Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Еж ...

Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Ежегодно публикует собственную версию списка ста мировых мыслителей (The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers).

http://inosmi.ru/foreignpolicy_com/

Журнал основан в 1970 году Самюэлем Хантингтоном, американским политологом, автором концепции «столкновения цивилизаций», и Уорреном Маншелем, американским дипломатом и инвестором, при поддержке Фонда Карнеги.

Идея выпускать журнал раз в два месяца (вместо раза в квартал) принадлежит редактору Моисею Наиму (1996–2010), под чьим руководством журнал выигрывал премии National Magazine Awards в 2003, 2007 и 2009 годах. Журнал затрагивает темы глобальной политики, экономики, мировой интеграции, политических идеологий и теории международных отношений. 29 сентября 2008 года The Washington Post Company объявила о приобретении прав на издание журнала у Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

В начале 2006 года запущен блог Foreign Policy Passport, а 5 января 2009 года перезапущен сайт издания, который репозиционирован как «ежедневный сетевой журнал».

В 2012 году Foreign Policy вырос до группы (The FP Group)  – расширение журнала включает ForeignPolicy.com и проект FP Events («FP События»).

По утверждению сайта The FP Group количество читателей онлайн версии журнала достигает 2,4 миллиона в месяц.

Foreign Policy издается сегодня под руководством генерального директора и главного редактора The FP Group Дэвида Роткопфа (David Rothkopf), который присоединился к FP в этой роли в 2012 году после того, как был постоянным автором этого издания с 1997 года.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FPRIVideo

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
25 сентября, 11:00

Tune in: [email protected]: The Evolution of Treasury's National Security Role

On Monday, June 2, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Center for Strategic and International Studies will co-host a symposium entitled “[email protected]: The Evolution of Treasury’s National Security Role,” marking the 10th anniversary of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI). Secretary Jacob J. Lew will deliver remarks on the Department’s role in advancing U.S. national security and foreign policy and the event will convene senior Administration officials, former government and Congressional leaders, and other foreign policy experts in academia and the private sector to discuss the future of financial tools, financial transparency, and financial intelligence as a means of advancing our national security. The symposium recognizes TFI's important work to disrupt and dismantle the financial networks of terrorist organizations, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, drug traffickers, and transnational organized criminals as well as to protect the U.S. financial system from abuse.     Since its establishment in 2004, TFI has marshalled the Department’s intelligence, regulatory, policy and enforcement authorities to combat the most significant threats to U.S. national security and advance key foreign policy objectives.  Below are additional details on the impressive speakers and panelists that will be participating. The whole event will be broadcasted live on USTREAM here.  Monday, June 2, 2014 Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, DC 8:40 a.m. Introductory Remarks David S. Cohen Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury 8:45 a.m. Morning Keynote Jacob J. Lew Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury Introduction: John J. Hamre President, CEO, and Pritzker Chair, CSIS 9:05 a.m. Panel I: Leveraging Financial Tools to Advance National Security Tom Donilon Distinguished Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations Former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley Chairman of the Board, U.S. Institute of Peace Former National Security Adviser Moderator: Andrea Mitchell Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent, NBC News 10:15 a.m. Morning Remarks Stuart Levey Chief Legal Officer, HSBC Holdings plc  Former Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence 10:30 a.m. Panel II: Financial Intelligence: Redefining and Reshaping National Security Keith Alexander Former Director of the National Security Agency Jane Harman Director, President, and CEO, Wilson Center Former Representative (D-CA) Michèle Flournoy CEO, Center for a New American Security Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Moderator: David Sanger Chief Washington Correspondent, The New York Times 11:30 a.m. Midday Keynote Denis McDonough White House Chief of Staff 12:30 p.m. Panel III: Increasing Financial Transparency and Protecting the U.S. Financial System Neal Wolin Former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Reuben Jeffery III Senior Adviser, CSIS; CEO, Rockefeller & Co. Former Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business, & Agricultural Affairs Moderator: Juan Zarate Senior Adviser, CSIS Former Deputy National Security Adviser Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes 1:30 p.m. Closing Remarks David S. Cohen Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, U.S. Department of the Treasury Anthony Reyes is the New Media Specialist at the United States Department of the Treasury.

25 сентября, 11:00

Treasury Secretary Lew's Exit Memo: Eight Years of Progress at Treasury and a Look to the Future of American Financial Prosperity

  WASHINGTON –U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has authored a departure memorandum that recounts the progress and work of the U.S. Department of the Treasury over the last eight years. The memo then outlines Secretary Lew’s visions and goals for the future of the Treasury Department. The Secretary closes his departure memorandum with personal reflections on the importance of bipartisan cooperation, his optimism about America’s future, and his hope that future policymakers will take careful stock of the successes of this Administration as they consider the next steps forward.   Please see the memo attached. Treasury Exit Memo.pdf   The full text of the memo is below:         Department of the Treasury Exit Memo     Secretary Jacob J. Lew   Cabinet Exit Memo │January 5, 2017 Introduction   The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) is the executive agency responsible for promoting economic prosperity and ensuring the financial security of the United States.  This role encompasses a broad range of activities, such as advising the President on economic and financial issues, encouraging sustainable economic growth, and fostering improved governance in financial institutions.    Treasury’s mission was challenged like few times before in our nation’s history during the 2008 financial crisis.  As few of us can forget, signs of trouble first emerged in the housing market, which set off a cascade of shocks in 2007 and 2008, including the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the freezing of credit markets, and the loss of trillions of dollars of wealth held by Americans in their homes, other assets, and businesses.  By the time President Obama took office, the United States was in the midst of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  The economy was shrinking at its fastest rate in 50 years and shedding more than 800,000 private-sector jobs per month.  Unemployment peaked at 10 percent in 2009, a level not seen in over 25 years.  The auto industry, an embodiment of American ingenuity and economic strength, was teetering on the edge of collapse; the deficit had hit a post-World War II high; and homes in neighborhoods across the United States faced foreclosure.    Though the financial crisis was perhaps the most pressing challenge the country faced in 2008, it was far from the only one.  Health care spending was on an unsustainable path, and millions of Americans lived in fear of facing a significant medical problem without insurance.  Middle-class and working family incomes had stagnated for much of the previous three decades.  Wealth disparities had grown to levels not seen since the 1920s.  And after two major wars in the Middle East and strained relationships in many parts of the world, the standing of the United States around the world was in need of significant repair.   We have come a long way as a country since 2008.  In the following pages, I will recount the Administration’s record of progress, with a specific focus on the role Treasury has played.  I will also articulate a vision for the future, and recommend steps to be taken in the coming years to make progress towards that vision.  Finally, I will end with some personal reflections.   Eight Years of Progress Economic Recovery Over the eight years since President Obama took office amidst the worst financial crisis of our lifetimes, we have seen a sustained economic recovery and a significant decline in the federal budget deficit.  We have cut the unemployment rate in half.  Our economy is more than 10 percent larger than its pre-recession peak.  U.S. businesses have added a total of 15.6 million jobs since private-sector job growth turned positive in early 2010.  Household incomes are rising, with 2015 seeing the fastest one-year growth since the Census Bureau began reporting on household income in 1967.  And our financial system is more stable, safe, and resilient, providing the critical underpinnings for broad-based, inclusive, long-term growth.  There are many factors that explain why the United States was able to bounce back so strongly from the recession.  First and foremost, I credit the resilience of the American people.  In addition, our policy response to the crisis was immediate and robust.  Led by my predecessor, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, policymakers put in place a wide-ranging strategy to restore economic growth, unlock credit, and return private capital to the financial system, thereby providing broad and vital support to the economy.  In February 2009, just 28 days after taking office, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which provided powerful fiscal stimulus that resulted in a less severe recession and stronger recovery than we otherwise would have seen. Investments made through our Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provided stability to our financial system, and the Automotive Industry Financing Program helped prevent the collapse of the U.S. auto industry.  TARP also included housing initiatives that helped millions of struggling homeowners avoid foreclosure and lower their monthly payments.  These efforts bolstered the housing market and strengthened consumer finances more broadly.  And funds expended under TARP have been repaid in full, at a profit to taxpayers: in total, TARP invested $412 billion in financial institutions, large and small, during the financial crisis, and as of October 2016, these investments have returned $442 billion total cash back to taxpayers.    Critically, we also acted quickly to reform our financial system, working with Congress to enact the most far-reaching and comprehensive set of financial reforms since the Great Depression: the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.  Wall Street Reform transformed the way the financial system operates, and Treasury and the financial regulators have continued to work together since its passage to implement important reforms such as the Volcker Rule, risk retention, and resolution planning for large, complex financial institutions.  Because of these efforts, our system today is more stable, more transparent, and more consumer-focused.  Wall Street Reform also created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, a body that looks across the entire financial system to identify future threats to financial stability, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a watchdog agency that is working hard to protect Americans from unfair, deceptive, or abusive financial practices.   The progress we have made on implementing reform has resulted in a safer, stronger, and more stable American financial system—one better positioned to support growth rather than work against it, more likely for consumers to get fair treatment in their interactions with financial institutions, and less prone to major failures of financial firms that can harm Americans on Main Street.  This progress must be sustained through continued follow-through, to avoid allowing a return to the recklessness and abuse that predated the worst global financial crisis of the last 80 years. A More Inclusive Economy  Beyond working to bring our economy back from the brink and to spur growth, we also undertook efforts to ensure that more citizens have a fair shot at sharing in our nation’s prosperity.  One of the Administration’s most significant achievements was the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which extended health insurance to millions of Americans who had not previously had it, allowed young adults to stay on the health plans of their parents, barred insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, and strengthened Medicare’s solvency.  Once the legislation was signed into law, Treasury implemented the law’s many new tax provisions.  Beyond the ACA, the Administration made a number of other key changes to the tax code that has made our tax system significantly fairer and more equitable.   Through programs like the Community Development Financial Institution Fund and myRA, and through extensive stakeholder engagement, Treasury has worked to promote access to the financial system for underserved and vulnerable populations.  We also successfully worked with Congress to pass bipartisan legislation to enable Puerto Rico to undergo a financial restructuring.  With continued commitment from policymakers in both the Commonwealth and the United States, this legislation will begin to put Puerto Rico on a fiscally sustainable path so that the 3.5 million Americans living there are not denied essential services and economic opportunity.  Leading in the Global Economy As we put into place the financial regulatory framework to prevent future crises in the United States, we also led the international response to the crisis.  We worked through the G-20 to help mobilize $5 trillion in fiscal stimulus, expand the resources of the international financial institutions by $1 trillion, and establish new institutions like the Financial Stability Board to prevent future crises.  Our approach elevated the G-20 as the premier platform for international economic cooperation and put in place a demonstrated mechanism for international response.   Following the financial crisis, many countries turned to policies of fiscal austerity, and Treasury vigorously advocated for a more balanced use of policy levers.  Over the next several years, Treasury engaged closely with our partners and through the G-20 and other multilateral bodies to emphasize the need for short-term growth and longer-term structural reforms to put the global economy on stronger footing.  Through our sustained engagement, we achieved a number of commitments from the G-20, including moving away from austerity-only fiscal policy and avoiding competitive currency devaluation.    We have used the G-20 to advance a global growth agenda, and the U.S.-China Strategic & Economic Dialogue to foster increased bilateral economic coordination and engagement with China.  Our sustained engagement with China has allowed us to exert positive pressure on Chinese exchange rate policy—whereas China once intervened in foreign exchange markets to drive down the value of its currency, in the past year, we have seen China intervene to prevent a rapid depreciation in the renminbi, which would have had negative consequences for the Chinese and global economies.  Treasury also worked to solidify U.S. leadership by modernizing the international economic architecture to ensure that it would remain relevant in a changing world.  In particular, securing the passage of International Monetary Fund (IMF) quota reform sustained U.S. leadership on the global stage.  Our leadership in the IMF in turn enabled us to work through it to promote policies that supported U.S. economic and security objectives, such as economic stability in Ukraine and Greece. Promoting a Safer World Treasury has also continued to use its unique financial capabilities to address a variety of national security and foreign policy threats posed by terrorists, criminals and other bad actors.  To address the changing threat posed by terrorism, including the threat posed by ISIL, we have worked with our international partners to deny terrorist financiers, fundraisers, and facilitators access to the international financial system with financial measures and targeted actions.    Treasury’s sanctions against Iran played a critical role in forcing Iran to the table to negotiate a deal that cuts off the country’s pathways to a nuclear weapon.  To hold Russia accountable for its aggression in eastern Ukraine and its occupation and attempted annexation of Crimea, we imposed sanctions that led to tighter financial conditions, weaker confidence, and lower investment in Russia.  We also secured new domestic and multilateral sanctions measures against North Korea in the face of Pyongyang’s continued provocative behavior with regard to nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction.  All the while, we have worked to craft a cohesive vision for the use of sanctions, in which sanctions are informed by financial intelligence, strategically designed, and implemented with our public and private partners to focus pressure on bad actors and create clear incentives to end malign behavior, while limiting collateral impact.   In the face of emerging cyber threats, we have also made significant progress in coordinating cybersecurity efforts among financial regulators and the private sector, both domestically and internationally, to improve the financial sector’s resilience and to establish best practices for industry and government.        A Vision for the Future     Looking across the next five years, 10 years, and beyond, I see four major goals that mirror the progress above.  Treasury should focus on: (i) continuing to promote more inclusive growth; (ii) moving from recovery to long-term fiscal health, (iii) remaining a leader in the global economy; and (iv) adjusting to the new threats in our world.  Each of these goals brings with it major challenges that we must collectively overcome in order to reach them.   Continuing to Promote Inclusive Growth Through the work of this Administration, the U.S. economy is growing again.  But working families have not shared fully in the benefits of economic growth over the past decade, and there is evidence that our society has undergone structural changes that have fundamentally altered the basic social compact.  It is crucial that the next Administration builds on the work already done to ensure that our prosperity is broadly shared.  There are many aspects to inclusive growth, including: investing in infrastructure to create good middle-class jobs and lay the foundation for future growth, giving workers a stronger voice, enacting progressive tax policies, making quality education more available and affordable, and investing in retraining programs for those who have lost their jobs.  One component most directly within Treasury’s purview is increasing access to the financial system; currently, many low-income and minority families are effectively locked out, operating without a credit card or banking history.  Finding creative ways to increase access to the financial system—such as fostering new technologies—will help individuals and families transfer money and make payments safely and affordably.  Financial inclusion allows people to manage life’s unexpected financial shocks, build long-term financial security, and take advantage of economic opportunities, like starting a business.  Our inclusive growth agenda should not, however, be limited to domestic issues: more than 2.6 billion people live in poverty around the world, and more than two billion people rely solely on cash transactions.  Moving underserved populations from a cash economy to formal banking not only increases their economic opportunity but also strengthens our ability to combat illicit and dangerous finance.   Moving from Recovery to Long Term Fiscal Health The actions of this Administration, and the economic recovery those actions helped support, have sharply reduced deficits since 2009.  However, both the Administration and the Congressional Budget Office project that, absent any changes in policy, the deficit will rise steadily over the next decade and beyond.  Thus, while the actions of this Administration have put the country on a solid fiscal footing today, we must also focus on the long-term fiscal health of our nation.   In recent years, the Administration has proposed a combination of smart investments and policy reforms that would keep the deficit under three percent of GDP for the next 10 years and nearly eliminate the fiscal gap over the next 25 years.  Tax reform to curb inefficient tax breaks for the wealthy, close loopholes, and reform the taxation of capital income and financial institutions would make the tax system fairer and lower the deficit.  Comprehensive immigration reform would boost labor force participation, productivity, and ultimately growth, directly addressing key fiscal challenges.  Continued focus on health policy to further improve health care quality and control cost growth remains critical.  This policy vision shows that investments in growth and opportunity are fully compatible with putting the nation’s finances on a strong and sustainable path.  It also shows that responsible deficit reduction can be achieved without endangering vital support to poor Americans or undermining commitments to seniors and workers.   Under President Obama’s leadership, there has been substantial economic and fiscal progress, showing what is possible when strategic investment to grow the economy is paired with smart reforms that address the true drivers of long-term fiscal challenges.  While there is some scope for additional borrowing to finance smart investments in the next few years, ever-increasing borrowing is not sustainable as a long-run strategy, particularly when used to finance spending that does not generate higher growth or improvements for the middle class and in the case of deficit-increasing tax cuts, which deepen income and wealth disparities that are already a serious concern.  Instead, the long-term fiscal health of the nation depends on smart investments in the middle class, tax reforms that close loopholes for the wealthy and ensure that everyone plays by the same set of rules, comprehensive immigration reform, and health reforms that build on our progress to date without sacrificing coverage or quality.   Remaining a Leader in the Global Economy The United States must continue its long history of international economic leadership.  Such leadership benefits American workers and families and enables the United States to project its values abroad to achieve its larger foreign policy objectives.  Of course, the world has changed since the creation of our international financial architecture after World War II, and we must change with it.  Perhaps somewhat counterintuitively, our influence internationally will increase if we share the benefits, as well as the responsibilities, of managing the global economic and financial system with emerging economies, such as China.  Our influence, however, cannot be sustained if we either back away or insist on protecting the status quo.   But we face a host of challenges.  Our relationship with China is one of the most important in the world.  While we have made much progress over the past eight years, the degree to which China is willing to takes the steps necessary to follow through on commitments to reorient its economy toward more sustainable growth, open up to foreign businesses, and be a partner in global governance, remains to be seen.  As we saw from the example of Chinese exchange rate policy, engagement between the United States and China is an important means of maintaining pressure for China to implement policies that are necessary for China’s own medium and long-term economic health and to create a level playing field for the world economy.   The UK’s decision to leave the European Union sent shockwaves through Europe and the world, and we must closely monitor the situation and continue to argue for the benefits of continued integration post-Brexit.  Japan’s economy faces the ongoing challenges of an aging population and high public debt hampering the government’s ability to foster growth.  We must also keep a watchful eye on emerging economies and the unique challenges they face.  In particular, in recent years, we have made progress in our relations with Latin America, particularly with Mexico and Argentina, and we should build on that progress.   Adjusting to the New Threats in Our World With the rise of state-sponsored and lone wolf terrorism, rogue nations, and international strongmen, we must address the reality that we live in a dangerous world.  Making it safer means using every tool available—including the financial tools available to Treasury—to defeat and degrade terrorist organizations like ISIL.  We must continue to leverage our ability to impose crippling sanctions on states and individuals to change behavior.  We must seek to eliminate the proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Cyber attacks on our financial system represent a real threat to our economic and national security, and maintaining vigilant and coordinated efforts to keep pace with and respond to these threats has been and will remain a crucial piece of Treasury’s work.  And we must recognize global climate change for the economic and existential threat that it is and band together with the rest of the world to avert catastrophe.    How to Make Our Vision a Reality How do we accomplish the goals laid out above?  To be sure, there are a host of paths policymakers might take to do so, but I believe the following steps, which range from specific policy prescriptions to more general advice, are the most immediate.  Infrastructure Spending Moving forward, we must redouble our efforts to make investments in our country’s transportation infrastructure, which help create middle-class jobs in the short term and drive broad-based economic growth in the long term.  Indeed, by fixing our aging roads, bridges, and ports, we will help lay a foundation for widely shared economic expansion.  The President’s business tax reform framework, discussed in more detail below, would generate substantial one-time revenues to fund new infrastructure investments.  Paying for these investments by taxing overseas business profits would both be fiscally responsible and would help fix the perception that our tax system is not a level playing field.   Continuing to come up with fresh, new ways to deploy capital will help the country achieve these goals.  Effective partnerships between government and the private sector can play an important role in developing innovative solutions that efficiently leverage resources.  And taking advantage of historically low interest rates to fund high-return public investments is simply smart fiscal policy.  This Administration has long advocated for the creation of a national infrastructure bank, which would provide critical financing and technical support to foster public-private partnerships in U.S. infrastructure and establish a predictable source of long-term financing that would allow U.S. infrastructure to be consistently improved. Business Tax Reform Over the last eight years, Congress and the Administration have taken important steps to make the tax code fairer, support working families, and roll back unnecessary and unaffordable tax cuts for high-income families.  In addition, using its administrative tools, the Administration has made substantial progress over the past eight years in combatting abusive tax practices.  However, our business tax system remains in need of reform.  As I have emphasized repeatedly throughout my time as Treasury Secretary, only Congress can enact business tax reform, which is necessary to remove incentives for businesses to relocate overseas, raise one-time revenues to promote infrastructure spending, and simplify tax compliance for smaller businesses.   President Obama’s proposed plan for business tax reform sets out a framework for modernizing our business tax system.  Among other elements, it would prevent companies from using excessive leverage in the United States to reduce their tax burden, impose a minimum tax abroad to help fight the global race to the bottom, impose a one-time tax on unrepatriated foreign profits, and reform the taxation of financial and insurance industry products.  It also would close loopholes and special credits and deductions to lower rates without shifting the tax burden to individuals.  Enacting such a plan would enhance our competitiveness and create an environment in which business rather than tax considerations drive decision-making.  The President’s framework is also fiscally responsible, ensuring that business tax reform does not add to deficits over the long-term.  I am hopeful that this framework will help to equip the new Congress to take responsible action on business tax reform.   Housing Finance Reform Fixing our housing finance system remains the major unfinished work of post-financial crisis reform.  Though the housing market has made significant strides thanks to efforts on the part of the Administration to help struggling homeowners, stabilize the housing finance system, and restore broader economic growth, many homeowners and neighborhoods continue to struggle.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain in conservatorship and continue to rely on taxpayer support.  Only legislation can comprehensively address the ongoing shortcomings of the housing finance system.  A starting point for such legislation should be the principles President Obama laid out in 2013, which stressed a clearly-defined role for the government to promote broad access to consumer-friendly mortgages in good times and bad.  While private capital should bear the majority of the risks in mortgage lending, reform also must provide more American households with greater and more sustainable access to affordable homes to rent or own.  Global Economic Integration Global economic integration, including high-standards trade, leads to better economic outcomes than isolation and protectionism.  High-standard trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership can expand U.S. economic growth, open markets for American exports, and strengthen labor and environmental safeguards so that American workers can compete on a level playing field.  But economic uncertainty, both domestically and abroad, threatens this framework.  Whether driven by trade, technological advances, or the changing structure of the markets for labor and capital, these anxieties are real and deeply felt.  In order to continue to enjoy the benefits of an integrated world, we need to focus on policies that address the real issues of inequality, such as slowing wage growth and increasing disparities in pay, to ensure that the benefits of trade are broadly felt.      Strengthening the rules, alone, is not enough.  To preserve this important engine of economic growth and international integration the United States and other advanced economies must also design and implement policies—including fiscal and tax policies—that advance the cause of inclusive, sustainable, and broad-based growth.  Not all countries have the fiscal space sufficient to meet these needs, but after years of urging by the United States, policies of austerity are one-by-one giving way to policies designed to grow demand and improve incomes.  The United States must continue to be an active voice in the global discussion of these issues.    The United States must also maintain its leadership in the international financial architecture and ensure that the U.S.-led international financial system is adapting to best preserve U.S. interest in a changing world.  This includes continued governance reforms of the IMF and multilateral development banks to reflect a changing world.  Clear global rules create opportunities and incentives for innovation, invest, and work, which are critical to the United States and drive economic progress in other regions of the world. Continued Engagement with Challenging Partners  Just as global economic integration has fueled economic growth, that integration—and our economic strength—provides us with additional tools to advance our priorities on the international stage.  We should continue to use these tools judiciously to maintain pressure on those countries that take aggressive and destabilizing actions, such as Russia and North Korea, and provide sanctions relief when the targeted malign behavior changes, as with Iran and Burma.  And, as we chart new courses with other countries, such as Cuba, we should be mindful of how we can use our economic tools to create the conditions for a changed relationship.    We must always take care to avoid the overuse of sanctions, particularly our most unilateral tools like secondary sanctions that extend to non-U.S. persons.  If we overuse these powerful tools, we risk lessening their impact when they are most needed and ultimately threaten our central role in the global financial system.  Looking Forward with Optimism We have learned the hard way that deadlock does not produce good results—government shutdowns and near default on our debt cost the United States both economically and in standing around the world.  It did not work in the 1990s, and it did not work over these past eight years. What has worked is finding opportunities in the sometimes quiet periods when bipartisan cooperation can lead to honorable compromise.  In recent years, we have seen that targeted budget agreements could pave the way for more orderly and economically beneficial outcomes.  We have seen that, on issues like creating a path forward for Puerto Rico and multi-year funding for our surface transportation programs, bipartisan compromise is still possible. But there is much more that requires this kind of progress.  Treasury plays a critical role in finding areas where bipartisan solutions are possible.  In a period when many thought little could be accomplished legislatively, we reached agreement on IMF Quota Reform, an approach to deal with Puerto Rico, and a permanent extension of expansions to the earned income tax credit and child tax credits that will reduce the extent or severity of poverty for millions of families with children.  We have also used our existing authorities to limit corporate tax inversions, shed greater light on beneficial ownership to limit tax avoidance, realize tax parity for same-sex spouses, and opened relations with Cuba.  And we have used our sanctions authorities to bring Iran to the negotiating table and limit the resources available to terrorist regimes and groups. I am proud of the record we have built over the past eight years.  But during calmer economic times, policy makers are often tempted to roll back regulations, weaken reforms, and reduce oversight.  I hope that future policymakers will take careful stock of the successes of this Administration as they consider the next steps forward.  I remain an optimist about America’s future and wish the next team entrusted with responsibility for governing much success as it tackles the many challenges that remain and the new challenges that will present themselves over the coming years.  Margaret Mulkerrin is the Press Assistant at the U.S. Department of Treasury.     ###  

