Posted tagged ‘Obama’s America’

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Israel will Never be a Second Czechoslovakia

August 29, 2015

Israel will Never be a Second Czechoslovakia, American Thinker, Shoula Romano Horing, August 29, 2015

(Obama loves Israel to death. Or tries.

Obama first Jewish president

— DM)

Israel is not like the Czechoslovakia of 1938 and never will be. Israel is an independent military and nuclear power that intends to use its right of self-defense against Iran and its terrorist proxies whether “Emperor” Obama  likes it or not, or tries to stop it.

Obama and his army of Democratic followers in the Congress, progressive groups, and the media repeatedly state their main argument in favor of the agreement, which is that Israel is the only country in the world opposing the Iran nuclear deal. First,  It seems that President  Obama  and his supporters have not paid attention to a recent CNN poll taken on  August 20  that  found that 60 percent of Americans  disapprove of how Obama is handling the Iran deal, and  56 percent  believe that Congress should reject it.

Secondly, like any other self-respecting sovereign country, Israel is against any deal that threatens her own survival by an evil Jihadist Islamic state clearly intent on its annihilation, which is being imposed on her by world powers as a fait accompli.

It seems that Obama and his supporters are delusional, expecting that Israel will allow itself to become a second Czechoslovakia. They are outraged and shocked that Israel has not only refused to quietly accept this very bad deal but dares to fight the deal publicly, loudly, and proudly.

Like Czechoslovakia in 1938, Israel is a small democracy surrounded by hostile nations, and like Czechoslovakia, it was excluded from negotiations that led to a diplomatic deal that shapes its fate and threatens its survival. In 1938, the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution. The Munich agreement was signed, when Britain and France believed that handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler was the only way to save the world from another war. It is regarded as the shameful culmination of the Allies refusal to confront Nazi aggression and gave Hitler what he wanted in exchange for his verbal promise of “peace in our time” as Neville Chamberlain called it.

In his biography of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Champion of Freedom, Conrad Black recalls the scene when the poor Czechoslovakian delegates were brought into the room to be informed of their nation’s fate as set out in the Munich Agreement. “No Czech answer was requested. They were handed a fait accompli. The Czechs wept, and Hubert Masarik (Czech diplomat attending the Munich conference) said, prophetically and justly: ‘They don’t know what they are doing to us or to themselves.… These poor, good men were the final players in a macabre and shameful Gothic tragedy.”

The Jewish state has for 67 years been mourning its beloved soldiers who have courageously died defending it from the evil regimes that surround her. However, it will never weep over a deal imposed on it by a morally bankrupt world. Those days of passivity were over when the enormity of the Holocaust was revealed. The Jewish state has been fighting for itself on its own since its independence.

Obama’s threats of a military attack on Iran when violations of the deal occur are not taken seriously by anyone and are a source of laughter for the Iranian regime. Israel does not need  the U.S. or any another party to save her but it does need for Obama and the world powers to move away from Israel’s path and let it do everything in its means to minimize the nuclear threat, and the more menacing conventional  threat resulting from the hundreds of  billions of dollars Iran and its terrorist proxies will get  from the deal.

For the last two years, Obama has been trying to tie Israeli hands and prevent it from practicing its right to self-defense against Iran. Dan Raviv from CBS News reported in March 2014, that the Obama’s administration has asked Israel to stop killing key scientists in the Iranian nuclear program while Obama has been negotiating. In an August interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon implicitly warned that the assassinations could be renewed by saying;” I am not responsible for the lives of Iranian scientists.’

But much worse, in Article 10 of the deal, Obama and world powers have agreed that they will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program. The agreement stipulates that they, with the Iranians, will foster “cooperation through training  and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against and respond to, nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective  and sustainable nuclear security  and physical protection systems.”

Recent years have seen various mishaps befall the Iranian nuclear program, from powerful computer viruses to the death of the nuclear scientists, which world media outlets have often attributed to the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. According to an audio recording with former Defense Minister Ehud Barak leaked to an Israeli television channel on August 22, Israeli leaders planned to attack military targets in Iran in 2010, 2011, and 2012 but were held back due to the opinions of other government and military leaders.

It is quite disturbing that the U.S. as well as the U.K., Russia, China, France, and Germany will actively try to prevent covert actions against the Iranian nuclear program, as well as any potential military operation against Iran, making such options far more complicated and dangerous for a country like Israel. Congress should ask Obama whether he will order U.S. jets to shoot down Israeli jets intent on destroying an Iranian nuclear weapon facility.

The Congressional Democrats must not repeat the mistakes of the past and sacrifice the future for the present; The Democrats must not ignore Iranian aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace. A vote for the deal is a vote for the beginning of the next war between Israel and Iran and its proxies. The Jewish people can never again remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies.

 

Categories: Czechoslovakia, Death to Israel, Denial, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Hitler, Iran / Israel War, Iran scam, Iranian proxies, Israel, Jews, Munich, Nazis, Obama, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Use Our Senatorial Nuclear Option to Stop Iran’s Radioactive Nuclear Option

August 28, 2015

Use Our Senatorial Nuclear Option to Stop Iran’s Radioactive Nuclear Option, National Review – Morning Jolt, Jim Geraghty, August 28, 2015 (via e-mail).

