What happened in Syria is horrible, but it’s not unique. The world sat idly by when it happened in Syria before – as the bodies piled up in there. Why should this time be any different?
The bombs just flew, so we have politicians and journalists mounting their high horses and patting themselves on their backs for caring and others condemning the action as unlawful. Everyone falls in line behind whatever suits their political needs, and nothing changes.
The world likes to be seen denouncing monsters and their inhuman actions, but it doesn’t like actually doing anything essential about it. President Donald Trump’s “targeted” bombing of the airfield from which the latest chemical attack was launched might stop chemical weapons from being used for a while, but it won’t stop the slaughter in Syria. Does it make any difference to be killed by chemical weapons or by conventional ones?
It makes more sense to say that Trump’s airstrike was merely a politically motivated reaction rather than an act in a meaningful way on matters of the actions of monsters. The target of air strike was Syria & its sponsor terrorist states of IRI and Hezbollah (killing the “chickens”), but the message was intended for China & its client state, North Korea, and the Russia as well (scaring the “Monkeys”).
My hope is that the airstrike would be part of a long-term military strategy for a complete crack down on evil actors in Syria and the rest of the Middle East region including Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and in particular Iran, where the head of the snake (Mullahs) has nested.
President Donald Trump has signaled confidence in his ability to handle foreign policy, promising that the world would be in much better shape in his administration. I trust the new administration to stand firm on his resolution. [DID]
“To kill a chicken to scare monkeys” is a famous Chinese military strategy, and is often attributed to one of the greatest military strategists who ever lived, Sun Tzu, author of the famous treatise, The Art of War. This particular strategy is designed to send a message (often a warning) to powerful enemies by attacking a smaller, weaker power first. I don’t know if Trump, the author of The Art of The Deal, ever read The Art of War, but his surprising air strike on Syria on April 6th, 2017, clearly achieved a similar effect to this ancient strategy.
Many political pundits worried that the air strike is a prelude to the U.S. deepening its involvement in the war with the Assad regime. I think they miss the point. If Trump’s intention is to go to war with Assad, he could have waited until Chinese president Xi left Mar-a-Lago. Instead, he chose to strike Assad on the eve of the much hyped summit with Xi. The timing of the strike didn’t seem like a coincidence. Read more…
Nikki Haley reminds the UN its vital supporting role of human rights in those countries that are violating the civil & constitutional privileges of the people, like Iran.
“If We Can’t Speak on behalf of people whose rights have been violated, then we have no business being here (in UN)” Says Nikki Haley.
Nikki Haley believes that UN is the moral conscience of the world and human rights should be at the heart of its mission and asserts that peace and security are not possible while ignoring the human rights issue.
Nikki Haley is a fresh blood and a strong advocate in signifying the term “HUMAN RIGHTS” to the United Nation. [DID]
General Michael Flynn believed fear of Muslims is rational and during an August 2016 speech has called Islamism “a vicious cancer inside the body of 1.7 billion people on this planet and it has to be excised.” Ideologically his position was in the same direction of the President Trump, who repeatedly criticized his predecessor for not being willing to call the problem of Jihad terror by its right name “radical Islamic terrorism.”
After Flynn was forced to resign from his NSA post, General H.R. McMaster was confirmed to be the new choice for Trump’s National Security Adviser. General McMaster’s understanding of Islamic terrorism is quite opposite to his predecessor’s. In his address, in August 2014, as a featured speaker at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., McMaster described the ongoing fight in Middle East as war against enemies, “including terrorist organizations like Daesh, who cynically use a perverted interpretation of religion to incite hatred and justify horrific cruelty against innocents.” Furthermore he utterly asserted that “The Islamic State is not Islamic.” This pattern is familiar; it has been the official policy of the U.S. government during Obama’s presidency.
Such an early swing in the constituent of the Trump administration suggests its convergence toward becoming aligned with the Republican establishment core values, which supports the same line of appeasement of Islam Obama advocated, i.e., “Islam is a religion of peace”. This exchange in the administration structure contradicts what President Trump has repeatedly declared all along during his election campaign that he considers himself as an anti-establishment candidate. Could all this be an effort initiated by the Washington establishment to derail him from doing what he has promise to do? General McMaster is required to be confirmed by the Senate if he decides to keep his 3-star army ranking while serves in his NSA position. A testify of his understanding of Islamic terrorism should be on the agenda of the Senate qualifying committee. [DID]
President Trump has chosen Lt. General William McMaster as his new National Security Adviser. As a three-star general, McMaster’s appointment will require Senate confirmation, and one hopes that whatever else the Senators ask him, they make sure to examine his understanding of Islamic terrorism. For surely this is the greatest threat not only to American security, but to that of the entire West.
General McMaster has pronounced on the subject of Islamic terrorism twice in the last year, in almost identical language, and what he said suggests that he has missed something important about the ideology of Islam.
In May 2016, in a speech he delivered on “Harbingers of Future War: Implications for the Army” at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, General McMaster referred to “groups like ISIL, who use this irreligious ideology, this perverted interpretation of religion to justify violence. They depend on ignorance, and the ability to recruit vulnerable segments of populations to foment hatred, and then use that hatred to justify violence against innocents.” Read more…
Michael Flynn was appointed by Obama as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2012, he then was forced into early retirement just 2 years later for being critical of the administration’s handling of the Iran deal and terrorism threats generally. On February first, Flynn as President Trump’s top national security advisor officially put Iranian regime on Notice after its missile test. Obama officials and loyalists have all along known Flynn as a serious threat and a tenacious hostile to their Iran deal, they worried he might expose the undisclosed “side deals” attendant to the deal. As a result they started orchestrating the embarrassing leaks on his ties with Russia.
When Flynn was attacked in the mainstream media for his ties to Russia, his staff was not even allowed to review the transcripts of Flynn’s conversation to the Russian ambassador. The transcripts as one White House official acknowledged asserts when Russian ambassador raised the sanctions to Flynn, he responded that the Trump team would be taking office in a few weeks and would review Russia policy and sanctions. That is neither illegal nor improper.
Flynn was not allowed by the White House to defend himself. He was instructed not to speak to the press when he was in the fight for his political life to defend himself. Flynn has been a firsthand witness to government screw-ups, smokescreens, and censored information that our leaders don’t want us to know. In short General Flynn was just thrown under the bus one more time. Right after the publication of the Washington Free Beacon report, the Mullahs’ regime in Iran warns Trump against disclosing secret Iran deal documents. What worries me in all this is whether Trump administration is going to pave the same stepping stone that has been laid out by Washington establishment, from both parties, for almost four decades in dealing with Iran! During presidential election Trump has repeatedly claimed that he will be an anti-establishment President, but we all know that actions speak louder than words. [DID]
The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.
The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.
The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration. Read more…
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who is sincerely embarking on the epic of keeping America safe. He has signed an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, namely Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. These countries are labeled as terrorist states since their governments have been sponsoring act of terrorism across the globe. If the people of these 7 nations have any objection to an immigration law enforced by any country in the world, they should redirect their protest toward their own terrorist governments, who are the main root cause and responsible for such ban.
The order has been criticized for excluding Saudi Arabia, while wrongly claiming it was participating in 911 attack. The fact of matter is that the 911 act of terrorism was carried out by the citizens of Saudi Arabia and not its state. The immigration order was issued without any warning because it was going to ban the terrorists from entering the country, it was not planned to warn them in advance, which would result in a futile outcome. The new immigration law imposed by anti-establishment president Trump is strongly supported by the Americans who love their country and concern about the future of their next generations. [DID]
Within a day of President Donald Trump signing an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, protests sprang up at airports across the United States. Demonstrators and activist groups called the ban unconstitutional, and administration officials scrambled to clarify who would be affected by the new rules.
We went through the order to resolve what is clear and what remains murky.
Who is affected?
The order states, “I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” Specifically, the order targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Read more…
Look who is calling on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Donald Trump!, Obama, the great clumsy Inspector Clouseau of all time foreign policy, this title fits his role in the White House since he has had no sense of what he wanted to do in the world as his foreign policy has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Hey inspector, you are the last person on earth, whom with 8-years record of totally failed policies, the GOP members want to even listen to! Donald Trump responded to Inspector’s call, saying he has been a failed leader who along with secretary HRC created a foreign policy that has destabilized the Middle East, handed Iraq, Libya and Syria to ISIS, allowed our personnel to be slaughtered at Benghazi, made not only the region but the whole world unsafe, and concluded both of them are unfit to be president.
The democratic machine backed by the corrupt DNC, whose conspiracy against Sanders to make him the loser in the Primary election has been exposed by Wikileaks, and the Clouseau administration that are responsible for the last 8 years of failing of not only the U.S. but the whole world in all grounds, cunningly and insidiously are running a fixed election with the support of mercenary Medias to put their pathological liar, an inept slacker, and a dangerous-to-national-security, nominee, the criminal HRC, in the White House. America needs to wake up and stand against the on-going corrupt system to protect the endangered democracy and the will of the people, as they say, “A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves”. Democratic Party and their members under the guidance of the Clouseau administration have become the Muslim ass kissers; they misuse a Pakistani Muslim family in their conventional propaganda to create a bizarre ado about nothing in order to contempt the other Party and its nominee!
I am neither a republican nor a democrat, furthermore personally I am not a fan of Trump but what he said about the Islamic terrorists was in no way disrespect to the Muslim family and their son. However so long as there are American leaders like Inspector Clouseau in the White House and his former Secretary of State, the HRC, who in fact care for Islam more than Muslims themselves (as Persian proverb says,” A bowl which is hotter than the soup”) to the point of undermining the very driving force behind the act of terrorism across the globe, the Islamic ideology, we cannot expect the Islamic societies to unbiasedly confront the issue of Islamic terrorism.
The situation becomes more chaotic when the republican leaders join this coward voice of “Political Correctness” to appease the ideology of Islam and its followers. To those, including Clouseau administration, DNC and its members, and all republicans, who think that these barbarian acts of terror all around the world has nothing to do with Islam, I say “you are burying your heads in the sand”. The core of Islam is founded on Quran, without this book there is no Islam. There are 164 Jihad verses in Quran that are associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians, and Jews, which is what is still in force today and are pursued by Muslims, allegedly radical Islamists. For genuine and authentic Muslims, religion is their everyday policy of life, and their everyday policy of life is nothing other than their religion. This is the point that the followers of “Political Correctness” are undermining.
So, why so much denial and perseverance on using “Political Correctness”? We have to go back to the “nation of sheep and government of wolves” notion to find the truth. It is because the western hegemony wants to accredit the imbecilic nations around the world by putting the Islamic chains around their necks as their slave puppets so that they can abuse their human/civil rights and facilitate plundering their natural wealth. What the puppeteers have undermined all along is the scenario when this “Political Correctness” becomes counterproductive and starts to backfire on them. Hasn’t the backfire already started to ignite?! [DID]
WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama skewered Donald Trump on Tuesday over his criticism of the parents of a Muslim U.S. Army captain killed in Iraq and said the Republican presidential nominee is unfit to succeed him in the White House. Mr. Obama, responding to a question at a news conference, also called on GOP leaders to revoke their endorsements of Mr. Trump rather than simply denounce his comments. “The Republican nominee is unfit to be president,” Mr. Obama said. “He keeps on proving it.
“The notion that he would attack a Gold Star family that made such extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of our country, the fact that he doesn’t appear to have basic knowledge around critical issues in Europe, in the Middle East, in Asia means that he’s woefully unprepared to do this job,” the president added.
