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…
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…
Year after year U.S. State Department has issued its Human Rights report on Islamic regime of mullahs in Iran, in which every time a list of violations of personal and civil liberties, arbitrary arrest and detentions, tortures, disappearances, executions, discrimination, corruption and lack of transparency in government, etc, is enumerated. These reports are then transmitted to the U.S. Congress. One may ask whether these reports have had any upbeat effect on the regime’s code of conduct during the last almost four decades since the mullahs came to power in 1979! The answer is a big NO, there hasn’t been any positive change in the human rights record of the regime, quite the contrary the regime has become more violent in cracking down on its people. These reports are nothing more than bunch of rhetoric condemnation, which are easily ignored by the mullahs.
At best, the Congress initiates sets of sanctions against the IRI regime, however the records has shown that those sanctions have always been ineffective to stop mullahs from committing atrocities against its own people. The reason is transparent, the assigned sanctions are not of the smart type sanctions, smart sanctions are of political type that directly targets the main top leaders of the regime, bound by land, air, and water. In fact the U.S. sanctions against the regime are implied not to be smart because the West puppeteers are not willing to get rid of their puppets, the mullahs. The mullahs facilitate the World Powers’ plunder of Iran’s and Middle East’s natural wealth, promote the West’s economics through arm sales, and above all the apocalyptic regime will allow the West to use them as the wrecking ball to demolish the region by engaging in sectarian war. So why should the World Powers be willing to get rid of the mullahs?! Every year they release such a rhetoric condemnation report to fool the public but behind the curtain they express their commendation for such a rogue state, that is how the inhumane regime of IRI has survived for about 4 decades. [DID]
The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocratic republic with a Shia Islamic political system based on “velayat-e faqih” (“guardianship of the jurist” or “rule by the jurisprudent”). Shia clergy, most notably the “supreme jurisprudent” (or supreme leader), and political leaders vetted by the clergy dominated key power structures. While mechanisms for popular election existed within the structure of the state, the supreme leader held significant influence over the legislative and executive branches of government (through various unelected councils under his authority) and held constitutional authority over the judiciary, the government-run media, and the armed forces. The supreme leader also indirectly controlled the internal security forces and other key institutions. Since 1989 the supreme leader has been Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In 2013 voters elected Hassan Rouhani president. Despite high popular participation following open debates, candidate vetting by unelected bodies based on arbitrary criteria and restrictions on the media limited the freedom and fairness of the election. In the last parliamentary elections in 2012, the government controlled candidate vetting and media reporting. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security forces. Read more…
In a recent article (posted at the end of this article) in The Guardian the writer criticizes the US congress for passing an amendment to remove the Visa Waiver program that would affect the travel of Iranians in diaspora to U.S., questioning why Iranian Americans should be punished and not the Saudis who were the ones who participated in 911 act of terrorism. Furthermore, the writer claimed that Iranians has never been part of any act of terrorism in the world, why they should be penalized. I couldn’t leave my comment on the article since the comment section was closed at the time, so I decided to post my reflection on the article in here.
In global communities’ point of view, a State is considered terrorist if its government is involved in an act of terrorism, and not by its people. And unfortunately when such State is considered as a terrorist State, its whole people are going to be tagged with label “terrorist” as a collateral damage. But the reverse is not true, for example in every democratic country such as an European country there are underground terrorists but that doesn’t label that country as a terrorist State, it is the same for a totalitarian regime like Saudi Arabia. Even though the participant Jihadists in 911 were mainly from Saudi Arabia but this act of terrorism was not counted on behalf of its government.
In case of Iran the issue is more complex. Iran is more than a terrorist State, it is considered as a rogue State. Read more…
President Franklin Roosevelt, getting drought information first-hand from families in Julesburg, Colorado in 1936
An effective leadership must have a direction and a strategy to make thing happen. It should engage today’s talent and not stone-age’s wisdom like the kind of pro-Islamic incompetent governance that we are witnessing in White House today. It should present a policy of openness and transparency to promote individuals’ rights and freedom of expression contrary to the kind of political-correctness dogma that has been imposed upon the American society by the current administration to the point that many adherents of political correctness reject free speech, which has now seized hold of national attention.
A post-Obama president, on domestic issues, from economic, education, and health reform, to immigration rules and gun control, to homeland security, etc., should have the will to do all in his/her power to guarantee the well-being of the American people. On foreign policy, he should re-establish American influence, lead and not follow multilateral bodies, restore defense strength, and commit to the eradication of Islamist terror in all its manifestations, and above all should support the Iranian dissidents in their efforts to change the theocratic regime of Iran, which is known as the main source of global terrorism, for a secular democratic government. [DID]
Many Americans are mad as hell at our political leaders — both Republican and Democrat — and are giving voice to their anger through the likes of Donald Trump and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The anger is understandable. The federal government is paralyzed, unable to tackle any of the major problems facing our country or even accomplish basic functions such as enacting annual budgets for federal departments and agencies. The anger derives equally from governmental ineptitude, arrogance and corruption, and self-serving politicians more concerned with getting reelected than with the nation’s future.