A simple proposal: To stop Iran’s nukes, use our own nuclear option. Scrap the filibuster, pass a resolution declaring the Iran deal a treaty that requires Senate authorization, introduce the text of the Iran deal, and vote it down.

Remember, Democrats got rid of the filibuster for nominations in 2013, arguing that GOP obstructionism was interfering with the president’s constitutional authority to make judicial appointments. The Constitution requires Senatorial consent to treaties. The administration claims the Iran deal isn’t a treaty because they think it has “become physically impossible“ to pass a treaty in the Senate.

Do you think Iran will honor its side of the agreement? Probably not, right?

Even if they do, do you think Iran will attempt to build a nuke quickly when the deal expires? Certainly, right?

Do you think that if Iran gets a nuke, they will use it? Pretty darn likely, right?

So, congressional Republicans . . . what are you willing to do to prevent a mushroom cloud either in the Middle East or closer to home?

Categories: Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Middle East, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, Obama's motivations, P5+1, Treaties, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Poof goes the Big Enchilada

August 28, 2015

Poof goes the Big Enchilada, Israel Hayom, David M. Weinberg, August 28, 2015

Just in case there was any doubt as to what U.S. President Barack Obama is up to, Professor Andrew Bacevich of Boston University has laid it out for us in a series of recent articles.

Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran is meant to reboot and redirect the entire vector of American Middle East policy: to retreat from Pax Americana and allow Iran to take its rightful place as a major regional power.

For decades, two tenets have informed U.S. policy in the Middle East. The first is that U.S. interests there are best served by the position of unquestioned American pre-eminence. The second is that military might holds the key to maintaining that dominant position. (In this context, Israel has been an important U.S. regional ally).

This approach is what Bacevich calls the “Big Enchilada” — the America-as-top-dog approach that Obama is seeking to overturn.

Obama rejects this notion, since he essentially views America’s preponderance in world affairs as arrogant and sinful. He feels that American “bullying” has brought about disastrous results.

Most telling was Obama’s infamous lament in 2010 about America as “a dominant military superpower, whether we like it or not.” In other words, he really doesn’t like it at all. No statement could be more revealing of Obama’s disgust for American global leadership.

In the context of the current deal with Iran, Obama has been equally clear as to how he expects this play out. If successfully implemented, the agreement that slows Iran’s nuclear program will also end Iran’s isolation. This will allow Tehran, over time, to become a “legitimate” and “extremely successful regional power” and a “powerhouse in the region.” These are Obama’s own words.

All this leads, of course, to American retreat — blessed retreat from Obama’s perspective — from the projection of power in the region. Replacing America will be a revanchist, greatly emboldened, anti-Semitic and genocidal (toward Israel), Islamic Republic of Iran. Poof goes the Big Enchilada.

Obama has been mostly dismissive of Iran’s “bad behavior,” as he flippantly calls it. He says that he “hopes to have conversations” with Iranian leadership that might lead someday to their “abiding by international norms and rules”; that he “hopes and believes” that Iranian “moderates” will leverage their country’s reintegration into the global economy as an opportunity to drive kinder, gentler and less revolutionary foreign policies.

Whether Obama himself believes such nonsense is moot. The rub is that Obama doesn’t view American behavior in the region over past decades as any more moral or legitimate than Iran’s behavior. Consequently, the main thing for him is the humbling and retreat of America.

What happens after that? Well, that will be some other president’s problem, and Israel can lump it.

It is against the backdrop of such unfounded expectations and dangerous strategic vision that Prime Minister Netanyahu is leading the fight against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, otherwise known as the nuclear agreement.

Netanyahu understands that the nuclear agreement isn’t just about Iran’s nuclear program. It’s about American detente with Iran and a perilous rejigging of America’s global strategic posture. As such, Netanyahu’s main goal is to prevent American retreat from the region, to thwart any intensification of American rapprochement with Iran and to avert the inevitable corollary of this: the further downgrading of U.S.-Israel ties.

To do so, the Iran deal must be kept strategically disputed and politically fragile. Even if (or when) Obama steamrolls over Congress, the deal must remain controversial and questionable. It needs to become politically toxic.

American and European companies must know that investing in Iran is still a risky business. Iran must know that it is under extraordinary scrutiny, and that American opponents of the deal will jump at every opportunity to scuttle it if red lines are crossed. Space must be cleared for the rescinding or cancellation of the accord in the face of Iranian “bad behavior.” Obama’s successor should be under pressure to vigorously oppose Iranian hegemony in the region and to act more forthrightly than Obama to block Tehran’s nuclear program.

In fact, a climate must be created that will encourage the next U.S. administration to backtrack from the deal, to reassert and reinvigorate America’s traditional foreign policy approach, and to revitalize the U.S.-Israel relationship.

This explains why Netanyahu has rebuffed all attempts by dozens of well-meaning mediators to scale down his opposition to the deal and cut a compensatory deal with Obama. Aside from the fact that Obama never rewards his “friends” and has little to offer Israel of meaningful counterweight to this terrible deal, Netanyahu understands that far more is at stake. It’s the big enchilada.