Выбор редакции
11 сентября, 23:36

Never Forget But Also Learn, by David Henderson

I’ve seen various friends on Facebook today discussing their feelings about 9/11/2001 and some of their experiences that day. Some were close to Ground Zero; others had friends who were murdered; others, like me, were a few thousand miles away and knew only people who knew people who were murdered. It’s hard to forget the sheer horror of that day. I made the mistake of watching the second plane go into the other World Trade Center building every time it was shown on TV—and, of course, that was multiple times. As a result, for the next few nights, I woke up out of awful nightmares in which I was on one of the hijacked airplanes. I think the most horrible thing for me was watching people jump out of buildings to a certain death: their fear of being burned alive must have been overwhelming. It’s important not to forget the horror of 9/11. It’s as important, and probably more important, to learn from it. If we in America can feel the horror of our fellow citizens (and, by the way, especially in New York, non-U.S. citizens) being murdered, even though the vast majority of them were strangers, we need to put ourselves in the shoes of people in other countries who are just as innocent but who are killed by governments. Sometimes those governments are their own; sometimes those governments are foreign governments and, at least occasionally, the U.S. government. I think back to U.S. Army General Curtis Lemay and his fire-bombing of dozens of Japanese cities that were not primarily military targets during World War II. Or, even earlier, Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle and his bombing raid in April 1942 on Tokyo, Kobe, Yokohama, Osaka, and Nagoya. The vast majority of people killed by those bombing raids were innocent civilians. What I would like, as I noted above, is for Americans to learn from 9/11. It was a great teaching moment, and the chance was pretty much lost. But there’s no reason that we can’t still learn from it. (3 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
27 августа, 20:25

Buckley on Churchill, by David Henderson

As I mentioned in a previous post, earlier this summer I read large parts of A Torch Kept Lit, William F. Buckley Jr.’s book of obituaries of the famous and not so famous. I had planned to post on his obituary of Winston Churchill, which I found, not being a big fan of Churchill myself, pleasantly surprising. I’ve been following a lot of discussion on Facebook this morning about whether it’s right to say critical things about famous people just after they’ve died. I’ve long thought that it is right but that one should be somewhat tasteful. Here’s a long paragraph from Buckley’s obituary of Churchill that is a nice combination of content and tone. Churchill suggested, in his autobiography, that after all he could not be held responsible for the incomplete peacemaking inasmuch as power was suddenly taken from him in the surprise election of 1945. But Churchill had been in power, was almost omnipotent, at Yalta, and at Teheran, where the great statesmen of the West took some steps, and failed to take others, that insured [sic] the consolidation of Stalin’s power in the territories he had overrun during the war, and insured [sic] also the expansion of the Communist system over whole continents. During those days Churchill the diplomat overwhelmed Churchill the statesman, the practitioner of justice. During those days Churchill found himself in the House of Commons delivering eulogies on the person of the abominable Stalin—a man whose evil he had years before remarked, representative of an evil whom no one had better analyzed than Churchill in the twenties. During those days he stood still for such disastrous fatuities as Franklin Roosevelt’s impetuous call for unconditional surrender, a rhetorical fillip which in the analysis of some military experts may have cost us the unnecessary death of several hundred thousand men, and which most certainly was responsible for the supine condition of much of Europe at the moment when Stalin’s legions took the nations over. And here’s the last line of his obit: May he sleep more peacefully than some of those who depended on him. (2 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
26 августа, 19:45

Henderson on McCain Foreign Policy, by David Henderson

I want to start by quoting from a Republican congressman’s speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. He gave this speech in opposition to his own Republican President’s decision to keep troops in Iraq. I quote him because his speech essentially sums up my opinion. This Congressman stated: “The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Iraq? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?… The longer we stay in Iraq, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place. “What can we expect if we withdraw from Iraq? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.” These are the opening paragraphs of a speech I gave in February 2008 at the World Affairs Council. I went on to say: Who was this Congressman? It sounds as if it could have been antiwar Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul. Well, actually, it was a different presidential candidate named John McCain. I cheated in one little way: I substituted “Iraq” for “Lebanon.” The year was not in the 2000s; it was 1983. The President was not George W. Bush; it was Ronald Reagan. McCain had voted against President Reagan’s decision to keep American troops in Lebanon as part of a multinational “peacekeeping” force. I quote John McCain, not to embarrass him – he’s plenty capable of doing that for himself, such as when he summed up his foreign policy on Iran with a Beach Boys song. Rather, I quote him to point out, with the notable exception of the previous speaker’s talk, how sensible thinking seems to be lost in our mainstream political discussion of foreign policy.   In my speech, I applied Friedrich Hayek’s thinking in his classic 1945 article, “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” to foreign policy, something that, as far as I know, Hayek never did. There’s a transcript of my speech here. (5 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
19 августа, 20:32

