Obama’s View On Terrorism

President Obama’s State of the Union gave us a look at the premises driving his foreign policy. It showed that he believes Islamic terrorists to be driven by frustration over perceived injustices at the hands of the West, rather than an ideology. It is because of this belief that he can promote the nuclear deal with Iran and depict the regime as a less threatening version of the Soviet Union.

Three key lines in the speech illustrated the fundamentals underlying the Obama Administration’s foreign policy.

First, Obama indicated that he sees terrorism-sponsoring Islamist regimes as comparable to the communists of the Cold War. Both are primarily motivated by power and wealth and are open to mutually-beneficial deals. He said:

“If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today.” read more

There Is a Democrat in Office… Nukes for Everyone!


by: the Common Constitutionalist 

What’s with the Democrats and their “peace in our time” mantra? It’s more like “peace at any cost”.


Is the Obama administration really this stupid and/or naïve? Do they really think that talks with a country as radical as Iran will bear the fruit of peace? I’m serious! Is that really what they think?


Sometimes I think we on the right give these leftists a lot more credit than they deserve. We postulate that everything they do is somehow thought out and calculated down to the nth degree – that they plot and scheme and are somehow always a step or two ahead of everyone. That may be, on occasion, but certainly not here.


They must honestly think they can negotiate with Iran. As if Iran will do so in good faith. To me, this is just another demonstration of leftist peacenik wishful thinking. read more

Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb, Iran

by: the Common Constitutionalist


How many years have we been hearing about Iran’s nuclear capability or at least their potential? It seems we’ve heard this refrain for a decade or so. Not a year goes by that we don’t hear that something must be done about Iran. That Iran is no more than a year or two away from developing a nuclear weapon that we can wait no longer. What will happen if we wait too long?


Any rationally thinking individual must know what will happen if Iran gets a weapon: say goodbye to Israel. But we’ve heard this refrain over and over again years.


So it’s not surprising that on October 6, just three weeks ago, AP reported that president Obama said U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran is still “a year or more” away from producing a nuclear weapon. Obama said, “Our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of the Israeli intelligence services”.


And with that, Obama has placed more distance between the U.S. and Israel.


Yet not three weeks after Obama’s proclamation of the Iran’s nuclear program comes striking news. Iran maybe only a month or so away.


This blockbuster announcement comes from David Albright, nuclear expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS). Albright, a former UN weapons inspector for the IAEA made this determination by analyzing data from both UN and Iranian reports. read more

Iranian Nukes or Chicken Little

by: the Common Constitutionalist


I don’t know about you but I haven’t heard much about the Iranian nuclear threat lately. Maybe it’s because the rest of the Middle East is on fire.


Some experts as well as American lawmakers have said recently that not just piling up sanctions but diplomacy should be given another chance.


We all know how many conflicts have been averted due to diplomacy. Let me think… None. Okay, maybe one. The peace between Israel and Egypt lasted for quite a while, although one could say the Egyptian people drew the short straw on that deal. The dictator Mubarak was a real “man of the people”. They’re lot hasn’t improved much at all. In fact, one could claim it’s even worse now and one would be right.


But wait, say the “experts”. Help has arrived. The big meany Ahmadinejad is out and the relative moderate Muslim cleric Hassan Rouhani has been elected as Iran’s new president.


I guess being a moderate is relative. As body counts go, one could say Hitler was moderate compared to Stalin and Mao.


Benjamin Netanyahu described him this way. Ahmadinejad was a “wolf in wolves clothing”; Rouhani is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.


Israel’s minister of international affairs, strategy and intelligence, Yuvel Steinitz told the Washington Post: “Rouhani is charming, he is cunning and he will smile all the way to the bomb.”

The peace loving moderate Rouhani has appointed as his new defense minister, General Hussein Dehghan. who was implicated in the 1983 bombing that killed 241 American servicemen in Beirut, Lebanon. That’s what moderates do, I guess.


It harkens me back to Jonah Goldberg’s description of American progressives – fascism with a smiley face.


Netanyahu and Steinitz agree that there are only two options: voluntarily shut down all uranium enrichment or see it destroyed with brute force.


But of course the American government, the Obama administration and those in lefty think tanks don’t see it that way.


Former CIA official and liberal hack Paul R Pillar in May stated: “Are the United States and Israel really afraid of a nuclear Iran? Don’t they know that Iran is ideologically and practically opposed to nuclear weapons? Is this nuclear program simply a pretext for confrontation with Iran?”


Yes Mr. Pillar, yes it is. You’ve discovered Israel’s diabolical plan to conquer all countries in and around the Middle East. A Zionist caliphate, as it were. Giving back land that they’ve taken legitimately during war has simply been a ruse to mollify the Arab world.


Pillar believes a peace accord between Iran and Israel is achievable; substantial relief from sanctions for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program.


Hold it. I thought he said Iran is against nuclear weapons? Why would he suggest they would have to restrict the enrichment program if they are dead set against these weapons? I’m just asking. That’s like saying I’ll lessen the sanctions on my children’s ice cream consumption if they agreed to restrict their brussel sprout intake.


Others have stated that the Iranian nuclear threat is so much Chicken Little, the sky is falling nonsense. That the threat has been hanging over our heads for years and still no nukes.


Well I for one trust Israel and Israel alone in that region of the world. I trust that they have not and will not strike unless attacked or provoked.


Regardless of the puppet president, as long as Iran is controlled by the whack job Mullahs they cannot be trusted.


Those lefty politicians, pundits and think tankers can sit safely in their Washington offices and witness the decimation of Israel if Iran is left to its own devices. Those in Israel do not have that luxury.

No Warning From Israel

As you read this article, knowing what you know, would you warn this administration ahead of time? Heck no! Why? Because you would, as would I, be afraid this administration might very well warn Israel’s enemies.

And why is old Johnny McCain so hot to attack Syria?

(Reuters) – The United States was not given any warning before air strikes in Syria against what Western and Israeli officials say were weapons headed for Hezbollah militants, a U.S. intelligence official said on Sunday.

Without confirming that Israel was behind the attacks, the intelligence official said that the United States was essentially told of the air raids “after the fact” and was notified as the bombs went off.

Israeli jets bombed Syria on Sunday for the second time in 48 hours. Israel does not confirm such missions explicitly – a policy it says is intended to avoid provoking reprisals. But an Israeli official acknowledged that the strikes were carried out by its forces.

“It would not be unusual for them to take aggressive steps when there was some chance that some sophisticated weapons system would fall into the hands of people like Hezbollah,” the U.S. intelligence official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

While the air raids raised fears that America’s main ally in the Middle East could be sucked into the Syrian conflict, Israel typically does not feel it has to ask for a green light from Washington for such attacks.

Officials have indicated in the past that Israel sees a need only to inform the United States once such a mission is under way.

U.S. President Barack Obama said on Saturday that Israel has the right to guard against the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah, an ally of both Syria and Iran.

Rather than an attempt to tip the scales against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Israel’s action is seen more as part of its own conflict with Iran, which it fears is sending missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon through Syria. Those missiles might hit Tel Aviv if Israel makes good on threats to attack Tehran’s nuclear program.

Another Western intelligence source told Reuters the latest attack, like the previous one, was directed against stores of Fateh-110 missiles in transit from Iran to Hezbollah.

Continue Reading

What To Do With Syria…Iraq

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I was watching Fox News Sunday morning and saw that John Kerry is over in the Middle East, working on the Syria problem. It seems the Iraqis are allowing aircraft from Iran to fly over Iraqi airspace uninspected and unimpeded. It’s as if the Iraqis are helping the Iranians support Assad’s effort to maintain power in Syria.

Kerry LecturesEvidently the American government knew of this problem when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Iraqis had evidently been warned privately of the Obama administration’s distaste for this. Wow! You mean the Iraqis had the nerve to disregard Hillary’s warnings?

It seems that Iran, most likely with the help of Russia, has been ferrying arms, money, supplies and personnel over Iraq and into Syria for some time.

It’s not that this is unexpected, at least by us that live in realville, as Rush calls it. These Dictators understand they must prop one another up, lest they all fall.

Yet our progressive geniuses in both the Bush and Obama administrations think they can just go in and “nation build”. As if a Jeffersonian democracy will just spring up in a land of centuries old warring tribes and religious fanatics. We are not wanted or liked over in that part of the world. We should’ve accepted that long ago and just gotten out. But no, it’s not good enough to just win a war, not that we know how to do that anymore. Progressives have that burning need to nation build.

I don’t see the Syrian situation as a problem, at least not ours. Frankly, with the backing of Russia and Iran, I don’t see how Assad can lose. So what then do we doSyrian Civil War?

Well… Nothing. This is not our fight. For decades progressives on both sides of the aisle in this country have envisioned some sort of odd grand world democracy. A grand collective, as it were. They refuse to see the reality that that will never be possible.

All the talking and negotiating by our pinhead politicians will amount to spit in the end. There has never been a single instance in history where talking or negotiation has ended in a lasting peace. Never has and never will.

So John Kerry has been dispatched to do what? To threaten Iraq? To publicly humiliate them? Do these morons in Washington actually think that will work? I guess they must. What would we threaten them with, talking them to death? What the hell do they care whether they’re humiliated in the eyes of the world, not that they would be. I have an idea. Mr. Kerry could threaten them with a strongly worded letter from the UN or maybe even a resolution. Ooh, scary! Talk is cheap and the United States, since Reagan left, has done virtually nothing but.

For a long time, I have thought the American State Department is the most useless entity in our government, and that’s saying something. I personally can’t name a single accomplishment of the State Department. Not one. They fly all over the world, negotiating deairan-air-plane-with-arms-to-Syria-ls, giving our money away and getting hosed in the process, repeatedly. Yet they keep coming back for more. Insane!

Maybe Secretary Kerry will throw money at the Iraqis. That always works well for us. Would they accept the bribe, with the promise that they will no longer allow it to happen? Heck I would, and they probably will too, if it is offered. Of course they won’t change anything, but they’ll be happy to take our money, which we borrowed from China or just printed at the local Bernanke Kinko’s.

I don’t know how this is going to turn out. My gut tells me that Assad, unless he is assassinated, will remain in power with the help of his despot friends and allies, Russia, Iran and who knows who else. I don’t know what will happen to the “Rebel Alliance” in Syria, made up of not freedom fighters but several different terrorist organizations. Maybe they’ll move on to attempt to overtake Jordan.

I do know, that given the Obama administrations record for backing terrorist governments like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no matter how it turns out, America will be on the losing end.

If you want to pity anyone in this whole Syria debacle, pity the Syrian people, as you should the Egyptian people. No matter who wins, they lose.

Iran Endorsement

Iran Endorses Obama Pick Hagel for U.S. Secretary of Defense

Iran’s Foreign Ministry dumped more fuel on the fire of former Senator Chuck Hagel’s (R–NE) nomination for Secretary of Defense by announcing its approval for President Obama’s pick.

It’s no secret that Hagel, an outspoken critic of sanctions on Iran, has preferred a policy of engagement and direct talks with the rogue state. In 2001, Hagel voted not to renew the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act, denying said countries money that would be spent on funding terrorism and/or acquiring weapons of mass destruction.

Then, in 2007, Hagel voted against designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, despite the force’s role in orchestrating attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Hagel further opposed the Iran Counter–Proliferation Act and sent a letter to President George W. Bush, urging him to engage in “direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.”  Continue Reading at Heritage

Faux Ceasefire

Report: Spy Satellite Detects Iranian Long-Range Rocket Shipment to Gaza

by:  at the Blaze

Showing just how fragile the Israel-Hamas ceasefire declared Wednesday is, a new report says Iran was already preparing a new shipment of long-range rockets for terrorist groups in Gaza even while the ceasefire was being finalized.Sunday Times Reports Israeli Spy Satellite Detects Iranian Long Range Rocket Shipment to GazaIsrael’s Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted incoming rockets fired from Gaza (photo credit: IDF)

Britain’s Sunday Times reports Israeli spy satellites last week detected a cargo ship being loaded with rockets and other weapons at the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas. Israeli intelligence officials believe those weapons are headed for Gaza.

Ynet provides further detail on the route Iranian secret shipments take via Sudan and Egypt:

Israeli intelligence sources believe the weapons-laden cargo ship will pass through the well established Iranian weapons smuggling route to Gaza, through Sudan and the Red Sea. Sources told the British newspaper that they believe Iranian ships stationed in Eritrea will escort the ship from the moment it enters the Red Sea. “Regardless of the ceasefire agreement, we will attack and destroy any shipment of arms to Gaza once we have spotted it,” an Israeli defense source said.

It appears that the ship’s cargo includes Fajr-5 missiles, which terrorist groups have already fired at Tel Aviv and Jerusalem during Operation Pillar of Defense, and possibly Shahab-3 missiles, which can hit deep in Israeli territory.

Adding another layer to the threat facing Israel, the report suggests those Shahab-3 missiles wouldn’t even need to make it all the way to Gaza and could be fired at Israel from Sudan.

Intelligence officials believe the Fajr-5 missiles are broken apart for shipment, whisked through smuggling tunnels into Gaza and then reassembled by terror groups on the ground.

Last month, a weapons factory in Sudan was destroyed in a bombing Sudanese officials blamed on the Israeli Air Force. Some reports suggested the factory was being used to build Iranian long-range missiles. The Israeli Defense Ministry’s Director of Policy and Political-Military Affairs Amos Gilad then said Sudan is a key transit point for shipment of arms to Gaza terrorists.

On Sunday, a Sudanese official said the arms factory that was bombed will be relocated away from residential areas, according to the Associated Press.

As TheBlaze posted Saturday, whereas in the past it was more secretive, Hamas is now openly boasting about the support it receives from Iran. Senior Hamas official Mahmoud Zahar said Saturday he believes Tehran will increase military support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad. If the Sunday Times report is accurate, it appears that is already happening.

Comment by the Common Constitutionalist: This ceasefire, like most all ceasefires is bogus. Hamas was getting their ass kicked by the Israelis. They (or one of their colaborators) asked for the ceasefire in order to regroup and rearm, with the help of Iran. Israel was foolish to agree to this. They must know they are the most hated country on earth. So what’s the point in agreeing to this farce? They will eventually sign their death warrant by doing these types of things. Victory is only achieved by beating the enemy into submission. They can’t do that if they keep letting the enemy up off the canvas. 

Iran / Hamas Connection

What Will U.S. Do as Iran Admits It Is Behind Rocket Attacks on Israel?

by: Tad Cronn

Israel is under siege again, being pummeled by rockets fired by Hamas in the Gaza Strip  and now from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula.

The assault, which has seen almost 40 rockets launched into Israel in the past few days, has even targeted Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, Israel’s capital.

[Common Constitutionalist adds: In fact, since 2009, Hamas and others have fired over 8,000 rockets into Israel. That’s more ordinance than Nazis threw at England during the entire Second World War.]

On Friday, Iranian officials announced that its rockets are being used in the  attacks. On the same day, it was announced that Iran is stepping up its uranium  enrichment.

According to a source in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, cited by World Net  Daily, Iran has large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and it has  provided those weapons to Hamas. Also, Iran has military advisers in Gaza to  teach the Palestinians how to set up and operate the missile systems.

The same source said the attacks were meant as a message to Israel that any  attack on Iran would be countered by Iran’s puppets.

The U.S. so far has not responded to the attacks on Israel, being too wrapped  up in evading questions about what really happened in Benghazi, Libya, on  September 11.

The U.S. response will be crucial because the current attacks are not  occurring in a vacuum. They are just the latest move in the game President Obama  has been  playing in the Middle East during his first term in office.

With one hand, the Obama Administration has been dealing with the United  Nations to try to pressure Iran into giving up its nuclear weapons program. It  has also reportedly been involved in secret face-to-face talks with Iran.

With the other hand, though, Obama has been toppling governments in the  Mideast and North Africa by funding and arming “resistance” groups that more  often than not turn out to be linked to al Qaida, our supposed enemy.

In Benghazi, information leaked by Administration sources  suggests the  CIA was involved with funneling heavy arms and personnel to the Syrian “rebels,” who are fighting the Syrian government, which is backed by Iran. Making the  situation more complex, Syria and Iran are both supported by Russia, for whom Obama has vowed to be more “flexible” after the election.

The attack in Benghazi was led by Ansar al Sharia, an al Qaida-linked group  that has its strings pulled by Iran. Many of the Ansar al Sharia members in  Libya were in fact armed by the U.S. during its effort to overthrow Moammar Gadhaffi.

U.S.-Israeli relations have been strained almost since the day Obama came  into office. It’s entirely possible that he will wash his hands of Israel’s  problems. If he does, this will likely be seen by the Iranians and Russians as  further signs of weakness.

Mitt Romney said during the debates that he would support the rebels in Syria  and Israel, so perhaps his policy wouldn’t have been all that different on the  surface. But support for Israel, the only functioning democracy in the region,  is crucial to the region’s politics.

Now that the U.S. has foolishly re-elected the Man Who Would Be King, the  U.S. is poised to have the rug pulled out from under its feet and being forced  to watch the ascendancy of a new Muslim Caliphate allied with Russia and  Iran.

Attribution: Godfather Politics

We’ve Never Been Closer……Yeah Right

Official: Clinton’s comments may put Iran at ease

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent comment that the US is “not setting deadlines” for Iran could have the effect of putting the Islamic Republic at ease, a senior Israeli government official said.

The statements show signs of heightened tension between Jerusalem and Washington over the Iranian nuclear issue.

“Without a clear red line Iran will not cease its race toward a nuclear weapon,” the Israeli official said, breaking Jerusalem’s silence on Clinton’s comments, made during an interview with Bloomberg Radio.

“These sorts of statements will not stop Iran’s centrifuges from spinning; unfortunately the opposite could be true,” the official said. “This won’t deter Iran, but could put it at ease.”

Clinton’s comment raised eyebrows in Jerusalem, as did her statement that the US still considered negotiations as “by far the best approach” to preventing Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.

Her words came just hours after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that Jerusalem and the US were discussing what kind of “red lines” needed to be drawn to keep Iran from pursuing its nuclear program.

“I think what is important to realize is that Iran will not stop unless it sees clear determination by the democratic countries of the world and a clear red line,” Netanyahu said. “I don’t think that they see a clear red line, and I think the sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that there won’t be a need for other types of action.”

The prime minister, who has carefully avoided spelling out exactly what he means by red lines, said they could be “a clear delineation of a line which Iran cannot cross in its pursuit of the development of nuclear weapons capability. If Iran saw that, there is a chance, I won’t say it’s guaranteed, but there’s a chance they might pause before they cross that line.”

When Clinton was asked if the Obama administration would lay out sharper “red lines” for Iran or state explicitly the consequences of failing to negotiate a deal with world powers by a certain date, she said Washington was not setting deadlines.

“We’re watching very carefully about what they do, because it has always been more about their actions than their words,” she said.

While Netanyahu has never asked outright for the US to set a deadline – his red lines have been widely interpreted as benchmarks so the Iranians know that if they take certain actions they will face a predetermined response – the reaction from the government official in Jerusalem was a sign of continuing deep frustration with the Obama administration’s approach.

This frustration came to a head last month when Netanyahu got into a sharp diplomatic exchange with US Ambassador Dan Shapiro over the issue during a meeting with a visiting congressman, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan).

Rogers said that he walked out of the meeting feeling that Israel was at its “wit’s end” over the issue.

The response was similar to the reaction in Jerusalem earlier this month to a comment by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, that he would not want to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack.

One official termed Dempsey’s comment “strange” and said it contradicted the White House’s continuous statements that security and defense cooperation between the two countries had never been closer.

Clinton, in her interview, said there were clear differences between Israel and the US regarding the timeline for talks.

“They’re more anxious about a quick response because they feel that they’re right in the bull’s-eye, so to speak,” she said. “But we’re convinced that we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation.”

Clinton added that the sanctions “are having an effect.”

She also indicated that world powers involved in negotiating with Iran – the US, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany – would be meeting over the next month to “take stock of where we are.”

“It is a very challenging effort to get them to move in a way that complies with their international obligations,” she said of the Iranians. “But we believe that is still by far the best approach to take at this time.”

The secretary of state acknowledged that Israel felt an Iran with nuclear weapons posed an existential threat and said “no nation can abdicate their self-defense if they feel that they’re facing such a threat.”

In a related development, Netanyahu met for 90 minutes with President Shimon Peres for the first time since Peres said weeks ago in a television interview that Israel should not attack Iran without US support. Those comments elicited angry responses from sources close to the prime minister, who said the president had overstepped his bounds.

Attribution: HERB KEINON, Jerusalem Post, Bloomberg