The Trump Middle East Strategy Takes Shape Under Pompeo and Bolton

WHILE THE WALL SHUTDOWN DRAGS ON, TRUMP AND POMPEO ARE CEMENTING MIDDLE EAST POLICY. Despite the focus on the wall by the ProgDem propagandist media, there is other news in the world, and it is important news for America. • • • POMPEO SPEAKS IN CAIRO. When Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke in Cairo on January 10, it brought back memories of that chilling anti-America apology made by then-President Obama in 2009. Newsmax stated : "US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a scathing rebuke of the Obama administration's Mideast policies on Thursday as he denounced the former President for 'misguided' and 'wishful' thinking that diminished America's role in the region, harmed its longtime friends and emboldened its main foe : Iran. In a speech to the American University in Cairo, Pompeo unloaded on President Donald Trump's predecessor for being naive and timid when confronted with challenges posed by the revolts that convulsed the Middle East, including Egypt, beginning in 2011. Pompeo laid the blame notably on a vision outlined by President Barack Obama in a speech he gave in Cairo in 2009 in which he spoke of 'a new beginning' for US relations with countries in the Arab and Moslem world." • Newsmax repeated Secretary Pompeo's words : " 'Remember : It was here, here in this very city, another American stood before you,' Pompeo told the invited audience of Egyptian officials, foreign diplomats and students...'He told you that radical Islamist terrorism does not stem from ideology. He told you 9/11 led my country to abandon its ideals, particularly in the Middle East. He told you that the United States and the Moslem world needed 'a new beginning.' The results of these misjudgments have been dire. In falsely seeing ourselves as a force for what ails the Middle East, we were timid about asserting ourselves when the times -- and our partners -- demanded it,' Pompeo said, without mentioning the former President by name. Pompeo blamed the previous administration's approach to the Mideast for the ills that consume it now, particularly the rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria and Iran's increasing assertiveness, which he said was a direct result of sanctions relief, since rescinded by the Trump administration, granted to it under the 2015 nuclear deal. He criticized Obama for ignoring the growth of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement in Lebanon to the detriment of Israel's security and not doing enough to push back on Iran-supported rebels in Yemen." • President Trump is changing this. Pompeo told his audience : "The good news is this : The age of self-inflicted American shame is over, and so are the policies that produced so much needless suffering," he said. "Now comes the real 'new beginning.' In just 24 months, actually less than two years, the United States under President Trump has reasserted its traditional role as a force for good in this region, because we've learned from our mistakes. We have rediscovered our voice. We have rebuilt our relationships. We have rejected false overtures from enemies....President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the danger of the [Iranian] regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises....The nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of its peoples if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course." • American Thinker's Rick Moran wrote that : "Pompeo's view is unequivocal and crystal clear : 'America is a force for good in the Middle East.' He didn't even add the usual qualifiers about our historic imperfections. Expect our adversaries abroad and snowflakes at home to be mighty upset at this moral clarity and self-confidence from the greatest, freest country on Earth. Our real allies will love it. No doubt the Sunni Arab states and other regional US allies cheered Pompeo's words, while those same words worried America's enemies. There was no question of who was on the side of peace and stability and who was seeking change through violence and terror." Moran pointed out the two key elements in Secretary Pompeo's Cairo speech : "First, Pompeo made it clear that the chief focus of US policy in the Middle East is thwarting Iran's dangerous and tyrannical ambitions. While violent jihadist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda still exist and deserve our attention, they are now a lesser threat. Also, by condemning Obama's decision to do nothing in 2009 and 2010 when Iranians took to the streets to protest their oppressive regime, Pompeo opened the door to supporting Iran's internal opposition. Second, Pompeo specifically called out 'radical Islamism' and condemned Obama for not doing so. This is a refinement and extension of President Trump's condemnation of "radical Islamic terrorism," which is the tactic that Islamists use when they go violent. Far from semantics, this change from 'Islamic terrorism' to 'radical Islamism' means that finally, 40 years after Islamists took over Iran, 36 years after Islamists blew up our Marine barracks in Beirut, and nearly 18 years after Islamists attacked us on 9/11, we can clearly name the ideology that animates most of the problem actors in the Middle East." And, Rick Moran sees in Pompeo's Cairo speech "the yin and yang of Trump's foreign policy....Between Obama's apology ten years ago and Pompeo's full-throated support of American values yesterday, the region has been roiled by the 'Arab Spring,' revolutions, and the growing threat of Iran -- a threat so severe that it has thrown former enemies Israel and Saudi Arabia together as allies. Where will the Middle East be ten years from now? If Trump gets his way, the external threat of Iran will be removed, and internal divisions in many Arab countries will be bridged. That's a vision Barack Obama was incapable of seeing." • • • IRAN CONTINUES ATTACKING THE US AND WORKING ON A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM. Reuters reports that the Iran 2015 nuclear accord with world powers caps the level to which Iran is able to enrich uranium to 3.67% purity, well below the 20% it was reaching before the deal, and the roughly 90% that is weapons-grade. Iran is, however, allowed to produce nuclear fuel under strict conditions that need to be approved by a working group set up by the signatories to the deal. Those conditions include ensuring that the fuel cannot be converted to uranium hexafluoride, the feedstock for centrifuges that enrich uranium. • But, Iranian state broadcaster IRIB quoted Ali Akbar Salehi, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying recently : “We have made such progress in nuclear science and industry that, instead of reverse-engineering and the use of designs by others, we can design new fuel ourselves. Initial measures have been started for the design of modern 20% fuel and we’re on the verge of (achieving) it. This product is different from the previous 20% fuel, and we can supply fuel to any reactor that is built like the Teheran reactor. The Teheran reactor has so far been working with old fuel, but modern fuel can improve efficiency." Thus, it seems that the Ayatollahs believe that be creating a new system for enriching uranium, they will be able to pursue their nuclear weapons program without violating th 2015 accord. How can the world -- and especially Europe in its desire to insulate Iran from US financial and petroleum exporting sanctions -- ever trust the Iran regime to be honest or abide by any agreement they make?? • Reuters noted in another release that : "The White House’s national security team last fall asked the Pentagon to provide it with options for striking Iran after a group of militants aligned with Teheran fired mortars into an area in Baghdad that is home to the US Embassy, a source familiar with the matter said on Sunday. The source said that the Pentagon drew up options in response to the request, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal and which originated from the White House National Security Council led by John Bolton. Citing current and former US officials, the WSJ reported that the request sparked deep concern among Pentagon and State Department officials. The Wall Street Journal also reported that it was not clear whether the options were provided to the White House, whether President Donald Trump knew of the request or whether serious plans for a US strike against Iran took shape at that time." The WSJ stated that the decision was prompted by "three mortars being fired into a diplomatic quarter in Baghdad in September. The shells landed in an open lot and no one was hurt. Two days later, unidentified militants fired three rockets that hit close to the US consulate in the southern city of Basra but caused no serious damage." The State Department did not comment on the report, but the Pentagon said it provides the President with options for a variety of threats. NSC spokesman Garrett Marquis, said the NSC does the same and it will continue to consider “the full range of options” after the attacks. • • • NEW YORK TIMES ATTACKS BOLTON; LIEBERMAN RESPONDS. Of course, we could anticipate that the ProgDem lapdogs in the media like the NYT and Democrat leadership would sound the alarm that this perfectly normal situation was somehow another example of President Trump's dangerous decision-making. BUT, BlabberBuzz and CNS reported on Monday in an interview on Fox News, former Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman said asking the Pentagon for options would be “a very reasonable and rational thing for John Bolton to do. Think about it : Iranian-backed militias, extremists, fired mortars in the vicinity of our embassy in Baghdad and our consulate in Basra, Iraq. That’s a sort of declaration of war. But let’s not go that far. It was a hostile act. And if you let a country like Iran get away with it, they’ll do it again. And next time, they will hit our embassy or our consulate. So I think what John Bolton did -- in asking for military options for the President, who always will make the decision in the end -- was rational.” CNS reported that : "Some Iranian media outlets posted reports on the Journal’s claim, without official response from Teheran and with little comment. Kayhan, a newspaper whose editor is appointed by supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, headlined its report, 'Pentagon shuddered at mere thought of Iran attack.' Like other outlets, Kayhan noted that Bolton has long been hostile towards the regime in Teheran. The hardline paper recalled that, at a rally hosted by the exiled National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Paris in 2017, Bolton had said it should be US policy to ensure that the fundamentalist regime does 'not last until its 40th birthday.' Bolton -- like Lieberman a longstanding supporter of the NCRI -- made those comments before he joined the Trump administration last April. Since then he has repeatedly made clear that 'regime change' in Iran is not this administration’s policy. The Islamic revolution’s 40th anniversary is next month." • The claims reported by the Wall Street Journal suggest options were requested for a retaliatory strike after the mortar incident, rather than a fully-fledged military operation aimed at regime change. Last September, after the missile attacks, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders called the attacks “life-threatening” and stated : "Iran did not act to stop these attacks by its proxies in Iraq, which it has supported with funding, training, and weapons. The United States will hold the regime in Teheran accountable for any attack that results in injury to our personnel or damage to United States government facilities. America will respond swiftly and decisively in defense of American lives.” And, in a CNN interview later in September, Secretary Pompeo said : “We have told the Islamic Republic of Iran that using a proxy force to attack an American interest will not prevent us from responding against the prime actor. We will not let Iran get away with using a proxy force to attack an American interest. Iran will be held accountable for those incidents.” When the CNN interviewer asked "Even militarily?” Pompeo responded : “They’re going to be held accountable. If they’re responsible for the arming and training of these militias, we’re going to go to the source.” • CNS said reports from Iraq at the time said the mortars were "evidently launched from Zayouna, an area of the capital where Asaib Ahl al-Haq, one of the most prominent Iran-backed Shi’ite militias, operates openly." • Reuters reported on Monday that Iran’s foreign ministry summoned a senior Polish diplomat on Sunday to protest Poland’s jointly hosting a global summit with the United States focused on the Middle East, particularly Iran, state news agency IRNA reported. Secretary of State Pompeo said on Friday the summit -- to be held in Warsaw on February 13-14 -- would focus on stability and security in the Middle East, including on the “important element of making sure that Iran is not a destabilizing influence.” An Iranian foreign ministry official told Poland’s charge d’affaires in Teheran that Iran saw the decision to host the meeting as a “hostile act against Iran” and warned that Teheran could reciprocate, IRNA added : “Poland’s charge d’affaires provided explanations about the conference and said it was not anti-Iran.” On Friday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif criticized Poland for hosting the meeting and wrote on Twitter : “Polish Govt can’t wash the shame : while Iran saved Poles in WWII, it now hosts desperate anti-Iran circus.” Zarif was referring to Iran hosting more that 100,000 Polish refugees during the Second World War. • • • SAUDI ARABIA AND ISRAEL. The New York-based Israel media outlet Mosaic published a long article on January 7 by Michael Doran, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. In the article, Doran discusses what he calls "The Saudi-Israeli Convergence." He states : "Nowhere has the Biden mindset been more pervasive, or more pernicious, than in the prevailing attitude among liberals and Democrats (and some Republicans) toward Saudi Arabia, which, under Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, has committed the unpardonable sin of working closely with the Trump administration to dismantle the Iran deal and to reconstitute a coalition dedicated to containing Iran. The crown prince has been depicted as spoiled and reckless, and his erratic behavior, so the story goes, is a major threat to stability in the Middle East and a danger to the United States. Before swallowing this tale whole, one would do well to ask a few pointed questions. In the Middle East, which state of consequence shares Israel’s interest in preventing Iran from developing a nuclear-weapons capability? Which state is similarly dedicated to curtailing Iranian power on the ground in Syria and Yemen? Which will help promote a strategic view of the Middle East that correctly sees the rise of Iran, and not the Palestinian question, as the key problem to be solved? Finally, which Arab leader has done the most to advance a general warming of relations with Israel and, incidentally, shares with Israel a deep distrust of the growing influence of Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the Arab world? In brief, the convergence of interests between Israel and Mohammad bin Salman’s Saudi Arabia is both startling in its breadth and historically significant....Trump’s conception of regional order quite openly seeks to further the Saudi–Israeli convergence and to build upon it, in hopes of constructing an effective policy of containment even in an era of domestic wariness regarding military commitments abroad. Of course, it is no secret that this initiative has been met recently by a ferocious counter-effort to anathematize Mohammad bin Salman and throw ice water on any idea of America’s engaging Saudi Arabia altogether. The weapon was handed to the administration’s critics when Saudi assassins murdered the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2. Now the very same critics who claim vociferously that Trump’s Syria withdrawal has betrayed America’s allies, including Israel, are mounting a no-holds-barred attack on Israel’s tacit partner in confronting the Iranian threat and America’s own longest-term ally in the Arab world. There can be no disputing that the murder of Khashoggi deserves a very sharp response from the United States. But influential voices are calling for much more, advocating what amounts to a restructuring of US-Saudi relations and thereby of US strategy altogether in the Middle East : withholding arms sales and defense cooperation, pressuring Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to make concessions to the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen, and even working to have Mohammad bin Salman removed from power. (In March 2015, it was he, then the kingdom’s defense minister, who presided over the Saudi-led intervention in neighboring Yemen after the Houthis, an Iranian proxy trained and equipped by Hezballah and Teheran, had occupied the capital Sanaa, seized the presidential palace, and placed the government of Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi under house arrest.). Indeed, one of the greatest achievements of this campaign has been to convince people, even people with foreign-policy experience, that Khashoggi’s murder is more than just a point of bitter contention between Riyadh and Washington; it is a matter of the utmost strategic significance for America." Michael Doran sees this as the latest effort to separate Saudi Arabia from the US : "For some time now, Saudi Arabia has been in the crosshairs of the Democratic party’s progressive wing. In September 2017, for example, Senator Bernie Sanders expressed his hostility to the Saudis in the sharpest of terms. 'Do I consider them an ally? I consider them to be an undemocratic country that has supported terrorism around the world,' he said. 'No, they are not an ally of the United States.' The Khashoggi affair has now pulled more moderate elements of the party toward the Sanders position, not least because it offers a good line of attack against the President. 'We have a President who is part of the cover-up as to what happened in that consulate or embassy when Mr. Khashoggi was murdered,' Hillary Clinton said recently. 'And we have a president and those closest to him who have their own personal commercial interests....Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, outgoing chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, busied himself with the weighty task of thwarting Trump over the Khashoggi murder. He hauled Gina Haspel, director of the CIA, to Capitol Hill to give a bipartisan group of like-minded Senators a detailed intelligence briefing on the crown prince’s involvement in the affair. Corker, together with Senator Bob Menendez, also sent a letter to Trump demanding a formal determination as to whether bin Salman was personally responsible for the killing of Khashoggi. Under the terms of the Global Magnitsky Act, such a determination would automatically trigger sanctions against the de-facto ruler of Saudi Arabia....Exaggerating the significance of Khashoggi’s murder sends a signal of American confusion to the world. It suggests that the world’s only superpower has lost the meaningful capacity to differentiate one heinous misdeed by a close ally from continuous threats posed by its true enemies, not least in the Middle East itself. Every word expended on the Khashoggi affair has been a lost opportunity to discuss, for example, such simultaneous machinations as the plot by Iran to carry out an assassination in Denmark, the second such plot in Europe this year, or the discovery of tunnels being dug by Hezbollah from Lebanon into Israel....In Yemen...what will determine the course of events is indeed the iron logic of war. The Houthis are an Iranian proxy force. If they win, Iran will win. If they merely force a stalemate, Iran will retain a base on Saudi Arabia’s southern border from which rockets and missiles provided by Iran can target Riyadh. Precisely as it has done in Lebanon for Hezbollah, and against Israel, Iran will have every incentive to increase the size and power of that arsenal. No senatorial display of outrage can refute this logic. A policy of punishing Saudi Arabia will not improve 'the humanitarian crisis in Yemen,' and it will not stop the fighting there. It will succeed only in handing Iran a victory and the US a strategic defeat. By contrast, the only way to insure that we do end the killing, end the humanitarian crisis, and achieve our strategic goal of containing Iran is to work for a Saudi victory. This is the stark logic of war. If the humanitarian cost of a Saudi victory is too high for our moral sensibilities to bear, then the only answer is for the US to become more engaged, to help the Saudis with their strategy and their tactics, to bring the war to a quicker and more decisive outcome that will destroy the lives of fewer people. Those are the real options -- moral and strategic. No one in the Senate is discussing them." • Michael Doran goes on to discuss President Trump's strategy in the Middle East : "The challenges of the Middle East are many and complex. Trump’s strategy of refraining from direct military engagement while assuring support to one’s allies, therefore, is by no means guaranteed to succeed. But in an era of deep skepticism about the deployment of American forces in general, it represents the only viable strategy if the twin goals of American policy are to contain the Sunni terror organizations and Iran simultaneously. The successful containment of Iran would, in turn, reduce the power of Russia, whose expanded influence in the region is largely dependent on Iranian-led ground forces....Obama saw the Middle East as a roundtable, at which Iran and Russia would be prominently seated....In the Trump conception, by contrast, the Middle East is not a round table but a rectangular table. On one side are the United States and its traditional allies. On the other side are its adversaries: Russia and Iran, their proxies, and the Sunni terror groups. The job of the United States, in this conception, is to elevate the power of its friends over its adversaries while simultaneously mediating among the allies, who are a fractious bunch....an ally is a state that supports the American security system. Two questions should thus decide whether America treats a state as a friend or as a foe. Will the state actively help to defend that system against those -- Russia, China, and Iran -- who seek to weaken or destroy it? If it won’t take action, will it at least deny its territory and resources to America’s enemies? In the Middle East, if not in the world, these questions should take precedence. When an ally stumbles, we should help it to its feet. When our enemy stumbles, we should help keep it down and on the ground. Any consideration that subverts this elementary logic, no matter how 'moral' it may appear on the surface, is fundamentally unsound. The choices in the Middle East are stark : either the United States will build a security system with its own military or with its allies’ militaries, or it won’t have one at all. In the absence of a viable security system, its moral influence in the world will decline significantly. 'Without bread,' the Jewish sages say, 'there is no Torah.' In foreign policy we might similarly say, 'Without basic security, there are no American values.' There are lessons in this for American politicians in both parties, for supporters of Israel, and for lovers and promoters of liberty around the world." • • • THE RADICAL ISLAM DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS. The Michael Doran arguments may seem like the ivory tower analysis of a professor. But, Doran's worry about the tug of war now going on in congress about President Trump's Middle East strategy -- particularly as it relates to Saudi Arabia and Israel -- is real and of pragmatic significance. American Thinker's Valerie Greenfield put this into practical perspective on Saturday. Greenfield wrote : "The two newly elected Moslem darlings of the Democratic Party have more ego than intellect and more hatred for Israel than love for America. On January 3, 2019, new members of Congress arrived at their Longworth House offices radiating a contagious excitement. Scores of political fans from Moslem districts in Michigan and Minnesota greeted each other in Arabic, smiling as if Uncle Sam were Santa Claus bringing gifts to greet the first female Palestinian and the first Somali members of the US House of Representatives. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (D-Minn.) wore the Palestinian flag on election night and a Palestinian thobe to the House offices, clearly stating where her alliances lie. Then she announced her alarming position : a one-state solution creating a binational state of 'Palestine.' According to the Anti-Defamation League, 'a 'one-state solution,' is nothing less than an indirect attempt to bring about an end to the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.' Support for the single state; the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement; and a delegation to Judea and Samaria for freshman members of Congress demonstrates Tlaib's anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bigotry. 'I want us to see that segregation [of Palestinians]...has really harmed us from being able to achieve real peace.... I don't think AIPAC provides a real, fair lens into this issue.'....Tlaib said she will 'absolutely vote against military aid to Israel,' but she went too far when stating she would 'stand up to bullies like President Donald Trump and impeach the m-----------.' While the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democratic leaders did condemn Tlaib's inappropriate language, none of them countered her declaration that Israel has no right to exist. As the first elected Palestinian woman, even though she was born and raised in Detroit, Tlaib aligns herself with the dangerous, anti-Semitic socialist Linda Sarsour. Sarsour was disavowed by the president of the Women's March due to her anti-Semitic remarks and close ties to Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. Tlaib will be known by the company she keeps." Former congressman Keith Ellison, another friend of Louis Farrakhan, vacated the seat that was filled by Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a young, hijab-wearing Somali-American Moslem who "turned her victory rally into a display of Islamic solidarity and triumph. Accused of marrying her brother, committing immigration fraud (to become a US citizen), and polygamy after marrying the father of her child, Omar seems to be chasing controversy. Later, she was accused of campaign finance violations. Even though these moral questions were never resolved, she was still elected. Omar's message was less about being a Democrat or an American and more about being Somali and Moslem, less about speaking English and celebrating American traditions and more about speaking Arabic 'Alhamdulilah' and thanking Allah in lieu of her supporters....Congresswoman Omar is 'pushing to change a 181-year-old rule barring headwear in the House chamber, so she can wear a hijab on the House floor. When Bishop E.W. Jackson complained about Omar's push for a religious exemption she responded, 'Well sir, the floor of Congress is going to look like America...And you're gonna have to just deal.' " Both mar's and Tlaib's first acts in Congress are clear attempts to prioritize their own religious preferences and to honor the heritage of their 'home' countries over their duty to represent their districts. • Greenfield also sees the sinister side of this minority of two in the House of Representatives : "While America celebrates diversity and women's rights with eyes closed in the glory of political correctness, the Moslem Brotherhood, a terrorist organization in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, is electing representatives to carry out its work. Indeed, the decades-long struggle to put the Moslem Brotherhood's Explanatory Memorandum fully into action has arrived. As stated, 'the work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.' " • It is easy to forgetthat every radical Moslem is probably somehow connected to the Moslem Brotherhood and its desire to clandestinely bring the US into its radical Islam sphere. But, that truth is there for those who want to face it. • • • DEAR READERS, Senator Marco Rubio hit back at the New York Times on Monday for what he called its "absurd criticism" of John Bolton after the paper warned the national security adviser could "precipitate a conflict with Iran." Rubio tweeted to his 3.6 million followers : "This is an absurd criticism of Amb. Bolton. Shia militias in #Iraq are proxies of & controlled by #Iran. They want to use them to kill our troops but have deniability. Any attack by Shia militias against U.S. should be treated as an attack from Iran." • Senator Rubio's pushback comes after the New York Times reported on Sunday that Bolton asked the Pentagon to "provide the White House with military options to strike Iran" after Shia militants fired mortars or rockets into an empty lot of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in September. The report, which cited Defense Department and senior American officials, went on to say the request "alarmed" former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who ultimately rejected strikes for what he deemed a minor incident. The NYT Wrote : "Since Mr. Bolton took over from H.R. McMaster in April, he has intensified the administration’s policy of isolating and pressuring Iran -- reflecting an animus against Iran’s leaders that dates back to his days as an official in the George W. Bush administration. As a private citizen, he later called for military strikes on Iran, as well as regime change. Such a strike could have caused an armed conflict and could have prompted Iraq to order the United States to leave the country." • So, we can see that the New York Times is now gunning for John Bolton. The NYT, and every other ProgDem media outlet, is determined to deprive President Trump of any conservative counsel from strategic thinkers. Saudi Arabia - Israel - Egypt. Those are the keys to stopping Iranian aggression in the Middle East. President Trump knows that and his senior advisors agree and are implementing that strategy.