Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category

Bit-by-bit, the wheels are falling off of Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. This morning on CNN’s State of the Union, Sen. Warren said some outrageous things. One of the outrageous things that Sen. Warren said was “Next week, the president of the United States could be facing an impeachment trial in the Senate. We know he’s deeply upset about that. And I think people are reasonably asking, why this moment? Why does he pick now to take this highly inflammatory, highly dangerous action that moves us closer to war?”

Democrats keep insinuating that this impeachment is a) legitimate and b) something for President Trump to worry about. It isn’t legitimate. That’s why Speaker Pelosi isn’t transmitting it to the Senate. Pelosi knows that the House’s impeachment case has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. The Democrats’ only testimony is hearsay testimony. Why would President Trump worry about a case that would’ve gotten thrown out of court.

She’s playing fast and loose with words, which is Sen. Warren’s habit. Soleimani wasn’t just a government official. In 2007, the Bush administration labeled him and the Quds Force terrorists. Then there’s this:

The U.S. and the United Nations put Soleimani on sanctions lists in 2007, though his travels continued. In 2011, U.S. officials also named him as a defendant in an outlandish Quds Force plot to allegedly hire a purported Mexican drug cartel assassin to kill a Saudi diplomat.

This wasn’t just a high-ranking government official and Warren knows it. Further, when Sen. Warren told Jake Tapper that we’re closer to war than before hitting Soleimani, she’s exposing her dishonesty. Iran has been at war with the US since 1979. Democrats have pretended that isn’t the case but that’s because their appeasement-first policy is deeply embedded in their DNA.

When Iranians took the hostages in the US Embassy in Teheran, Jimmy Carter didn’t threaten Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Instead, President Carter called him “a great man of religion.” The 52 US hostages weren’t released until President Reagan was sworn in. Apparently, Iran wasn’t worried about Jimmy Carter’s feeble policies. Five minutes after Reagan was officially sworn in, the plane carrying those US hostages left Iranian airspace. Apparently, Iran was frightened by President Regan’s peace-through-strength policies.

With Iran’s economy contracting, Iranian citizens revolting and President Trump threatening Iran with retribution if they strike again, Iran is in a pickle. The thing that we’ve learned in dealing with terrorists, it’s that the Arab Street sides with the strong horse. Until Thursday night, the strong horse was Soleimani. By Friday afternoon, the strong horse was President Trump and the US military.

The Democrats’ sky-is-falling fear of the Iranians isn’t leadership. It’s cowardice. That doesn’t mean I want to push war. It simply means we shouldn’t operate from a position of fear with regard to Iran. Taking out Soleimani wasn’t just taking out a government official. It was eliminating the most indispensable man in the Iranian regime, the man who terrorized an entire region while threatening our allies.

This about this: 40% of the world’s oil gets shipped through the Straits of Hormuz. It’s great that we aren’t reliant on that oil anymore. Still, the world economy still relies on those shipments. What happens if Iran blockades oil shipments through the Straits? What’s the likelihood of that blockade crashing the world economy?

It was past time to take out this terrorist. Good riddance.

Having Susan Rice lecture people about integrity is insulting. During her interview with Rachel Maddow, she said that the risks of killing Soleimani probably outweighed the benefits. She also said “The Obama administration was not presented with an opportunity by our intelligence community or by the U.S. military to strike Qassem Soleimani.” If they had been given that information, Rice said that what they “would have done is weigh very carefully and very deliberately the risks versus the potential rewards.”

That’s probably the only truthful thing she said in this interview:

“So, if in fact the administration can be believed that there was indeed strong intelligence of an imminent threat against the United States that’s being carried out by Soleimani and related militia then the question becomes [was] there more than one way to address that threat?” she asked Maddow. “Was the only way to deal with it to kill Soleimani? Certainly, given his history and track record, he deserves his just rewards but the question is does that serve our interests? Does that make us more secure?”

First, killing a man that’s destabilized an entire region of the world for a generation is always in our best interests. Gen. Soleimani isn’t just a high-ranking military guy. He’s the man who put together the military strategy to inflame an entire region. He’s the reason why Iran is the world’s greatest exporter of terrorism. Iran wasn’t like that before Soleimani.

Next, the US got information of an attack that would have hit multiple cities throughout the region. It isn’t that taking out Soleimani doesn’t come without risks. It’s that taking out a man with his list of accomplishments and skills is worth the risks. The trick, I suspect, is take the proper precautions to protect US interests.

