Category Archives: Obama

#Iran: After Obama gives them the Bomb

 Obama has now created a worst-case scenario in the Middle East, by covering up Iran’s nuclear development for six years, while swearing up and down it would never happen. The media has finally admitted that the mullahs don’t even need to purify uranium with centrifuges; it can be done by a laser process that could be hidden anywhere in the world.

Admiral James Lyons (USN, ret) has publicly accused this administration of allowing Muslim Brotherhood penetration of our intelligence agencies. Admiral Lyons’ statement should be read carefully by anyone interested in U.S. national security, in this new age of nuclear danger. There is no question that Democrat presidents are receiving vast sums of money from secret foreign sources. Hillary has bluntly refused to talk about it.

If elected, Hillary will continue the Obama policy of nuclear surrender because she was, after all, secretary of state while the nuclear disinformation operation was perpetrated. While these offenses should lead to impeachment, we know that the leftist political-media class will not allow that to happen. The United States has therefore been set back to the most unstable time of the nuclear age: The time when Stalin exploded his first bombs.

obama nukes

America’s betrayal of its allies is already setting off a nuclear arms race among nations most threatened by Iranian aggression, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Israel has an advanced nuclear and missile program, with improving anti-missile defenses. However, no current defensive system is foolproof.

As Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out in a Bill Maher interview several years ago, the mullahs are not like the Soviet Union: They are fanatical advocates of martyrdom war. All the Muslim war sects use suicide tactics, as we should have known after 9/11/01. Dying to go to heaven is right up their alley. This is therefore a different kind of nuclear threat from any we have faced before. The logic of mutually assured destruction doesn’t apply any more. Armageddon fits right into their wet dreams.

None of our defense doctrines fit the new scenario. George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003 precisely to preempt what was considered a nuclearizing rogue regime, Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Saddam had his own generals convinced that he had WMDs, and major Western intelligence agencies were convinced. Saddam’s poison gas weapons were smuggled by the Russians into Syria before the U.S. invasion. Saddam had uranium ore, but his program was not nearly as advanced as Iran and North Korea are today. Bush didn’t lie about his belief in Saddam’s WMDs. He simply said what he was told by the CIA and allied intelligence agencies. They were all wrong, as they historically have been.

Bush was hung out to dry by our leftist media, and as a result, no American president is likely to try preemptive action against Iran and other nuclear rogues.

A new alliance is emerging among the threatened nations, including Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Iran has conducted a very aggressive campaign against its self-proclaimed enemies, effectively taking over Lebanon, parts of Syria, and Iraq. They recently threatened to invade Jordan. Their aggression against Saudi Arabia goes back to 1979 and Khomeini himself. Iran has recently staged a successful revolt in Yemen, which controls the maritime chokepoint of the Red Sea, just as Iran also threatens the chokepoint of the Gulf, the Straits of Hormuz.

Obama’s response to Iran’s increasing threat to forty percent of the world’s oil supply has been weak and vacillating, as usual. A U.S. carrier group led by the George Washington has been sent to show the flag near Yemen, but the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth, as usual. The Saudis and its Arab allies have bombed Yemen, but they lack the manpower to be effective. The Saudis have apparently used Al Qaida to stage some suicide bombings against Iran’s proxy tribe, the Houthis. As far as we can tell, the strategic chokepoint of Aden is lost to Iran.

Iran’s troops and proxy troops are fighting in Syria, with at least one incident near the northern border of Israel.


Obama’s current story is that Iran should be allowed to become a “regional power,” but Obama can never be believed. A radical Muslim regime with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles is a global power.

This series of strategic catastrophes is completely attributable to Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the influence of the Carter/Brzezinski foreign policy lobby. All three have been lavishly funded by radical Muslim regimes, including the Saudis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran. Our foreign policy is for sale, and the result has been catastrophic.

Obama wanted to reverse the West’s victory in the Cold War. With the collusion of radical leftists in our institutions, as well as the European Union, he has done so. Europe has been massively infiltrated by Muslim immigration, commanded by the unelected but corrupt bureaucracy of the EU. If Obama and Hillary have their way, the same massive infiltration will expand here.

All this reflects a major long-term Leftist-Islamist alliance, both in Europe and the U.S. Nothing else can explain decades of suicidal immigration policies in Europe, which are still enforced by the unelected ruling class of the EU, and with the Obama administration, it is being copied here. Obama now claims that the United Nations can approve the fictional Iranian nuclear agreement instead of the U.S. Senate. Obama is who he is.

One great puzzle is the apparent collusion by Russia and China in Iran’s nuclear program. Russian intelligence has long penetrated the West, and under Putin it has gone back to that game. We know that China “persuaded” the Clinton administration to sell missile launching secrets to China by reclassifying a highly secret technology as non-secret.

But Russia and China are just as threatened by Iranian nukes and missiles as we are. They are therefore taking an enormous gamble with their own security — after all, both have centuries of experience with Muslim invasions. Russia is only an hour’s airplane flight from Iran.

Obama’s “community organizer” strategy is to destroy existing pillars of stability with the aim of Obama himself rearranging the pieces afterwards. That was the aim of the “Arab Spring” campaign, and countries like Libya, Egypt, and Syria are still trying to recover from that disaster. Obama has done the same thing with the threat of a nuclear Iran, with malice aforethought.

I believe that Obama wants to go out in glory by imposing a coercive “settlement” on Israel, to compel it to retreat to indefensible borders — the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence. Given Obama’s endless grandiosity, he may start a campaign for worldwide nuclear disarmament, which would force the United States and Israel to give up their (purely defensive) nuclear weapons.

legacy 5

An Obama “solution” would make no distinction between aggressive and last-ditch defensive use of nukes. It would pretend to have intrusive inspections in every nuclear-armed nation. It would appeal enormously to the wishful socialist masses who dream of world government by all the nice people. It would undermine national sovereignty and security wherever possible. It would impose worldwide taxes, and play poor nations against prosperous ones to empower the ruling classes. It would make Obama glorious wherever suckers can be found. It would meet the goals of the two most greedy imperialisms today: Obama’s radical Leftism and jihadist Islam.

Needless to say, such a dream treaty would be unenforceable, just as the Iranian “agreement” is unenforceable. It would reward the martyrdom fanatics and the cheaters. It would make the biggest armies the most powerful, including the Russians and Chinese. The U.S. saved Europe from Soviet aggression only by possessing nuclear weapons; the West never had conventional forces remotely adequate to defeat Soviet tank divisions.

Grandiose Napoleonic dreams are usually defeated by reality, and reality is the one thing Obama can’t control. Unconventional warfare is bound to grow even faster when all nations feel threatened, particularly electronic warfare, and in the future, even advanced biochemical warfare.

The nuclear balance of terror served to stabilize the world for six decades. Obama has broken the balance, and the result will not be universal peace and love.

Help Yemen? For Obama, Iran Détente Always Wins

obama 15

When Americans heard on Monday that the United States had diverted two capital ships from their stations in the Persian Gulf to new positions off of Yemen, it sounded as if the Obama administration was finally displaying signs of getting tough with Iran. The movement of the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and the Normandy, a missile cruiser, was, the Pentagon said, an effort to enforce a blockade of the coast of that war-torn country so as to prevent Iran from delivering weapons to the Houthi rebels. The move seemed to indicate that American policy was torn between two goals: engagement with Iran via concessions on their nuclear program versus the need to stop the Islamist regime’s terrorist auxiliaries from toppling governments as part of Tehran’s effort to achieve regional hegemony. But yesterday, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf poured a bucket of cold water on any hopes that the administration was wising up when she said the U.S. ships were only in the area, “to ensure the shipping lanes remain safe” and not to intercept an Iranian arms convoy heading to the Houthis. So much for getting tough with Iran.

What’s going on here? Not for the first time during the Obama presidency, the State Department and the Pentagon seem to be sending conflicting messages.

The Pentagon told reporters that the ships sent to the waters off Yemen were conducting “manned reconnaissance” of the Iranian arms convoy, which would seem to indicate that the Navy was prepared to halt the effort to resupply the Houthis in their effort to fend off the Saudi and Egyptian-backed effort to stop their takeover of Yemen. But the State Department was sending the opposite message with their talk of defending freedom of the seas.

Any mystery about which of the two departments was correct was resolved by White House spokesman Josh Earnest who backed State’s interpretation of events by using the same language about protecting commerce.

Let’s be clear here. U.S. ships have been in the region for decades to protect the freedom of the seas primarily from Iranian threats to interfere with shipping in the Persian Gulf. But the presence of Iranian vessels off Yemen is about something else. The only point to sending American warships there is to put a halt to Iran’s efforts to replace Yemen’s government with one beholden to Tehran. If the Roosevelt and the Normandy aren’t going to stop the Iranian arms convoy then the move was nothing more than a transparent bluff and one that is unlikely to impress the ayatollahs as they push the envelope seeking to test American resolve.

While Earnest said that the U.S. was interested in tracking arms shipments to the Houthis, the problem for the coalition fighting these Iranian allies isn’t so much intelligence about Tehran’s efforts as it is the need to actually stop them. Perhaps the administration hoped the mere presence of a powerful U.S. flotilla in the area would cause the Iranians to turn back. But by making it clear that U.S. forces won’t directly interfere with them, why should we expect that to happen?

Yemen is where two U.S. strategies came into direct conflict with each other. Washington doesn’t want Iran’s friends to take over Yemen. But it also is desperate to do nothing that would upset the Iranians and cause them to walk away from a weak nuclear deal that President Obama believes will be a legacy-making achievement. With the apparent order to U.S. ships off Yemen to stand down from any effort to halt the Iranian convoy, the president is indicating that the nuclear deal takes precedence over any other American goal.

This is just one more indication that the primary goal of the nuclear negotiations is not so much to stop Iran from getting a bomb as it is to create a new era of détente with the Islamist regime. By making concession after concession to Iran on its right to enrich uranium and to keep its nuclear infrastructure without intrusive inspections, the president has jettisoned the West’s economic and political leverage over Tehran in favor of a belief that good relations with it is the primary objective of U.S. policy in the region. He is not about to waste years of ardent pursuit of the Iranians at the price of every position he pledged to defend on the nuclear issue merely in order to stabilize Yemen. Nor is he inclined to order military action in the waters off of Yemen merely to placate the Saudis and Egyptians who view the Iranian-backed Houthis as a threat to regional security.

This episode also ought to inform our expectations about the final phase of negotiations with Iran as the nuclear deal is finalized in the next two months. Though the U.S. opposes Iran’s intervention in Yemen, the victory of the State Department over the Pentagon on the use of the Navy illustrates that nothing will be allowed to derail the new entente with Iran that Obama so values. This will give the Iranians all the confidence they need to stand firm on every outstanding issue, including inspections, transparency about their military research, and the disposition of their stockpile of nuclear fuel.

This is good news for the Islamist regime and very bad news for America’s allies in the region that hoped that President Obama wouldn’t abandon them even as he sought a nuclear deal.