In this regard, it’s worth considering the status of Obama’s “comprehensive plan of action” with Iran. It is not a formal treaty between the U.S. and Iran; it is not even a signed agreement with the P5+1. Rather, it is a set of multilateral “understandings.” Such understandings can and should be considered short-lived.

The Iran “agreement” should be thought of as no more authoritative or binding for future U.S. administrations than, say, the “Bush letter” to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, in which President George W. Bush suggested recognition of settlement blocks. Obama has tossed this letter right out the window.

The Iran “agreement” should be thought of as no more authoritative or binding for future U.S. or Israeli administrations than, say, the “Clinton parameters” for Israeli-Palestinian peace that were outlined during President Bill Clinton’s final days in office. Netanyahu is correct to have dismissed these parameters as no longer relevant.

The Iran “agreement” should be thought of as no more authoritative or binding for future U.S. administrations than, say, the apparently ridiculous, secretive “side agreements” on inspections which the International Atomic Energy Agency has reached with Iran, with or without Obama administration review.

Presidential promises, letters, memos, agreements and understandings — especially when declared or imposed unilaterally — are transient things. They are valid and binding only for as long as the principal holds political power. In Obama’s case, that is another 510 days, and no longer.

Then, hopefully, America can snap back to solid, assertive foreign policy principles, and claw back to a position of responsible leadership against truly dangerous actors in the Middle East.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran - secret deal, Iran nuke inspections, Iran scam, Iranian missiles, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Israel, Netanyahu, Obama, Obama and Israel, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Sen. Cotton to Visit Israel for More Ammunition against Iran Deal

August 28, 2015

He will arrive Sunday and will be “updated on strategic issues,” meaning Iran. By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu Published: August 28th, 2015

Source: The Jewish Press » » Sen. Cotton to Visit Israel for More Ammunition against Iran Deal

Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton.

Sen. Tom Cotton, one of the loudest voices against the nuclear deal with Iran, will arrive in Israel on Sunday for a week-long visit that can be assumed is aimed at arming him with more ammunition to try to shoot down the nuclear Iran agreement in the Senate.

The Israel government announced:

U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) will be visiting Israel from Sunday, August 30, to Saturday, September 5, 2015. During his trip to Israel, the Senator will be updated on strategic and diplomatic issues, as well as other major developments in the region.

Senator Cotton, in office as of January 2015, serves on the Armed Services, Intelligence, and Banking committees.

Updating him on “strategic and diplomatic issues” just before Congress returns from a summer recess with the Iran deal the number one item on the agenda means that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will send Sen. Cotton back with a suitcase full of arguments to try to win a veto-proof majority against the deal when it comes for a vote.

Sen. Cotton was behind the controversial letter that he and several senators sent to Iran to “inform” it that a nuclear deal would not be binding on the next president.

Earlier this month, he told Israeli reporters that the Obama administration has not made it clear to Iran that it could use force to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. He then said that the U.S. Armed Forces could bomb Iran’s nuclear program “back to zero.”

Sen. Corker stated:

You can destroy facilities. I don’t think any military expert in the United States or elsewhere would say the U.S. military is not capable to setting Iran’s nuclear facilities back to day zero,

Can we eliminate it forever? No, because any advanced industrialized country can develop nuclear weapons in four to seven years, from zero. But we can set them back to day zero.

That is music to the ears of Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the timing of next week’s visit is not coincidental.

The Prime Minister and President Barack Obama are desperately campaigning against and for the deal, respectively.

Media continue to report more evidence that the deal is full of holes and that Iran already is has taken moves to get around it, such as the report Thursday that it has built an addition to its Parchin nuclear facility.

However, party loyalty usually is paramount to intellectual honesty. New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer came out against the deal and promptly faced a campaign prevent him from becoming the next party leader in the Senate to succeed retiring Sen. Harry Reid, who backs the deal.

Even Tennessee Republican Sen. Bob Corker admits that Obama will win. He told The Tennessean:

Understand that at this moment it looks very unlikely that we’ll have a veto-proof majority to disapprove, but I know we’re going to have a bipartisan majority that will disapprove.

The Hill reported that President Obama lacks only five out of 15 undecided Democratic senators to prevent a veto-proof majority against the agreement.

Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel

August 28, 2015

Evidence mounts that soon-to-be flush Iran already spurring new attacks on Israel, Fox News,  , August 27, 2015

HAIFA, Israel –  An unsettling surge in terrorism by Iranian proxies has many Israelis convinced the release to Tehran of tens of billions of dollars in frozen funds is already putting the Jewish state in danger.

In recent days, rockets have rained down on Israel from Gaza in the south and the Golan Heights to the north, Israeli forces foiled a bomb plot at the tomb of biblical patriarch Joseph, and Gaza-based terrorist groups that also have a presence in the West Bank have openly appealed for aid on Iranian television. Israeli officials fear the terrorist activity is spiking as groups audition for funding from Tehran, which is set to receive the long-frozen funds as part of its deal to allow limited nuclear inspections. They say the international focus on Iran’s nuclear ambitions has left its more conventional methods of attacking regional adversaries unaddressed.

