text:
Michael Makovsky
Foreign Policy Director, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington DC
1 – 2pm, Tuesday 4th September 2012
Committee Room 11, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
To attend please RSVP to: firstname.lastname@example.com
There are few international fault lines at the onset of the 21st century that can be considered as grave as the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme. The geopolitical challenge Iran presents combines the newly emergent element of sub-state level ideologically driven forces with very 'classical' hegemonic regional ambitions, and as such poses a serious threat to international stability. The issue has been addressed through years of negotiations and ever more stringent sanctions.
Yet it seems that we are no closer to persuading Tehran to change course. As months go by and the situation becomes ever more critical, what is there left to do? What steps need to be taken to avoid a major conflagration? What steps can be taken?
By kind invitation of Gisela Stuart MP, The Henry Jackson Society is pleased to invite you to a discussion with Michael Makovsky, Author and Foreign Policy Director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. He will outline the current policy situation around Iran's nuclear capabilities and discuss how best to prevent the emergence of a nuclear Iran.
TIME: 1 – 2pm
DATE: Tuesday 4th September 2012
VENUE: Committee Room 11, House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
To attend please RSVP to: email@example.com
Michael Makovsky joined the Bipartisan Policy Center as Foreign Policy Director in 2006. A U.S. national security expert, he has worked extensively on Iran's nuclear program, the Middle East, and the intersection of international energy markets and politics with U.S. national security.
At BPC, Makovsky has managed projects on a new U.S. policy toward Iran's nuclear development, a new U.S. strategy toward Russia, how to augment U.S. Government capacity in stabilizing fragile states such as Yemen, devising a new bipartisan U.S. foreign policy, and how to make strategic public diplomacy an effective tool of U.S. foreign policy in Egypt and elsewhere.
From 2002-2006, Makovsky served as special assistant for Iraqi energy policy in the Office of Secretary of Defense and Director of Essential Services in the Washington office of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the postwar Allied entity that governed Iraq. In those capacities, he advised senior Defense, National Security Council and Energy officials on Iraqi energy policy. Prior to his work in the Pentagon, Makovsky worked over a decade as a senior energy market analyst for various investment firms, focusing on markets and hedging strategies for oil, petroleum products, natural gas and electric power, as well as regulatory and tax issues. Makovsky is founder and president of MSM Consulting LLC, an energy and political risk consulting firm.
Makovsky has written articles and op-eds on Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and Middle Eastern energy and diplomatic issues for The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Weekly Standard, and The New Republic, and been interviewed on CNBC, CNN, NPR, Voice of America (Persian), and other media. He is also author of Churchill's Promised Land (Yale U. Press, 2007), a diplomatic-intellectual history of Winston Churchill's complex relationship with Zionism.
Makovsky has a Ph.D in diplomatic history from Harvard University, an MBA in finance from Columbia Business School, and a B.A. in history from the University of Chicago.
Gisela Stuart MP
Ok I think we may make a start. After we've all admired the beautiful views of The Shard from here, which I still think is absolutely delightful but there we are. Welcome to this meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. I'm Gisela Stuart, I'm the Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston. But the nature of the Henry Jackson Society will always take it in terms because we're not party political in that sense.
I think today is really important, and if you can actually find an answer to the title of this talk which is 'What it takes to prevent a n uclear Iran,' you're probably in line for a Nobel Peace Prize. But in the meantime, we shall try to do our best. Our speaker is Michael Makovsky, director of the Bipartisan Policy Centre and he's written extensively on all the very site safe places to go to, like Iran, Iraq, Yemen, and other Middle Eastern countries for the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post. What we're trying to do is have Michael speak for about twenty minutes and then we'll go straight into questions and we have to finish by two. And that's all you're going to hear from me, so would you mind.
Michael Makovsky
Thank you very much, thank you very much for hosting me. I want to thank the Henry Jackson Society. Everybody can hear me ok back there? Ok fine, thanks. I think the last time I spoke in London was about five years ago and it was about a book I wrote on Winston Churchill and Zionism. So, I find actually Churchill to be a good segue into today's discussion because I think one of Churchill, I know he's more controversial here than he is in the States, but one of Churchill's great traits was that he really, he had a great ability to seize on the most pressing issues of the day and focus on it at the exclusion of secondary issues. And I think with all that is going on in the world, whether economic crises, upheaval in the Middle East, I think, among other things, I think that preventing a nuclear Iran is the most – is a pre-eminent challenge that we face today. Now, merely I'm speaking as an American, I don't pretend to tell the British what is in their interest, but I'll speak from our perspective. I think we share a lot of interests together, but I certainly think for the United States it's the – and the West in general, it is the pre-eminent challenge we face and I do think we have to have a really Churchillian focus on this in preventing a nuclear Iran.
So, our hostess has said I'm just going to kind of lay things out and I hope we'll have a good discussion afterwards. Just to step back, I think the constant flow of media reports, and so on, on Iran; we don't often just step back and think what are our interests in a nuclear Iran. Let me just mention three, and then how we then discuss where we are and how we can go about preventing it.
From a US perspective, I think our three main interests in the Middle East are, an historical one is a secure flow of oil, and I think a lot of Americans, and I imagine others outside the United States forget, but this interest in the region goes back at least to Jimmy Carter if not before. Jimmy Carter is now known in the United States as being one of our tougher presidents internationally, but he actually laid out the Carter Document in January 1980, as a warning in saying he would not, the United States would not, allow outside control of the Persian Gulf and he really kind of had in mind the Soviets at the time, which had just invaded Afghanistan. But, I think there are corollaries to the Carter Doctrine. You could look, if you want, at the previous two Iraq wars, as part of those corollaries is that now when should the United States not allow an outside power to control the Persian Gulf. But we wouldn't allow a regional power to control the Persian Gulf. I think that applied to the time when we thought Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, or was developing them, and certainly I think with Iran, because if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will be able to have much great control over the Persian Gulf, which everybody knows is such an important source of oil in the world. I also think that, related to that, is that the Saudis have already indicated, we know this, of course everyone who works on this issues knows this, but Dennis Ross even mentioned this publicly, who was a senior official on the Obama White House and left about last December. The Saudis indicated they're going to get nuclear weapons if the Iranians do. Of course there are already rumours on the relationship they have with the Pakistanis in that regard. I bring that up, the security of the Persian Gulf, because if that area becomes more nuclearized, it certainly raises the risk of a nuclear conflict in that region – that's not good for security of oil by the way, setting aside all the humanitarian concerns.
A second US interest in the region is a secure Israel. Now, this goes back at least to Woodrow Wilson – about a hundred years ago – for the United States, who was supportive of the Balfour Declaration, which of course came from here, from Lord Balfour. Now, I was thinking about this issue being in England the last couple of days, I think sometimes the British ascribe American support for Israel as purely domestic politics – Jewish votes, sometimes Jewish money. I know in my own research that if you look back to Clement Attlee and Bevin in the late 40's they saw Truman as being supportive of Israel all because of domestic issues. Setting aside whatever domestic concerns British politicians have, which don't get raised enough, I find, but setting that aside, I think that's a misguided view of America. Yes, Jewish votes do matter in certain states, not in New York really, for the Presidential race, because that's going to vote Democratic anyway, no matter what some Jews who vote for Romney in Brooklyn or elsewhere might want. But there are important Jewish constituencies in certain key states, what we call swing states, in the electoral maps – Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida. But, again, I think that's a complete misconception of the American position on Israel, which I hear sometimes from the Brits, from British folks – it's all about domestic politics. Actually, that's completely wrong – Americans support Israel now overwhelmingly and it's only grown over the years. And by the way, I'd add that Iran is the least popular country right now in the United States. When looking at the polls, China and Iran are certainly the most feared countries. But ever since the late 70s with the hostage crisis, Americans don't like this regime. On the contrary, they are very supportive of Israel, and this isn't just Jews, it's not just Evangelical Christians, which there are many of the in the United States, but it goes across America I think, and I think the British should understand that. But of course, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, as a country that even recently continued to talk about how Israel should be wiped off the map, needless to say there is a greater risk to the security of Israel if Iran gets nuclear weapons.
I think our third historic interest in the region is a weakening or defeat of Islamic radicalism and terror. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, and we all know Iranians are one of the chief sponsors of terrorism in the world, supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, whether Sunni or Shi'a terrorists – we've seen it only in recently months where they try to attack both civilians and officials of Israel, the United States, and others, in all sorts of countries – India, Azerbaijan, we had that case, of course, in Eastern Europe as well against Israeli tourists. I think if they get nuclear weapons, it will embolden all the radicals in the region. Any hope of Israeli-Palestinian peace would certainly go out the window. I think our efforts since 9/11, which have been somewhat certainly successful against al Qaeda, but not as much as against other terrorists groups. I think those would be strongly, certainly compromised. So I think those are, I'd say, the three key interests the US has in the region, and a nuclear Iran threatens all those interests again, the secure flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, a secure Israel, and a weakening or defeat of Islamic radicalism and terror. So that's why I think it's so important, of course, there are other things that will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons – oil prices, I think, will go up in a higher way, in a more sustained way, I could talk about that in a Q&A if you'd like, I used to be an oil analyst at trading companies and some of those I actually focus on a bit.
