Latest news with #CampDavidAccords
Malaysian Reserve
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Malaysian Reserve
U.S. Postal Service Reveals New Forever Stamp Design Honoring Former President Jimmy Carter
PLAINS, Ga., Aug. 16, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — The U.S. Postal Service today announced it will issue a commemorative Forever stamp honoring former President Jimmy Carter, who died Dec. 29, 2024, at the age of 100. The Postal Service plans to release the stamp for purchase on Oct. 1 in Atlanta, on what would have been former President Carter's 101st birthday. Representatives of the Friends of Jimmy Carter, the National Park Service and the U.S. Postal Service unveiled the stamp art today at the Jimmy Carter National Historical Park in Plains. 'The stamp program celebrates the best in American culture, places and people, and it is difficult to consider a more fitting honoree than former President Jimmy Carter. In his support and leadership of his beloved community, state, and nation, he lent his quiet, thoughtful and deliberate energy around causes he believed in, and most certainly in his conduct and accomplishments as a former President, Jimmy Carter truly personified the best in America. I am honored to participate in the reveal of this stamp art which fully evokes his humanity,' said Peter Pastre the Postal Service's government relations and public policy vice president. Kim Carter Fuller, executive director of the Friends of Jimmy Carter said, 'The Carter family and the Friends of Jimmy Carter are honored to be able to take part in revealing the design for President Carter's Forever stamp. Together we've had the distinct privilege of a front row seat to his life and legacy, and today's reveal gives the world an opportunity to share his legacy with others on a daily basis'. From his origins in small-town Georgia, Carter came to the White House as an outsider who represented a new generation of progressive Southern politicians. Carter was inaugurated as the 39th president on Jan. 20, 1977. During his term Carter would make humility and reconciliation recurring themes in his presidency. Carter made a mark with his appointments of many women and minorities to government positions. He created a presidential commission on mental health, established new cabinet departments, and greatly increased the size of the National Park System and federally designated wilderness areas. Mindful of the nation's fiscal position, he was deeply concerned with trying to balance the federal budget and control inflation. In his efforts to improve the economy, he ushered through deregulation in several industries, including energy and air travel. On the world stage, Carter was praised for personally negotiating the Camp David Accords, providing a framework for peace in the Middle East. He signed SALT II, a treaty with the Soviet Union to limit strategic nuclear arms, and he initiated a major change in foreign policy when he announced that the United States would officially recognize and establish formal diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. After leaving the presidency, Carter became a prominent activist for peace, human rights and social and economic progress around the world. In 1982, he partnered with Emory University to establish the Carter Center, which advances democracy, monitors elections, mediates disputes and works to prevent tropical diseases in the world's poorest nations. In recognition of his efforts, he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 — cementing his reputation as one of the most active and impactful former presidents. The stamp art is a 1982 oil-on-linen painting created as a life study by artist Herbert E. Abrams (1921-2003) in preparation for painting his official White House portrait. Ethel Kessler, an art director for USPS, designed the stamp. As a Forever stamp, the Jimmy Carter stamp will always be equal in value to the current First-Class Mail 1-ounce price. News of the Jimmy Carter stamp is being shared with the hashtag #JimmyCarterStamp. Postal ProductsCustomers may purchase stamps and other philatelic products through the Postal Store at by calling 844-737-7826, by mail through USA Philatelic or at Post Office locations nationwide. For officially licensed stamp products, shop the USPS Officially Licensed Collection on Amazon. Additional information on stamps, first-day-of-issue ceremonies and stamp-inspired products can be found at Please Note: The United States Postal Service is an independent federal establishment, mandated to be self-financing and to serve every American community through the affordable, reliable and secure delivery of mail and packages to 169 million addresses six and often seven days a week. Overseen by a bipartisan Board of Governors, the Postal Service is implementing a 10-year transformation plan, Delivering for America, to modernize the postal network, restore long-term financial sustainability, dramatically improve service across all mail and shipping categories, and maintain the organization as one of America's most valued and trusted brands. The Postal Service generally receives no tax dollars for operating expenses and relies on the sale of postage, products and services to fund its operations. For USPS media resources, including broadcast-quality video and audio and photo stills, visit the USPS Newsroom. Follow us on X, formerly known as Twitter; Facebook; Instagram; Pinterest; Threads; and LinkedIn. Subscribe to the USPS YouTube Channel. For more information about the Postal Service, visit and National contact: James Local contact: Tiffany