“The nuclear context is just one aspect of the negative Iranian activities in the region,” Emmanuel Nahshon, senior Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, told FoxNews.com. “We can see the demonstration of this on a daily basis in Syria, in Yemen, and in Iraq. We see it also when we see the [Iranian] support of Hezbollah and other groups who operate against Israel.”

Last month, National Security Adviser Susan Rice admitted that some of the money due to be released as part of the deal negotiated by the U.S. led P5+1 “would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region.”

Aside from the soon-to-be-released billions, Iran’s finances will also be strengthened by the easing of trade embargoes that have seen a horde of major international business – many from P5+1 countries – rushing to sign lucrative deals with the ayatollahs. Earlier this week, British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond scoffed at the fears of Israel and many Arab countries in the Middle East, saying the deal would “slowly rebuild their sense that Iran is not a threat to them.” Less than 24 hours later, the spokesman for Iran’s top parliament member said, “Our positions against [Israel] have not changed at all; Israel should be annihilated.”

If that remains Iran’s intention, terror groups Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are showing a renewed eagerness to continue as its proxies. Four rockets apparently fired by the PIJ from Syria into northern Israel last week – two into the Golan Heights and two more into the Upper Galilee – were the first such attacks since the start of Syria’s bloody civil war more than four years ago. Israel responded with targeted missile strikes, including one which hit a car killing “five or six PIJ terrorists.”

On Aug. 18, Iranian state TV broadcast images of a new, 2.5-mile tunnel leading from Gaza into Israel. Dug by the Fatah-linked terror group the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and seemingly competing with arch-rivals Hamas for a share of the imminently unfrozen Iranian funds, the terrorists made an unabashed appeal for more cash. In a segment translated by Palestinian Media Watch, the terror group’s representatives said, “This is why we are asking [for money]… especially [from] Iran, which is a known long-time supporter of the resistance and the Palestinian cause.”

On Tuesday, Israeli officials revealed that a joint Israeli internal security and military operation thwarted a potentially lethal bomb attack planned by the Islamic Jihad on visitors to Joseph’s Tomb in Shechem in the Palestinian-controlled West Bank, the resting place of the biblical figure revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike.

The pace of attacks, as well as the diversity of their perpetrators, has prompted speculation that terrorist groups are competing for Iranian funding, and trying to show they are capable of giving Tehran bang for its buck. The terrorist groups however operate on budgets that are tiny given the scale of Iran’s financing capability.

“The amount that Iran gives Hezbollah is not very much – around $200 million – not even 1 percent of Iran’s budget last year,” Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born Israeli expert on the region who writes at www.middleastanalyst.com, told FoxNews.com. “If you want to stop Iranian support of Hezbollah you would need to have inspectors on the ground in Syria and Lebanon, the most dangerous of places, checking Hezbollah’s arsenal, bank accounts, bases, and Syrian bases which Hezbollah uses. I don’t see any UN force, or anyone else volunteering to do that.”

Categories: Death to Israel, Defense of Israel, Foreign policy, Iran / Israel War, Iran scam, Iranian economy, Iranian proxies, Israel, Obama, Obama and Israel, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Sanctions
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

The Iranian Nuclear Deal Viewed Through the Eyes of ISIS and Iran’s Children

August 27, 2015

The Iranian Nuclear Deal Viewed Through the Eyes of ISIS and Iran’s Children, Accuracy in Media, Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (Ret.), August 27, 2015

(Assume for the sake of argument that the Islamic Republic is only half as evil as the Islamic State. That’s hardly a persuasive argument in favor of the “deal” with Iran. –DM)

timthumb (1)

As Congress votes next month on whether to support the nuclear agreement Team Obama has negotiated with Iran, two assessments are necessary.

One is content-oriented-looking to the four corners of the document to understand exactly what Iran is being allowed legally to do, as well as the impact it will have on our national security.

Fully understanding that, the other assessment is then to analyze Iranian intentions-looking outside the document to determine the likelihood of full compliance by the mullahs.

As Congress undertakes the first assessment, it seems, unfortunately, to pay less heed to the second. But, as the latter demands understanding what the mullahs’ ultimate goal is, in addition to their commitment to achieving it, it is most relevant.

Interestingly, to better understand the mullahs’ ultimate goal, we need only look to ISIS-a group in pursuit of a similar one.

Before we do so, however, consider the following hypothetical: based on what we know about the group today, would Congress even consider negotiating the same nuclear deal with ISIS that has been negotiated with Iran? We hope it would not. The very thought of any agreement paving the way for a nuclear-armed ISIS would be an interminable nightmare for the world community.

The blatant savagery of ISIS undermines its credibility as a candidate with whom to hold nuclear negotiations. A group whose sole creative contribution to society has been to develop increasingly horrific ways of executing victims (and proudly displaying them on video) does not make for a responsible nuclear negotiating partner.

We may have thought the burning alive of caged Jordanian pilot Mu’ath al-Kaseasbeh earlier this year represented the extreme of ISIS brutality. It did not.

