After watching Ang Moh Trump fixed by Beijing, Putin know that his turn is next coming up, and whole world is watching.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ployment-in-europe-since-cold-war-under-trump
Russia says US troops arriving in Poland pose threat to its security
Early deployment of biggest American force in Europe since cold war may be attempt to lock Trump into strategy
American soldiers during a welcome ceremony in Olszyna, Poland.
American soldiers during a welcome ceremony at the Polish-German border in Olszyna, Poland. Photograph: Natalia Dobryszycka/AFP/Getty Images
Ewen MacAskill Defence correspondent
Thursday 12 January 2017 18.54 GMT
First published on Thursday 12 January 2017 10.39 GMT
The Kremlin has hit out at the biggest deployment of US troops in Europe since the end of the cold war, branding the arrival of troops and tanks in Poland as a threat to Russia’s national security.
The deployment, intended to counter what Nato portrays as Russian aggression in eastern Europe, will see US troops permanently stationed along Russia’s western border for the first time.
About 1,000 of a promised 4,000 troops arrived in Poland at the start of the week, and a formal ceremony to welcome them is to be held on Saturday. Some people waved and held up American flags as the troops, tanks and heavy armoured vehicles crossed into south-western Poland from Germany, according to Associated Press.
But their arrival was not universally applauded. In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “We perceive it as a threat. These actions threaten our interests, our security. Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. It’s [the US], not even a European state.”
The Kremlin may hold back on retaliatory action in the hope that a Donald Trump presidency will herald a rapprochement with Washington. Trump, in remarks during the election campaign and since, has sown seeds of doubt over the deployments by suggesting he would rather work with than confront Putin.
But on Thursday Nato officials played down Trump’s comments, saying they hoped and expected that he would not attempt to reverse the move after he became president on 20 January.
US to speed up deployment of troops to Poland, Romania and the Baltic
Read more
That prediction was reinforced by Trump’s proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation hearings.
Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that Putin was trying to break Nato.
Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “as an act of force” and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount “a proportional show of force”.
Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has struggled to cope with Russia’s use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda, cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.
In response, the US and its Nato allies have been steadily increasing air patrols and training exercises in eastern Europe. The biggest escalation is the current deployment of US troops, agreed at last summer’s Nato summit in Warsaw.
The move was billed as an attempt to reassure eastern European states who have been calling for the permanent deployment of US troops in the belief that Russia would be less likely to encroach on territory where US troops are present.
Peter Cook, the Pentagon press spokesman, said: “The United States is demonstrating its continued commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure Nato allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.”
Poland in particular has pressed for a permanent US troop deployment since soon after the fall of communism in 1989.
Nato officials insist that the US and other alliance troops deployed to eastern Europe are not “permanent”, which would be in breach of an agreement with Russia. The US plans to rotate the troops every nine months, so it can argue they are not in breach of the Russian treaty, but effectively there will be a permanent presence.
Deployment was originally scheduled for later in the month but a decision was made last month to bring it forward, possibly a move by Barack Obama before he leaves office to try to lock the president-elect into the strategy.
The troops from the Third Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Carson, Colorado, along with hundreds of armoured vehicles and tanks, were moved from the US to Germany last week for transit by rail and road to Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. The US is sending 87 tanks, and 144 armoured vehicles.
Poland map
As well as being stationed in Poland, the US troops will fan out across other eastern European states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania.
The UK is also contributing to the buildup of Nato forces in eastern Europe. The UK formally took command this week of Nato’s response force, made up of 3,000 UK troops plus others from Nato who will be on permanent standby ready to deploy within days. The contributing countries include the US, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Poland.
Few at Nato seriously believe that war with Russia is likely but there have been dangerous developments, with escalation on both sides, including a buildup of Russian troops. Russia alarmed Poland and other eastern European states by moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn. At the time Nato regarded the move as a response to its own deployments.
The Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, voicing concern in eastern Europe that Trump might do a deal with Putin, said this week he hoped that any such reconciliation would not be at Poland’s expense.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/377058-trump-netanyahu-relations-mideast/
Netanyahu positions himself as Trump's war broker in Middle East
Martin Jay
Martin Jay is a veteran foreign correspondent now based in Beirut who works on a freelance basis for a number of respected British newspapers as well as Deutsche Welle TV. Previously he has worked in Africa and Europe for CNN, Euronews, CNBC, BBC and Reuters. Follow him on Twitter @MartinRJay
Published time: 11 Feb, 2017 13:30
Get short URL
Netanyahu positions himself as Trump's war broker in Middle East
© Kobi Gideon / Government Press Office / Reuters
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook5Share to TwitterShare to RedditShare to StumbleUponShare to Google+Share to Tumblr
The Israeli Prime Minister's visit to President Trump is likely to be a starter's pistol for a new chapter in US foreign policy in the Middle East. He should drop his obsession with scrapping the so-called 'Iran Deal'.
Trends
Islamic State, Israel-Gaza strikes, US Elections 2016
The last time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US President, he was ushered into the White House through a back door. There's no chance of that happening on Wednesday when he meets Donald Trump and presents his arguments about what the chief ailments are in the region, who the culprits are and how to go about dealing with them.
There are no prizes for guessing who the usual suspects are, but some might note that post Syria war and the emergence of ISIS, positioning Israel's objectives perfectly with America is more challenging these days.
Read more
A rally marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution on February 10, 2017, in the capital Tehran. © Atta Kenare ‘Death to America’: Thousands rally in Iran celebrating Islamic Revolution (PHOTOS, VIDEO)
Previously, during Obama's time in office, those two prisms were certainly not perfectly aligned. With Trump now at the helm, however, both men can relax knowing ideologically they have more or less the same views on what was an amicable status quo in the region for decades when it came to US foreign policy: Israel the greatest friend, Saudi Arabia the greatest ally and Iran the enemy which threatens the entire region's stability.
And so it is unlikely that both men will disagree on any of the fundamentals, but more on the methodology on how to deal with them.
Netanyahu will no doubt attempt to get Trump to agree on his settlements policy, which has accelerated in recent weeks. Although the Israeli leader might have to compromise on the roll out and accept a new law passed which rubber stamps them, this will only - like airstrikes in Gaza - impede Trump's relations with key Arab countries.
There may well also be some awkward moments about US-Israel relations if the Israeli leader brings up the subject of Trump's comments about the Holocaust and how it should be remembered.
And then there is Gaza. Netanyahu is still committed to a two-state solution and recent airstrikes there will only be justified by explaining that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has to be treated as such. Indeed, Netanyahu is expected to drive home the point that all the problems of the Middle East are down to fundamentalist terror groups, as well as Hezbollah and Iran.
However, Americans of his generation and political leaning struggle to see beyond Hezbollah’s attacks against Americans in the 80s in Beirut, thus branding the Lebanese group as 'terrorists’, and struggle even further with grasping that the Saudis and Qataris were the chief financial backers of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Netanyahu will not emphasize to Trump that US policy in recent years has worsened already complex situations in the region indirectly, and sometimes directly, by funding some Islamic groups fighting in Syria. It is an irony that will irk many in US politics that Obama, despite wanting to end the polarization of the Middle East, also sold over $100 billion worth of arms to the Saudi Arabian government which many argue it knew was supplying ISIS and Al-Qaeda with weapons in Syria.
Indeed, Syria may well be a subject which both men hold a different view on. According to reports in the Israeli press, Netanyahu wants ISIS to be destroyed and yet, to date, there is little to support that notion. The problem for Israel is that if ISIS is removed from the war demographic, then does that automatically mean more of the country covered by Assad's allies, namely Hezbollah?
Netanyahu would prefer the Lebanese militant group were not near his northern border and in particular the Golan Heights. He believes the way forward in Syria is to remove Assad, and ISIS and Al-Qaeda are at least playing a role in that process. Meanwhile, Trump wants to completely wipe out these hardcore Islamic groups and is seeking the support from Turkey in achieving that which then presents a new problem for Israel: if there are no more Islamic terror groups in Syria, then doesn't that strengthen Assad, Hezbollah and Iran?
Iran will be the center of the discussions.
Netanyahu is expected to get the assurances he needs that Trump really is the hawk he seems to be against the regime. Trump's key aides with regards to Iran, his Defense chief James Mattis, would like – like Netanyahu – nothing more than to bomb Iran, along with Steve Bannon, probably his closest adviser.
