Connect with us

Politics

Breakfast with Jimmy Carter in a tense Khartoum

Published

on

Breakfast with Jimmy Carter in a tense Khartoum

Jimmy Carter wore a button-down shirt in Khartoum. It was a sweltering morning and the sun shone on the Nile as the clamorous city was rousing to life. Carter was in the Sudanese capital to monitor the 2010 election that was certain to extend the rule of autocrat Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who had been indicted on international charges of crimes against humanity.

Carter was not deterred. He believed the first multiparty election in decades — no matter how flawed — would bring the war-scarred country closer to democracy. His blue eyes agleam, his trousers pressed, the former president, a wanderer accustomed to the planet’s cruel and harsh predicaments, offered coffee and pastries in his hotel room. He was optimistic but knew well what could happen when leaders with outsize ambitions controlled holy men and armies.

I was in town covering the story for The Times, and a representative from the Carter Center called and invited me to breakfast.

Carter, who died Sunday at 100, was president when I was a teenager. I knew him well from TV — that swoop of hair, Southern accent and disarming resolve that confronted a post-Watergate world of gas lines, inflation, the Iranian hostage crisis and a sense that America was adrift. His presidency had been much maligned. But his second act as humanitarian, house builder, Guinea worm exterminator and Nobel Peace Prize winner was a portrait of perseverance and grace.

Carter, with wife Rosalynn at the 1976 Democratic National Convention, was much-maligned for his presidency amid multiple crises, but went on to shine as a humanitarian.

Advertisement

(Associated Press)

An aide greeted me when I entered the hotel room. She quietly vanished. Carter walked in and sat on a small couch. Coffee was poured. A Danish slid onto a plate, a bit of fruit. Fishing boats were busy in the currents below and tea ladies dressed in plumes of colors stoked fires beneath blackened kettles on the corners.

Carter spoke about Sudan — its possibilities and dangers, and the fact that in coming months the country’s south, with its vast oil reserves, would hold an independence referendum on whether to secede from the north. Would Bashir relinquish the south to let it be governed by a former enemy in a cowboy hat, who presided over a territory with fewer than 100 miles of paved roads and a population that was 80% illiterate?

Carter knew the personalities and pitfalls, the egos and secrets, the maps and ledgers. He had traveled across Sudan; years earlier he‘d brokered a ceasefire in its civil war. He always went to the source, to places of refugees, poverty, disease and despair. To see and bear witness, much like the Bible school teacher he was back in Plains, Ga. He didn’t know what would happen. But he had hope.

Advertisement

The sun rose higher in the midmorning sky. The room quieted.

“You’re based in Cairo,” he said.

“Yes.”

He leaned closer.

“Tell me about things,” he said. “What’s happening?”

Advertisement

I felt like I was being quizzed by a man who had read countless dossiers and was intimate with the rise and fall of power. It was at once intimidating and bracing.

The restlessness and anger in the Arab world were nearing a breaking point that would erupt months later. Tunisia would ignite into nationwide protests. An uprising in Egypt would bring down President Hosni Mubarak. Tremors would spread from Syria and Yemen and from Libya to Bahrain. There were few inklings when we met of what would unfold, but the Middle East that Carter had spent so much time navigating was about to come undone yet again.

He mostly wanted to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the possibilities, no matter how remote, of any progress toward reconciliation on that front. In 1978, Carter had held talks at Camp David with Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat that would lead to a historic peace treaty. Carter believed then — apparently wrongly, given the problems that would come — that the pact would bring wider regional stability. And he hoped it would one day lead to a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians.

A black-and-white photo of Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin smiling, their hands piled together in the middle

Carter celebrates in 1979 with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, right, after they signed a peace treaty Carter helped their nations reach.

(Associated Press)

Advertisement

Carter would later face criticism for his opinions on the issue. Many Jews and others were angered by his 2006 book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid,” which they saw as painting Israel as an aggressor and being overly sympathetic to Palestinians. Carter defended the book as well as his meetings with Hamas, which critics argued enhanced the stature of the militant group that the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization. Carter later told an audience in Cairo that apartheid “is the exact description of what’s happening in Palestine now.”