Prominent Economists Who Wouldn’t Sign My 1990 Statement about War for Oil, by David Henderson

In late August 1990, I published an article in the Wall Street Journal. The title was badly chosen, though not by me: “Sorry Saddam, Embargoes Don’t Hurt U.S.” My editor at the time, by the way, was David Frum, and, although he and I differed on the issue of war against Saddam Hussein, he was a fantastic editor. I’ve published that article on my own web site here. Here are the opening two paragraphs: Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has no qualms about hurting innocent people. But many Americans believe that if he were to succeed in extending his control to a large part of the Arab world, he could severely damage the oil-dependent U.S. economy. No less an authority than Henry Kissinger has claimed that an unchecked Saddam would be able to “cause a world-wide economic crisis.” But is it true that Saddam Hussein can impose large costs on our economy? Economic analysis of the oil market answers with a resounding, No. The annual cost to the U.S. economy of doing nothing in the Gulf would be less than half of 1% of the gross national product. The vaunted oil weapon is a dud. Early in September 1990, I wrote and circulated among economists a statement making the point I made in the WSJ op/ed, and asked them to sign. It was titled “Economists Speak Out on War for Oil.” The statement, though substantially shorter than my article, was somewhat lengthy. For that reason, I’m not typing it in here unless 2 or more people demand it. Ed Crane of the Cato Institute thought he could get some funds to publish a big ad in major publications with the statement and, underneath it, the names of signers. We hoped to get a lot of names people had heard of. I got some but not enough and so we junked the project. The signers, in alphabetical oder, were: Barbara Bergmann, American University Tyler Cowen, George Mason University Richard Ebeling, Hillsdale College James K. Galbraith, University of Texas George Horwich, Purdue University John M. Heineke, Santa Clara University Me Dwight R. Lee, University of Georgia William A. Niskanen, Cato Institute David Ranson, H.C. Wainwright & Co. Alan Reynolds, Hudson Institute Jennifer Roback, George Mason University George Selgin, University of Georgia Richard Timberlake, University of Georgia Robert D. Tollison, George Mason University David Weimer, University of Rochester Lawrence H. White, University of Georgia Benjamin Zycher, UCLA   In going through some old files on Friday, I found some notes I had taken verbatim about my conversations on the issue with three prominent economists who had all refused to sign: Gary Becker, Paul Samuelson, and Sam Peltzman. Milton Friedman wrote me a separate letter saying that he agreed with the analysis but wouldn’t sign because many people would conclude that he was against the war, and he wasn’t. Here are the conversations with Becker, Samuelson, and Peltman:   Gary S. Becker: I agree with the economic point you made. But I won’t sign. I’m not a signer. Also, Saddam Hussein is a threat in other ways. But I agree that the threat does not arise from his power over the price of oil.   Paul A. Samuelson: This war isn’t about the price of oil.Henderson: Maybe it’s not but that’s the justification that’s being given by Bush and Baker. [I should have said “one of the main justifications.”] Samuelson: It is and it isn’t. But I won’t sign.Henderson: Do you agree with my analysis? Samuelson: I don’t have any quarrel with your analysis. Henderson: If I’m ever asked, can I quote you to that effect? Samuelson: (Pause.) Sure. Your analysis was correct.   Sam Peltzman: The analysis is right but I won’t sign. Henderson: Can I quote you as saying the analysis is right? Peltzman: Why do you want to quote me? Henderson: You’re a name. You said the same thing that Paul Samuelson, Murray Weidenbaum, and Gary Becker said. You guys are names. Can I quote you? Peltzman: Sure. I don’t care.   Why do I post this here? First, because I’m kind of proud of the results and second, to make the point that when you ask for something that you don’t get, try to get something out of it. (8 COMMENTS)

19 августа, 10:43

Сколько американских шпионов было казнено в Китае за последние годы

Американский журнал международной политики Foreign Policy сообщил, что за два года, с 2010 по 2012, властями Китая были приговорены к смертной казни десятки граждан США, признанных китайским судом виновными в шпионаже. Смерти сотрудников ЦРУ названы крупнейшим провалом за всю историю разведывательно...

Выбор редакции
31 июля, 02:42

China Explores Using Artificial Intelligence To Help Shape Its Foreign Policy

By Aaron Kesel China is using artificial intelligence as a tool to help it decide its foreign policy, detaching from the emotions of useless humans...

Выбор редакции
17 июня, 19:15

As Social Security and Medicare Go Bankrupt, US Gives $10.5 Million a DAY to Israel

By Rachel Blevins As the United States government admits that Social Security and Medicare services are going bankrupt and will both be completely depleted within...

Выбор редакции
15 июня, 23:34

Trump Administration Gifts Syrian Terrorist-Linked Organization White Helmets $6.6 Million

By Aaron Kesel The drain the swamp Trump administration (made up entirely of Goldman Sachs and warmongers) has unilaterally proven that it is one of...

Выбор редакции
15 июня, 19:20

US “Fake Freeze” In Spending Is Over — $6.6 Million Goes To The White Helmets

By Brandon Turbeville Only months after the U.S. government’s “spending freeze” and review of money allocated to the al-Nusra Front propaganda wing known as the...

Выбор редакции
13 июня, 22:16

Is Trump-Kim Deal Really Peace Or Is It A Set Up For War?

By Brandon Turbeville Presidents Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un are perhaps the two most unpredictable leaders in the world with everyone wondering from day...

Выбор редакции
12 июня, 21:08

Why the Singapore summit might be a net plus, by Scott Sumner

Let's start with the negatives: 1. This was one of the most complete capitulations by US negotiators since the 1973 peace agreement with North Vietnam. For years we've been demanding that North Korea de-nuclearize, and this agreement does not achieve that goal. Despite this failure, we gave up some significant concessions, including the meeting itself and also the end to certain training exercises. A hawkish skeptic might argue that this is all a delaying tactic from Kim. Think about the very bellicose language from President Trump after taking office. Perhaps Kim was worried that Trump would do something extreme, and this is a way of buying time. Meanwhile, Trump badly wanted a win, and that limited his ability to negotiate a tough agreement: People briefed on the meetings said American negotiators had found it difficult to make significant headway with the North Koreans, in part because the White House did not back them up in taking a hard line. 2. Trump's effusive praise for Kim as an individual was morally offensive and not even necessary. Imagine how Jewish people would feel if he offered similar praise for Hitler. 3. As is often the case, Trump's comments were full of inaccuracies and hyperbole. Contrary to his claim, other Presidents have negotiated agreements to make the Korean peninsula nuclear free---indeed President Clinton did so in 1994. So we have negotiated a deal that strongly favors the North Koreans, and followed through with inaccurate and offensive comments. How can there possibly by a bright side to the picture? 1. There weren't any obvious good alternatives. It wasn't clear that the US had any practical method of stopping the North from holding on to its nuclear weapons. 2. It's at least possible that Kim wants to do a major policy change; somewhat analogous to what Deng did in China after Mao died, and yet still hold on to a significant number of nuclear weapons. This kind of move might be easier to do if international tensions are reduced, and this meeting might reduce tensions. I'd encourage people to look at the picture in a different way: 1. The real issue is not the nukes; it's the human rights situation in North Korea. In utilitarian terms, nukes are already going off in Korea. The suffering and death in North Korea caused by Kim's regime is just as horrifying as the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The most important goal should not be de-nuclearization, rather the focus should be on improved conditions in North Korea. 2. Focus on the relationship between North and South Korea, and view the US as a sideshow. If Kim is serious about change, the real action will revolve around his relationship with the South. In the optimistic scenario, this meeting is sort of a way to get the US out of the picture, so that he can move ahead constructively with President Moon. Neither Kim or Moon want bellicose language from the US overshadowing their efforts. In addition, this meeting makes it more likely that Trump will allow Moon to go further in engagement with the North than what might otherwise have been possible. Thus it's at least plausible that this agreement is a net plus. But before supporters of Trump get too enthused, the very same logic that suggests this might be a net plus also suggests that Trump's Iran policy is a huge missed opportunity. Trump's policy is probably misguided in either Korea or Iran; I'm just not sure which one. I sometimes think that foreign policy is like the movie industry---"nobody knows anything". And that includes me. (11 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
07 июня, 17:19

2006 State Department Cable Reveals Plan To Use Terror, Intrigue, Kurds To Destabilize Syria, Weaken Assad

By Brandon Turbeville Despite the bulk of the attempted destruction of Syria having taken place during the Obama administration, the fact is that the agenda...

02 июня, 20:00

Foreign Policy: США готовятся ввести санкции против европейских компаний из-за Северного потока-2

Санкции со стороны США относительно европейских компаний, которые участвуют в строительстве газопровода «Северный поток-2» очень вероятны. Об этом сообщает американское издание Foreign Policy с ссылкой на три источника в администрации. «Они ни перед чем не остановятся, чтобы заблокировать «Северный […]

Выбор редакции
31 мая, 19:34

Trump Goes Full Neocon as Bolton Adds Fred Fleitz as NSC Chief of Staff

By Kurt Nimmo During the Trump campaign, I wrote a book on the influence of Frank Gaffney, the fringe neocon who has made a career...

Выбор редакции
30 мая, 20:22

Poland Offers $2 Billion for Permanent US Military Base

By Jason Ditz Poland has long expressed interest in securing a permanent deployment of foreign troops from a NATO member nation. The Polish Defense Ministry...

Выбор редакции
29 мая, 20:06

Russia Hints ISIS-Linked Forces Operating In US-Controlled Zones In Syria — Photos Already Show US Protecting Terrorists In Tanf

By Brandon Turbeville Previous reports that the United States is protecting and harboring ISIS near its positions in al-Tanf have been given even more credence...

Выбор редакции
28 мая, 19:56

US Warns Of “Firm” Response If Syria Attacks ISIS … No, Really

By Brandon Turbeville In an apparent attempt to remove all pretense that the United States is nothing more than al-Qaeda’s Air Force in Syria, the...

Выбор редакции
23 мая, 15:20

“7 Countries In 5 Years:” 2007 Wesley Clark Interview Reveals US Plan To Go To War With Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, And Sudan

By Brandon Turbeville After the scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal by the Trump administration, the re-imposition of sanctions against the Persian nation, and the...

24 июля 2016, 21:21

Константин Черемных. "Недопереворот в Турции и другие события в контексте внешней политики США."

Беседа Дмитрия Перетолчина и эксперта Клуба динамического консерватизма Константина Черемных о подоплёке событий в Турции, Франции и на Ближнем Востоке в свете борьбы за власть в высшем правительственном эшелоне США. #ДеньТВ #Перетолчин #Черемных #Турция #переворот #США #НАТО #ЕС #Великобритания #Франция #БлижнийВосток #Эрдоган #БорисДжонсон #теракт #Ереван #Ницца #Гюлен #исламисты #военные #Стамбул #Генштаб #суды #полиция #democracy #Foreignpolicy #NATO #USA #EU #Britain #Brexit #Turkey

18 июля 2016, 08:15

Станет ли Фетхулла Гюлен турецким Хомейни?