In a statement, Mr. Trump linked his opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, to the president’s record. “They have betrayed our security and our workers, and Hillary Clinton has proven herself unfit to serve in any government office,” Mr. Trump said. Read more…
The FBI director James Comey scrapped so many of the talking points that Hillary Clinton has used over and over again throughout her email scandal, including that she never emailed classified material; that information in the emails was classified retroactively; that none of the emails were marked as containing classified information; that there were definitively no security breaches; that she turned over all work-related emails to the State Department; that the set-up was driven by convenience; and that the government was merely conducting “a security review.”
While Clinton ducked a legal bullet that could have been catastrophic to her candidacy, yesterday was neither vindication nor exoneration, and it certainly will not put the matter to rest. Instead, Comey’s declaration that she was “extremely careless” in handling classified material and should have known better will trail her through November. Though the FBI director said “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring a criminal case against Clinton, his nearly 15-minute speech was synonymous to a political indictment. [DID]
With the 571 undemocratic votes of super delegates, yesterday Hillary Clinton was boosted up to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. While in reality she has earned only 2184 democratic pledged delegates, which is 199 votes short from the 2383 votes needed for nomination. Since there is only one primary (DC with 46 delegates) left, which will be held in June 14, none of the democratic candidates would be able to claim the nomination, and as a result the party nomination should be decided in the contested convention. But this is a capitalist country and money plays the main role in almost every aspect of life particularly in any critical decision making concerning politics. The story of super delegate and the undemocratic boosting Hillary to get the unfair nomination is just an example, and like it or not, she is probably going to get even more boosted to be the next U.S. President.
If that happen Hillary would not only fail the presidency but she will also let the country down. Here I explain the rationale behind my statement in case you wonder why that may be the case. Everybody who is seeking a job is judged by his/her resume. Let’s take a glance at Hillary’s resume when she was the Secretary of State. She has had a long history of abusing the public’s trust, on her email scandal she pleaded innocence but nearly every major editorial board in the country questioned Clinton’s motives, noting her long history of secrecy. Her foreign policy record is abysmal, from trying to reset relations with Russia, something she later called a “brilliant stroke” that has been an utter failure, to advocating for a war in Libya that has triggered a crisis in destabilizing the region and resulting floods of refugees to Europe. From Libya to Syria, and to Iran, her foreign policy in the Middle East has been a failure. Office of Inspector General has released a management alert detailing rampant mismanagement within the State Department during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s tenure. The State Department gives away over a billion dollars of taxpayer money annually in grants. The management alert warned that the State Department had mismanaged over $6 billion.
Hillary’s political and family finances have been under scrutiny, in particular her ties to Wall Street as donation sources for her political campaign, public speaking appearances, her foundation, and her family members. Hillary is terrible on domestic policies too. Her policies matches up seamlessly with Obama’s including ensuring China would buy U.S. debt to fund the stimulus, raising taxes on businesses, jobs outsourcing and crowd out domestic industries, opposing new sanction on Iran, and downplaying major issues like Keystone. In short, a Clinton presidency would serve as a third term for Obama. [DID]
And lo, it came to pass: As of last night, Hillary Clinton is officially the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee for President of the United States. Setting aside her party’s elite “super delegate” insurance policy, Clinton has now secured a majority of pledged delegates, which reflect the will of primary voters. And despite falling to Bernie Sanders in a startling 23 nominating contests, the former Secretary of State has attracted roughly 3.7 million more votes than the Vermont Senator nationwide.
The fact that Clinton failed to clear this hurdle until the very last day of balloting underscores her profound weakness as a candidate. She enters the general election stage of the campaign as one of the most disliked and distrusted political figures in America, and one of the least popular presidential nominees of all time. Despite his even uglier public image and endless parade of divisiveness and insults, the Republican nominee-in-waiting only trails her by an average of two percentage points at this stage of the race, inside the margin of error. Several weeks ago, a Democratic operative basked in the afterglow of Donald Trump’s effective nomination victory, crowing on Fox News that the GOP had selected “exactly the candidate they deserve.” Ironically, both Trump’s strong backers and detractors on the right would likely agree with this statement, albeit for different reasons. This week, the same formulation applies to the Democrats. They’ve chosen the corrupt, opaque, power hungry, self-serving, aloof, greedy, politically soulless, congenital liar they so richly deserve. Read more…
If you are searching for an undemocratic election in the world, you don’t have to go to a third-world-nation country in Africa or to a theocratic State in Middle East such as the apocalyptic Mullahs’ regime in Iran to find one. You just need to look into the process of the U.S. presidential election. The election is structured through pledged delegates that outwardly delivers based on the grassroots votes, but next to it there is Super-Pacs-Super-Delegates system that literally has the power to shape the election outcome for the benefit of the top 1% wealthy. In plain English, Super Pacs work as lobby mediators between the wealthy that own and control the corporations and the party Super Delegates whose unbound votes determines the fate of the candidates. Strictly speaking, the political election is run by the rich investors and corporate owners, they are the ones who buy the votes and accordingly appoint the political authorities from reps and senators to governors and presidents. Based on 2015 American Values Survey, 64% Americans believe their vote does not matter because of the influence that wealthy individuals and big corporations have on the electoral process.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a contributor to Vanity Fair writes “Virtually all U.S. Senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift — through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price — it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.” Read more…
The problem is the misunderstanding the definition of Muslim. A Muslim is the one who does the deeds instructed by Quran. The Western Medias and the political correctness have divided Muslims into two categories: Radical Muslims and Moderate Muslims, because they are paid by interest groups like Oil and Banks Cartels to do that. However in reality, there is no such group as Moderate Muslims but they are the ones who have followed the path they inherited from their parents. These groups never showed interest to open their Quran to see what is really written in there. Over time the habit of this lack of interest of theirs to open the book has turned into a superstitious fear of doing so. The extent of their knowledge about Quran and Islam has sufficed to what has been transferred to them by the parenthood and what they hear from religious leaders. Their only contact with Quran comes along when they need to pray, in which they hold the closed book with their both washed hands while bowing and kissing the tome, a sign of respect for the book, proceeded by expressing their prayers.
So when we hear about the term “Moderated Muslims”, we have to realize that these passive groups are naive about Islam and have no clue what really Islam is all about, their concepts of Islam do not go beyond the impression “Islam is a religion of peace” their parents have had from Islam. For this reason I don’t call them Muslims at all, they are some group who unknowingly lost in whatever they are blindly pursuing as Islam. They and Their parents never did open the Quran to get its real message!
Therefore, when we talk about Muslims, we actually talk about those who believe in Islam by really making time to read and follow the instructions given in Quran. These groups know that there are 164 Jihad Verses in the Quran, because they have reviewed the Quran. They know that there were 3 stages during the evolution of Islam, stage one in Mecca, in which there was no retaliation, stage two in Medina that were along with defensive fighting, and stage three after conquering Mecca that were associated with the offensive war commanded to kill the pagans and humble, the Christians and Jews. In this last stage of Quran evolution, aggressive Jihad against all unbelievers is commanded and since this is the final teaching of the Quran regarding Jihad, it is what is still in force today. This last stage of developmental process of Islam is exactly the Quran Instruction the Muslims, allegedly radical, are pursuing today as part of their Jihad against infidels. In short there are no Moderate Islam and Radical Islam; there is just one Islam, which is Radical. [DID]
After winning four pivotal presidential primaries on April 26, Hillary Clinton drew a line between “hard working, terror-hating Muslims” and (Muslim) terrorists.
In front of a raucous audience of supporters in Philadelphia, Clinton – the presumptive presidential candidate for the Democratic Party – only made mention of Muslims in relation to terrorism, and reaffirmed the mythic “good versus bad” Muslim paradigm.
Muslim Americans were either “terror-hating” or terrorists, slotted into one of these two caricatured categories with no space in between, or existential affiliation beyond.
Video Clip: UpFront – Muslim Americans and US liberal values
The ‘good Muslim’Within the broader context of counter-radicalization policing, whereby local law enforcement monitor Muslim spaces through electronic surveillance and the seeding of informants, Clinton’s rhetoric presented Muslim Americans with an already familiar, yet never more threatening, ultimatum: choose the moderate brand of “terror-hating” Muslim identity sanctioned by the state, or be branded with the suspicion that invites its scrutiny, surveillance, and civil liberties infractions.
Much ink, many film reels, and an infinite number of news headlines have focused on bad Muslims.
From terrorists to dictators, foreign transgressors to fabricated threats, Muslim identity is marred by almost every imaginable negative stereotype and menacing trope. Representations of good Muslims, in every medium, are few and far between. Read more…
There is no argument about the Obama’s foreign policy that has not been leading anywhere but nowhere. Nonetheless when it comes to Iran, history shows this matter is apart from any presidency decision at a time, rather it is embedded within the long term policy of the U.S. governance system. This is because Iran has always been a critical point of geopolitical interest for the United States.
During the cold war era, as a resolution to stop the expansion of communism in the Middle East, U.S. along with its European allies, in a Conference in France in January 1979, came to conclusion to establish a green belt under the Soviet Union border by promoting and supporting the anti-atheist Islamic theocrats to take over the government in Iran. Since then the Mullahs’ regime has shown its extreme domestic and global atrocities in at least three fronts, act and support of terrorism, meddling in neighboring countries, and grave human rights violation against its own people.
During the past almost four decades, six U.S. presidents have been the bystanders of the regime’s shocking security threats across the region and the globe and yet not a single countermeasure against it has been instituted. Over time it has become more evident that such inaction and indifference of U.S. presidents has nothing to do with any individual U.S. government’s lack of will in responding to these unprecedented threats but has emanated in long term U.S. policies, which sought strategies far into future. These long term policies, per domestic and global necessities, are usually modified or changed over the course of a decade or so and has little to do with a single U.S. government’s dogma at a time.
About four decades of appeasing Iran policy has been carried out by six U.S. presidents. Regardless of the Iranian grassroots discontent, they have made all the supportive efforts they could to keep the mullahs’ regime well and alive. Why?, because firstly, the neocolonialism loves to deal with imbecilic Islamic mullahs whom at the very least, per their Sharia among other things, are against the nationalism, a key-code and an invitation card for an easy foreign aggression. And secondly, the apocalyptic IRI regime can easily be used as a wrecking ball to do the U.S. dirty job of destroying the region. How long this policy will continue? is it going to change at all? if so, when? All the evidence suggests that for no less than another term of the U.S. presidency, regardless of whoever is the next U.S. president, the ongoing chaos in Middle East is not only going to continue but will spread all over the region in general and to Iran in particular. Remember this is part of the long-term U.S. geopolitical strategy in the Middle East, which tends to change the current regional borders once established by the Sykes–Picot agreement, exactly a century ago. [DID]
At least now the betrayal is out in the open.
For years, Syria’s revolutionaries have suspected America’s lack of meaningful support for their uprising against dictator Bashar al-Assad was tied to President Barack Obama’s desire to re-engage with Iran.
Iran is Assad’s primary patron (though Russia, which has been bombing on his behalf since September, is a close second). Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are fighting in Syria, as are soldiers of Iran’s proxy Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, along with Shia irregulars from Afghanistan and Iraq whose passage to Syria Iran facilitates.
Defeat for Assad held the prospect of dramatically weakening Iran’s influence in the Middle East, a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy for decades—until Obama changed it.
In a remarkable New York Times Magazine profile, Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security advisor for strategic communications, does not explicitly link Obama’s abandonment of Syria with Washington’s outreach to Iran, but he frames the importance Obama placed on rapprochement with Iran in a way that makes it difficult to avoid concluding the two were connected. Read more…