The next president will face major domestic problems, as well as the challenges posed by Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, terrorism and a Middle East in turmoil. What kind of qualities should we be looking for in a new chief executive? Based on my experience working for eight presidents, of both political parties, here is my take: Read more…
Obama’s speech during his second-term presidential election “We will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are” was nothing more than rhetoric to the US voters. By adopting “no ground-force policy in Iraq and Syria” he unambiguously signaled to the Islamic terrorists that they would have a clear field of operation. He has also suspended the $500-million US program to train and equip Syrian opposition forces known as the New Syrian Forces, or NSF. By abandoning the program, Washington risks losing its ability to influence events on the ground in Syria. More importantly Obama has actually warned to veto the defense policy bill that Senate has recently passed, keeping the restraints on the US military during a critical time that the nation and the world are in utmost need for safety and security. It comes as no surprise to expect from such useless president the mere carelessness in response to the pledges of millions of innocent people whose lives were threatened by those terrorists when we de facto witness that he is not even concerned about the shattered lives of US soldiers by the same evil enemies. His pathetic support measures in Middle East to fight a proxy war is doomed to failure. Securing global peace requires strong and dedicated leadership and a resolute will in responding to the unprecedented crimes against humanity that the world is witnessing today. [DID]
Four years of failed US policy toward Syria have produced alarming results that transcend the Levant. Having carefully gauged the gap between Obama administration rhetoric and action, Russian President Vladimir Putin has elected to intervene militarily to help the Assad regime defeat its non-Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) enemies. He is doing so in the belief that the US response will essentially be one of bemoaning the supposedly big mistake he is making. Like his predecessor over fifty years ago, he senses weakness on the part of a US president. Like his predecessor he risks discovering that trifling with the United States is not a healthy pursuit. But such a risk entails dangers for all concerned.
Missiles in Cuba are not the same thing as Russian fighter-bombers assaulting non-ISIL enemies of the Assad regime. The Russian air assaults, however, signal Moscow’s deep contempt for Washington and a careful calculation that the Obama administration will do nothing substantial to counter them. To the extent that the Obama administration still believes that what happens in Syria stays in Syria, it is seriously mistaken. 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…
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
Speech by Bill Clinton 0n 21 October 1994 on how the world is a safer place based on the “good deal” with North Korea, preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons. On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test. Barack Obama has just made the same speech regarding Iran.
The planet earth and its citizens are living in hell due the lack of effective and capable world leaders, what we have instead are bunch of political dwarfs who are nothing more than elected mercenaries and puppets of the rich sectors, whose only purpose are to preserve their empires of wealth with the cost of pain and suffering burdened on shoulders of the world grassroots.
About two decades ago Bill Clinton’s imprudence paved the way for N Korea to become an atomic power; today we are witnessing the Obama’s naivety and incompetence is setting the stepping stones for the Iranian mullahs to get access to nuclear weapon. History is doomed to repeat itself. Obama says that our deal with Iranian regime will conclude not based on trust but on evidence and verification. Obama’s remark is obviously absurd when at the same time the IAEA agency asserts that as long as the Iranian regime is not ready to voluntarily declare its clandestine atomic activities and sites we have no other way to be able to announce the peaceful purpose of Iran’s nuclear program. Go figure. [DID]
The absence of any U.S. deterrent role to counter the violation of international norms and standards by the Iranian mullahs have given the Islamic regime the tranquility of living out its dream of regional hegemony and the ability to have its forces dominate Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. These countries are Arabic territories that over time have started to undergo the influence of Shiite regime in Iran. How was the Arab world, which constitutes the vast majority of regional Sunnis, supposed to react to all this? Of course they were not going to stay silent and as the war in Syria has shown, their Sunni extremists were fostered to get into the fight with the Shiite-supported regime of Assad. But then the war in the country started to expand as other groups of Islamic extremists from every corner of the world joined the clashes against the IRI proxies Hezbollah and the Shiite fundamentalists, turning the Syria into a bloodbath hell, which soon started to spill over into the neighboring countries. Early support for the Syrian genuine oppositions at the beginning of uprising could have prevented the current crisis and result in with not only the removal of Assad from power but establishment of a secular democratic government in the country.
There is no question that the current wide spread crisis in the Middle East has been the result of the Obama administration’s inaction policy in the region. The problem with U.S. wait-&-watch policy is that the sectarian war won’t wind up with one’s side victory over another but most probably the Sunni and Shiite extremists could compromise over who gain control of what territory after dividing the region into smaller areas, which will then become terrorist states. Such situations are already imminent developments in Syria and Iraq. Regardless, could such a scenario that violates every global norm and standard be acceptable to the West in particular United States? Could the humanity continue its normal operation alongside dangerous rouge states, whose spread to other areas of the world are just a matter of time? Unless the world has already accepted the start of a universal war, the answer would simply be a big NO.
United States dependency on Middle East oil may have been reduced due to its looming prospect of energy self-sufficiency, yet for geopolitical purposes U.S. needs to keep its presence in the region. The question that we have to ask ourselves is that is it logical to assume that U.S. administration with so many intelligence offices from NSA to CIA along with its hundreds of think-tank centers all over the nation couldn’t initially predict the current Middle East situation in advance? It is naïve to presume that they really had no clue of what was going to happen in the region. On the contrary, the bitter truth is that the U.S. administration has had complete awareness of the situation in the region and actually knew what is going to happen in those territories and by choosing the inaction policy calculatedly let that to happen. Several determinative elements were in the Obama’s calculation to make such choice of strategy, among which, the lack of public support for another war, sequestration and its impact on defense budget resulting in military shortcomings, and the cast of his Nobel Peace Prize’s spell to hold him as a President of peace, are few to mention. However the sectarian war among Shiite and Sunni extremists has given Obama an incentive to stay inactive and make use of wait-&-watch policy and let them do the dirty job of plowing the region for him, which is a prerequisite for the new blueprint of the greater Middle East map per U.S. foreign policy. When the terrorist threat level gets red alert in the region the U.S. and perhaps NATO will ultimately intervene in the Middle East but for now they allow the evil forces of terrorists be engaged in purging one another. [DID]
There’s always Tunisia. Amid the smoking ruins of the Middle East, there is that one encouraging success story. But unfortunately for the Obama narratives, the president had about as much as to do with Tunisia’s turn toward democracy as he did with the World Cup rankings. Where administration policy has had an impact, the story is one of failure and danger.
The Middle East that Obama inherited in 2009 was largely at peace, for the surge in Iraq had beaten down the al Qaeda-linked groups. U.S. relations with traditional allies in the Gulf, Jordan, Israel and Egypt were very good. Iran was contained, its Revolutionary Guard forces at home. Today, terrorism has metastasized in Syria and Iraq, Jordan is at risk, the humanitarian toll is staggering, terrorist groups are growing fast and relations with U.S. allies are strained.
How did it happen? Begin with hubris: The new president told the world, in his Cairo speech in June 2009, that he had special expertise in understanding the entire world of Islam—knowledge “rooted in my own experience” because “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” Read more…
The bloodbath in Syria initially began with peaceful protests at the end of January 2011. U.S. could have acted to shape the Syrian opposition into an effective force to prevail. Direct intervention then was neither necessary nor desirable. The cost of assisting Assad’s opponents with logistic and strategic support at the beginning would have been minimal compare to the accumulating cost of American inaction. Obama’s foreign policy of leading from behind meant nothing more than leaving behind the desperate Syrian people in the middle of an unequal fight, making them to turn elsewhere for help and wind up beholden to and manipulated by many adversary groups and States to U.S.
As a result today we witness the ISIS terrorist group in Syria is spilling over into Iraq, turning the country into a civil war. That has been the result of Obama’s “Watch and Wait” policy. The scenario is repeating again but this time in Iraq, once more we hear the same old stuff from White House and the administration that US will not interfere in Iraq but provide humanitarian assistance for the refugees and displaced people and perhaps delivering some material support. What would be the result? Iranian mullahs will send their terrorist IRGC militias into Iraq to get into the fight against the ISIS group and safeguard the security of the Shiite Shrines. Soon the war in Iraq will escalate and spill over into the neighboring countries that can easily develop into a regional war.
One way to see how all this has happened is to blame the inaction policy of the West led by US, but I personally don’t see it that way. I don’t think that the West is that naive to shoot itself in the foot; I believe this has been the result of a carefully plotted master plan by the West to make the regional adversary groups and States to unknowingly do their dirty job of plowing the region by manipulating and engineering sectarian conflicts among them, Sunni blocs against the Shiite factions. The prerequisite for implementing the blueprint for redrawing the new borderlines in Middle East requires chaos and anarchy in the territory, collapsed civilizations, and fallen States, and that is exactly where the region is heading to. [DID]
AVOIDING aggressive questions is a hallmark of the White House press corps. So it should be no surprise that reporters watching President Barack Obama make an emergency statement on Iraq on June 13th failed to pelt him with the queries that lurk at the center of the debate over America’s role in the Middle East. Namely: Mr President, did you help to bring these horrors about when you rushed to pull American combat troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible? And, Mr President, does any part of you regret ignoring pleas to arm and train non-extreme opposition forces across the border in Syria over the past two years?
Instead reporters allowed Mr Obama to explain why American involvement in Iraq would be limited, would take “several days” to be sent, would not involve any return of ground troops and was conditional on Iraq’s central government coming up with a “sincere” political plan to resolve sectarian divisions. “We can’t do it for them,” Mr Obama said severely.
“Nobody has an interest in seeing terrorists gain a foothold inside of Iraq and nobody is going to benefit from seeing Iraq descend into chaos. The United States will do our part,” he added. “But understand that ultimately it’s up to the Iraqis, as a sovereign nation, to solve their problems.” Read more…