Tag Archives: Iran

Will Egypt Be The Next Iran?

Posted on by
4

Is Barack Obama destined to be the next Jimmy Carter?

In 1979, ‘students’ flooded the streets in Iran to protest the repressive regime of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. While the Shah was not perfect, he was a valuable ally of the West’s. Moreover, he lifted Iran into the 20th century. However, the Iranian people were unsatisfied with the tactics of the Shah’s police state, and they demanded ‘change.’

Carrying out the greatest blunder in American foreign policy history, President Carter refused to stop the Iranian revolution. Instead of saving a strategic ally, Jimmy Carter let the Shah fall. Because of Jimmy Carter’s ineptitude, today Iran is ruled by radical Muslims and is the foremost sponsor of terrorism in the world.

The lesson of Iran is pertinent to the current unrest in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood, an organization who’s stated goal is: “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house,” is following the same playbook the radicals did in Iran. Unfortunately, President Obama and other Western leaders appear to have learned nothing from the miserable failures of the Carter regime.

In her 1979 essay, Dictatorships & Double Standards, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick explained the United States’ unfortunate habit of letting allies fall:

The pattern is familiar enough: an established autocracy with a record of friendship with the U.S. is attacked by insurgents, some of whose leaders have long ties to the Communist movement, and most of whose arms are of Soviet, Chinese, or Czechoslovak origin. The “Marxist” presence is ignored and/or minimized by American officials and by the elite media on the ground that U.S. support for the dictator gives the rebels little choice but to seek aid “elsewhere.” Violence spreads and American officials wonder aloud about the viability of a regime that “lacks the support of its own people.” The absence of an opposition party is deplored and civil-rights violations are reviewed. Liberal columnists question the morality of continuing aid to a “rightist dictatorship” and provide assurances concerning the essential moderation of some insurgent leaders who “hope” for some sign that the U.S. will remember its own revolutionary origins. Requests for help from the beleaguered autocrat go unheeded, and the argument is increasingly voiced that ties should be established with rebel leaders “before it is too late.” The President, delaying U.S. aid, appoints a special emissary who confirms the deterioration of the government position and its diminished capacity to control the situation and recommends various measures for “strengthening” and “liberalizing” the regime, all of which involve diluting its power.

The emissary’s recommendations are presented in the context of a growing clamor for American disengagement on grounds that continued involvement confirms our status as an agent of imperialism, racism, and reaction; is inconsistent with support for human rights; alienates us from the “forces of democracy”; and threatens to put the U.S. once more on the side of history’s “losers.” This chorus is supplemented daily by interviews with returning missionaries and “reasonable” rebels.

As the situation worsens, the President assures the world that the U.S. desires only that the “people choose their own form of government”; he blocks delivery of all arms to the government and undertakes negotiations to establish a “broadly based” coalition headed by a “moderate” critic of the regime who, once elevated, will move quickly to seek a “political” settlement to the conflict. Should the incumbent autocrat prove resistant to American demands that he step aside, he will be readily overwhelmed by the military strength of his opponents, whose patrons will have continued to provide sophisticated arms and advisers at the same time the U.S. cuts off military sales. Should the incumbent be so demoralized as to agree to yield power, he will be replaced by a “moderate” of American selection. Only after the insurgents have refused the proffered political solution and anarchy has spread throughout the nation will it be noticed that the new head of government has no significant following, no experience at governing, and no talent for leadership. By then, military commanders, no longer bound by loyalty to the chief of state, will depose the faltering “moderate” in favor of a fanatic of their own choosing.

In either case, the U.S. will have been led by its own misunderstanding of the situation to assist actively in deposing an erstwhile friend and ally and installing a government hostile to American interests and policies in the world. At best we will have lost access to friendly territory. At worst the Soviets will have gained a new base. And everywhere our friends will have noted that the U.S. cannot be counted on in times of difficulty and our enemies will have observed that American support provides no security against the forward march of history.