Президент Турции Эрдоган назвал организатором неудавшегося военного переворота Фетхуллу Гюлена, своего бывшего соратника, ныне проживающего в США, в штате Пенсильвания. Так оно или нет, проверить вряд ли удастся, но даже если знаменитый писатель и проповедник не причастен к попытке турецких военных свергнуть Эрдогана, его деятельность и влияние настолько масштабны, что в 2008 году Гюлен был назван самым влиятельным интеллектуалом мира по версии журналов Prospect и Foreign Policy, а журнал Time включает его в список «100 самых влиятельных людей мира».Гюлен реально один из наиболее влиятельных людей в мире хотя бы по той причине, что при его участии создана широкая сеть университетов и школ (свыше тысячи в более чем 160 странах, а общее количество выпускников составляет несколько миллионов человек.Известный российский аналитик Шамиль Султанов считает Гюлена «одним из наиболее талантливых, а может и гениальных специалистов в сфере оргоружия. Фактически он создал и руководит одной из самых крупных в мире многослойных эшелонированных масонских организаций («Хикмет» - В.П.)…Об этой корпорации мало, что известно. И это уже ее огромное преимущество в мире, где тайные организации становятся все более и более влиятельными».Основа «Хизмета»(по-турецки - служение) - классическая закрытая суфийская структура, основанная на принципах безусловного подчинения мюрида(ученика) шейху. Внешняя оболочка такой структуры - «Хизмет», вполне открытая организация, владеющая сотнями лицеев, колледжей, университетов, мечетей, молельных домов и общежитий по всему миру. Официальный мессидж «Хизмета»- идея служения обществу. Сам Гюлен пропагандирует духовное наследие великого поэта-суфия Джалаледдина Руми. А скрытая, и «гораздо более существенная ее функция», как пишет Шамиль Султанов, заключается в том, что «она ищет, вербует, готовит профессиональные кадры, причем особый упор делается на поиске талантливых людей».Вокруг «Хизмета» постепенно создается неформальная общественных и государственных организаций, куда команда Гюлена внедряет своих людей. В 90-е годы гюленисты прочно укрепились в жандармерии, прокуратуре, полиции и профсоюзах Турции. Общая численность гюленистов в Турции - от 3 до 6 миллионов членов «Хизмета» и «сочувствующих», причем значительная часть - в госаппарате.Турецкий исследователь Сонер Чагатай считает, что Гюлен прибрал к рукам более 70 проце6нтов личного состава полиции и полностью управляет спецслужбами страны. Турецкий историк Неджип Хаблемитоглу в книге «Крот» разоблачил приверженцев Гюлена в силовых структурах Турции. Незадолго до издания своей книги – 18 декабря 2002 года – Хаблемитоглу был убит у своего дома». Справка:Суфи́зм или тасаввуф — эзотерическое течение в исламе, проповедующее аскетизм и повышенную духовность, одно из основных направлений классической мусульманской философии. Последователей суфизма называют суфиями.В суфизме существует несколько тарикатов (направлений). Фетхулла Гюлен воспитывался в традициях одного из самых распространенных и влиятельных - тариката Накшбандийа. Кстати, знаменитый русский маг двадцатого века, капитан военной разведки российской императорской армии, Георгий Гурджиев во время выполнения своих спецзаданий на Востоке тесно контактировал с накшбандийскими суфиями. Великий шейх суфиев Идрис Шах, большую часть своей жизни проживавший в Лондоне(говорим - Лондон, подразумеваем - МИ-6), был одним из основателей Римского клуба. Идрис Шах в своих многочисленных книгах пишет о последователях Накшбанди как о главных хранителях суфийской традиции, «Материнском» тарикате.Будучи достаточно независимым мыслителем, Идрис Шах различал «Традицию Накшбанди» и «Орден Накшбанди». «Традиция Накшбанди» это способ передачи бараки- божественного благословения, благодеяния. Или Высшего Знания, по Идрис Шаху.А «Орден Накшбанди» – это уже социальная организация с чисто конкретными земными целями. Идрис Шах считал, что в двадцатом веке ведущие тарикаты выродились в ордена.Шамиль Султанов называет Фетхуллу Гюлена теоретиком и вождем «соглашательского, политического суфизма, то есть суфизма, который стремится не только к духовной, но и светской власти, используя самые различные технологии, приемы и методы». По мнению российского аналитика Гюлен вырос из рамок «Ордена Накшбанди» и создал свой собственный тарикат.В конце 90-х годов у Гулена сложился тактический союз с тогдашним мэром Стамбула - Реджепом Эрдоганом, видным деятелем того направления в исламском движении, которое практически смыкается с «Братьями-мусульманами». Союз этот продержался более десяти лет. Разрыв Гюлена с Эрдоганом во многом был спровоцирован расстрелом военными кораблями Израиля так называемой «флотилии свободы» - кораблей с гуманитарным грузом для населения заблокированной Газы. Эрдоган резко осудил действия Израиля, а Гюлен, напротив, дал интервью газете Wall Street Journal, где выразил негодование по поводу «безответственности турецкого правительства», которое «не попыталось заранее договориться с официальными представителями Израиля для того, чтобы получить у них официальное согласие на оказание гуманитарной помощи жителям Газы» и обвинил правительство Эрдогана в «игнорировании авторитета» Израиля.В российской и украинской прессе можно встретить публикации, в которых Гюлена подозревают в сотрудничестве с ЦРУ. «Именно ЦРУ «успешно» ходатайствовало о предоставлении ему вида на жительство в США», пишет Шамиль Султанов.Влияние Гюлена основано на том, что в суннитском секторе исламского мира возник серьезный вакуум влиятельных и харизматических лидеров. И если с помощью своих западных покровителей Гюлен сможет устранить с политической арены Эрдогана, то у него есть все шансы стать турецким аятоллой Хомейни и опровергнуть знаменитые слова Кемаля Ататюрка: «Турецкая Республика не может быть страной шейхов, дервишей, мюридов и их приверженцев».Версий по поводу неудавшегося переворота не так уж много - числом всего три.Американский след.То, что Гюлен живет в США, - в пользу этой версии. Против нее - неудача переворота. Экспертное сообщество склонно считать, что если уж американцы затевают переворот, то он удается, как это было на протяжении четверти века.Германский след.Эрдоган сильно разгневал ведущие державы Евросоюза своей жесткой позицией, а реально - выламыванием рук (читай - шантажом) - по поводу проблемы с беженцами. Но способна ли БНД организовать даже неудачный переворот? Сомнительно. Не говоря уже о том, что германские спецслужбы полностью контролируются американцами.Инсценировака самого Эрдогана.В пользу этой версии - бенефициаром подавления мятежа стал сам Эрдоган. То есть на вопрос, кому выгодно: ответ - Эрдогану.На мой взгляд - американский след не стоит сбрасывать со счетов. Непрекращающиеся теракты в Казахстане, теракт в Ницце, мятеж в Армении, - считать это случайным совпадением могут лишь домохозяйки, воспитанные на слезливых сериалах.Мой выбор - с вероятностью 60 процентов здесь «порылась» американская «собака», причем задача свержения Эрдогана не ставилась. С вероятностью 40 процентов - неудавшийся переворот является инсценировкой самого Эрдогана. Так в свое время поступили Шеварднадзе и Саакашвили с целью укрепления своей власти. У них получилось, а чем Эрдоган хуже?+Впрочем, с точки зрения российских интересов, всматриваться в кривое конспирологическое зеркало и гадать на кофейной гуще (кстати, эффективность такого гадания - около 80 процентов), кто устроил «активку» на Босфоре - мало пользы.Вместо этого я предложил бы отдать должное американским мастерам мягкой силы, которые бережно и неторопливо создают всецело зависящую от самого главного «Материнского тариката» ( и это вовсе не вполне управлемый своими предполагаемыми кураторами из Лэнгли суфий Гюлен с его «Хизметом») глобальную сеть агентов влияния, которые рано или поздно придут на смену импульсивному реаниматору Османской империи Эрдогану. Как говорил изобретатель голографии Нобелевский лауреат Дэннис Габор, - «будущее невозможно предсказать, его можно изобрести».Будущее за теми, кто его изобретает. Жаль, что это не мы.Автор: Владимир Прохватилов, Президент Фонда реальной политики (Realpolitik), эксперт Академии военных наук http://argumentiru.com/society/2016/07/433655

28 декабря 2015, 18:12

ДВА-ТАЛИБАНА-ДВА

Константин Черемных Третья мировая война не будет нефтяной НЕ СТУЧИТЕ, И НЕ СТУЧИМЫ БУДЕТЕ В 2015 году Foreign Policy включил в свою традиционную «десятку мыслителей современности» не Алексея Навального, а Владимира Путина. Тем не менее, освещение президентского послания Федеральному собранию в западной прессе навязчиво жонглировало двумя именами: Путин–Навальный, Путин–Навальный. По той причине, что бывший «мыслительный столп» подгадал ко дню послания детальнейший, в украинском стиле, компромат на руководство российской Генпрокуратуры.

24 октября 2015, 20:46

Возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны

Возможности России по ведению электронной войны произвели на армию США отрезвляющий эффект. Столкнувшись в Сирии и на Украине с комплексами радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4″, которые подавляют радары и авиационные системы, американские военные чиновники были вынуждены признать, что им не удается догнать Россию. Об этом пишет известный своим беспристрастным анализом мирового рынка вооружений Foreign Policy. Издание цитирует командующего военной группировкой США в Европе генерала Бена Ходжеса, который сказал, что «возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны». В свою очередь замначальника кибернетического командования американской армии Рональд Понтиус признал, что «продвижение США в этом вопросе не соответствует имеющимся угрозам». С начала операции в Крыму украинские военные отмечали, что их радиопередатчики и телефоны могли не функционировать в течение нескольких часов, пишет. А специальная мониторинговая миссия ОБСЕ сообщала, что их беспилотники сталкивались с глушением GPS, в связи с чем БПЛА приходилось сажать. У России есть целые боевые подразделения, которые занимаются ведением электронной войны, считает руководитель направления радиоэлектронной борьбы армии США Джефри Черч. По его словам, эти подразделения располагают специальной техникой, у них специальный порядок подчиненности для радиоэлектронной борьбы. При этом в американской армии данные задачи обычно выполняют два солдата из батальона, обеспечивающих круглосуточное функционирование. Всего в армии США предусмотрено более 1000 таких позиций, но реально существует только 813, говорит военный. Черч признает, что значительная часть имеющегося у американской армии оборудования, закупленного в последние 10 лет, было профинансировано из дополнительных средств, в связи с чем оно в основном лежит на полках и требует ремонта и переоборудования. «Без регулярного финансирования оно устаревает», — говорит специалист. Военные США разрабатывают несколько программ по обновлению и улучшению интеграции средств радиоэлектронной борьбы, однако ни одна из них не будет реализована в ближайшее время, пишет Foreign Policy.     Новая машина «Красуха-4″ — грозное оружие борьбы практически с любыми воздушными целями противника. Только побеждает она их не мощными ракетами, скорострельными орудиями или зенитными крупнокалиберными пулеметами. «Красуха» в буквальном смысле делает самолеты и ракеты слепыми и глухими. Репортах о новом уникальном комплексе радиоэлектронной борьбы подготовил телеканал «Россия-24″.   Еще вчера об этой машине нельзя было говорить не только в медиа, но и за пределами оборонных заводов и особо охраняемых воинских частей. Было, что скрывать. «Красуха-4″ — новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК.   «Система создает такие условия, что попасть противникам в нашу авиацию и сбить тот или иной самолет очень сложно при комплексе «Красуха-4″. 99%, что это невозможно», — рассказал гендиректор КРЭТ Николай Колесов. Такие умные машины — на вес золота. Их задача — действовать на стратегически важных направлениях. Там, где особенно активная разведовательная авиация и даже спутники-разведчики космической группировки противника. Тактико-технические характеристики «Красухи-4″ — военная тайна. Однако известно из открытых источников, что радиус ее действия превышает 300 км. На вопрос о высоте разработчики с улыбкой отвечают: «достаточно, мало не покажется».   При помощи уникального оборудования «Красуха-4″ может работать практически по любым воздушным целям одинаково эффективно. Невозможно, но факт: ни скорость, ни высота воздушного супостата на боевые качества комплекса не влияют. По словам Федора Дмитрука, гендиректора Брянского электромеханического завода, средство позволяет обнаружить воздушное судно, произвести захват-сопровождение и, в случае необходимости, поставить помеху.   Четвертая модель комплекса радиоэлектронной борьбы — усовершенствованная версия. Вместо аналога — цифра, вместо трех машин — две. Изделие «Красуха-4″ расположено на двух шасси, что является заметным преимуществом. Предыдудыщая модель располагалась на трех автомобилях. Каждая такая плата для «Красухи» изготавливается минимум две недели. Зато заменяет несколько громоздких шкафов с аппаратурой и километры проводов. Новые детали позволяют антеннам вращаться не просто на 360 градусов, а в абсолютно любых направлениях. Необычна и технология изготовления антенны. Форму тарелки ей придают в гидравлическом прессе. 400 литров воды и давление в 12 атмосфер обеспечивают идеальный силуэт приемного и передающего устройств. Первое антенное устройство обеспечивает прием сигнала, второе — передачу. Тарелка скрепляется с каркасом и устанавливается на колесную базу — четырехосный КАМАЗ-вездеход. Так что работать мобильный комплекс может и в Заполярье, и Аравийской пустыне. Надежность гарантирована при температурах от минус до плюс пятидесяти градусов.   «Красуха-4″ прошла государственные испытания. Выпущено и отдано в войска на сегодняшний день 10 комплексов. Это серьезная помощь для нашей стратегической авиации, истребительной авиации», — отмечает Николай Колесов.     Красуха в Сирии   Стало известно о прибытии в Сирию новейших комплексов радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4» вооруженных сил России. Так, новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК, комплекс «Красуха-4», был развернут в расположение российской военной базы вблизи населенного пункта Латакия в Сирии. А вот тут я вам подробно рассказывал про НЕВИДИМОЕ ОРУЖИЕ РОССИИ Вот еще РЛК «Барьер-Е» — нет аналогов в мире и РЭБ «Инфауна», «Лесочек» и «Дзюдоист» ну и конечно же ответ на вопрос Что делает «Ртуть» в войсках РФ ? Оригинал статьи находится на сайте ИнфоГлаз.рф Ссылка на статью, с которой сделана эта копия - http://infoglaz.ru/?p=79352

19 сентября 2015, 14:51

Пентагон и планы войны против России

В американском издании Foreign Policy вышла примечательная статья http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18/exclusive-the-pentagon-is-preparing-new-war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/, где с ссылками на действующих и отставных сотрудников Пентагона рассматриваются актуальные планы войны США против РФ.Примечательные моменты:1. Вопросы военного противостояния с РФ за последнее время переходят у американцев из умозрительных построений к вопросам актуальной политики. Старые планы войны против РФ вновь стали актуальными. Россия открыто названа угрозой.2. В качестве возможного театра военных действий в статье рассматриваются страны Прибалтики, на территории которых идет "гибридная война", причем рассматривается как самостоятельное участие США, так и участие в составе НАТО.3. Утверждается, что еще в 2008 году после Олимпийской войны НАТО начало пересмотр своей стратегии в отношениях с РФ, однако США на тот момент продолжали рассматривать в качестве приоритетной угрозы "мировой терроризм", а не Россию.4. Длительное время, аналитики Пентагона ориентировались на то, что Россия слишком слаба, чтобы представлять угрозу, поэтому в качестве основных проблем указывался "терроризм" и возвышение Китая.5. Теперь же Россия называется "экзистенциальной угрозой" и политика в отношении нее должна выстраиваться как против безусловного соперника и даже врага. О концепции "партнерства" можно забыть.6. Недовольство Кремля расширением НАТО на восток не считалось чем-то существенным и этот порядок вещей считался на Западе вполне естественным по принципу "собака лает, караван идет".7. Олимпийскую войну в Пентагоне расценивали как разовую акцию Москвы и в повторение такого сценария не очень верили, потому что считали, что виноват Саакашвили, которого Россия поймала на военной авантюре.8. В целом же, в Пентагоне допускали, что Россия при определенных обстоятельствах может интегрироваться в западный мир и отношение к ней было "иногда боль в заднице, но не угроза".9. Крымская операция и "вежливые люди" как утверждается в статье, стали для Пентагона неприятным сюрпризом, их полностью проморгали и тут де-факто можно говорить о провале американской разведки.10. На военных играх, где прорабатывался сценарий боевых действий между американской и российской армиями на территории стран Балтии. Рассматривался сценарий задействования в боевых действиях всех американских сил в восточной Европе + переброски на ТВД 82-й воздушно-десантной дивизии.11. В процессе выяснилось, что даже в этом случае РФ сохранит на ТВД общее превосходство в силах и с военной точки зрения одержит безусловную победу. В ходе игры "красные" разгромили "синих" и Прибалтика была потеряна.12. На следующий день игру повторили с улучшенными для США и НАТО параметрами. Результат был примерно тот. Всего проводилось 16 игр, где обыгрывался сценарий войны США и НАТО против РФ в Прибалтике. Игры проводились в Пентагоне и на авиабазе в Рамштайне. Играло 8 разных команд. В подавляющем большинстве случаев результаты прямого столкновения были неблагоприятны для "синих".13. Были сделаны выводы, что в среднесрочной перспективе США и НАТО скорее всего потеряют Прибалтику в ходе прямого конфликта с РФ, но в долгосрочной перспективе ее как-нибудь да вернут в ходе дальнейшей войны.14. Отправка техники и войск США в Прибалтику, это элемент доктрины сдерживания России, хотя в Пентагоне особых иллюзий не питают насчет того, смогут ли эти войска защитить Прибалтику.15. В Пентагоне есть определенная оппозиция "конфронтационному сценарию" из числа желающих "вновь сотрудничать с Россией" и что несмотря на текущее положение дел, Россия лишь отвлекает США от более важных угроз, в первую очередь от Китая. И что совместные военные программы и распределение рынков оружия важнее, нежели суверенитет какой-то там Украины.16. По мнению этих условных "миротворцев", планы Пентагона и бряцанье оружием, лишь подпитывают "параноидальные фантазии Путина" и делают разборки РФ с США и НАТО из иллюзорных реальными. В итоге конфликт США и РФ стал реальностью. В этой связи постулируется, что Пентагон неизбежно будет планировать действия направленные против России.17. Под эту лавочку "ястребы" в Пентагоне и в Сенате уже ведут работу по приостановке процесса сокращения численности американских вооруженных сил и уменьшения их финансирования. Идущий конфликт, потенциал которого таков, что он может продолжаться годами, явно будет выгоден тем, кто зарабатывает на войне.В целом же, статья с одной стороны выражает обеспокоенность неготовностью США эффективно противостоять России (ветер тут конечно дует со стороны республиканцев обвиняющих Обаму в "неэффективной политике по отношению к России) и подспудно подводящая к мысли, что надо бы увеличивать армию и расходы на нее. С другой стороны, прослеживается мысль, что США слишком много времени уделяют России, которая конечно угроза, но не такая как Китай и в долгосрочной перспективе, эта холодная война с РФ может выйти боком. Разумеется, по одной только Прибалтике о ходе и исходе войны судить не стоит, все таки есть и другие потенциальные ТВД - Украина, Сирия, Арктика, Кавказ, страны Средней Азии и поэтому тут конечно надо смотреть в комплексе на возможные "гибридные" столкновения между США и РФ на территории других государств. В этом плане, открытый конфликт между США и РФ, который начался в ходе переворота на Украине ныне уже вышел за ее пределы и де-факто либо уже затрагивает, либо затронет в ближайшей будущем другие страны и народы.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