Finally, if I’m going to get lectured about integrity, that lecture won’t come from Susan Rice. She’s as untrustworthy as Jim Comey and John Brennan. You can’t sink lower than that. If I’m going to get lectured about integrity, I’ll enthusiastically accept it from Mark Geist. In an interview with Pete Hegseth, Geist said this:

“First off, I mean, when has a protest ever occurred at night and, I mean, most protests they don’t typically bring AK-47s, belt-fed machine guns, and RPGs. That’s somebody planning an attack and they knew it,” Geist told Hegseth.

“They knew it when she went out on the speaking circuit on Sunday,” he continued. “But, instead of telling the truth she wanted to tell lies because she had to say what the administration — at the time — wanted.”

This part must’ve stung the most:

“If President Trump had been in office during Benghazi, we wouldn’t have lost four Americans,” he concluded.

That’s true. Unlike President Obama, President Trump wouldn’t order troops to stand down during a terrorist attack.

I’ve spent much of today listening to Democrats talking about the inevitability of Iran striking back as retaliation for the Trump-ordered airstrike against Gen. Soleimani. Tonight, President Trump decided that flipping the script on one of Iran’s proxies was in order. First reports are that “Iraqi official claims 5 Iranian-backed militia members killed in airstrike north of Baghdad. An airstrike Friday hit two cars carrying members of an Iran-backed militia north of Iraq’s capital, Baghdad, killing five members, an Iraqi official told The Associated Press. The official added that the identities of those killed were not immediately known. It was not immediately clear who launched the strike.”

This article has different information. It said “A fresh airstrike, targeting high-profile members of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias, has been reported. The PMF members were travelling in a three-car convoy north of Baghdad, when the strike occurred, killing six persons, multiple reports said. Three other persons were critically injured. No one has claimed responsibility for the strike.”

There isn’t much doubt who carried out this attack. There’s only one nation with the capability and motivation to carry out an attack like this. When the US designated Iran’s Quds Force as a terrorist group, they also put Iran on notice that killing a US soldier was the Trump administration’s red line. Further, President Trump has demonstrated that he isn’t like President Obama when it comes to suffering terrorists lightly when they cross his red lines.

To paraphrase the late Charles Krauthammer, “it isn’t that there’s a new sheriff in town. It’s that, after 8 years, there’s finally a sheriff in town.” Everyone who studied President Obama knew that his default position was to do nothing. The Democrats’ spin was to call it “strategic patience.” It’s time to tell these pacifists to take a hike. That’s what Pete Hegseth did during this segment of The Five:

Marie Harf is essentially the female version of Baghdad Bob. Pete Hegseth had enough of Harf’s questioning. The tipping point was when she questioned Hegseth about the possibility of escalation. At that point, Hegseth had enough and replied that Iran has been escalating tensions for months. Then he asked her if President Trump should just let Soleimani kill American soldiers and diplomats. Hegseth questioned why a US president would let something like that happen when he had the actionable intelligence that would prevent the killing of diplomats and soldiers. Harf, of course, didn’t have an answer for that question.

Hegseth put the Democrats’ appeaser on her heels just like President Trump is putting Iran’s Quds Force on their collective heels. Wise generals pick their battles. Harf is neither smart nor a general. She’s just a former mouthpiece for a failed presidential administration.

Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the leader of Iran’s Quds Force, was killed tonight by a US airstrike “at Baghdad’s international airport Friday.” This went official when “Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials” confirmed Soleimani’s death.

The Pentagon said Thursday that the U.S. military has killed Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Quds Force, at the direction of President Donald Trump.

An airstrike killed Soleimani, architect of Iran’s regional security apparatus, at Baghdad’s international airport Friday, Iranian state television and three Iraqi officials said, an attack that’s expected to draw severe Iranian retaliation against Israel and American interests.

The Defense Department said Soleimani “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.” It also accused Soleimani of approving the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week.

Predictably, partisanship is running rampant after the airstrike. In fact, Democrat partisanship was running rampant after this week’s attack on the US Embassy in Iraq. Here’s what Sen. Chris Murphy, (D-CT), tweeted after the attack on the Embassy:


Tonight, Sen. Murphy, apparently tired of talking out of one side of his mouth earlier this week, talked out of the other side of his mouth tonight while criticizing President Trump for killing Gen. Soleimani:


In other words, in Sen. Murphy’s perspective, President Trump was impotent earlier this week and a full-fledged war-monger tonight. The Defense Department issued this statement after the airstrike:

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qassim Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.

The Commander-in-Chief doesn’t need congressional authorization to protect diplomats or soldiers. President Trump did the right thing in ordering this airstrike.

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: , , , , , , , , ,