Who is this guy and why is what he says important?
which WaPo article?Blinken speaking now
Blinken knocked down the wapo article btw
NSA/CIA alumni who has been fairly on point as a conservative geopolitical analyst for yearsWho is this guy and why is what he says important?
Iran blew the bag
U.S., Qatar agree to stop Iran from tapping $6 billion fund after Hamas attack
Jeff Stein
Wally Adeyemo, now the deputy treasury secretary, speaks in Wilmington, Del., in December 2020. (Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post)
U.S. officials and the Qatari government have agreed to stop Iran from accessing a $6 billion account for humanitarian assistance in light of Hamas’s attack on Israel, Deputy Treasury Secretary Wally Adeyemo told House Democrats on Thursday, according to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the private remarks.
The decision not to permit access to the money comes just a few weeks after the U.S. and Iranian governments announced a deal to set up the humanitarian assistance as part of a prisoner swap aimed at easing hostilities in the region. U.S. officials had to approve each transaction under the agreement. The fund is financed by Iranian oil sales.
[ Hamas received weapons and training from Iran, officials say ]
But President Biden has faced mounting bipartisan pressure on Capitol Hill to prevent the funds from being used by Iran, amid scrutiny of Tehran’s links to Hamas. U.S. officials say Hamas has received weapons and training from Iran, but there has been no evidence of Iran’s direct role in the slaughter, The Washington Post previously reported.
Adeyemo told House Democrats that the money “isn’t going anywhere anytime soon,” according to three House Democratic aides, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations. That comment was first reported by Punchbowl.
Senators of both parties, including Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), have called on the Biden administration to renege on the agreement.
Asked about the push to freeze the aid, Iran’s mission to the United Nations responded in a statement: “The senators in question and the U.S. government are all acutely aware that they can NOT renege on the agreement. The money rightfully belongs to the people of Iran, earmarked for the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to facilitate the acquisition of all essential and non-sanctioned requisites for the Iranians.”
Rescinding the aid would embolden hard-line voices in Iran that have rejected working with the West, said Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, a foreign policy think tank. Parsi also speculated that such a move could shift opinion within the regime in favor of building a nuclear bomb.
“If this step is taken, that status quo falls apart — and it will have a very detrimental effect on the internal discussions in Iran, within the regime,” Parsi said. “If there is no prospect of a deal with the U.S., it will likely tilt Iran toward building a bomb — and that would be an extremely dangerous situation.”
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has declared nuclear weapons forbidden by Islam and has vowed that Iran will never seek to build or acquire them.
Jeff Stein is the White House economics reporter for The Washington Post. He was a crime reporter for the Syracuse Post-Standard and, in 2014, founded the local news nonprofit the Ithaca Voice in Upstate New York. He was also a reporter for Vox. Twitter
Jacob Bogage writes about business and technology for The Post, where he has worked since 2015. He previously covered the automotive and manufacturing industries and wrote for the Sports section. Twitter
You can'tThe amount of misinformation on this is wild. Genuinely asking, where can I go to find unbiased updates to learn more?
because people need land to live. they currently live based on rationed resources controlled by people who are trying to ethnically cleanse them. no one can thrive, let alone survive permanently under these circumstances. even going way back to the start of it, there are people still alive who remember where they used to live until they got kicked out. and it's not static - as time goes on, israel steals more land from them. conflict is guaranteed because israel's behavior is inherently hostile.ok so why does palestine want the land they cant win back?
which WaPo article?
Wally Adeyemo is the source according to the Tehran billions
i think those 1940s white people admitted that they cant promise they wont try to exterminate jews again, so they agreed to "give" them a nation away from europeThe more I read about this the more I’m siding with Palestine. The Jews should have just carved out their own enclave in Europe or the US.
The amount of misinformation on this is wild. Genuinely asking, where can I go to find unbiased updates to learn more?
because people need land to live. they currently live based on rationed resources controlled by people who are trying to ethnically cleanse them. no one can thrive, let alone survive permanently under these circumstances. even going way back to the start of it, there are people still alive who remember where they used to live until they got kicked out. and it's not static - as time goes on, israel steals more land from them. conflict is guaranteed because israel's behavior is inherently hostile.
oh you missed the bush yearsI changed the way I read news ever since the George Floyd protests. Basically you have to be more vigilant and aware when disseminating news now, know the biases of each news organization and the credentials of the reporter.
Typically social media and ad based news sources should have low priority as they tend to be inaccurate and chase “clicks” for revenue. Same with 24hr news television.
You best bet is to probably take out a subscription for most news now imo. Like NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, The Economist etc. Your information will be a lot slower as they do a lot of fact checking, and you’ll have to do a lot more reading but they are typically good at delivering more accurate stories. As always, there will be some bias (WSJ is more right leaning, NYT more left ) but it is usually only apparent in their opinion sections, the actual news isnt as biased. Only downside is it can be a bit expensive over time.