We have seen other victims paraded out, hands tied behind their backs, forced to kneel in front of their ISIS captors who-unbeknownst to the captives had buried explosive devices where they were kneeling-move safely away before detonating them. The sight of flying body parts then met with cries of “Allahu Akbar” from among the ISIS savages.

We have seen videos of Arab Christians similarly being positioned and beheaded by ISIS captors.

We have reports of an ISIS leader who, by night, raped his 11-year-old slave girl and, by day, strapped her to the windshield of his vehicle to afford him concealment from snipers as he drives.

The savagery of ISIS knows no limits. Its soldiers, after executing a Muslim father, strapped an explosive device to the baby child he left behind, detonating it to demonstrate to trainees the weapon’s battlefield impact upon the human body.

ISIS justifies its savagery on a Quranic mandate to pursue Islam’s ultimate goal: a global Caliphate by which to rule all inhabitants under sharia-a system of laws stripping its own believers of human dignity and non-believers of their lives.

But it is interesting that the ultimate goal for Islam sought by ISIS is really no different than that sought by Iran’s mullahs.

The brutality of ISIS, the irrationality of its leadership, the darkness that strips it of any humanity, the avowed purpose of its very being-all of this is mirrored within the mindset of Iran’s mullahs. Iran’s mullahs are ISIS wolves in sheep’s clothing.

ISIS is driven by a virulent Islamic ideology, unprotected by state boundaries, seeking to impose sharia upon the world. Iran is driven by a virulent Islamic ideology, protected by state boundaries, seeking the very same global objective.

The two mindsets evolved from one Islamic tree, branching out into different sects following Muhammad’s death. While differences evolved in culture, political systems, eschatological beliefs concerning the “Twelfth” or “Hidden Imam,” the role economics plays, etc., what we should find disturbing is, regardless of which sectarian branch prevails, for us, the end result is the same. Whether a Sunni ISIS Caliphate or a Shiite Iranian one were to dominate, infidels would be forced either to convert to Islam or die-with death imposed by whatever means available.

It is the commitment to an Iranian Caliphate that should concern us more than the commitment of ISIS to one. The mullahs believe for theirs to evolve, global chaos needs to occur-with man a catalyst in triggering it. Thus, providing them with a path for a nuclear-armed Iran gives the mullahs the means to fulfill the prophecy of Islam to which they adhere.

The Western mind rationalizes Iran would never initiate a nuclear strike for fear of retaliation. But the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) that prevented a Cold War from turning hot will have no impact upon Iran. Its mullahs see this life as but a means of ensuring their arrival in the next-a paradise of unlimited sexual desires with “recycled” virgins promised by Muhammad. Such is their reward for striving in this life to make the world an infidel-free one.

We see the evil of ISIS by the sins it commits. Why do we fail to see it in the deeds of Iran’s mullahs who mirror them? Perhaps it is because ISIS boasts about its inhumanity while the mullahs are less vocal about theirs.

To fully understand the mullahs’ commitment to their ultimate goal, we need view it through the most innocent of eyes.

The best insight into the soul of a nation’s leadership is examining how it treats its most treasured asset-its own children.

Peering into the soul of Iran’s leadership, one sees only darkness.

As Iran’s mullahs came to power in 1979, the violence against the Shah was soon redirected against their own people, claiming thousands of lives. Some were children who, lacking knowledge about sharia, were held accountable, nonetheless, for violating it and summarily executed. Sharia was to rule over all, even those of a tender age incapable of its comprehension.

For Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the sacrifice of children in this life was deemed acceptable to ensure ascendancy to the next. As he proclaimed in December 1979, “Could anyone wish his child to be martyred to obtain a good house? This is not the issue. The issue is (achieving) another world”-i.e., martyrdom of a child is justified in furtherance of Islam.

The extreme to which Khomeini took this was documented during Tehran’s eight-year war with Iraq.

Seeking to reduce Iranian army losses suffered penetrating Iraqi positions heavily defended by minefields, Khomeini issued a call for children to march through these fields to clear a route of attack. Each child was presented a plastic key beforehand, which, Khomeini promised, unlocked the gates to paradise. An estimated 500,000 children were so sacrificed.

A child’s life today in Iran continues to hold little value-children are still executed for acts deemed criminal under sharia. Accordingly, Tehran fails to comply with the Convention on Rights of the Child-an international commitment it made to protect its own children.

The virulent ideology of both ISIS and Iran’s mullahs merge on the common ground they share in totally devaluing the life of a child, evidenced by their unconscionable willingness to use children as weapons of war-whether it be to clear minefields, to serve as suicide bombers, or to execute prisoners.

The mullahs’ willingness to sacrifice the lives of their children should not be lost on us. If they, in pursuit of their ultimate goal, are unwilling to honor international commitments protecting their own children, only a fool can expect them to honor the international commitments set forth in a nuclear agreement.

He, too, is a fool who accepts President Obama’s claim that the Iranian leadership’s cries of “Death to America” are simply made for domestic consumption, ignoring Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s recent warning, “Saying death to America is easy; we need to express death with action.” If Congress approves Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, Rouhani’s wish to replace hopeful words for America’s death with action to achieve it will take a deadly step forward.

