The $200,000 Check

Yesterday the Comer committee released a copy of a $200,000 personal check from Joe's younger brother Jim to Joe himself, characteied as a "loan repayment". Per the committee,

In 2018, James Biden received $600,000 in loans from, Americore—a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator.

According to bankruptcy court documents, James Biden received these loans “based upon representations that his last name, ‘Biden,’ could ‘open doors’ and that he could obtain a large investment from the Middle East based on his political connections.”

On March 1, 2018, Americore wired a $200,000 loan into James and Sara Biden’s personal bank account – not their business bank account.

And then on the very same day, James Biden wrote a $200,000 check from this same personal bank account to Joe Biden.

There's less to this than meets the eye. There's no specific quid pro quo involved, at least from what we can see now, and Joe was out of office at the time. Both Joe and Jim can claim it was what it said it was, just a loan repayment, nobody's business but theirs. On the other hand, it does reflect a mingling of family finances that we've seen especially in Joe and Hunter's dealings with each other. The committee continues,

Even if this was a personal loan repayment, it’s still troubling that Joe Biden’s ability to be paid back by his brother depended on the success of his family’s shady financial dealings.

Some immediate questions President Biden must answer for the American people:

Does he have documents proving he lent such a large sum of money to his brother and what were the terms of such financial arrangement?

Did he have similar financial arrangements with other family members that led them to make similar large payments to him?

Just the News provides additional context to the Jim Biden deal. In 2018, Jim received a total of $600,000 in loans from Americore, which the committee characterizes as "a financially distressed and failing rural hospital operator" that eventually declared bankruptcy.

After Americore Health declared bankruptcy, a Chapter 11 trustee sued James Biden alleging that the company loaned him $600,000 while it was struggling to stay afloat.

"Instead, of complying with his fiduciary responsibilities, Defendant helped Debtors procure an ill-advised bridge loan from a hedge fund that had a deleterious impact on the financial affairs of the Debtor and ultimately forced Debtors into bankruptcy, as he never delivered the promised the large investment from the Middle East," the bankruptcy court document reads. "And worse, Defendant never repaid the Loans to Americore Health, including during the time that Debtors were strapped for cash."

The plaintiff claims that it did not receive an equivalent value in services for the payments to James Biden and that the company was "Was insolvent on the dates that such transfers were made, or became insolvent as a result of such transfers."

. . . Americore has faced its own legal troubles and accusations from employees of improper management that are separate from James Biden's relationship with the company.

The UK Daily Mail has the best account of how these circustances affect Joe:

In an exclusive interview with DailyMail.com, Bush administration White House ethics chief Painter said that the President could face serious consequences if he can't produce evidence the supposed loan is real, and demanded his aides show the receipts.

'What is absolutely critical here is to find documentation of the original loan from the President to his brother, and the President should produce that,' Painter said.

'If there was no loan, there are serious questions about whether this was income for tax purposes in 2018. That's really a huge problem.

. . . When he announced his bid for President in 2019, he was required to file a statement with the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) listing his income, assets and liabilities dating back to 2017.

OGE rules say Joe did not have to report the loan itself on his disclosure forms. But Painter said interest earned on the loan could be reportable as an income source for the then-presidential candidate.

On his form, filed in July 2019, Joe listed income ranging from tens of thousands of dollars from speaking engagements dating back to November 2017, to a $950 distribution from a retirement account.

But there were no entries for interest payments from his brother James – who goes by the nickname 'Jim'.

'I think that would have to go on the form, if you got interest from your brother. And it certainly would have to go on the tax forms,' Painter said.

'If it was not a loan, then there would be serious problems over why it wasn't reported on the 2019 candidate disclosure form, as well as for income tax.'

IRS rules say loans between family members must charge a minimum interest rate in order to not be considered gifts or income. At the time, the minimum rate was around 3%, which would be $6,000 for a year-long $200,000 loan.

One thing that's significant for me is that, in addition to showing more widespread commingling of family business interests and at least one payment directly to Joe, we're starting to see amounts that would be more worth Joe's time. Five-figure payments here and there, which we've seen via Hunter, won't support the Biden family lifestyles. A six-figure payment comes closer, but we'd have to see a lot more of this kind of thing to make the whole idea credible.

What works in our favor at this point is that Jim is simply not the sharpest knife in the drawer. That he would write a $200,000 personal check to Joe and call it a "loan repayment" suggests this won't be the only clumsy move we'll find -- it llooks like Hunter, his partners, and other family retainers were much more circumspect. Jim juist wrote personal checks.

But again, this is just another episode that will keep Joe from ever holding a traditional press conference with freewheeling questions from reporters.

How Instapundit Has Fallen

I began following Glenn Reynolds as Instapundit not long after 9/11. His pitch at the time, as outlined in An Army of Davids (2006) was libertarian, and I was never quite comfortable with the title -- anyone who studies the Old Testament in any depth won't be comfortable with the prospect of a Sorcerer's Apprentice calling up legions of Davids. One was plenty -- ask Uriah the Hittite.

But this is just one illustration of the shallowness of Reynolds's thought processes. His intellectual mentors include Ayn Rand, Robert A Heinlein, and Philip K Dick. His predictions have fallen short. In the link,

Reynolds titles a chapter 'Small Is the New Big'. He discusses the rise of "armchair workers" (through companies such as eBay), doing work at home—as well as specialty-based cottage industries such as Coffin's Shoes in Knoxville, TN. He argues that future trends will create a mosaic of co-existing big box retailers, local firms, and businesses run from home.

The COVID lockdowns ended that fantasy. Insofar as they represented an experiment in working from home, it was a failure, with big companies across the board insisting that workers return to the office for at least minimum days per week. Retail is also collapsing. On the other hand, the idea of commuting from suburbs to urban downtowns has been in a long-term decline, hastened by rising crime in the cities, something libertarians, for whom legalized narcotics are a core principle, never envisioned.

Reynolds writes, "where before journalists and pundits could bloviate at leisure, offering illogical analysis or citing 'facts' that were in fact false, now the Sunday morning op-eds have already been dissected on Saturday night, within hours of their appearing on newspapers' websites". He states that the internet has redistributed access to information from professional journalists acting as media gatekeepers to millions of ordinary people in the blogosphere and elsewhere. He remarks, "many unknowns can do it better than the lords of the profession".

The army of Davids, at least the one with David Brooks, David Ignatius, and David Gergen, is doing as well as ever. The pundit who's faded since 2006 is Glenn Reynolds. He posted just yesterday, regarding the ads on his site, which have grown trashier:

SOME PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THE NEW ADS. Sorry, the problem is that InstaPundit has been demonetized by Google, for unspecified “dangerous” content. Between the overall trend of ad revenue decline — which hits everyone — and the trend of cutting advertising to right-leaning sites, and now this, ad revenue is down about 90% from its high, I’d estimate, and it may get worse. (The Amazon revenue, which we’ve been phasing out anyway, is similar). At some point I’ll probably have to go to some sort of subscription model — maybe one that lets you buy out of the ads — or a purely donation-supported model.

Wait a moment. The great libertarian hope, the little guy blogging the truth from his basement, or at least the law professor blogging the truth from his home office, has been demonetized by Google, which puts the big in big tech, and the law professor is suffering? I thought the new order was going to stop this, Google would fade away, and the internet would give equal access to all the individual blogger voices!

I think there are good reasons Reynolds is in decline as a commentator. For starters, he was and is part of the respectable Ivy establishment he criticizes, a Yale Law graduate, holder of an endowed chair at the University of Tennessee, son of a professor at the same institution, he nevertheless attacks academia as corrupt but always insists he's not like the grifters who actually run the place. In this, he set the pattern for innumerable academic bloggers whose disaffection with the culture went only so far, and whose disaffection they expressed only after they got tenure.

And the product he sells is shoddy. If his moral philosophy comes from Ayn Rand, his eschatology comes from Ray Kurzweil, Vernor Vinge, and Aubrey de Grey, luminaries of transhumanism, which at root means to adddress the issue of mortality by technologically extending the human lifespan in increments until humans are in practice immortal.

In the popular imagination, transhumanists have allowed themselves to be characterized as people who freeze their heads after death in hopes that at some future date, technology will allow them to be resuscitated and have their heads grafted onto new bodies, thereby achieving immortality or something like it -- should they die again, they can simply have their heads refrozen and be resuscitated yet again farther down the line. (Catholic cemeteries don't offer the head freezing option.)

One problem for admirers of Reynolds is that he's never had the intellectual depth to challenge the "head freezer" image of transhumanism, but to do this would imply that there's a dimension of the belief that goes beyond head freezing. In more recent years, he's stopped plugging for Kurzweil, Vinge, and de Grey on his blog, but I don't believe he's ever seriously renounced transhumanism. Instead, he plays small ball with little posts like this one:

MICROBIOME NEWS: In a Huge First, Scientists Transfer Alzheimer’s to Healthy Young Animals. “The study also revealed specific bacteria in the gut are directly linked to cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s patients. This highlights the gut microbiome as a key area of research for Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, and that could lead to new ways to treat the disease.”

The man is terrified of aging, especially Alzheimer's, and he buys into panaceas like fixing your gut bacteria. Yale really ought to be embarrassed, but so should the University of Tennessee.

His Handlers Have Lost Confidence In Him

There's been very little this morning about Joe's presser aboard Air Force One following his departure from Israel. The most pointed was at Gateway Pundit, which posted stills of John Kirby's expressions as Joe spoke. A full video -- about 13 minutes -- of the presentation is available on C-Span. As in the stills, the most important feature is the body language and expressions of the handlers.

From the start to about 2:30, Karine Jean-Pierre is visible in the lower right quadrant looking glum. Beginning about 1:45, John Kirby appears between Joe and Ms Jean-Pierre looking volcanic. At 2:27, Joe says to the press, "You guys are such a pain in the neck," and Kirby and Jean-Pierre adopt the expressions of middle school administrators contemplating a riot in the stairwells. At 2:35, Kirby and Jean-Pierre withdraw beyond camera view to consult. This seems to have been a message to Joe to go to questions from the press.

When these begin, Kirby adopts a painful expression a little like someone watching a tightrope walker whom they're confindent won't make it across the rope. By 5:29, he struggles to put on a game face. At 6:54, he disappears behind Jean-Pierre, who is shaking her head. At 7:34, she begins to say, "We gotta wrap up, guys. . ." but Joe persists, while Kirby becomes more visible and more unhappy. The two-shots with Kirby, one of them showing Kirby rolling his eyes, take place just before the end. As Joe exits, there's a brief shot of Kirby with a look of utter disgust on his face.

What are they disappointed about? There seems to be a general consensus that Biden executed predetermined US policy. For instance, per CNN:

The White House had attempted to balance the public and military support for Israel with the reality that Arab partners are critical to Biden’s approach by going to Jordan for a summit with the key Arab leaders. But the last-minute scrapping of that meeting meant Biden would no longer go to Amman and instead faces a new diplomatic headache.

. . . While there was no explicit stipulation from the US that Israel not launch its invasion until Biden leaves the region, that’s the understanding among American officials who have spent the past several days debating and planning the president’s visit, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

American officials want humanitarian plans for Gaza fully signed off on and implemented before start of the invasion, the people said, describing that task as among Biden’s main objectives during his visit to Tel Aviv on Wednesday.

In other words, in the specific context of the Hamas invasion, Biden had little wiggle room, especially after Jordan canceled the summit with Arab leaders. At that point, all he could do was claim limited success in a limited field of action, viz, getting Israel to provide humanitarian aid in Gaza, and maybe sorta-kinda limiting or delaying Israeli reprisal. But this makes any president forced to attain such limited objectives look less than decisive -- even a Reagan would have to spin this somehow. Why are Jean-Pierre and Kirby so unhappy?

The root of the current crisis has been the tacit encouragement both the Obama and Biden administrations have given Iran, that they will give the mullahs a free hand in the region. That Iran should encourage Hamas to invade Israel is just a logical outcome of this indulgence. A secondary factor is Joe's perceived weakness. The problem for the rest of the Middle East is that, as even Joe recognizes, the Hamas invasion puts the moderate states in an impossible position of seeming to support Israel if they don't enthusiastically support Hamas -- and they blame Biden for letting it happen.

Given the overall constraints of policies Joe didn't create -- Blinken, as far as anyone can see, inherited them from Obama and has been implementing them independent of Joe, and he's been in the Middle East all week trying unsuccessfully to fix things in detail -- there's little Joe can do independently.

Maybe Kirby and Jean-Pierre are upset that Joe is trying to take too much credit for what's happening, when he's had so little control over it start to finish. But this is a problem Joe's handlers and puppetmasters have brought on themselves, although Joe is in no position to rescue them or himself. The basic issue is that the current Iran policy has failed. I'll be surprised if Kirby, Jean-Pierre, or Blinken ever acknowledge this. On the other hand, Republicans are failing to grasp the opportunity.

Where Are The Old-Style Presidents?

And by old-style, I think of, say, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and the Bushes père et fils. Joe's performance in Tel Aviv. which begins at about 4:05 in the video, is none of the above. He's looking down, reading very deliberately from notecards in an affectless tone, barely avoiding slurring.

"They're committed evils that uh, and atrocities that, uh, make ISIS, uh, look uh somewhat more rational. Y'know uh -- Americans are grieving with you. They really are. And Americans are worried. Americans are worried because they know there's uh this is not an easy field'a navigate whatcha havta do."

At about 5:58, he threatens to veer into another trademark self-serving account of days gone by: "Y'know, uh, years ago I asked the Secretary of State when we were serving in the Senate [presumably John Kerry] to write something for a man -- said, uh, you know a line that I think is appropriate, he said, uh, we need, uh, not just uh -- well, I won't go into it, I'll wait'll later, takin' too much time, but the point is this, that, uh, I'm deeply saddened and outraged by the uh, explosion at the hospital in Gaza yesterday. . ."

I've got to assume Joe's handlers arranged that Joe and Bibi would be seated, when an Obama, a Trump, a Dubya, or a Clinton would be standing. Netanyahu himself during his statement was on the edge of his seat, almost ready to stand up throughout it. Joe was clearly tired and making a pro forma appearance. It was just as well that Jordan earlier canceled a summit with King Abdullah II and Egypt's President Abdel Fatah el-Sisi, because Joe likely couldn't have handled it.

I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature. It takes me back to the Oval Office meeting with Israel's President Herzog at the White House in July, where Joe also read in an offhand manner from note cards and seemed almost to drift off to sleep. There can be no question that Democrat administrations have been backing away from Israel,when back in the day, Harry Truman had both a visceral sympathy for the new state and a recognition that alignment with Israel would cement Jewish membership in the New Deal coalition.

This piece at The Federalist goes into some detail on the history and motivation of Obama's aim to diminish US support for Israel -- which also means eventually dropping Jews from the Democrat coalition.

In August, Tablet magazine published a much-discussed, comprehensive interview between David Samuels and Obama biographer David Garrow. The biggest headlines that emerged from that interview had to do with Garrow uncovering letters where Obama wrote in detail about his gay sex fantasies. But buried beneath that revelation was a substantial discussion of Obama’s anti-Israel politics. Or as Tablet’s David Samuels put it, “Obama’s hostility to American exceptionalism also seemed linked to his hostility to Israel, or more specifically to America’s identification with Israel.” As Samuels went on to note, the inexplicable fixation Obama had with making Iran — the world’s leading state sponsor of terror attacks, and the same country behind Hamas’ atrocities in Israel over the weekend — a regional hegemon in spite of Israeli (and Saudi) objections is ample proof of that.

. . .“The sheer amount of political capital and focus Obama put into achieving the [Iran nuclear deal] during his second term, to the near-exclusion of other goals, suggests that the deal was central to his politics. It also carries more than a whiff of the kind of politics in which the American Empire is seen not just as unexceptional, but also, in some ways, as actively evil,” observed Samuels. “It was a politics born out of the confluence of the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, which saw a racist war abroad being used to protect a racist power structure at home. That old alliance of civil rights, anti-imperialism, and identity politics made the Democratic Party that Obama positioned himself to lead — college-educated, corporate-controlled — seem cool, allowing it to use post-1960s radical ideology as a language to sell stuff.”

Whatever the history, and whatever the hypocrisy that might be involved, Joe's shambling public demeanor in situations like his visit to Israel makes me nostalgic for Obama, who always displayed a focus, a public crispness and agility that's nowhere to be found with Joe. If we can't have Trump back, dogone it, I want Obama!

Why Are They Mad At Blinken?

Antony Blinken hasn't been having a good tour of the Middle East:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken received a cold reception from Egyptian and Saudi leaders during meetings about support for Israel on Sunday, according to The Washington Post.

Egypt’s Abdel Fatah El-Sisi and Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) rejected Blinken’s call for support of Israel’s counteroffensive in the Gaza Strip, the Post reported on Sunday. El-Sisi and Salman made it clear that they stood with Palestinians and called for Israel to end its “siege” in Gaza.

“I heard a lot of good ideas about some of the things we need to do moving forward,” Blinken told reporters on Sunday following his meeting.

MBS kept Blinken waiting for hours before their expected discussion on Saturday, instead choosing to show up to the meeting the next morning, according to the Post. When the two eventually met, MBS “stressed” that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) should halt its counter-offensive “that [has] claimed the lives of innocent people” and end the “siege of Gaza.”

. . . In Cairo, el-Sisi told Blinken that Israel’s counteroffensive has exceeded “the right of self-defense” and turned into a “collective punishment,” according to the Post. Egypt and the U.S. have reached an agreement to open a corridor in the Rafah border for U.S. citizens evacuating Gaza.

Neither Saudi Arabia nor Egyot has signed on to the Abraham Acccords. The Biden administration has worked toward normalization of Saudi-Israel relations, but the Hamas invasion has put these efforts on hold. On the other hand, the Egypt–Israel peace treaty of 1979 was the first visible step in the overall effort toward Middle East stability. The problem for both Saudi Arabia and Egypt is that their regimes put their domestic prestige on the line when they support these efforts, but any military action involving Israel takes away any potential payoff to them for promoting normalization.

Thus the Obama-Biden Realignment strategy whereby Iran becomes the regional hegemon has risks if Iran isn't predictable. This is the basic problem with the Hamas invasion -- Iran has demonstrated it can't be relied on to be a neutral third party or an actor with restraint. Thus the departure of the US from the region leaves unresolved issues. In the words of the Wilson Center,

a decade-long era of ambitious American geostrategic involvement in the internal affairs regional states, from regime change to societal transformation, began with the Iraq invasion in 2003 and ended in 2013 when President Obama chose not to enforce his redline on Syrian chemical weapons. Surveys at the time showed that Americans no longer wanted to spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of troops for ephemeral societal goals with little success.

. . . To square that circle, those administrations de-prioritized American resources committed to the region, with the “delta” taken up by America’s many security partners in the region. This “by-with-through” approach with local allies was first implemented successfully in campaign to defeat the Islamic State. Nevertheless, the perceived disengagement of the United States, as regional states faced the threats of Iranian expansion and secondarily Islamic extremism, led moderate Arab states to reorder priorities.

Israel, with its firm position opposing Iranian expansion, and success combating Islamic terrorism, suddenly appeared to be a partial replacement to the US. Furthermore, Israel’s longstanding desire for diplomatic acceptance in the Arab world and its cutting-edge industrial, technological, energy and trade success, suggested it could help Arab states advance in those realms as well.

It seems to me that the frustration of Saudi Arabia and Egypt is primarily a result of their recognition that relying on Iran to maintain a regional balance against Israel is a vain fancy. Iran will try to wipe Israel out until it finally accomplishes that goal, and then Iran will move to take over everyone else. What MBS and al-Sisi are saying is that the Hamas invasion has shown the failure of the Realignment strategy and put them in a more difficult spot politically in their own countries -- they now have no choice but to oppose Israel, which means they have no choice but to oppose US policy, and they're telling Blinken to fix this. The US should not have let things get this far.

I don't normally have high expectations of Victor Davis Hanson, but I think he edges toward the truth here:

Why does the U.S. discount any possibility of a strategic response from Russia—which reportedly has some 6,000-7,000 nuclear weapons—to attacks on its homeland, but seems almost terrified about calling Iran to account for its central role in arming and funding terrorists to start a war with Israel by slaughtering 1,200 civilians?

. . . There are likely somewhere between 600,000 and 800,000 total wounded and dead in Ukraine, in the most lethal conflict in Europe since 1945. Why is the U.S. so eager to call for a ceasefire after a fraction of those casualties in Gaza, but it is near-taboo to mention a breather amid the historical carnage, with no end in sight, in Ukraine?

In effect, we have two separate strategic policies in Ukraine and the Middle East, and both are proving failures. Why are Biden and Blinken so determined to push both of them, especially as contradictory as they are, through?

The Strategic Disconnect

I found another Tablet piece from early 2021 trying to make sense of what might be the Biden foreign policy, this one by Martin Peretz, the controversial former publisher and sometime editor-in-chief of The New Republic. Peretz, a Zionist and something close to a neoconservative, saw a "Mideast blind spot" in Antony Blinken, of whose foreign policy vision he otherwise enthusiastically approved, and he raised the conundrum of Robert Malley:

The twinned issues where Blinken has remained conspicuously reticent and indistinct are the Middle East and the elephant in the Middle East, Iran. In lieu of asserting himself, the secretary of state has approved the reopening of nuclear talks with Iran and outsourced them to Robert Malley, whom he appointed or allowed to be appointed U.S. special envoy to that country. Blinken’s reliance on Malley, and Malley’s own history of finding any opportunity to engage with groups and countries that demonstrably align themselves against American interests, point to a large lacuna, so far, in the otherwise sober vision Blinken has laid out.

It is worth noting here that Malley, besides being an architect of President Barack Obama’s Iran deal and a longtime proponent of outreach to Iran and Hamas, is a childhood friend of Blinken’s: The two grew up together in Paris, Malley as the son of a European-style Jewish communist with anti-imperialist politics and links to Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro, and Blinken as the stepson of an active and influential Zionist businessman and philanthropist who was also a public supporter of détente between the West and the Soviet Union. The divergences and convergences of their fathers’ politics are not irrelevant to understanding the sons.

. . . The assignment of Malley—who, when he is out of government, runs his inherited anti-imperialist priorities through dogmatic internationalists like George Soros, for whom the idea of a national interest is inherently suspect—shows that Blinken hasn’t looked very hard at the reality of Iran’s actions on the ground, or paid much attention to the recent history of attempted rapprochements with the regime, especially Malley’s. (Soros has not been mentioned in the debate over Malley’s appointment, but he should be: No one can claim that Malley’s proximity to an ideologically driven billionaire who funds a multinational, activist NGO empire and has real interests in international decision-making, currency, and oil markets is irrelevant or an unfit subject of discussion.)

. . . Maybe Blinken and Biden feel constrained by Obama’s Mideast realignment policy and obligated to continue his intended legacy-making initiative, at least for a time; maybe Malley is leveraging the public strength of Obama’s legacy, and the former president’s sway with key administration figures like Susan Rice, to exercise undue influence in the Biden White House.

Peretz's speculations are on point for 2021, but the problem is that things have changed. Susan Rice's position in the Biden administration slowly faded despite high early expectations, and she left the administration entirely this past April:

On April 24, 2023, President Biden announced that Rice would be departing from her position as director of the Domestic Policy Council on May 26, 2023.

Also in April, Robert Malley began the process of having his security clearance suspended and being placed on leave from his position of special envoy for Iran. Nevertheless, every indication is that Blinken (and by implication, Biden) has continued the Obama policy of Realignment, tacitly encouraging Iran to play an active role in counterbalancing Israel and continuing a policy of payments to the regime there.

But the big event since Peretz's 2021 piece has been the Russian reinvasion of Ukraine in February 2022, a reassertion of its 2014 claim that Ukraine was part of Russia, which in turn had been provoked by US support for the coup against Ukraine's then-president Viktor Yanukovych, who had been favorable toward Russia. After Russia reoccupied the Donbas and Crimea in 2014, the conflict was dormant, especially during the Trump administration, until it broke out again with the Biden presidency, possibly encouraged by Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan.

All of a sudden, Biden doubled down on a neoconservative policy in Ukraine, effectively orchestrating a Western attempt to remove Ukraine completely from the Russian sphere of influence and move it into the EU and even NATO -- but in the quadrant to the south, the object continues to be to disengage from supporting Israel and outsource the Middle East stability project to a nuclear Iran. In short, the plan seems to be to decolonize the Middle East, effectively abandoning Western interests in Israel, Lebanon, Syria, the Arabian peninsula, and Iraq, while simultaneously recolonizing Ukraine as a Western proxy.

Is there a grand vision here? It's hard to see one. If Robert Malley isn't pulling the strings now -- if indeed he was ever pulling the strings -- who is? One possible explanation might be here:

When people talk about “Ukrainian grain” they’re actually talking about grain that is now owned by US and EU mega-corporations such as Vanguard Group, Kopernik Global Investors, BNP Asset Management Holding, Goldman Sachs-owned NN Investment Partners Holdings, and Norges Bank Investment Management, which manages Norway’s sovereign wealth fund.

Several large US pension funds, foundations, and university endowments are also invested in Ukrainian land through NCH Capital – a US-based private equity fund, which is the fifth largest landholder in the country.

Ideology may be less an answer than money alone, and there we might go back to Joe Biden and the renewed question of what he and his closest retainers were up to at the Penn Biden Center. The Comer committee is rasing entirely reasonable questions in a letter to Special Counsel Robert Hur:

The letter to Hur comes as Comer appeared to discover an omission in Biden’s narrative about the mishandling of classified information. Joe Biden’s senior aide, Annie Tomasini, who reportedly told Hunter Biden multiple times that she loved him, handled the president’s classified documents at the Penn Biden Center in Washington, DC, 20 months before Joe Biden’s lawyer disclosed the discovery of the documents to the public, Comer revealed last week.

Comer also believes the president’s timeline of events omitted multiple visits from at least five White House employees: Dana Remus, Anthony Bernal, Ashley Williams, Annie Tomasini, and an unknown staffer. “There is no reasonable explanation as to why this many White House employees and lawyers were so concerned with retrieving boxes they believed only contained personal documents and materials,” according to Comer.

So the committee now wants to see what Hur has. This may eventually begin to explain the inchoate strategic policies we've been seeing.

Old Questions On Robert Malley Are New Again

I ran into this short piece at Tablet, one of the sites that broke the Malley-Tabatabai story the week before the Hamas invasion of Israel, which points out that they'd been contrarian over US policy over Israel and Iran all along, with links to prove it. One of those links, from May 2021, is The Realignment: In the Middle East, Biden is finishing what Obama started. And his top advisers are all on board. A little searching indicates that this was re-linked frequently at the time, but it's gone dormant until the new questions have come up about Blinken and Malley.

Is the new president [Biden] forging his own path in the Middle East, or is he following in the footsteps of Obama? Until now, those who feared that his presidency might become the third term of Obama fixed their wary eyes on Robert Malley, the president’s choice as Iran envoy. When serving in the Obama White House, Malley helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, which sought accommodations with Tehran that came at the expense of America’s allies in the Middle East. In a revealing Foreign Affairs article, written in 2019, Malley expressed regret that Obama failed to arrive at more such accommodations. The direction of Obama’s policy was praiseworthy, Malley wrote, but his “moderation” was the enemy of his project. Being “a gradualist,” he presided over “an experiment that got suspended halfway through.”

Malley, the article leads one to assume, is now advising Biden to go all the way—and fast. But surely it is the president, not his Iran envoy, who determines the direction and pace of policy. Over the course of a career in Washington spanning nearly half a century, Biden has never cut a radical profile. Nor have Sullivan or Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The presence of this pair at Biden’s side signaled to many that Malley would not drive Iran policy. Shortly after the election, a veteran Washington insider noted to a journalist that “Blinken and Sullivan are certainly from the more moderate wing of the party, and that is reassuring.”

The piece goes on to tease out just what the "experiment" Malley referred to in Foreign Affairs involved:

To what, precisely, was Robert Malley referring when he spoke of Obama’s half-completed “experiment”?

If you answered “the JCPOA [the Iran nuclear deal],” you got it wrong.

If you said “improving relations with Iran,” you scored much higher, but you still failed.

The president’s “ultimate goal,” Malley wrote, was “to help the [Middle East] find a more stable balance of power that would make it less dependent on direct U.S. interference or protection.” That is a roundabout way of saying that Obama dreamed of a new Middle Eastern order—one that relies more on partnership with Iran.

It then ties Malley's policy prescriptions to Jake Sullivan, Biden's current national security adviser:

In May 2020, six months after Malley penned his Foreign Affairs essay, Jake Sullivan, writing as an adviser to Biden’s presidential campaign, co-authored his own article laying out a Middle East strategy. The goal, he explained, is to be “less ambitious” militarily, “but more ambitious in using U.S. leverage and diplomacy to press for a de-escalation in tensions and eventually a new modus vivendi among the key regional actors.” If we substitute the word “balance” for “modus vivendi,” and if we recognize that “de-escalation” and “diplomacy” require cooperation with Iran, then Sullivan’s vision is identical to Obama’s “ultimate goal” as described by Malley. Sullivan emphasized that equivalence when he defined the objective of his plan as “changing the United States’ role in a regional order it helped create.”

The piece goes on to argue that the Obama-Biden administrations have been remarkably secretive about the overall initiative, which it calls "The Realignment", which can be expressed as follows:

First, allow Tehran an unfettered nuclear weapons program by 2031; second, end the sanctions on the Iranian economic and financial system; third, implement a policy of accommodation of Iran and its tentacles in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon; and fourth, force that policy on America’s closest allies. If the United States follows those commandments, then a kind of natural regional balance will fall into place. The United States, so the thinking goes, will then finally remove itself from the war footing that traditional allies, with their anti-Iran agenda, have forced on it. Thereafter, diplomatic engagement with Iran will be the primary tool needed to maintain regional stability.

The piece then ties the Realignment to US domestic policies and the future of Zionism, prophetically it would seem:

Contemporary progressivism is, shall we say, less than enthusiastic about Zionism. One of its cherished goals is to reduce American support for Israel, and the Realignment helps it realize that ambition—but it does so slyly. It refrains from making its anti-Zionism explicit for fear of stirring up opposition to the project among the largely pro-Israel American people. But by upgrading relations with Iran, the Realignment perforce downgrades the Jewish state.

How Israel responds to this downgrading will depend on how its prolonged domestic crisis, marked by four national elections in two years’ time, finally gets resolved. Netanyahu haters in the Biden administration will be sure to delight if he is toppled from power and succeeded by someone with less foreign policy experience, such as Yair Lapid, the chairman of the Yesh Atid party. The White House believes that a post-Netanyahu Israel will work to accommodate its main demands. If, however, Netanyahu remains in power (or if he is succeeded by someone with a similar disposition on Iran), then the Israelis will not readily accept the diminished role assigned to them by the Realignment.

This, published in May 2021, puts us right into October 2023. Netanyahu, closely aligned with Donald Trump, returned as prime minister in December 2022. Indeed, as the Jerusalem Post observed at the time,

As election results heralded Benjamin Netanyahu’s amazing comeback, Yair Lapid and Naftali’s Bennett’s government of change let out its final breath.

Less than a year and a half after they made history and ended Netanyahu’s 12-year consecutive rule, history ironically struck back: Bennett, who retired after heading the government for 12 months, earned the dubious title of the prime minister with the shortest tenure ever, breaking Ehud Barak’s previous dishonorable record from the beginning of the millennium. Lapid, however, will end up serving for only 4 months, thus replacing his partner Bennett on the top of the short list.

Netanyahu, on the other hand, continues to break his own records, triumphantly approaching his sixth term, accumulating even more years as Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, a title he already holds.

And it appears that the Hamas invasion earlier this month will cement Netanyahu's position now in a national unity government that will last as long as the Hamas war continues. Little is being said right now about what's going on in US-Israeli relations, but the tension that I think was evident in the brief exchange between Biden and Netanyahu in New York, when Netanyahu pointedly referred to "good Irish whiskey" and Biden crossed himself, suggests that Netanyahu, who spent time in the US between the 1950s and 1970s, is a savvy political player in the US environment as well as in Israel.

The Hamas war has put Netanyahu into the US election just as the progressives have aligned themselves with Hamas. This has the Democrats in a bind. Right now, Netanyahu is calling the shots.

The prediction in the 2021 Tablet piece, that a Netanyahu return to power wouldn't be a good sign for the Realignment -- or for the progressivist agenda behind it -- does point to an unresolved question. Malley, a direct report to Antony Blinken, a childhood friend of Blinken, and an Obama-Sullivan protégé, lost his security clearance and was put on leave from the State Department in a series of steps last spring, well before the Hamas attack, which itself appears to have come as a surprise to all Western parties. But the Tablet piece suggests that Blinken is on board with the Malley agenda notwithstanding.

What was going on there? I very much doubt l'affaire Malley signaled any serious Blinken departure from the Realignment, which has been central to progressivist Democrat policies. We still have a great deal to learn.