04 сентября 2015, 14:40

The Clinton Emails and the Iran Lobby

The release of another batch of Hillary Clinton emails, courtesy of the State Department, provides an opportunity to glimpse inside the formation of the Obama administration's approach to Iran in the early days of his presidency. Several interesting emails in particular shed some light on the important role a pro-Iranian lobbying group played in shaping U.S. policy. In fact, given the smear merchants who constantly berate the "Jewish lobby" as being all-powerful in Washington, it turns out that the Iran lobby has been far more influential during the Obama presidency and that they've had the ear of key policymakers in the administration. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, a 10-page plan sent to her by four key members of The Iran Project provided the blueprint for America's strategy with Iran. Perhaps no one has taken a deeper dive into the Iran lobby than Lee Smith, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and senior editor of The Weekly Standard. In a series of articles he penned in his Tablet Magazine column, "Agents of Influence" in 2010, he explored the dueling Iran lobbies in detail, half a year after the protest movement in Iran was crushed by the regime. In "Iran's Man in Washington," Smith explored Flynt Leverett and his wife, Hillary Mann Leverett, whose main claim to fame rested on Flynt's access to the hard-line elements of the regime in Tehran and the couple's invention of a "grand bargain" offered by Iran in 2003. Smith explains that Flynt "was lionized by liberals for his opposition to the Bush administration's Iran policy." They blamed the Bush administration for not taking Iran up on their proposed "grand bargain." The problem was, as a former colleague on the National Security Council staff recalled, "It was either a concoction of the Swiss ambassador, or of the Swiss ambassador and the Leveretts together." Lee Smith elaborated: Although the legend of the Grand Bargain has been discredited, the tale--a narrative describing a sensible, realistic Iran eagerly courting a stubborn Washington, with the Leveretts in the middle of things--served its purpose. It not only identified the couple as critics of the Bush administration, it also certified them as experts about the Iranian regime--and as instruments through which the regime might influence Washington. Another pillar of the Iran lobby in Washington, Smith writes in "The Immigrant," is Trita Parsi, head of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), who became the face of the Iranian-American lobby in Washington. Unlike the Leveretts, Parsi "nurtured a relationship with regime insiders close to Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--the so-called 'reformers' in Tehran--who have squared off against the faction favored by the Leveretts, which includes Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guard Corps." Trita Parsi came to the U.S. from Sweden in 2001, having left Iran when he was four years old, in 1978 before the Iranian revolution kicked into high gear. In 2002, he formed the NIAC "hoping to give voice not only to the diaspora's talents and resources but also its growing resentments." In a recent article, "Meet the Iran Lobby," Lee Smith described Parsi as "the tip of the spear of the Iran Lobby," who "won a defining battle over the direction of American foreign policy." Given the nuclear agreement reached in Vienna in July, there can be no doubt that Lee Smith is right. The Iran lobby has indeed become powerful in Washington's policy circles and at the highest levels of government. This is the story of another pillar of that lobby, The Iran Project, and the role they played in working with the Obama administration in its infancy to form an approach to Iran, as evidenced by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails. Determination in the Administration Preferring to eschew the hardball foreign policy of the George W. Bush administration, it's no secret that Obama believed he could catch more bees with honey. Shortly after taking office in 2009, the new president began a process of engagement with Iran that was ultimately designed to reestablish full U.S. diplomatic relations. A major Israeli newspaper, Maariv, reported that Washington was ready to hold senior level diplomatic contacts, agree to reciprocal visits, approve security cooperation between the countries, establish direct flights between the U.S. and Iran, and grant visas to Iranians wishing to visit the United States. Much to Obama's chagrin, the Iranians rejected the overture. President Obama, however, remained determined to strike a grand bargain with Iran. During his initial diplomatic outreach, thousands of Iranian protesters took to the streets to protest the fraudulent election results that reelected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The regime brutally cracked down on the protesters killing hundreds, and arresting and torturing thousands. But Obama was undeterred and kept engaging with the regime. Nor did he appear to re-think his approach few months later in September when the U.S., Britain, and France revealed that Iran was secretly building a uranium enrichment facility in a mountain near Qom that came to be known as the Fordow facility. Despite the failure of Obama's outreach in his first year and the clenched fist response offered by the regime in Tehran, the White House was still in need of a strategy with Iran. The blueprint that the Obama administration eventually adopted was one put out by the president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Stephen Heintz, and former ambassadors, William Luers, Thomas Pickering, and Frank Wisner. They are the key members of The Iran Project, a pro-Iran lobbying group "dedicated to improving the relationship between the U.S. and Iranian governments." The Iran Project Peter Waldman explained in an article for Bloomberg Politics that "for more than a decade they've conducted a dialogue with well placed Iranians, including Mohammad Javad Zarif," Iran's foreign minister and chief nuclear negotiator. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund spent millions of dollars since 2003 promoting a nuclear agreement with Iran, mainly through The Iran Project. After the 9/11 attacks, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund's president, Stephen Heintz, became more infatuated with Iran and he began thinking about "its geostrategic importance and its relation to the Sunni world," Heintz said. So he established The Iran Project in cooperation with the United Nations Association of the U.S. headed by William Luers. Luers made contact with Mohammad Javad Zarif through Iran's mission to the UN in New York. He also recruited career diplomats Thomas Pickering (who also serves on NIAC's Advisory Board) and Frank Wisner. They "developed a relationship with Zarif, who was stationed in New York representing Iran at the UN. In early 2002, The Iran Project set up a meeting with Iranians affiliated with the Institute for Political and International Studies in Tehran, a think tank with close government ties," Waldman explained. The secret meetings they held in European capitals stopped when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran's president in 2005 but their relationship with Zarif proved to be lynchpin in getting negotiations underway when he was made foreign minister in 2013. Waldman quotes a State Department official saying that the administration welcomed backchannel efforts like The Iran Project's because "it proves useful both to have knowledgeable former officials and country experts engaging with their counterparts and in reinforcing our own messages when possible." But The Iran Project, which became an independent non-governmental entity as Barack Obama took office in 2009, did more than that for the State Department under Hillary Clinton. They provided the initial plan that as their website states, would "encourage greater cooperation between the U.S. and Iran for greater regional stability." In other words, early on in the Obama administration, the decision was made that a deal with Iran would be about more than their nuclear file. Toward a New Policy on Iran In December 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Under-Secretary of State William Burns met with Heintz, Luers, Pickering, and Wisner--four of the nine key leaders of The Iran Project. As Hillary Clinton's emails demonstrate, Pickering emailed her their 10-page plan that "provides fuller detail on the ideas we discussed" on December 22, 2010. Entitled, "Toward a New Policy on Iran," it provided the outline for U.S. policy toward the Islamic Republic. Indeed, most of the features contained in the plan are recognizable looking back at U.S. diplomacy since that time. It is, in essence, a document of America's surrender from the Middle East and acquiescence in Iran's dominance in the region. This policy prescription would set the table to discuss the terms of that surrender. "We propose that you urge the President to instruct you to open a direct relationship with Iran," their 2010 policy paper states. "The burden rests on the U.S. to convince an uncertain Iranian leadership to come out of its shell." That required written assurances that the Obama administration would not seek a policy of regime change. Mr. Obama sent Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a letter early in his first term and many more followed between either Khamenei or President Rouhani after his 2013 election. To start off on the right foot with Iran, President Obama "must find a way to communicate directly with the Supreme Leader a U.S. desire to open official talks" and it should be conducted through a personal emissary he appoints to deliver oral messages. According to Israel's biggest-selling daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, Barack Obama dispatched a personal emissary to a series of secret meetings in the late summer and autumn of 2012 to meet with "Iranian officials led by a personal representative of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei." Obama's emissary was his special adviser, Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago lawyer and close friend of Mr. Obama, born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents. The paper described her as "a key figure in secret contacts the White House is conducting with the Iranian regime." What Obama's emissary should call for "in a respectful tone" is mutual recognition of the other's legitimate interests in the area. That means before any discussions would commence, the U.S. would have to recognize as legitimate, Iran's reach into Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, to the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, the United States should sign up to legitimize the export of the Islamic Republic's revolution, a central raison d'être of the regime that emerged after the 1979 revolution. A thaw in relations must precede progress on the nuclear deal, this Iran lobby argued, because one of the consequences of continuing with the current policy "will be the missed opportunity to engage Iran in a long tem constructive regional strategy." Indeed, with Iran acting as America's partner in the Middle East, there will be an opportunity to help establish "a regional security structure aimed at giving Iran and the Gulf states a greater sense of stability." This would allow the U.S. and Iran "to develop together approaches to... eventually weaken Iran's support for Hamas and Hezbollah." This, of course, is akin to discussing fire safety measures with the neighborhood's leading arsonist. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately redeem Iran, end its isolation, and cooperate with the regime in Tehran on other issues of mutual interest before discussing the nuclear program directly: "A U.S. offer to cooperate with Iran as an equal partner on one or more non-nuclear issues will set the stage for [sic] more fruitful discussion of the nuclear issue. The U.S. will improve markedly chances to get Iran to deal seriously with the nuclear issues by starting with an offer to cooperate on other problems in the region." That is precisely what the Obama administration has been at pains to avoid saying publicly--that the U.S. has acted as Iran's air force in Iraq in an effort to rollback the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. As Lee Smith reported in Tablet Magazine in May 2014: In Lebanon, the U.S. intelligence community has teamed up with the Lebanese Armed Forces' military intelligence, essentially now a subset of Hezbollah, to fight Sunni extremists. In Iraq, the administration has dispatched arms to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, another Iranian asset who is allied with groups that have killed American soldiers, like Asaib Ahl a-Haq, to support his counter-insurgency against Sunni fighters. Regarding the nuclear negotiations themselves, the plan's authors called on the administration to adopt an approach that would provide for Iran's enrichment under international supervision and would eliminate any suggestion that Iran suspends either its enrichment or its manufacturing of key components for their nuclear facilities as a precondition for any progress toward direct talks. And finally, once they begin to negotiate directly with each other, the U.S. should set aside the "zero enrichment preconditions for any progress in the talks." That means shredding the previous six UN Security Council resolutions aimed at stopping Iran's nuclear program and offering upfront to Iran the right to enrich uranium on its own soil. Most critics of the nuclear pact reached in July consider the original sin to be Obama's concession to Iran that they would be allowed to complete the full nuclear cycle on their own soil. What the Fatwa? Picking up on the Iran lobby's paper, another key talking point the Obama administration relied on is an understanding that "the Leader's fatwa against the building or use of nuclear weapons could establish an excellent basis for discussions with the aim of agreement for greater IAEA access to Iran's nuclear program to assure the world about Iran's nuclear intentions and develop an arrangement regarding enrichment." This nuclear fatwa, however, is a canard and a hoax. It is "nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime," according to many analysts including the Middle East Media Research Institute. Nevertheless, it has been frequently cited by the administration and repeated by Mr. Obama in his March 2015 annual statement to Iran marking the Persian new year. And the IAEA now has secret side deals with Iran for inspections with holes so big one could drive a rundown Iranian Saipa through. To top it all off, The Iran Project policy plan also called for "mutual recognition that both leaders of the U.S. and Iran have stated publicly their desire for a world without nuclear weapons." That was designed to send a shot over Israel's bow--an assumed nuclear weapons program that sparked no regional nuclear arms race such as Iran's today. True to form, with the July nuclear deal sealed and in the rearview mirror, Mohammad Zarif penned an article in The Guardian, "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal--now it's Israel's turn." Iran's Success at America's Expense If the Obama administration did not adopt this plan in its entirety, then it would be an impressive coincidence that just about all of the proposals in The Iran Project's blueprint were adopted and the predictable outcome is the shameful and harmful nuclear deal with Iran. It's not just that the Obama administration was willing to adopt the deal; it's the workman-like salesmanship of the deal that Mr. Obama is engaged in. Despite poll after poll indicating that the more Americans learn about the deal, the less they like it--with a two-to-one margin currently opposed--President Obama has stood resolute. Instead of explaining that the deal wasn't perfect but it was the best he could negotiate and it meets U.S. security needs, or acknowledging that his critics have some good points (since they're based on the President's broken promises) and working to make a few unilateral adjustments that would set more minds at ease, he has chose a different path. He offered no quarter, likening the experts who came out against the agreement to "Lobbyists and pundits" who "were suddenly transformed into arm-chair nuclear scientists." Then, he labeled them "the crazies." In a manner befitting of former CIA Director George Tenet's "slam dunk" prognosis in the run up the 2003 Iraq war, Obama even declared: "I've had to make a lot of tough calls as President, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls. It's not even close." The crystal clear reality is that the Obama administration is not just onboard with the Iran lobby's positions, but he has bought it all--hook, line, and sinker. Whether the inception of the idea began before he came to Washington, or whether The Iran Project, the National Iranian American Council, or the likes of the Leveretts cemented the approach he would adopt during negotiations, one thing is certain: The nuclear deal with Iran is a boon for all involved other than the U.S. and its allies in Israel and the wider Middle East. It marks America's definitive shift away from its traditional regional allies and defines a new relationship with a former adversary that is unfortunately based on hope rather than experience. The Iran lobby will no doubt celebrate this and build on their quiet and impressive success. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 января 2015, 15:22

Обострение интриг в Вашингтоне начало 2015

Кризис, поразивший правительственный аппарат США, представляет собой непосредственную угрозу для жизни Империи. И это не только мнение Тьерри Мейсана – теперь этот кризис наводит на правящий класс в Вашингтоне такой страх, что почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям (Council on Foreign Relations) требует отставки главных советников президента Обамы и назначения новой команды. Этот конфликт не имеет ничего общего с противостоянием демократов и республиканцев или голубей и ястребов. Под угрозой политика лидерства, проводимая Соединёнными Штатами и НАТО. Ракета «Смерч» угодила в жилой дом Собчак живьём. Александр Лукашенко В ПАСЕ издевались и ржали над Россией Бразильская полиция во время обыска склада обнаружила два танка Уже несколько месяцев я говорю и пишу о том, что у Вашингтона больше нет никакой внешней политики. Он разделён на две фракции, которые во всём противостоят друг другу, а их политические линии несовместимы и противоречивы [1]. Наибольшего обострения эта ситуация достигла в Сирии, где Белый Дом сначала поддержал организацию Даеш и направил её в Ирак для проведения этнической чистки, а затем стал её бомбить, хотя ЦРУ продолжало её поддерживать. Эта несогласованность постепенно дошла и до союзников. Франция, к примеру, вступила в коалицию по борьбе против Даеш, тогда как некоторые из её легионеров входят в состав руководства Даеш [2]. Когда министр Обороны Чак Хейгел затребовал письменное разъяснение, ему не только не дали никакого ответа, его просто послали куда подальше [3]. В самом НАТО, которое было создано для борьбы против СССР, а теперь используется против России, тоже воцарился беспорядок сразу после того, как президент Турции подписал масштабные экономические соглашения с Владимиром Путиным [4]. Нарушив молчание, почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям [5] Лесли Гелб бьёт тревогу [6]. По его мнению, «команда Обамы лишена основного инстинкта и не имеет решений по проведению политики национальной безопасности на ближайшие два года». И далее, от имени всего правящего класса США: «Президент Обама должен обновить свою команду сильными личностями и опытными специалистами. Он должен также заменить главных советников в министерстве Обороны и в Госдепе. Наконец, он должен проводить регулярные консультации с президентом Комиссии по международным отношениям Бобом Коркером и председателем Комиссии по вооружённым силам Джоном Маккейном [7]». Никогда за всё время своего существования с 1921 года Совет по международным отношениям не высказывал подобных суждений. Но теперь разногласия внутри государственного аппарата могут привести Соединённые Штаты к гибели. Среди главных советников, которые, по его мнению, должны уйти в отставку, г-н Гелб называет четырёх человек интеллектуально и эмоционально близких действующему президенту: Сьюзан Райс (советник по национальной безопасности), Денис Макдоноу (руководитель Администрации Белого дома), Бенжамин Родес (уполномоченный по связям) и Валери Джаретт (советник по внешней политике). Правящая верхушка Вашингтона обвиняет их в том, что они не представили президенту ни одного оригинального предложения, не противоречили ему, но всегда поддерживали его в заблуждениях. Единственный, кто пользуется благосклонностью в глазах Совета по международным отношениям, это «либеральный ястреб» Энтони Блинкен, второе лицо в госдепе. Совет по международным отношениям является двухпартийным органом, соответственно, г-н Гелб предлагает президенту Обаме ввести в своё окружение четырёх республиканцев и четырёх демократов, согласно приводимому им списку. Прежде всего, это демократы Томас Пикеринг (бывший представитель в ООН), Уинстон Лорд (бывший ассистент Генри Киссинджера), Френк Уиснер (официально один из руководителей ЦРУ и, между прочим, тесть Николя Саркози) и Мишель Флюрнуа (руководитель Центра новой американской безопасности) [8]. Затем республиканцы Роберт Зеллик (бывший патрон Всемирного Банка) [9], Ричард Армитидж (бывший ассистент Колина Пауэла) [10], Роберт Киммит (возможно, будущий патрон Всемирного Банка) и Ричард Берд (в прошлом, участник переговоров по сокращению ядерных вооружений). Для проведения бюджетных урезаний в министерстве Обороны г-н Гелб прочит раввина Доу Закгейма [11], адмирала Майка Мюллена (бывшего начальника межармейских штабов) и генерала Джека Кейна (бывшего начальника штаба Сухопутных войск). Наконец, г-н Гелб считает, что стратегия национальной безопасности должна быть разработана в тесном сотрудничестве с четырьмя «мудрецами»: Генри Киссинджером [12], Брентом Скоукрофтом, Збигневом Бжезинским [13] и Джемсом Бейкером [14]. При более тщательном анализе этого списка становится ясно, что Совет по международным отношениям не делает выбора между двумя фракциями, противостоящими друг другу в составе администрации Обамы, он лишь намеревается навести порядок на высшем уровне власти. В этом отношении нелишне упомянуть, что в стране, которой до последнего времени руководил белый англо-саксонский протестант, два советника, которых собираются отправить в отставку, являются чернокожими женщинами, а четырнадцать из пятнадцати предлагаемых кандидатур, являются белыми мужчинами, протестантами или ашкеназами. Таким образом, наведение порядка в политике сопровождается превращением власти в этническо-религиозную. [1] См. : « Есть ли у Обамы военная политика? », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 1 декабря 2014. [2] « D’"anciens" militaires français parmi les jihadistes de Daesh », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 21 января 2015 г. [3] « Contre qui le Pentagone se bat-il en Syrie ? », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 1 ноября 2014 г. [4] « Как Владимир Путин разрушил стратегию НАТО », Тьерри Мейсан, Однако (Российская Федерация), Сеть Вольтер, 8 декабря 2014. [5] « Как Совет по международным отношениям определяет дипломатию США », Сеть Вольтер, 25 июня 2004. [6] « This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance », Лесли Гелб, The Daily Beast, 14 января 2015 г. [7] « Дирижёр «арабской весны» Джон Маккейн и халиф Ибрагим », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 18 августа 2014. [8] « ЦНАБ – демократический оплот колониального империализма », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 6 января 2015. [9] « Роберт Б. Золлик – идейный вдохновитель глобализации », Тьерри Мейсан, Сеть Вольтер, 10 марта 2005. [10] « Richard Armitage, le baroudeur qui rêvait d’être diplomate », Réseau Voltaire, 8 octobre 2004. [11] « Доув Закхейм, поручитель Пентагона », Поль Лабарик, Сеть Вольтер, 9 сентября 2004. [12] « Le retour d’Henry Kissinger », Тьерри Мейсан, интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 28 ноября 2002 г., 28 novembre 2002. [13] « Антироссийская стратегия Збигнева Бжезинского », Артур Лепик, Сеть Вольтер, 3 августа 2005. [14] « Джеймс А. Бейкер III, верный друг », Сеть Вольтер, 12 декабря 2003. Источник: http://www.voltairenet.org/article186521.html

11 января 2015, 17:18

ЦНАБ (CNAS) – демократический оплот колониального империализма (Ястребы США против Обамы)

Вашингтон не проводит единую внешнюю политику - он действует противоречиво и лишь в ответ на внешние вызовы, а «либеральные ястребы» объединяются вокруг генерала Дэвида Петреуса и Центра новой американской безопасности (ЦНАБ). Тьерри Мейсан представляет нам этот мозговой центр, который сегодня играет ту же роль, что и Проект нового американского века при Буше – обеспечивать американскую экспансию и доминирование над всём миром. Сирийский кризис, выход из которого был предложен ещё во время первой конференции в Женеве в июне 2012 г., продолжается, несмотря на все соглашения, заключённые с США. По-видимому, администрация Обамы не подчиняется президенту, и она разделена на две политические линии: с одной стороны, империалисты, склонные к разделу мира с Китаем и, возможно, с Россией (это позиция президента Обамы), а, с другой стороны, империалистические экспансионисты, объединившиеся вокруг Хиллари Клинтон и генерала Дэвида Петреуса. Ко всеобщему удивлению, отставка директора ЦРУ и госсекретаря после переизбрания Барака Обамы не только не положила конец разногласиям в администрации, но и обострила их. Именно экспансионисты возобновили войну против Корейской народной республики под предлогом кибер-атаки против Sony Pictures, якобы предпринятой Пхеньяном. Президент Обама, в конечном счёте, согласился с их доводами и подписал декрет о «санкциях». Представляется, что сторонники имперской экспансии первоначально объединились вокруг Центра новой американской безопасности, который в Демократической партии играл роль ту же самую роль, что и Проект нового американского века (а сегодня также и Foreign Policy Initiative) в Республиканской партии. Важную роль они играли и во время первого мандата Барака Обамы, и по некоторым данным образовали «глубинное государство», откуда продолжают дёргать за верёвочки. Либеральные ястребы Центр новой американской безопасности был создан в 2007 г. Куртом Кэмпбеллом и Мишель Флурнуа. Ранее оба эти интеллектуала работали в Центре стратегических и международных исследований (ЦСМИ - Center for Strategic and International Studies). В нём спустя два месяца после событий 11 сентября они руководили публикацией книги To Prevail : An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism (Всё для победы: американская стратегия по борьбе с терроризмом) [1]. В книге развивалась идея о том, что необходимо атаковать не только террористические группировки, о чём говорил президент Буш, но и государства, если им самим не удавалось эти группировки уничтожить на своей территории. Вдохновившись работами оперативной группы по борьбе с терроризмом из ЦСМИ, они выступали за значительное увеличение разведывательных агентств для наблюдения за всем миром. Короче, Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа принимали официальные представления о терактах и оправдывали «войну против терроризма», которая на целое десятилетие погрузила в траур весь мир. В 2003 году Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа вместе с другими тринадцатью демократами-интеллектуалами подписали документ под названием Progressive Internationalism : A Democratic National Security Strategy (Прогрессивный интернационализм: демократическая стратегия национальной безопасности) [2]. Этот манифест поддерживал все войны после 11 сентября и критиковал дипломатическую слабость президента Буша. После выборов кандидата-демократа в 2004 г. подписанты намеревались продвигать американский имперский проект (сторонником которого был Джордж Буш-младший) при этом критикуя его за то, что он оказывал пагубное влияние на руководителей, и, в частности, сеял сомнения среди союзников. Всем подписантам тогда приклеили ярлык «либеральных ястребов». ЦНАБ Во время своего создания в 2007 г. ЦНАБ выражал стремление обновить американскую стратегическую мысль после Комиссии Бейкера-Гамильтона и отставки министра Обороны Дональда Рамсфельда. На открытии центра присутствовали такие лица как Мадлен Олбрайт, Хиллари Клинтон и Чак Хейгел. В ту пору Вашингтон пытался выпутаться из трясины, в которую он попал в Ираке. Кемпбелл и Флурнуа выступали за военное решение, которое позволило бы американским войскам продолжать оккупировать Ирак, не истощая при этом свои силы. Для продолжения имперской экспансии американский империализм должен был прежде всего выработать определённую антитеррористическую стратегию, которая позволила бы сократить численность американских войск в Ираке. Нет никакого противоречия в том, что Кемпбелл и Флурнуа работали совместно с генералом Дэвидом Петреусом, которого только что назначили командующим военной Коалицией в Ираке, потому что он был автором пособия по предотвращению смуты в сухопутных войсках США. Они склоняют на свою сторону австралийского эксперта Дэвида Кикуллена, который станет гуру генерала Петреуса и разработчиком плана Surge (Удар). Согласно этому плану переориентация иракских повстанцев должна осуществляться путём использования двух факторов (пряник и кнут): с одной стороны, платить деньги боевикам, которые перейдут на сторону агрессора и будут устанавливать порядок на своей территории, а, с другой стороны, оказывать на них принудительное воздействие путём временного усиления военного присутствия США. Эта стратегия будет успешно использована: страна вначале погружается в фазу интенсивной гражданской войны, а затем после глубокой разрухи она медленно возвращается в состояние покоя. Но на самом деле частичная переориентация иракского сопротивления стала возможной лишь потому, что оно было организовано на племенной основе. Весь этот период ЦНАБ и генерала Петреуса водой не разлить. Килкуллен становится сначала советником Петреуса, а затем госсекретаря Кондолизы Райс. Сплав этот настолько прочен, что полковник Джон Нейгл, советник Петреуса, станет президентом ЦНАБа после того, как Кемпбелл и Флурнуа войдут в администрацию Обамы. Особенность ЦНАК состоит в том, что он является мозговым центром демократов, но с ним сотрудничают и в него входят республиканские ястребы. Впрочем, он не отказывается от встреч и дебатов с членами Проекта нового американского века. Финансирование центра осуществляется производителями вооружений и компаниями, сотрудничающими с оборонным ведомством (AccentureFederal Services, BAE Systems, Boeing, DRS Technologies, Northrop Grumman), финансовыми компаниями (Bernard L. Schwartz Investments, Prudential Financial), фондами (Carnegie Corporation of New York, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, PloughsharesFund, Smith Richardson Foundation, ZakFamily Charitable Trust) и иностранными правительствами (Израиль, Япония, Тайвань). Во время предвыборной кампании Кемпбелл и Флурнуа издают для будущего президента рекомендации The Inheritance and the Way Forward (Наследие прошлого и путь в будущее) [3]. Начиная с периода президентства Буша они ставят под сомнение принцип «превентивной войны» и использование пыток. Кроме того, они выступают за переориентацию войны с терроризмом с тем, чтобы избежать «столкновения цивилизаций», которое могло бы лишить Вашингтон его мусульманских союзников. Администрация Обамы После избрания президентом Барак Обама поручает Мишель Флурнуа контроль за перестройкой оборонного ведомства. По логике, она становится заместителем министра Обороны по политической части, то есть она должна вырабатывать новую оборонную стратегию. Она при этом считается вторым лицом в министерстве и распоряжается бюджетом в 200 миллионов долларов. Курт Кемпбелл, в свою очередь, назначается в госдепартамент и руководит в нём отделом по Дальневосточному и Тихоокеанскому регионам. И Кемпбелл, и Флурнуа придерживаются стратегии типа «оплот». Согласно этой стратегии США должны готовиться к будущему столкновению с Китаем. С этой точки зрения, они должны постепенно передислоцировать свои вооружённые силы из Европы и Большого Среднего Востока на Дальний Восток. ЦНАБ настолько популярен, что его сотрудники скоро войдут в состав администрации Обамы: Ренд Бирс станет секретарём госбезопасности, Эштон Картер, замминистра Обороны по закупкам, а затем министр Обороны, Сьюзан Райс, представитель ООН, а затем советник по национальной безопасности, Роберт Уорк, заместитель министра Обороны и далее: Шон Бримли, специальный советник министра Обороны, а затем директор по планированию в Совете национальной безопасности, Прайс Флойд, ассистент помощника министра Обороны по связям с общественностью, Элис Хант, специальный ассистент в министерстве Обороны, Колин Кал, ассистент министра Обороны по Ближнему Востоку, затем советник по национальной безопасности при вице-президенте, Джеймс Миллер, заместитель помощника министра обороны США по вопросам политики, Эрик Пирс, заместитель министра Обороны, ответственный за связи с Конгрессом, Сара Сьюэлл, назначена в 2014 году заместителем госсекретаря по вопросам демократии и прав человека, Уэнди Шерман, назначена в 2011 году заместителем госсекретаря по политическим вопросам, Викрам Сингх, специальный советник министра обороны по Афганистану и Пакистану, Гейл Смит, директор по развитию и демократии при Совете национальной безопасности, Джеймс Стейнберг, заместитель госсекретаря, Джим Томас, заместитель помощника министра Обороны США по финансам, Эдвард (Тед) Уорнер III, советник министра Обороны по контролю над вооружениями. В настоящее время ЦНАБ уже готовит программу для будущего президента США. Влияние ЦНАБ Мишель Флурнуа всё время стремилась занять пост министра Обороны, но не была допущена на эту должность в 2012 году, так как считалось, что она слишком тесно связана с Израилем. Однако сегодня она присутствует почти во всех инстанциях министерства Оброны, занятых планированием: она является членом научного Совета Обороны (Defense Science Board), политического Совета Обороны (Defense Policy Board) и консультативного президентского совета по разведке (President’s Intelligence AdvisoryBoard). Видно, что все её политические рекомендации учитываются как по «Большому Среднему Востоку», так и по Дальнему Востоку. ЦНАБ поддержал усилия Уэнди Шермана по возобновлению дипломатических отношений с Тегераном. Было отчётливо заявлено, что проблема Ирана в большей степени связана не с ядерным вопросом, а с экспортом иранской революции. Им была предложена серия чрезвычайно суровых мер по урезанию иранских трубопроводов в Африке, Латинской Америке и на Ближнем Востоке [4]. В отношении Сирии ЦНАБ считает, что невозможно свергнуть власть в республике в короткий срок. Поэтому он выдвинул «стратегию турникета» : использовать сложившийся против Исламского государства консенсус и принудить все вовлечённые в конфликт государства оказать давление на Дамаск и оппозиционные формирования для того, чтобы добиться военной деэскалации, при этом не вступая в коалицию с президентом аль-Ассадом против Исламского государства. Будут предприняты усилия по включению в состав правительства республики представителей проатлантической оппозиции и предоставлению гуманитарной и материально-технической помощи в районы, занятые повстанцами, с тем, чтобы привлечь к ним внимание. После того, как проатлантисты войдут в правительство, их задача будет состоять в том, чтобы распознать все секреты государственного аппарата, чтобы после этого уничтожить его. Но главная цель этого плана состоит в том, чтобы потребовать для повстанцев, которые отказываются войти в правительство, всю сирийскую пустыню. А эта пустыня представляет около 70% всей территории, и в ней расположены основные газовые месторождения [5]. Особое внимание в ЦНАБ уделяется Интернету. Речь идёт об ограничении правительственной цензуры с тем, чтобы облегчить контроль со стороны АНБ [6]. Вместе с тем там обеспокоены тем, что народный Китай защищает себя от шпионажа со стороны АНБ [7]. В тихоокеанском регионе ЦНАБ выступает за сближение с Индией, Малазией и Индонезией. С этой целью разработан план совершенствования механизма, направленного против Северной Кореи. Ответственные лица ЦНАБ из бывшего органа по сотрудничеству демократов с республиканскими неоконсерваторами постепенно превратился в главный исследовательский центр колониального империализма. Кроме Курта Кемпбелла и Мишель Флурнуа в состав администрации входят: генерал Джон Аллен, командующий Коалицией сил по борьбе с ИГИЛ, Ричард Эрмитейдж, бывший помощник госсекретаря, Ричард Данциг, вице-президент компании Rand Corporation, Джозеф Либерман, бывший пресс-секретарь израильского Сената, генерал Джеймс Маттис, бывший командующий ЦентрКома. ЦНАБ и в дальнейшем будет развиваться, потому что теперь он является главным мозговым центром, способным повлиять на оборонный бюджет и перевести экономику страны на военные рельсы. [1] To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism, Csis Significant Issues Series, CSIS, ноябрь 2001. [2] Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, Институт прогрессивной политики (Progressive Policy Institute), 30 октября, 2003 г. [3] The Inheritance and the Way Forward, Курь Кемпбелл, Мишель Флурнуа, ЦНАБ (CNAS), 2007. [4] Pushback Countering the Iran Action Network, Скотт Модель и Дэвид Ашер, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2013 г. [5] The Tourniquet. A Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State and Saving Syria and Iraq, Марк Линч, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), октябрь 2014. А также How This Ends. A Blueprint for De-Escalation in Syria, Дафна Ранд и Николас Герас, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), ноябрь 2014 г. « Американский «мирный план» для Сирии », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Al-Watan (Сирия), Сеть Вольтер, 1 января 2015. [6] Bringing Liberty Online. Reenergizing the Internet Freedom Agenda in a Post-Snowden Era, Ричард Фонтен, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2014 г. [7] Warring State: China’s Cybersecurity Strategy, Эми Чанг, Центр новой американской безопасности ( Center for a New American Security), декабрь 2014г. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186374.html