Besides the influence of the Soviet Union, Kirkpatrick’s analysis reads like it could have been written today. Letting allies, even unsavory ones, fall is doubly harmful to the United States. First, there is the fall of an ally, and the rise of an enemy. Second, every time the united States allows an ally to be overthrown, America’s other allies witness the United Sates’ lack of resolve.

Make no mistake, a revolution in Egypt will not end well. There are no moderates in the Muslim Brotherhood. On CNN, Protesters in Alexandria explained their motives:

Woman #1 sets the stage for Woman #2:

“All the people hate him. He’s supporting Israel! Israel is our enemy. We don’t like him…Israel and America supported him. We hate them all!”

Woman #1 then explains that they will accomplish the removal of Mubarak by “revolution.”

Then the guy that follows them takes it up a notch by explaining that when the people in Egypt are finally free they will be able to “destroy Israel.”

In 1979 President Carter’s UN representative, Andrew Young, said that in time, Ayatollah Khomeini would be viewed as “some kind of saint.” The Carter administration’s motto was “we can work with Khomeini.” That has not exactly worked out the way the Carterites thought it would.

The UK Telegraph reported this week that the United States has been actively supporting Egyptian ‘activists’ since President Obama has come to power. While president Obama’s democratic intentions are honorable, the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak at this time would be calamitous.

Mohamed ElBaradei, who the Muslim Brotherhood yesterday recommended as a go-between to negotiate a transfer of power, fits Kirkpatrick’s description of a moderate critic of the regime perfectly. ElBaradei’s elevation will set up a transfer of power to the worst elements in Egypt.

While some of the protesters in the streets in Cairo may be pro-democracy advocates, tired of being unemployed in a police state, should the Mubarak regime be toppled, the pro-democracy dupes will be enslaved in a radical Muslim tyranny, far more brutal than the darkest days of the Mubarak reign.

In the coming days President Mubarak will do all he can to remain in power. President Obama will have to make a decision: will he support an imperfect ally, or allow the devil we know to fall? Whatever Obama’s plan of action is, it will have far reaching consequences; forty years ago Iran was a resolute ally.

It’s Almost as if There IS an Axis of Evil

Posted on by
2

Remember this:

Remember the media pillorying President Bush over the term “Axis of Evil?” Turns out the decider may have been onto something.

This week’s Wall Street Journal featured an article by Jay Solomon entitled “North Korea Nuclear Find Raises Fear on Tehran.” From the article:

North Korea’s apparent upgrade to its nuclear-fuel production capabilities is raising fears among lawmakers and proliferation experts about Pyongyang’s potential role in supplying Iran and others with the sophisticated machinery.

Tehran and Pyongyang have developed expansive military ties over the past three decades and have collaborated in developing missile systems, submarines and small arms. U.S. and allied intelligence services have also interdicted a number of Iran-bound North Korean arms shipments, by sea and by air, in recent years.

Lawmakers and proliferation experts said North Korea, desperate for hard currency, could seek to expand on these military ties to aid Iran’s nuclear work—particularly at a time when Tehran is facing technical challenges in producing nuclear fuel.

“We don’t know exactly how coordinated it is, but it would be naïve to assume that they’re not cooperating on centrifuges,” said Pete Hoekstra (R.-Mich.), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

A senior U.S. official said the Obama administration recognizes the proliferation risks but that new U.N. sanctions have significantly constricted Pyongyang’s ability to move materials.

The concerns were sparked by a report released Saturday by Stanford physicist Siegfried Hecker that he saw some 2,000 centrifuges organized in cascades at a North Korean facility he visited earlier this month. U.S. intelligence agencies and outside nuclear experts have cited the report, and its description of the size and scope of the centrifuges, to conclude they are so-called P-2 designs—a generation beyond what Iran is using.

“One has to assume that Iran either has the P-2 centrifuge from North Korea, or could get it very easily,” said Simon Henderson, a proliferation expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He also worries that North Korea could enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf.