In recent years, however, mainly due to Iran expanding its presence in the region, but also due to Obama's war on ISIS in Iraq, where Iran provides many of the militias, things have got complicated. Now, Iran is well placed to hit US servicemen if the US were to attack its military in any way, which will have economic implications as well as political ones.
“In order to confront Iran or push back more fiercely against it, you may find you’re in a conflict far more far-reaching and more destructive to the global economy than many of our allies or American public are willing to bear,”said Nicholas Heras of the Center for a New American Security in the Washington Post recently.
So, it is likely that both men will agree that a direct war with Iran is hard to envisage but a get-tough policy on the regime is more beguiling as a realistic policy to grasp.
Although Netanyahu still holds out hope to scrap the Iran deal, it is more likely that Trump will try and muster new international support to kick start a fresh set of non-nuclear sanctions while examining where a military initiative against Tehran could be carried out by proxies.
Of all the options to hit Iran, the most likely would be to plan a longer term strategy against Assad in Syria. Assad is the weakest link and the US could orchestrate and fund a new proxy war against him, with a view to destabilizing Iran. If Iranians don't trust Russia to stand by their side if the US attacked them, then the argument to consider attacking Assad would be stronger; Moscow's bond with Assad is often over-stated and Trump may ask Netanyahu for his views on whether Putin would consider a 'round edged' regime change in Syria plan as perhaps a trade-off with Trump removing Russia sanctions.
Could preparations to launch fresh assaults on the Assad regime be already under way? Congress signed off a bill to allow sales to Syrian rebels of surface-to-air missiles just a week before Obama left office. Could these 'MANPADS' have something to do with Trump's new 'safe zones' plan in Syria, which seem to be all about creating military zones with a 'no-fly zone' which needs to be protected? If he is serious about going ahead with this plan, which could potentially place Russia as an opponent, then he will certainly need support from regional allies who have impressive air forces, like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey and Israel.
Trump will listen carefully to Netanyahu who met Theresa May in London days earlier. The UK PM may well support a plan for regime change in Syria if Trump could give her support in other areas, like trade and a good Brexit deal, whereas a war with Iran will be hard to sell to weary voters and a belligerent press pack who are already snapping at her ankles.
Did the Israeli leader already get the nod in Downing Street?
Martin Jay recently won the UN's prestigious Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize (UNCA) in New York, for his journalism work in the Middle East. He is based in Beirut and can be followed at @MartinRJay
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/kremlin-stance-iran-trump-234677
Kremlin breaks with Trump on Iran
By Nolan D. McCaskill
02/06/17 07:14 AM EST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
The Kremlin on Monday disagreed with President Donald Trump’s description of Iran as “the No. 1 terrorist state.”
“Russia has friendly partner-like relations with Iran,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call Monday, according to Reuters. “We cooperate on a wide range of issues, value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”
Russia’s stance is at odds with Trump, who blasted the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran in an interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly broadcast Sunday during pre-game Super Bowl coverage. He wouldn’t say, however, whether he would back out of the deal.
“I mean, we’re going to see what happens. I can say this: They have total disregard for our country,” Trump said. “They are the No. 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place — and weapons. And — can’t do that.”
Trump on Sunday also seemed to defend the notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a killer,” telling O’Reilly that America has “a lot of killers” and asking, “You think our country’s so innocent?”
Trump has signaled a willingness to thaw relations with Russia and work with the Kremlin to defeat the Islamic State. He said he respects Russia’s authoritarian leader but maintained that he has “no idea” whether the two will get along.
Trump and Putin spoke for an hour by phone late last month, according to a readout from the White House. Topics included destroying the Islamic State, working to achieve peace in Syria and repairing the relationship between both nations.
“It’s no secret for anyone that Moscow and Washington hold diametrically opposed views on many international issues,” Peskov said. “That should not be an obstacle when it comes to forging normal communication and pragmatic mutually-beneficial relations between Russia and the United States.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ployment-in-europe-since-cold-war-under-trump
Russia says US troops arriving in Poland pose threat to its security
Early deployment of biggest American force in Europe since cold war may be attempt to lock Trump into strategy
American soldiers during a welcome ceremony in Olszyna, Poland.
American soldiers during a welcome ceremony at the Polish-German border in Olszyna, Poland. Photograph: Natalia Dobryszycka/AFP/Getty Images
Ewen MacAskill Defence correspondent
Thursday 12 January 2017 18.54 GMT
First published on Thursday 12 January 2017 10.39 GMT
The Kremlin has hit out at the biggest deployment of US troops in Europe since the end of the cold war, branding the arrival of troops and tanks in Poland as a threat to Russia’s national security.
The deployment, intended to counter what Nato portrays as Russian aggression in eastern Europe, will see US troops permanently stationed along Russia’s western border for the first time.
About 1,000 of a promised 4,000 troops arrived in Poland at the start of the week, and a formal ceremony to welcome them is to be held on Saturday. Some people waved and held up American flags as the troops, tanks and heavy armoured vehicles crossed into south-western Poland from Germany, according to Associated Press.
But their arrival was not universally applauded. In Moscow, Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “We perceive it as a threat. These actions threaten our interests, our security. Especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. It’s [the US], not even a European state.”
The Kremlin may hold back on retaliatory action in the hope that a Donald Trump presidency will herald a rapprochement with Washington. Trump, in remarks during the election campaign and since, has sown seeds of doubt over the deployments by suggesting he would rather work with than confront Putin.
But on Thursday Nato officials played down Trump’s comments, saying they hoped and expected that he would not attempt to reverse the move after he became president on 20 January.
US to speed up deployment of troops to Poland, Romania and the Baltic
Read more
That prediction was reinforced by Trump’s proposed defence secretary, James Mattis, and his proposed secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who backed Nato during Senate confirmation hearings.
Mattis, in rhetoric at odds with the president-elect, said the west should recognise the reality that Putin was trying to break Nato.
Tillerson, who has business dealings in Russia, described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as “as an act of force” and said that when Russia flexed its muscles, the US must mount “a proportional show of force”.
Nato was caught out by the Russian annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 and has struggled to cope with Russia’s use of hybrid warfare, which combines propaganda, cyberwarfare and the infiltration of regular troops disguised as local rebels.
In response, the US and its Nato allies have been steadily increasing air patrols and training exercises in eastern Europe. The biggest escalation is the current deployment of US troops, agreed at last summer’s Nato summit in Warsaw.
The move was billed as an attempt to reassure eastern European states who have been calling for the permanent deployment of US troops in the belief that Russia would be less likely to encroach on territory where US troops are present.
Peter Cook, the Pentagon press spokesman, said: “The United States is demonstrating its continued commitment to collective security through a series of actions designed to reassure Nato allies and partners of America’s dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention in Ukraine.”
Poland in particular has pressed for a permanent US troop deployment since soon after the fall of communism in 1989.
Nato officials insist that the US and other alliance troops deployed to eastern Europe are not “permanent”, which would be in breach of an agreement with Russia. The US plans to rotate the troops every nine months, so it can argue they are not in breach of the Russian treaty, but effectively there will be a permanent presence.
Deployment was originally scheduled for later in the month but a decision was made last month to bring it forward, possibly a move by Barack Obama before he leaves office to try to lock the president-elect into the strategy.
The troops from the Third Armor Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, based in Fort Carson, Colorado, along with hundreds of armoured vehicles and tanks, were moved from the US to Germany last week for transit by rail and road to Poland and elsewhere in eastern Europe. The US is sending 87 tanks, and 144 armoured vehicles.
Poland map
As well as being stationed in Poland, the US troops will fan out across other eastern European states, including Estonia, Bulgaria and Romania.
The UK is also contributing to the buildup of Nato forces in eastern Europe. The UK formally took command this week of Nato’s response force, made up of 3,000 UK troops plus others from Nato who will be on permanent standby ready to deploy within days. The contributing countries include the US, Denmark, Spain, Norway and Poland.
Few at Nato seriously believe that war with Russia is likely but there have been dangerous developments, with escalation on both sides, including a buildup of Russian troops. Russia alarmed Poland and other eastern European states by moving nuclear-capable Iskander-M missiles to its naval base at Kaliningrad in the autumn. At the time Nato regarded the move as a response to its own deployments.
The Polish foreign minister, Witold Waszczykowski, voicing concern in eastern Europe that Trump might do a deal with Putin, said this week he hoped that any such reconciliation would not be at Poland’s expense.