06 мая 2013, 05:45

Американский журнал Foreign Policy опубликовал список 500 самых влиятельных людей мира, в который вошли 23 россиянина

...Это российские политики и крупные бизнесмены, один военный и один криминальный авторитет. В список самых влиятельных людей по версии Foreign Policy вошли президент России Владимир Путин, глава правительства Дмитрий Медведев, министр иностранных дел Сергей Лавров, глава Мифина Антон Силуанов и глава Минобороны Сергей Шойгу, председатель Банка России Сергей Игнатьев, директор ФСБ Александр Бортников, мэр Москвы Сергей Собянин и другие.Из российских бизнесменов в список вошли также основатель USM Holdings Алишер Усманов (№1 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $17,6 млрд), совладелец «Альфа-Групп» Михаил Фридман (№2 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $16,5 млрд), председатель правления «Новатэка» Леонид Михельсон (№3 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,4 млрд), владелец «Реновы» Виктор Вексельберг (№4 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,1 млрд), президент нефтяной компании «Лукойл» Вагит Алекперов (№5 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,8 млрд), председатель совета директоров «Еврохима» Андрей Мельниченко (№6 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,4 млрд), глава холдинга «Интеррос» Владимир Потанин (№7 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,3 млрд), председатель совета директоров НЛМК Владимир Лисин (№8 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,1 млрд), глава «Газпрома» Алексей Миллер (№2 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России), совладелец Mail.ru Group Юрий Мильнер (№102 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $1,1 млрд), президент «Роснефти» Игорь Сечин  (№3 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России). Из иностранных политических лидеров журнал включил в список президента Палестины Махмуда Аббаса, лидера австралийской оппозиции Тони Эбботта и премьер-министра Японии Синдзо Абэ. По мнению издания, влиятельными также являются исполнительный директор газеты The New York Times Джил Абрамсон и "король игорного бизнеса", американский магнат Шелдон Адельсон. Список составлен в алфавитном порядке, в нем преобладают американцы — 142 человека. При составлении перечня редакция Foreign Policy пользовалась всеми доступными рейтингами влиятельности, в том числе публикациями Forbes, Times, Vanity Fair, Wall Street Journal, Global Finance и другими. Mahmoud Abbas President, Palestinian Authority West Bank Tony Abbott Liberal Party leader Australia Shinzo Abe Prime minister Japan Jill Abramson New York Times executive editor USA Sheldon Adelson Las Vegas Sands CEO and chair USA Aga Khan IV Ismaili Muslim imam Britain Daniel Akerson General Motors CEO and chair USA Rinat Akhmetov System Capital Management owner Ukraine Karl Albrecht Aldi Süd owner Germany Vagit Alekperov Lukoil president Russia Keith Alexander National Security Agency director USA Paul Allen Microsoft co-founder and Vulcan Inc. chair USA Yukiya Amano International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Japan Shlomo Amar Sephardic chief rabbi Israel Mukesh Ambani Reliance Industries chair and managing director India Yaakov Amidror National security advisor Israel Celso Amorim Defense minister Brazil Marc Andreessen Andreessen Horowitz co-founder USA A.K. Antony Defense minister India Catherine Ashton European Union foreign minister Britain Taro Aso Finance minister Japan Bashar al-Assad President Syria Ibrahim bin Abdulaziz al-Assaf Finance minister Saudi Arabia Aung San Suu Kyi Opposition leader Burma Jean-Marc Ayrault Prime minister France Alberto Baillères Grupo Bal chair Mexico John Baird Foreign minister Canada Bernard Bajolet Directorate-General for External Security head* France Steve Ballmer Microsoft CEO USA Ban Ki-moon United Nations secretary-general South Korea Mario Barletta Radical Civic Union president Argentina José Manuel Barroso European Commission president Portugal Bartholomew I Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople Turkey Omar Hassan al-Bashir President Sudan Fatou Bensouda International Criminal Court prosecutor Gambia Ben Bernanke Federal Reserve chair USA Pier Luigi Bersani Democratic Party secretary Italy Jeff Bewkes Time Warner Inc. CEO and chair USA Jeff Bezos Amazon CEO USA Ted Bianco Wellcome Trust acting director Britain Joseph Biden Vice president USA Carl Bildt Foreign minister Sweden Robert Birgeneau U.C. Berkeley chancellor USA Tony Blair Former prime minister Britain Lloyd Blankfein Goldman Sachs CEO and chair USA Len Blavatnik Access Industries chair USA Michael Bloomberg New York mayor USA John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives USA Jean-Laurent Bonnafé BNP Paribas CEO and director France Alexander Bortnikov FSB director Russia Leszek Borysiewicz Cambridge University chief executive Britain John Brennan CIA director USA Sergey Brin Google co-founder USA Andrew Brown Church Commissioners CEO and secretary Britain Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway CEO USA Ursula Burns Xerox CEO USA David Cameron Prime minister Britain Bob Carr Foreign minister Australia Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Juárez cartel leader Mexico John Chambers Cisco CEO and chair USA Margaret Chan World Health Organization director-general China Norman Chan Hong Kong Monetary Authority CEO Hong Kong Stephen Chazen Occidental CEO and president USA Dhanin Chearavanont Charoen Pokphand Group chair Thailand Chen Yuan China Development Bank chair China Cheng Yu-tung Investor Hong Kong Palaniappan Chidambaram Finance minister India Jean-Paul Chifflet Crédit Agricole CEO France James Clapper Director of national intelligence USA Helen Clark U.N. Development Program administrator New Zealand Joseph Clayton Dish Network CEO and president USA Bill Clinton Former president USA Hillary Clinton Former secretary of state USA Tim Cook Apple CEO USA Jean-François Copé Union for a Popular Movement president France Michael Corbat Citigroup CEO USA Ertharin Cousin U.N. World Food Program executive director USA James Cuno J. Paul Getty Trust CEO and president USA Siyabonga Cwele State security minister South Africa Ophelia Dahl Partners in Health executive director USA Dai Xianglong National Council for Social Security Fund chair China Dalai Lama Tibetan spiritual leader Aliko Dangote Dangote Group CEO and president Nigeria Kim Darroch National security advisor Britain Ahmet Davutoglu Foreign minister Turkey Henri de Castries AXA CEO and chair France Michael Dell Dell CEO USA Leonardo Del Vecchio Luxottica chair Italy Thomas de Maizière Defense minister Germany Christophe de Margerie Total CEO and chair France Martin Dempsey Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USA Hailemariam Desalegn African Union chair Ethiopia Cobus de Swardt Transparency International managing director South Africa Philip de Toledo Capital Group Companies president USA Michael Diekmann Allianz CEO and chair Germany Jeroen Dijsselbloem Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup president Netherlands Sheila Dikshit New Delhi chief minister India Jamie Dimon JPMorgan Chase CEO, chair, and president USA Daniel Doctoroff Bloomberg L.P. CEO and president USA Tom Donilon National security advisor USA Thomas Donohue Chamber of Commerce CEO and president USA Jack Dorsey Twitter founder and Square Inc. CEO USA Mario Draghi European Central Bank president Italy Abu Dua al Qaeda in Iraq leader Iraq Jean-François Dubos Vivendi chair France Bob Dudley BP CEO USA Mike Duke Walmart CEO and president USA Mark Dybul Global Fund executive director USA Nabil Elaraby Arab League secretary-general Egypt Mohamed A. El-Erian Pimco CEO and co-CIO USA John Elkann Exor chair Italy Larry Ellison Oracle CEO and chair USA Erik Engstrom Reed Elsevier CEO Sweden Recep Tayyip Erdogan Prime minister Turkey Sergio Ermotti UBS CEO Switzerland Laurent Fabius Foreign minister France Richard Fadden Canadian Security Intelligence Service director Canada Teuku Faizasyah International affairs advisor Indonesia Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi Nuclear scientist Iran John Fallon Pearson CEO Britain Fan Changlong Central Military Commission vice chairman China Fang Fenghui People's Liberation Army chief of general staff China Drew Gilpin Faust Harvard University president USA Jon Feltheimer Lionsgate CEO and co-chair USA Hakan Fidan National Intelligence Organization undersecretary Turkey Laurence Fink BlackRock CEO and chair USA Chris Finlayson BG CEO Britain Jürgen Fitschen Deutsche Bank co-chair Germany James Flaherty Finance minister Canada Maria das Graças Silva Foster Petrobras CEO Brazil Mikhail Fradkov Foreign Intelligence Service head Russia Pope Francis Head of Catholic Church Vatican City Vagner Freitas Unified Workers' Central president Brazil Mikhail Fridman Alfa Group Consortium chair Russia Fu Chengyu Sinopec chair China Osamu Fujimura Chief cabinet secretary Japan Robert Gallucci MacArthur Foundation president USA Sonia Gandhi Indian National Congress party president India Bill Gates Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation co-chair and Microsoft co-founder USA Melinda Gates Gates Foundation co-chair USA Valery Gerasimov Armed forces chief of general staff Russia Rostam Ghasemi Iranian oil minister Iran Carlos Ghosn Nissan and Renault CEO and chair France Julia Gillard Prime minister Australia Ivan Glasenberg Glencore CEO South Africa Robert Glasser Care International secretary-general USA Pravin Gordhan Finance minister South Africa Terry Gou Foxconn CEO Taiwan Mario Greco Assicurazioni Generali CEO Italy Brad Grey Paramount Pictures CEO and chair USA William Gross Pimco co-CIO and managing director USA Sérgio Guerra Brazilian Social Democracy Party president Brazil Abdullah Gul President Turkey Fethullah Gulen Muslim religious leader Turkey Stuart Gulliver HSBC group CEO Britain Guo Jinlong Beijing Communist Party secretary China Guo Shengkun Minister of public security China Ángel Gurrí­a OECD secretary-general Mexico António Guterres U.N. high commissioner for refugees Portugal Javier Gutiérrez Ecopetrol CEO Colombia Joaquín Guzmán Loera Sinaloa drug cartel leader Mexico Fernando Haddad São Paulo mayor Brazil Chuck Hagel Defense secretary USA William Hague Foreign minister Britain Tony Hall BBC director-general Britain Andrew Hamilton Oxford University chief executive Britain Ingrid Hamm Robert Bosch Stiftung executive director Germany John Hammergren McKesson CEO, chair, and president USA Philip Hammond Secretary of state for defense Britain Han Zheng Shanghai Communist Party secretary China Jalaluddin Haqqani Haqqani network leader Afghanistan Stephen Harper Prime minister Canada Toru Hashimoto Osaka mayor Japan Gerald Hassell Bank of New York Mellon CEO and chair USA Jimmy Hayes Cox Enterprises CEO and president USA John Hennessy Stanford University president USA Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert Defense minister Netherlands Stephen Hester Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Britain Christoph Heusgen National security advisor Germany Marillyn Hewson Lockheed Martin CEO and president USA Hisashi Hieda Fuji Media Holdings CEO and chair Japan Nobuyuki Hirano Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group CEO and president Japan Ho Ching Temasek CEO and executive director Singapore Reid Hoffman LinkedIn co-founder and executive chair USA François Hollande President France Jan Hommen ING CEO Netherlands Mahabub Hossain BRAC executive director Bangladesh Hyun Oh-seok Finance minister South Korea Carl Icahn Icahn Enterprises chair USA Robert Iger Walt Disney Co. CEO and chair USA Sergei Ignatiev Central Bank of Russia chair Russia Jeffrey Immelt General Electric CEO and chair USA Naoki Inose Tokyo governor Japan Zaheer ul-Islam Inter-Services Intelligence director-general Pakistan Jonathan Ive Apple senior VP for industrial design Britain Paul Jacobs Qualcomm CEO and chair USA Mohammad Ali Jafari Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Iran Anshu Jain Deutsche Bank co-chair Britain Paul Jean-Ortiz Diplomatic advisor France Antony Jenkins Barclays Group CEO Britain Jiang Jianqing Industrial and Commercial Bank of China executive director and chair China Jiang Jiemin State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission chair* China Jiang Zemin Former president China Edward Johnson Fidelity Investments CEO and chair USA Goodluck Jonathan President Nigeria Alok Joshi Research and Analysis Wing chief India Banri Kaieda Democratic Party of Japan president Japan Unni Karunakara Médecins Sans Frontières president India Hamid Karzai President Afghanistan Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Chief of army staff Pakistan Muhtar Kent Coca-Cola CEO and chair USA Neal Keny-Guyer Mercy Corps CEO USA John Kerry Secretary of state USA Ali Khamenei Supreme leader Iran Salman Khurshid Foreign minister India Paal Kibsgaard Schlumberger CEO Norway Kemal Kilicdaroglu Republican People's Party chair Turkey Kim Jang-soo National security advisor South Korea Jim Yong Kim World Bank president USA Kim Jong Un Supreme leader North Korea Kim Kwan-jin Defense minister South Korea Ian King BAE Systems CEO Britain Mervyn King Bank of England governor Britain Cristina Fernández de Kirchner President Argentina Fumio Kishida Foreign minister Japan Henry Kissinger Former secretary of state USA Susanne Klatten Investor Germany Bill Klesse Valero CEO and chair USA Philip Knight Nike chair USA Charles Koch Koch Industries CEO and chair USA David Koch Koch Industries executive VP USA Nobuaki Koga Japanese Trade Union Confederation, president Japan Larry Kramer Hewlett Foundation president USA William Kumuyi Deeper Christian Life Ministry general superintendent Nigeria Haruhiko Kuroda Bank of Japan governor Japan Raymond Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Thomas Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Oh-Hyun Kwon Samsung CEO South Korea Christine Lagarde IMF managing director France Arnaud Lagardère Lagardère CEO and chair France Pascal Lamy World Trade Organization director-general France Ryan Lance ConocoPhillips CEO and chair USA Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco Grupo México president Mexico Carol Larson Packard Foundation president USA Risa Lavizzo-Mourey Robert Wood Johnson Foundation CEO and president USA Sergei Lavrov Foreign minister Russia Jean-Yves Le Drian Defense minister France Lee Shau-kee Henderson Land Development chair Hong Kong Thierry Lepaon General Confederation of Labor secretary-general France Richard Levin Yale University president USA Jacob Lew Treasury secretary USA Li Hongzhi Falun Gong founder China Li Jianguo All-China Federation of Trade Unions chair China Li Ka-shing Hutchison Whampoa chair Hong Kong Li Keqiang Premier China Li Lihui Bank of China president China Robin Li Baidu CEO China Alfredo Lim Manila mayor Philippines Lim Siong Guan Government of Singapore Investment Corp. president Singapore Vladimir Lisin NLMK chair Russia Liu Zhenya State Grid Corp. president China Andrés Manuel López Obrador Opposition leader Mexico Hernán Lorenzino Economic minister Argentina Peter Löscher Siemens CEO and president Austria Lou Jiwei Finance minister China Emilio Lozoya Austin Pemex CEO Mexico Helge Lund Statoil CEO and president Norway Michael Lynton Sony Entertainment CEO and chair USA Peter MacKay Defense minister Canada Andrew Mackenzie BHP Billiton CEO South Africa Gregory Maffei Liberty Media CEO and president USA Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Defense minister UAE Miguel Ángel Mancera Mexico City mayor Mexico Guido Mantega Finance minister Brazil Lutz Marmor ARD chair Germany John Mars Mars Inc. chair USA Agus Martowardojo Finance minister Indonesia Masayuki Matsumoto NHK president Japan Isao Matsushita JX Holdings CEO and president Japan Shigeo Matsutomi Intelligence chief Japan Peter Maurer International Committee of the Red Cross president Switzerland Marissa Mayer Yahoo! CEO USA Timothy Mayopoulos Fannie Mae CEO USA Lowell McAdam Verizon CEO and chair USA Margot McCarthy National security advisor Australia Mitch McConnell Senate minority leader USA William McNabb Vanguard CEO and chair USA James McNerney Boeing CEO and chair USA José Antonio Meade Foreign minister Mexico Mourad Medelci Foreign minister Algeria Dmitry Medvedev Prime minister Russia Hakimullah Mehsud Pakistani Taliban leader Pakistan Andrey Melnichenko Siberian Coal Energy Co. chair Russia Shivshankar Menon National security advisor India Angela Merkel Chancellor Germany Khaled Meshaal Hamas leader West Bank Gérard Mestrallet GDF Suez CEO and chair France Yona Metzger Ashkenazi chief rabbi Israel Leonid Mikhelson Novatek executive director Russia Carolyn Miles Save the Children CEO and president USA Ed Miliband Labour Party leader Britain Alexey Miller Gazprom CEO and chair Russia Yuri Milner Digital Sky Technologies founder Russia Le Luong Minh Association of Southeast Asian Nations secretary-general Vietnam Lakshmi Mittal ArcelorMittal CEO and chair India Semion Mogilevich Mafia boss Russia Nadir Mohamed Rogers Communications CEO and president Canada Moon Hee-sang Democratic United Party leader South Korea Pedro Morenés Defense minister Spain Mohamed Morsy President Egypt Pierre Moscovici Finance minister France Heydar Moslehi Intelligence minister Iran Brian Moynihan Bank of America CEO USA Fahad al-Mubarak Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency governor Saudi Arabia Alan Mulally Ford CEO and president USA Tom Mulcair New Democratic Party leader Canada Rupert Murdoch News Corp. CEO and chair USA Elon Musk PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla Motors founder USA Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foreign minister UAE Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan Abu Dhabi crown prince UAE Ali al-Naimi Minister of petroleum Saudi Arabia Hiroaki Nakanishi Hitachi president Japan Nam Jae-joon National Intelligence Service chief South Korea Janet Napolitano Homeland security secretary USA Óscar Naranjo National security advisor Mexico Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah secretary-general Lebanon Marty Natalegawa Foreign minister Indonesia Mohammed bin Nayef Interior minister Saudi Arabia Benjamin Netanyahu Prime minister Israel Maite Nkoana-Mashabane Foreign minister South Africa Indra Nooyi PepsiCo CEO and chair USA Phebe Novakovic General Dynamics CEO and chair USA Christian Noyer Bank of France governor France Barack Obama President USA Michelle Obama First lady USA Frances O'Grady Trades Union Congress general secretary Britain Mullah Mohammed Omar Taliban leader Afghanistan Keith O'Nions Imperial College London rector Britain Itsunori Onodera Defense minister Japan Amancio Ortega Inditex founder Spain George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer Britain Paul Otellini Intel CEO and president USA Michael Otto Otto Group chair Germany Ricardo Paes de Barros Secretary of strategic affairs Brazil Larry Page Google CEO USA Tamir Pardo Mossad director Israel Park Geun-hye President South Korea Park Won-soon Seoul mayor South Korea Antonio Patriota Foreign minister Brazil Nikolai Patrushev National Security Council secretary Russia Enrique Peña Nieto President Mexico Yves Perrier Amundi CEO France Stefan Persson H&M chair Sweden Navi Pillay U.N. high commissioner for human rights South Africa François-Henri Pinault Kering CEO and chair France Juan Carlos Pinzón Defense minister Colombia Georges Plassat Carrefour CEO France Vladimir Potanin Interros owner Russia Scott Powers State Street Global Advisors CEO and president USA Sunil Prabhu Mumbai mayor India Vladimir Putin President Russia Yusuf al-Qaradawi Sunni cleric Egypt Thomas Rabe Bertelsmann CEO and chair Germany Bertrand Ract-Madoux Army chief of staff France Baba Ramdev Hindu spiritual leader India Rafael Ramírez PDVSA president Venezuela Anders Fogh Rasmussen NATO secretary-general Denmark Sumner Redstone Viacom and CBS chair USA Olli Rehn European Commission finance minister Finland Harry Reid Senate majority leader USA L. Rafael Reif MIT president USA Stephen Rigby National security advisor Canada Rebecca Rimel Pew Charitable Trusts CEO and president USA Georgina Rinehart Hancock Prospecting chair and director Australia Brian Roberts Comcast CEO and chair and NBCUniversal chair USA John Roberts Supreme Court chief justice USA Virginia Rometty IBM CEO, chair, and president USA Kenneth Roth Human Rights Watch executive director USA Dilma Rousseff President Brazil David Rubenstein Carlyle Group co-CEO USA George Rupp International Rescue Committee CEO and president USA Bader al-Saad Kuwait Investment Authority managing director Kuwait Alfredo Sáenz Banco Santander CEO Spain Joseph Safra Grupo Safra chair Brazil Atsuo Saka Japan Post Holdings CEO Japan Sheryl Sandberg Facebook COO USA Norio Sasaki Toshiba president Japan Yasuhiro Sato Mizuho Financial Group CEO and president Japan Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud King Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Crown prince Saudi Arabia Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Foreign minister Saudi Arabia John Sawers Secret Intelligence Service chief Britain Paolo Scaroni Eni CEO Italy Wolfgang Schäuble Finance minister Germany Gerhard Schindler Federal Intelligence Service president Germany Dieter Schwarz Schwarz Group owner Germany Igor Sechin Rosneft president and chair Russia Pierre Servant Natixis CEO France Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Hindu spiritual leader India Mohamed Raafat Shehata General Intelligence Service chief Egypt Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh Grand mufti Saudi Arabia Salil Shetty Amnesty International secretary-general India Sergei Shoigu Defense minister Russia Faisal Al Shoubaki General Intelligence Department director Jordan Radoslaw Sikorski Foreign minister Poland Anton Siluanov Finance minister Russia Mehmet Simsek Finance minister Turkey Manmohan Singh Prime minister India Carlos Slim Helú Grupo Carso founder Mexico Yngve Slyngstad Norges Bank Investment Management CEO Norway James Smith Thomson Reuters CEO and president USA Stephen Smith Defense minister Australia Sergei Sobyanin Moscow mayor Russia Michael Sommer Confederation of German Trade Unions president Germany Masayoshi Son SoftBank Mobile CEO Japan George Soros Soros Fund Management chair USA Sterling Speirn Kellogg Foundation CEO and president USA Richard Stearns World Vision president USA Peer Steinbrück Social Democratic Party leader Germany Randall Stephenson AT&T CEO and chair USA John Strangfeld Prudential Financial CEO and chair USA Megawati Sukarnoputri Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle chair Indonesia Bandar bin Sultan General Intelligence Presidency chief Saudi Arabia Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. New York Times Co. chair USA William Swanson Raytheon CEO and chair USA Sushma Swaraj Bharatiya Janata Party opposition leader India Alwaleed bin Talal Kingdom Holding Co. chair Saudi Arabia Ahmed al-Tayeb Grand sheikh of al-Azhar Egypt Johannes Teyssen E.ON CEO and chair Germany Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani Foreign minister Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Emir Qatar Thein Sein President Burma Peter Thiel PayPal co-founder USA David Thomson Thomson Reuters chair Canada Shirley Tilghman Princeton University president USA Rex Tillerson Exxon Mobil CEO and chair USA Héctor Timerman Foreign minister Argentina Robert Tjian Howard Hughes Medical Institute president USA Alexandre Tombini Central Bank of Brazil governor Brazil Akio Toyoda Toyota CEO Japan Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales Zetas drug cartel leader Mexico Richard Trumka AFL-CIO president USA Kazuhiro Tsuga Panasonic president Japan Kevin Tsujihara Warner Bros. Entertainment CEO USA Yoshinobu Tsutsui Nippon Life Insurance president Japan Donald Tusk Prime minister Poland Luis Ubiñas Ford Foundation president USA Hiroo Unoura Nippon Telegraph and Telephone CEO Japan Alisher Usmanov Investor Russia Herman Van Rompuy European Council president Belgium Viktor Vekselberg Renova Group chair Russia Luis Videgaray Finance minister Mexico Antonio Villaraigosa Los Angeles mayor USA Ignazio Visco Bank of Italy governor Italy Peter Voser Royal Dutch Shell CEO Switzerland Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb emir Algeria Jimmy Wales Wikipedia founder USA Peter Wall Chief of general staff Britain S. Robson Walton Walmart chair USA Wan Qingliang Guangzhou Communist Party secretary China Wang Yi Foreign minister China Wang Yilin CNOOC chair China Nick Warner Australian Secret Intelligence Service director-general Australia Rick Warren Evangelical pastor USA John Watson Chevron CEO and chair USA Jens Weidmann German Federal Bank president Germany Bob Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Harvey Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury Britain Guido Westerwelle Foreign minister Germany Guy Weston Garfield Weston Foundation chair Britain Meg Whitman Hewlett-Packard CEO and president USA Joko Widodo Jakarta governor Indonesia Steve Williams Suncor CEO and president Canada Oprah Winfrey Harpo Productions and Oprah Winfrey Network CEO and chair USA Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen CEO Germany Penny Wong Finance minister Australia Carolyn Woo Catholic Relief Services CEO and president USA George Wood Assemblies of God general superintendent USA Nasir al-Wuhayshi al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula emir Yemen Xi Jinping President China Xu Qiliang Central Military Commission vice chairman China Moshe Yaalon Defense minister Israel Yang Jiechi State councilor China Yi Gang Foreign exchange reserves administrator China Ismet Yilmaz Defense minister Turkey Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President Indonesia Yun Byung-se Foreign minister South Korea Syed Hashim Raza Zaidi Karachi administrator Pakistan Lamberto Zannier Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe secretary-general Italy Ayman al-Zawahiri al Qaeda leader Egypt Dieter Zetsche Daimler CEO Germany Zhang Jianguo China Construction Bank president and executive director China Zhang Yuzhuo Shenhua Group CEO and president China Zhou Jiping China National Petroleum Corp. and PetroChina chair* China Zhou Xiaochuan People's Bank of China governor China Helen Zille Democratic Alliance leader South Africa Robert Zimmer University of Chicago president USA Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO and founder USA Jacob Zuma President South Africa http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/the_500_most_powerful_people_in_the_worldhttp://www.forbes.ru/news/238657-prezident-lukoil-stal-samym-vliyatelnym-v-mire-rossiyaninom