The Obama/Hillary Approach to ISIS and Iranian Nuclear Weapons Is Russian Roulette on a Global Scale

President Barack Obama and his third-Obama-term anointed successor Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for the mess in the Middle East, particularly the Iran nuclear deal that will make Iran a nuclear power in 10 years, if it is not one already. ~~~~~~ In a June Gatestone Institute article titled, Why Is the U.S. Embracing Iran - AGAIN?, Peter Huessy quotes the Ayatollah Khomenei : "You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans." Khomenei promised President Jimmy Carter that Iran would be a "tolerant democracy." The years have proved those words meaningless and the State Department, in its recently released annual report on world-wide terror, has designated Iran as the world's greatest state sponsor of terrorism. But, despite America's unhappy history of dealings with Iran, the Obama administration assists it. Citing President Carter's decision to support the Ayatollahs instead of the Shah, Huessy's conclusion is that "America is apparently bent on repeating -- yet again -- the historic wrong turn it took in 1979 by once again embracing the radical Islamic regime in Iran. Why would the US administration think doing the same thing again will have a different outcome?" ~~~~~~ Early this summer, Saudi Arabia sent senior leaders to Washington to meet with US diplomatic and defense officials because the Saudis are deeply concerned that America has significantly worsened the situation in the Middle East by creating a "strategic partnership" with Iran. Huessy says the Obama administrationhas justified its rapprochement with Iran by citing the assumed benefits of an Iranian nuclear agreement. But, says Huessy, the current "nuclear deal" with Iran is not a real agreement : "The Iranians never signed it. Members of Iran's parliament reviewed it and made it clear that they would only adhere to those parts of the agreement they liked, insisting in a public statement, released after the review, that the US had no reciprocal flexibility. While the Obama administration tries to portray the agreement as one which will "dismantle" much of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, the facts are that Iran was able to keep an "industrial sized nuclear program....Even worse, under the "deal" Iran would ultimately be able to become a full-fledged, legitimate nuclear power in roughly ten years. Additionally, despite promises and signed UN resolutions to the contrary, Iran's ballistic missile program continues, giving Teheran the largest missile inventory in the Middle East." ~~~~~~~ So, it appears that the current US move toward Iran has not been careful outreach to a dangerous enemy, but rather a lop-sided partnership with a dictatorship that has killed thousands of Americans since the Ayatollahs took over, and continues by use of proxies to attack US and allied interests in the Gulf and elsewhere. Huessy cites examples of Obama's movement toward Iran : he "assisted Iranian militias in Iraq with air support, provided intelligence to Hezbollah's allies on Israeli air strikes, and has steadfastly refused to use military force against any elements of the Assad regime. In 2014, President Obama wrote to Supreme Leader Khamenei that any US military action in Syria would 'target neither the Syrian dictator nor his forces.'" ~~~~~~ We may reasonably ask how President Obama and his administration intend to destroy ISIS or stop terrorism against America and its allies by embracing shiite terrorists led by Iran. America's traditional Middle East and Gulf allies, all of them sunni tribes and nations, seem prepared to provide leadership and manpower in a coalition to oppose Iran's doctrine of shiite conquest -- Obama likes to talk about his coalition -- but, America's actions under Obama have helped Iran, with the result that Iran is well on the way to creating its shiite crescent reaching from Baghdad to Damascus that will engulf Iraq. And, while Obama continues to pour out his rhetoric about defeating ISIL -- refusing even to call ISIS by the name the world gives it, in the same way he refuses to call US Homeland islamic jihadist terrorism by its real name -- we may also reasonably ask why the Saudis, Egyptians, and other Arab states and countries in the region would help build a coalition to oppose Iran's aggression in the Middle East when the coalition leader, Obama's America, appears to be clearly on Iran's side, even though Iran is increasingly hostile and violent toward Obama, America, Israel and the sunni Middle East. Obama has stood by while Iran's ayatollahs jail and execute reformers who might be more democratic. He actively helped bring the extremist Moslem Brotherhood to power in Egypt -- Morsi and the Brotherhood would still be using their Egyptian power to spread shiite terrorism in sunni states and to support their affiliated Palestinian Hamas terrorists if millions of Egyptians had not decided they had had enough of Brotherhood repression and revolted, asking the army to oust Morsi. In Afghanistan, Obama has been dragged, kicking and screaming, by the US military to keep some US forces there and not make the dreadful mistake he made in Iraq when he removed all US forces in 2011. ~~~~~~ The Obama Iranian nuclear deal -- Exhibit One in the case for Obama's obvious support for Iran as it seeks to dominate the Middle East -- is now one year old, but, Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, political scientist, Harvard University scholar and president of the International American Council on the Middle East, says that "two credible and timely intelligence reports reveal that Iran has no intention of honoring the terms of the deal." Rafizadeh cites the revelation by Germany's domestic intelligence agency that the Iranian government has pursued a "clandestine" path to obtain illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies "at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level." The intelligence report also stated that "it is safe to expect that Iran will continue its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives." German Chancellor Angela Merkel criticized Iran and emphasized the significance of these findings in a statement to the German Parliament. Although Germany did not state exactly what Iran was trying to buy, another detailed report by the Institute for Science and International Security, cited by Rafizadeh, indicates the material sought : "The Institute for Science and International Security has learned that Iran's Atomic Energy Organization (AEOI) recently made an attempt to purchase tons of controlled carbon fiber from a country. This attempt occurred after Implementation Day of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The attempt to acquire carbon fiber was denied by the supplier and its government. Nonetheless, the AEOI had enough carbon fiber to replace existing advanced centrifuge rotors and had no need for additional quantities over the next several years, let alone for tons of carbon fiber. This attempt thus raises concerns over whether Iran intends to abide by its JCPOA commitments. In particular, Iran may seek to stockpile the carbon fiber so as to be able to build advanced centrifuge rotors far beyond its current needs under the JCPOA, providing an advantage that would allow it to quickly build an advanced centrifuge enrichment plant if it chose to leave or disregard the JCPOA during the next few years. The carbon fiber procurement attempt is also another example of efforts by the P5+1 to keep secret problematic Iranian actions." The report was written by Andrea Stricker and David Albright (former United Nations IAEA nuclear inspector), and it explains that the Iranian government is required to request permission from a UN Security Council panel for "purchases of nuclear direct-use goods." We may reasonably ask why Obama, who has insisted that the Iranian nuclear deal is based on "do not trust, and verify" is silent about these Iranian violations. ~~~~~~ And, according to Rafizadeh, a secret agreement obtained by the Associated Press discloses that Iran's nuclear deal would not only lift constraints on Iran's nuclear program after the nuclear deal, but it will also do so long before the deal expires -- including permitting the installation of thousands of centrifuges, five times more than it currently possesses, as well enriching uranium at a much higher pace." Yet, Obama's White House ignores Iran's violations of the nuclear deal, making it all the more likely that Iran will continue to violate its terms, as well as UN sanctions, and international law. According to the secret agreement, the deal would pave the way for Iranian leaders to advance their nuclear capabilities at a higher level and even be capable of reducing nuclear weapons breakout capability from one year to six months, long before the nuclear agreement ends. The Obama administration has not made this secret agreement public yet. But, a diplomat, who works on Iran's nuclear program and who asked for anonymity, shared the secret document with the Associated Press : "The diplomat who shared the document with the AP described it as an add-on agreement to the nuclear deal. But while formally separate from that accord, he said that it was in effect an integral part of the deal and had been approved both by Iran and the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, the six powers that negotiated the deal with Teheran." According to the Associated Press : "Centrifuges churn out uranium to levels that can range from use as reactor fuel and for medical and research purposes to much higher levels for the core of a nuclear warhead. From year 11 to 13, says the document, Iran can install centrifuges up to five times as efficient as the 5,060 machines it is now restricted to using. Those new models will number less than those being used now, ranging between 2,500 and 3,500, depending on their efficiency. But because they are more effective, they will allow Iran to enrich at more than twice the rate it is doing now." The Associated Press adds : "The document also allows Iran to greatly expand its work with centrifuges that are even more advanced, including large-scale testing in preparation for the deal's expiry 15 years after its implementation on Jan. 18, 2016." More importantly, this document and the rest of the nuclear agreement still do not explain what rules, if any, control Iran's nuclear proliferation after the 15 years are over. The only interpretation would be that since there is no restriction indicated, Iran will be then be free to do what it desires when it comes to its nuclear program, including installing advanced centrifuges, enriching uranium, and obtaining a nuclear bomb." Rafizadeh reports that Iran protested the disclosure of these documents. Recently, the spokesman for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Behrouz Kamalvandi, said : "the parts [of the document] published were confidential and were supposed to remain so....Our assumption is that it has been leaked by the (International Atomic Energy) Agency." AEOI head Ali Akbar Salehi emphasized the secrecy of these documents : "We do not intend to make this plan known to the public and (IAEA)'s action is a breach of promise." ~~~~~~ We may reasonably ask why President Obama wanted the US Congress to sign a deal that was not fully disclosed to it. President Obama repeatedly stated that the sanctions could be quickly and easily re-imposed if Iran violated the terms of the agreement. However, it's not so simple. Once the four rounds of sanctions have been lifted, it would require the approval of all five members of the UN Security Council to re-impose one round of sanctions -- getting the approval of China and Russia would make that almost impossible, despite Obama's assurances. What has been President Obama's reaction to these crucial intelligence reports? Silence. The administration continues to disregard and turn aside questions about this issue. When asked about the German intelligence report and the Institute for Science and International Security report, a State Department spokesman said : "We have absolutely no indication that Iran has procured any materials in violation of the JCPOA." ~~~~~~ Gatestone Institute scholar Bassam Tawil wrote on Monday that at the level of regional strategy, Egypt has a central role in the anti-Iran coalition of sunni Arab states -- Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the UAE. Tawil says : "The violence of the Arab Spring brought to the fore the inevitable confrontation between a revisionist, aggressive shiite Iran and the Arab countries deploying to defend themselves against Iranian aggression, mainly in Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Africa." Tawil notes that such a confrontation would now unfortunately occur as the Iranians proceed with developing nuclear weapons and using proxies to destabilize the Arab and Moslem states, and as America grows colder towards both Israel and the el-Sisi government in Egypt. The US Obama administration is known in the Middle East, Tawil says, "for empowering its enemies and being treacherous to its friends. Throughout the Middle East, according to Tawil, the joke that "it is far better for a country to be America's enemy than its ally: it will then spend unlimited amounts of wealth and effort to woo you. It seems never to have met an enemy it did not like." But, despite the distrust of Obama, Tawil says the traditional Arab stance, used by autocratic leaders to "bamboozle" their dissatisfied populace by pointing them at an external villain instead of at themselves, has clearly begun to change. "Israel as the greatest enemy, is, correctly, being replaced by Iran." Tawil points to the stories and photos of the presence of the Egyptian foreign minister in Israel last month, which came as a surprise to many : "Critical Egyptian public opinion and the Egyptian media indicate that, in the years since the Israeli-Egyptian peace was signed, the formal agreement has yet to trickle into public consciousness and that there is still considerable suspicion on both sides of the border. The same is true of the peace between Israel and Jordan. Under the reign of the Moslem Brotherhood's Mohamed Morsi, relations had reached a new low, with Egypt covertly aiding Iran's proxy, Hamas, against Israel. The visit of Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry to Israel in early July 2016 could be an indication that the frozen peace between Egypt and Israel is thawing. Even publicizing any kind of cooperation between Egypt and Israel indicates a thaw and could, for the benefit of the Arab and Moslem world, be the beginning of legitimizing bilateral relations. Shoukry's visit to Israel might even have been intended to pave the way for a broadening of relations with Israel and an avowal of the hitherto covert cooperation between many Arab and Moslem states and Israel. According to Tawil's sources in Egypt, Israel deliberately leaked information about firepower and intelligence aid from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to the Egyptian forces operating in the Sinai Peninsula to strengthen relations between the two countries. As Bassam Tawil says : "Like it or not -- and they could do worse -- at some point the sunni Arab states would be wise to allow Israel into their trenches as they fight to the death against Iran." A nuclear Iran, we might add. ~~~~~~ Iran seeks to attack and weaken the United States, potentially with ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. In a translation of a new book by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei on the Destruction of America and Israel, Khamenei writes : "Our position against Israel is, as always : Israel is a malignant cancer gland that needs to be uprooted. In contrast to what shallow people believe, it is not impossible to defeat Israel and the United States." Iran's threats are clear and we have strong evidence -- Iran has attacked America repeatedly over the past 30 years. But, instead of focusing on Iran's actions, President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry promote trade with Iran, downplay its violations of the nuclear deal, ignore its ballistic missile developments and dismiss the growing evidence of its terrorist leadership role. The US 9/11 Commission concluded that the attacks "should not have come as a surprise," as "Islamist extremists had given plenty of warning that they meant to kill Americans indiscriminately and in large numbers." In December 2011, US Judge George B. Daniels found that Iran, with the participation of its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was directly and heavily involved in the 9/11 atrocities, and as long ago as 2000, a US Defense Intelligence Agency analyst was alerting the US government to a web of connections between al-Qaeda, the Iranian intelligence agencies controlled by Khamenei, and other terrorist groups. ~~~~~~ So, dear readers, may we reasonably ask if the nuclear deal with Iran is a good deal? Perhaps it will slow Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, but serious sanctions or military efforts to stop Iran's terrorist agenda are off-limits. What do we know?? Iran reportedly already has five new missile capabilities that can : strike the middle of Europe, including Berlin; target with GPS accuracy military facilities in Saudi Arabia; launch missiles from underground secret tunnels and caves without warning; fire missiles 24/7; and, use missiles to strike targets throughout the Gulf region. In addition, the secret agreement revealed by the Associated Press actually allows Iran to break out of the nuclear deal in year 11, not 15, at which point Iran will be less than six months away from having sufficient nuclear fuel to arm a nuclear warhead, and Iran will be able to install nuclear centrifuges five times more efficient than the ones they have today. Also, according to German intelligence reports, Iran has regularly since the July 2015 nuclear agreement, sought to purchase nuclear ballistic missile technology, a violation of previous UN resolutions. Given all this, what does US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton say about Iran and the Iranian nuclear deal? In a 2008 presidential debate, Hillary threatened to use a nuclear weapon to "obliterate" Iran, shocking her Democrat opponent, Barack Obama. So, Hillary toned back on Iran and in July 2015, she called the new Obama nuclear deal with Iran an “important moment” and said based on what she "knows now" it is a step toward curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions : “I think this is an important step that puts the lid on Iran’s nuclear programs,” Clinton said, speaking at the US Capitol after meeting with House of Representatives Democrats. In March 2016, when Hillary spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee -- AIPAC -- she seemed to flipflop back to her 2008 position, perhaps to please her Jewish audience : "The second choice we face is whether we will have the strength and commitment to confront the adversaries that threaten us, especially Iran. For many years, we’ve all been rightly focused on the existential danger of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. After all, this remains an extremist regime that threatens to annihilate Israel. That’s why I led the diplomacy to impose crippling sanctions and force Iran to the negotiating table, and why I ultimately supported the agreement that has put a lid on its nuclear program." But, Hillary's true colors came through when she added : "Today, Iran’s enriched uranium is all but gone, thousands of centrifuges have stopped spinning, Iran’s potential breakout time has increased and new verification measures are in place to help us deter and detect any cheating. I really believe the United States, Israel and the world are safer as a result..." While Hillary Clinton tries to be firmly on both sides of the Iran issue, the world has strongly suspected for a long time that President Obama favors shiite Iran as the leader of a new Obama-and-Iran created Middle East hegemony. So, Obama needed to have intelligence 'cooked' because he knew where he was going, and he or someone close to him wanted it to be justified. Obama is not to be trusted when he speaks about the fight against ISIS or his commitment to protecting and strengthening the US - sunni Arab - Israel relationship or his 'success' in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. And now, American voters are faced with a third-Obama-term Democrat candidate who thinks his nuclear deal was just fine and that it will "put the lid on Iran’s nuclear programs," making "the United States, Israel and the world" safer. Unless one has a particular fondness for Russian roulette on a global scale, it would seem that Hillary Clinton is not the best presidential choice to save anyone from Iran, and especially not to save America's pre-and-post-Obama Arab allies or Israel.