But his vision remained focused, his commitment to peace unwavering. Three years later, in his book “We Can Have Peace in the Holy Land,” Carter wrote: “Everyone who engages in Middle East peacemaking is bound to make mistakes and suffer frustrations. Everyone must overcome the presence of hatred and fanaticism, and the memories of horrible tragedies. Everyone must face painful choices and failures in negotiations. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the time is ripe for peace in the region.”

It was questionable then, and appears no less easier now.

Carter had been in hospice since before Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 and killed some 1,200 people. Israel has been retaliating with an ongoing bombardment of the Gaza Strip that health authorities there say has killed more than 45,000 Palestinians.

The Carter Center released a statement late last year saying: “The violence must stop now. There is no military solution to this crisis, only a political one that acknowledges the common humanity of both Israelis and Palestinians, respects the human rights of all, and creates a path for both societies to live side by side in peace.”

Advertisement

It would have been good to have heard Carter’s own voice, his Southern-inflected resolve and traveler’s wisdom.

What struck me most in that Khartoum hotel room were his empathy and his insatiable need to know. He was relentless in his pursuit, to track down threads and unfold scenarios, to follow the great maneuverings and go where needed — like to Sudan, where years earlier he‘d landed to try to help end fighting between Bashir’s troops and rebels who later ascended to power in a new country. Bashir was overthrown in 2019, and Sudan is again in turmoil.

It is difficult to mend the hard corners of the world. To find justice amid the stain of transgression. Carter’s gift was his capacity to wonder; to know the bitter truths and imagine something better.

Advertisement

Politics

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Published

on

Why Iran resists giving up its nuclear program, even as Trump threatens strikes

Embassy staffers and dependents evacuating, airlines suspending service, eyes in Iran warily turning skyward for signs of an attack.

The prospects of a showdown between the U.S. and Iran loom ever higher, as massive American naval and air power lies in wait off Iran’s shores and land borders.

Yet little of that urgency is felt in Iran’s government. Rather than quickly acquiescing to President Trump’s demands, Iranian diplomats persist in the kind of torturously slow diplomatic dance that marked previous discussions with the U.S., a pace that prompted Trump to declare on Friday that the Iranians were not negotiating in “good faith.”

But For Iran’s leadership, Iranian experts say, concessions of the sort Trump are asking for about nuclear power and the country’s role in the Middle East undermine the very ethos of the Islamic Republic and the decades-old project it has created.

“As an Islamic theocracy, Iran serves as a role model for the Islamic world. And as a role model, we cannot capitulate,” said Hamid Reza Taraghi, who heads international affairs for Iran’s Islamic Coalition Party, or Hezb-e Motalefeh Eslami.

Advertisement

Besides, he added, “militarily we are strong enough to fight back and make any enemy regret attacking us.”

Even as another round of negotiations ended with no resolution this week, the U.S. has completed a buildup involving more than 150 aircraft into the region, along with roughly a third of all active U.S. ships.

Observers say those forces remain insufficient for anything beyond a short campaign of a few weeks or a high-intensity kinetic strike.

Iran would be sure to retaliate, perhaps against an aircraft carrier or the many U.S. military bases arrayed in the region. Though such an attack is unlikely to destroy its target, it could damage or at least disrupt operations, demonstrating that “American power is not untouchable,” said Hooshang Talé, a former Iranian parliamentarian.

Tehran could also mobilize paramilitary groups it cultivated in the region, including Iraqi militias and Yemen’s Houthis, Talé added. Other U.S. rivals, such as Russia and China, may seize the opportunity to launch their own campaigns elsewhere in the world while the U.S. remains preoccupied in the Middle East, he said.

Advertisement

“From this perspective, Iran would not be acting entirely alone,” Tale said. “Indirect alignment among U.S. adversaries — even without a formal alliance — would create a cascading effect.”

We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons

— President Trump

The U.S. demands Iran give up all nuclear enrichment and relinquish existing stockpiles of enriched uranium so as to stop any path to developing a bomb. Iran has repeatedly stated it does not want to build a nuclear weapon and that nuclear enrichment would be for exclusively peaceful purposes.

Advertisement

The Trump administration has also talked about curtailing Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support to proxy groups, such as Hezbollah, in the region, though those have not been consistent demands. Tehran insists the talks should be limited to the nuclear issue.

