Tired of ads? Want to support our progressive journalism? Click to learn more.LEARN MORE
Enjoy good journalism?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.
We need your support in this difficult time. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.
Value Raw Story?
… then let us make a small request. The COVID crisis has slashed advertising rates, and we need your help. Like you, we believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We need your support to do what we do.
Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.
  |  |
Report typos and corrections to: corrections@rawstory.com.
Former US president Donald Trump's mould-breaking approach has reshaped decades of Middle East diplomacy, but his legacy in the troubled region has quickly come under attack from his successor.
From unexpected normalisation deals with Israel, to a "maximum pressure" campaign on rival Iran, the businessman-turned-president changed the face of the Middle East.
<p>His close relations with autocratic heads of states and wealthy Gulf monarchies also personalised Washington's approach towards the strategic region which hosts thousands of US troops.</p><p>Joe Biden promised to change all that.</p><p>In less than 10 days in the White House, the new president has already erased some of his predecessor's signature moves, but analysts say many of the flurry of deals struck in the last weeks of the administration won't -- or shouldn't -- be easily overturned.</p><p>Here is a look at what is at stake for Trump's Middle East legacy:</p><p>- 'Ping-ponging' Iran -</p><p>On his first full day on the job, Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the Biden administration wants to return to the 2015 nuclear deal trashed by Trump -- but said it would only happen once Iran resumes its commitments.</p><p>Tehran has meanwhile called on Washington to first unconditionally lift sanctions, effectively dismantling the pressure campaign.</p><p>Observers say this ping-pong process exemplifies the difficulty in extricating the US from Trump policies.</p><p>"The more the administration pursues the Iranians, the more the Iranians will pull back, in a bid to increase their leverage. Yet, the more the US pulls back, the more the Iranians will try to force the US to engage," said Jon B. Alterman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.</p><p>"We should not expect an easy return to negotiations, whatever the Biden team wants, and we should not anticipate that a supposedly wounded Iran will capitulate. Instead, we should anticipate a drawn-out process punctuated by crisis."</p><p>- Arms sales -</p><p>In a regional game-changer, the US last year agreed to sell more than $23 billion worth of top-of-the-line F-35 fighter jets and drones to the United Arab Emirates, to reward its diplomatic recognition of Israel.</p><p>Trump also backed arms sales to Saudi Arabia, despite lawmakers' objections which were centred on the kingdom's poor human rights record.</p><p>The Biden administration has said it is "temporarily" freezing the deals "to allow incoming leadership an opportunity to review".</p><p>Experts say a halt would raise questions about a potential impact on the normalisation deal with Israel, which Trump saw as a key foreign policy achievement.</p><p>- Israel ties -</p><p>Trump's term saw a flurry of normalisation deals between four Arab states and Israel. Most however were built on diplomatic quid pro quos, which makes them vulnerable in the Biden era.</p><p>Morocco's accord struck in December saw the US back its rule over disputed Western Sahara. Despite hailing the peace deals, Biden has not committed to maintaining the recognition in the region, where tensions have simmered since the 1970s.</p><p>For its part, Sudan signed the deal less than a month after the US removed it from its "state sponsors of terrorism" blacklist.</p><p>The Biden administration should not jeopardise these agreements and should "forge even more", said Dennis Ross and Juan Zarate in an article for the Washington Institute.</p><p>"Although the instinct to make dramatic changes is understandable and sometimes correct, certain elements of Trump policy provide good opportunities for furthering Arab-Israel engagement."</p><p>- Bridging the Gulf -</p><p>After a three-year diplomatic row between a Riyadh-led quartet and Qatar that veered from frosty to furious, Gulf leaders met in Saudi Arabia two weeks before Trump's exit and agreed to restore relations.</p><p>Washington had intensified pressure for a resolution, insisting Gulf unity is necessary to isolate Iran.</p><p>However, the accelerated agreement failed to address any of the quartet's conditions to restore relations with Doha, which was accused of being too close to Tehran and financing extremists.</p><p>As a result, "intra-Gulf rivalries could continue to stoke conflicts and political tensions in the Middle East and Africa," said Elham Fakhro of the International Crisis Group.</p><p>- Yemen's fate -</p><p>Trump's administration designated the Iran-backed Yemen Huthi rebels as a terrorist organisation just one day before Biden's inauguration, a move that raised fears it could jeopardise aid operations and put millions of lives at risk.</p><p>Biden's administration on Monday froze the decision for one month.</p><p>Blinken said one of his top priorities is addressing the war in Yemen, where US ally Saudi Arabia has been bombarding the Huthis since 2015.</p><p>- Travel ban -</p><p>One of Trump's first moves was to ban access to the United States to all travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, igniting international outrage and triggering domestic court battles.</p><p>On his first day, Biden lifted the measure, enabling many Middle Eastern families to visit their relatives for the first time in four years.</p><p>© 2021 AFP</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Conservative attorney tears apart bogus GOP arguments against Trump’s impeachment trial
January 28, 2021
Former President Donald Trump famously remarked that if he randomly shot people on 5th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan, his devotees would still support him. Although Trump never shot anyone on 5 h Avenue, he has been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for encouraging a violent insurrection in Washington, D.C. on January 6 — and his Republican devotees are still defending him. Most GOP senators appear unlikely to vote "guilty" in Trump's forthcoming impeachment trial, and conservative San Diego-based attorney Chris Truax tears their arguments to pieces in an article published on January 28 by the conservative website The Bulwark.
On Tuesday, January 26, all but five of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of a resolution claiming that it is unconstitutional to hold an impeachment trial after a president has already left office. The resolution, which came from Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, didn't pass — Democrats now have a narrow Senate majority. But it showed that most Senate Republicans are still afraid to stand up to Trump even though he is no longer president.
<p>"The vote by 45 Senate Republicans on Tuesday to dodge the question of whether spending two months whipping your followers into a frenzy by telling outrageous lies attacking the foundation of our democracy and then turning them loose on the U.S. Capitol to shut down the electoral vote count amounts to an impeachable offense was not their finest moment," laments Truax, who has been active in the anti-Trump group Republicans for the Rule of Law. "Whether it was their worst depends on how they vote when the trial concludes."</p><p>Truax continues, "Few of the current crop of Senate Republicans are known for their courage, but this was a particularly embarrassing display. Rather than address the weight of the historical, prudential and legal arguments on impeaching a former officeholder, they chose to tell themselves constitutional just-so stories that got them to a predetermined — and immensely convenient — conclusion. In fact, impeaching the now ex-president is almost certainly constitutional, and it's shameful that only five Republican senators had the courage to say so."</p><p>The attorney goes on to explain why Republican arguments against the impeachment trial are bogus.</p><p>"First, there's the weight of historical precedent," Truax explains. "In <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3/html/GPO-HPREC-HINDS-V3-26.htm" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">1876</a>, the Senate faced a similar question — it was actually a tougher case than the present impeachment — and concluded that Congress had the authority to impeach officials after they had left office. Second, there is the prudential argument. Does anyone think it likely that the Founders intended to specifically exempt lame duck presidents from impeachment? Does it make any sense at all to allow Congress to bar sitting presidents from future office based on horrific acts in the first month of their terms but not for acts committed in the last month?"</p><p>As Truax sees it, the fact that Trump exited the White House on January 20 doesn't make his actions any less impeachable.</p><p>"Republicans claim, as Rand Paul did on the Senate floor and in an <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/the-senates-impeachment-trial-is-illegal-and-a-sham" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">opinion article</a> on Tuesday, that it isn't constitutional to impeach someone once he or she is out of office," Truax notes. "Though the weight of precedent and logic say otherwise, fine, let's assume that's correct. Happily, that's not what happened. Donald Trump was still very much in office when he was impeached — which is a formal vote by the House to adopt articles of impeachment. So, there is no question that proceeding with the impeachment trial itself is perfectly constitutional."</p><p>If the Senate acquits Trump — which is the likely outcome — it is possible that he will run for president again in 2024. And that, Truax points out, is the one of the many reasons why the article of impeachment against him is still relevant even though Joe Biden became president on January 20.</p><p>"The House impeached the now ex-president a week before he left office," Truax observes. "If you want to analogize it to a court proceeding, there is no question that this case was brought before the statute of limitations expired. Once the court's — in this case, the Senate's—jurisdiction has attached, jurisdiction doesn't 'expire' no matter how long it takes to complete the trial…. The Constitution provides two possible penalties for conviction in an impeachment trial: removal from office and being barred from future office. If an ex-president can be barred from holding future public office on conviction, there is still a reason to hold the trial — and the proceeding is, by definition, not moot."</p><p>The attorney concludes his article by stressing that the anti-impeachment arguments coming from Paul and other GOP senators are totally disingenuous.</p><p>"There is no fig leaf for Republicans here," Truax argues. "They cannot hide behind pretend concerns about constitutional rectitude. The trial moves on now, and if they vote to acquit, it's either because they find Trump's behavior acceptable or because they are terrified of his supporters and will do anything to please them. Pretending otherwise isn't going to fool anyone — not the American people, not Donald Trump, and most certainly, not history."</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
On Thursday, The Washington Post reported that Kelli Ward, the newly re-elected chair of the Arizona Republican Party, is facing accusations of election irregularities in the chairmanship race — after she was a key pusher of disinformation and conspiracy theories about the presidential election.
"Sergio Arellano, a Pima County small business owner who lost to Ward by 42 votes, requested a recount of all state party races on Monday, he told The Washington Post. More than two days later, he said, Arizona state party leaders — who report to Ward — have not yet scheduled the audit, which was first reported by the Arizona Republic," wrote Teo Armus.
<p>"Arellano, who served on the advisory board for President Donald Trump's Latino campaign arm, emphasized he does not expect a recount to change the results of his race against Ward. But after dozens of other Arizona Republicans reached out to him to point out potential issues in at least two other races, he said he had to ask for a recount."</p><p>Ward, an osteopathic physician who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP Senate nomination in 2018, has presided over disaster and controversy for the Arizona GOP, which under her watch has tweeted <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/12/08/arizona-republican-party-calls-on-supporters-to-give-their-lives-to-fight-trumps-election-loss/" target="_blank">vague civil war threats</a> from its official account and pushed <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/radical-republicans/" target="_blank">election fraud lies</a>. Republicans have lost both Arizona Senate seats and the presidential election, have moved to <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/arizona-gop-2650088148/" target="_blank">censure popular members</a> of their party, and are <a href="https://www.rawstory.com/arizona-gop-2650151767/" target="_blank">rapidly shedding registered voters</a>.</p><p>The party also faces troubles going forward, with GOP Gov. Doug Ducey — himself a target of the party for not doing enough to overturn the election results — term-limited out in the 2022 elections.</p>
CONTINUE READING
Show less
Trending
Latest
Videos
Copyright © 2021 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 | Masthead | Privacy Policy | For corrections or concerns, please email corrections@rawstory.com.