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…
For decades United States is among the countries, which has massively suffered from the Islamic Republic of Iran’s (IRI’s) sponsorship of terrorism worldwide. It has all started in 1979 when Islamic regime ordered the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran in which 66 Americans were held hostage for 444 days. Later 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 and 50% of combat casualties in Afghanistan have been caused by IRI-made IEDs. More importantly the footprint of IRI’s terrorism in America has become more apparent when the U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks.
American soldiers bring hope and leave graves in every corner of the world; they take bullets to protect the national interests of the country. Their lives are shattered to keep democracy alive. To commander-in-chief they are like his family members and their deaths are implied as loss of family members to him. An effective commander-in-chief doesn’t negotiate and doesn’t deal with the terrorists who continuously murder his family members; he does exactly what must be done with the murderers, holding them accountable by arresting and putting them on trial. That is what a real commander-in-chief, who cares about the lost lives of his soldiers, does. [DID]
Rep. Patrick Meehan is not fond of giving up.
“I’d like to have [Obama] administration officials over telling us why they believe it’s in the best interests of the United States of America to return money to terrorists who may use it to create more victims,” Meehan, R-Pa., said of his legislation to force Iran to pay for acts of terror it sponsored.
The bill—called the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act and likely to go to a vote Wednesday—is a pointed response to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, which narrowly cleared Congress.
Meehan’s legislation signals that Republicans aren’t done fighting back against the deal, even if they can’t stop it.
Leaders from the seven nations, including Iran, that reached the nuclear deal met Monday at the United Nations to discuss its finalization, outlining an early 2016 “implementation.” 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 Obama’s West Point foreign policy confirmed in the end what Iranian mullahs suspected all along that the President was bluffing when he repeatedly stated that all options are on the table to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. In his West Point speech by basing his foreign policy doctrine on his personal aversion to military solution he assured the mullahs that his military threats against them have never been credible. Moreover, Obama’s desperate concessions to get the mullahs engaged in the negotiations has given them the impression of having the privilege to achieve their irreversible goal of acquiring a nuclear-armed capability without paying a price as long as they are making the West believe they are truly negotiating.
Obama’s abjection and lack of capability in making the right, bold, and punctual decision in global affairs will be a serious threat to U.S. national security. It is imperative for the U.S. Congress to work closely with the administration on Iran agreement and pursue a direct and constant monitoring of the situation, otherwise the White House and the Congress will be held accountable for a nuclear-armed Iran and the subsequent global chaotic consequences. [DID]
The U.S. already failed to detect nuclear programs on four other occasions: Iraq – 1991, Syria – 2009, North Korea – 2000-1 and Libya – 2005. That is quite a record.
Terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, regularly launch rocket attacks on Israel, but because they are not “recognized state actors” launching rocket attacks on another sovereign state, we do not put the min the same category. All terrorist groups attacking a state therefore get a free pass.
A nuclear device in the hands of such terrorist groups — chosen precisely because they cannot be readily identified as working for, or connected to, a state — can therefore be used in an attack with impunity, totally undermining the assumption that such weapons in the hands of Iran are “only for deterrence.”
Unless we end the Iranian nuclear weapons program now, we will probably only know if a threat is “real” after it is too late.
With a new round of talks underway this week in Vienna, American officials are brimming with optimism concerning the possibility of a nuclear deal by the summer. Worryingly, Iran appears poised to retain essential elements of its military-nuclear infrastructure. But because Tehran will provide just enough in the way of technical concessions to delay its ability to breakout to a nuclear bomb, it’s likely that the White House will unravel the complex sanctions architecture that has kept Iran’s economy on its heels.
History will judge whether the president was right to compromise with a regime that has a long track record of nuclear mendacity. Read more…
- With a further round of the nuclear talks between Iran and the West to be held in mid-May, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei continues to encourage the advancement of Iran’s nuclear program. While giving the talks a green light, he is at the forefront of pessimism about the chances of reaching a comprehensive agreement.
- Khamenei insisted that despite the ongoing talks, no activity in the R&D field would be stopped or slowed down. He stressed that the main advantage of Iran’s nuclear program is the “strengthening of national security,” a surprising admission considering Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is only for civilian purposes.
There is a contradiction in this report; we all know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Qods Force) was designated as terrorist organization by the US State Department. The question is why in chapter 6 of State Department’s report on terrorism 2013, the name of the IRGC – Qods Force has been deleted from the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations! Has IRGC-QF been delisted? ![DID]
If you didn’t know any better, you might think that democracy was flowering all over the Middle East. Syria has a presidential election scheduled in June; today, Lebanon’s Parliament will have a second round of voting to choose a new president, while Iraqis are heading to the polls to choose a parliament that will in turn be responsible for selecting a prime minister.
But in reality, all three countries are in danger of coming apart at the seams. Syria is in the midst of a protracted and vicious civil war that has, in turn, added to Lebanon’s own instability. Iraq, now free of American influence, has gone from being an authoritarian state under Saddam Hussein’s nominally secular control to an authoritarian state under the auspices of Nouri al-Maliki, who will almost certainly be given a third term as premier, having cemented his control by pursuing openly sectarian policies favoring Shiites and targeting Sunni Muslims. Read more…
Not only Iranian Mullahs and Russia support Syria’s regime strategically and logistically but indirectly US also assists Assad to crack down on dissents by abandoning the Syrian Oppositions and refusing shipping them the crucial forceful weapons they need to fight against the Syrian army. In fact Obama’s support for the opposition doesn’t go beyond the so-called empty rhetoric. …… (editor’s view continues at the bottom of this article) [DID]
Hezbollah and the Syrian Army‘s five-month campaign to clear rebels from the strategic Qalamoun region is approaching its final stand, a regime victory that would afford it uninterrupted control of southwestern Syria.
According to Syrian state media, Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters are set to launch an offensive against Rankous in central Qalamoun after seizing high ground overlooking the town and encircling it. Once Rankous is seized, only a tract of mountainous terrain stands in the way of the regime’s final objective: Zabadani, the last Read more…
Our allies and our enemies have seriously recalculated where the U.S. stands. It was not difficult to define American geopolitical strategy over the seven decades following World War II — at least until 2009. It was largely bipartisan advocacy, most ambitiously, for nations to have the freedom of adopting constitutional governments that respected human rights, favored free markets, and abided by the rule of law. And at the least, we sought a world in which states could have any odious ideology they wished as long as they kept it within their own borders. There were several general strategic goals as we calculated our specific aims, both utopian and realistic.
(1) The strategic cornerstone was the protection of a small group of allies that, as we did, embraced consensual government and free markets, and were more likely to avoid human-rights abuses. That eventually meant partnerships with Western and later parts of Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and much of its former Empire, such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In Asia, the American focus was on Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Taiwan. The U.S. military essentially guaranteed the security of these Asian nations, and they developed safely, shielded from Soviet or Chinese Communist aggression, and more recently from Russian or Chinese provocations. Read more…
Last week the Israeli Air Force bombed Syrian military and security positions in retaliation for an operation on the Syrian-Israeli border in the Golan Heights. Four Israeli soldiers were wounded when Hezbollah attacked their Jeep. Hezbollah it seems was looking to kidnap them. This time they failed, but, said Hezbollah sources, “We are sure we will succeed in the near future.”
Maybe. If so, it is sure to resonate throughout the Middle East. The last time Hezbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers it touched off a monthlong conflict in the summer of 2006. After the devastation Hezbollah suffered, hundreds of its elite troops dead and billions of dollars’ worth of damage done, the party’s general secretary, Hassan Nasrallah, said that had he known how the Israelis would respond, he never would have taken their soldiers in the first place. So now that Nasrallah knows what Israeli countermeasures look like, what could he possibly be thinking? Read more…