Next month’s vote on the Iranian nuclear deal will reveal to us just how many fools we have in Congress.

Categories: Caliphate, Christians, Death to America, Death to Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Funding terrorism, Hidden Imam, Iran scam, Iranian anti-semitism, Iranian nukes, Iranian proxies, Iranian Threats, Islamic jihad, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Islamic war on Christians, Islamism, Islamophobia, Israel, Judaism, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Shiite, Sunni, Theocracy, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Against the Iran deal

August 27, 2015

Against the Iran deal, Power Line, Scott Johnson, August 27, 2015

The Obama administration has used the August recess to promote the Iran deal. We reviewed President Obama’s speech earlier this month at American University. It was a most unsavory speech by a president who is losing the argument in the court of public opinion.

Obama himself has sunk to new depths to promote the deal. For the details, please see Lee Smith’s eloquent Tablet column on Obama’s invocation of Jewish scapegoats. In support of his ludicrous deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Obama has disgraced his allies and supporters; he has brought us to an incredibly low moment of our history.

As I noted in “For the Iran deal,” the administration has also released an open letter from 36 retired admirals and generals supporting the deal with Iran. Karen De Young reported on it here for the Washington Post; the Post also posted the letter here. The letter provides a condensed version of talking points in favor of the deal. It may be impressive that the administration found 36 retired officers to sign the thing, but the thing is pathetic on its face.

Well, we’ll see your 36 retired generals and admirals and raise them 154. A group of 190 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to Congress on Wednesday urging lawmakers to reject the Iran nuclear agreement, which they say threatens national security, as indeed it does. Carol Morello reports on the letter for the Post here. The Post has also posted the letter here.

Morello notes that the group formed on its own:

Leon A. “Bud” Edney, a retired admiral who served as vice chief of naval operations, initiated the letter after he read the letter by other retired officers in support of the agreement.

“I looked at the letter they published, and thought it was very weak,” Edney said. “I just don’t agree with it.” He then got the alternative viewpoint rolling through e-mails sent to some of his Navy and Marine friends. They in turn passed it on.

Morello goes to General Mcinerney for an explanation:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was vice commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, said he considers the agreement the most dangerous nuclear accord in U.S. history.

“What I don’t like about this is, the number one leading radical Islamic group in the world is the Iranians,” he said. “They are purveyors of radical Islam throughout the region and throughout the world. And we are going to enable them to get nuclear weapons. Why would we do that?”

McInerney said he thinks that most retired general officers do not support the agreement, but he said some did not sign the letter because they feared negative career repercussions.

“I don’t think the retired general officers necessarily speak with one voice,” he said. “We’ve all gone our own way when we retired.”

Unlike the letter of the 36, this letter is not the the handiwork of a public relations puppet master: “The opinions expressed in the letter were popular enough that people rushed to sign on, even in the hours before it was sent to Congress. The number of signatories almost doubled between Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday morning, copies of the letter showed.”

It’s an impressive group with a powerful argument that responds directly to the talking points of the 36. Morello is not content to report on the letter; she adds a few gratuitous insults to three of the signatories. This is pathetic:

One is retired Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush and is now executive vice president of the Family Research Council. He had a history of making controversial speeches, including one in which he characterized U.S. military operations against Islamist extremist organizations as a Christian fight against Satan.

It also was signed by retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter and retired Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, who were involved in the Iran-contra affair in the Reagan administration, in which arms were sold to Iran to fund the contras in Nicaragua.

Morello fails to note that General Boykin was one of the original members of the US Army’s Delta Force. He commanded these elite warriors in combat operations. He later commanded all the Army’s Green Berets as well as the Special Warfare Center and School. In all, Lt. Gen. Boykin spent 36 years in the army, serving his last four years as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. He is an ordained minister with a passion for spreading the Christian gospel and encouraging Christians to become warriors in God’s Kingdom. Thus the left’s hatred of him. Thus Morello’s special attention to him.

What is Iran-Contra doing here? Morello reminds us of the days when John Kerry and his Democratic friends supported the Communists in Central America and elsewhere while President Reagan brought the Soviet Union to its knees. We remember. Those were the good old days.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran: Nuclear Deal Will Enable Support for Terrorism

August 26, 2015

Iran: Nuclear Deal Will Enable Support for Terrorism, Washington Free Beacon, , August 25, 2015

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif speaks at the New York University (NYU) Center on International Cooperation in New York April 29, 2015. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif speaks at the New York University (NYU) Center on International Cooperation in New York April 29, 2015. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson

Multiple senior officials in recent days have said that the Iranian nuclear deal will help the Islamic Republic fund its global terrorist operations, including the financial backing of Hamas and other regional groups, according to a briefing by an Israeli intelligence group.

Iranian officials, speaking at multiple forums in recent days, stressed that the nuclear deal will embolden Iran’s support for its “regional allies” and that weapons and military support would continue to be delivered on the “resistance front,” according to a recent brief by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center.

The officials outlined Iran’s plan to bolster its global terrorism operation and stated that the recent nuclear deal between Tehran and global powers will do nothing to deter Iran’s pursuit of regional dominance.

Ali-Akbar Velayati, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, stated at a recent conference in Tehran that support for the “resistance front” is a top foreign policy objective.

The nuclear agreement, Velayati said, “would make it possible to increase Iran’s support for its regional allies,” according to recent comments noted in the brief. The official went on to say that “the situation of the resistance front had improved.”

Other senior Iranian officials have echoed these remarks.

Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, who led nuclear negotiations with the United States, recently travelled to Syria and Lebanon to announce Iran’s renewed support for Hezbollah and the embattled regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, according to the brief.

Iran will “continue providing weapons to support the Middle Eastern countries fighting terrorism,” Zarif is quoted as saying by Iran’s state-controlled press.

In light of the nuclear deal, Iran will “preserve its defensive capabilities and send weapons to its regional allies,” according to Zarif, who stressed that “without Iran and the weapons it provided to the countries fighting terrorism, the capital cities of the Middle East would have been occupied by” the Islamic State (IS, also known as ISIS or ISIL).

Iran also intends to boost its support for fighters in Yemen and Palestinian terrorist groups.

More than 70 members of the Iranian parliament, for instance, recently petitioned President Hassan Rouhani to increase “Iranian support for the regional resistance front after the nuclear agreement,” according to the report.

“They called on the president to use the ministries of defense and foreign affairs to send aid to the Palestinians in accordance with instructions from the Supreme Leader to arm the Palestinians in the West Bank,” the report notes.

Another senior Iranian national security official, Javad Karimi Qoddousi, demanded this month that “all the senior Iranian officials … support aid for the Palestinian people and the resistance front so that the nuclear agreement [is not] exploited to strengthen Israel’s security,” according to the brief.

These remarks have been accompanied by aggressive military moves by Iran, which has conducted multiple war drills in recent weeks and announced the upcoming launch of missiles, a move that could violate current United Nations Security Council resolutions barring such activity.

Iran appears to be attempting “to impress its allies with its commitment to continue supporting them even after the nuclear agreement with the West,” the Meir Amit center concluded in its brief. “The speeches of senior officials also reflected Iran’s approach to the rise and strengthening of ISIS and radical Sunni Islam.”

Iran also has committed itself to preventing the United States from gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

Iran will “not allow the United States to again extend its political influence in the region,” Velayati said in another recent interview. “Middle Eastern countries and people, led by Iran, had awakened and were standing firm” against America.

Senior Hamas officials have also disclosed in recent days that a delegation would soon be visiting Tehran.

Since the nuclear deal was secured, “relations between Hamas and Iran [have been] good,” according to these officials.

Categories: Death to Israel, Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, Imperialism, Iran scam, Iranian economy, Iranian proxies, Islamic State, Islamic supremacy, Israel, Javad Zarif, Khamenei, Middle East, Obama, Obama's affinity for Iran, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Palestinians, Terrorists
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Why the US government is on track to ‘normalizing’ ISIS

August 25, 2015

Why the US government is on track to ‘normalizing’ ISIS, NY Post, Alex VanNess, August 23, 2015

(That “normalizing” the Islamic State would be lunacy is itself a good argument that Obama will do it. — DM)

Photo: AP

How long will it take the United States to recognize the Islamic State as a legitimate actor?

That may sound ridiculous. After all, ISIS is a barbaric and sociopathic band of terrorists who proudly highlight their brutality over the Internet. Unfortunately, recent history suggests this doesn’t disqualify them, as horrific as it sounds, from eventual recognition.

Since before 9/11, the Taliban laid claim to numerous terror attacks on civilian populations throughout Afghanistan. They harbored Osama bin Laden, and since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, they’ve been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 American troops.

Yet in January, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest cryptically explained that the Taliban was not a terrorist group but instead falls under a “different classification.”

Earnest’s verbal gymnastics were deployed in the service of explaining away the president’s decision to trade five members of the Taliban for the release of American soldier-captive Bowe Bergdahl.

Hamas is an openly anti-Semitic terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, including several Americans. Since its creation, the Gaza-based Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Hamas is brutally repressive toward women and gays; they have a tendency to savagely drag dead bodies through the streets.

Last year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a new unity government that incorporated Hamas-appointed ministers. Instead of cutting off financial support to the new government, as required by US law, the Obama administration jumped through hoops to legitimize the new government. Officials said they would continue supporting the Palestinian government because the new ministers were “technocrats” that “don’t represent . . . hard-core Hamas leadership.”

The legitimacy granted to Hamas by this administration is a reflection of the trend held by many pro-Palestinian protestors who now brazenly chant, “we are Hamas!” through the streets of US cities such as Miami.

Cuba has a long history of human-rights abuse. The Cuban government regularly harasses and imprisons dissidents and has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. Cuba continues to serve as a safe haven for terrorists and maintains close ties to both North Korea and Iran.

In 2013, Cuba was caught sending weapons to North Korea. It aids terrorist groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Iranian proxy Hezbollah and the Basque Fatherland of Liberty (ETA).

Despite this behavior, the administration still decided to take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and has begun the process of normalizing the relationship between the United States and Cuba.