I think that it should matter a lot to Britain, certainly should matter to Americans. I think the US position in the region will be significantly compromised if administrations from both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, have warned Iran not to develop nuclear weapons and then they do so anyways. I don't think our credibility would be very high, and certainly our credibility is already questioned by our allies in the region – the Saudis, the UAE, the Jordanians, of course the Israelis – already that's been going on. I think we would take a severe hit and I don't think it's good for world stability, I don't think it's good for British interests, I don't think it's good for peace for America to be so weakened, but that's how I see it and I don't think therefore, any talk about a nuclear umbrella afterwards would have much meaning, because if we didn't prevent a nuclear Iran, what sort of protection would we provide our allies after they get nuclear weapons? I think it's almost actually ludicrous to conceit.
So, now, going forward, where are we? What do we do to address this challenge? Well, we tried diplomacy, only; at least the Obama administration tried that. I think it was that some Republicans were very critical of Obama putting an outstretched hand to the Iranians early on. I think it was the right thing to do; now, I would've done things differently when the Iranians rebelled and demonstrated in June 2009 after the fraudulent presidential elections. With that said, I think trying to reach out to Iranians and making a good-faith effort was the right thing to do.
Now then, the US at least, pivoted in around mid-2010 when outreach really went nowhere, sanctions really intensified – there was the UN Security Council Resolution in June 2010. And by the way, people forget that there were several UN Security Council Resolutions under President Bush and there's only been one under President Obama. But it certainly marked a toughening of the international community in the approach to Iran. Then, Congress passed their own sanctions which focus a lot on gasoline imports and so on. But then nothing really happened too much and then things started really heating up on the sanctions front in the last year. One was Congress passed sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran which affected oil exports. And then, of course, you had the EU oil embargo which I think was perhaps the most significant event and have really changed the sanctions dynamic. But, that alone has not really changed enough because as we just saw in the International Atomic Energy Agency report that just came out at the end of last week, the Iranians have actually accelerated their program. In fact, they're reaching new highs in almost every level and by every metric, I should say.
In the very important 20% enrichment rate that people look at, which is seen as most of the way towards complete enrichment their enrichment of 20% uranium had actually jumped 15% since the last report in May. They've reached all-time highs in terms of production also of 3 and a half percent enrichment and some of you might remember the cyber attacks, the Stuxnet, by the way got a lot of press, a few months ago, in the United States. Actually David Singer of the New York Times wrote a book that addresses that, has actually been a bit of a political storm in the United States because many Democrats and Republicans have been very critical of the administration for seemingly leaking information about Stuxnet, certainly Republicans have. Anyhow, for all the Stuxnet attack, the rate of enrichment of 3.5% has actually tripled since before Stuxnet. Maybe Stuxnet was helpful but basically it was a speed bump for the Iranians. Of course, they have more centrifuges; they've done more, a lot more, at their underground Fordo plant. Now, we basically just finished three rounds of talks in Baghdad, Moscow, and Istanbul. They have not succeeded, they've failed. So why have they? So we have tougher sanctions than we have ever had, yet the Iranians, there's no success in terms of talks so far and the Iranians are doing very well in their enrichment program and getting very, very close to nuclear weapons capability.
So why is that and what do we have to do to change the dynamics? Some people think just keep strengthening sanctions and it's going to bite and that's going to do it. I think that's good, you should use sanctions. My office at the Bipartisan Policy Centre and bipartisan for those who don't know means Democrats and Republicans working together and that's increasingly challenging in Washington, particularly in an election year but we do our best at being Republicans and Democrats together and try to fashion the bipartisan solution because that's the only way to address something so pressing in any realm, but certainly in international realms when both sides come together, you can't just do one side, it doesn't work well, it's not sustainable as a policy. But what we've always argued for is the triple check approach, so when Obama just went diplomacy, we said, well that's good, but that's only one track.
Then there are sanctions which we strongly welcome – strengthening sanctions. Then there's a third track that is the weakest track that we haven't gone on a lot and that's a more credible US military option. And by the way, when I say US, I don't mean to be exclusive of our British, or French or other allies. We welcome that, but we're a US think-tank so we focus on US policy, but of course, we want to work as closely as possible with our allies on this, but if necessary, the United States, I believe, needs to do this alone, but of course we need to work as much as we can multilaterally. And it's this triple-track approach that we think offers the best chance for diplomatic solution which is what everybody, any sane person wants – no one wants a military conflict; however, I think we're getting increasingly close to one. So, I think that what we should be doing is enhanced, pursuit of sanctions fully.
I commend the EU for what they've done with the oil embargo – Again, I think that is one of the most significant events in the last year on sanctions, in many ways more than what Congress has done. Of course, because we've done sanctions in the US since '96 so we welcome what the EU has done. But I think we need to go to a full embargo of trade with Iran and I think it's going to be a very difficult thing to do, but that needs to be the goal soon.
Again, what is the alternative to tougher sanctions? I think it is military conflict. I think the Israelis have made it clear – they keep rattling the sabre. Some people think they're bluffing – I don't. I was in Israel recently, a couple weeks ago, and you know, I don't think they're bluffing and I think that one could understand their position very well. Historically, certainly in Zionist ideology more, there's a sense of self-reliance as much as possible, they don't want to leave their security to other countries, they see that the West has moved. Certainly the United States and other countries have moved but as I kind of mentioned, a lot of the progress has really been in the last two years and particularly in the last year. But there are several different plots, and the Iranian plot is going a lot faster. And then, as we know, President Obama and others have tried to reassure the Israelis, but my sense is that they have not succeeded and you can't blame everything on Bibi Netanyahu for that. I know he might not be the most popular politician here in London and I don't think he is in the White House either, but I don't think it's fair to blame him on all this. It takes two sides to build distress.
I think that in my discussions with Israelis who are not, and they'd say not pre-disposed to distressing the US administration, they don't feel that the sale has been made. They don't believe the US that they'll take care of this if all else fails. And of course, what Obama is clearly worried – he doesn't want Israel to attack, he doesn't want certainly an attack before the November US elections, and Israel sees that might be their best leverage to do something before November. I'm not sure if that's true, but that's clearly the perception and I think General Dempsey was just here last week, in London, and he said I think on Thursday, and he went a little further than he has recently, not only he said, he kind of conveyed, he doesn't want Israel to attack, but he used the word complicit. I don't want to be seen as complicit in an attack. And I actually think, with all due respect to General Dempsey, I think exactly what he said was counterproductive.
The United States should not be creating more space between itself and Israel; it should be making less space between it and Israel. I think the audience, you only gain more with everyone, whether it's Israel, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Indians, if it's seemed clear that the United States stands with Israel. And I think the division that's become apparent between the two countries is not constructive – it weakens the front against Iran and it makes Iran more complacent and it makes us grow more suspicious. If you're trying to prevent an Israeli attack, creating more suspicion with Israel, is actually the exact opposite thing of what you want to be doing and I actually think the administration is significantly erred and certainly there have been a lot of senior US officials going to Israel. Certainly they try to reassure the Israelis but I think comments like General Dempsey's are really not that out of line with what are either leaked in the New York Times or elsewhere but the administration has been abundantly clear that they do not want Israel to attack.
At our office, actually we think you should take the opposite tack. We should be boosting the credibility of the US, excuse me, not just of the US military option, but of the Israeli military option. Not because we advocate the option of an Israeli attack, look I don't think the Israelis want to attack, I certainly don't want them to. I think it's obviously seeing that if there had to be a military strike, as a last resort, it is best coming with the United States' involvement because we have much greater capability militarily to do more sustained damage to their nuclear program. But I think until the Iranians think that the United States is prepared to do that, not that we have the capability, I don't think anyone challenges, well no reasonable person should question American capability to strike Iran's nuclear program and do significant damage – that's not the problem. The problem is the will and I think that is clearly questioned by not just Iranians, but by others in Israel. But I think that by distancing ourselves from Israel, we're making the Iranians feel more complacent and the Israelis more nervous and that leaves greater chance of military conflict. And I think we should be boosting the credibility of the Israeli strike – Iranians need to feel that the alternative to good faith negotiations is military strike and I think while it might not guarantee a negotiated settlement, I think it offers the best chance of one. I think that's what we should be doing.
And I'll just conclude now and I think anyone who works in policy whether it's an MP or in the foreign office, Whitehall or certainly in the US administration – policy is not about what we want always, it's what we need to do. It's really about alternatives and sometimes you're lucky I think when you deal with policies – whether domestic or foreign. You can say, well these are our objectives, what we're trying to pursue and this would be the best way to do that, to get to that, to achieve that. And then if we can't do that, this would also be pretty good but not as good.
Unfortunately with Iran, the alternatives, we don't have such luxury. Unfortunately the choices are between bad, worse and really worse, or ugly, uglier and ugliest, I'd say are the alternatives. And while we all hope for a negotiated solution that resolves us and prevents a nuclear Iran, I think that we have to choose. And I think the choices about how we go achieve that are pretty bad, frankly. But that means, as a last resort, we may have to use military force. But I think by demonstrating that willingness, and that doesn't mean just a few lines every now and then in a speech, it means serious public dialogue. I commend the administration for what they've been boosting the naval capacity in the Persian Gulf – I think that's admirable – we've been pushing for that for a long time and I'm glad to see that's happening. But, capacity is one thing, will is another. Showing and demonstrating serious intent is still another. I think it's the latter that we need to do more. I think we have to figure it out and we may have to choose between very bad alternatives here and I think our belief is the worst alternative is a nuclear weapons capable Iran.