After indirect negotiations on Thursday, Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi — the mediator for the talks in Geneva — lauded what he said was “significant progress.” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said there had been “constructive proposals.”

Trump, however, struck a frustrated tone when speaking to reporters on Friday.

“We’re not exactly happy with the way they’re negotiating and, again, they cannot have nuclear weapons,” he said.

Trump also downplayed concerns that an attack could escalate into a longer conflict.

Advertisement

This frame grab from footage circulating on social media shows protesters dancing and cheering around a bonfire during an anti-government protest in Tehran, Iran, on Jan. 9.

(Uncredited / Associated Press)

“I guess you could say there’s always a risk. You know, when there’s war, there’s a risk in anything, both good and bad,” Trump said.

Three days earlier, in his State of the Union address Tuesday, said, “My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon — can’t let that happen.”

Advertisement

There are other signs an attack could be imminent.

On Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Israel allowed staff to leave the country if they wished. That followed an earlier move this week to evacuate dependents in the embassy in Lebanon. Other countries have followed suit, including the U.K, which pulled its embassy staff in Tehran. Meanwhile, several airlines have suspended service to Israel and Iran.

A U.S. military campaign would come at a sensitive time for Iran’s leadership.

The country’s armed forces are still recovering from the June war with Israel and the U.S, which left more than 1,200 people dead and more than 6,000 injured in Iran. In Israel, 28 people were killed and dozens injured.

Unrest in January — when security forces killed anywhere from 3,000 to 30,000 protesters (estimates range wildly) — means the government has no shortage of domestic enemies. Meanwhile, long-term sanctions have hobbled Iran’s economy and left most Iranians desperately poor.

Advertisement

Despite those vulnerabilities, observers say the U.S. buildup is likely to make Iran dig in its heels, especially because it would not want to set the precedent of giving up positions at the barrel of a U.S. gun.

Other U.S. demands would constitute red lines. Its missile arsenal, for example, counts as its main counter to the U.S. and Israel, said Rose Kelanic, Director of the Middle East Program at the Defense Priorities think tank.

“Iran’s deterrence policy is defense by attrition. They act like a porcupine so the bear will drop them… The missiles are the quills,” she said, adding that the strategy means Iran cannot fully defend against the U.S., but could inflict pain.

At the same time, although mechanisms to monitor nuclear enrichment exist, reining in Tehran’s support for proxy groups would be a much harder matter to verify.

But the larger issue is that Iran doesn’t trust Trump to follow through on whatever the negotiations reach.

Advertisement

After all, it was Trump who withdrew from an Obama-era deal designed to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, despite widespread consensus Iran was in compliance.

Trump and numerous other critics complained Iran was not constrained in its other “malign activities,” such as support for militant groups in the Middle East and development of ballistic missiles. The Trump administration embarked on a policy of “maximum pressure” hoping to bring Iran to its knees, but it was met with what Iran watchers called maximum resistance.

In June, he joined Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that didn’t result in the Islamic Republic returning to negotiations and accepting Trump’s terms. And he has waxed wistfully about regime change.

“Trump has worked very hard to make U.S. threats credible by amassing this huge military force offshore, and they’re extremely credible at this point,” Kelanic said.

“But he also has to make his assurances credible that if Iran agrees to U.S. demands, that the U.S. won’t attack Iran anyway.”

Advertisement

Talé, the former parliamentarian, put it differently.

“If Iranian diplomats demonstrate flexibility, Trump will be more emboldened,” he said. “That’s why Iran, as a sovereign nation, must not capitulate to any foreign power, including America.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Published

on

Video: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

new video loaded: Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

transcript

transcript

Bill Clinton Says He ‘Did Nothing Wrong’ in House Epstein Inquiry

Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

“Cause we don’t know when the video will be out. I don’t know when the transcript will be out. We’ve asked that they be out as quickly as possible.” “I don’t like seeing him deposed, but they certainly went after me a lot more than that.” “Republicans have now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former presidents to testify. So we’re once again going to make that call that we did yesterday. We are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify in front of the Oversight Committee.” “Ranking Member Garcia asked President Clinton, quote, ‘Should President Trump be called to answer questions from this committee?’ And President Clinton said, that’s for you to decide. And the president went on to say that the President Trump has never said anything to me to make me think he was involved. “The way Chairman Comer described it, I don’t think is a complete, accurate description of what actually was said. So let’s release the full transcript.”

Advertisement
Former President Bill Clinton told members of the House Oversight Committee in a closed-door deposition that he “saw nothing” and had done nothing wrong when he associated with Jeffrey Epstein decades ago.

By Jackeline Luna

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

Published

on

ICE blasts Washington mayor over directive restricting immigration enforcement

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accused Everett, Washington, Mayor Cassie Franklin of escalating tensions with federal authorities after she issued a directive limiting immigration enforcement in the city.

Franklin issued a mayoral directive this week establishing citywide protocols for staff, including law enforcement, that restrict federal immigration agents from entering non-public areas of city buildings without a judicial warrant.

“We’ve heard directly from residents who are afraid to leave their houses because of the concerning immigration activity happening locally and across our country. It’s heartbreaking to see the impacts on Everett families and businesses,” Franklin said in a statement. 

“With this directive, we are setting clear protocols, protecting access to services and reinforcing our commitment to serving the entire community.”

Advertisement

ICE blasted the directive Friday, writing on X it “escalates tension and directs city law enforcement to intervene with ICE operations at their own discretion,” thereby “putting everyone at greater risk.”

Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new citywide immigration enforcement protocols are intended to protect residents and ensure access to services, while ICE accused her of escalating tensions with federal authorities. (Google Maps)

ICE said Franklin was directing city workers to “impede ICE operations and expose the location of ICE officers and agents.”

“Working AGAINST ICE forces federal teams into the community searching for criminal illegal aliens released from local jails — INCREASING THE FEDERAL PRESENCE,” the agency said. “Working with ICE reduces the federal presence.”

“If Mayor Franklin wanted to protect the people she claims to serve, she’d empower the city police with an ICE 287g partnership — instead she serves criminal illegal aliens,” ICE added.

Advertisement

DHS, WHITE HOUSE MOCK CHICAGO’S LAWSUIT OVER ICE: ‘MIRACULOUSLY REDISCOVERED THE 10TH AMENDMENT’

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement blasted Everett’s mayor after she issued a directive restricting federal agents from accessing non-public areas of city facilities without a warrant.  (Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a city council meeting where she announced the policy, Franklin said “federal immigration enforcement is causing real fear for Everett residents.”

“It’s been heartbreaking to see the racial profiling that’s having an impact on Everett families and businesses,” she said. “We know there are kids staying home from school, people not going to work or people not going about their day, dining out or shopping for essentials.”

The mayor’s directive covers four main areas, including restricting federal immigration agents from accessing non-public areas of city buildings without a warrant, requiring immediate reporting of enforcement activity on city property and mandating clear signage to enforce access limits.

Advertisement

BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin said her new directive is aimed at protecting residents amid heightened immigration enforcement activity. (iStock)

It also calls for an internal policy review and staff training, including the creation of an Interdepartmental Response Team and updated immigration enforcement protocols to ensure compliance with state law.

Franklin directed city staff to expand partnerships with community leaders, advocacy groups and regional governments to coordinate responses to immigration enforcement, while promoting immigrant-owned businesses and providing workplace protections and “know your rights” resources.

The mayor also reaffirmed a commitment to “constitutional policing and best practices,” stating that the police department will comply with state law barring participation in civil immigration enforcement. The directive outlines protocols for documenting interactions with federal officials, reviewing records requests and strengthening privacy safeguards and technology audits.

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Everett, Wash., Mayor Cassie Franklin issued a directive limiting federal immigration enforcement in city facilities. (iStock)

“We want everyone in the city of Everett to feel safe calling 911 when they need help and to know that Everett Police will not ask about your immigration status,” Franklin said during the council meeting.
”I also expect our officers to intervene if it’s safe to do so to protect our residents when they witness federal officers using unnecessary force.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to Mayor Franklin’s office and ICE for comment.

Advertisement

Related Article

White House slams Democrat governor for urging public to track ICE agents with new video portal
Continue Reading

Trending