The State Department justified this removal by stating that “Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months” and citing vague promises that they “will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”

So to recap, within this past year we have stopped referring to the Taliban as terrorists, provided de facto recognition and funding to Hamas and have opened up to the repressive terror-sponsoring Cuban government.

Why should we assume that ISIS will be treated any differently than these groups?

As each day passes, ISIS solidifies its presence in the region. Sure, ISIS commits terrible atrocities. The group regularly — and indiscriminately — beheads innocent people; rapes women and sells them as sex slaves and employs children as executioners.

But its leaders have undeniably been working to establish the Islamic State as, well, as a functioning state. They issue identification cards, pave roads, pick up trash, operate power stations and offer social-welfare programs.

ISIS has carved out its territory by filling the Middle East’s power vacuums, and are thus, in some places, the only game in town. How long before the international community recognizes the ISIS government?

The past precedent of legitimizing various terrorist groups and repressive dictatorships make this all too real of an issue. It’s imperative that the United States stops this trajectory of providing legitimacy to these regimes and turns back the ISIS tide, or we may one day soon be debating the opening of an embassy to the Islamic State in what used to be Iraq.

Alex VanNess is the manager of public information for the Center for Security Policy.

Categories: Cuba, Foreign policy, Hamas, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Islamic State, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, Terrorism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama’s end-run around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

August 25, 2015

Obama’s end-run around the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, August 25, 2015

In an article for Forbes, Harold Furchtgott-Roth argues that President Obama’s executive agreement with Iran violates and/or modifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1969. Thus, it cannot lawfully take effect without true congressional approval (as opposed to the process established by the Corker-Cardin legislation). Furchtgott-Roth’s article appeared about a month ago, but has only recently come to my attention.

It is axiomatic, I should think, that an executive agreement cannot supersede a treaty. As Furchtgott-Roth explains, treaties are the law of the land and have the status of federal statutes. As such, they cannot be overridden by executive action.

The Iran deal is not a treaty, nor is it a statute. It will not even muster the level of congressional support sufficient to enact a statute.

To be sure, Congress through the Corker-Cardin legislation agreed to process by which the Iran deal could take effect with less than majority support. It did so before it had seen the terms of the deal. Thus, says Furchtgott-Roth, it had no reason to believe that the terms would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indeed, the public statements of John Kerry indicated that there would be no clash.

In any event, the Corker-Cardin bill established a process to review an executive order, not a treaty amendment. I doubt that Congress can bind itself in advance (or at all) to a process to create or amend a treaty that differs from the one established by the Constitution.

The question thus becomes whether the Iran deal modifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Furchtgott-Roth presents a good case that it does:

1. Under Article I of the NPT, “Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty [US] undertakes … not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear weapon State [Iran] to … otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control [ICBMs] over such weapons or explosive devices.”

Yet the entire Iran Deal is a road map for Iran to obtain devices that provide “control over such weapons or explosive devices.” The Iran Deal lifts embargoes on missiles that could be used for nuclear weapons. The deal ends prohibitions on nuclear weapons after a fixed number of years. The deal gives access to Iran to hundreds of billions of dollars immediately, all or part of which can finance the acquisition of nuclear weapons or related components.

Thus the Iran Deal modifies or violates U.S. responsibilities under Article I of the NPT.

2. Under Article II of the NPT:

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

Yet there is nothing in the Iran Deal that limits its ability ultimately to obtain nuclear weapons and various related control devices such as ICBMs. The Iran Deal merely places a timeline on that acquisition. The Iran Deal modifies Article II of the NPT.

3. Under Article III of the NPT:

“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agency’s safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”

The Statute of the IAEA. . .states. . .:

[T]he Agency [IAEA] shall have the … responsibilities…To send into the territory of the recipient State or States inspectors, designated by the Agency after consultation with the State or States concerned, who shall have access at all times to all places and data and to any person who by reason of his occupation deals with materials, equipment, or facilities which are required by this Statute to be safeguarded…

Press accounts suggest that the Iran Deal does not provide for IAEA inspection “at all times to all places and data and to any person…” Partly, there is a 24-day notice and review requirement before any inspection. That is inconsistent with the NPT. Neither the Iran Deal nor press accounts indicate that IAEA inspection will be “at all times to all places.”

The Iran Deal modifies Article III of the NPT.

4. Article VIII of the NPT provides in detail a method to modify and amend the NPT. That is not the process used for the Iran Deal. Thus the Iran Deal modifies or violates U.S. responsibilities under Article VIII of the NPT. . . .

Assuming that this analysis is sound, i.e., that Obama’s deal modifies a treaty, the questions become: what can Congress do about it and what is Congress prepared to do?

I doubt that Congress is prepared to abandon the Corker-Cardin procedure. To my knowledge, there has been no sign of willingness to do so in the month since Furchtgott-Roth’s article appeared.

I also believe that if Congress did ditch Corker-Cardin and treated the deal as a treaty amendment (two-thirds vote needed in the Senate; no vote in the House), Obama would thumb his nose at Congress and proceed to implement his deal.

Categories: Diplomacy, Dishonor, Foreign policy, IAEA, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Obama, Obama's America, Obama's legacy, P5+1, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, U.S. politics
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »