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…
Bunch of imbecilic mullahs in Iran who have no perception of the current global political and social trends in the world and have no respect for international norms and standards, all of a sudden, have become the Interlocutor in negotiation with World Powers. The theocratic regime in Iran pursues its Shia hegemonic ambitions by exporting terrorist proxies into regional States, it is the vast arms proliferator in the Middle East, its mullahs are the inventors of the suicidal bombers among the Islamic radicals, they are the interferers in Arab affairs and the regional countries, they are the agitators of the tribal and ethnic tensions, they are the advocators of regional instability, and they are the world’s worst human abusers. In short they have all the earmarks of being the most dangerous species on earth.
So how in the world, the World Powers have expected a mutually-respected resolution outcome from the nuclear negotiation with such dangerous species?! Western officials are either too stupid or too much oil brainwashed to be happy to have such a sucker’s deal! Soon they will have the luxury of reaping the harvest they’ve planted all along and become delighted by its backfire, it would be pretty ugly! [DID]
Let’s rewind the clock all the way back to 2015, when advocates for the Iranian nuclear deal were making the case that it would help bring stability to the Middle East. For example, a group of international relations scholars and Middle East experts claimed in a petition:
While the JCPOA is primarily a non-proliferation agreement that successfully closes off all weaponization pathways in the Iranian nuclear program, it carries with it significant peace dividends by making diplomacy and dialogue available for conflict resolution — a necessary step to tackle all of the region’s sources of tensions, be they terrorism, sectarianism, or unilateralism.
The region suffers from a diplomacy deficit and the mere fact that the U.S. and Iran can talk to each other again is in and of itself a stabilizing factor for the Middle East and an encouragement for regional rivals to pursue dialogue instead of proxy fights.
This seemed to match the thinking of President Obama, who explained the day the Iran deal was struck that, “put simply, no deal means a greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
I bring all this up because I’m in Abu Dhabi right now and it sure seems like those 2015 predictions will not be coming to pass in 2016. In fact, according to the National’s Justin Vela, things are just starting to heat up: Read more…
Why Geneva nuclear agreement with Mullahs’ regime contradicts the UN Security Council resolution that revokes the IRI’s right for enriching uranium? Why U.S. recognizes the right for the Rouge State to enrich uranium? The answer is obvious, U.S. is helping the IRI to survive under domestic and international pressure, why? Because U.S. needs the apocalyptic Mullahs’ regime to stay in power to do its dirty job, plowing the region, turn it upside down, as part of the roadmap for the tomorrow greater Middle East. [DID]
U.S. must keep the pressure on until Tehran gives up its nukes. There’s a damn good reason why Secretary of State John Kerry has been struggling to convince Congress to go along with the nuclear deal President Obama struck with Iran. It’s a disastrously bad bet on never-before-seen good intentions by the fanatic, terror-exporting rogue regime in Tehran.
When charming new President Hassan Rouhani came calling, Obama agreed to relax some of the economic sanctions that had finally brought Iran slightly to heel in exchange for largely symbolic pauses in the country’s march toward nuclear weaponry, plus a promise to negotiate a fuller pact within six months. Read more…
The more the American public learns about the Iran nuclear agreement reached in Geneva last month, the less it seems to like it, according to a Pew Research/USA Today Poll conducted this week.
The poll found that 43 percent of Americans disapprove of the agreement, while 32% approve and 25% don’t know.
These results were sharply different from a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted just days after the agreement which found that Americans backed the deal by a 2-to-1 margin.
The Pew poll found large disparities between Democrats and Republicans on this issue, with 50% of Democrats approving, as opposed to only 14% of Republicans.
The survey also found that the accord has not reduced skepticism among the American public about Iran’s leaders. Read more…
The region’s geopolitical importance has diminished in the Obama era. To some observers, President Obama’s decision to sign off on an interim deal to freeze Iran’s nuclear program sends an unmistakable message to the Middle East: The U.S. is backing away from the region, and in a big way.
“Obama has now announced that the United States cannot be relied upon to stand up to Iran,” says Michael Doran, a Middle East adviser to President George W. Bush. “Therefore, Israel and our Arab allies will be forced to live by their wits.”
These concerns, while a tad overblown, aren’t based on nothing. Obama has made it plain that he thought his predecessor was far too fixated on the Middle East and its surrounding hot spots, to the detriment of U.S. national security interests. Since Obama came into office, the U.S. military has all but vacated Iraq, and Obama is threatening to similarly pull the U.S. out of Afghanistan if President Hamid Karzai doesn’t sign a bilateral security agreement by January 1. Read more…
Critics of the agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear program are right about most things but wrong about the most important things.
They understand the agreement’s manifest and manifold defects and its probable futility. Crucial components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure remain. U.S. concessions intended to cultivate the Iranian regime’s “moderates” are another version of the fatal conceit that U.S. policy can manipulate other societies. As is the hope that easing economic sanctions would create an Iranian constituency demanding nuclear retreat in exchange for yet more economic relief.
Critics are, however, wrong in thinking that any agreement could control Iran’s nuclear aspirations. And what critics consider the agreement’s three worst consequences are actually benefits. Read more…
As former secretaries of state, we have confronted the existential issue of nuclear weapons and negotiated with adversaries in attempts to reduce nuclear perils. For two decades, American presidents from both parties have affirmed that the U.S. is unalterably opposed to an Iranian military nuclear capability. They have usually added a warning to the effect that “all options are on the table” in pursuit of this policy. A clear trans-Atlantic consensus, a decade of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports and six United Nations Security Council resolutions have buttressed this position.
The interim nuclear deal with Iran has been described as the first step toward the elimination of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon. That hope resides, if at all, in the prospects of the next round of negotiations envisaged to produce a final outcome within six months. Read more…