The Iran nuclear deal was made without Israel’s presence, which gives Iran exactly what it wants: a significant reduction of sanctions while preserving the most significant part of its nuclear program.
Last Sunday, Israel’s Channel 10 News reported that Valerie Jarrett, the Iranian-born senior adviser to Mr. Obama, has been holding secret talks with Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, for about a year. The so-called P5+1 powers and Iranian negotiations in Geneva were nothing more than a “facade,” the actual terms of the deal having already been decided. Channel 10 News quoted an unnamed senior official who told the reporter that the real behind-the-scenes power in the White House, Valerie Jarrett, has been making secret deals with the Islamic Nation for a year.
At the Geneva talks, France wasn’t too happy about the sucker deal that American Secretary of State John Kerry had readily accepted. All the talk by the Secretary was just for show for the U.S. media and almost undoubtedly a lie to distract the world from the fact that Obama and Jarrett had already made a deal. Of course, Kerry knew about it all along. It was the Nation of Israel that released the facts about these secret negotiations between Jarrett and Iran, no doubt a bittersweet undertaking for Benjamin Netanyahu as he exposed the corrupt Obama Administration while feeling the sting of America’s betrayal of Israel. Certainly, the exposure will prove extremely embarrassing for Obama, Jarrett, and Kerry. During the next round of talks, the Secretary will have no credibility in any of the negotiations, being seen as either a liar, a fool, or both.
The Times of Israel reported that, “In the course of the talks… the Americans offered the Iranians a series of ‘confidence-building measures,’ which underlined American readiness to conclude a deal and undercut sanctions pressure.” In other words, the Valerie Jarrett administration had already made an agreement with the Iranians to lift sanctions without assurances that the Islamists would give up their weapons program. This is probably what the French called the “suckers deal.”
Only a prop in this dangerous charade, John Kerry may well be known as the most inept U.S. Secretary of State ever. Valerie Jarrett is conducting the actual negotiations and making agreements behind the backs of members of the UN Security Council. Apparently, “Jarrett served as the personal and direct emissary of the president to secret meetings with the Iranians, which are understood to have taken place in one of the Gulf principalities.” This undercuts the efforts of the UN, France, Britain, Germany, Russia, and China to reign in the activities of a rogue nation. This has not been a good month for the United States or the American people.
Photo credit: World Economic Forum (Creative Commons)
The headlines read “Iran only a month away from the bomb.” The sub-headlines read: Obama Administration cautions Congress and Israel – we can wait and see if sanctions work or if our negotiations work. We have plenty of time. When you combine this with the multiple media stories of the Obama Administration wanting to station international troops in Judea and Samaria for the “protection” of Israel, there is no longer any doubt where the loyalties of the Obama Administration lie. It is definitely not with our best ally in the Mideast, Israel. We are not sure how long it might be because we have not calculated the help North Korea has contributed to this process.
Judea and Samaria belong to Israel. UN Resolution 242 guarantees Israel safe and secure borders. It was worded deliberately by the very liberal Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and his very liberal UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg to make sure it was understood that the lands Israel won were to remain mostly with her. Israel has more than performed what was necessary under the resolution. Judea and Samaria and more were to be her new defensible borders. The Coalition made it clear in an earlier position paper that The Jordan Valley was defined by the best US military minds many times as a minimum to secure the freedom of Israel from aggression.
The Arabs, masquerading as a legitimate government – albeit a group supporting the total destruction of Israel and wanting the land “from the Jordan to the Sea”, have never given up this ambition. This administration, from the President to the entire National Security hierarchy, knows this fundamental fact. Yet, they would lie to the Israeli government and the American people, much as Secretary Kerry lied to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the Viet Cong movement as he disgraced his officer status. CIA Director Brennan can point to nothing to support the view that the leadership of those seeking a second state in Israel have any intention of letting Israel live in peace or even existing.
The current asking for patience in Iran and the undermining of Israeli security in the current talks are nothing more than a continuation of the abject failure of the administration’s foreign policy in the Middle East. Virtually every step in this policy (Benghazigate, Syria, Egypt, recognizing the Muslim Brotherhood, etc.), has been tilted away from the foreign policy interests of Israel and the United States. It was punctuated by the servile deep bow of the President to the King of Saudi Arabia. Obama’s major advisers have been and continue to be Arabist in heart and mind. Their current rhetoric is nothing more than the Potomac Two Step to cover up their intentions and goals. Mr. President, the Coalition refuses to dance.
This administration sat still while military personnel were courtmartialed in some dubious cases of violating nebulous rules of engagement. Yet, the President sent people into harm’s way to execute a “vengeance killing” of a wanted terrorist – Usama Bin Laden, in apparent gross violation of international and military law. He made hired killers out of special operations troops fully capable of capturing this madman. This violated Executive Order 12333. Any claim the President has to objecting to “torture” or other campaign rhetoric went out the window when UBL was executed with no resistance on his part. We are now suffering from the lack of intelligence lost with the death of UBL. The Special Operations forces suffer and die from the OPSEC violations on that operation.
The “Whack a mole” strategy has been wrong since implemented. It is years out of date as to our knowledge of how the enemy is constructed. It has enraged allies with the accompanying civilian deaths, much as the 9th Infantry Division caused many villagers to become enraged with their tactics in the Mekong. When the Phoenix “rifle shot” approach was combined with the Revolutionary Development Program, and both fully implemented, pacification emerged. This is the approach LTC David Kilcullen recently advocated.
Like Kerry and his “peacenik” allies refused to recognize North Vietnam as the author of war in Vietnam, Obama and Brennan refuse to acknowledge the prime backer of the movement opposing the United States and Israel, Iran. Usama Bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri were never more than lower ranked field generals in this struggle. They were always strategically allied with Hizbollah, Hamas, and Fatah. None would be effective without state support, much as Iraq supported Islamist terrorists in their 4 pronged attempt to stop our toppling of the Hussein government through attempted WMD and Chemical and Biological attacks against four different governments in late 2002. Mr. Brennan knows the truth behind this attempt.
Iran’s hands are dirty on WTCI and WTCII and many other major terror attacks – acts of war by one nation against another – even American courts acknowledge the obvious. If Al Qaeda executed the attack, Iran planned, financed, and blessed it – witness the murder of an Ambassador in Benghazi. Zawahiri gave the trigger go ahead; even the news media is recognizing that fact a year later. But Zawahiri could not move without the blessing of his long time backers and allies, Iran and its terrorist subset groups.
While this position paper may seem to be lacking in depth of analysis, the Coalition has previously dealt in depth with each of these topics. They are brought up merely to buttress the assertion that the current actions of this administration are designed to emasculate our one stable consistent ally in the Mid East for no discernible advantage to our national security or the safety of our own armed forces.
If an observer could not discern the obvious Arab tilt to our foreign policy prior to today, it cannot be missed now. It is not accidental. It is regrettable. It is the biggest mistake about to be undertaken by an American administration in the past hundred or so years. It will not enhance our security or the security of any ally. A rational person can perceive that. Only the blind can miss the outright Arabist background to what the policy is now and has been for five years. It is wrong. We need to take out the nuclear facilities of Iran or turn our heads if Israel does. We need to return to the core values of UN 242 and leave the future of Israel internally to Israel alone.
If you thought you’d heard the end of Obama’s foreign policy mistakes in Syria, think again. America’s longtime Mideast ally, Saudi Arabia, is now displaying its disgust for Obama’s work.
Saudi Arabia was recently offered a long-coveted seat on the U.N. Security Council. But the Saudis unexpectedly flipped the U.N. the diplomatic bird. How shocking was this move? No nation had ever turned its back on the increased power and prestige that come with a seat on the Council.
The Saudis were blunt in their reasoning, saying that they couldn’t do the job because of others’ failures.
“Double standards existing in the Security Council prevent it from performing its duties and assuming its responsibilities… leading to the continued disruption of peace and security, the expansion of the injustices against peoples, the violation of rights, and the spread of conflicts and wars.”
The Saudis continued, “Allowing the ruling regime in Syria to kill its people and burn them with chemical weapons in front of the entire world and without any deterrent or punishment is clear proof and evidence of the U.N. Security Council’s inability to perform its duties.”
When questioned about the decision, Saudi Arabia indicated that its anger is aimed at Obama. Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan (who spent 22 years as the Saudi ambassador to Washington), made it known that relations between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. are getting worse. The relationship between the two countries was already strained because of America’s missteps in Egypt, Libya, and Iran.
More importantly, bin Sultan told Reuters that Saudi Arabia will cut its cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, I would venture to guess that most Americans don’t understand the significance of this shift.
To understand the importance of Saudi support in the Mideast, you have to understand the sectarian nature of the fighting taking place. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, are Shia Muslim. Meanwhile, the Syrian rebels – along with Al Qaeda – are mostly Sunnis. The sectarian lines are similar to those seen during the Iraq war.
While Syria was spinning out of control, Saudi Arabia stepped up to help the non-Al Qaeda Sunni rebel factions. America encouraged this Saudi engagement and convinced the entire leadership of the Mideast that it was serious about removing Assad.
Once it became clear that Obama was anything but serious, the Sunni rebels turned to Al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim organization.
Now, according to Saudi intelligence estimates, as many as 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters have flooded into Syria. They’ve filled the power vacuum left by a retreating and inconsistent United States. In essence, the Syrian civil war has breathed new life into Al Qaeda. The Saudis believe that by spring, another 6,000 to 8,000 fighters will have arrived as reinforcements.
Losing Saudi Arabia’s intelligence support couldn’t have come at a worse time. Until now, Saudi Arabia has been a vital ally in the fight against Al Qaeda. The Saudis have allowed America to operate drones in Saudi airspace for attacks in Yemen. They’ve also cracked down on Al Qaeda and friends inside their own country, as well as in the strategically important Gulf Oil states.
Furthermore, Saudi Arabia has been, along with Israel, our best partner while trying to contain Iran’s nuclear program. The Saudis rightly fear a nuclear-armed Iran just across the already-tense Persian Gulf.
And now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel also fear a radicalized Syria, controlled by either Al Qaeda or Iran. America’s unorganized and hasty retreat from the Mideast leaves our one-time allies high and dry, forcing them to look to China and others to fill the power void Obama has left.
The losers in this whole debacle are the exact people America should’ve been supporting: Western-friendly Muslims who might make peace with Israel and be allied with the Saudis.
This commentary originally appeared at CapitolHillDaily.com and is reprinted here with permission.
Just months after instituting a ban on teachers carrying concealed firearms, an Oregon school district reversed course at a recent board of education meeting.
In a 4 to 1 vote, the St. Helens School District board voted to allow teachers to arm themselves as a last resort to combat violence within schools.
The topic has been hotly debated in the wake of several high-profile shootings throughout the past several years. Board Chairman Marshall Porter, however, feels his district has made the right decision. He presides over a fresh batch of board members who did not vote for the handgun ban in March.
“I would say that the risk is more likely that somebody who isn’t following the law is a higher risk to your child coming on to school property than the one that is going to do it legally,” he reasoned. Porter’s rationale resonated with a number of district residents and, according to initial reports, just one parent contacted school administrators to express opposition to the plan.
One parent, Israel Ray, expressed his opinion that “if you had teachers with guns, you’d have a lot less rampages and incidents going on as far as they’ve gone.”
Some students, however, including sophomore Sara Smuin, see the shift as a potential danger.
“If a teacher shot a person in front of everybody in the class, that would honestly scare me,” she said, “and that’s not OK.”
While such a scenario would unquestionably be terrifying for the students involved, the situation would be far more frightening if a violent criminal is the only one with access to a firearm.
Porter conceded the board’s decision will cause a level of concern in the community, though he feels certain it is the best option for everyone in the district.
Praising “responsible” teachers and a populace that is “pretty knowledgeable about guns,” Porter seems confident the district can now handle potential threats more effectively than before the policy change.
While St. Helens School District is not the first to allow teachers to carry guns, it is refreshing to see the board overturn a previous ruling on the issue. By remaining engaged and supporting board members who reflect their own views, this development proves parents can change the direction of the public school system.
–Western Journalism staff writer
Have an idea for a story? Email us at email@example.com
Photo credit: adam79 (Creative Commons)