This is not a new issue on ambiguity of Obama’s programs and policies. In 2012 under a secret military program a group of allegedly moderate rebels were given soldierly training by Pentagon. The group was then sent to the battleground in Syria, soon after which it became evident that the cluster has joined the radical Islamic terrorists. Now again Obama administration has assured the public that they are working with vetted moderates in Syria, while in fact those moderates has ended up to be part of the Al Qaeda militia. Either the administration lies to people about their genuine training programs for Syrian rebels, like everything else, or their military preparation plans are inept. Common sense goes for the former, which is an indication of a larger US strategy embedded within its long-term geopolitics interests and its new world order concept in the region. As preparatory part of this strategy however it is required to inflict the Middle East to be plowed by its local actors, and that’s exactly what is happening now. [DID]
Pentagon-trained rebels in Syria are reported to have betrayed their American backers and handed their weapons over to al-Qaeda in Syria immediately after re-entering the country.
Fighters with Division 30, the “moderate” rebel division favoured by the United States, surrendered to the al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra, a raft of sources claimed on Monday night.
Division 30 was the first faction whose fighters graduated from a US-led training programme in Turkey which aims to forge a force on the ground in Syria to fight against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).
A statement on Twitter by a man calling himself Abu Fahd al-Tunisi, a member of al-Qaeda’s local affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, read: “A strong slap for America… the new group from Division 30 that entered yesterday hands over all of its weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra after being granted safe passage. Read more…
Releasing billions of dollars to the Iranian Mullahs will not only increase their funding of terrorist activities in the Middle East and beyond, but more importantly the resulting political instability will exacerbate the human migration tragedy that is taking place today. Obama is looking like a tragically weak game theorist. He thinks that he can achieve successful outcomes in international affairs by using all carrots and no sticks. It won’t work against enemies who are prepared to use both. Unless he rethinks his self-imposed limits on the use of force, the bill for his mismanagement will come due, and everyone will pay the price—during his term and beyond. [DID]
Sunday, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Yukiya Amano, arrived in Iran for talks on the nuclear agreement, as part of what appears to be an attempt by the UN nuclear watchdog to evaluate whether Iran ran a military nuclear program in the past.
Amano is expected to meet with various Iranian nuclear scientists for answers on this very subject. On December 15, ahead of the lifting of crippling economic sanctions on Tehran, he is slated to present the world with definitive answers that will determine whether Iran complied with the terms of a nuclear deal signed on July 15. But the Islamic Republic is not waiting for a green light from Amano or the international community, and is working under the assumption that the sanctions will be lifted.
Since the deal was signed, Iran has significantly increased its financial support for two of the largest terror groups in the region that have become political players, Hamas and Hezbollah. In the years before the deal was signed, the crippling sanctions limited this support, which had significantly diminished along with Iran’s economy. But Tehran’s belief that tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars will flow into the country in the coming years as a result of sanctions relief has led to a decision to boost the cash flow to these terror organizations. Read more…
The problem is with the lobbyists’ financial support of the federal government and its influence on the federal systems’ adopted policies. Elections in United States including Presidential, Congressional, and Supreme Court, are all counted on the financial supports by different groups of business controlling market. Moreover, the post-election monetary contributions are continued in almost all branches of the federal system from executive, to legislative, and judicial, which play a detrimental role in their enacted policies. This article, for instance, states that Boeing Company has been a major GOP and Democrat donor; it has provided annual financial allocations to various congressional leaderships and committees. The GOP congressional recipients of these funds in turn consider favoritism in their course of action to make sure the funds will not stopped coming in for the next year, and hence they pave the way for Obama to be authorized to lift the sanctions against Iran. And of course Boeing stands to reap huge money from Obama’s lifting of the sanctions by selling aircrafts to Mullahs.
As long as the lobbyists’ monetary influences in the federal elections and systems’ functions are not stopped, the US government won’t be able to adopt policies in favor of real interests of the people of America and the world. [DID]
Why on earth would Republicans do that?” That is a question I’ve been asked at least a dozen times since illustrating that the GOP has played a cynical game in connection with President Obama’s Iran deal. “Follow the money” is a common answer to questions about political motivation. It may not explain everything in this case, but it is certainly relevant.
This spring, Republican leadership colluded with the White House and congressional Democrats to enact a law — the Corker-Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act — that guaranteed Obama would be authorized to lift sanctions against Iran (the main objective of the terrorist regime in Tehran). The rigged law authorized Obama to lift sanctions as long as Republicans could not pass a resolution of disapproval. As Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker, and other GOP leaders well knew, there was no way they would ever be able to enact a disapproval resolution over Obama’s veto. But the process choreographed by Corker-Cardin meant they would be able to complain about the deal and vote to disapprove it — thereby creating the impression that they were staunchly against the lifting of sanctions that they had already authorized. Read more…
Obama’s legacy of disaster will prevail when his Iran deal starts reaping malicious crop and the theocratic regime surprises the world with its nuclear proliferation gift among the Islamic proxies. The terrorist Mullahs will teach US a resentful lesson to remember for decades to come that it should never trust rogue states, in particular those whose despotic rulers wish its people harm. The bitter tragedy is that the resulting burden of the Obama’s foreign policy of eight years passivity and appeasement in dealing with repressive regimes will be extended over the shoulder of the next US president. It is hoped that the next coming president is the one who believes in the democracy advocacy of America and has the capacity and tenacious dedication to stand up against adversaries and oppressive regimes. [DID]
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) said on Tuesday night that President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran prioritizes his quest for a personal legacy above the nation’s needs. “Obama’s disregard for the treaty process is the height of hubris,” Cotton said, according to The Washington Free Beacon.
“He mistook his desire for a legacy for a vital national interest,” he added. “It [is] bad precedent to allow a nuclear arms control agreement with a sworn enemy to go into effect without even a bare majority of support.” Cotton’s remarks follow the Senate’s second vote against a resolution disapproving of Obama’s historic pact with Iran. Read more…
America, with an accumulation of rejected supplications behind it and a strategy of “leading from behind”, has become a hapless bystander nation in the world, cloaked in passivity, paralyzed with indecision. The “Obama doctrine” of ignoring oppositions in rogue states and outstretching-hand policy to engage adversaries, who cling to power through corruption, deceit and the silencing of dissent, has been a failed proposition posing as a strategy.
In Foreign Policy timing is everything, which is why the passivity and indecision the Administration has exhibited from the beginning is so damaging. Lacking any guiding strategy in dealing with situations that can perpetually get worsened, raises the costs and reduces the benefits of belated action.
Success requires leadership, the capacity to inspire and persuade—and sometimes to coerce. Senator Marco Rubio, the 2016 presidential candidate, believes in the democracy advocacy of America within the global communities. This is what he says and has faith in “Our devotion to the spread of human rights and liberal democratic principles has been a part of the fabric of our country since its founding and a beacon of hope for so many oppressed peoples around the globe. …. .” [DID]
My Vision for U.S. Foreign Policy by Senator Marco Rubio
America’s status as the greatest and most influential nation on earth comes with certain inescapable realities. Among these are an abundance of enemies wishing to undermine us, numerous allies dependent on our strength and constancy, and the burden of knowing that every choice we make in exercising our power—even when we choose not to exercise it at all—has tremendous human and geopolitical consequences.
This has been true for at least 70 years, but never more so than today. As the world has grown more interconnected, American leadership has grown more critical to maintaining global order and defending our people’s interests, and as our economy has turned from national to international, domestic policy and foreign policy have become inseparable.
President Barack Obama has failed to recognize this. He entered office believing the United States was too engaged in too many places and that globalization had diminished the need for American power. He set to work peeling back the protective cover of American influence, stranding our allies, and deferring to the whims of nefarious regional powers. He has vacillated between leading recklessly and not leading at all, which has left the world more dangerous and America’s interests less secure. Read more…
Carly Fiorina said she would not talk to Vladimir Putin because “the only way he will stop is to sense strength and resolve on the other side.” Fiorina repeatedly delivered clear, crisp, bullet-pointed answers to questions about policy—showing up her rivals, who tended to speak in more sweeping generalities. Her “plan” for Iran involved bringing the rest of the world back around to reinstituting a stronger-sanctions regime against the Mullahs in Tehran. You go Lady. Senator Rubio, a fresh blood and lots of brilliant ideas, who blames Obama for the US global failure due to his inability to lead and disengagement, he pledges to rebuild America to fulfill its potential, you go Senator. [DID]
For the second debate in a row, Fiorina was once again the breakout star of the night, taking on Republican front-runner Donald Trump with finesse and capturing the crowd with polished, zinging answers and an impassioned charge against abortion. Fiorina earned perhaps the biggest applause of the night as she skewered Planned Parenthood.
CNN’s Jake Tapper provided the opening. “In an interview last week in Rolling Stone magazine, Donald Trump said the following about you. Quote, ‘Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?’ Mr. Trump later said he was talking about your persona, not your appearance. Please feel free to respond what you think about his persona.”
Fiorina didn’t flinch. “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”
Then Fiorina did something unusual for a candidate on a debate stage. She went silent. She let her seconds tick away. And the cheers rocked the auditorium. Read more…
The paid lobbyists of IRI reformers have been busy lobbying political officials and lawmakers in foreign states to clean up the mullahs’ messes by presenting to them showcases of fabricated data on IRI’s records in favor of the regime for undermining its committed crimes, sponsorship of terrorism, nuclear threats, and also to promote the cause for the reform of the Islamic regime. These IRI lobbyists have ties to U.S. lawmakers and have infiltrated the White House, Congress, the State Department, and the main decision making centers of the US government. They have managed to influence and shape the U.S. government policy towards Islamic regime in Iran in favor of the IRI reformers, who are part of the regime. The question is why are the bureaucracies in Washington partnering with IRI lobbyists and the IRI reformers and not with the democracy promoting political forces of Iran? The answer may be embedded in the fact that Barack Hussein in the White House is a Muslim and an effective Islam promoter in the world! After all he bowed to Saudi king, supported Mohamed Morsi of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and lastly he has stretched his hand to terrorist mullahs in Iran. [DID]
When the world’s major powers struck a deal over Iran’s nuclear program in Vienna in July, it represented a victory not just for the Islamic Republic, which has now been granted international legitimacy as a nuclear threshold state, but also for a small but increasingly influential lobby in America, one which has long sought rapprochement between Washington and Tehran and now seeks to leverage a successfully concluded nuclear deal as a means to that end.
This Iran lobby, publicly represented by the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), has become a staunch institutional ally of the White House selling the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the nuclear deal is known. But while NIAC has done the heavy-lifting—the ad-buying, the leafleting, and congressional meet-and-greets, all designed to sell lawmakers on the Iran deal—its political efforts also underwrite the economic interests of one very well connected but low-profile Iranian family, the Namazis, who played a key role as intellectual architects of NIAC. Read more…
Iran deal is a virtual contract under which US is hiring mullahs to plow the whole Middle East, a geopolitical task to redraw the regional map that Uncle Sam couldn’t pursue on its own for three reasons: first, lack of public support for war; second, economic downturn, and finally deficit of effective leadership in the White House. [DID]
‘We couldn’t have negotiated a better deal.” That is one of the two pillars of the Obama administration’s argument in favor of its nuclear arrangement with Iran, the other being, “there’s no alternative but war.” Those two propositions appear to have won the day—at least with enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a vote disapproving of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The Iran deal remains deeply unpopular with the American public and with the Republican majority in Congress.
Over the past few months, the two propositions regarding the deal left opponents sputtering a catalog of its numerous defects. But it must be admitted that the first proposition—“we couldn’t have negotiated a better deal”—is contextually true.
Consider who the “we” are. President Obama, the deal’s principal proponent, has repeatedly refused to recognize the existence of Islamist radicalism and failed to enforce even his own red line against Bashar Assad’s use of poison gas in Syria. Read more…
The following memo was submitted to all the democratic members of US Senate on an individual contact basis.
Dear Congressman, Do you know that your hands are soaked with the Americans’ blood if you endorse the Iran nuclear deal. You probably ask “How is that?”, Here is why: The IRI regime has been killing Americans since it came to power in 1979, just look at the following list,
- In 1983 the suicide bombing of U.S. military barracks in Beirut executed by the Islamic Jihad Organization, an Iranian regime’s terror proxy, left 299 Americans dead.
- The Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 carried out by IRI-supported groups of Hezbollah resulted in death of 19 U.S. service men.
- 60% of all American combat casualties in Iraq have been caused by IRI-made IEDs.
- 50% of combat casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IRI-made IEDs.
- The footprint of IRI’s terrorism in America has become more apparent when the U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks
Imagine different gangs in a suburb of a city get into a severe fight against each other, in this fight the citizens of the suburb get hurt and forced to leave the battle field. The authority in the city instead of going after the gangs and arrest them, they actually cave in to the gangs and let them fight against each other. Moreover the city establishment on one hand provides lodging and food for the displaced people and on other hand makes arms available at the gangs’ disposal to agitate the ongoing fight.
This scenario is exactly similar to what is happening in the Middle and Near East and in particular in Syria for the last few years, the war continues among dictator Asad’s forces, different rural, sectional, and religious fanatics, inevitably forcing people to move out of the country. The free world provides the refugees with lodging and food on one hand, but delivers arms, through their local state actors, to the sectarians on the other hand, which agitates the local conflict into a regional war. In other word, the free world endorses the ongoing war in the region.
The haunting image of a small boy lying face down in the sand reflects the horrible story of human tragedy, but where the blame goes to? The greedy corrupted traffickers?, ISIS?, the cold-hearted killer Assad, or its blood sucker saver IRI regime? maybe none of them, because they are the wicked symbols of our civilization, and they continue to exist as long as they don’t see any accountability for their heinous acts. So who gets to be blamed for this human tragedy? Three possible scenarios can be looked into:
- Have you ever thought about why the western leaders who once fought hard and harsh against communism expansion, now they have become the appeasers and cave in to radical Islamists and show no resistance to the spread of the brutal religious war. Why instead of doing a root-cause analysis in order to locate the origin of the mayhem to rectify it, they become advocates of the chaos to continue. The justification for such behavior has root in the structure of capitalism, the former could endanger the fate of private enterprise, but the latter can actually promote it. (i.e., selling arms to radicals, annihilation of the young force and intellects in a 3rd world nation makes its society fit for foreign exploitation, destruction of the urban development in those nations provides future investment opportunities for the westerners, etc.)
- The geopolitics of the free world dictates the dissolution, by the hands of the sectarians and dictator heads of local states, of the old colonial borders drawn by Sykes-Picot, the 1916 secret agreement between Britain and France, which contributes to the end of territories known as Middle and Near East, but also the emergence of new fault lines.
- The absence of leaders bothered by their conscience and the lack of effective response options has sapped the will of free world governments in responding to these unprecedented crimes against humanity.
In any of these 3 possible scenarios the free-world leaders are responsible since they are the guardians of democracy on our earth; they are the ones who must have a role in shaping the society of mankind toward betterment. Their negligence on this vital humanity issue must be questioned and hold accountable. [DID]
The pictures show a small boy lying face down in the sand on a Turkish beach as an official stands over him. The child, who is thought to be Syrian, has drowned in an apparent attempt to flee the war ravaging his country. They are extraordinary images and serve as a stark reminder that, as European leaders increasingly try to prevent refugees and migrants from settling in the continent, more and more refugees are dying in their desperation to flee persecution and reach safety.
It was decided to publish these images because, among the often glib words about the “ongoing migrant crisis”, it is all too easy to forget the reality of the desperate situation facing many refugees. Read more…