Archive for the ‘Obama’s America’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Four parties caused Syria’s genocidal calamity. Should Israel get involved?

September 6, 2015

Four parties caused Syria’s genocidal calamity. Should Israel get involved? DEBKAfile, September 6, 2015

migrants_along_railways_5.9.15Refugees flooding into Europe

Chapter by chapter, a long list of the guilty parties must bear responsibility for the Syrian catastrophe hacking the ruined country into bleeding parts.

1.  The first culprit is undoubtedly its insensate president Bashar Assad and his close family, who have had no qualms about spilling the blood of some 300,000 men, women, children and old people – some estimate as many as half a million – and making some 11 people homeless, to keep himself in power. No one has ever counted the number of people maimed and crippled by the war, but they are conservatively estimated at one million.

These figures add up to genocide or serial mass murder, which has been allowed to go into its fifth year.

2.  Iran warrants second billing for this mass crime.

Tehran has laid out the stupendous sum of some $40 billion to keep the mass marderer Assad in power with total disregard for his methods of survival. The motives behind the ayatollahs’ military and political boost are well recorded. Worth mentioning here is that Tehran not only pressed its Lebanese proxy, the Shiite Hizballah group, into service alongside Assad’s army, but sent its its own generals to orchestrate the war, led by the Al Qods Brigades chief Qassem Soleimeni.

We can reveal here that 22 Iranian generals have died fighting for the Assad cause.

3. The third place belongs to the United States and President Barack Obama. His refusal to put American boots on the ground may have been the correct decision for the US, but it had four direct consequences:

a)  The slaughter of the Syrian people continued unchecked. Even after President Obama declared that chemical warfare was a red line, he backed down at the last minute against intervening and ordered the US fleet to draw back from the Syrian coast.

To this day, Assad continues to use chemical weapons to poison his enemies.

b)  Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry let Iran use its military backing for Assad as a high card in the negotiations for a nuclear accord. Instead of making it a condition for a deal against the lifting of sanctions, Washington allowed Tehran to come away from the table with US non-intervention in Syria as one of its concessions for buying Iran’s assent to the Vienna deal.

Tehran, in a word, won Washington’s tacit approval for propping up the atrocious Syrian ruler.

c)  The rest of the world, including the United Nations and the European Union, followed the Obama administration’s lead and stood aside as at least 11 million Syrians became homeless refugees.

The lifeless body of a three-year old Syrian child washed up from the sea has figured in the Western media as a symbol of the tragic fate of Syria’s refugees. However, his tragedy came after the hair-raising atrocities endured by millions of those refugees for nearly five years.

Many families were forced to sell their daughters as sex slaves to buy food, their young sons to pedophile predators. The slave markets were centered on the Persian Gulf. Young Alan Kurdi died aged three. Many thousands of Syrian refugee children still live in appalling circumstances. No humanitarian organization has started an outcry or a campaign to rescue them.

d)  US refusal to intervene in the most savage humanitarian tragedy the world has seen for many decades opened the door to the belligerent branch of al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, to march into the vacuum. The videotaped records of beheadings, the massacre of the Iraqi Yazdi people, the enslavement of its women and the burning alive of “apostates,” followed in quick succession.

The strongest nation in the world fought back with an ineffective trickle of air strikes on ISIS targets, allowing the group to go forward to conquer terrain and gain in strength.

4.  Russia bears a heavy weight of guilt – and Israel would do well to watch its cynical conduct and draw the right conclusions. Like the ayatollahs, President Vladimir Putin led the second world power to total commitment for keeping Bashar Assad in power. Among other motivations, Putin pursued this policy to settle a score with Obama for the overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi.

With one world power on the sidelines and a second jumping in with two feet, the Syrian imbroglio was bound to have devastating historical repercussions.

Throughout the Syrian conflict, Israel refrained from interfering, with only one exception: It supported Syrian rebel groups holding a strip of southern Syria, as a buffer against Iranian, Hizballah and Syrian army encroachment on its northern borders.

More than a thousand injured Syrians were treated and their lives saved in Israeli hospitals after receiving first aid at a field hospital on the Israeli-Syria border.

The esteemed Israeli historian Prof. Shlomo Avinery said Sunday, Sept 6, that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did the right thing in steadfastly keeping Israel out of the Syrian conflict. He very much doubted that Syrian refugees would seek asylum in a country they regard as the Zionist enemy.

Israel’s opposition leader Isaac Herzog nonetheless urged the government to take in a limited number of Syrian asylum seekers from among those flooding into Europe, and not to forget that “we are Jews.”

 One wonders why he never had a word to say about US dereliction when Assad committed his atrocities across Israel’s border.

Herzog’s favorite advice to Netanyahu is to go to Washington right now, beard President Obama in the Oval Office and hammer out an agreed policy on Iran.

Netanyahu referred to the Syrian refugee crisis at the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday: “While Israel is not indifferent to the human tragedy of refugees from Syria and Africa, it is a small country that cannot throw its doors open to them,” he said.

“We have conscientiously treated thousands of wounded from the fighting in Syria, and we have helped them rebuild their lives,” the prime minister recalled. “But Israel is a very small country, with neither demographic nor geographic depth, and therefore we must control our borders.”

Regarding a visit to Washington, the prime minister has a problem: Just as President Obama has not invited any Syrian refugees to come to America, he has not issued Netanyahu with an invitation to come to DC, whether to discuss the Iranian or the Syrian questions.

Categories: Assad, Asylum seekers, Defense of Israel, Europe, Foreign policy, Germany, Human rights, Immigration, Iran - Syria war, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Islamic supremacy, Islamism, Israel, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Russia - Syrian war, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

John Kerry “deeply concerned” about Russian buildup in Syria

September 6, 2015

John Kerry “deeply concerned” about Russian buildup in Syria, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 6, 2015

kerry_whitehousegov

Can I just say for the record that I remain deeply concerned that John Kerry is the Secretary of State instead of the headwaiter at a third rate French restaurant in Washington D.C.

*********************

Hold on to your hats. John Kerry is “deeply concerned” about something. Not just “concerned,” but deeply concerned. The gloves are really coming off now. Also possibly the pants.

Secretary of State John Kerry told his Russian counterpart on Saturday the United States was deeply concerned about reports that Moscow was moving toward a major military build-up in Syria widely seen as aimed at bolstering President Bashar al-Assad.

This is no vague concern. John Kerry wanted there to be no doubt as to his exact degree of concern.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Moscow’s exact intentions remained unclear but that Kerry called Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov to leave no doubt of the U.S. position.

Deep. Concern.

In response to Russian troop movements, Kerry called Lavrov and expressed “deep concern” and then had an anonymous flunky leak the conversation to Reuters to show how tough a line he was taking.

This is the SmartPower(TM) diplomacy that has brought twelve continents and several galaxies to their knees. This is the awesome diplomatic powerhouse that is known and respected around the world. Somewhere Lavrov is giggling like a little girl while replaying the tape of the conversation to a bunch of the FSB’s finest while Putin gets another shot of Botox between the eyes.

“The secretary made clear that if such reports were accurate, these actions could further escalate the conflict, lead to greater loss of innocent life, increase refugee flows and risk confrontation with the anti-ISIL coalition operating in Syria,” the State Department said, using an acronym for Islamic State.”

These days Lavrov probably doesn’t wait for Kerry to hang up to start laughing. And can you blame him?

But don’t worry. John Kerry doesn’t just throw around loaded words like “deep concern” on any old occasion. Okay, he does.

“The United States is deeply concerned by Nigeria’s enactment of the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Act.”

“Well, let me just affirm very, very clearly we are deeply concerned about what is happening in Iraq.”

“We. . .remain deeply concerned about the large deployments of Russian forces in Crimea and along the eastern border with Russia.”

Can I just say for the record that I remain deeply concerned that John Kerry is the Secretary of State instead of the headwaiter at a third rate French restaurant in Washington D.C.

Categories: Assad, Foreign policy, Kerry, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Russia, Russia - Syrian war
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

U.S. and West Victimize Christians Fleeing ISIS

September 6, 2015

U.S. and West Victimize Christians Fleeing ISIS, Gatestone Institute, Raymond Ibrahim, September 6, 2015

  • Western nations are not merely ignoring Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, they are actively supporting it by sponsoring “moderate” rebels who in reality are as “radical” and anti-Western as the Islamic State.
  • “Why the federal government has failed to take steps to expedite such reunification in cases where family and religious leaders are willing to vouch for and help those seeking asylum here… remains an unfathomable mystery.” —East County Magazine, San Diego.
  • Such “unfathomable mysteries” are reminiscent of the U.S. State Department’s habit of inviting Muslim representatives but denying visas to Christian representatives. Since the start of 2015, 4,205 Muslims have been admitted into the U.S. from Iraq, but only 727 Christians. For every Christian granted asylum, the U.S. grants asylum to five or six Muslims — even though Christians, as persecuted “infidel” minorities, are in much greater need of sanctuary.
  • “Most European governments, especially those that are Christian explicitly or implicitly, are failing in their duty to look after their fellow Christians in their hour of need.” — Lord Weidenfeld.
  • When persecuted Christian minorities manage to flee the Islamic State and come to the West for asylum, they are imprisoned again. All the while, Muslims — in the Mideast and in the West — are being empowered and welcomed in the West with open arms.

Not only does the West facilitate the persecution of Christians in the Middle East, but in the West as well.

According to a recent NPR report, the U.S. supported “moderate” coalition fighting both Bashar Assad and the Islamic State in Syria “has extremists in its own ranks who have mistreated Christians and forced them out of their homes” — just as the Islamic State (IS) has done.

Christian minorities forced out of their homes who manage to reach Western nations — including the United States — sometimes encounter more trouble.

Despite having family members to sponsor them, a group of 20 Christians who fled the Islamic State in Iraq have been imprisoned indefinitely, some since February, at the Otay Detention Facility in San Diego, even though they have local family members and Christian leaders who vouch for them (a primary way that the majority of detained foreign nationals are released is to the supervision of American citizens who vouch for them).

Activists say that the men and women in detention have been held for too long, including by the U.S. government’s own standards. Some have been imprisoned for over seven months with no hearing date for release even set.

“They are being held without a real reason…. They’ve escaped hell. Let’s allow them to reunite with their families,” said Mark Arabo, a spokesman for the Chaldean community in San Diego.

The detainees include a woman who had escaped the clutches of IS, and who had pleaded to see her sickly mother. Her mother died before she could see her. “She had been begging to be let out to see her dying mother,” said a priest familiar with the case.

Discussing the ongoing plight of these Iraqi Christians, San Diego’s East County Magazine concluded: “Why the federal government has failed to take steps to expedite such reunification in cases where family and religious leaders are willing to vouch for and help those seeking asylum here, then, remains an unfathomable mystery.”

Such “unfathomable mysteries” are reminiscent of the U.S. State Department’s habit of inviting Muslim representatives but denying visas to Christian representatives. Since the start of 2015, 4,205 Muslims have been admitted into the U.S. from Iraq, but only 727 Christians. For every one Christian the U.S. grants asylum, it grants asylum to five or six Muslims — even though Christians, as persecuted “infidel” minorities, are in much greater need of sanctuary, not to mention more assimilating to American culture than Muslims.

Faith McDonnell, of the Institute on Religion & Democracy, said regarding the detainment of Iraqi Christians in San Diego:

This follows the disturbing pattern that we have seen from the State Department of ignoring the particular targeting of Christians by ISIS while giving preferential treatment for asylum to other groups with expedited processing — like Somalis, Iraqis, and Syrians, some of whom could very well be members of jihadist movements.

The same is happening in the United Kingdom. Church leaders accuse David Cameron of “turning his back” on Christians facing genocide in Syria and Iraq by failing to grant them refuge in the UK — even though thousands of Muslims have been allowed entry.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, signed a petition calling on the UK government to “welcome Christian refugees and give them priority as asylum seekers,” emphasizing that “Syrian and Iraqi Christians are being butchered, tortured and enslaved.”

