Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Iran category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

I wish that President Trump’s allies (think Tucker Carlson and Steve Hilton) would get their Iran policy right. Unfortunately, they’re constantly getting it wrong because they’re thinking about Iran as another nation that plays by the rules. That’s foolish, perhaps even foolish.

Hilton cited a conversation he had with President Trump:

Steve Hilton: I want to read you something Lindsey Graham said, your friend Lindsey Graham. He was in a magazine profile, and he reported on a conversation that he had with you. He said that you said to him, “The trouble with you, Lindsey, is you want to invade everywhere except the places I want to invade.'” So my question is where does he want to invade? But more importantly, where do you want to invade?”
President Trump: I want to invade, if I have to, economically. We’ve created a much stronger country economically than when I took it over … We have tremendous power economically. If I can solve things economically that’s the way I want it.

From that exchange, Hilton surmised the Trump Doctrine:

President Trump’s preferred weapon is economic. As he showed last week, he is not casual about military conflict, unlike the inhuman establishment geniuses who’d send other people’s children, in their eyes, the deplorables’ children, into war at the drop of a policy memo.

That’s fine if you’re dealing with rational people who care about the people they lead. The Iranians don’t fit that description. President Obama once thought that the Iranians would use the money they got back from John Kerry’s negotiations to rebuild Iranian infrastructure. Instead, the Iranian ruling mullahs used that $150,000,000,000 to ramp up terrorist proxy operations throughout the Middle East. Tightening the sanctions only hurts the people President Trump wants to embolden.

If idiots like Hilton think that tightening the screws will cause Iran to stop funding terrorist proxies, they’re idiots. That isn’t just stupid. It’s downright dangerous. It’s nice showing restraint to an extent but it’s dangerous at some point. It’s time for pacifists like Hilton and Carlson to realize that they need to think things through better. They should read their history books, too. To the Iranians, President Trump’s decision to call off the raid is proof of his weakness.

Democrats risk sounding like they hate America. In the aftermath of Iran’s shooting down of an unmanned US drone, Sen. Schumer said “The president may not intend to go to war here, but we’re worried that he and the administration may bumble into a war.”

There’s no indication that President Trump is interested in military action. There’s a far greater likelihood that Israel would take military action than there is of the US hitting Iran militarily. Sen. Schumer knows this. It’s just that he couldn’t resist taking a political cheap shot at President Trump. It didn’t bother Sen. Schumer that he took that cheap shot while President Trump was dealing with a national security crisis.

That’s why I’m starting to think that there aren’t many pro-American Democrats left. With Democrats, it’s always about partisanship. It isn’t about doing what’s right. This should bother people, too:

Later in the day, Pelosi planned to hold a briefing for the House Democratic caucus with Wendy Sherman, who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear agreement that Trump withdrew from, and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Why on God’s green earth would you have one of the idiots that negotiated the disastrous Iran nuclear agreement and a political hack brief people on the Iran situation?

John Brennan is stupid. He doesn’t belong briefing a fifth grade class about bullies. He certainly doesn’t belong in a meeting on Capitol Hill briefing congresscritters about an international crisis. Then there’s this:

“We have to be strong and strategic about how we protect our interests. We also cannot be reckless in what we do. I don’t think the president wants to go to war. There’s no appetite for going to war in our country,” she said at her weekly news conference on Capitol Hill. “This is a dangerous neighborhood. A miscalculation on either side could provoke something that could be very bad in terms of security and our interests.”

She’s right. “This is a dangerous neighborhood.” It was already dangerous prior to the Obama administration. Rather than taking steps to make the region more safe, the Obama administration, from a policy standpoint, poured a gallon of white gas on the region by signing the JCPOA, which now has Iran at the brink of nuclear weapons capability. The JCPOA didn’t prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. It just put them on a predictable glidepath towards getting a nuclear capability.

Though Democrats won’t admit it, thus far, President Trump has handled this crisis perfectly. He’s worked hard to de-escalate the situation while Iran has tried escalating the situation. If Democrats don’t start showing a bipartisan streak, they’ll get tagged with this well-deserved cliché:

The only thing that Democrats have to offer is fear itself. Final point: If you’re a voter, would you really rather have Crazy Bernie, Sleepy Joe Biden or Pocahontas negotiating with the Iranians, the Chinese or Kim Jung-Un? Or would you rather have President Trump negotiating against those dictators or nations?

Freshman Democrat Ilhan Omar’s ego is definitely oversized. In her latest controversy, Rep. Omar, (DFL-MN), insisted that she’s President Trump’s “biggest nemesis” because “she’s a ‘nightmare’ for the White House that wants to use her ‘identity to marginalize our communities.'”

Actually, President Trump just has to highlight Rep. Omar’s statements, then let those statements speak for themselves. For instance, Rep. Omar’s statements on Hamas’s terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens are the rantings of a lunatic:


Nikki Haley wasn’t bashful:


Neither was Ari Fleischer:


Good for them. If Rep. Omar can’t even get basic facts straight, then she should be criticized. This doesn’t have anything to do with President Trump wanting to use her identity against “our communities.” It has everything to do with Rep. Omar apparently attempting to be Hamas’s spokesperson.

The first interview on today’s Outnumbered Overtime program was New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Sen. Shaheen sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The interview got a bit contentious when Harris Faulkner pressed Sen. Shaheen on why Shaheen is calling for the interpreter at the Helsinki Summit but she didn’t speak up about the side deals made to the Iran Deal. Early in the interview, Faulkner asked Sen. Shaheen why she’s pressing for the interpreter to testify. Sen. Shaheen replied, saying “I think we need to know what happened in the meeting between President Trump and Vladimir Putin. There’s been a lot of information put out by the Russian government and their Ministry of Defense, by their ambassador but we haven’t gotten any kind of a readout from President Trump about what happened there and I’ve had the chance to ask some of our State Department officials about what they know about what he might’ve agreed to on Syria, on Crimea, on Ukraine and none of them have been able to answer what went on at that meeting.”

In other words, Sen. Shaheen wanted to know tons of details about the Trump-Putin Summit. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what oversight is about. What happened later, though, was quite telling:

HARRIS FAULKNER: You know, Senator, I’m patiently listening for that turn to, because there was so much that went on between the former president and Iran. There’s still side deals that we haven’t seen with that dictatorship for lack of a better term and what we’ve agreed to we’ve now pulled out of. I wonder if there isn’t a double standard and I ask it, with all respect and fairness, because I didn’t hear the same pushing back then. Well, what did President Obama agree to from Democrats?
SEN. SHAHEEN: Well, we saw what he agreed to. It was called the Iran Nuclear Deal.
FAULKNER: I still haven’t seen the side deals.
SHAHEEN: There aren’t any side deals that we’ve seen because those side deals didn’t exist. Those side deals have been made up by people who didn’t agree with that Iran deal.

At the 2:59 mark of the interview, watch Harris Faulkner’s facial expression when Sen. Shaheen said that:

Harris Faulkner’s facial expression is priceless. I’m betting that she couldn’t believe that Sen. Shaheen was trying to run that BS past her. It’s one thing to spin information. It’s quite another to pretend the information doesn’t exist.

Finally, it’s worth betting that Sen. Shaheen will think twice before appearing on Outnumbered OT another time.

Giving perhaps the strongest speech of his presidency, President Trump outlined Iran’s transgressions, highlighted the ways in which Iran causes trouble throughout the Middle East, supports terrorists while threatening our allies. Leftist pundits are already criticizing President Trump’s decision, with Juan Williams saying that “When the President spoke today, he didn’t say ‘Oh, yeah, here’s a major violation that proves these people are not to be trusted.”

Actually, included in President Trump’s speech was a paragraph where he said “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie. Last week, Israel published intelligence documents long concealed by Iran, conclusively showing the Iranian regime and its history of pursuing nuclear weapons.”

Shortly thereafter, President Trump said “In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget has grown by almost 40 percent, while its economy is doing very badly. After the sanctions were lifted, the dictatorship used its new funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, support terrorism, and cause havoc throughout the Middle East and beyond.”

President Trump wasn’t gentle with the Obama administration or the Kerry State Department:

At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program.

With this speech, President Trump locked President Obama and John Kerry together in the history books as the people who agreed to and negotiated the worst foreign policy/national security deal in US history. Only desperate or foolish people negotiate a sweetheart deal like this with treacherous people who support terrorists and who want to destabilize the entire Middle East.

That’s right. The only man for a job like that is John Kerry, the only person who is more inept at negotiating important national security deals than Hillary Clinton.

Over the past few months, we have engaged extensively with our allies and partners around the world, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. We have also consulted with our friends from across the Middle East. We are unified in our understanding of the threat and in our conviction that Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. After these consultations, it is clear to me that we cannot prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb under the decaying and rotten structure of the current agreement.

The Iran deal is defective at its core. If we do nothing, we know exactly what will happen. In just a short period of time, the world’s leading state sponsor of terror will be on the cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons. Therefore, I am announcing today that the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

President Obama has already criticized President Trump for pulling out of the deal:

There are few issues more important to the security of the United States than the potential spread of nuclear weapons, or the potential for even more destructive war in the Middle East. That’s why the United States negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in the first place.

The reality is clear. The JCPOA is working; that is a view shared by our European allies, independent experts, and the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. The JCPOA is in America’s interest; it has significantly rolled back Iran’s nuclear program. And the JCPOA is a model for what diplomacy can accomplish; its inspections and verification regime is precisely what the United States should be working to put in place with North Korea. Indeed, at a time when we are all rooting for diplomacy with North Korea to succeed, walking away from the JCPOA risks losing a deal that accomplishes, with Iran, the very outcome that we are pursuing with the North Koreans.

Had John Kerry negotiated a worthwhile deal, President Obama could’ve sent that treaty to Congress for approval. The deal that Kerry negotiated was so terrible that Democrats rejected it. It was so bad that President Obama couldn’t have gotten it approved as a treaty if his life depended on it. As for our European allies urging us to stay in the deal, their motivation is simple. They want to do business with Iran. The more telling reaction is how the Saudis and Israelis reacted. First, here’s John Kerry’s reaction:

Let’s be clear about something. This isn’t the case of the United States backing out of one of its treaties. It’s a rare case of a president telling other nations that he isn’t bound to keep the personal promise that a previous president made.

Had President Obama tried to get the JCPOA approved as a treaty, it would’ve been rejected on a bipartisan basis. While President Obama is upset that another piece of his legacy just got thrown into history’s dumpster, President Trump won’t care because he knows a terrible deal when he sees it. Trump is intent on demolishing Obama’s legacy and getting the US back on the right track. Based on what he’s accomplished thus far, I’d say that he’s accomplishing his plan.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Last night, the US joined with the British and French to bomb parts of Syria’s WMD infrastructure. According to the BBC, the “US, UK and France have bombed multiple government targets in Syria in an early morning operation targeting alleged chemical weapons sites. The strikes were in response to a suspected chemical attack on the Syrian town of Douma last week. Explosions hit the capital, Damascus, as well as two locations near the city of Homs, the Pentagon said.”

In response, the Russian embassy in the United States published this tweet, stating “A pre-designed scenario is being implemented. Again, we are being threatened. We warned that such actions will not be left without consequences. All responsibility for them rests with Washington, London and Paris.”

I suspect that tweet is meant mostly for domestic consumption. I’m certain this doesn’t worry anyone in the Trump, May or Macron national security teams. Around 9:00 pm CT, President Trump delivered a speech announcing the newest round of bombings of Syria’s WMD infrastructure:

The speech also contained this warning to both Russia and Iran:

I also have a message tonight for the two governments most responsible for supporting, equipping and financing the criminal Assad regime. To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women, and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep. No nation can succeed in the long run by promoting rogue states, brutal tyrants and murderous dictators.

In 2013, President Putin and his government promised the world that they would guarantee the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons. Assad’s recent attack, and today’s response, are the direct result of Russia’s failure to keep that promise.

Whether these airstrikes have crippled Syria’s WMD infrastructure is still to be determined. What isn’t in question is whether President Trump will tolerate Russia’s meddling like President Obama tolerated Putin’s expansionist policies.

Let’s not forget these wise words on the difference between President Trump and President Obama:

Way at the end of the video, Charles Krauthammer stated that the initial strike against Syria didn’t say that “there’s a new sheriff in town” but that “there’s a sheriff in town.” Friday night’s airstrike is a refreshing reminder that President Trump isn’t the Hand-Ringer-In-Chief that President Obama was. This sends the unmistakable message that he’ll enforce the red line that Obama drew, then ran away from.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Susan Rice’s NYTimes op-ed is a collection of whiny complaints. Among her litany of complaints, one complaint stood out. It’s actually worth examining.

In the op-ed, Rice said “The same policy stagnation afflicts our ability to confront the most pressing threats to our security, from North Korea to the risk of terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, from pandemic disease to Russian aggression. Our ability to counter such outside menaces is increasingly undermined by our collective failure to work together. Indeed, the most significant, long-term threat to our security may be our domestic political polarization.”

Let’s ask ourselves where the political polarization is coming from. Let’s start at the beginning of the Trump administration. When massive numbers of Democrats boycott President Trump’s inauguration, which party is sowing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When every Democrat votes against making even the slightest change to Obamacare, who is the agent of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When Democrats vote unanimously against tax cuts that are putting money in families’ pockets and energizing the US economy, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t Republicans. When President Trump puts together a thoughtful immigration plan that give a little (too much?) on DACA amnesty in exchange for funding of the Wall and ending chain migration and the diversity visa lottery programs and Democrats criticize it within minutes of its presentation, who’s sewing seeds of political polarization? It isn’t the Republicans.

It’s foolish to argue that Republicans don’t contribute to the political polarization. There’s a difference, though, between contributing to a negative situation and agitating for political polarization. The Democrats’ resistance movement is based solely on political polarization.

After Ms. Rice’s opening tirade, she gets into an Alice-in-Wonderland argument:

Similarly, the Iranians know that our resolve to prevent them from acquiring a nuclear weapon may crumble under partisan pressure. China is pursuing its economic and strategic ambitions in Asia unconstrained by an America so divided that we jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement we negotiated, while its signatories reap its rewards without us.

First, it wasn’t the Trump administration that negotiated a treaty so bad that they wouldn’t let the Senate vote on it. That treaty didn’t prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. It sped up the timetable for them getting a nuclear weapon. Then after speeding up that timetable, the US president shipped $150,000,000,000 to Iran, which it then quickly used to fund Hezbollah’s terrorist activities. Talk about brilliant.

Next, China is getting confronted by the Trump administration. The results haven’t always been what we’ve wanted but they’re confronting them. The Obama administration’s policy of leading from behind didn’t work. Period.

Rice’s op-ed is titled “We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us”. If you define Us as the Obama administration, I agree.

This article perfectly illustrates the foolishness of progressive foreign policy. As if we hadn’t gotten too much of that during the Obama administration, we’re getting another shot of it in this article.

In the article, it says “The move is also likely to isolate the U.S., cause confusion about its intentions, permit Iran to claim the high ground in any push to renegotiate, and provide both allies and adversaries with more evidence that the United States can’t be trusted.” Let’s start with that last statement about the US not being able to be trusted. What’s true is that the US can be trusted to correct its mistakes that left allies in the Middle East threatened by the developing Iranian hegemon.

There’s a reason why the nations refused to attend President Obama’s summit on the Middle East. Those nations flocked to President Trump’s summit, though. That leads to the refutation that not certifying the Iran deal again will “likely isolate the US.” Here’s a question the author might want to ask himself: how can a man who gets 50+ Middle East and southwest Asia and north African nations to attend his summit on Iran and its proxies be isolated? Does this look isolated?

This isn’t reassuring:

The 2015 deal lifted sanctions against Iran in exchange for limits on its nuclear program. Iran’s compliance is being monitored by the United Nations, which has declared that the Islamic Republic is sticking by the letter of its obligations.

Getting the UN’s word that Iran is living up to any agreement is like getting an arsonist’s word that he won’t play with matches anymore. In other words, it’s worthless. As for the limits, they’re temporary. President Trump is attempting to renegotiate more permanent limits, something the Obama administration didn’t even attempt to do.

Iran still is developing a missile program and actively opposing U.S. policy in Syria, Iraq and plenty of other places. Trump, who has called the agreement “embarrassing” and much worse, can’t really declare that Iran is violating its terms. Instead, he’s likely to say Iran is not following its spirit, or that the deal is no longer in the U.S. national interest. The idea seems to be that decertifying will increase pressure on Iran to behave.

The point the Trump administration made last week is that the agreement was so limited in scope as to make it worthless. Getting Iran to limit some of its terrorist-supporting actions isn’t securing our nation or our allies.

The Obama-Kerry foreign policy was built on the premise that appeasement works. It doesn’t. That’s why it’s important for the US to reassert its leadership in the Middle East.

This article in the Pi-Press is disgusting in its dishonesty. In the article, the ‘reporter’ says that “Trump’s highly controversial order suspends refugee admissions for 120 days and bars all immigration for 90 days of citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries with terrorism concerns: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Those now being barred from the country include refugees who have already been thoroughly vetted by U.S. agencies.”

Either this reporter is telling an outright lie or he’s incredibly ignorant of the truth. Though Politifact attempts to sweep things under the carpet, the fact remains that FBI Director James Comey testified that “We can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but … there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person.”

Politifact tried spinning things by saying “But did James Comey actually say the FBI “cannot properly vet” people coming from the Middle East? No, he didn’t. Beruff is distorting a point Comey was making about a flaw in the vetting process, but he was reiterating the system in place was actually much better than it had been in the past.”

Here’s the real exchange:

Ranking member Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) asked Comey, “Mr. Director, before this committee, [FBI] Assistant Director [Michael] Steinbach said that the concerns in Syria is that we don’t have the systems in place on the ground to collect the information to vet. That would be the concern. Databases don’t hold the information on these individuals. Is that still the position of the department?”

“Yes, I think that’s the challenge we’re all talking about, is that we can only query against that which we have collected, and so if someone has never made a ripple in the pond in Syria in a way that would get their identity or their interests reflected in our database, we can query our database till the cows come home, but we’re not gonna—there’ll be nothing show up, because we have no record on that person,” said Comey. “That’s what Assistant Director Steinbach was talking about,” he added.

Not having verifiable data to compare against isn’t “a flaw in the vetting process.” That’s admitting that it’s impossible to vet people. Here’s video of FBI Director Comey’s testimony:

That’s pretty open-and-shut testimony.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The dishonest media is doing its best to whip the nation into a frenzy by not reporting the contents of President Trump’s EO accurately. Democrats are doing everything possible to keep the public misinformed. Kamala Harris, who replaced Barbara Boxer as the junior senator from California, is protesting President Trump’s EO that temporarily bans Muslims from 7 specific nations known as terrorist hotbeds. Rather than doing the job that people expect them to do, which is to accurately inform people of what’s happening in Washington, DC, the dishonest media is doing its best to mislead the public while telling people that President Trump is a racist and an Islamophobe.

William Jacobsen rightly said in this post that people “should actually read it“. The important part of what President Trump’s EO said actually cites the US law that permits him to act in our nation’s national security interests. It says “Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.”

Not only is the dishonest media getting things wrong. It’s badly misleading people to the point where it’s difficult that this isn’t intentional. Progressive activists aren’t helping, either, by flocking to social media to complain about President Trump’s EO, then aggregating them under the hashtag #MuslimBan. What the dishonest media and these progressive activists haven’t explained is how the so-called #MuslimBan doesn’t include the nation with the biggest Muslim population in the world (Indonesia) or how Muslim nations like Turkey, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia aren’t on the list.

Then there’s this:

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”

If Trump is anti-Muslim for temporarily banning people from these countries, then former President Obama must be anti-Muslim, too, because he signed the bill into law. Thomas Lifson’s article highlights the fact that Syria is the only nation named in President Trump’s EO:

I read the order and Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are not mentioned in it. Go back and read it again. Do a “ctrl-f” to find “Iraq.” Where is “Iraq” in the order. It’s not there. Only Syria is there. So where are the seven nations? Where is the “Muslim ban?” It turns out this was a form of fake news, or alternative facts. Trump didn’t select seven “Muslim-majority” countries. US President Barack Obama’s administration selected these seven Muslim-majority countries.

This is proof positive that President Trump is right in calling the dishonest media the opposition party. I’d go a step further. I’d argue that they’re unindicted co-conspirators with dishonest Democratic Party politicians like Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi.

If their collective dishonesty were political capital, that bunch would rule Washington, DC for decades. Thank God that isn’t the case. They’re just a bunch of dishonest progressive politicians that the nation rejected this past November. I’ll leave you with this video:

It’s video of a manipulative, dishonest politician. I never thought I’d say this but I think I’d prefer Harry Reid over this politician.