Of course even if the Iran nuclear deal goes through, there’s a lot of work ahead. At the international level, Iran’s regional opponents, led by US-allied Saudi Arabia are threatening a new arms race in response to any agreement, including the threat to mimic any uranium enrichment processes Iran maintains under the terms of the agreement. While Iran will be limited to extraordinarily low levels of enrichment, spreading that technology further across the Middle East will certainly not help open new possibilities for more peaceful regional ties. It will also consolidate Israel, the only actual nuclear weapons state in the region, even more closely into the anti-Iran bloc led by Saudi Arabia and the other US-backed and US-armed Gulf states.

That bloc of US-backed Sunni petro-states, collectively known as the Gulf Cooperation Council or the GCC, came to visit President Obama at Camp David last week — his goal being to convince them that even if the deal with Iran goes through, the US will remain the BFF of the absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain. Translation: we will continue to sell them all the high-tech weapons they want, matching or maybe even passing the $60 billion arms sale to a Saudi-led consortium two years ago. Despite the snubs designed to register displeasure at the Iran deal — the Saudi and several other kings stayed home, sending crown princes in their stead, and the GCC invited the president of France, not President Obama to their meeting last week — the US-GCC ties remain solid.

Even while that same Arab bloc, at the moment, is actively destabilizing the region with its air war in Yemen. By joining the internal Yemeni conflict with a brutal bombing campaign on the side of the unpopular and widely discredited Yemeni president, now in protected exile in Saudi Arabia, against the Yemeni movement known as the Houthis, the Saudi monarchy has greatly escalated the suffering of the Yemeni people. The Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign, backed by the United States, has caused hundreds of civilian deaths. And the coalition’s blockading of Yemen’s ports and airports has created a devastating humanitarian crisis in the impoverished country that depends on imports for 90 percent of its food. (For a look at a bit of history of how the first President George Bush went after Yemen — back in 1990 – take a look at my piece in Huffington Post from a couple of years ago….)

And Yemen is still the target of President Obama’s drone war and assassination campaign, even as the civil war and the Saudi-led bombing campaigns devastate the population. That drone war is part of what more and more people, in the United States and elsewhere, identify as the permanent war — the global war on terror 2.0. It’s not George W. Bush’s war — it doesn’t feature 150,000 US troops occupying Iraq or 100,000 occupying Afghanistan — but it is a war nonetheless. In a panel discussion on RT’s Crosstalk we discussed what is different and what remains the same between the Bush and Obama versions of the war on terror — and why military responses don’t work.

Of course even if the Iran nuclear deal goes through, there’s a lot of work ahead. At the international level, Iran’s regional opponents, led by US-allied Saudi Arabia are threatening a new arms race in response to any agreement, including the threat to mimic any uranium enrichment processes Iran maintains under the terms of the agreement. While Iran will be limited to extraordinarily low levels of enrichment, spreading that technology further across the Middle East will certainly not help open new possibilities for more peaceful regional ties. It will also consolidate Israel, the only actual nuclear weapons state in the region, even more closely into the anti-Iran bloc led by Saudi Arabia and the other US-backed and US-armed Gulf states.

That bloc of US-backed Sunni petro-states, collectively known as the Gulf Cooperation Council or the GCC, came to visit President Obama at Camp David last week — his goal being to convince them that even if the deal with Iran goes through, the US will remain the BFF of the absolute monarchs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain. Translation: we will continue to sell them all the high-tech weapons they want, matching or maybe even passing the $60 billion arms sale to a Saudi-led consortium two years ago. Despite the snubs designed to register displeasure at the Iran deal — the Saudi and several other kings stayed home, sending crown princes in their stead, and the GCC invited the president of France, not President Obama to their meeting last week — the US-GCC ties remain solid.

Even while that same Arab bloc, at the moment, is actively destabilizing the region with its air war in Yemen. By joining the internal Yemeni conflict with a brutal bombing campaign on the side of the unpopular and widely discredited Yemeni president, now in protected exile in Saudi Arabia, against the Yemeni movement known as the Houthis, the Saudi monarchy has greatly escalated the suffering of the Yemeni people. The Saudi-led coalition’s bombing campaign, backed by the United States, has caused hundreds of civilian deaths. And the coalition’s blockading of Yemen’s ports and airports has created a devastating humanitarian crisis in the impoverished country that depends on imports for 90 percent of its food. (For a look at a bit of history of how the first President George Bush went after Yemen — back in 1990 – take a look at my piece in Huffington Post from a couple of years ago….)

And Yemen is still the target of President Obama’s drone war and assassination campaign, even as the civil war and the Saudi-led bombing campaigns devastate the population. That drone war is part of what more and more people, in the United States and elsewhere, identify as the permanent war — the global war on terror 2.0. It’s not George W. Bush’s war — it doesn’t feature 150,000 US troops occupying Iraq or 100,000 occupying Afghanistan — but it is a war nonetheless. In a panel discussion on RT’s Crosstalk we discussed what is different and what remains the same between the Bush and Obama versions of the war on terror — and why military responses don’t work.

Right now the war is shaped by the goal of “degrading and destroying” ISIS, sometimes known as the Islamic State. And what Barack Obama’s war on terror does share with that of his predecessor is that both failed — or let’s say one failed and the other is still failing — to end terrorism, to force dictators out of power, to bring stability let alone democracy to beleaguered parts of the Middle East (and increasingly other regions as well), or to win hearts and minds of pretty much anybody.

ISIS remains strong — the cheering in Washington for the US special forces raid into Syria to kill a guy who appears to have been a mid-level ISIS accountant (so much for “no boots on the ground”…) was followed within hours by ISIS uncontested claim of success in a months-long campaign to seize control of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s huge western province of Anbar.

The Obama administration seems determined to rely on a repeatedly failing military strategy despite the constant refrain that “there is no military solution.” That military engagement that isn’t a solution now includes ground troops in Syria as well as the several thousand already back in Iraq, along with the air strikes and drone attacks all escalating across the region. And to legitimize its military action, the administration is relying on the loose language of the 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force — which allowed the president to send the military to attack “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The terrorist organizations that are today’s targets — first and foremost ISIS — didn’t even exist in 2001, and no one even claims they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. (The organizations that became ISIS were created in Iraq to challenge the 2003 US invasion and occupation of that country.) But somehow the effort in Congress to repeal that 2001 authorization — it had no sunset clause, and no other restrictions either — has stalled, and the White House continues to claim it has the right to rely on the old one to go to war almost a decade and a half later.

There have been some efforts. At the end of April I testified in Congress at a briefing sponsored by the Progressive Caucus on the authorization for military force and on the war against ISIS — you can watch or read my testimony here.

Right now the war is shaped by the goal of “degrading and destroying” ISIS, sometimes known as the Islamic State. And what Barack Obama’s war on terror does share with that of his predecessor is that both failed — or let’s say one failed and the other is still failing — to end terrorism, to force dictators out of power, to bring stability let alone democracy to beleaguered parts of the Middle East (and increasingly other regions as well), or to win hearts and minds of pretty much anybody.

ISIS remains strong — the cheering in Washington for the US special forces raid into Syria to kill a guy who appears to have been a mid-level ISIS accountant (so much for “no boots on the ground”…) was followed within hours by ISIS uncontested claim of success in a months-long campaign to seize control of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s huge western province of Anbar.

The Obama administration seems determined to rely on a repeatedly failing military strategy despite the constant refrain that “there is no military solution.” That military engagement that isn’t a solution now includes ground troops in Syria as well as the several thousand already back in Iraq, along with the air strikes and drone attacks all escalating across the region. And to legitimize its military action, the administration is relying on the loose language of the 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force — which allowed the president to send the military to attack “those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

The terrorist organizations that are today’s targets — first and foremost ISIS — didn’t even exist in 2001, and no one even claims they had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. (The organizations that became ISIS were created in Iraq to challenge the 2003 US invasion and occupation of that country.) But somehow the effort in Congress to repeal that 2001 authorization — it had no sunset clause, and no other restrictions either — has stalled, and the White House continues to claim it has the right to rely on the old one to go to war almost a decade and a half later.

There have been some efforts. At the end of April I testified in Congress at a briefing sponsored by the Progressive Caucus on the authorization for military force and on the war against ISIS — you can watch or read my testimony here.

Today’s war isn’t, of course, completely separated from Bush’s original global war on terror. Not only was ISIS created in the context of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but the struggle for accountability for that phase of the war remains. It took years, but finally there was some accountability — though 30 years was actually the minimum the judge could impose — for the murder of at least 17 unarmed civilians by US-paid Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq in 2007. Some accountability for those five mercenaries, but the use of mostly unaccountable military contractors remains a huge challenge. I talked about the accountability for war crimes on al-Jazeera’s Inside Story in mid-April.

And for more on accountability for war crimes — and lack thereof — April also saw Hofstra University’s official conference on the George W. Bush presidency. Hofstra always hosts these academic conferences on each president, and traditionally the president, vice-president, secretaries of state and defense…all the top officials come to listen and participate. This year, this presidency, this conference — not so much. Not a single top official showed up — not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell — none of them.

When I spoke at the first night’s plenary, I began by quoting a great heroine of mine, the civil rights leader Diane Nash, who at the age of 18 or 19 had helped plan the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery. She had planned to be in the lead row of the march earlier this year commemorating the march 50 years later — but when George W. Bush showed up in that place of honor she refused to march. I started with her words — “I refused to march because George Bush marched. I think the Selma movement was about non-violence and peace and democracy. And George Bush stands for just the opposite: For violence and war and stolen elections, and his administration … had people tortured. So I thought that this was not an appropriate event for him.” I told the audience that she was right, and that it really wasn’t appropriate for him to appear at the Hofstra conference either, that the only place George W. Bush should appear in public would be as a defendant on trial in The Hague for war crimes. You can watch the panel here (and see the audience’s response).

Today’s war isn’t, of course, completely separated from Bush’s original global war on terror. Not only was ISIS created in the context of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, but the struggle for accountability for that phase of the war remains. It took years, but finally there was some accountability — though 30 years was actually the minimum the judge could impose — for the murder of at least 17 unarmed civilians by US-paid Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq in 2007. Some accountability for those five mercenaries, but the use of mostly unaccountable military contractors remains a huge challenge. I talked about the accountability for war crimes on al-Jazeera’s Inside Story in mid-April.

And for more on accountability for war crimes — and lack thereof — April also saw Hofstra University’s official conference on the George W. Bush presidency. Hofstra always hosts these academic conferences on each president, and traditionally the president, vice-president, secretaries of state and defense…all the top officials come to listen and participate. This year, this presidency, this conference — not so much. Not a single top official showed up — not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell — none of them.

When I spoke at the first night’s plenary, I began by quoting a great heroine of mine, the civil rights leader Diane Nash, who at the age of 18 or 19 had helped plan the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery. She had planned to be in the lead row of the march earlier this year commemorating the march 50 years later — but when George W. Bush showed up in that place of honor she refused to march. I started with her words — “I refused to march because George Bush marched. I think the Selma movement was about non-violence and peace and democracy. And George Bush stands for just the opposite: For violence and war and stolen elections, and his administration … had people tortured. So I thought that this was not an appropriate event for him.” I told the audience that she was right, and that it really wasn’t appropriate for him to appear at the Hofstra conference either, that the only place George W. Bush should appear in public would be as a defendant on trial in The Hague for war crimes. You can watch the panel here (and see the audience’s response).

And finally, on Palestine. Good news, of a sort yes — the Pope’s making a point to emphasize the Vatican’s recognition of Palestine is important in the on-going effort to internationalize the struggle for Palestinian rights. (As is the beatification of two new Palestinian saints…) There’s also the continuing focus on Palestine’s membership in the International Criminal Court, made possible once the General Assembly of the United Nations recognized it as a state. I talked with CCTV-America about what we might expect from Palestine’s ICC efforts. Most important, the global BDS campaign continues to win new victories, demonstrating the rising global consensus challenging Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies.

But on the ground, devastation remains. Gaza remains besieged, unable to even begin to rebuild from the destruction of last summer’s war, its 1.8 million people locked into their open-air prison, with all crossings almost permanently closed. Settlements continue to expand, and Israel’s election last month brought to power by far the most racist, extremist government in history. In his current cabinet, right-wing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is on the center-left — because his right-wing Likud Party is now in coalition with parties of the far right, extreme right, and — I say this carefully — the fascist right. His new “justice” minister, the darling of Israel’s right-wing, is Ayelet Shaked, perhaps best known for her calls for mass murder of Palestinians during last summer’s war.

I wrote about Shaked last summer, before she was anointed as Israel’s highest ranking legal official. She was already a member of the Knesset — Israel’s parliament, representing Israel Home, a far-right party in Netanyahu’s governing coalition. I described how “she issued on Facebook what amounts to a call to commit genocide, by deliberately killing Palestinians, including women, children, and old people. ‘The entire Palestinian people is the enemy,’ Shaked posted. ‘In wars, the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.’ The Knesset member went on to say that the mothers of Palestinians killed should follow their dead sons to Hell: ‘They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.’ Her language reminds me of a chapter in our own history — the genocidal Indian Wars. US military leaders had called on their troops to wipe out all the Native Americans. Col. John Chivington was asked on the eve of the Sand Creek Massacre about killing Cheyenne children. ‘Kill and scalp all, big and little — nits make lice,’ he replied.”

We have a lot of work to do.

And finally, on Palestine. Good news, of a sort yes — the Pope’s making a point to emphasize the Vatican’s recognition of Palestine is important in the on-going effort to internationalize the struggle for Palestinian rights. (As is the beatification of two new Palestinian saints…) There’s also the continuing focus on Palestine’s membership in the International Criminal Court, made possible once the General Assembly of the United Nations recognized it as a state. I talked with CCTV-America about what we might expect from Palestine’s ICC efforts. Most important, the global BDS campaign continues to win new victories, demonstrating the rising global consensus challenging Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies.

But on the ground, devastation remains. Gaza remains besieged, unable to even begin to rebuild from the destruction of last summer’s war, its 1.8 million people locked into their open-air prison, with all crossings almost permanently closed. Settlements continue to expand, and Israel’s election last month brought to power by far the most racist, extremist government in history. In his current cabinet, right-wing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is on the center-left — because his right-wing Likud Party is now in coalition with parties of the far right, extreme right, and — I say this carefully — the fascist right. His new “justice” minister, the darling of Israel’s right-wing, is Ayelet Shaked, perhaps best known for her calls for mass murder of Palestinians during last summer’s war.

I wrote about Shaked last summer, before she was anointed as Israel’s highest ranking legal official. She was already a member of the Knesset — Israel’s parliament, representing Israel Home, a far-right party in Netanyahu’s governing coalition. I described how “she issued on Facebook what amounts to a call to commit genocide, by deliberately killing Palestinians, including women, children, and old people. ‘The entire Palestinian people is the enemy,’ Shaked posted. ‘In wars, the enemy is usually an entire people, including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.’ The Knesset member went on to say that the mothers of Palestinians killed should follow their dead sons to Hell: ‘They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.’ Her language reminds me of a chapter in our own history — the genocidal Indian Wars. US military leaders had called on their troops to wipe out all the Native Americans. Col. John Chivington was asked on the eve of the Sand Creek Massacre about killing Cheyenne children. ‘Kill and scalp all, big and little — nits make lice,’ he replied.”

We have a lot of work to do.