Similarly, Lord Weidenfeld, 95, who fled Nazi-occupied Austria in 1938 with the help of British Quakers, said:

Why is it that the Poles and the Czechs are taking in Christian families and yet the British government stands idly by?

This mood of indifference is reminiscent of the worst phases of appeasement, and may have catastrophic consequences. Europe must awake and the Conservative British Government should be leading from the front.

Most European governments, especially those that are Christian explicitly or implicitly, are failing in their duty to look after their fellow Christians in their hour of need.

This is not necessarily true of east European nations. Along with countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia, Slovakia recently went so far as to say it will only accept Christians when it takes in Syrian refugees under an EU relocation scheme. The Slavic nation argues that “Muslims would not be accepted because they would not feel at home,” including because there are no mosques in Slovakia.

Meanwhile, many of those Christians who are granted asylum in Western countries arrive there only to be further persecuted by Muslim asylum seekers — indicating, once again, who does and who does not really need asylum; who does and who does not assimilate in Western culture.

Most recently in Sweden, two small families of Christian asylum seekers from Syria were recently harassed and abused by approximately 80 Muslim asylum seekers, also from Syria.

The Christians and Muslims — described by one Swedish newspaper as “fundamentalist Islamists” — resided in the same asylum house. Among other humiliations, the Muslims ordered the Christians not to wear their crosses around their necks and not to use the communal areas when in use by Muslims.

1224Asylum seekers in the Swedish city of Kalmar, where Christian refugees were forced to move out of public housing after being harassed and threatened by Muslims.

After continuous harassment and threats, these Christian refugees, who had managed to escape the Islamic State, left the Swedish asylum house “fearing for their own safety.” A spokesman for the government migration agency responsible for the center they had been staying in said:

“They dared not stay. The atmosphere became too intimidating. And they got no help… They chose themselves to organize new address and moved away without our participation because they felt a discomfort.”

Western nations are not merely ignoring Muslim persecution of Christians in the Middle East, they are actively supporting it by sponsoring “moderate” rebels who in reality are as “radical” and anti-Western as the Islamic State. And when these persecuted Christian minorities manage to flee the Islamic State and come to the West for asylum, they are imprisoned again. All the while, Muslims — in the Mideast and in the West — are being empowered and welcomed in the West with open arms.

Categories: Asylum seekers, Christians, Europe, Foreign policy, Human rights, Immigration, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Multiculturalism, Obama's America, Syria war
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The nuclear chess game begins: Iran plays for sanctions relief before compliance with deal

September 4, 2015

The nuclear chess game begins: Iran plays for sanctions relief before compliance with deal, DEBKAfile, September 4, 2015

Leadership_9.15A long way to go for Iranian approval of nuclear accord

The crowing this week over Barack Obama’s success in gaining congressional support for his Iranian nuclear deal against Binyamin Netanyahu’s defeat was premature. The July 14 Vienna deal between Iran and six world powers was just the first round of the game. Decisive rounds are still to come, before either of the two can be said to have won or lost.

The biggest outstanding hurdle in the path of the accord is Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his silence on where he stands on the deal whether by a yea or a nay.

Without his nod, nothing goes forward in the revolutionary republic. So the nuclear accord is not yet home and dry either in Tehran or even in Washington.

While Obama gathered congressional support in Washington for the accord to pass, Khamenei made three quiet yet deadly remarks:

1. “Sanctions against Tehran must be lifted completely rather than suspended. If the framework of sanctions is to be maintained, then why did we negotiate?”

White House spokesman Josh Earnest answered him: “Iran will only see sanctions relief if it complies with the nuclear deal.”

There lies the rub. For the Obama administration, it is clear that Iran must first comply with the accord before sanctions are eased, whereas Tehran deems the accord moot until sanctions are lifted – regardless of its approval by the US Congress.

Here is the first stalemate, and not the last. DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources foresee long, exhausting rounds ahead that could drag on longer even than the protracted negotiations, which Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif brought to a close in Vienna.

2. Khamenei next took the step of referring the accord to the Majlis (parliament) for approval, pretending that to be legally in force, the accord requires a majority vote by the parliament in Tehran. He put it this way, “I believe… that it is not in the interest of the majlis to be sidelined.”

This step was in fact designed to sideline President Hassan Rouhani, on whom Obama and Kerry counted to get the nuclear deal through, and snatch from him the authority for signing it – or even determining which body had this competence.

It had been the intention of Rouhani and Zarif to put the accord before the 12-member Council of Guardians for their formal endorsement. But Khamenei pulled this rug out from under their feet and kept the decision out of the hands of the accord’s proponents.

3. His next step was to declare with a straight face: “I have no recommendation for the majlis on how to examine it. It is up to the representatives of the nation to decide whether to reject or ratify it.”

This step in the nuclear chess game was meant to show American democracy up in a poor light compared to that of the Revolutionary Republic (sic). While Obama worked hard to bring his influence to bear on Congress he, Khamenei, refrained from leaning on the lawmakers, who were freed to vote fair and square on the deal’s merits.

This of course is a charade. Our Iranian sources point out that the ayatollah exercises dictatorial control over the majlis through his minion, Speaker Ali Larijani. He has absolute trust in the lawmakers never reaching any decision on the nuclear deal, or anything else, without his say-so.

Congressional approval in Washington of the nuclear accord may give President Obama a fine boost but will be an empty gesture for winning endorsement in Tehran. It might even be counter-productive if American lawmakers carry out their intention of hedging the nuclear deal round with stipulations binding Iran to full compliance with the commitments it undertook in Vienna, or also continue to live with existing sanctions or even face new ones.

Netanyahu and the Israeli lobby AIPAC, far from experiencing defeat in their campaign to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, are well fired up for the next round: the fight for sanctions.

Categories: AIPAC, Iran scam, Iranian parliament, Israel, Khamenei, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Theocracy, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iranian Regime Celebrates Its Victory In The Nuclear Agreement

September 4, 2015

Iranian Regime Celebrates Its Victory In The Nuclear Agreement, MEMRI, September 4, 2015

After Iran and the P5+1 announced the JCPOA on July 14, 2015, top Iranian officials, headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, said that the country was a superpower with standing equal to that of the U.S., and that this status would become even stronger because of the agreement. They boasted of Iran’s might and said that it had forced the superpowers to surrender to it and its demands.

Following are highlights from these statements:

Iranian Defense Minister: The Superpowers Surrendered To Iran And “Obeyed The Iranian Rights”

At an armed forces general command ceremony on August 30, 2015, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said: “Today, Iran has attained such status that the superpowers have surrendered to it, because of its majesty, its steadfastness, its resistance, and its unity. Despite their great pride, the regime of the arrogance [the West, led by the U.S.] sat humbly behind the negotiating table and obeyed the rights of the Iranian nation.”[1]

Leader Khamenei: “Those Who Levelled Sanctions Against Us Yesterday Are Dying Today – Because Iran Has Become The Region’s Foremost Military Power”

On August 24, 2015, the website of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei published a poster titled “The Iron Fist,” symbolizing Iran’s might following the agreement. The text on the poster states: “Those who levelled sanctions against us yesterday are dying today, because Iran has become the region’s foremost military power. The Islamic Republic of Iran has proven that it works diligently to defend itself. The entire nation unites as a solid fist, standing fast against the aggressors who lack all reason.” The poster features a fist adorned with Iranian flags breaking through clouds; the fist is made up of military equipment, including missiles, jets, ships, tanks, and so on.[2]

24758

IRGC Website Javan: “Iran Is Becoming A Power… Equal To America In The World”

On July 15, 2015 the Javan website, which is affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), claimed that Iran has become a superpower with standing equal to that of the U.S., and that this is why the U.S. agreed to conduct a dialogue with Iran in nuclear talks: “In his speech following the agreement between Iran and the P5+1, Obama stated: ‘This deal is also in line with a tradition of American leadership. It’s now more than 50 years since President Kennedy stood before the American people and said, “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.” He was speaking then about the need for discussions between the United States and the Soviet Union.’[3]

“This speech clearly shows the sunset of American power and that [the U.S.] has been downgraded from a superpower to an ordinary power. First, Obama considers diplomacy and negotiations to be America’s leadership tradition, while its record indicates that since it emerged in the international arena during World War I, it has chosen no path but military force. The wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the dozens of other crimes in Latin America show that America’s leadership tradition has never been diplomacy. Superpowers see themselves as too big to waste their time in negotiations and diplomacy with third-world or smaller countries. They are used to determining how others should behave by waving their finger, and fulfilling their interests by way of military assault. America’s diplomatic record includes several rounds of talks with the former Soviet Union. Therefore, we can say that from World War II to 1990, America’s leadership tradition championed diplomacy or negotiations only vis-à-vis powers of equal standing…

“Obama’s statements defending negotiating with Iran can lead to one of two conclusions: Either America views Iran and its deterrence as equal to those of the former Soviet Union… or America does not have the status it once did…

“What has happened now is that the U.S. Secretary of State [John Kerry] has abandoned all his duties and his life to negotiate with Iran – to haggle, to capitulate, to call on the Europeans to help in the talks, and he does not consider Iran to be like Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq. So what really happened here?

“In his televised speech on April 5, 2015, following the Lausanne agreement, Obama said that of the three options – attack, sanctions, and negotiations – he saw no other option but negotiations, and even before that he said, ‘If I could have, I would have dismantled Iran’s entire nuclear [project].’ The other side of the ‘if I could have’ coin is ‘I can’t.’ How can we understand this ‘I can’t?’ After all, America has a military presence in 50 places around the globe, including in the Persian Gulf…

“America’s conduct in the absence of the Soviet Union shows that Iran is becoming a power that is second to, or even equal to America in the world. [Therefore,] America does not have the courage to attack it militarily or even to conduct bilateral talks [with it], so it is being helped by three European countries [France, Britain, and Germany].

“It is not unreasonable that America believes that our military capabilities do not surpass its own, but it fears [Iran’s] soft power, which is stronger than military bombardment… This soft power has two main avenues: an covenant between the nation and the Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]… and an alliance with the countries of the region [that is based on] emotion and faith. The Iraqi nation is an example of this alliance; there, America sacrificed 4,400 troops and ousted Saddam [Hussein], but the friends of the Islamic Revolution [of Iran] sat on Saddam’s throne and did not in any way allow [the Americans] to seize power there. This soft power cannot carry out a military assault, which is why the Islamic Revolution’s increasing might has caused America to transform itself, due to fear, from a stupid enemy into a relatively clever one.”[4]

Senior Khamenei Advisor In IRGC: Nuclear Agreement Will Improve Iran’s Status And Might

Yadollah Javani, senior advisor to Khamenei in the IRGC, wrote in the July 27, 2015 editorial of the IRGC weeklySobh-e Sadeq: “Will war break out between Iran and America? This cannot be decisively answered with a yes or no. But we can prove that in past years, the U.S. was incapable of carrying out, and could not work up the courage to carry out, a military assault on Iran. In the past decade, the Americans and Zionists have repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, but due to their deep concerns regarding the implications of a possible war against [Iran], they have not followed through with their threats… Therefore, American officials announced that Iran’s nuclear dossier would only be resolved by diplomatic means.

“After the [April 2, 2015] Lausanne statement, U.S. President Obama announced that war or increased sanctions would not subdue Iran or destroy its nuclear industry. Throughout all these years the Americans threatened to attack Iran militarily, but both they and others, including the Iranian nation, knew full well that this threat was mainly psychological warfare, and that America could not start another war in West Asia.

“With its record of empty military threats, the Americans once again began to boast about the issue of a military assault on Iran, after the conclusion of the Vienna talks and the signs of an emerging nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1. The military threat has come from Obama, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and other American officials in recent days; they have all stressed the option of military force against Iran in the future…

“So far the Americans have not attacked, because of Iran’s deterrence, which is steadily increasing. A decade ago, the Americans were stronger than they are today, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was weaker. In the past decade, the power of America and its allies in the region has eroded, while the power of the Islamic Republic and its allies has only increased. Therefore, the regional upheavals during the past decade have worked in Iran’s favor, and to the detriment of the U.S.. Thanks to the nuclear agreement, this process will not take a turn for the worse for Iran, but could only add special might to it.

“This is precisely the cause of the concern regarding the nuclear agreement that has been expressed by officials of the Zionist regime and of America’s other allies in the region, such as the Al-Saud regime. Therefore, the boasting by America, following the acknowledgement of a nuclear Iran by the agreement between Iran and the P5+1, comes from necessity, and reflects America’s attempt to maintain the façade of its status as a world superpower.

“However, the truth is that the time of this superpower has passed, and America must accept the facts of the new world. The world’s balance of power is shifting, and a new international political order is being shaped. [This new world order] includes the acknowledgement of a nuclear-fuel-cycle-Iran with decisive deterrent capabilities in the region by the world’s six main powers…”[5]

__________________

Endnotes:

[1] Tasnimnews.com (Iran), August 30, 2015.

[2] Farsi.khamenei.ir, August 24, 2015.

[3] Whitehouse.gov, July 14, 2015.

[4] Javan (Iran), July 15, 2015.

[5] Sobh-e Sadeq (Iran), July 27, 2015.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran, Iran military, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Kerry, Khamenei, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

What the axis of evil owes Obama

September 4, 2015

What the axis of evil owes Obama, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, September 4, 2015

His presidency has been paved not with failures, but with a string of the most successfully orchestrated disasters in history. For this, the “axis of evil” Obama so stringently denies owes him a great debt of gratitude.

********************

On Wednesday, U.S. President Barack Obama fulfilled a lifelong dream he has spent nearly seven years in office trying to realize.

It is a very different dream from that of Martin Luther King Jr., whom Obama invokes whenever it feeds his own visions of a particular form of grandeur.

This is not to say that rising from modest means to becoming the head of the United States and, by extension, the leader of the free world, is not already about as grand as one can get. But it is America’s greatness — not Obama’s — that enabled him to make it to the White House in the first place.

His ability to pull it off a second time, in spite of a bad economy and the sweeping radicalization of the Middle East, is a measure of how well he had already implemented the methods of his mentor, “Rules for Radicals” author Saul Alinsky, of infiltrating the country’s institutions and destroying them from within.

Indeed, the previously imperfect, but still functional, systems he tackled to chip away at the fabric of society were health, education, welfare and, of course, the family unit. He even set back the very societal strides that allowed for the election of a black president, creating an environment in which race relations took a sharp turn for the worse.

All of this made America ripe for the picking of its enemies.

This is where Obama’s foreign policy comes into play. Like the chisel he took to domestic affairs, Obama strived to strip the United States of its global superpower status. The crowning moment of this endeavor took place in July in Vienna, when the tireless efforts of the U.S.-led P5+1 to persuade the Islamic Republic of Iran to sign an agreement Obama desperately wanted finally paid off.

According to the agreement, Iran will be able to continue to develop and hone its nuclear weapons program, unfettered by the financial constraints of economic sanctions, and increase the flow of funds to its strategically placed terrorist proxies the world over. In exchange, Russia and China, two laughable members of the P5+1, get to do dubious deals with the mullahs in Tehran; Europe, inundated with refugees from Muslim countries, gets phony guarantees about its short-term safety; and Obama gets to tell himself he has finally earned the Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded about five minutes into his presidency.

This week, he scored his ultimate coup — over Congress. Faced with a majority of the House and Senate opposing the deal, Obama announced that if it did not pass when put to a vote in September, he would exercise his presidential veto power and force it down the throats of the American people.

The only thing that could have prevented this from happening was a veto-override majority. Alas, one was not to be had. By Wednesday, the fate of the deal was sealed by the Obama camp.

Obama deserves full credit for this and the other disasters he has wreaked.<

Where Iran is concerned, one need only look back in time to the early months of Obama’s first term to grasp what he was up to then, and how it led to where we are today.

On June 12, 2009, a rigged election in Iran reinstated then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Though opposition candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi clearly had come out ahead of the incumbent, the latter declared victory and hailed his reign as the “will of the people.”

Millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the false claims on the part of the regime they had intended to replace with what they believed would be a more democratic one.

During these demonstrations, in the course of which Iranians begged the U.S. to help them, a young woman named Neda was gunned down, and the photo of her bullet-ridden body and haunted eyes became the key symbol of the Iranian people’s wish to be free of the repression the Islamic Revolution of 1979 had imposed on them.

Viewing these events from behind his desk in the Oval Office, Obama was “impartial.” He had entered the White House only five months earlier, pledging to overturn his predecessor’s policies. Among these was George W. Bush’s position on radical Muslim regimes and groups in general, and on Iran specifically.

Claiming that the only way to rid Iran of its nuclear and hegemonic ambitions would be by extending goodwill gestures to its leaders, Obama abandoned the term “axis of evil,” which Bush had coined to define state sponsors of terrorism, Iran being a prime example.

Convinced, as well, that the U.S. had become a pariah among nations for being a capitalist, imperialist bully, Obama set about to show the world that America was in no way superior to other countries and cultures.

His wife, Michelle, shared this dim view of her country. Her response to her husband’s electoral victories in a series of Democratic primaries was to say it was the first time in her adult life that she was proud to be an American.

It was neither ignorance nor oversight, then, which caused Obama to abandon the genuine freedom-seekers in Iran, and try to engage the vicious ayatollahs. It was part of his plan, born of a twisted ideology that America was to blame for the hatred it inspired among despots — so ridiculous a notion that it allows for ignoring the plight of truly terrorized populations, prey to the tyrannical oppression of their leaders.

It is also at the core of his appalling attitude towards Israel. As a traditional ally of the U.S., with shared values, it, too — in Obama’s eyes — is to blame for the enmity it arouses.

It is impossible to get into Obama’s head to determine whether he actually believes the nuclear pact he is signing with the devil is the lesser of all evils.

One thing is clear, however: His presidency has been paved not with failures, but with a string of the most successfully orchestrated disasters in history. For this, the “axis of evil” Obama so stringently denies owes him a great debt of gratitude.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Human rights, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian military sites, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Obama, Obama - rogue president, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s supreme leader: No nuclear deal unless sanctions fully lifted

September 4, 2015

Iran’s supreme leader: No nuclear deal unless sanctions fully lifted, Israel Hayom, Erez Linn, Shlomo Cesana, Yoni Hersch, Associated Press and Israel Hayom Staff, September 4, 2015

144135927674638061a_bSupreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks in a meeting with members of Iran’s Experts Assembly in Tehran | Photo credit: AP

If Khamenei decides to make good on his word and demand the lifting of sanctions entirely, it will not be possible to implement the snapback mechanism and reimpose sanctions should Iran violate its obligations under the deal.

******************

Iran’s supreme leader said Thursday that “there will be no deal” if world powers insist on suspending rather than lifting sanctions as part of a landmark nuclear agreement and said it is up to Iran’s parliament, and not him, to approve or reject it.

His remarks, read aloud by a state TV anchorman, mark the first official comment on the deal since U.S. President Barack Obama secured enough support to prevent the Republican-led Congress from blocking it.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet to express a clear opinion on the deal, clinched in July, which would curb Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling sanctions.

Khamenei said some U.S. officials have spoken of the “suspension” of sanctions, which he said was unacceptable. “If the sanctions are going to be suspended, then we will also fulfil our obligations on the ground at the level of suspension and not in a fundamental way,” he said.

In response, White House press secretary Josh Earnest reiterated the Obama administration’s stance that it would focus on Tehran’s actions and not its words.

Washington has been “crystal clear about the fact that Iran will have to take a variety of serious steps to significantly roll back their nuclear program before any sanction relief is offered,” he said.

However, the snapback plan (reimposing economic sanctions on Iran if it violates the deal), which Iran agreed to as part of the deal, could lose its validation as it is based on the suspension of the sanctions rather than a full removal.

If Khamenei decides to make good on his word and demand the lifting of sanctions entirely, it will not be possible to implement the snapback mechanism and reimpose sanctions should Iran violate its obligations under the deal.

Iran’s supreme leader has traditionally had the final say on all important matters in the country, but on Thursday Khamenei said that Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, known to oppose the agreement, should decide on the deal.

“It is the representatives of the people who should decide. I have no advice regarding the method of review, approval or rejection,” he said.

Either way, according to a Revolutionary Guard senior official, the deal does not detract one bit from the Iranian regime’s rancor toward Israel. “The Islamic revolution will continue to enhance its abilities until it will destroy Israel and liberate Palestine,” he said.

Meanwhile on Thursday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Foreign Ministry officials that most Americans agreed with Israel over dangers posed by Iran. In remarks at a Rosh Hashanah reception at the Foreign Ministry, Netanyahu made no direct mention of President Barack Obama’s victory on Wednesday in securing enough Senate votes to protect the agreement in Congress.

Speaking of a need to preserve Israel’s traditionally close ties with Washington despite what he called “differences of opinion,” Netanyahu told diplomatic staffers: “I must say, however, that the overwhelming majority of the American public sees eye to eye with us on the danger emanating from Iran.”

Israel’s message to ordinary Americans, Netanyahu said, would continue to be that “Iran is the enemy of the United States — it declares that openly — and Israel is a U.S. ally.”

Netanyahu explained that the “ratio of people who oppose the deal to people who support the deal in the U.S. is two to one.”

Ensuring the U.S. public understands that point will have “important ramifications for our security down the line,” Netanyahu said, according to an official statement.

Foreign Ministry Director General Dore Gold, meanwhile, revealed that Iran was transferring advanced weapons from arms depots in Syria to Hezbollah.

Speaking to Israel Hayom, Gold explained that the Iranians want to provide the Shiite terrorist organization with cruise missiles, Yakhont missiles and S2 land-based strategic missile.

Hezbollah’s activity, backed by Iran, has reached Kuwait and is evident in the Golan Heights, as seen in their attempts to launch another battle front with Israel.”

Gold also touched on Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility, saying that the Iranians had paved the floor of the facility with asphalt. He explained that the purpose of the move was to prevent International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from testing the soil for dangerous substances.

Meanwhile, tensions are running high surrounding the approaching vote in the U.S. Congress. The Wall Street Journal published on Thursday a caustic article, warning the Democratic Party that if the nuclear deal fails, it will be their fault. “Politically, Obama’s victory in Congress makes Democrats hostage to Iran’s behavior. This means that if a nuclear arms race breaks out in the Middle East, democrats are accountable,” the article said.

Categories: Death to Israel, IAEA, Iran - secret deal, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian parliament, Israel, Khamenei, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Parchin, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran Promises to ‘Set Fire’ to U.S. Interests

September 3, 2015

Iran Promises to ‘Set Fire’ to U.S. Interests, Washington Free Beacon, , September 3, 2015

(Despite a the “deal” that favors Iran on every point, Obama’s Iranian friends keep saying “death to America.” He does not seem to mind. Who are his real friends and enemies?

Obama's enemies

— DM)

(AP Photo/Office of the Supreme Leader)

A senior Iranian military official has vowed to “set fire” to all U.S. interests in the region and maintained that the Islamic Republic welcomes war with America, according to regional reports demonstrating that Tehran is still committed to fighting the United States in the wake of a recently inked nuclear accord.

“In threatening remarks,” a top Iranian commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stated that Iran is prepared to “annihilate” U.S. and Israeli war forces should they “take the slightest military move against Iran,” according to Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.

“We monitor their acts day and night and will take every opportunity to set fire to all their economic and political interests if they do a wrong deed,” Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the IRGC’s lieutenant commander, was quoted as saying in Tehran on Thursday.

In a direct threat to both the United States and Israel, Salami promised to “cut off enemies’ hands and fingers will then send its dust to the air,” according to the report.

These Iranian military officials were responding to multiple claims by U.S. officials that a military option against Tehran still remains on the table, despite the recently inked accord, which aims to constrain the Islamic Republic’s contested nuclear program.

In May, Salami said that Iran desires a war with the United States.

“We have prepared ourselves for the most dangerous scenarios and this is no big deal and is simple to digest for U.S.; we welcome war with the U.S. as we do believe that it will be the scene for our success to display the real potentials of our power,” he said at the time.

The comments came on the say day that the Iranian military unveiled a new missile defense system to track enemy threats.

“The system can detect and trace targets, take decisions for the operation of the missile systems, decide about the type of weapon systems needed, assess and foresee hostile targets, and field commanders can easily take a final decision with the data provided by the command and control system,” according to Fars.

Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Thursday said that Iran is not open to negotiate with the United States on any other issue outside of the nuclear portfolio.

Khamenei “reiterated the complete ban on any negotiation between the Iranian officials and the Americans on other issues, and said there won’t be any other talks with the White House, except for the nuclear issue,” according to Fars.

“The U.S. positions are fully against the stances of the Islamic Republic,” Khamenei was quoted as saying in a wide-ranging speech.

Khamenei also called on the country’s leaders to attack U.S. critics of the deal.

“In the nuclear talks with are negotiating with the 5+1, but the U.S. administration is, in fact, the main party; but the U.S. officials speak very badly and a decision needs to be taken about the manner they speak,” Khamenei told the country’s powerful Assembly of Experts.

“Don’t say that the Americans are uttering these words to convince their internal rivals; of course, I believe that the internal disputes in the U.S. are real and they have differences and the reason for such a difference is clear to us, but what is officially said needs a response and if no response is given to them, the other side’s remarks will be entrenched,” Khamenei said.

Categories: Death to America, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian Threats, Islamic supremacy, Khamenei, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's affinity for Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Should Israel and its Arab neighbors form an alliance against Iran?

September 3, 2015

Should Israel and its Arab neighbors form an alliance against Iran? The Hill, Eli Verschleiser, September 3, 2015

Could a nuclear deal with Iran accomplish more than decades of diplomacy in the Middle East and, rather ironically, create new alliances between Israel and Arab neighbors?

That’s a key question as we gear up for the battle on Capitol Hill over President Barack Obama’s controversial pact with Tehran to limit uranium enrichment in return for lifting of sanctions. Critics say the agreement paves the way for a double reward of Tehran— a huge influx of cash and an eventual, unfettered path toward nuclear arms.

Neither the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, nor the United Arab Emirates or for that matter any of the other Persian Gulf states are too excited about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. The role of Iran in the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and the rise of Islamic State terror and the Muslim Brotherhood, have become a much bigger problem for Arab leaders than the tired conflict with Israel. Those countries have a Sunni majority, while Persian Iran is led by rival Shia Muslims.

Iran, of course, is also a major oil rival for the Gulf States and became more powerful following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

The Saudis have been publicly moderate on the deal but said to be privately angry over it. Epitomizing the old Middle East adage that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Saudis were reported to have offered Israel the ability to use their airspace to strike at Iran. This is a crucial step in keeping a military option on the table as it would save time and fuel if such a strike were necessary. “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran,” a European official was quoted as saying in an Israeli TV report.

Clearly momentum for alignment with Israel in some form is building.

“To all those who think the Persian state, and the regime of the Rule of the Imprudent… the dictatorial fascist Persian regime which controls it, is a friendly country, whereas Israel is an enemy country, I say that a prudent enemy is better than an imprudent one.”

Those words were written by Abdallah Al-Hadlaq in the official newspaper of Kuwait, Al-Watan.

It is not the first time the author has expressed support for ties with Israel. As far back as 2009 he called on his government and other Gulf states to put aside their differences with Jerusalem and forge an alliance against Iran.

But the fact that his column was published in a government daily in a country without full press freedom speaks volumes.

“The state of Israel and its various governments have waged more than five wars with the Arabs, yet never in the course of these wars did Israel think to use its nuclear weapons against its Arab enemies,” Al-Hadlaq wrote. “Conversely, if the Persian state, with its stupid, rash and fascist regime that hides behind a religious guise, ever develops nuclear weapons, it will not hesitate to use nuclear bombs against the Arab Gulf states in the first conflict that arises.”

Were the Saudis to show leadership in rallying other Sunni-led states against Iran it could have a significant impact on a new order in the Middle East.

Furthermore the new coalition could collectively work wonders to get rid of ISIS, as Jordan’s King Abdullah recently declared in a CNN interview that the war against ISIS ‘is our war’. The Iranian nuclear threat and the ISIS threat can top the agenda in this new coalition.

“Iran does have enough politico-military and economic potential to counter-balance Saudi led “Sunni” states in the Middle East and beyond,” wrote Salman Rafi Sheikh in an essay for the magazine Eastern Outlook last March. “It is precisely for this very reason that Saudi Arabia’s anxiety about an agreement has fueled a flurry of intense diplomacy in recent days to bolster unity among “Sunni” states in the Middle East in the face of “shared threats”, especially those emanating from Iran.”

Rafi Sheikh, a research-analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs, noted that “this deal is most likely to send political jolts across the entire Middle Eastern political landscape, with Saudi Arabia and Israel standing as the most sensitive areas to bear its shocks; and as such, are most likely to clutch their hands into an alliance against Iran, and by default, against the US ambitions as well.”

There is great potential for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman to rally Gulf states as well as Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to stand up to an Iran that will only become more emboldened with the huge influx of post-sanctions billions and new political bona fides that will make Tehran bolder.

Increased security cooperation as Iran bides its time for an eventual bomb –after the agreement period, or in the worst-case scenario, in violation of the agreement — may eventually lead to more nuclear proliferation in the region.

Will that mean a nuclear pact between Israel and its former enemies? That will be a fascinating development that could never have been imagined even a decade ago.

