Monday, March 2, 2015

Bill Gross: "Central Banks Have Gone Too Far In Their Misguided Efforts To Support Economic Growth"

Bill Gross: "Central Banks Have Gone Too Far In Their Misguided Efforts To Support Economic Growth"

Tyler Durden's picture




 
The usual stuff in Bill Gross' latest monthly letter which could have been picked form the pages of Zero Hedge circa late 2009/early 2010, now that virtually all the "conspiracy theories" we first presented years ahead of everyone have not only been validated, but accepted as New Paranormal canon.
The excerpted highlights:
  • None dare call it a “currency war” because that would be counter to G-10/G-20 policy statements that stress cooperation as opposed to “every country for itself”, but an undeclared currency war is what the world is experiencing. Close to the same thing happened in the 1930’s, a period remarkably similar to what many countries’ policies resemble today.
  • ... the U.S. tailwind from competitive devaluation has since stalled – in fact the tailwind has now turned into a headwind. While it was once the only breed in the show, it now competes against better coiffured currencies with their own QE’s and promises to hold interest rates for lower and longer than does the U.S. Japan has a quantitative easing program 2 to 3 times greater than our own in comparative GDP terms and the ECB of course is about to embark on its own grand journey into the vast unknown of bond buying, yield lowering, and presumably further Euro currency devaluation.
  • The universe of negative yielding notes and bonds in Euroland now total almost $2 trillion. Not even “thin gruel” is being offered to our modern day Oliver Twist investors. You have to pay to come to the dinner table and then sit there staring at an empty plate.
  • A more serious concern however, might be that low interest rates globally destroy financial business models that are critical to the functioning of modern day economies. Pension funds and insurance companies are perhaps the most important examples of financial sectors that are threatened by low to negative interest rates.
  • Negative/zero bound interest rates may exacerbate, instead of stimulate low growth rates in all of these instances, by raising savings and deferring consumption.
  • Asset prices for stocks, high yield bonds and other supposed 5-10% returning investments, become stretched and bubble sensitive; Debt accumulates instead of being paid off because rates are too low to pass up – corporate bond sales leading to stock buybacks being the best example. The financial system has become increasingly vulnerable only six years after its last collapse in 2009.
  • Central banks have gone and continue to go too far in their misguided efforts to support future economic growth.
And the punchline:
  • ... common sense would argue that the global economy cannot devalue against itself. Either the strong dollar weakens the world’s current growth locomotive (the U.S.) or else their near in unison devaluation effort fails to lead to the desired results, much like Japan experienced after its 50% devaluation against the Dollar beginning in 2012.
Actually, that is not exactly correct: just ask FDR and executive order 6102 what the global economy can "devalue" against.