Gulf Insider
06-07-2025
- Business
- Gulf Insider
US Support For Israel Comes At A Staggering, Multifaceted Price
When asked about the cost of their government's support of the State of Israel, some Americans will say it's $3.8 billion a year — the amount of annual military aid the United States is committed to under its current, 10-year 'memorandum of understanding' with Israel. However, that answer massively understates the true cost of the relationship, not only because it doesn't capture various, vast expenditures springing from it, but even more so because the relationship's steepest costs can't be measured in dollars. Since its 1948 founding, Israel has been far and away the largest recipient of American foreign assistance. Though the Ukraine war created a brief anomaly, Israel generally tops the list every year, despite the fact that Israel is among the world's richest countries — ranked three spots below the UK and two spots above Japan in per capita GDP. Driving that point home, even when using the grossly-understating $3.8 billion figure for US expenditures on Israel, America gave the Zionist state $404 per person in the 2023 fiscal year, compared to just $15 per person for Ethiopia, one of the poorest countries on Earth and America's third-largest beneficiary that year. Israel's cumulative post-World War II haul has been nearly double that of runner-up Egypt. What most Americans don't realize, however, is that much of Egypt's take — $1.4 billion in 2023 — should be chalked up to Israel too, because of ongoing US aid commitments rising from the 1978 Camp David Accords that brokered peace between Egypt and Israel. The same can be said for Jordan — America's fourth-largest beneficiary in fiscal 2023 at $1.7 billion. US aid to the kingdom surged after it signed its own 1994 treaty with Israel, and a wedge of Jordan's aid is intended to address the country's large refugee population, comprising not only Palestinians displaced by Israel's creation, but also masses who've fled US-led regime-change wars pursued on Israel's behalf. Then there's the supplemental aid to Israel that Congress periodically authorizes on top of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) commitment. Since the October 7 Hamas invasion of Israel, these supplements have exceeded the MOU commitment by leaps and bounds. In just the first year of the war in Gaza, Congress and President Biden approved an additional $14.1 billion in 'emergency' military aid to Israel, bringing the total for that year to $17.9 billion. One must also consider the fact that, given the US government runs perpetual deficits that now easily exceed $1 trillion, every marginal expenditure, including aid to Israel, is financed with debt that bears an interest expense, increasing Americans' tax-and-inflation burden. On top of money given to Israel, the US government spends huge sums on activities either meant to benefit Israel or that spring from Israel's actions. For example, during just the first year of Israel's post-Oct 7 war in Gaza, increased US Navy offensive and defensive operations in the Middle East theater cost America an estimated $4.86 billion. Those Gaza-war-related outflows have not only continued but accelerated. For example, earlier this year, the Pentagon engaged in an intense campaign against Yemen's Houthis. In proclaimed retaliation for Israel's systematic destruction of Gaza, the Houthis have targeted Israel, and ships the Houthis said were linked to Israel. In response, America unleashed 'Operation Rough Rider,' which often saw $2 million American missiles being used against $10,000 Houthi drones, and cost between one and two billion dollars. President Trump's military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — amid a war initiated by Israel on contrived premises — cost America another one to two billion dollars, according to early estimates. Even before the attack on a nuclear program the US intelligence community continues to assess is not aimed at producing a weapon, the Pentagon was already spending more money on Israel's behalf, helping to defend the country from Iran's response to Israel's unprovoked aggression. The run-up to US strikes itself entailed a massive and costly mobilization of American forces and equipment to the region, as the Pentagon readied for multiple scenarios. Propelled by Israel's powerful US-based lobby, by Israel-pandering legislators, and by a revolving cast of Israel-favoring presidents, cabinet members, and national security officials, the United States has consistently pursued policies in the Middle East that place top priority on securing Israel's regional supremacy. Among the many avenues used to pursue that goal, none has been more costly than that of regime change, where an outcome that results in a shattered, chaotic state is seemingly just as pleasing to Israel and its American collaborators as one that spawns a functioning state with an Israel-accommodating government — and where the cost is often measured not only in US dollars but in American lives and limbs. Of course, the most infamous such regime-change effort was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. 'If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,' current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured a US congressional hearing. Doing his part to aid a Bush administration dominated by Israel-aligned neoconservatives bent on taking out one of Israel's regional adversaries, Netanyahu also said there was 'no question whatsoever' that Hussein was 'hell-bent on achieving atomic bombs.' The drive to topple Syria's Iran-allied Assad government is another prominent example of regime change on behalf of Israel, as the two countries sought to sever the 'Shia Crescent' that — due in great part to Saddam's ouster — presented a continuous pipeline of Iranian influence extending to Israel's borders. To the contentment of the US and Israeli governments, Syria is now led by an al Qaeda alumnus who's reportedly poised to relinquish Syria's long-standing claim on the Golan Heights, which Israel captured in 1967. Taken together, the price tag of US military operations in Iraq and Syria, including past and future medical and disability care for veterans, totals $2.9 trillion, according to Brown University's Costs of War Project. The human toll has been even more mind-boggling: upwards of 580,000 civilians and combatants killed, with perhaps two to four times that number indirectly perishing from displacement, disease and other factors. More than 4,600 US service-members died in Iraq, and 32,000 were injured, many of them enduring amputations and burns. Alongside mass suffering, these and other US interventions undertaken to ensure Israel's regional supremacy have fomented enormous resentment of the United States across the region. Click here to read more…
Daily Maverick
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Ceasefires and future fires — unholy trinity of Iran, Israel and the US presages a murky future
Following a week when the ceasefire between Israel and Iran (with the US as a supporting actor) took hold, it is still unclear what happens next, how things will evolve, or if a more permanent, peaceful settlement among the protagonists is even possible. The newly negotiated — and, so far, holding at the time of this writing — ceasefire between Iran and Israel (along with the US in its supporting role as both a midwife of the ceasefire and the deployer of those bunker-buster bombs) opens the door to several possibilities. Some of them are good, some are bad; some are exciting, and, of course, some are truly terrifying. What might some of those possible futures look like? Over the past three-quarters of a century, the Middle East has been the cockpit for a catalogue of ceasefires between combatants. Some have eventually — and painfully — evolved into actual peace arrangements, such as the negotiated settlement between Egypt and Israel via the Camp David Accords. Others barely survived their announcement before fighting began anew. Still others produced cold cessations of hostilities, usually monitored by the UN but without an actual peace agreement or treaty. This could include the line-of-control arrangements that ended fighting in 1948 between Jordan and the then nascent state of Israel. That ceasefire did not, of course, lead to the establishment of state-to-state relations between the two parties. (Jordan later relinquished a claim to administer the West Bank following the Six-Day War in 1967. Only years later was a chilly peace between Jordan and Israel achieved.) Meanwhile, further to the east, the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir and Jammu has remained unsettled since 1947. This has been despite ceasefires following bouts of fighting that have periodically erupted across the disputed Line of Control. Or, consider the fighting between Iran and Iraq that began with Iraq's invasion of Iran over a land dispute (and with some important foreign encouragement) in 1980 and lasted until 1988. That conflict raged on until the two exhausted nations grudgingly accepted a UN Security Council resolution. Ceasefires thus do not always bring about a longer, more permanent peace unless one side is vanquished completely — thus the periodic fighting between India and Pakistan that resists a final resolution. Alternatively, consider the rivalry between Rome and Carthage over two millennia ago that lasted for more than a century, a struggle that included wars and peaceful periods, until Carthage was destroyed by a rising Rome. Or consider Europe in the 1600s with conflicts that ran for more than four destructive decades as part of a monumental struggle between the Catholic Church and rulers insistent on individual state sovereignty in matters of faith. Then, throughout the 1700s and early 1800s, the rivalry between Britain and France generated conflict around the globe, including the Napoleonic Wars. It was a rivalry that was only brought to an end when the competition was redirected into building colonial empires at the end of the nineteenth century. In the immediate aftermath of the most recent clash that pitted Israel — and the US — against Iran, one key variable, at least publicly, has been that leaders from all three nations are claiming versions of success as a result of their respective aerial actions. US triumphalism For the US, as the whole world knows by now, President Donald Trump's typically over-bombastic claim has repeatedly been that three Iranian nuclear processing plants (with their uranium isotope, gaseous separation centrifuges and stockpiles of already enriched U-235) were 'totally obliterated' by a group of B-2 stealth bombers, employing 30,000-pound (13.6-tonne) bunker-buster bombs designed to reach deep into the ground and then explode. Almost immediately after that mission was completed, the president (and his eager subordinates) engaged in public chest thumping, insisting the attacking planes had carried out an unparalleled mission. However, the glow from neutralising the three Iranian nuclear sites was soon undermined by a leaked, initial evaluation from the Defense Intelligence Agency (the US government has more than a dozen separate intelligence gathering or analysis agencies, each focusing on different aspects of intelligence) that the bombing had not come close to obliterating the sites. In fact, per the agency's leak, rather than obliteration, the bombing may have only set back potential Iranian nuclear weapons developments by some months. It is important to note that all of the other intelligence agencies and their analyses have yet to be released publicly, and they may (or may not) have different conclusions or interpretations. Nevertheless, in the days that followed, Trump continued to insist the bombing's objectives and their effects were the 'obliteration' of Iran's nuclear capabilities. In rebuttal to the leaked report, Trump cited information apparently gleaned from Israeli sources and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — as well as arguing that other US intelligence bodies would reinforce his assessment once their analyses were in. And so, what is the course for the US's strategic framework vis-à-vis Iran? The bottom-line US objective remains a non-nuclear-capable Iran, especially after the Iranians managed a symbolic attack on a major US military base in Qatar. The effect of that, however, was performative rather than substantive. But the continuing ability of Iran to launch missiles remains a concrete threat to the US, given that 40,000 military personnel are stationed in facilities in the Persian Gulf region in several nations, along with naval berths and airfields. Reports indicate that most US aircraft and personnel had been removed from their base in Qatar before the missiles were launched, and the Iranians gave a heads-up to Qatari authorities that the missiles were coming. Further, it has been reported that the Trump administration gave quiet acquiescence to the attack and its symbolic rather than substantive impact, once there was little possibility of harm to personnel or military assets. Still, despite everything, there are comments from Trump administration officials that they would entertain negotiations with Iran over its presumed nuclear programme, effectively recapitulating in some way the agreement that had been hammered out during the last stages of the Obama administration. This is except for the fact that Iran's nuclear programme has presumably advanced since the Trump 1.0 administration's withdrawal from that agreement. Unwisely, the Trump administration rescinded its participation in the five-nation agreement, a decision effectively lowering restrictions for future Iranian nuclear developments. If the Americans have a realistic plan to address their relationship with Iran, they have failed to articulate it plainly in any public forums. In the absence of such a plan, the mutual hostility is likely to continue, absent a plausible Plan B and off-ramp from confrontation. Stark choices for Israel As far as Israel is concerned, the policy choices are more dramatic — and starker. One reason is that while most Iranian rockets launched at their nation were destroyed before they could do grievous damage and fatalities, Israel's Iron Dome air defence system was not infallible. The immediate, primary threat, therefore, is not a nuclear-armed Iran, but the possibility of a vengeful Iran eager to even the score somehow. That 'somehow', of course, is the question. Does Iran still have a significant supply of launchable rockets and the means to launch a major salvo of them? While the Israelis have made a major success in greatly blunting Hamas and Hezbollah as credible fighting forces (at enormous, continuing cost and suffering to the inhabitants of Gaza), as well as being able to applaud the change in the government and orientation of Syria, they have been unable to offer a clear plan for their withdrawal from Gaza — or who will take over the governance of the shattered territory. Moreover, Israel's policies towards the West Bank remain seriously problematic, especially as the Israeli government continues to authorise new Jewish settlements in the territory. As some observers argue, while Israel's strategic position has improved significantly vis-à-vis the region at large, the closer one looks at its immediate neighbourhood, the more troubling the lack of a coherent strategy becomes. For many Israelis, furthermore, the key issue remains gaining the release or return of the remaining 7 October hostages — or the remains of those who have died in captivity — rather than continuing the attacks in Gaza. Major complicating factors for the Netanyahu government remain its slender coalition in the country's parliament — which is dependent on some serious hardliners — and the growing likelihood of an imminent corruption trial of the incumbent prime minister. Difficult questions for Iran And what of Iran? After undergoing serious nuclear and missile infrastructural damage (albeit without real clarity of just how much), as well as the deaths of key military leaders and nuclear scientists, the country's leaders must face the question of just how they plan to address the new strategic imbalance. Do they wish to 'double down' on nuclear developments and continue to enrich uranium to near or at weapons grade and assemble sufficient amounts to begin a nuclearisation process — at great cost and sacrifice — and the possibility of additional raids against such efforts? Once they do that — if they choose to do so — do they want to create potential weapons out of that uranium? The next choice is whether they would signal that effort quietly (as with Israel) or publicly (in the manner of North Korea some years ago). If they do so with the strictest secrecy, would they choose to avoid inspections by the IAEA, and formally leave the limitations of the non-proliferation treaty — an agreement to which they remain signatories? Beyond their nuclear conundrum, do they want to — or can they — reconstitute their collection of allies and proxies surrounding Israel? This would be despite Syria now being in very different hands, Hamas and Hezbollah being shattered, and Russia having its hands full with its own war of choice in Ukraine. Would they try to prevent the flow of oil and natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz — a seaway used by around 20% of all such flows globally? Regime change Hanging over all of this, of course, is how Iranians decide to respond to the authoritarian theocracy they live under, which has brought them to this place. Will there be a push for a fundamental change of government by restive minorities around the periphery of the core of the Iranian state, as well as younger people (and especially women) tired of the restrictions on thought, travel and free expression that the supreme leader's government continues to carry out? Even as those muttered semi-threats of 'regime change' from the outside are unrealistic, the country's leadership must surely be casting a wary eye in all directions over the possibility that a change of regime could be pushed for by Iranians on their own. (It did, after all, happen in 1979-80 with the fall of the shah and the rise of the Ayatollah Khomeini as supreme arbiter of the country. This was true even if the original student proponents of the change to eliminate the shah's regime were shoved aside by religious fanatics.) What this points to is that it is impossible, now, to predict what the outcome of any change of regime would look like in Iran. Would it be a more fanatical regime eager to rebuild its influence in the region, or might it be one focused on rebuilding the fabric and economy of the nation? In sum, among the three antagonists, an aura of unpredictability remains. There are too many ways things could go sour. Given the unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy, fissures in Israeli society over the country's current strategies, and the impossibility of knowing which course of action the Iranian government will take, the best that can be hoped for may be a tense, cold ceasefire, but one that holds. Nevertheless, a more permanent settlement via the hard work of real diplomacy, rather than weapons flexing and chest beating, will almost certainly be the only way to move forward more permanently. Right now, such an outcome is unlikely. DM
Miami Herald
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Trump's Iran gamble could end in war — or a Nobel Prize
While many are applauding President Donald Trump's bold conduct in striking Iran's nuclear arsenal, one wonders if there can really be a shortcut between the present situation and the desired political end: peace in the Middle East., The past gives us pause and reminds us to consider what the end game is for Trump and the U.S., and to try to avoid the unfortunate necessity of a bloody attempt by each side to make its point. It reminds me of June 1967, when we destroyed the Arab air forces in one swift blow. When I and my Israeli Air Force comrades were able to get out of our airbase on our first leave, we were pulled out of our vehicle and carried on the shoulders of a jubilant crowd. Except that our Arab enemies didn't surrender. Recuperating from their defeat, they launched the War of Attrition against us, and subsequently the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which, eventually, led to the 1978-1979 Camp David Accords and the peace between Israel and Egypt. It seems, then, that enemies have to go through a difficult process of fiercely trying to pursue their goals until the bitter reality forces them to compromise. Unfortunately, reason prevails only after a lot of blood has been shed. The horrific Hamas attacks on Israel in Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel's retaliation in Gaza are examples of that truth. Every war has to serve a political end, and that end is a peace which is better than the one which had existed before the war. In the current conflict with Iran, Israel, while aiming at destroying as much as possible of Iran's nuclear project and missile launching capabilities, wasn't entirely clear about the kind of political goals it had been pursuing, which led it to waver and even muse about a regime change in Iran. The U.S., on the contrary, was clear: Surrender unconditionally, President Trump said to the Iranians. Come back to the table to negotiate a deal by which you won't have any nuclear program. In case you don't understand, we are sending bombs, with more to come if you dare to retaliate. It seems unlikely that the proud Iranians, after insisting they wouldn't negotiate under threat and vowing to retaliate if attacked by the U.S., would simply do nothing and come back subdued to the negotiating table. America, on the other hand, given Trump's bravado, would find it hard not to hit back if Iran attacks its assets. So are we doomed to see this tragic scenario materialize? Not if both sides think outside the box. Here's an idea: The Iranians, knowing perfectly well that an all-out attack on American assets might cause the fall of their regime, could consider carrying out a symbolic attack, declaring victory and coming back to the table, while saving face. Then Trump should swallow his pride and ego, strike back moderately and declare himself the greatest peacemaker ever. This might lead to a better nuclear deal with Iran, the end of war in Gaza and the possibility of the greater deal Trump envisions: Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the Nobel Peace Prize. Uri Dromi was the spokesman for the Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres governments from 1992-1996.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letter: Look in right direction to achieve elusive peace
Recently our pompous President Donald Trump returned from a peace and business crusade in the Middle East. He proclaimed, 'Before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts and divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos.' I applaud his noble efforts and vision. However, history has much to tell in regard to this volatile region. The Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel were much heralded in 1979. Then Egypt's president was assassinated in 1981. The late Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat was on record stating, 'For us peace means the destruction of Israel.' Billions of our tax dollars have been spent there along with many American lives. Nevertheless, the simmering feuds persist. France and Saudi Arabia are proposing a meeting for the establishment of a so-called Palestinian state. How many times have leaders previously submitted such a failed resolution? Even large sums of money cannot transcend ideology. Trump's high-stakes gamble is guaranteed to yield a losing hand for the 'art of the deal' promoter. This is not Kansas. Peace is readily available by the one who was rejected and cruelly crucified two millennia ago. Jesus proclaimed: 'These things I have spoken unto you, that in me you might have peace. In the world you shall have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.' What is impossible for man is possible with God. Nothing is too hard for our creator. Larry D. Clauser Amity Township