And it will truly be a sad irony if, after nearly 70 years of a solid relationship between the United States and Israel, the Jewish state had to turn to despotic regimes with little or no human rights to solidify its security position, feeling far less than confident that Washington has its back than it has in the past.

However this may simply be the beginning of an Arabic Israeli accord where both groups can begin to understand and accept each other.

Categories: Arab nations, Defense of Israel, Gulf states, Iran / Israel War, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Israel, Middle East, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

NATO Allies Making It Easier for Iran to Attack Israel?

September 3, 2015

NATO Allies Making It Easier for Iran to Attack Israel? The Gatestone Institute, Burak Bekdil, September 3, 2015

  • Iran did not go mad and threaten to hit all NATO installations in Turkey because it wanted 3.5 million Turkish citizens to die from the chemical warhead of a Syrian missile. It went mad and threatened because it viewed the defensive NATO assets in Turkey as a threat to its offensive missile capabilities.
  • Iran’s reaction to the NATO assets in Turkey revealed its intentions to attack. It could be a coincidence that the U.S. and Germany (most likely to be followed by Spain) have decided to withdraw their Patriot missile batteries and troops from Turkey shortly after agreeing to a nuclear deal with Iran. But if it is a coincidence, it is a very suspicious one. Why were Assad’s missiles a threat to Turkey two and a half years ago, but are not today?
  • Apparently, NATO allies believe, although the idea defies logic, that the nuclear deal with Iran will discourage the mullahs in Tehran from attacking Israel.

In early 2013, NATO supposedly came to its ally’s help: As Turkey was under threat from Syrian missiles — potentially with biological/chemical warheads — the alliance would build a mini anti-missile defense architecture on Turkish soil. Six U.S.-made Patriot missile batteries would be deployed in three Turkish cities and protect a vast area where about 3.5 million Turks lived.

The Patriot batteries that would protect Turkey from Syrian missiles belonged to the United States, Germany and the Netherlands. In early 2015, the Dutch mission ended and was replaced by Spanish Patriots. Recently, the German government said that it would withdraw its Patriot batteries and 250 troops at the beginning of 2016. Almost simultaneously, the U.S. government informed Turkey that its Patriot mission, expiring in October, would not be renewed. Washington cited “critical modernization upgrades” for the withdrawal.

Since the air defense system was stationed on Turkish soil, it unnerved Iran more than it did Syria. There is a story behind this. First, Patriot missiles cannot protect large swaths of land, but only designated friendly sites or installations in their vicinity. That the six batteries would protect Turkey’s entire south and 3.5 million people living there was a tall tale. They would instead protect a U.S.-owned, NATO-assigned radar deployed earlier in Kurecik, a Turkish town; and they would protect it not from Syrian missiles with chemical warheads, but from Iranian ballistic missiles.

1234 (1)U.S. Patriot missiles, deployed outside Gaziantep, Turkey in 2013. (Image source: U.S. Army Europe/Daniel Phelps)

Kurecik seemed to matter a lot to Iran. In November 2011, Iran threatened that it would target NATO’s missile defense shield in Turkey (“and then hit the next targets,” read Israel) if it were threatened. Shortly before the arrival of Patriots in Turkey, Iran’s army chief of staff warned NATO that stationing Patriot anti-missile batteries in Turkey was “setting the stage for world war.”

What was stationed in Kurecik was an early-warning missile detection and tracking radar system. Its mission is to provide U.S. naval assets in the Mediterranean with early warning and tracking information in case of an Iranian missile launch that might target an ally or a friendly country, including Israel. So, a six-battery Patriot shield to protect the NATO radar in Kurecik against possible Iranian aggression was necessary. And that explains why the Iranians went mad about Kurecik and openly threatened to hit it.

NATO and Turkish officials have always denied any link between the Patriot missiles and the NATO radar in Turkey. They have often pointed out that the Patriot batteries were stationed in the provinces of Adana, Kahramanmaras and Gaziantep, while Kurecik was in nearby Malatya province. But the Patriot is a road-mobile system: It can be dismantled easily and re-deployed in another area in a matter of hours (the road distance between Kurecik and Kahramanmaras is a mere 200 kilometers, or 124 miles).

Clearly, Iran did not go mad and threaten to hit all NATO installations in Turkey because it wanted 3.5 million Turkish citizens to die from the chemical warhead of a Syrian missile. It went mad and threatened because it viewed the defensive NATO assets in Turkey as a threat to its offensive missile capabilities, which the Patriots could potentially neutralize.

Why, otherwise, would a country feel “threatened” and threaten others with starting a “world war” just because a bunch of defensive systems are deployed in a neighboring country? Iran did so because it views the NATO radar in Turkey as an asset that could counter any missile attack on Israel; and the Patriots as hostile elements because they would protect that radar. In a way, Iran’s reaction to the NATO assets in Turkey revealed its intentions to attack.

It could be a total coincidence that the U.S. and Germany (most likely to be followed by Spain) have decided to pull their Patriot batteries and troops from Turkey shortly after agreeing to a nuclear deal with Iran. But if it is a coincidence, it is a very suspicious one. In theory, the Patriot systems were deployed in Turkey in order to protect the NATO ally from missile threats from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Right? Right.

Assad’s regime is still alive in Damascus and it has the same missile arsenal it had in 2013. Moreover, Turkey’s cold war with Assad’s Syria is worse than it was in 2013, with Ankara systematically supporting every opposition group and openly declaring that it is pushing for Assad’s downfall. Why were Assad’s missiles a threat to Turkey two and a half years ago, but are not today?

The Patriot missiles are leaving Turkey. They no longer will “protect Turkish soil.”

Apparently, NATO allies believe, although the idea defies logic, that the nuclear deal with Iran will discourage the mullahs in Tehran from attacking Israel.

It looks as if the potential target of NATO heavyweights’ decision is more a gesture to Iran than to Turkey.

Categories: Appeasement, Arab nations, Death to Israel, Foreign policy, Ideology, Iran / Israel War, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Israel, Middle East, Obama, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »