Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Ben Rhodes’

Obama Officials & Loyalists Torpedoed General Flynn to Protect Iran Deal

February 16, 2017 Leave a comment

mike-flynn

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…

Advertisements

Why Choosing Iran over Syria is a Moral and Strategic Failure for Obama

May 22, 2016 Leave a comment

ObamaSyriaIran

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…

OBAMA TO OUTLINE CASE FOR A LIMITED FOREIGN POLICY

May 27, 2014 Leave a comment

 

6a00d8341c60bf53ef011570bd1273970b-500wi

Obama has no sense of what he wants to do in the world; he wants to have as little as possible to do with it until he gets out of office. As Syria showed, while he might want to leave the world alone, the world doesn’t seem to feel the same way about the United States. As for Iran, while the administration thinks it has bought six months of “wait and see,” the reality is that, when the clock stops ticking, the West will be no more confident it can shut down the Mullahs’ nuclear program than it is now. His vision of a low-risk and run-out-the-clock strategy made him incapable to stop Russia from annexing Crimea. It’s hard to see that Obama’s foreign policy leading anywhere but nowhere. This is a suggestion for him by some folks: There is just too much time left in office to coast till the end, pack up the Nobel Prize, and move back to Hawaii. [DID]

Confronting critics of his foreign policy, President Barack Obama will soon outline a strategy for his final years in office that aims to avoid overreach as the second of the two wars he inherited comes to a close.

The president will make the case for that seemingly more limited approach during a commencement address Wednesday at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. The speech will come amid growing frustration in the White House with Republicans and other critics who contend that Obama has weakened America’s standing around the world and faltered on problems across the Middle East and in Russia, China and elsewhere. Read more…