Just one final point, I think, on that is we also need to be very clear about what our objectives are. For us it's a nuclear weapons capability – that has to be prevented. It's not weapons. Now I could get into that – I'm not a very technical person, I have colleagues who are – and by the way there is difference in the US on this. Obama talks about weapons, Romney, when he was in Jerusalem, talked about nuclear weapons capability and I could explain what that means. Essentially it means you have all the pieces of the bomb together, but you just need to turn the screws and put it all together. The concern we have is that the US and Western intelligence agency have never really predicted a breakout of a nuclear power – India, Pakistan and so on. The Israelis will counter, sure, you mean that you want to prevent a nuclear Iran, but you allowed North Korea. I remember Bill Clinton getting on TV and saying in the 90s that we'll prevent a nuclear capable North Korea, and yet we allowed it. I think it would reassure the Israelis and it's more practical to be very clear about what our red-line is, which I think is nuclear weapons capability. I think we have to demonstrate our intent very seriously without any questions of both our allies and our foe here, which is the Iranians, and also those countries like China and India who buy Iranian oil. We want them to stop that – they need to understand that the alternative is military conflict. Only after that I think that offers the best chance at preventing a nuclear Iran – hopefully diplomatically and I hope we don't have to deal with last resorts. So, on that pessimistic note, I conclude my comment.
Gisela Stuart MP
Thank you very much, and just before we move straight on to questions, would you just say a little bit more on whether President Romney would differ from President Obama because you started to touch on that. Are there nuclear differences?
Michael Makovsky
That's a good question. I can only speculate. The presidential election right now has been about 95% economy and domestic issues and about 5% foreign policy. Something like that; though 100% of the foreign policy discussion has been about Iran. There isn't really much else that the candidates talk about on foreign policy right now. I think there are couple things; one is, of course, if Romney won, then I think we have to see who he chose as his senior staff on the national security side. Certainly right now, he's got some people involved that would suggest a tough line on Iran. I think, also, he's been very clear in saying that he would not allow a nuclear Iran.
I think, in a way, President Obama, if he was re-elected, it would be less damaging for him politically – I'm not a political analyst, I'm just speculating here – but I think it would be less damaging for him here politically if he allowed a nuclear Iran than Romney because I think one of the issues that has been raised about Romney is that he's a flip-flopper. When he was governor of Massachusetts, which is a Democratic state, some of his positions were seen as more moderate, but now people say, 'oh he's a conservative'. I think he's very conscious of not adding any fuel to that image to mix metaphors. I think that he's been very clear on that. I think it would definitely hurt his credibility if allowed a nuclear Iran after he's made such an issue out of it. And then there have been some little differences – this issue of nuclear weapons capability versus nuclear weapons which I won't get into, it all seems so technical. Romney definitely talks about capability, where the Israelis actually generally are, and actually there's a bipartisan group of senators – both Democratic and Republican – who also said that should be our red line. So that suggests to me, he might be tougher, but again, President Obama has also been very clear that he would prevent a nuclear Iran. It's hard for me to fully answer that question. I kind of just presented both sides of it and that's the best I could do on that.
Gisela Stuart MP
I suggest we take three. So that gentleman there.
Daniel Sherman
My name is Daniel Sherman. It must be clear to America by now that the sections of our work, that the only thing that will, at this stage, prevent Iran from going nuclear is to at least make it clear that the option of going to war is on the table. So why, America, when asked, hasn't got a will to at least put it on the table? A lot of people think it might be because of the coming election and Obama can't declare his interests before the election. He doesn't want to get involved with that. But is the main reason that America is so committed in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it hasn't got the will to contemplate the military option?
Gisela Stuart MP
I'll take two more from that side and three from that side over there.
Jonathan Paris
Jonathan Paris, political analyst. I think the question of the hour, by now, is whether the administration is going to define a new red-line in order to dissuade Israel from launching an attack before the election. Now in a David Sandler article yesterday, I couldn't see anything particularly good for Israel on that and it talked a lot about strengthening the Persian Gulf defences and [inaudible], things which have to do more with, which began during elections, the Persian Gulf. But, very little on Israel. I don't know whether the administration can credibly say by June 2013, if they're at this level of enrichment and weaponisation, they cross a red-line, we will attack. I think what Israel's going to hear is 'maybe 2013, maybe 2014'. General Hayden just said that in Israel, that we can wait for 2013, 2014. Now I'm not a big enthusiast of Barack's vision of immunity, but it seems to me that if it's a matter of months, that I think 24-36 months from now, is a pretty big stretch. You're going to have a lot of potential Iranian bombs and a lot of weaponisation and maybe even testing by then. So, if I'm an Israeli decision maker, and I give this red-line that vague about dates, I'm probably going to pack.
Unidentified speaker 1
I've got four American grandchildren over there. They were just telling me a nice story, they live in Ohio and John Boehner will be there. Just started at the Jesuit College. And John Boehner wrote him a handwritten letter congratulating him on going to the same school he went to. So I think MPs should do something similar. [Inaudible]
Gisela Stuart MP
New red-lines, political will, and can we really stop going around the bush and say we need to do something. To which I would add, if we're going to do something, how often do we have to do it?
Michael Makovsky
Right, that's a good question. I think on the issue of sanctions not working, I would definitely agree that sanctions have not worked yet. So, maybe you could argue that it's slowed the program, maybe you could argue that. But, of course the whole purpose is not to hurt the Iranian people, but the purpose is to put enough domestic pressure on the regime that they feel that they have to face a choice. So I would say that sanctions haven't worked yet. Some would argue that doesn't mean it won't work going forward and we just need more time. I actually worry about that a bit because since July 1st, which was seen as a pivot point on sanctions, certainly on the EU, the Koreans have been saying they're going to buy more oil, the Chinese have been buying more oil.
I think for sanctions to possibly work, or to work better, they have to be toughened completely. There has to be an embargo. And by the way, again, I think that sanctions alone are never going to work, that you have to have the three tracks. Now, by the way, I would want to add one other point, I was talking right before the talk, there's also a public diplomacy aspect of this and I think one of the things that we've also argued is that Iranians, I think, are winning somewhat. And they think, 'oh well other countries get to, we have a right to enrich' and they're very keen on acknowledging that. Now, we've really never aggressively refuted that. We meaning senior US officials, senior British officials, French officials, and so on. Now, it's somewhat of a disputable point. A colleague and I have written a piece on this in July in the Wall Street Journal that really going through the non-proliferation treaty actually they are in violation. They do not have a right to enrich and Western officials should be very, very clear about it because I do worry that in the region, Muslims do say, 'oh well you're picking on Iran, Israel has a bomb supposedly, the US has it, so why do you deny the Iranians?' I think you have to say, well actually, there are a lot of reasons. The fact that they've violated the NPT, that they're in violation of several UN Security Council resolutions and so on are actually good enough reasons why they don't. I think there are other reasons, for instance, they're the chief sponsor of terror in the world and so on. But, on a purely legalistic view, I think we need to be more aggressive in winning that battle.
On the issue of about a new red-line. I agree with you. I think you answered your own question. I think that it is vague and it encourages an Israeli attack and I agree, the US can never say by a certain date they would attack, but they could say, we won't allow Iran to get nuclear weapons capability. I think that undermines the confidence of Israel because now, the administration has suggested, and even I've met some Israelis who agree with them, that someday our intelligence will be so good, we'll be able to detect when they're about to weaponise. But the fact is, history suggests otherwise. We've never been able to do that. And we don't know. If you talk to some intelligence folks though, they'll readily acknowledge we actually have gaps on our intelligence on that. I think that waiting till weaponisation, when the Iranians are denying us – when I say us I mean IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, to Parchin and other facilities – I think raises a lot of alarms. I think it would help the administration to clarify their red-line is nuclear weapons capability. I think we should be a little more humble when it comes to the ability of our intelligence agencies. This isn't a criticism of the intelligence agencies just because it's a very hard thing to do. And I think we should draw our red-line a little closer as opposed to the weaponisation. But I also think, as you kind of suggested, it undercuts the confidence the Israelis have in us. As I said, North Korea and I know Barack, the defence minister has raised this, I mean we allowed North Korea and we said we wouldn't do that. And again, to your question, I also I agree, I think I'm not convinced someone actually will do something. But we don't always; countries don't always do what's in their best interest. I mentioned Churchill at the top. I mean obviously that's the obvious example of the 1930's – the coming storm and so on. But actually I find historical analogies to the1930s are often overwrought. But actually, there are some similarities in this case. That was also a terrible economic time – people were still getting over war. You asked about the capability, I mean, I think we're not in Iraq anymore; we're winding down in Afghanistan. Even when we had a hundred thousand troops in Iraq, we still could've taken care of an Iranian nuclear program and military strike if we so chose. At least, the way we would envision that, again it'd be a last resort, but it would be mostly air and naval power and the Air Force and the Navy was never really involved in Iraq and they're not that involved in Afghanistan. Those are really Army and Marines. But I do think there's war weariness in the American population, unquestionably in the military. No question about it. There are the economic issues – also true. These are terrible things we have to deal with. Unfortunately, the world doesn't always work for the American calendar about when we want to do things and when we don't. Sometimes, we might have to do things even though it's not the time for us.
Gisela Stuart MP
Let's take three from this side.
Unidentified Speaker 2
You might have seen Ken Waltz's piece in Foreign Affairs entitled 'Why Iran should get the bomb'
Michael Markovsky
Sorry whose piece?
Unidentified Speaker 2
[Inaudible] A piece in Foreign Affair suggesting why Iran would get the bomb. Really suggesting why, actually, there's an irrational view of Iran as they envision an irrational state rather than a rational state whereas actually there are facts that in fact since the 1960s, Israel has been to, has had an unusual anomaly over all the Arab states. [Inaudible]
Unidentified Speaker 3
You mentioned China and India, for example, and the failure of talks in Istanbul and Moscow. Is there any way of bringing the two sides together and what is it that those other countries [Inaudible] may be linked to what is going on in Israel and Iran.
Unidentified Speaker 4
I firmly believe that we should ensure that Iran is not going to become a nuclear weapons power and I'm really curious about the three tier approach you mentioned but I firmly believe in the diplomatic solution and the peaceful solution and that come off of one. And same with these sanctions, they go down antagonistic, the threat of war are advert to aggressive, so on one hand you have the antagonistic and aggressive and then yet also you supposedly have to seek a diplomatic solution. And I wouldn't necessarily trust our in being antagonistic
The diplomatic solution to the problem, I see, is that Iran has the energy; they have a requirement to produce energy to their people. Now how do we make nuclear weapons? We use reactors that produce weapons-grade plutonium. There is actually a technology that exists today that enables you to create safe nuclear power that does not produce radiation at any dangerous levels. And it's liquid fluoride chlorine reactors. There are five different types of these reactors and you can find out more from the top nuclear physicists who head a reactor with NASA. You can Google…
Gisela Stuart MP
I don't really want us to go into the five different… It is fifty shades of nuclear power. We've got the gist of your question. Is there a political blind spot amongst the American politicians ever since Carter? They haven't got visas to go into Iran and actually know each other. Do they have the right?
Michael Makovsky
I think that's a good question, by the way. I mean, there are Iranians in America, I have Persian relatives myself that live in the United States. But, I generally think you're right; the fact that we don't have an embassy and they don't have an embassy. It couldn't make things more difficult in terms of communication; of course we do work with our allies, such as the British. Definitely, I always think it's better to talk than not to talk. You definitely get to understand more. But of course just because, we also know from Iranians, just saying something doesn't mean they mean it. But I think you're right, we knew that before the Shah we didn't have probably good intelligence beforehand. I think having more of a presence in Iran would be more beneficial.
On the Waltz question and Foreign Policy – I'll admit that I meant to read it and I didn't although I'm familiar with the argument. I went to college, University of Chicago, and I remember when I was a college student I heard about this idea that there is more stability in nuclear weapons and I know even when I was 18 I thought it was kind of ridiculous. I think that it actually makes zero sense to me. The fact that Israel has a bomb, and of course that's unofficial – they won't admit it, but we all know, it's assumed they have a bomb, maybe 200 nuclear weapons. I don't think the Saudis are losing sleep over that, the Jordanians, the UAE, and so on, that the Israelis have bombs. I think, though, as I said, if they get nuclear weapons, it's not dynamic. I mean it's not static, it's dynamic. The Saudis will get – you'll have nuclear proliferation in the region. This is a region that's already unbelievably unstable.
Unidentified speaker 5
Are you suggesting through the proliferation, if Iran gets the weapons, there's no evidence to suggest that? [Inaudible]
Michael Markovsky
Actually, that is absolutely incorrect, actually that is factually incorrect. As I indicated, and you don't have to trust me, you could trust Dennis Ross who left the Obama administration, he publicised actually, which is the first public recognition of that issue, by the way. Google that. Google Dennis Ross. I think it was an article in the New York Times. I can't remember when it was, but it was in the last couple of months. He said that the Saudis indicated, which we all knew anyway, but Dennis Ross publicised it and said the Saudis said they will. Now, I don't want to get into this too much, but the region's already unstable and I see much greater instability going forward. I don't think we're finished with Syria however this is resolved. I see what's going on in the region and its reordering and it might have a lot changes in territory. This is not – I do not like the word awakening. The only thing I know for sure is that there's an Islamic resurgence, but I think it's much more than that. I think some of these countries are not countries in modern senses, and I think therefore we're going to see much more upheaval if you throw nuclear weapons in the mix. It's as scary as anything. And again, I think that you can have Jordan – Egypt under Mubarak, I don't know about Egypt now – so you're going to have greater proliferation in the region. By the way, it's not just me who says this, President Obama said this. And I think unlike in the Cold War, you can have risks of actually military conflict. It's not like you mention about the lack of communication between the Iranians and the US, it's not like there's a red phone between Tehran and Jerusalem either. So, I think there's a chance of miscommunication even if both countries wanted to avoid nuclear conflict.
To get to your point about the sanctions, by the way, I wouldn't use the term tiered because that suggests a different order of priority, and actually I don't, I see the three tracks – diplomacy, sanctions, and a credible military conflict at the same level – they have to be pursued simultaneously. It's not a tiered system, the way I look at it at least. Now your argument about whether threats and military conflict is antagonistic and it could prohibit, it could preclude a diplomatic solution. I think that I disagree because first of all, I think the Iranians, and I think they have some justification, think we would rather there be another regime. Now actually I would rather they thought that even more so, like beginning in 2009 when there were demonstrations. I wish we had acted more aggressively in regime change because ultimately, even if you did a military strike, if you have the same regime, that doesn't resolve the problem, it just delays the problem. Now the only way to fully resolve the problem is regime change. I personally don't support the military endeavour to change the regime like we did with the Taliban or we did with Saddam Hussein. I wouldn't do that and the American people wouldn't support that either. But, anyways, I think your point is valid in that the Iranians have reason to be paranoid. And they are, they believe we want to get rid of them as a regime. And I think, you know, even paranoids have enemies and it's legitimate that they feel this way. But, where I don't agree with you is that the threat of conflict would discourage diplomacy. First of all, we've tried what we've tried without a credible military option and I don't think it's gotten us anywhere. Secondly, the only time that we think they paused their nuclear program was in 2003. Why would they think that? Because 150,000 US troops were next door in Iraq and they thought they were next. Just like Gaddafi did and he gave up his program around that time. I think for those who support sanctions, by the way, believe that Iranians will respond to pressure. But I think this is an issue where they're so determined, the pressure will have to be really acute. I think the only way we're going to get anywhere with this regime which is a horrible viable regime and by the way, it's got a lot of willingness to push back – they're not so compliant. I think the only way they'll do that is if they thought there was a more credible military option and I think that would only help sanctions and that would only help the chance for diplomacy.
And to get to the question about China, they see things differently. I think it's a good question. I personally will acknowledge, I'm not an expert on China. I don't fully understand their approach but I think what I do understand is they don't' want to be reliant just on friends of the US on their oil – they're very conscious of their energy. I don't think they'll ever stop buying Iranian oil because as much as they buy oil from the Saudis, and so on, I don't think they want to be – I think they want to have some diversification. I don't think they want to buy all their oil from a country like Saudi Arabia, for instance, which is seen as so close to the United States. I mean, I think the best way to get the Chinese to curtail their oil purchases from Iran is if they thought the alternative to tough sanctions is military conflict. That means a shutdown of oil through the Persian Gulf for some period of time – maybe one week, two weeks or three weeks. But I don't profess to fully understand how they're approaching this.
Gisela Stuart MP
So last round of three questions. Gentleman on your far right.
Unidentified speaker 6
Do you think, however outlandish it might sound, that if we supported the US [inaudible].
Michael Markovsky
I'm sorry I can't hear you if you could speak a little louder.
Gisela Stuart MP
What he was saying is would the Americans go for supporting an embargo on Chinese imports?
Michael Markovsky
Embargoing Chinese imports of?
Unidentified Speaker 6
Of American goods.
Michael Markovsky
Oh American goods? Oh yeah.
Unidentified Speaker 6
I'm not sure if it's right… [inaudible]
Gisela Stuart MP
Last question – gentleman at the very back.
Unidentified Speaker 7
Can I actually make it two questions? Firstly, I think that the suggestion that the Presidential campaign [Inaudible]. The second question is, how bad do you think it would be in Iran [Inaudible]
Gisela Stuart MP
So we've got five minutes to wrap it up and could you also on the back of that question keep in mind too, if I were Iranians, I would always be on the verge of about having it. Because then I've got the maximum significance without the responsibility of having them. What do you think of that?
Michael Makovsky
Well, to answer your question, I think that's what we assume too. That they might, for now, they might. But that could be plenty. They don't have to kick out, they could have nuclear weapons capabilities. As long as people know that they're there I think a lot of the impact would be the same, actually. That would be, I think, the first step – it might not stay with that. On your China embargo question, I don't see that happening. Certainly, in these economic times in the US where the unemployment is so high. Look, President Obama issued a waiver to the Chinese on Iranian sanctions because they curtailed their purchase of Iranian oil when it was always thought, certainly I thought, that it was temporary because of a price dispute, which it seems like it was. So, I'm not surprised President Obama did that or would have been a tough thing for him to do otherwise given the economic situation. I think the only way we'll impose problems, issue things on China trade, is Romney talks about it in terms of unfair trade practices, but not because of Iran. I don't see it politically.
On your question about whether this is true, I read that article too. I've been out of the States – I've been in Israel, I've been in France – I haven't had a chance to find out myself on that. I have no idea. All I can say is I hope it's not true. I think General Dempsey's comment in London last Thursday about not wanting to be seen as not wanting to be complicit or seen as complicit – I can't remember exactly the language he used – I remember him saying complicit – certainly gives rise to thinking reports like that might be true. I would hope that wasn't true because I think it's the exact opposite of what we should be doing with Iran. We shouldn't be asking them 'don't attack us if the military conflict with Israel'. We should be saying, 'we're going to stand with Israel. If you think you're going to rain missiles on Tel Aviv, you should think otherwise'. I think that of course the downside to what I just said is you could have the Israelis bring the [Inaudible] in and a conflict not of our time of choosing – that's the downside. But, I actually think if Israel attacked – and there are different views on this – I think the Iranians would be, the last thing they want to do is bring in the United States in if they could help it, and if they attacked our installations or attacked Saudi oil installations and tried to close the Strait of Hormuz, that would unify, I think, the West against Iran in a way that certainly – an Israeli attack might divide folks. But, Iranian reprisals like that against US facilities and Saudi facilities or the Strait of Hormuz, that would bring folks together against Iran. I think so, the Iranians would be foolish to do that, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't do that anyways. But I would hope that's not true because I think it would be an absolutely wrong signal for us to give.
On to the third question about Israelis fleeing, by the way, what I said about 100% of the foreign policy is in Iran, I guess I was exaggerating a little, just for effect. But I don't think I was exaggerating too much. Yeah, I've looked at the Romney side – I'm familiar with it a bit. There are some countries listed. I'm not trying to criticise Romney at all, but if you watched all the Republican debates, and I can't say I endured all of them, but I watched many of them. No, it's not against the Republicans; to be honest I'm a Republican. But, most of these Presidential debates, sometimes they're fun, and sometimes they're pretty tedious, but the only issue that really came up a lot was either Israel or Iran. That was the one that came up a lot. And then there were a few little things once in awhile that came up.
Unidentified speaker 8
In the convention speech, though, which is maybe more [Inaudible]… he talks about Poland, he talks about other countries. And he didn't talk about Iran.
Michael Makovsky
Actually he did say Iran.
Unidentified Speaker 8
Ok, but he did talk about other countries.
Michael Makovsky
Right, he also visited Poland. Right, he was trying to make a point there. I was trying but I've got to tell you right now, Poland is not a big issue right now in the Presidential debate, although I went to college in Chicago.
Gisela Stuart MP
[Inaudible]… Don't underestimate the vote there.
Michael Makovsky
I think Illinois is safely gonna go with Obama, but there are other Eastern European Americans, Polish-Americans, and so on in other states. And I think when Romney went to Poland it was a good thing because Poland has been a close ally to the United States, and of course, a couple of world wars were fought that kind of triggered involving Poland and so on. There's still the anti-missile defences issues. I think him going to Poland actually had a lot of good symbolism, but is not a contentious issue right now in the Presidential election.
Your issue about the defence budget, you're right, Romney is for increasing the defence budget – certainly not cutting it, like the President, like some are on that. I do think this election, and I'm not a political analyst, as in someone who focuses on foreign policy, there's been very little foreign policy and the extent there is, it has generally been Iran. I use that word generally as opposed to 5% and I apologize, I take back what I said earlier.
Gisela Stuart MP
I'm sorry we couldn't take any more questions, but Michael Makovsky, thank you very much.


text:
Online reviews and ratings have evolved as the "word-of-mouth" of the digital world. Many studies agree that they are the media most able to influence consumer behaviour and the most often used to obtain information before, during, and after consuming a given product or service (1). Research shows that 91 per cent of people regularly or occasionally read online reviews, and 84 per cent trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. One in every 20 searches online is related to health (2). People often search for Hospitals and doctors online before booking appointments. A recent review showed that, although literature about the topic is limited, several studies establish a relation between online ratings and quality of health care (3). Feedback from patients is an established yardstick for healthcare quality improvement plans (4). By default, Google review & rating has become the most visited source by people for judging quality before availing any healthcare service.
Google reviews and ratings have become an important source of trust for patients searching for hospitals and laboratories online. We at Healtho5 Solutions conducted a study to understand if MedEngage® patient relationship management platform can be used to increase positive ratings for our clients.
MedEngage® is a comprehensive patient relationship management platform with modules for Feedback, Followup, Lead management, Appointments, etc.. Our MedEngage® Feedback modules lets our client hospitals collect Patient feedback in real-time, with automatic escalation and task management for any patient complaint.
One unique feature of MedEngage® Feedback is the real-time analysis of satisfaction rates and redirecting patients giving feedback to the respective hospital's google review page. We did a study on how MedEngage® has succeeded in improving the total number of Google reviews and also the average rating for our client hospitals.
We analysed the Google review for four hospitals and three diagnostic centres from Mumbai, Chennai and Bengaluru who have opted for Google Reviews redirection feature of MedEngage® Feedback. The average duration of deployment was four months. Following deployment, online Google reviews for all our clients shot up to 44.7% collectively. Out of total google reviews collected post-deployment via MedEngage® redirect feature 81% was a highly favourable 4-5 star rating.
(Table 1: Increase in overall google reviews and positive rating with MedEngage® Feedback)
(Graph 1: 44.7% Increase in Google Reviews after deployment)
(Graph 2: 81% of new reviews were positive after deployment)
Hospital 1 a 300 bedded hospital in Mumbai collected 412 reviews in the last six years before using MedEngage® feedback to manage their patient feedback and issues. Post three months, use of MedEngage® Feedback, the hospital has increased its online google reviews by 39% to a total of 572 reviews. Out of 160 google reviews given post-MedEngage® deployment, 78% (125 reviews) are 4-5 star rating.
A Chennai based renowned maternity-care hospital (Hospital-2) had stagnant google reviews for four years before they started MedEngage® Feedback in February 2019. In the last five months, they have increased their google review by 60% (from 52 to 83). Furthermore, 87% of the new online reviews after deployment was Positive (4-5 star).
Another Chennai based hospital (Hospital 3) has shown a staggering 168% increase in online google reviews within five months of using MedEngage® Feedback. Out of which 91% of the reviews were 4 to 5 stars.
A 450 bedded Mumbai based hospital (shown as Hospital 4) have installed MedEngage® Feedback only one month back. They have seen a 33% increase in Google reviews, 93% of which are 4-5 star ratings.
Apart from hospitals, MedEngage® Feedback also serves three branches of a diagnostic centre in the heart of Bangalore (shown in table and graph as Laboratory 1, 2, 3). The laboratories started using our feedback four months back and have increased their total number of reviews by 68%, 16% and 149% respectively. The number of positive reviews among new reviews were 78%, 76%, 69% respectively.
In conclusion, our study has shown that proactively managing patient feedback results in improved google reviews and overall rating of the hospital.
We provide MedEngage® Feedback via multiple modes such as via tablet, QR code and text SMS. We have seen exponential improvement in online-rating for hospitals who are collecting feedback via tablet or kiosk. Moreover, hospitals having a streamlined system and a dedicated team to manage patient issues were able to improve their google rating at a much higher rate.
This case study conclusively proves that MedEngage® Feedback system is easy to deploy and quickly increases the total number of Google reviews and results in a sharp increase in positive reviews by satisfied patients who were otherwise not able to provide their feedback and positive reviews.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The X24C08 is a CMOS 8,192 bit serial E2PROM, internally organized 1024 x 8. The X24C08 features a serial interface and software protocol allowing operation on a simple two wire bus.
The X24C08 is fabricated with Xicor's advanced CMOS Textured Poly Floating Gate Technology.
The X24C08 utilizes Xicor's proprietary Direct Write™ cell providing a minimum endurance of 100,000 cycles and a minimum data retention of 100 years.
• 2.7V to 5.5V Power Supply
• Low Power CMOS
—Active Read Current Less Than 1 mA
—Active Write Current Less Than 3 mA
—Standby Current Less Than 50 ∝A
• Internally Organized 1024 x 8
• 2 Wire Serial Interface
—Bidirectional Data Transfer Protocol
• Sixteen Byte Page Write Mode
—Minimizes Total Write Time Per Byte
• Self Timed Write Cycle
—Typical Write Cycle Time of 5 ms
• High Reliability
—Endurance: 100,000 Cycles
—Data Retention: 100 Years
• 8 Pin Mini-DlP, 8 Pin SOIC and 14 Pin SOIC Packages


text:
Halsey Gets Tatt Seconds Before Hitting the Stage!
Halsey performed with Lil Wayne this past weekend on Saturday Night Live (SNL). Just before hitting the stage, I mean literally, she got a tattoo! It is a balance scale with "sins" on the left and "forgiveness" on the right. Check it out below!


text:
The Mexican actor and his now wife Aislinn Derbez cracked up when the scandal broke. In addition, the poster is threatening to release even more revealing images of the actor, and as he is only wearing underwear in the images that have been shared so far, the yet-to-be-released images must feature him completely naked. Zepeda added that the telenovela tells a very contemporary tale about women. Oh, yes! The actor was contacted by the producer two weeks ago, and though he had to alter his schedule, as he is participating in the show "Sin Censura," he jumped at the chance. Mexican telenovela actor David Zepeda sent some nude photos to a girlfriend.
The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict.
Our Picks. Tweets by https:
Laura. hello dear gentlemen, my name is ariana. iam kind person, easy going, always smiling, helpful. iam profesional and loving fun and my job. i have also my company, so am ambicious and working with vegetarian food. if u are looking for really kind company and would like spend lot of fun contact me.


text:
The manito park and gardens have consistently been the solution for limited distance. But you ought to note it will take more than just the right size to create a comfortable dining room in small garden. There Are a Lot of Other items you have to consider:
manito park and gardens are the important services and products to be places at your residence. Once we know, we will have vital activities from the garden. We will spend every evening together with our loved ones. As an instance, we can choose dinner with each other and spend time that the absolute most there. This is exactly why it will be also the main room-you want to care especially for its furniture. Speaking about garden household furnishings, even you will find a few styles of garden home furnishings you are able to choose. Continue reading under! Here are some hints for you personally.
Stainless Steel is good stuff and also durable. Thus, you will have long-lasting garden home equipment if you pick stainless garden home equipment bundle. Perhaps not just concerning it, stainless steel also resistant to the scratch, moist and heat. Straightforward care can also make you easy to completely clean it. E lite and elegant appearing can you get by the addition of this package on your garden.
manito park and gardens is going to soon be the effective option for you personally. Additionally, there are lots of people try to find the many in one product. It is since they are going to find the all-inclusive goods in 1 package. Finding the ideal product for your garden appliances is not easy. You may need some tips such as that. What exactly are most useful services and products for your garden? Here are several top products you are able to select.
Many people on the flip side, some times choose to possess bare garden cupboards. This usually means you or the contractor possess more liberty of designing and giving the treatment of those cupboards. manito park and gardens are also one of those popular immaculate cabinets sold on the marketplace. It has good quality since it's totally constructed, doors and drawers aren't drilled, so a few of the drawers have been full of good hardwood and the doors have been completed with adjustable hinges.
Previous to you buying it, you now can acquire totally free appointment in homedepot to get the suitable japanese garden. You are able to get professional advice and the suitable style and design you want. Make sure that you will purchase it with all the funds which you've prepared and also the ideal measurement of your garden.
Stainless Steel is excellent cloth and also durable. Thus, you will have durable garden home equipment if you choose stainless garden home equipment offer. Perhaps not just about it, stainless also immune to this scrape, heat and moist. Easy maintenance will make you easy to clean it. Elite and sophisticated appearing can you access by adding this package on your garden.
This image gallery named as Manito Park And Gardens might be ideal solution for your decoration. As the author has insert this image into Japanese Garden Spokane post section, would ease you to find the perfect match of you decor desire.


text:
All people enjoys going to casinos but it is not normally an selection. The expense of traveling and resort continue to be even though you are at the casino all adds up. It truly is all money that could be invested acquiring the real entertaining, rather of masking the costs to have pleasurable. On the net Casino is the upcoming best thing to use if you want the casino encounter at your personal residence. With on line casino on line online games individuals can make revenue just like they could at a genuine casino just a lot less of a value than taking the excursion to a casino.
How do I start out making cash with on line casinos?
To start off the process, obtain the on line casino on the net sport you want to use. Perform some video games and see if you like the casino, if not glance for an additional one particular and then do the exact factor. As soon as you have decided on a on line casino match research, make positive that it is an online casino that will not cheat you for your revenue. You don't want to give your credit rating data right up until you know the casino is safe to use. After you have established that the casino on the net is secured then you can signal up and commence to play and make dollars.
Does it acquire a lot of time to make money with the on line on line casino?
It is actually greater to take time to make revenue. If you invest a substantial sum of money correct away and eliminate a bunch of it then just like in a authentic on line casino you have the risk of getting rid of all that you have invested. It is superior to devote a minor cash at a time and see what happens. If you win some cash then superior but if you get rid of it, then at least you stay comfortable for the reason that you have not invested so considerably that it could hurt your finances. As you earn, transfer the winning funds and place it into your account so that you don't shed it all all over again. Little by little you will begin to make some dollars and be in a position to construct far more and extra this way. Handle your winnings as discounts.
Do the casinos keep a share of my winnings?
Most casinos let you retain all of your winnings. There is not a share or slash for the on-line casino. If there is then you might have to have to be careful for the reason that this could be a poor on line casino internet site for you. Some casinos have a issue technique exactly where you can win points when you acquire and then turn those details in for hard cash. It just is dependent on what you are hunting for and how you want to make your income.
How do I get my dollars?
If you loved this information and you would want to receive details about navigate to this website please visit the web-site.
Many on line casino web sites give payments via PayPal. When you withdraw your income there may be some service fees you would have to fork out. The same may possibly manifest with your personalized lender simply because there may perhaps be the solution to have dollars despatched to your private account as quite a few lender accounts lower out a smaller fee. The option is up to you how you want your income and it could count on the methods of payment offered at the on the net on line casino website.


text:
'Rohingya not a security threat': Activist
Bangladesh should not consider Rohingya refugees who fled genocide in Myanmar a security threat, a rights activist said Thursday.
"The Rohingya have no place other than Bangladesh to take refuge," Nay San Lwin, campaign coordinator of Free Rohingya Coalition, told Anadolu Agency.
His comments come after media reports revealed that Bangladesh army, which provides security in refugee camps in southern Cox's Bazar district, suggested the government in a comprehensive report to build barbed wire fence around the camps to limit refugee movements.
Cox's Bazar is home to around 1 million Rohingya who fled military crackdown in Myanmar's northern Rakhine state since early 70s.
The military report was discussed at a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on National Defense on Wednesday.
Bangladesh government has been increasing security measures in the camps in a move to take tougher actions to prohibit free movement of Rohingya outside the densely populated camps.
In the report, the military voiced concern that Rohingya could leave the camp and spread to different parts of the country due to the absence of wired fence in the area and they can be used by international terrorist organizations.
However, the representative of Rohingya rights group stated that Bangladesh government "should not consider us as security threats".
"The camp with wire fence is like a concentration camp," he added.
"Bangladesh should recognize Rohingya survivors as refugees and give them rights to work and study instead of banning mobile services, restricting movement," Lwin said, referring to a recent ban on selling mobile SIM cards to Rohingya and providing mobile network in the camp area by the official communication regulatory authority.
"Bangladesh can change our fate by putting very strong pressure on Myanmar if there is a will," he added.
Persecuted people
The Rohingya, described by the UN as the world's most persecuted people, have faced heightened fears of attack since dozens were killed in communal violence in 2012.
According to Amnesty International, more than 750,000 Rohingya refugees, mostly women and children, have fled Myanmar and crossed into Bangladesh after Myanmar forces launched a crackdown on the minority Muslim community in August 2017, pushing the number of persecuted people in Bangladesh above 1.2 million.
Since Aug. 25, 2017, nearly 24,000 Rohingya Muslims have been killed by Myanmar's state forces, according to a report by the Ontario International Development Agency (OIDA).
More than 34,000 Rohingya were also thrown into fires, while over 114,000 others were beaten, said the OIDA report, titled "Forced Migration of Rohingya: The Untold Experience."
Some 18,000 Rohingya women and girls were raped by Myanmar's army and police and over 115,000 Rohingya homes were burned down and 113,000 others vandalized, it added.


text:
Buy and Sell Great Cufflinks for Men in Menifee, CA
Few things are more enduring than wanting to look good and feel good, and there are few options which are more compelling for achieving that than jewelry and fashion. While particular pieces may go in and out of style, the power of nostalgia and history always keeps them valuable, as do the elegant cuts of precious metals, stones, and gems from which they're made. When we think about jewelry in relation to fashion, however, we far too often narrow our focus to women's jewelry. Men know how to rock a fine piece of jewelry from a fashion standpoint as well, and nowhere is this more apparent than with first-class gold and silver cufflinks.
Whether you're buying or selling, you'll want to check out the best outlet for cufflinks for men in Menifee, CA.
Acquiring Cufflinks
If you are looking to buy some cufflinks for men, you'll want to take the time to look at the different styles offered by the outlet at which you are shopping. As with all types of jewelry, some types of cufflinks represent more of a given time, while others are more timeless. You'll want to take the time to look for a pair that best complements the suit with which you plan on wearing them as well as your own sense of style.
Selling Old Cufflinks
On the other hand, if you're looking to sell some cufflinks for men, you'll first want to get them appraised. The best outlet for second-hand jewelry can help appraise your cufflinks to find out just how much they may be worth. They can appraise both the cufflinks as a whole as well as the gold, silver, and jeweled settings of which they may be comprised.
Take a look at Suncitycoin.com and see if they have cufflinks which can help offset your sense of style.


text:
Lower Back Tattoos For Females – Coming up with tattoo ideas may be tough, specifically when you would like to possess a exceptional tattoo. No one desires a tattoo that's observed as boring, unoriginal or unattractive. Tattoos are suppose to represent a part of ourselves, therefore they need to be special ideas. Considering of special tattoo suggestions could be each difficult and fun. There are actually a number of ways one particular can go about finding the right design and style. The following is just a modest list of how to come up with ideas you like.
Read More:


text:
The Bitgrid
Over the summer, something truly incredible occurred in Brooklyn, USA.
Over 50 homes stopped using the centralised grid…and created their own micro grid. This enabled each home to generate solar energy…and trade it back and forth with their neighbours using the blockchain (we have discussed blockchains before). This is the same tech that makes bitcoin so powerful.
Anyone heading out for the day, and not needing any energy, could simply sell their energy on to anyone else on the grid. This trade would be very quick, safe and of course, cheap.
No one had to pay a centralised power station to supply them with dirty, 'old' energy. This is important. There is a huge decentralised energy revolution happening right now.
There is a similar experiment going on in the UK, in Salford to be precise. Again, hundreds of homes have decided to try going 'off grid' and created their own micro grid. It's happening all over the world in fact. The advantages to a decentralised micro grid are huge. Necker Island, the private island owned by Richard Branson is a great example.
For decades, it has generated most of its energy from diesel generators. But now, it's built its own dedicated micro grid. It is planning to disconnect from the 'mains' and use solar, wind and other renewables to power itself.
This technology is bigger than any single installation or energy source. Whether its solar, wind, geothermal or battery tech. It is really about how they all come on-stream as part of a decentralised system with thousands of smaller energy sources.
It's an idea that is catching on across the world, including right here in the UK. Imperial College London are exploring the possibility of moving the UK train network off the national grid…and building a micro grid to power our trains. The project rolls out in early 2018. I will be watching their conclusions and suggestions with interest. In San Diego, the US military is investing heavily in its 'Miramar Microgrid', a joint project between energy giants Schneider Electric and Black and Veatch. Google, Walmart, Siemens, Microsoft, Facebook and the US Government have stumped up billions to fund new micro grids.
Apple has just registered itself as an energy supplier, ready to sell and trade solar energy. They have the cash after all.
By James Sanders
Comments are closed.
James Sanders
James Sanders is a London based trader and investor. He founded the UK's largest independent derivatives broker in 2001 and left the City in 2009.


text:
I began my career in the music industry doing sound design, recording and mastering. I continued to work as a producer and engineer for several years. I started producing and promoting musical events and a weekly radio show, which led to involvement in film as a music supervisor.
These days, I spend my time doing script analysis and screenwriting, working as a assistant POC on commercials, doing dailies for TV and writing professionally for print and online. I also direct and produce many indie projects from inception to post production.
I pride myself on being able to float between set and production and post-production offices. My current mission is to learn more about creative development in television.
Unique traits: Nice guy
Vinny & Ma Eat America
Television (Reality-TV) Editorial department Vinny Guadagnino travels across the U.S. with his mother, Paola Guadagnino, introducing her to cuisine other than Italian.
Secrets of the Underground
Television (Documentary) Miscellaneous Crew Add a Plot »
UFC Embedded: Vlog Series
Television (Sport) Miscellaneous Crew Add a Plot »
Blood Father
Film (Action, Crime, Drama and Thriller) Editorial department An ex-con reunites with his estranged wayward 17-year old daughter to protect her from drug dealers who are trying to kill her.
War on Everyone
Film (Action and Comedy) Editorial department Two corrupt cops set out to blackmail and frame every criminal unfortunate enough to cross their path. Events, however, are complicated by the arrival of someone who appears to be even more dangerous than they are.
Black Market with Michael K. Williams
Television (Documentary) Camera and Electrical Department In his most personal project to date, Michael K. Williams journeys into the dangerous world of illicit trade.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Film (Biography, Comedy, Drama and War) Miscellaneous Crew 2003. After careful consideration, Kim Baker, a news copywriter, decides to leave the relative comfort of a New York desk job and serious boyfriend Chris to accept the assignment to work for three months as on-camera reporter in war torn Afghanistan, as her news agency is looking for anyone within their ranks to fill immediately the empty voids overseas. Her only experience of being in such an environment is going through hostile zone training a few years earlier. Immediately upon her arrival in Afghanistan, she realizes that she is ill-prepared emotionally for this assignment, not only enduring the dangers of the war itself, but also the conditions of everyday life, including largely been seen by men as only a "piece of ass" and a distraction despite her being considered average looking back home and not being overtly sexual, and being an individual with a small bladder who is nonetheless told to stay hydrated at all times. She is largely assisted in navigating this new life by Tanya... Written by Huggo
The Kammler Code
Film (Short and Sci-Fi) Sound department It is October 2020 in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Dr. Hans Kammler's high-level team of government scientists are conducting top-secret tests of his cylinder, code named "Chronos". On the verge of a breakthrough that could alter the course of history, his lead researcher, the ambitious Dr. Anna Renshaw, takes it upon herself to test the cylinder. The results of which, send unseen shockwaves around the globe. When a local history professor stumbles across evidence of the team's wrong-doings in the past, he is compelled to immerse himself in this hidden world of science and espionage - and the most groundbreaking scientific discovery of the 21st century. In this high stakes investigation, Professor Sam Tipler must help Dr. Renshaw escape an experiment that went horribly awry and face the global reverberations of the secret advances of this most terrifying technology. Written by Riess, Milton
The Messengers
Television (Drama, Fantasy, Mystery and Thriller) Editorial department In the New Mexico desert, scientist Vera Ivanov (Shantel VanSanten) watches in fascination as a mysterious object plummets to Earth and explodes, sending out a shock wave that briefly stops her heart. But Vera isn't the only one affected: she's instantly connected to four other strangers, who also collapse only to miraculously come back to life hours later. Then a mysterious figure known only as "The Man" (Diogo Morgado) comes and offers Vera the chance to be reunited with her kidnapped son, if she helps him with one morally complicated task. Now, this group of strangers might be the only hope for preventing the impending Rapture... or causing it. Written by Soumik Ghosh
Television (Drama, Mystery and Thriller) Editorial department Peter, an FBI agent stationed in Jerusalem who, while investigating a murder of a young female archaeologist, uncovers a conspiracy 2000 years in the making.
Dirty Weekend
Film (Comedy and Drama) Editorial department Colleagues Les and Natalie are delayed in the Albuquerque airport. Restless, irritated, and unable to stand the service workers he meets at every turn, Les heads downtown. Natalie refuses to leave his side and discovers that his supposedly aimless wandering has more of a point than he is willing to admit. Natalie conceals secrets of her own, though neither can keep them quiet for long. A rapport grows between this unlikely pair, and soon they search out a spark of excitement in this most unlikely of locales. Written by Production
House of Cards
Television (Drama) Editorial department Majority House Whip Francis Underwood takes you on a long journey as he exacts his vengeance on those he feels wronged him - that is, his own cabinet members including the President of the United States himself. Dashing, cunning, methodical and vicious, Frank Underwood along with his equally manipulative yet ambiguous wife, Claire take Washington by storm through climbing the hierarchical ladder to power in this Americanized recreation of the BBC series of the same name. Written by Jacob Oberfrank
Television (Drama, History and War) Actor Set against the backdrop of the greatest clandestine race against time in the history of science with the mission to build the world's first atomic bomb in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Flawed scientists and their families attempt to co-exist in a world where secrets and lies infiltrate every aspect of their lives. Written by Futon Critic
The Odd Way Home
Film (Drama) Editorial department The oddest couple takes an unforgettable journey through the American Southwest, finding happiness in the unlikeliest of places and seeing in each other what no one else has seen before. Maya is a product of childhood abuse who escapes her shattered life in Los Angeles and meets Duncan, a hermit from a tiny town. He is socially awkward and a slave to pattern and routine, but a master of map-making and directions. Their journey teaches Maya to care for someone else and takes Duncan into a new world. Their road trip is filled with unexpected surprises and hard realities that redefine the notion of family. Written by Anonymous
Dark Around the Stars
Film (Drama) Editorial department Glen is on a drunken road trip when he plots to commit suicide on his birthday. His decision sends him on a spirited adventure that exposes his troubled soul to the simple beauty of life.
An Office to Remember: Shredder Love
Film (Short and Comedy) Editorial department Is it possible to love something too much? Yet another hilarious creation from the minds of the Hepest Ninjas you know.
Archaeobotany: Processing and Analysis
Film (Documentary and Short) Camera and Electrical Department The processing and analysis of archaeobotanical remains.
Film (Short and Drama) Sound department A young psychiatrist treats a woman who suffers from a split personality disorder. As he grows close to one personality, he becomes romantically entangled - risking the well being of his young patient and his very career.
Sex and Lies in Sin City
TV Movie (Biography, Crime, Drama, Mystery and 1 More) Actor Decide the truth for yourself in this thrilling true story of the biggest scandal in Las Vegas. Ted Binion (Matthew Modine, TV's "Weeds") is Vegas royalty, the prince of the world famous Horseshoe Casino - rich, rowdy and randy. When he falls for Sandy Murphy (Mena Suvari, Beauty Shop) at a local strip club, he becomes trapped in a web of drugs, deception and ultimately his death. His apparent ... Written by Anonymous
The Lives of Angels
Film (Comedy, Fantasy, Mystery and Romance) Sound department Divine intervention brings together an unlikely couple, a self doubting "loser" and a lovable woman who reads books in bars. It requires the work of guardian angels as well as a bartender and a best friend to get these two to fulfill their destiny: to get together. The Devil is not happy. Written by Seymour Scagnetti
University of New Mexico
University of Exeter (Exeter, UK)


text:
On Tuesday September 24th, 2019, Maria Grazia Chiuri (Dior's Artistic Director) brought to light a special collection celebrating Miss Dior's love for gardens. With climate…
2019 Coachella Outfits Under $40
Planning what you're going to wear to Coachella is all part of the fun! Looking chic and sexy doesn't mean you have to break the bank. After spending money on lodging, tickets, flights, etc. you'll want to find a place to save some dough. Check out these various styles–from boho to rave chick. All items are available on this Amazon list and are listed under $40.
Please note – prices are subject to change at the supplier's discretion.
You may also like to read:
First Time VIP Coachella | Pre-Coachella Do's and Don'ts
The Bohemian Chic at Coachella
This is probably the most common look you'll find at Coachella. It's flirty, classy, and comfortable. You really can't go wrong with it!
The BOSS Bitch at Coachella
For the chick that's a bad ass trying to rock out at Coachella with a leather skirt and boots.
The Rave Chick at Coachella
The Laid-back Chick at Coachella
Crop tops and denim. We love jazzing up this look with some glitter and body tats!
The Extra Chick at Coachella
This is exclusively for the uber-confident chick that is trying to STUNT.
(Note, prices are subject to change)
You may also like to read:
First Time VIP Coachella | Pre-Coachella Do's and Don'ts


text:
My philosophy of care is a commitment to my patients and their families to deliver care that is supported by the highest order of compassion, innovation, science, and technology.
My interests include the care and treatment of orthopedic foot and ankle disorders.
Monday: 7am - 7pm
Tuesday: 7am - 7pm
Wednesday: 7am - 7pm
Thursday: 7am - 7pm
Friday: 7am - 7pm
Saturday: 7am - 12:30pm
Sunday: Closed
Qualifications and experience
- Specialties
- Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Bones, Joints and Muscles
- Gender
- Male
- Clinical interest for patients
Orthopedic Foot and Ankle care and treatment.
- Region


text:
The Things You Need to Know about Buying Small Double Sink Bathroom Vanities
Quite a number of things are available today that are going to contribute to having a cool bathroom, you need to know them. You should be able to have enough space within the bathroom and, a perfect design in addition to comfortable and great facilities to use when in the bathroom. A number of features are available to add within your bathroom so that you can have something perfect. One of the features that you can add for your bathroom will be the small double sink bathroom vanities. One thing you realize is that they're going to be perfect especially because of the features and the design they bring so, you'll be able to get complete satisfaction. Getting to know how to buy the double sink bathroom vanities will be very critical because you do not want to be unsatisfied. Bathroom vanities are for all types of bathrooms even a small one and therefore, you should get rid of the misconception that they are only for luxury master suits. If you have a small bathroom, you can decide to use small bathroom vanities that range from 42 to 60 inches in width. Your results are going to be perfect if you decide to use a lovely cabinet combo for your bathroom.
Before you begin the process of selling, it is first of all very important for you to make the necessary measurements so that you know which size will be perfect. It is also important for you to think about your style and the different types of important elements because there is quite a number. Today, there are great companies that are going to give you the opportunity to get the types of bathroom vanities you want. These are companies that will be able to provide installation services but at the same time, they also give you a very big inventory. You'll only have to make your order and the company is going to do everything necessary. There are items that will be stock for you while others might be out of stock, visiting the company will help you to know more about that.
It is a great affordable solution and therefore, you should definitely partner with the company. Another good thing about working with these companies is that these bathroom vanities will have great storage options. You need to have good connections because those are critical for ensuring that you have workable bathroom vanities. The value of your home is much higher if you decide to use such solutions and it is also a good investment in terms of appearance.
3 Tips from Someone With Experience


text:
Quick View Opinion Autograph Service for any item with one signature.
- Not sure about that autograph you have purchased?
- Unsure about the dealer or website?
- Just need a quick yes or no as to authenticity?
- Think you have been sold a fake?
PLEASE READ THIS PAGE BEFORE PAYING! Then this is what you need. We offer a 'Quick View' yes/no opinion via email only for any item you may have purchased or want to purchase via a website or elsewhere including ebay. This is for an item with one signature only, please see other options for items with multiple signatures. Provided that you can provide us with the website etc and some decent images of the item, then we will give you a yes or no as to whether the item is likely authentic, PLUS any tips regarding the purchase which may include its market value, or what you can do if you have purchased the item and its not authentic! Please note. We cannot work from screen grabs or small or poor quality images. Only send images as JPG's.
PLEASE NOTE. we can only offer this service via email, we cannot authenticate items on the phone, and we only offer this service AFTER you have paid! Once you have paid for the Quick Opinion you will need to send us good quality images of the item and signatures, plus as much information as you have about the item, where purchased, website details etc, the more you can tell us, the more we may be able to help you.
Our opinion is based on over 20 years of full time autograph experience (plus over 15 years exprience on ebay), and in most cases we can give you our opinion within a few hours (but please allow for the time difference between countries!). We are not a company that is unknown within this business, we don't make unproven claims as to how good we are, nor do we hide who we are. We are very well known amongst all UK dealers and know what we are talking about, and our claims can be easily checked.
Any opinion is given directly by the owner of Autografica, Garry King, a very well respected name within the autograph business, and one with more full time experience in dealing with autographs than most. Garry has provided expert witness testimony for both the Police and Trading Standards, written many articles on autographs, and been written about by both local and national newspapers and magazines. It should also be noted that this is an opinion service, and any opinion should not be considered as an 'authentication' which can only be done by seeing the item itself.
Garry has also been featured on The One Show, Inside Out, and The Real Hustle, and has also been featured as the expert on two edtions of Fake Britain about fake autographs for the BBC. Garry has also filmed for editions of Pawn Stars UK and Posh Pawn and Posh Pawnbrokers as well as a recent edition the BBC program Rip off Britain.
For each item submitted (you will need to email us full details of each item) you will receive by return, normally within 12 hours, or much sooner if during normal office hours, a Yes or No answer as to whether you should consider buying based on its authenticity, condition and price, plus any tips that could be of use to you, including a value where possible.
You can buy one opinion or a multiple number at a reduced price. Our opinion will be based on many things, but what you can rely on is that our opinion is based on many years of experience, both on eBay, with other dealers, and with our work with both Trading Standards and the Police.
If we cannot give you a positive answer due to time restraints or for any other reason, then we will refund your payment.
If you use our opinion service, and you should go ahead and buy the item or require a full authentication, we will deduct that fee from any further authentication service you take with us. We do not have a fixed price for full authentications as some may take much longer than others, but our prices start at ?29.95 and this includes a full letter of authentication signed by Garry King, and will include an insurance valuation as well if requested at a extra cost of ?10. This will not only add value to your item, but will also make it easier to sell and ensure that if the item is lost of stolen, then you will be able to make an insurance claim as well.
Please note. We do not authenticate football shirts, boots or balls or 3D items such as Funko Pops or items that are framed unless removed from the frame.
Just click the box, pay via card or PayPal, and then email us the eBay item number for our quick view opinion. PLEASE NOTE To keep the cost of this as low as possible we are unable to answer questions or offer this service via the phone, so please do not call, only email.
We ship to almost any country every working day of the week, so in most cases your order will be dispatched at the latest the following day. All Orders sent signed for and insured. Just call this number now to place your order.
01634 830062
All international orders (that is any country other than the UK!) are a simple £9.95 per order, and all orders are sent insured and signed for.
We man the phone normally between 9am - 4.30pm weekdays and some Saturdays.
All orders are securely packed using plastic sleeves and board back envelopes marked 'Do Not Bend' for photos, and boxes, Jiffy bags or tubes for others. All items no matter how costly are insured, and most sent signed for, so if you have a problem with a delivery, then we will do our best to help sort out the problem. If it goes missing or gets damaged, then you can be sure that we will either replace or refund.
Autografica are full Dealer members of the following associations, UACC, AFTAL and RACC. In addition to our lifetime authenticity guarantee, all of our items are also covered by our 28 day no quible return policy should the item not live up to your expectations.
Each item is sold with an item specific Lifetime Certificate of Authenticity. Each COA has our full contact details (Beware the validity of any COA that does not!) and guarantees a full refund to the original purchaser should any item be found to be anything other than stated.
We are more than happy to accept your order on the phone, and we man the phones Monday to Saturday inclusive for most of the day.
Order line...01634 830062
Quick View Opinion Autograph Service for any item with one signature.
- £7.95
Every item offered by Autografica is genuinely signed by the named person and comes with our written lifetime guarantee of authenticity. We have been dealing in signed memorabilia for over 25 years and are probably the most well known name in autographs and authentication in the UK, and are often asked to help, advise or appear in many TV and Radio shows as well as magazines and newspapers. We are of course full Dealer members of the UACC, AFTAL and also RACC and are one of only a very small number of dealers of all three associations.
Every item sold comes with our lifetime Autografica Certificate of Authenticity included. Every COA is dated and signed by a director of the company and has our full contact details including phone number, and guarantees that your item is authenticly signed.
If for any reason you are unhappy with your purchase it may be returned within 28 days for a full refund, simply contact us first for a returns number.