Coming to a NIRPy, New Paranormal banana republic near you.
* * *
From Bill Gross' latest monthly investment outlook
 Going to the Dogs
If you were a dog, what kind would you be? I can’t say I’ve thought about it a lot myself, but it is an interesting, possibly introspective question considering the theory that many dog owners pick a breed that looks or perhaps acts like themselves. There’s the Bulldog guy with the similar face, the blonde socialite with a pair of Afghan Hounds trailing alongside, and the paranoid homeowner with a Doberman Pinscher. You get the “picture”. I myself have owned four different dogs during my 70 years, although only one of them came home because of my choosing. Budgie, the German Shepherd, and Daisy, the mutt, were my parents’ choices, and Wiggles, the irrepressible Pomeranian was Sue’s or perhaps 8-year-old Nick’s pick. Nick was so proud of Wiggles that we let him enter her in a dog contest a’ la the movie “Best in Show”. It was immediately apparent however, that Wiggles was no match for the better bred and coiffured competition. Thankfully though, the show was not well attended and there was a category – “home breed” – where no dog was entered. Nick never knew when he was walking Wiggles in front of the judges that he was guaranteed a blue ribbon! Wiggles didn’t seem to care much though, and seemed more interested in sniffing the competition’s crotches than observing their ear placement.
The dog I picked for myself over 35 years ago is at the top of the page – a Golden Retriever, appropriately named, Honey.
Dog
It would be pretentious to say that I resembled Honey in any way, but nonetheless she was the puppy I chose. Honey turned out to be a little bit of a tramp, so maybe there’s the connection. Back in the freewheeling ‘80s when society had not even contemplated poop scooping and blue pick-up bags, Honey would roam the neighborhood, depositing wherever she pleased, but bringing things back home in return. There was always a fresh assortment of rocks on the front porch, and stale loaves of bread from neighborhood garbage cans. Like the Nathan’s hot dog eating champion, Joey Chestnut, who last July 4th downed 61 hot dogs to win the Coney Island championship, Honey once swallowed four frozen swordfish steaks placed innocently on the kitchen counter. One minute they were there; five minutes later there was nary a trace. Like I say, sort of a tramp. But a loveable one and a loving one, that’s for sure. If you’re into love, and not so much concerned about a fresh fish dinner, I’d recommend a Golden Retriever. If otherwise, I’m sure you’re happy with the mutt in your own “dog” house. Arf, Arf. Sometimes when life seems to be going to the dogs, it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Like Wiggles, the “home breed” blue ribbon winner, there’s a similar contest going on in global financial markets where the “home country” seeks to outdo the competition in a race to the interest rate bottom. None dare call it a “currency war” because that would be counter to G-10/G-20 policy statements that stress cooperation as opposed to “every country for itself”, but an undeclared currency war is what the world is experiencing. Close to the same thing happened in the 1930’s, a period remarkably similar to what many countries’ policies resemble today. “When the going gets tough” as the saying goes, “the tough get going” and back during the Great Depression, the first countries to abandon the gold standard and get going were the first ones to escape the clutches of the depression.
This time, following the Great Recession, it was actually the United States that gained first mover advantage, lowering interest rates to near zero percent by the beginning of 2009, initiating quantitative easing (QE) policies far sooner than competitors, and in effect devaluing the dollar by 15% over the next several years as shown on the following Chart I. Analysts speculate as to why the U.S. has been the blue ribbon growth winner during the global recovery but seldom do they attribute part of the prize to an early devaluation of the dollar and the competitive advantage it earned via global trade. Others caught on with a lag however, and the U.S. tailwind from competitive devaluation has since stalled – in fact the tailwind has now turned into a headwind. While it was once the only breed in the show, it now competes against better coiffured currencies with their own QE’s and promises to hold interest rates for lower and longer than does the U.S. Japan has a quantitative easing program 2 to 3 times greater than our own in comparative GDP terms and the ECB of course is about to embark on its own grand journey into the vast unknown of bond buying, yield lowering, and presumably further Euro currency devaluation.

