If General Keane Is Correct, Obama Has Been Playing The World For Chumps. Why Would He Be Doing This Unless He Wants The Western World Defeated?

Tougher Sanctions Necessary to Force Iran to Change Its Terrorist Ways

Friday, 10 Apr 2015 07:19 PM

By Larry Kudlow

  Get Link |

  Email Article |

  Comment  |

   Contact  |

  Print   |

    A   A  

• 0
  inShare

If recent news accounts are to be believed, the framework of agreement between the U.S. and Iran is on the rocks.

Iran’s top officials, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Hassan Rouhani, are saying economic sanctions must end immediately and that UN inspectors will not be granted unfettered access to military installations and nuclear construction sites.

But this may be nothing more than Iranian domestic political spin. And as long as there’s a potential deal, a critical point needs to be made: There is no provision for, or even discussion of, putting political restraints on Iran. That is, there is nothing in this deal that would force Iran to change its terrorist ways. Iran will continue to be the number-one state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, no matter what the deal.

How can this be?

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz make a crucial point: “Absent the linkage between nuclear and political restraint, America’s traditional allies will conclude that the U.S. has traded temporary nuclear cooperation for acquiescence to Iranian hegemony.” (Italics mine.)

Put another way, there could be a U.S.-Iran deal that postpones Iran’s nuclear weaponization for ten or more years.

Latest News Update

Get Newsmax TV At Home »

But tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that, Iran will continue to sponsor its terrorist proxies, like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, keep proxy troops in Syria, continue its efforts to take over Iraq, further its designs on Yemen, and confront Sunni Saudi Arabia.

And don’t forget, the U.S. has labeled Iran’s own Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.

Kissinger and Shultz write, “Iranian or Iranian client forces are now the pre-eminent military or political element in multiple Arab countries . . . With the recent addition of Yemen as a battlefield, Tehran occupies positions along all of the Middle East’s strategic waterways and encircles archrival Saudi Arabia, an American ally.”

No one doubts these facts. Iran wants to dominate the Middle East. And it will not acknowledge the rights of the sovereign state of Israel. So the question is: Why is the U.S. not including political- and terrorist-restraint clauses in any Iran deal?

This is why economic sanctions are crucial. Western-nation sanctions are slowly but surely smashing the Iranian economy. We have effectively stopped the flow of money and oil for Iran. The Iranian budget, which dominates the state-run economy, needs $130 a barrel. Today’s $50 price is an economic killer.

So why doesn’t Team Obama directly link a removal of economic sanctions with a clear pullback of Iran’s terrorist activities and march to Middle East dominance? That’s a dailylinkage — one that is observable. And since we know Iran won’t agree to this, why aren’t President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry working to tighten sanctions on Iran rather than push through a bad nuke deal?

Make no mistake, the nanosecond sanctions are lifted U.S. and Western investment will pour into Iran. Looser financial sanctions will put an estimated $50 billion into Iran’s economy. And a number of European oil companies will jump to develop the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserve and second-biggest national-gas reserve.

Italy’s Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, France’s Total, Norway’s Statoil, German’s Siemens, and French car companies Peugeot and Citroën are ready to move. It’s reported that Boeing is looking to do business in Iran. HP and Google have been exploring contracts and licenses in Iran. Other major U.S. and European Internet companies have been approached by Iranian officials. And financial-service and credit card companies will move in quickly.

And if American officials really believe treaty violations can be countered by a “snap-back,” they’d better think again. These complex sanctions, which took so long to put together, will never be effectively revived.

General Jack Keane believes President Obama has had a grand-bargain vision for Iran since 2009. The nuclear deal is just one part of it. That’s why Obama gave no help to the million Iranian reformers who marched in protest of the phony 2009 elections. That’s why Obama didn’t help the Syrian rebels, why he’s had such a cold relationship with Israel, why he gave speeches blaming America for Arab unrest, and why until very recently he didn’t give any help to Egyptian president al-Sisi.

Obama believes in détente with Iran as a pathway to U.S. disengagement from the region. But Iran is our enemy, whether the president believes it or not. And if we cut deals that allow Iran to continue its terrorist and hegemonic activities, the Obama administration will have created an unbelievable Middle East powder keg, setting the stage for a conflict that could possibly dwarf any we’ve seen before.

This is the worst U.S. foreign policy of my lifetime. It may be the worst in America history.

To find out more about Lawrence Kudlow and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Is Obama Nuts?

One can only wonder what Senator Obama would be saying if a President decided to take military action against another country without Congressional approval. On other hand, we already know. He said it in 2007. He would not approve in the least. 

To make matters worse, he is going to go alone into Syria. This is a fools errand for a couple reasons. First, he has no authority and second the blow back will be tremendous from the Arab Street.

His authority he granted to himself. He did not agree with Bush during the run up to Iraq. Now that things are different and he is making the decisions, it is OK to kill, maim, injure and destroy as long as the President thinks it is right. We think that any legislator on the "let's not get involved" side of the argument, should be playing those words of Senator Obama over and over.

Additionally, for the US to get involved in a civil war when we do not have incontrovertibly evidence that it was the Assad regime that used the chemical weapons is a travesty. The UN inspectors have not completed their investigation so it appears the only evidence is coming from the rebels who claim it was Assad.  We don't think that the source of this information is reliable enough to risk personnel and treasure.

Should  the US attack Syria,  it will be played around the Muslim world that once again, we are destroying an Arab country just like we tried to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There will be calls for Jihad against anything American which will make even us, who live in the States, less safe.  This is a very dangerous move that Obama is thinking about doing.

We wrote earlier this week that the US should play a "back bench" role in Syria and allow the Arab League and others to be on the front lines. Obviously, Obama has different plans.  

President Obama has no authority to "go it alone" and from where we sit, it will become a disaster with many unforeseen and unconsidered outcomes. It will endanger the US and its citizens, it will put the US in direct conflict with China and Russia and could lead to an explosion of violence across the Middle East and beyond. This is a total losing proposition.

So why is Obama doing it?  He is either blood thirsty or so desperate to prove that he is not a wimp. Or he feels a war will solve his economic problems. Or he wants the US to be taken down several notches. We don't know. Whatever the reason, it is imperative that Congress stop him and stop him soon.

Otherwise, the dangers to our economy, our nation and our people far outweigh the rewards we could receive if the Assad regime were removed.

Conservative Tom

Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria

Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM

By Cathy Burke

Share:

More . . .

A    A   |

   Email Us   |

   Print   |

   Forward Article

• 1
  inShare

The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama is ready to go it alone to strike Syria despite the British parliament's rejection of military action and the lack of a UN mandate.
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.

US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.

"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.

The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.

“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.

Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.

“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.

“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”

And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.

Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.

“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”

The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.

But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.

Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.

“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”

But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.

“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.