invitation. Rather they have just stated that they will have no meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister as that might be seen to be interfering in the Israeli electoral process. Their message is far to subtle for the boorish Bibi who is cheerfully doing just that by cheerleading the attack on the leader of a country that has been Israel’s greatest ally.

The two major Jewish political groups, who are more often than not at loggerheads on what America’s position on Israel should be, were ad idem on Boehner's behest. The head of the Anti - Defamation League, Abe Foxman called it “ill advised” while Jeremy Ben  - Ami of J Street labelled it as a cynical political maneuver at Israel’s expense.

AT THE END OF THE DAY - WHAT BIBI WANTS BIBI WON’T GET

* Bibi has to know that this bohaai has just begun and Jay H. Ell believes it has “legs”. There are about 2 months to go before the crucial Israeli election and the steam may really build up before Bibi hits town. The likelihood of criticism of this bizarre political event increasing has to be great and there appears to be no major constituencies supporting Netanyahu. As each day goes past another sequel unravels. Nancy Pelosi stated that she was “unsure” how many Democrats would attend Netanyahu’s speech.

* Bibi should take the advice of all sections of the Israeli and American community and cancel his trip. While he may lose face it is better than the alternative - seven weeks of criticism on both sides of the Atlantic. As indicated he has any number of excuses to allow him to back off. Besides citing security and his own domestic affairs as priorities he could offer that he has just learned that the invitation was not bipartisan and that he has no desire to mix in party politics in a foreign country.

* Bibi is unlikely to see reason and has already announced that his bags are packed and he is ready to go. He maintains that, "It is easier to mend US ties than a bad Iranian deal”. Jay H Ell feels he too must tell as it is - the man is psychotic. To believe he can change American and world foreign policy when he has already been told to jump in the lake is certifiable behavior. Then to be deluded enough to think that he and he alone “can mend the US ties” as if an accepting Obama is waiting like a love sick suitor to be told that his philandering partner has finally come home!

* What Bibi wants is totally unrealistic. There is no way that the six allied countries can legitimately stop Iran from having nuclear energy plants. Conversely there is no way that they can allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb.The deal has to be that Iran can only manufacture low grade uranium or whatever and would be subject to inspections. That stopped Iraq as was subsequently shown. If Bibi really believes allowing any nuclear activity by Iran is a declaration of war he better muscle up and prepare to attack Iran preemptively now. A stratagem that has been repeatedly poo - poohed by his security infrastructure. 

• Bibi might have legitimate fears about Iran and the deal. However he well knows the US Congress’s attitude towards Iran. Iran since the seventies has been pariah number one. The legislature need no help from Bibi to decide what to do with a “sell out” deal. As Jay H. Ell has blogged that this is the one area Obama could be vulnerable on. The inescapable conclusion is that this is a narcissistic, counterproductive and reckless exercise by an individual who is putting his own personal and political interests ahead of his country’s.

• Bibi should appreciate that the US in particular is aware of the vulnerable situation Israel is in and the double standards they face, so why would he bite the hand that feeds him? (BLOG: EVIL - ISIS AND HAMAS, WORLD HYPOCRISY AND ANTI SEMITISM).

* Bibi, finally soak this in. The reason that there are nuclear talks at all, is that reacting to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, there are Obama lead sanctions that have brought Iran to its knees and forced them to the table. While Obama is not going to see the world from Bibi’s perspective he has not come this far to make it easy for Khomeini to cast a mushroom over the Middle East and the world.

 One can only hope if the Likud leader is unrelenting the Israeli electorate and the leaders of the factions they represent will not be and vote him out.