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/377058-trump-netanyahu-relations-mideast/
Netanyahu positions himself as Trump's war broker in Middle East
Martin Jay
Martin Jay is a veteran foreign correspondent now based in Beirut who works on a freelance basis for a number of respected British newspapers as well as Deutsche Welle TV. Previously he has worked in Africa and Europe for CNN, Euronews, CNBC, BBC and Reuters. Follow him on Twitter @MartinRJay
Published time: 11 Feb, 2017 13:30
Get short URL
Netanyahu positions himself as Trump's war broker in Middle East
© Kobi Gideon / Government Press Office / Reuters
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook5Share to TwitterShare to RedditShare to StumbleUponShare to Google+Share to Tumblr
The Israeli Prime Minister's visit to President Trump is likely to be a starter's pistol for a new chapter in US foreign policy in the Middle East. He should drop his obsession with scrapping the so-called 'Iran Deal'.
Trends
Islamic State, Israel-Gaza strikes, US Elections 2016
The last time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited the US President, he was ushered into the White House through a back door. There's no chance of that happening on Wednesday when he meets Donald Trump and presents his arguments about what the chief ailments are in the region, who the culprits are and how to go about dealing with them.
There are no prizes for guessing who the usual suspects are, but some might note that post Syria war and the emergence of ISIS, positioning Israel's objectives perfectly with America is more challenging these days.
Read more
A rally marking the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic revolution on February 10, 2017, in the capital Tehran. © Atta Kenare ‘Death to America’: Thousands rally in Iran celebrating Islamic Revolution (PHOTOS, VIDEO)
Previously, during Obama's time in office, those two prisms were certainly not perfectly aligned. With Trump now at the helm, however, both men can relax knowing ideologically they have more or less the same views on what was an amicable status quo in the region for decades when it came to US foreign policy: Israel the greatest friend, Saudi Arabia the greatest ally and Iran the enemy which threatens the entire region's stability.
And so it is unlikely that both men will disagree on any of the fundamentals, but more on the methodology on how to deal with them.
Netanyahu will no doubt attempt to get Trump to agree on his settlements policy, which has accelerated in recent weeks. Although the Israeli leader might have to compromise on the roll out and accept a new law passed which rubber stamps them, this will only - like airstrikes in Gaza - impede Trump's relations with key Arab countries.
There may well also be some awkward moments about US-Israel relations if the Israeli leader brings up the subject of Trump's comments about the Holocaust and how it should be remembered.
And then there is Gaza. Netanyahu is still committed to a two-state solution and recent airstrikes there will only be justified by explaining that Hamas is a terrorist organization and has to be treated as such. Indeed, Netanyahu is expected to drive home the point that all the problems of the Middle East are down to fundamentalist terror groups, as well as Hezbollah and Iran.
However, Americans of his generation and political leaning struggle to see beyond Hezbollah’s attacks against Americans in the 80s in Beirut, thus branding the Lebanese group as 'terrorists’, and struggle even further with grasping that the Saudis and Qataris were the chief financial backers of ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
Netanyahu will not emphasize to Trump that US policy in recent years has worsened already complex situations in the region indirectly, and sometimes directly, by funding some Islamic groups fighting in Syria. It is an irony that will irk many in US politics that Obama, despite wanting to end the polarization of the Middle East, also sold over $100 billion worth of arms to the Saudi Arabian government which many argue it knew was supplying ISIS and Al-Qaeda with weapons in Syria.
Indeed, Syria may well be a subject which both men hold a different view on. According to reports in the Israeli press, Netanyahu wants ISIS to be destroyed and yet, to date, there is little to support that notion. The problem for Israel is that if ISIS is removed from the war demographic, then does that automatically mean more of the country covered by Assad's allies, namely Hezbollah?
Netanyahu would prefer the Lebanese militant group were not near his northern border and in particular the Golan Heights. He believes the way forward in Syria is to remove Assad, and ISIS and Al-Qaeda are at least playing a role in that process. Meanwhile, Trump wants to completely wipe out these hardcore Islamic groups and is seeking the support from Turkey in achieving that which then presents a new problem for Israel: if there are no more Islamic terror groups in Syria, then doesn't that strengthen Assad, Hezbollah and Iran?
Iran will be the center of the discussions.
Netanyahu is expected to get the assurances he needs that Trump really is the hawk he seems to be against the regime. Trump's key aides with regards to Iran, his Defense chief James Mattis, would like – like Netanyahu – nothing more than to bomb Iran, along with Steve Bannon, probably his closest adviser.
In recent years, however, mainly due to Iran expanding its presence in the region, but also due to Obama's war on ISIS in Iraq, where Iran provides many of the militias, things have got complicated. Now, Iran is well placed to hit US servicemen if the US were to attack its military in any way, which will have economic implications as well as political ones.
“In order to confront Iran or push back more fiercely against it, you may find you’re in a conflict far more far-reaching and more destructive to the global economy than many of our allies or American public are willing to bear,”said Nicholas Heras of the Center for a New American Security in the Washington Post recently.
So, it is likely that both men will agree that a direct war with Iran is hard to envisage but a get-tough policy on the regime is more beguiling as a realistic policy to grasp.
Although Netanyahu still holds out hope to scrap the Iran deal, it is more likely that Trump will try and muster new international support to kick start a fresh set of non-nuclear sanctions while examining where a military initiative against Tehran could be carried out by proxies.
Of all the options to hit Iran, the most likely would be to plan a longer term strategy against Assad in Syria. Assad is the weakest link and the US could orchestrate and fund a new proxy war against him, with a view to destabilizing Iran. If Iranians don't trust Russia to stand by their side if the US attacked them, then the argument to consider attacking Assad would be stronger; Moscow's bond with Assad is often over-stated and Trump may ask Netanyahu for his views on whether Putin would consider a 'round edged' regime change in Syria plan as perhaps a trade-off with Trump removing Russia sanctions.
Could preparations to launch fresh assaults on the Assad regime be already under way? Congress signed off a bill to allow sales to Syrian rebels of surface-to-air missiles just a week before Obama left office. Could these 'MANPADS' have something to do with Trump's new 'safe zones' plan in Syria, which seem to be all about creating military zones with a 'no-fly zone' which needs to be protected? If he is serious about going ahead with this plan, which could potentially place Russia as an opponent, then he will certainly need support from regional allies who have impressive air forces, like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkey and Israel.
Trump will listen carefully to Netanyahu who met Theresa May in London days earlier. The UK PM may well support a plan for regime change in Syria if Trump could give her support in other areas, like trade and a good Brexit deal, whereas a war with Iran will be hard to sell to weary voters and a belligerent press pack who are already snapping at her ankles.
Did the Israeli leader already get the nod in Downing Street?
Martin Jay recently won the UN's prestigious Elizabeth Neuffer Memorial Prize (UNCA) in New York, for his journalism work in the Middle East. He is based in Beirut and can be followed at @MartinRJay
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/kremlin-stance-iran-trump-234677
Kremlin breaks with Trump on Iran
By Nolan D. McCaskill
02/06/17 07:14 AM EST
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
The Kremlin on Monday disagreed with President Donald Trump’s description of Iran as “the No. 1 terrorist state.”
“Russia has friendly partner-like relations with Iran,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call Monday, according to Reuters. “We cooperate on a wide range of issues, value our trade ties, and hope to develop them further.”
Russia’s stance is at odds with Trump, who blasted the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran in an interview with Fox News host Bill O’Reilly broadcast Sunday during pre-game Super Bowl coverage. He wouldn’t say, however, whether he would back out of the deal.
“I mean, we’re going to see what happens. I can say this: They have total disregard for our country,” Trump said. “They are the No. 1 terrorist state. They’re sending money all over the place — and weapons. And — can’t do that.”
Trump on Sunday also seemed to defend the notion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “a killer,” telling O’Reilly that America has “a lot of killers” and asking, “You think our country’s so innocent?”
Trump has signaled a willingness to thaw relations with Russia and work with the Kremlin to defeat the Islamic State. He said he respects Russia’s authoritarian leader but maintained that he has “no idea” whether the two will get along.
Trump and Putin spoke for an hour by phone late last month, according to a readout from the White House. Topics included destroying the Islamic State, working to achieve peace in Syria and repairing the relationship between both nations.
“It’s no secret for anyone that Moscow and Washington hold diametrically opposed views on many international issues,” Peskov said. “That should not be an obstacle when it comes to forging normal communication and pragmatic mutually-beneficial relations between Russia and the United States.”