What’s that? The atheistic communists are working with the religious fundamentalists against the United Sates? If you didn’t know any better you might be tempted to say that there is in fact an Axis of Evil, “arming to threaten the peace of the world.”

One area where President Bush never relented was prosecuting the Global War on Terror. In 2001, President Bush was right that the forces of evil, however diverse, would work together against the United States. North Korea and Iran working together to create nuclear weapons is further evidence vindicating President Bush’s ‘Axis of Evil’ pronouncement.

Freedom’s Enemies See Weakness in Obama

Posted on by
2

This week I have written a lot about defense spending, and the need to ensure that the United States maintains the world’s premier fighting forces. “If we know anything, it is that weakness is provocative,” as Secretary Rumsfeld said. President Obama has demonstrated the validity this axiom time and again.

Earlier this week, it was revealed that North Korea has been aggressively pursuing their nuclear weapons program. Today, North Korea fired artillery shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, in the most serious military action in Korea sine the 1950-53 war.

The bottom line here is that Freedom’s enemies see a weak American president and they want to capitalize on this opportunity. President Obama has been gutting the military (Michael Auslin’s article on the hollowing out of the Air Force is frightening), pandering to dictators, and snubbing allies. The logical result of Obama’s actions is a challenge from America’s enemies.

The last president to look as impotent as Obama was Jimmy Carter. If you are looking for a single person to blame for the current regime in Iran, you can look to Jimmy Carter. President Carter’s asinine handling of the the Shah of Iran and the jihadist revolution is the reason that Iran is ruled by a genocidal death cult, as opposed to staunch Western ally. The incompetence of one president can change the geopolitical map forever.

Enemy regimes see the Obama presidency as an opportunity to advance their goals and fill the power vacuum the United States is creating. What will Obama do about the North Korean’s actions? Denounce them in at the next United Nations meeting? Nothing scares maniac dictators more than a mildly worded letter threatening future, more sternly worded letters, from a bloated and worthless bureaucracy.

China is North Korea’s enabler. They keep the despotic regime afloat. The Chinese see a pesky North Korea as a valuable distraction to be used against the United States. While the United States is focused on North Korea, the Chinese have been able to expand their power and influence within Asia.

Knowing that North Korea is dependent upon China for essentially everything, North Korea would have had to clear today’s military actions with the Chinese. What if this is a rehearsal to gauge President Obama’s resolve? The attacks on South Korea could just be about Korea, or it could be about China preparing to move on Taiwan.

The ChiComs have coveted the Republic of China since the United States abandoned the free Chinese in favor of the communists after World War II. What would Obama do if China moved on Taiwan? Could the United States do anything that would anger their financier? Obama is weak and the world knows it. The Obama presidency will prove to be one of the most disastrous decisions the American electorate has ever made.

The China Threat

Posted on by
3

Seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza coined the idiom “nature abhors a vacuum.” With President Obama planning withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, severe cuts in military spending, and a talking down of American Exceptionalism, the United States is creating a power vacuum.

President Obama has pursued a course of peace through weakness and surrender. Obama’s gutting of the military is emboldening America’s enemies (as I have written about on previous occasions).

In 2001, Osama Bin Laden explained “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Can anyone honestly say that President Obama’s apology/bow to dictators tour has made the United States look like the ‘strong horse’?

Instead, countries like China see the Obama presidency as an opportunity to fill the vacuum that the United States is creating.

If it is true that the ‘mystery missile’ fired off the California coast was indeed launched from a Chinese submarine, it would just be the latest provocation from the ChiComs.

A recent article in the LA Times, that appeared is this weeks Sunday Feature, detailed China’s increasing presence in the Middle East. China has been trading with and helping to fund regimes in Turkey, Syria and Iran. Now, China has an eye on expanding in Iraq, following the withdrawal of the United States. China’s funding of enemy regimes like Iran and Syria is no mistake.

As President Obama downsizes the United States military, the Chinese are expanding and modernizing their military. The Chinese are regularly shocking experts with their advanced military capabilities (see: U.S.S. Kitty Hawk stalking). Where is the money coming from for the Chinese to rapidly upgrade their military? American tax payers. According to Mark Steyn, by 2015 the entire Chinese military will be funded by American debt interest payments. To drive that point home, Steyn said, “when the Commies take Taiwan, suburban families in Connecticut and small businesses in Idaho will have paid for it.”

There are three important takeaways here:

The first lesson is that, as Secretary Rumsfeld said, “if we know anything, it is the weakness is provocative.” Cutting defense spending is always a terrible idea. The Chinese are assembling a 21st century military. The United States cannot afford to ever fall behind.

The second lesson is that President Obama’s planned withdrawal from a world at war is dangerous, reckless and inexcusable. The power vacuum an American retreat from the Middle East would create will have disastrous results. It is absolutely not in America’s best interest to cede power to the ChiComs, especially in the tinderbox region that is the Middle East.

The third lesson is that the national debt is a deadly serious issue. The United States cannot continue funding the expansion of the Chinese military. After WWII the entire world was seemingly in debt to the United States. Now the United States is the world’s largest debtor. The United States’ largest creditor is China. At this time it is undeniable that the national debt is a national security threat.

These are serious times that require a strong leader; something Barack Obama is not.

Oliver Stone: Jews Control the Media and the Holocaust was Overrated

Posted on by
21

Oliver Stone has made a living denigrating the United States. Stone’s movies are what Michael Moore would make if he had finished film school. In the world of Oliver Stone, America is always the bad guy. In Wall Street the villain was the free market. Platoon showed that America was no good in Vietnam. JFK was a conspiracy theory in which the highest elements of the United States government killed a beloved president. Stone’s latest flop is a hagiography about Hugo Chavez. Simply put, the man does not like his country.

In an interview this weekend with the Sunday Times, Oliver Stone opined on a number of topics, ranging from Iran and Israel to World War II and Hitler. Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

on Iran:

[Stone] describes America’s attitude to Iran as “horrible”. “Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy” – his incongruously dark eyebrows shoot up – “but we don’t know the full story!”

On his forthcoming 10-part documentary on WWII:

The 10-part documentary [which Stone is planning] will address Stalin and Hitler “in context”, he says. “Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

On the Holocaust/Israel/Jews:

He also seeks to put his [Hitler's] atrocities in proportion: “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30m.”

Why such a focus on the Holocaust then? “The Jewish domination of the media,” he says. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

There you have the warped thinking of a very confused man.

The Left, in both film and academia, have made a concerted effort to denigrate the Allies’ heroic effort in World War II. While to most people it is still evident that the Axis powers were pure, unadulterated evil, and the Allies were the force of freedom in the War, the Left is trying to rewrite that narrative. They claim that segregated forces made the Allies the moral equivalent on the Nazis. According to the Left, the Allies holding colonies was on the same level as Nazi plans for world domination. They equate the living conditions of those in Allied colonies with those of persecuted peoples under the Nazis. The Left can never accept that The United States is the greatest force for good in world history. They have to find a way to ‘prove’ that the United States is really just as bad or worse than the true antagonist in any conflict. It takes quite a stretch to claim that the United States was responsible for Hitler, and that there is more to Hitler than the raving, genocidal lunatic that he was, but rest-assured, Stone will find a way.

Stone’s statements on the Holocaust, Jewish control of the media, and Israel are all deplorable. There is no way to justify claiming that the killing 6 million Jews can be overstated. Oliver Stone’s belief that the organized attempt to eradicate a people from the planet is not all that important in comparison to the rest of the War reveals the sick thoughts that go through his mind. The ‘Holocaust industry’ talking point come strait out of the viciously anti-Semitic Muslim world. Perhaps Stone is immersing himself in the works of Hitler in preparation for his upcoming documentary, as the claim that Jews control the media was an accusation used by the Third Reich. And of course, not anti-Semitic diatribe would be complete without a shot at the ‘all-powerful’ and subversive ‘Israel Lobby.’ Oliver Stone is a crackpot, anti-American, anti-Semitic conspiracy huckster. If the Jews really do control the media, shouldn’t his career be over?