Chart I: Stronger Dollar = Lower Growth

U.S. Dollar Index 2008 – 2015
Chart I: Stronger Dollar = Lower Growth
What is remarkable about the ECB’s program to come, however, and that of other nations within the European Union which issue their own currency, is the extent to which yields have fallen – or been set – in order to regain a competitive currency edge. First the Swiss, then Sweden, then Denmark. Russia of course, was devaluing daily because of oil and geopolitical tensions. Promoting almost all of these devaluations were policy rates that went negative – that’s right, short term money market rates that would cost banks and ultimately small savers to lend money, as opposed to good old fashioned positive rates that at least offered something in return. The universe of negative yielding notes and bonds in Euroland now total almost $2 trillion. Not even “thin gruel” is being offered to our modern day Oliver Twist investors. You have to pay to come to the dinner table and then sit there staring at an empty plate.
The possibility of negative interest rates was rarely if ever contemplated in academia prior to 2014. No textbook or central bank research paper even mentioned it, although fees for safe haven “storage” have long been in existence at Swiss banks. Ben Bernanke in his famous 2002 paper titled “Deflation: making sure “IT” doesn’t happen here”, mentions helicopters dropping money from the sky, but nowhere was there a hint of negative yields once a central bank reached the zero bound. It was as inconceivable as the “Big Bang” with its black holes that followed billions of years later; the rules of physics or in this case the rules of money didn’t apply; it was impossible to imagine.
But here we are. Negative 25 to 35 basis point money market rates in Germany with minus signs all the way out to six year maturities, reflecting the expectation that negative policy rates are likely in store for at least 3 to 4 years in the future. Sweden has gone the furthest with negative 75 basis points but Switzerland and Denmark are not far behind. Outside the EU, Japan is on a mission of once swift and now gradual devaluation of the Yen via QE – their interest rates having been near zero for years. Even China is lowering its rates seemingly to weaken its Renminbi relative to the dollar and is having some success in doing so.
All of this may seem positive for future global growth and in some cases it may be – lower yields make sovereign and corporate debt burdens more tolerable and their exports more competitive. But common sense would argue that the global economy cannot devalue against itself. Either the strong dollar weakens the world’s current growth locomotive (the U.S.) or else their near in unison devaluation effort fails to lead to the desired results, much like Japan experienced after its 50% devaluation against the Dollar beginning in 2012.
A more serious concern however, might be that low interest rates globally destroy financial business models that are critical to the functioning of modern day economies. Pension funds and insurance companies are perhaps the most important examples of financial sectors that are threatened by low to negative interest rates. Both sectors have always attempted to immunize their long term liabilities (retirement, health, morbidity) by investing at a similar duration with an attractive yield. Now that negative and in almost all cases low short term rates are expected to persist, long term bonds and similar duration assets do not offer the ability to pay claims 5, 10, 30 years into the future. With 10 year German Bonds at 30 basis points and the possibility of them going negative after the beginning of the ECB’s QE in March, what German, Dutch, or French insurance company would attempt to immunize liabilities at the zero bound or lower? Immunization makes no economic or business sense at these levels; similarly for pension funds. In fact even households are handcuffed by low/negative yields, who everyday must now address their inability to save enough money at a high enough rate to pay for education, healthcare, and retirement obligations. Negative/zero bound interest rates may exacerbate, instead of stimulate low growth rates in all of these instances, by raising savings and deferring consumption.
This possibility may be one reason why the Fed appears to be moving to raise interest rates gradually beginning in June this year. In an attempt to elevate returns, investors and savers do all the wrong things required of a stable capitalistic model. Savers save more, not less, and invest at higher risk levels in order to reach their long term liability expectations. Asset prices for stocks, high yield bonds and other supposed 5-10% returning investments, become stretched and bubble sensitive; Debt accumulates instead of being paid off because rates are too low to pass up – corporate bond sales leading to stock buybacks being the best example. The financial system has become increasingly vulnerable only six years after its last collapse in 2009.
Investors and bondholders who have cheered every instance of lower and now sub-zero yields in developed countries because of near-term capital gains that accompany them, must now beware of the potential negative consequences going forward. Central banks have gone and continue to go too far in their misguided efforts to support future economic growth. “Home bred” monetary policies earn “blue ribbon” rewards in the short term, but in the long run may undermine the entire show and send the dogs towards the exits. Stay conservative in your investment portfolio. Own high quality bonds and low P/E, high quality stocks if you want to stay out of the doghouse. Arf, Arf.
4.555555
Your rating: None Average: 4.6 (9 votes)
 

- advertisements -

NATO Commander Urges Pressure on Moscow Over Missile Treaty Breach

NATO Commander Urges Pressure on Moscow Over Missile Treaty Breach


Says dual-use weapons deployed in Crimea ‘very worrisome’
Gen. Philip M. Breedlove / AP
Gen. Philip M. Breedlove / AP
BY:

The commander of the U.S. European Command and NATO is calling for pressuring Russia against deploying new cruise missiles that violate the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty.
“We have to change Mr. Putin’s decision calculus as to whether he uses these [missiles] or brings these forward or deploys these,” Air Force Gen. Philip M. Breedlove told reporters at the Pentagon during a briefing last week.
“We have to change that, and that series of thoughts that the SecDef [Ashton Carter] put forward are options that would help change that.”
Breedlove was referring to written answers to questions Carter submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee outlining the options the Pentagon is considering in response to the Russian Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty violation, first confirmed last year by the State Department but known by U.S. intelligence agencies for more than five years.
The INF treaty bans ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 310 and 3,400 miles.
Carter told the committee in his written statement that U.S. options in response to Moscow’s INF breach include “active defenses to counter intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missiles; counterforce capabilities to prevent intermediate-range ground-launched cruise missile attacks; and countervailing strike capabilities to enhance U.S. or allied forces.”
Countervailing strike capabilities could include nuclear intermediate-range missiles.
“U.S. responses must make clear to Russia that if it does not return to compliance our responses will make them less secure than they are today,” Carter stated.
Bryan McKeon, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces last week that the United States does not favor the option of deploying new nuclear missiles.
McKeon said in addition to its violation of the INF treaty, Russia’s occupation of Crimea, its aggression in eastern Ukraine, and its “increasingly aggressive nuclear posturing and threats” pose “one of our most pressing and evolving strategic challenges—challenges felt across the strategic forces mission space.”
“We need not respond symmetrically to every Russian provocation,” McKeon said in his written statement.
“In particular, there is currently no need to expand the role for U.S. nuclear weapons, or to change our nuclear posture,” he said.
“We do not want to find ourselves engaged in an escalatory action/reaction cycle as a result of Russia’s violation of the INF Treaty,” McKeon said. “We will continue to press Russia to return to compliance with the treaty, while at the same time preparing responses to prevent Russia from gaining a significant military advantage from its violation and to protect the security interests of the United States and our allies.”
Several diplomatic efforts to convince Moscow to return to compliance with the arms treaty so far have failed.
Instead, Moscow has accused the United States of violating the INF treaty through missile target testing and drones—both systems not covered by the treaty.
Breedlove said he agrees with current U.S. efforts to try to convince the Russians to come back into compliance on INF.
“And then if that doesn’t work, we begin to look at the next series of options,” he said.
The new Russian weapon that has been tested in violation of the INF treaty has been identified as a cruise missile variant of the Iskander short-range ballistic missile.
James Clapper, director of national intelligence, revealed in his a prepared statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the Iskander is the missile in question.
Clapper stated that a senior Russian official, Sergei Ivanov, stated as early as 2007 that “Russia had tested a ground-launched cruise missile for its Iskander weapon system whose range complied with the INF treaty ‘for now.’”
Ivanov also said in 2013 that because of the spread of intermediate range nuclear missiles around the world Russia was building an “appropriate weapons system” to deal with the changed international geopolitical environment since the INF treaty was signed.
“The development of a cruise missile that is inconsistent with INF, combined with these statements about INF, calls into question Russia’s commitment to this treaty,” Clapper stated.
Breedlove said so far it does not appear the new missile is deployed, but he added that “it’s not that clear.”
“In Kaliningrad or in Crimea, there are those dual-use weapon systems that could very easily be nuclear or non-nuclear, and our ability to tell the difference between one and the other is very tough, and this is very worrisome,” Breedlove said.
“Ground-based weapons systems that are typically conventional which have nuclear capability can be fielded on, or dual use aircraft in the Crimea, that could either be nuclear or conventional,” he said.
Because the missiles and aircraft can be used for either conventional or nuclear strikes, “it’s really hard for us to tell if they’re being forward-stationed in one or the other mode,” the four-star general said.
“This dual-use capability brings an ambiguity that is really hard for us to pick up in our intelligence and indications and warnings.”
Adm. Cecil Haney, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, told a House hearing Feb. 26 that he is concerned about Russia’s tactical nuclear capabilities.
“I have concerns that Russia has a number of non-strategic nuclear weapons in their arsenal,” Haney said. “And they also have modernization programs associated with them, as well as…the ground-launch cruise missile system that they’ve been testing.”


Russia's Top General Says Moscow Committed To Nuclear Treaty
Russia's top general, Valery Gerasimov, told the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Moscow was committed to adhering to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty after Washington accused Russia of violating the agreement. Russian state news agency RIA reported the general as telling General Martin Dempsey in a telephone call, "Gerasimov reaffirmed Russia's commitment to fulfilling the provisions of the treaty on intermediate-range rockets."
Inform

Russia ready to repel any nuke strike, retaliate – missile forces command chief

Russia ready to repel any nuke strike, retaliate – missile forces command chief

Published time: March 01, 2015 14:09
Edited time: March 02, 2015 07:51
A Topol-M missile launcher rolls down Red Square in Moscow (RIA Novosti/Alexander Vilf)
A Topol-M missile launcher rolls down Red Square in Moscow (RIA Novosti/Alexander Vilf)
Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces are ready to react to any nuclear strike even if it is lightning fast, SMF Central Command chief said. A retaliatory strike would take place in all circumstances, “without hesitation,” he added.
“If there’s a challenge to repel a lightning-fast nuclear strike in any given conditions – it will be done in fixed time, that’s dead true,” the Strategic Missile Forces Central Command’s chief, Major-General Andrey Burbin, told Russian News Service on Saturday.
Russia’s strategic missile forces are positioned geographically in such a way that no global strike can knock them out completely, Burbin said.
In case an order is given to carry out a nuclear strike, Russian nuclear weapons operators will fulfill it, he added.
“There would be no hesitation, the task would be executed,” he said.

The unavoidability of a retaliatory nuclear strike from Russia is also guaranteed by the fully automatic and constantly modernized ‘Perimeter’ system, also known as “Dead hand.”
The system collects data from various sources, such as radioactivity and seismic sensors scattered throughout Russia, by scanning radio frequencies and communication activities.
READ MORE: Military dominance over Russia impossible, nuclear deterrent top priority – Defense Ministry
If pooled data indicates that Russia has suffered a nuclear strike, the system launches special missiles that travel through national airspace, sending launch signals to all surviving strategic nuclear missile complexes. In this case a retaliatory missile strike is launched without human input.
Burbin also told RSN that rearmament of the Strategic Missile Forces is ongoing as planned and by 2020 up to 98 percent of Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces will be armed with brand new weapons.
READ MORE: Russian 'ABM killer' intercontinental missile to enter service in 2016
Nationwide war games of Strategic Nuclear Missile Forces were conducted in February, with 30 missile regiments training in 12 regions of Russia.
Missilemen performed ultimate combat operational readiness, counteraction to subversive groups and perfected defenses against airborne precision weapons.
On any given day, over 6,000 servicemen are maintaining the operational readiness of the Russian Strategic Missile Forces.

6.7K92221


Iraq's Tikrit: From Saddam to the Islamic State Group

Iraq's Tikrit: From Saddam to the Islamic State Group
W460
Executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's hometown and last bastion, Tikrit has become one of the Islamic State group's main strongholds.
Government forces have been working their way north in recent months, notching up key victories against the jihadists, who seized Tikrit last June.
But the overwhelmingly Sunni Arab city on the Tigris river has resisted them several times and is their toughest target yet.
Situated 160 kilometers (100 miles) north of Baghdad, the city is the capital of Salaheddin province.
The province is named for the Muslim warlord of the same name who seized Jerusalem in 1187 and whose birthplace was Tikrit.
Saddam modeled himself on Salaheddin, a Kurd considered to the one of Islam's most brilliant strategists, a reputation he gained during his fight against the Christian crusaders.
An official announcement of the fall of Tikrit signaled the symbolic end of Saddam's regime in the US-led invasion of 2003. The city was the last major town be captured by coalition forces.
Saddam's legacy persists, with remnants of his Baath party having collaborated with IS in attempting to topple the Shiite-dominated government.
The city benefited from its loyalty to Saddam and had some of the best hospitals, schools, and roads in Iraq, as well as a university.
It also has several presidential palaces and other official buildings.
Not far away is Awja, the village where Saddam was born on April 28, 1936.
It is the site of a richly-decorated mausoleum for Hussein al-Majid, Saddam's father, but under the previous regime Iraqis were not allowed to go there.
During Saddam's time the entrance to the city was adorned with a gigantic arch, showing Saddam, gun in hand, and Salaheddin, a sword in the air.
Comments 0

Netanyahu tries to head off Iran’s machinations after Obama empowers Tehran as favored Mid East ally

Netanyahu tries to head off Iran’s machinations after Obama empowers Tehran as favored Mid East ally
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis March 1, 2015, 10:37 PM (IDT)
Almost the last words Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu heard Sunday, March 1, as he took off for Washington to address Congress on Iran, was in effect “Don’t do it!” They came from a group of 180 senior ex-IDF military officers. After the personal abuse is weeded out of their message, what remains is that Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of the US Congress Tuesday, March 3, was not worth making because it would damage relations with the US.
Maj. Gen. Amiram Levin, former Northern Command chief and ex-Deputy Director of the Mossad, put it this way: “Bibi, you are making an error in navigation; the target is Tehran not Washington.” He went on to say: “[Instead] of working hand in hand with the president,,, you go there and poke a finger in his eye.”
debkafile’s analysts maintain that the navigation error is the general’s. Before shooting his slings and arrows at the Israeli prime minister’s office, he should long ago have taken note of President Barack Obama’s Middle East record in relation to Israel’s during his six years in the White House.
It took time to catch on to Obama’s two-faced policy towards Israel because it was handled with subtlety.
On the one hand, he made sure Israel was well supplied with all its material security needs. This enabled him to boast that no US president or administration before him had done as much to safeguard Israel’s security.
But behind this façade, Obama made sure that Israel’s security stayed firmly in the technical-material-financial realm and never crossed the line into a strategic relationship.
That was because he needed to keep his hands free for the objective of transferring the role of foremost US ally in the Middle East from Israel to Iran, a process that took into account the ayatollahs’ nuclear aspirations.
This process unfolding over recent years has left Israel face to face with a nakedly hostile Iran empowered by the United States.
Tehran is not letting its oft-repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map hang fire until its nuclear aspirations are assured of consummation under the negotiations continuing later this week in the Swiss town of Montreux between US Secretary John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minsiter Mohammed Javad Zarif. In the meantime, without President Obama lifting a finger in defense of “Israel’s security,” Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps officers are drawing Israel into a military stranglehold on the ground.
Netanyahu’s political rivals, while slamming him day by day, turn their gaze away from the encroaching Iranian forces taking up forward positions in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, where they are busy fashioning a Shiite Crescent that encircles Sunni Arab states as well as Israel.
It must be obvious that to bolster its rising status as the leading regional power, Iran must be reach the nuclear threshold - at the very least – if not nuclear armaments proper, or else how will Tehran be able to expand its territorial holdings and defend its lebensraum. 
This is not something that Barack Obama or his National Security Adviser Susan Rice are prepared to admit. They are not about to confirm intelligence reports, which expose the military collaboration between the Obama administration and Iran’s supreme leader Aytatollah Ali Khamenei as being piped through the office of Iraq’s Shiite Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi.
Washington denies that there is any such collaboration - or any suggestion that the White House had reviewed recommendations and assessments of an option for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Al Qods Brigades to take over the ground war on the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria as American contractors.
Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimani is frequently spotted these days flitting between Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut, while his intelligence and liaison officers file reports to the Obama administration, through the Iraqi prime minister’s office, on their forthcoming military steps and wait for Washington’s approval.
America understandably lacks the will to have its ground forces embroiled in another Middle East war. Washington is therefore not about to turn away a regional power offering to undertake this task – even though it may be unleasing a bloody conflagration between Shiite and Sunni Muslims that would be hard to extinguish
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the rest of the Gulf are as dismayed as Israel by Obama’s regional strategy, which, stripped of its diplomatic veneer, boils down to a straight trade: The US will allow Iran to reach the status of a pre-nuclear power and regional hegemon, while Tehran, in return, will send its officers and ground troops to fight in Iraq, Syria and even Afghanistan.
The 180 ex-IDF officers and Israel’s opposition leaders, Yitzhak Herzog and Tzipi Livni, were right when they argued that Israel’s bond with the US presidency is too valuable to jeopardize. But it is the Obama White House which is trifling with that bond – not Netanyahu, whose mission in Washington is no more than a tardy attempt to check Iran’s malignant machinations which go forward without restraint. 


Netanyahu flies to U.S., signs of some easing of tensions over Iran speech

Netanyahu flies to U.S., signs of some easing of tensions over Iran speech

WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM Sun Mar 1, 2015 6:41pm EST
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens as U.S. President Barack Obama (R) speaks, during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington October 1, 2014.      REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens as U.S. President Barack Obama (R) speaks, during their meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington October 1, 2014.
Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque




WASHINGTON/JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States and Israel showed signs of seeking to defuse tensions on Sunday ahead of a speech in Washington by Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu when he will warn against a possible nuclear deal with Iran.

Policy differences over the negotiations with Iran remained firm, however, as Netanyahu set off for the United States to deliver the speech, which has imperiled ties between the two allies.
Israel fears that U.S. President Barack Obama's Iran diplomacy, with an end-of-March deadline for a framework accord, will allow its arch foe to develop atomic weapons -- something Tehran denies seeking.
By accepting an invitation from the Republican party to address Congress on Tuesday, the Israeli leader infuriated the Obama administration, which said it was not told of the speech before plans were made public in an apparent breach of protocol.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated Washington's determination to pursue negotiations with Iran, saying on Sunday the United States deserved "the benefit of the doubt" to see if a nuclear deal could be reached.
Last week, Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, said the partisanship caused by Netanyahu's looming address was "destructive to the fabric of U.S.-Israeli ties".
Asked about this on the ABC program "This Week", Kerry said "the prime minister of Israel is welcome to speak in the United States, obviously. And we have a closer relationship with Israel right now in terms of security than at any time in history."
He said he had talked to Netanyahu on Saturday, adding, "we don't want to see this turned into some great political football." Israel and the United States agreed that the main goal was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, he said.
In remarks on Saturday at Jersualem's Western Wall, Netanyahu said: “I would like to take this opportunity to say that I respect U.S. President Barack Obama.” He added that he believed in the strong bilateral ties and said, "that strength will prevail over differences of opinion, those in the past and those yet to come.”
Netanyahu did not repeat those remarks as he departed on Sunday. The Israeli prime minister, who is running for re-election in a March 17 ballot, has framed his visit as being above politics and he portrayed himself as being a guardian for all Jews.
"I’m going to Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission," he said as he boarded his plane in Tel Aviv. "I feel that I am an emissary of all Israel's citizens, even those who do not agree with me, and of the entire Jewish people," he told reporters.
Netanyahu is expected to use his speech to urge Congress to approve new sanctions against Iran despite Obama's pledge to veto such legislation because it would jeopardize nuclear talks.
U.S. officials fear he is seeking to sabotage the Iran diplomacy, and critics have suggested his visit is an elaborate election stunt that will play well with voters back home.
With Obama past the mid-point of his final term, his aides see an Iran nuclear deal as a potential signature achievement for a foreign policy legacy notably short on major successes.
While White House and Israeli officials insist that key areas of cooperation, from counter-terrorism to intelligence to cyber security, will remain unaffected, the divide over the Iran talks has shaped up as the worst in decades.
Previously Israel has always been careful to navigate between the Republican and Democratic camps. The planned address, however, has driven a rare wedge between Netanyahu's government and some congressional Democrats. Some two dozen or more of them plan to boycott the speech, according to unofficial estimates.

IRANIAN ACCUSATION
Speaking in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif accused Netanyahu of trying to undermine the nuclear talks in order to distract from the Palestinians' unresolved bid for an independent state.
"Netanyahu is opposed to any sort of solution," Zarif said.
Hard-line U.S. supporters of Israel say Netanyahu must take center-stage in Washington to sound the alarm over the potential Iran deal, even at the risk of offending long-time supporters.
But a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the "politicized" nature of his visit threatened "what undergirds the strength of the relationship".
    As one former U.S. official put it: "Sure, when Netanyahu calls the White House, Obama will answer. But how fast will he be about responding (to a crisis)?"
    Last month, U.S. officials accused the Israeli government of leaking information to the Israeli media to undermine the Iran negotiations and said this would limit further sharing of sensitive details about the talks.
    "What the prime minister is doing here is simply so egregious that it has a more lasting impact on that fundamental underlying relationship," said Jeremy Ben-Ami, head of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel lobbying group aligned with Obama’s Iran policy.
Netanyahu will address the influential pro-Israel lobby AIPAC on Monday. Even as he makes his hard-line case against Iran, he is expected to try to keep tensions from spiraling, mindful that Israelis are wary of becoming estranged from their superpower ally.

(Additional reporting By Patricia Zengerle and Mark Hosenball in Washington and Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Editing by Jeffrey Heller, Frances Kerry/Crispian Balmer/Susan Fenton)

FILED UNDER:

Report: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike



Report: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike

Kuwaiti paper claims unnamed Israeli minister with good ties with the US administration 'revealed the attack plan to John Kerry.'
First Publish: 3/1/2015, 4:18 PM

Barack Obama
Barack Obama
Reuters
The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.




Following Obama's threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack.

According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel's back.

The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Al-Jarida quoted "well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations with top security commanders.

According to the report, “Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel's security.”

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.
Brzezinski's idea
Former US diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in 2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.
“We have to be serious about denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’"
Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.



Image Map

DHS Points Loaded Finger at Right-Wing Sovereign Citizen Extremists

DHS Points Loaded Finger at Right-Wing Sovereign Citizen Extremists

sovereign citizenq
By Susan Knowles
Stand for the Truth

The Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security recently named a threat that they consider to be more dangerous than the Islamic State terrorists: Right-wing extremists.
Reportedly, there is a new intelligence assessment being disseminated by the DHS that focuses on domestic terror threats from “right-wing sovereign citizen extremists,” according to CNN.
It is believed that “some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat” from these groups as “equal to-and in some cases greater than- the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more attention.”




Could it be that groups like the Islamic State receive more attention in the media because they are killing more people in the most vile and violent manner?
CNN continued its report regarding the domestic terrorist threats by stating, “The government says these are extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order.”
The report gives an example of one such domestic terrorist incident in which a father and son allegedly shot and killed two police officers in Louisiana during a traffic stop. The report indicates that the two purportedly belonged to the sovereign citizen movement and claimed that police had no authority over them.
Traffic stops are and have always been extremely dangerous for police officers. There is no indication in the assessment as to how this traffic stop differed from other traffic stops except for the fact that the two suspects belonged to a particular group which may or may not have contributed to the motivation for the alleged killings.
image source: huffingtonpost
Also, there was no mention in CNN’s DHS report about whether the December 2014 brutal attack of two NYPD officers who were shot to death as they sat in their car during lunch, was an example of right-wing extremism.
Perhaps this is because the man who murdered the two officers committed the violent act as retribution for the killing of a young African-American man by a white police officer earlier in the year and had no connection to a right-wing group. However, should he and people like him have been considered by the DHS as a treat more dangerous than ISIS?
Furthermore, the DHS assessment failed to recall the incident in October 2014 in which a man allegedly attacked four NYPD officers with a hatchet.
At the time, the officers were asked by CNN if the unprovoked attack was tied to terrorism or to “recent calls by radicals to attack military and police officers,” Police Commission Bill Bratton said then, “there is nothing we know as of this time that would indicate that were the case.”
A senior law enforcement official also told CNN that investigators did not believe that the suspect, a Muslim convert, was driven by radical Islamic views. Should this incident, which was not apparently committed by a member of a right-wing extremist group, have also been included on the DHS list?
Additionally, the DHS assessment is void of the number of individuals who were harmed or killed during the alleged 24 sovereign-citizen attacks. Were the numbers the same as, less than or greater than those harmed or killed by foreign terrorists?
image source: nationalgeographic.com
The intelligence report referenced “24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010.” However, it fails to mention, for example, how these acts compare to 9/11 in which2,977 innocent people were killed at the hands of Al Qaeda.
It also doesn’t state if the number killed exceeds the 125 people who also lost their lives on 9/11 at the Pentagon.
Could the DHS legitimately claim that the right-wing extremists pose more of a threat than Al Qaeda based upon these numbers?
Then there are the murders at the hands of the Islamic State group that took the lives of four Americans in Benghazi? Does this make a difference to the DHS in their threat assessment?

To read the rest of the article, please click here.

Tags assigned to this article:
domestic terrorismgovernmentisissovereign citizen



1 comment

Write a comment
  1. Useless Eater 1 March, 2015, 20:00 There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, making these government claims completely toothless. This is the point where we can prove their ignorance of law and nip yet another Useless witch hunt in the bud.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *