Jordan enclave in West Bank could be Trump's "two-state" solution

[Published 3 October 2018]

Creating another Palestinian Arab state — in addition to Jordan - has been seemingly consigned to the garbage bin of history following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s CNN interview on 28 September.

President Trump had just told Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly:

“I like two-state solution. I like two-state solution. That’s what I think works best. I don’t even have to speak to anybody, that’s my feeling.”

When asked if he was prepared to commit to a two-state solution - Netanyahu told his CNN interviewer:

“I’ve discovered that if you use labels you are not going to get very far because different people mean different things when they say “states”. So rather than talk about labels, I like to talk about substance”

Questioned on what he would like to see - Netanyahu replied:

“What I would like to see is that the Palestinians will have all the powers to govern themselves and not all the powers that will threaten us. What that means is that in the tiny area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — it’s all about 50 kilometres wide — that’s where the Palestinians live and the Israelis live — in that area under any peace agreement or without a peace agreement — Israel has to have the dominant power, the military power, overriding security power ...”

Netanyahu then stressed:

“Israel has to have the overriding security, not the UN, not Canadian Mounties, not — I don’t know — Austrian or Australian forces — Israeli forces have to have the security control, otherwise, that place will be taken over by Islamist terrorists, either Daesh, ISIS or Hamas or Iran, all of the above, and that’s my condition.”

Trump’s upcoming peace plan slated for release in 2-4 months needs to deal with Netanyahu’s concerns if it is to win Israel’s backing.

Israel’s security demands would best be satisfied by part of the West Bank being reunified with Jordan to create a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank — with the remainder of the West Bank being annexed by Israel.

This solution would enable Israel to:

1. Control access and egress between the West Bank and Jordan

2. Maintain security control for the entire area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea

3.Ensure the enclave be demilitarized and remain demilitarized

The enclave’s residents would acquire Jordanian citizenship. Jordanian law would apply in the enclave — which could be divided into any number of electoral divisions whose residents would choose their representatives to sit in the Jordanian Parliament.

The PLO has already rejected Trump’s peace plan — sight unseen — opening the door for Jordan — at peace with Israel since signing their 1994 Peace Treaty - to fill the negotiating void necessary to create this Jordanian enclave.

Israel’s former Foreign Minister Moshe Arens presciently stated on January 11, 1989:

“Jordan is a Palestinian state. And it is with Jordan that we must decide where the border will run…. Should the border follow the Jordan River, as it does today, or should it be west of the Jordan, as the Jordanians would like?”

I would suggest therefore that, when it comes to talking about territory there is only one negotiating party acceptable to the government of Israel. That party is the existing Palestinian state of Jordan.”

Creating a Jordanian enclave in the West Bank with Israel annexing the remainder could be - in Trump’s own words:

“the ultimate deal…as a deal maker, I’d like to do … the deal that can’t be made. And do it for humanity’s sake.”

Don’t underestimate Trump’s deal-making ability to end what he himself has called “the war that never ends”.


Author’s note:The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones”- one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Islamic State and al-Nusrah Survive Whilst America and Russia Crash Dive

[Published 22 September 2016]


Botched airstrikes by American, Australian and British warplanes in Syria have accidentally killed at least 62 Syrian soldiers and wounded more than 100 - leading Russia to making the accusation that the “White House is defending Islamic State”.

The boot was however on the other foot when America blamed Russia for an airstrike a few days later that killed 20 Syrian Red Crescent aid workers and truck drivers delivering humanitarian aid relief to 78000 civilians trapped in Aleppo province.

A very angry American Secretary of State – John Kerry – addressed the UN Security Council on 21 September:

“For weeks over the summer, experts from my government worked with our counterparts from Russia in good efforts to develop a plan that would take into account the lessons learned from the original cessation, and the key elements of that plan launched in Geneva two weeks ago include the renewal of a cessation of hostilities, excluding only Daesh [Islamic State – ed] and al-Nusrah.

Importantly, it included arrangements for the unfettered delivery – unfettered delivery – of humanitarian aid to people in Aleppo and elsewhere in the country, and it envisioned the possibility – providing humanitarian assistance was unimpeded and sustained, and provided there were at least seven days of consecutive adherence to the cessation – that the United States and Russia would begin to coordinate their efforts against Daesh [Islamic State] and al-Nusrah.

And I want to make it clear, under President Obama’s orders, all preparations were being made in order to achieve that cooperation in terms of our military and intelligence community and the work we would do. So we’re committed to that."

America and Russia had again put the cart before the horse – and these two tragic events have happened as a result.

Russia, America and their respective cohorts now need to get on with the job of first destroying their commonly agreed enemies - Islamic State and al- Nusrah – but only after first obtaining a UN mandated Security Council Resolution - rather than acting independently of the UN by pursuing some joint co-ordinated action of their own.

President Putin warned in his speech at the UN just one year ago of the perils of operating outside a UN Security Council resolution:

“Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full consensus, but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous. They could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.”

Obama and Putin should urgently co-sponsor a Security Council resolution under Article 42 of the UN Charter before the Syrian sinkhole opens even wider.

Such a Resolution would enable the UN to take action by air, sea, or land forces to defeat and remove Islamic State and al-Nusrah as a threat to international peace and security.

All UN Members would be obliged to make available to the Security Council, on its call, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage.

Only a UN-mandated military force led by a single commander-in-chief can ever hope to defeat Islamic State and al-Nusrah.

America seems unable to understand that resolving this world threat to international peace and security in Syria must first happen before it becomes possible to start resolving the 5 year old civil war in Syria.

Meantime Islamic State and al-Nusrah survive – and the inhumane suffering in Syria continues.

Russia and America must use the United Nations Security Council for the purpose it was created – not as a debating forum to play the blame game.

UN Security Council Moves To End Anonymity On Internet

[Published 15 May 2016]


Ending the plague of anonymity on the Internet seems closer to fruition following moves this week by the UN Security Council.

Re-affirming its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security the President of the Security Council re-iterated:

“the urgent need to globally counter the activities of ISIL (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities to incite and recruit to commit terrorist acts”

by a variety of measures including:

“developing the most effective means to counter terrorist propaganda, incitement and recruitment, including through the Internet, in compliance with international law, including international human rights law;”

The President called on its Counter-Terrorism Committee in close consultation with other relevant United Nations bodies and international and regional organizations as well as interested Member States to present a comprehensive international framework to the Security Council by 30 April 2017.

Steven A Crown, vice president and deputy general counsel of Microsoft told the Security Council:

“there is no silver bullet that will stop terrorist use of the Internet.”

Crown was quick to acknowledge:

“For the internet industry, the scale of the terrorist challenge is daunting. We know that there are tens of thousands terrorist internet accounts that refuse to die. As one is taken down, another quickly springs up in its place.”

Crown’s appearance marked the first time a representative of a technology company has addressed the U.N.‘s most powerful body.

Crown was surely being naïve in expressing this opinion.

The use of the Internet as a communications tool has been fuelled by the anonymity afforded to those who use it – enabling all kinds of hate and incitement to be spewed out daily without recourse to those who claim to have been legally affected by those who make their vile and outrageous statements.

Surely the first step in any move by the Security Council to combat this “Internet Intifada” is to insist that all member States impose laws in their jurisdictions compelling all Internet providers to insist on the names , addresses and contact phone numbers being provided by all registered users of their websites - including those seeking to post comments.

These details would be held by the Internet provider and could be subpoenaed in any proceedings brought in a competent court of law by persons claiming to have suffered as a result of any offending publication.

Large penalties would be prescribed for those providers who failed to check the bona fides of those using the internet.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power correctly said it was important to protect free speech.

"As we consider the task of countering violent ideologies we all must recognize that the common goal of countering terrorist ideology should never be used as an excuse to suppress political dissent. Legal action is a critical tool in the campaign against ISIL but it must not be wielded like a cudgel against those who voice unpopular speech or criticize authorities. Such behavior doesn’t prevent violent extremism, it fuels it.”

Ending anonymity on the Internet is not a threat to free speech. It does not prevent anyone saying whatever they want to say within the bounds of what is legally acceptable.

Anonymity has been widely rejected by most newsprint around the world.

Popular talk back radio shows have a seven second delete button to filter calls deemed to be outside what is legally permitted.

Ending anonymity on the Internet – if prosecuted by all UN member States - will lead to those tens of thousands of terrorist internet accounts currently in existence and their would-be successors being quickly and effectively eliminated.

If people are not prepared to reveal their identities – don’t publish.

UN Security Council Must Get Serious On Destroying Islamic State

[Published 25 November 2015]


Brussels in lock-down, mayhem in Mali and the shooting down of a Russian war plane by Turkey have swiftly followed the unanimous passage on 20 November 2015 of an ineffectual French-sponsored Security Council Resolution 2249 (2015) in the record breaking time of just 34 minutes.

Resolution 2249 once again showed up the Security Council’s continuing reluctance to seriously deal with destroying Islamic State — even though the resolution itself determined that:

”the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as Da’esh), constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security,”

Such an “unprecedented threat” only produced this limp-listed response calling:

“upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures, in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under the control of ISIL also known as Da’esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also known as Da’esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with Al-Qaida, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the statement of the International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;”

The result:

1. Russia with Iran and Hezbollah

2. the 62 nation coalition led by America

3. France reeling from Islamic State atrocities committed in Paris

are now all conducting their own independent mini-wars on different terrorist groups and targets in Syria and Iraq — instead of focusing on their one common agreed enemy — Islamic State.

That a Russian fighter plane could be shot down by Turkey — both members of the ISSG — highlights the continuing folly of failing to have one military force under one military commander with the full support of all 193 United Nation member States.

Even more amazingly - Resolution 2249 was passed despite this warning from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on 18 November:

“The Security Council needs to give preferential attention to the task of creating a solid legal foundation for the fight against this evil [Islamic State] and for the mobilization of an actual global coalition in response to this common uncompromising challenge for us all”.

Russia must now be ruing its decision to support the passage of Resolution 2249 — rather than insisting on the Security Council passing a Resolution under article 42 of the UN Charter directed specifically at Islamic State to:

“take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”

Article 43 of the Charter would then have obligated:

1. All Members of the United Nations to undertake to make available to the Security Council armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage

2. Agreements being made governing the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided—such agreements to be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council.

How many more atrocities and military misadventures must occur before the Security Council gets really serious on destroying Islamic State with its own UN-authorized global military force?

Security Council Permanent Members Herald Armed Action Against Islamic State

[Published 3 November 2015]


An international conference in Vienna on 30 October — attended by all five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council — America, China, France, Russia and the United Kingdom - has made an important breakthrough towards defeating the Islamic State and ending the conflict in Syria and Iraq.

Together with Egypt, the EU, Germany, Iran, Iraq, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United Nations — the Permanent Members reached a mutual understanding that

“Da’esh (Islamic State), and other terrorist groups, as designated by the U.N. Security Council, and further, as agreed by the participants, must be defeated."

This is the first time the five Permanent Members have reached such a consensus — acknowledging that prior measures not involving the use of armed force under Security Council Resolutions 2170 and 2178 have failed to defeat the Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups — a prerequisite before there can be any hope of restoring stability and reaching lasting political solutions in Syria and Iraq.

International co-operation to defeat the Islamic State through a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force had previously risked being vetoed by either Russia or America in the face of earlier American objections against co-operating with any armed force which included President Assad’s troops.

Russia’s Foreign Minister — Sergei Lavrov - had declared as recently as 29 September.

“We think it is an enormous mistake to refuse to cooperate with the Syrian government and its armed forces, who are valiantly fighting terrorism face to face. We should finally acknowledge that no one but President Assad’s armed forces and Kurds militias are truly fighting the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations in Syria.”

However speaking at a joint press conference with US Secretary of State — John Kerry - after the historic Vienna meeting - Lavrov made an important concession to America’s stance of non-co-operation with Assad - opening the way for the passage of a Security Council Resolution authorising the use of armed force under article 42 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter:

“Russia is committed to fighting terrorism based on the solid basis of international law, whether we’re talking about the military interventions from air or the ground operations. These need to be conducted in agreement with the [Assad] government or with the UN Security Council.”

Lavrov signalled an early end to the current separate American-led coalition and Russian-Iranian interventions in Syria aimed at defeating Islamic State:

“I believe that neither the U.S. nor Russia want to go back to the so-called proxy war, but the fact that this situation makes the cooperation between the militaries ever more important is very apparent to me. We have a common enemy and we need to make sure that this enemy does not come to power in Syria or in any other country.”

Agreement by the five Permanent Security Council Members calling for armed action by air, sea and land forces against Islamic State and other designated terrorist groups has now become a distinct possibility — meeting President Obama’s preferred position as expressed by him on 6 September 2013:

“And I respect those who are concerned about setting precedents of action outside of a U.N. Security Council resolution. I would greatly prefer working through multilateral channels and through the United Nations to get this done.”

The Vienna participants reconvene within the next ten days to continue their crucial discussions.

Hopefully they will agree on pursuing the long-awaited and elusive Security Council Resolution authorising armed action - with the long-suffering Syrian people being its ultimate beneficiaries after five horrific years of war, 250000 deaths and millions being internally displaced and externally dispersed.

Islamic State - Confusion, Delusion and Illusion

[Published 10 July 2015]


Australia’s Minister for Communications — Malcolm Turnbull — has sought to play down the threat Islamic State poses to world peace and security with these few throwaway unsubstantiated sentences during an address to the Sydney Institute on 7 July:

”... Da’esh is not Hitler’s Germany, Tojo’s Japan or Stalin’s Russia. Its leaders dream that they, like the Arab armies of the 7th and 8th century, will sweep across the Middle East into Europe itself.

They predict that before long they will be stabling their horses in the Vatican.

We should be careful not to say or do things which can be seen to add credibility to those delusions.”

Turnbull used the term “Daesh” — instead of Islamic State - on 16 occasions during his address.

This was in itself an indication of the confusion that he and other leading politicians around the world are experiencing - continuing to use an outdated Arab acronym from 2013 to identify an enemy whose original objectives have now extended far beyond Syria and Iraq — as its self-declaration of Statehood on 29 June 2014 makes clear:

“Accordingly, the “Iraq and Shām” in the name of the Islamic State is henceforth removed from all official deliberations and communications, and the official name is the Islamic State from the date of this declaration.”

Turnbull ignored that Islamic State has since then seized control of an area of territory in Syria and Iraq larger than Great Britain — whilst 20 groups in Sudan, Philippines, India, Algeria, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and most notably Boko Haram in Nigeria have sworn allegiance to Islamic State.

Boko Haram has been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths and displacement of an estimated 1 million people in the past year and now reportedly controls an area about 52,000 square kilometres - roughly the size of Slovakia.

Regrettably delusions are the stuff wars are made of - as Hitler’s Germany demonstrated so horribly in World War 11. When fed with declarations of allegiance and support from others their delusional goals become an achievable reality in their warped minds.

Failing to immediately extinguish these Turnbull-identified Islamic State delusions ensures the continuation of the belligerent actions carried out by Islamic State as detailed in Security Council Resolutions 2170 dated 15 August 2014 and 2199 dated 12 February 2015:

1. the displacement of millions of people,

2.seizing control of oilfields, dams and power plants,

3. extortion, kidnap ransoms and stealing money from the territory it controls

4. abductions of women and children, their exploitation and abuse, including rape, sexual abuse, forced marriage,

Turnbull only mentioned in passing the prescription needed to end such continuing atrocities and the termination of such dangerous delusions:

“The… most important part of the Government’s response to Da’esh, is of course lending the support of our armed forces to defeating them in the field. The means of doing so are well beyond the scope of this speech, but the roll back and destruction of Da’esh in Iraq and Syria is critical to ending not just their barbaric rule in the Middle East, but their appeal beyond it, even, as we know, to a few of our own citizens.”

The illusion that Islamic State can be destroyed by the 62 nation coalition presently led by America — rather than by a United Nations force sanctioned under Article 42 of Chapter V11 of the United Nations Charter — represents a lack of genuine international will to stop Islamic State — and its threat to international peace and security - dead in its tracks.

The parallels with failing to stop Hitler’s Germany much earlier become clearer with each passing day.

Islamic State - Egypt Wakes Up - When Will America And Russia?

[Published 24 February 2015]


Whilst the American—led coalition continues its largely ineffectual air strikes in Iraq and Syria — Islamic State has spread its barbaric tentacles into Libya with alarming rapidity.

Islamic State has claimed responsibility for:

1. Attacking Tripoli’s downtown luxury hotel in January - the Corinthian - which left 11 dead

2. The brutal mass beheading of 21 Egyptian Christian Copts

3. A multi-pronged suicide attack that killed at least 45 people in the town al Qubbah in Libya’s east.

4. Seizing the university in Sirte - deposed dictator Muammar Gadaffi’s hometown.

Egypt’s President - Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi—has called for intervention by the United Nations:

“What is going on in Libya could change this country into a breeding ground that could threaten the whole region, not only Egypt. Egypt, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe have to deal with this problem because the mission was unaccomplished, was unfinished by our European friends. We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias.”

An emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was told this week by Libya’s Foreign Minister Mohamed Dayri:

“Libya needs a decisive stance from the international community to help us build our national army’s capacity and this would come through a lifting of the embargo on weapons ... so as to deal with this rampant terrorism,”

The Security Council ignored his plea — and with good reason.

Libya currently has two Governments — one located in Bayda and the other in Tripoli. In November 2014 Libya’s Supreme Court held the Bayda Government to be illegal and unconstitutional - a decision ignored by its two principal backers - the United States and the European Union.

Removing the arms embargo — in force since 2011- would mean new shipments of arms could risk ending up under Islamic State’s control.

U.N. special envoy to Libya - Bernardino Leon - has said that Islamic State and other militants can only be defeated with a united Libyan government in place that has strong international support.

Any expectation that the United Nations can mediate between these rival Governments to forge a unity government to end ongoing hostilities and divisions in Libya is fanciful.

Leon himself has frankly admitted the immediate threat Libya faces from Islamic State:

“In Libya, Islamic State has found fertile ground in the growing post revolution political instability, capitalizing also on the weakness of state institutions and state security sector,”

EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini has also acknowledged Libya’s parlous situation.

“What we are seeing today in Libya is a double threat: it is a threat of a country that is breaking apart and of a country where Daesh (Islamic State) is taking power and infiltrating,”

President Obama’s urgently needs to rethink his September 2014 assessment that Islamic State:

1. Is not Islamic

2. Is not a state but only a terrorist organisation with no other vision

3. Can be degraded and destroyed by an American-led coalition

Professor Deborah Lipstadt has succinctly summed up President Obama’s continuing political blindness:

“He has bent over backwards to try to separate [Islamic State] from Islam, Sometimes people try to keep an open mind. And when you have too open a mind, your brains can fall out.”

Islamic State continues to morph as groups such as “Province of Sinai “ — creating mayhem and havoc in the Egyptian desert area neighbouring Israel and Gaza - swear allegiance to it

Islamic State will continue acquiring territory whilst military action remains unauthorised by a United Nations Security Council resolution.

America and Russia must both be brain dead in ignoring Islamic State’s increasing threat to their vital respective interests in the Middle East.

Yemen Crumbles,Iraq Stumbles,America Fumbles

[Published 25 January 2015]


There are some 60 States in the American-led coalition pledged to degrading and destroying Islamic State — but only 21 — regarded as “key members” were at the Conference in London on 22 January — which UK Foreign Minister Philip Hammond described in these terms:

“Today, 21 key members of the global coalition met in London to review and discuss our efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL not just through military force, but by addressing the underlying narrative of the organization, its financing, its flow of foreign fighters, and by reasserting our commitment to Iraq. In total, over 60 countries have signed up to the global coalition, showing the international will and commitment to combat this threat.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry was at pains to clarify why the other 39 States had not joined the talk-fest:

”And all the coalition partners are continuing to make vital contributions .., and we mean all 60. Whether it’s sheltering refugees, training, advising Iraqi troops on the front lines, or speaking out against Daesh’s [Islamic State—Ed] hateful, false ideology, we appreciate the contribution of every single member, each of whom has chosen one line of effort or another.

But we also recognize the need to, as effectively as possible, be able to coordinate all of these contributions. And that’s what the small group that came here today set out to do. The small group will continue to meet on a regular basis and continue, obviously, to consult with the full 60 members of the coalition, who will meet again as a full membership.”

The non-participation of the world’s remaining 133 States in the American-led coalition did not escape Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Abadi’s attention — as he wryly noted:

“Daesh is a terrorist organization. It knows no race, no religion, no region. It spares nobody, so everybody must be facing Daesh.”

Al-Abadi was therefore being more than a little cynical when he stated:

“that Iraq is not alone, the Iraqi people are not alone, but the entire world stands with Iraq.”

One can only ask - why then are these 133 reluctant States not members of the American - led coalition? Are they prepared to let the other 60 States do the heavy lifting for them whilst they just sit by and watch? Will they only be motivated to join the American-led coalition when Islamic State comes knocking at their door?

Pointedly the Joint Press Availability with UK Foreign Secretary Hammond and Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi - issued by the US State Department following the London Conference - made no mention of any discussion having taken place at the Conference concerning Yemen’s dramatic cave-in this week — resulting in the resignation of Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi after having being held captive following a concerted assault waged by Houthi rebels.

Yemen had been allowing the United States to wage counterterror drone strike operations targeting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from Yemen’s sovereign territory.

Membership of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State was respectively claimed by the perpetrators of two horrific massacres in Paris last week at the offices of publisher Charlie Hebdo and a Kosher supermarket - resulting in the murder of seventeen people whilst putting France on a state of highest alert to counter any further possible terrorist attacks in their wake.

The events in Yemen represent a spectacular collapse of President Obama’s policy for similarly countering Islamic State in Iraq - by training supplying and using Iraqi forces to fight Islamic State on the ground whilst the coalition counters Islamic State from the air.

President Obama laid out this policy on 10 September 2014 — citing Yemen as an example of how that policy was working:

“Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military action, there are risks involved — especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to international order.”

Could Yemen’s fate herald the Iraqi Government’s possible collapse?

Al-Abadi ominously told the London Conference:

“Another issue, which is being discussed today, is the fiscal problem for Iraq. You know oil prices have dropped to about 40 percent of their level last year. Iraqi economy and budget relies 85 percent on oil, and this has been disastrous for us…

...We don’t want to see a reverse of our military victory because of our budget and fiscal problems and we have been assured that every member of this coalition will stand with Iraq in its fight against Da’esh “

How long will it take Obama to understand that Islamic State can only be comprehensively defeated by military action undertaken on the ground by a properly equipped and authorised United Nations international force?