You know it's bad when…

Posted on by
3

…even Iran is criticizing Human Rights violations in Canada.

“The use of various violent tools and ways to counter a peaceful rally is by no means justified. The move by the Canadian government is a blatant breach of basic rights of citizens to freedom of expression,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said on Tuesday.

The spokesperson also warned against the “new and dangerous” approach adopted by Canada toward the civil rights of its citizens, expressing Iran’s profound concern over a lack of life security and a possible violation of rights of those arrested in that country during the last few days.

No Better Time To Visit Arizona

Posted on by
Reply

What more do you need? Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor best known for sleeping with his deputy chief of staff’s wife, suspended all non-essential travel by city employees to Arizona. O horror of horrors! Now the ‘mainstream’ Hispanic group La Raza – The Race – is joining with other leftist groups, calling for a boycott of Arizona. No San Franciscans, few leftists – what a threat.

The only downside is that Arizona does have at least one horrendous sports team – the Phoenix Suns. In a recent playoff game, the Suns wore their alternate jerseys which say “Los Suns,” a move supported by ‘Rev.’ Al Sharpton and B.Hussein Obama, in opposition to the Arizona immigration law. In case there was any doubt as to the motives of the Suns,  the team’s Canadian (and outright communist) point guard, Steve Nash, said:

I think the law is very misguided… I think it’s very important for us to stand up for things we believe in. As a team and as an organization, we have a lot of love and support for all of our fans. The league is very multicultural. We have players from all over the world, and our Latino community here is very strong and important to us.” In another interview, Nash said, “I think that it opens up the potential for racial profiling and racism…I think it represents our state poorly in the eyes of the nation and the world.

The team’s Managing Partner, Robert Sarver, has criticized the immigration law, and ‘noted policy expert,’ former NBA player and Suns General Manager Steve Kerr said “it [the immigration law] rings up images of Nazi Germany.”

It would be nice if any of these people even bothered to read the law before commenting on it. Governor Jan Brewer’s ESPN op-ed is a fantastic refutation of all this nonsense. As anyone who has bothered to read the law knows, it specifically prohibits any form of racial profiling. As for Nash and his “love” of the fans, what does he have to say to the 70% of Arizonans that support the law? Why doesn’t Steve Nash just get a haircut, shut up and play his one dimensional style of basketball?

One more question: Why is the left so eager to boycott Arizona, a move which could hurt local businesses, yet the left refuses to place economic sanctions, or boycott, Iran, in an effort to stop the country’s nuclear program?

Weakness Personified

Posted on by
2

Barack Obama has placed a fluorescent neon “kick me” sign on the United States. It has been the policy of the United States to reserve the right to retaliate to a chemical weapons attack or a crippling cyberattack with a nuclear strike. To those of you who voted for Obama, that is known as a deterrent. In other words, the threat of flattening a city dissuades a country from using chemical weapons or launching a crippling cyberattack against the United States. Welcome to the age of Obama where decisions are made to curry favor with international despots and European losers. The Obama regime’s (H/T el Rushbo) new policy is that the he will only retaliate with a nuclear strike if the United States is hit by a fellow nuclear power. This move invites an attack on the United States.
Sadly, I believe there is another dimension to Obama’s decision. There are currently five declared nuclear states: the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. According to Obama’s new position these are the only countries the United States would consider using nukes on. It is highly unlikely that there would be a scenario in the foreseeable future in which the United States would even consider using nuclear weapons on any of these countries. However, when it comes to Iran some have concluded that the only way to take out the nuclear program is with nuclear weapons. While using nuclear weapons is not in any way a desirable option, it is one that must remain on the table. As I have written about in detail, Obama is willing to accept a nuclear Iran. It would appear as though his new nuclear stance is a further affirmation of the Democrat’s willingness to allow the world’s foremost enabler of international terrorism to acquire the most deadly weapons known to man. Don’t forget that General Petraeus recently told congress that Iran is working with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; Iran has missiles that can already strike Europe. Iran has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” and hosts an annual ‘Holocaust didn’t’ happen’ conference. And there’s that little organization financed by Iran called Hezbollah. Now Iran knows for sure that Obama is not serious about stopping them.

Jimmy Carter II

Posted on by
7

In Ronald Reagan’s autobiography he recounts how the Shah of Iran assured his supporters that Jimmy Carter and the United States would come to the rescue and that there was no need to crack-down on the Islamic terrorists lead by Ayatollah Khomeini. The Shah held that despite all his faults, he had been a loyal ally to the United States. We all know how that ended. Sadly, the pathetic Carter administration let the Shah fall. As a direct result of Jimmy Carter’s criminal incompetence, Iran went from being a strategic ally to the world’s foremost enabler of terrorism. 30 years after the Carter debacle America is plagued with an equally incompetent president: Barack Obama.

In a chilling article in The Australian Greg Sheridan details how Obama has accepted the inevitability of a nuclear Iran. Think about what you have just read. General Petraeus recently explained to congress that Iran is training Taliban leaders and is co-operating with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran is developing a missile program to carry nuclear warheads that can already strike Europe. Mahamoud Ahmadinijad, the Hitler of the Middle East, has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel of the map. He hosts a ‘Holocaust didn’t happen’ conference. He is a fanatic supporter of a splinter death-cult that believes the 12th Imam will be revealed only after the world has descended into widespread chaos. Ahmadinijad went so far as to widen the streets of Tehran in anticipation of the return of the 12 Imam. Taking all of that into account, President Obama has decided that he can accept this country obtaining nuclear weapons.

According to Sheridan, Obama was hell-bent on embarrassing Israel, and specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in order to make it impossible for Israel to act unilaterally in defending herself. From Sheridan’s article:

By so isolating Israel, by irresponsibly unleashing a global wave of anti-Israel sentiment, especially in nations which normally support Israel, Obama has made the possibility of Israel considering unilateral action against Iran much more unlikely. The Israelis would weigh such action very carefully. There are many pluses and minuses. By creating the impression of Israel as a besieged, isolated and reckless nation, which the wildly disproportionate reaction to the East Jerusalem apartments accomplished, Obama has made the potential cost to Israel of action against Iran much greater.

The Obama administration no longer says “all options are on the table.” Instead, Obama touts his “I don’t want to meddle in domestic affairs” line (a courtesy NOT granted to Israel when it came to building in the nation’s capital). Hillary Clinton, the darling of the most recent American Israel Public Affairs Committee, will not mention the military option anymore. Instead, Hillary said “our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite.” However, the Wall Street Journal reported just a week after Secretary Clinton reassured her faithful that “the U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran in order to win Russian and Chinese support for one more U.N. sanctions resolution.” By the time that support arrives there will be a radioactive crater where Israel once was.

Even if, God willing, Obama is replaced by an adult in 2012, his reckless actions in the international sphere will have long-term repercussions. America’s credibility will be shot. Allies, already weary due to the signs of weakness conveyed by the United States, will see that the country let one of her loyalist and most important allies fall in the fruitless and discredited pursuit of appeasement. In December of 2001 Osama Bin Laden said “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” Will anyone consider Barack Obama’s America the stronger horse?

Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter’s second term. Carter began the disaster in Iran and now it appears as though Obama is going to finish the job. Democrats cannot be trusted. They throw loyal allies under the bus and appease the enemies of freedom. This is what the United Sates used to say about appeasement when the adults were still in charge: