The Bolton-Pompeo-Trump War-on-Iran Hysteria Is Anti-Trump Fake News

THE MEDIA-DEMOCRAT FAKE NEWS HYSTERIA ABOUT AN IMPENDING IRAN WAR IS MORE ANTI-TRUMP 'CABALISM.' The Fake news storyline was given "full steam ahead' status by the New York Times in a May 13 story. • • • NYT : ECHOES OF THE IRAQ WAR. New York Times journalists Eric Schmitt and Julian E. Barnes wrote a long article last Monday, May 13, that used the Department of Defense precautionary moves in the eastern Mediterranean as the first steps in what they say is a buildup against Iran that echoed the Iraq War : "At a meeting of President Trump’s top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said. The revisions were ordered by hard-liners [note the negative word] led by John R. Bolton, Mr. Trump’s national security advisor. They do not call for a land invasion of Iran, which would require vastly more troops, officials said." The NYT goes on to blame the "tensions between the United States and Iran" on the arrival of John Bolton as the national security advisor, saying that Bolton "has long pushed for regime change in Iran. One of his chosen replacements is the dissident group Mujahedeen Khalq, known as M.E.K. The development reflects the influence of Mr. Bolton, one of the administration’s most virulent Iran hawks, whose push for confrontation with Teheran was ignored more than a decade ago by President George W. Bush." • Because John Bolton is the Bad Guy in the NYT's anti-Trump Iran smear, Schmitt and Barnes say : "It is highly uncertain whether Mr. Trump, who has sought to disentangle the United States from Afghanistan and Syria, ultimately would send so many American forces back to the Middle East. It is also unclear whether the President has been briefed on the number of troops or other details in the plans. On Monday, asked about if he was seeking regime change in Iran, Mr. Trump said : “We’ll see what happens with Iran. If they do anything, it would be a very bad mistake.” But, even the NYT gave some details about the Iran situation : "As recently as late April, an American intelligence analysis indicated that Iran had no short-term desire to provoke a conflict. But new intelligence reports, including intercepts, imagery and other information, have since indicated that Iran was building up its proxy forces’ readiness to fight and was preparing them to attack American forces in the region.The new intelligence reports surfaced on the afternoon of May 3, Mr. Shanahan told Congress last week. On May 5, Mr. Bolton announced the first of new deployments to the Persian Gulf, including bombers and an aircraft carrier. • Why did Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan present an "updated military plan" for dealing with any eventual Iran aggression in the region? First, even the NYT had to report further on in the article that : "Several oil tankers were reportedly attacked or sabotaged [the "reportedly" "sabotaged" vessels had open gashes on their bow areas near the water line] off the coast of the United Arab Emirates over the weekend, raising fears that shipping lanes in the Persian Gulf could become flash points." That was what President Trump was referring to when he said “It’s going to be a bad problem for Iran if something happens.” United Arab Emirates officials, said the NYT, "are investigating the apparent sabotage, and American officials suspect that Iran was involved. Several officials cautioned, however, that there is not yet any definitive evidence linking Iran or its proxies to the reported attacks. An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman called it a 'regretful incident,' according to a state news agency." Pending an investigation, nobody is blaming Iran, but Saudi Arabia also reported that drones sent by Iranian-supported Houthis attacked Saudi oil facilities. • While in Brussels, Secretary Pompeo met with the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany, cosignatories of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, as well as with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini. The NYT reported that "the European officials said they had urged restraint upon Washington, fearing accidental escalation that could lead to conflict with Iran. 'We are very worried about the risk of a conflict happening by accident, with an escalation that is unintended really on either side,' said Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign secretary." • The New York Times reporters then take up the NYT routine of quoting "national security officals who had been briefed" : "There are sharp divisions in the administration over how to respond to Iran at a time when tensions are rising about Iran’s nuclear policy and its intentions in the Middle East. Some senior American officials said the plans, even at a very preliminary stage, show how dangerous the threat from Iran has become. Others, who are urging a diplomatic resolution to the current tensions, said it amounts to a scare tactic to warn Iran against new agressions....More than a half-dozen American national security officials who have been briefed on details of the updated plans agreed to discuss them with The New York Times on the condition of anonymity. Spokesmen for Mr. Shanahan and General Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to comment. The size of the force involved has shocked some who have been briefed on them. The 120,000 troops would approach the size of the American force that invaded Iraq in 2003. Deploying such a robust air, land and naval force would give Teheran more targets to strike, and potentially more reason to do so, risking entangling the United States in a drawn out conflict. It also would reverse years of retrenching by the American military in the Middle East that began with President Barack Obama’s withdrawal of troops from Iraq in 2011. But two of the American national security officials said Mr. Trump’s announced drawdown in December of American forces in Syria, and the diminished naval presence in the region, appear to have emboldened some leaders in Teheran and convinced the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that the United States has no appetite for a fight with Iran." • Giving details of the meeting at which Secretary Shanahan laid out his plan, the NYT said : "The high-level review of the Pentagon’s plans was presented during a meeting about broader Iran policy. It was held days after what the Trump administration described, without evidence [another favorite NYT ploy often proven wrong when President Trump and his administration produce the evidence], as new intelligence indicating that Iran was mobilizing proxy groups in Iraq and Syria to attack American forces. As a precaution, the Pentagon has moved an aircraft carrier, B-52 bombers, a Patriot missile interceptor battery and more naval firepower to the gulf region." The NYT reporters said "much of the new intelligence appears to have focused on Iran readying its proxy forces," but officials said they "believed the most likely cause of a conflict will follow a provocative act, or outright attack, by the Revolutionary Guards’ navy. The Guards’ fleet of small boats has a history of approaching American Navy ships at high speed. Revolutionary Guards commanders have precarious control over their ill-disciplined naval forces. Part of the updated planning appears to focus on what military action the United States might take if Iran resumes its nuclear fuel production, which has been frozen under the 2015 agreement. It would be difficult for the Trump administration to make a case that the United States was under imminent nuclear peril; Iran shipped 97% of its fuel out of the country in 2016, and currently does not have enough to make a bomb. That could change if Iran resumes enriching uranium. But it would take a year or more to build up a significant quantity of material, and longer to fashion it into a weapon. That would allow, at least in theory, plenty of time for the United States to develop a response -- like a further cutoff of oil revenues, covert action or military strikes." • US Central Command confirmed that the bombers headed to the Middle East will be B-52s : "We continue to closely monitor the activities of the regime in Iran, their military, the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], and their proxies, and we are well postured to defend US forces and interests," CENTCOM spokesman Captain Bill Urban said in a statement released by the Pentagon. "The deployment of the Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group and a bomber task force are considered prudent steps to protect US forces and interests in the region and to deter any aggression....Urban also confirmed the USS Abraham Lincoln's deployment was previously 'expected to include a significant amount of time' in Central Command. But, Urban added, the deployment to the area is now 'expected ahead of its original schedule and is in response to credible threats in the CENTCOM region." In line with the expedited arrival in the Middle East, the Lincoln's previously planned port visit Split, Croatia has been canceled, US European Command spokesman Lieutenant Commander Joe Hontz said in a statement released with Urban's. • • • WHAT HAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS TEAM ACTUALLY SAID ABOUT AN IRAN WAR? President Trump is NOT CALLING FOR WAR. After the New York Times article was published, National security Council spokesman Garrett Marquis said : "The President has been clear, the United States does not seek military conflict with Iran, and he is open to talks with Iranian leadership. However, Iran’s default option for 40 years has been violence, and we are ready to defend US personnel and interests in the region.” Last Tuesday, President Trump labeled as "Fake news" the report that the White House is considering sending up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East if Iran steps up work on nuclear weapons. President Trump said the United States is not preparing for war with Iran despite recent escalating tensions. He told reporters he would "absolutely" be willing to send troops, but that he's not planned for that and hopefully won't have to plan for that. • While in Iraq recently, Secretary Pompeo told reporters traveling with him : "The reason we're going is you've all seen the reports that there have been escalating -- information that indicates that Iran is escalating their activity. I wanted to go to Baghdad to speak with the leadership there, to assure them that we stood ready to continue to ensure that Iraq was a sovereign, independent nation, and that the United States would continue to help build out partners in the region -- the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Emiratis, all of the Gulf states who want to see a free, independent, sovereign Iraq. And so that's the primary mission set." And, in a meeting with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the Russian city of Sochi, Secretary Pompeo said the US "fundamentally" did not seek a conflict with Iran : "We have also made clear to the Iranians that if American interests are attacked, we will most certainly respond in an appropriate fashion." • As for 'Bad Guy' John Bolton, it was actually Al-Jazeera -- that tells us a lot about the honest reporting of the NYT, doesn't it -- that quoted the word-for-word position statement of Bolton : "The United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime, but we are fully prepared to respond to any attack, whether by proxy, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or regular Iranian forces." Al-Jazeera said that amid rising tensions between Washington and Teheran, US National Security Advisor John Bolton said that the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group to the US Central Command region was a response "to a number of troubling and escalatory indications and warnings." • • • THE MEDIA HYSTERIA FEEDS THE STORYLINE THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP IS NOT IN CHARGE. No, he is just the silly fool fronting for the "NEOCONS." That's what Truthdig wrote on May 15 in an article title "Neocons Won’t Stop Until They Get Their War With Iran." Of course, Truthdig relied on the New York Times article : "Several recent indicators strongly suggest President Donald Trump’s administration appears to be angling for a war with Iran. On Monday, the New York Times reported that the White House has been reviewing military plans against Iran. According to sources, 'Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons.' To no one’s surprise, it was Trump’s national security advisor John Bolton who ordered the updated plan. Bolton has made it his mission to spark a war against Iran, and he was part of the apparatus of building the false case for the disastrous 2003 US war against Iraq. So hawkish is Bolton that in an interview with Foreign Policy in 2007 he said, "'Once upon a time, we knew how to do clandestine regime change. We need to reacquire that capability.' As the Times pointed out, Bolton’s new review of military plans to attack Iran is reminiscent of preparations made ahead of the 2003 Iraq war. Clearly Bolton is chomping at the bit a little over a year since he accepted his position at the White House." How Truthdig square this position with Bolton's own statement -- "the United States is not seeking war with the Iranian regime -- is left unaddressed. And the remainder of the Truthdig article is so biased and vitriolic that we need not waste time on it, but consider Truthdig's virulent last sentence to get the flavor of the attack : "Logic will not deter the Trump bullies. Neither will a history lesson. With Bolton back in a seat of power and pushing our unhinged President toward war with Iran, we may be on the precipice of yet another deadly military disaster." • Here are some of the hysterical headlines you will find if you google 'Bolton Iran' -- "John Bolton beats war drums again in US-Iran standoff" (MSNBC) //// "Is John Bolton Manipulating Trump to Attack Iran?" (New York Magazine) //// "Allies Are Aghast” : Is John Bolton Replaying His Iraq War Playbook" (Vanity Fair) //// "Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world? (The Guardian) //// Rand Paul : “Malignant” Bolton Pushing Trump To War With Iran" //// "Iran policy : Donald Trump's irritation with top aides grows (CNNPolitics). even Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday accused national security advisor John Bolton of attempting to embroil the US in a war with Iran. • Finally, on page 4 of the googled list, you will come to this May 16 Fox News article titled "Senator McSally defends John Bolton on Iran, says US doesn't want war : 'Stop playing politics.' " McSally on Wednesday laid into those who've criticized National Security Advisor John Bolton as a "war monger" amid rising tensions between the US and Iran : "I think he is a realist. I know John Bolton and I know he cares about protecting Americans and their interests." Urging her Senate colleagues to read the classified materials on "what we're dealing with, McSally added : "Any situation where there are threats like this, we present courses of action to be able to protect America. That is what we are going through right now and I think that is what Americans want us to do. Stop playing politics with this and let's make sure we present all the options available to keep us safe and keep our troops and Americans safe." McSally, an Air Force vet, addressed the threat Iran poses to America but made it clear that war should be avoided : "Economically we are now cranking up the sanctions and we pulled out of the Iran deal, which I supported, and our military presence our defense options are available as well as diplomatic action in order to keep us safe....We want to be able to protect our interests. Iran has a very complex and militarized state so we have to try and de-escalate this using the elements of power that we have, but also be ready to protect Americans." • There is one other article that supports Bolton. The National Review published an article on Saturday by Matthew Continetti that was title "The Warmonger Canard." Continetti began with this : "Whatever the opposite of a rush to war is -- a crawl to peace, maybe -- America is in the middle of one. Since May 5, when John Bolton announced the accelerated deployment of the Abraham Lincoln carrier group to the Persian Gulf in response to intelligence of a possible Iranian attack, the press has been aflame with calls for America to show restraint, pursue diplomacy, and rein in the madman with the mustache before he starts a war. Never mind that President Trump, Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, Patrick Shanahan, and Bolton have not said a single word about a preemptive strike, much less a full-scale war, against Iran. Never mind that the President’s reluctance for overseas intervention is well known. The anti-war cries are not about context, and they are certainly not about deterring Iran. Their goal is saving President Obama’s nuclear deal by manipulating Trump into firing Bolton and extending a lifeline to the regime." Continetti states : "It’s a storyline that originated in Iran. Toward the end of April, [Iranina Foreign Minister and chief negotiator of the nuclear deal] Zarif showed up in New York and gave an interview to Reuters where he said, 'I don’t think [Trump] wants war,' but 'that doesn’t exclude him basically being lured into one' by Bolton. On May 14, an advisor to Rouhani tweeted at Trump, 'You wanted a better deal with Iran. Looks like you are going to get a war instead. That’s what happens when you listen to the mustache. Good luck in 2020!' And now this regime talking point is everywhere. 'It’s John Bolton’s world. Trump is just living in it,' write two former Obama officials in the Los Angeles Times. 'John Bolton is Donald Trump’s war whisperer,' writes Peter Bergen on CNN.com. 'Trump’s potential war with Iran is all John Bolton’s doing. But it might also be his undoing,' says the pro-Iran Trita Parsi on NBCNews.com. 'Is Trump Yet Another US President Provoking a War?' asks Robin Wright of The New Yorker. Guess her answer." Continetti calls it : "...the Iran echo chamber at work. Recall former Obama deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes’s admission to the New York Times Magazine in 2016, when he said, 'We created an echo chamber' to attack the Iran deal’s opponents through leaks and tips to the DC press. 'They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.' And : 'We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project, and whomever else. So we know the tactics that worked.' They worked because 'the average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.' And so, when President Obama framed the choice as between his [nuclear] deal and 'going to war,' no one batted an eye. When Obama said the forces of good would triumph 'despite the money, despite the lobbyists'...the echo chamber repeated his words. When Obama’s administration portrayed President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif as reformers eager to join the international community, even though real power lies with Ayatollah Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reporters dutifully conveyed the preferred narrative. Iranian hostage taking, missile building, terrorism financing, and proxy fighting was downplayed or ignored. Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, were portrayed as the real obstacles to peace." Continetti says : "What baloney. Still, President Obama got his deal -- for a few years, anyway. When Donald Trump’s victory threatened Obama’s foreign-policy legacy, the echo chamber resumed operation. The same Obama officials, journalists, and foreign-policy experts who had pretended Rouhani was Gorbachev spent two years telling us that Donald Trump was a Russian asset, possibly had been since 1987, had committed 'treason,' and would be driven from office after Robert Mueller exposed his crimes. They were ready to throw Trump’s incoming national security advisor in jail for violating the Logan Act, even as John Kerry, and now it seems Dianne Feinstein, talk shop with Zarif." Continetti is so right in this : "Members of the echo chamber aren’t for attacking Iran, but they are all for slandering its American opponents. The latest target is Bolton. One of the most ferocious critics of President Obama, he has been an effective and hawkish national security advisor for President Trump. Why is he, not Iran, being blamed for heightened tensions? It’s because the Iran deal, and perhaps the Iranian regime, is on life support." But, for Continetti, President Trump is very much in charge : "On April 22, Pompeo announced that the United States would end waivers for sanctions on Iranian oil. That same day, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. On May 8, one year after the United States withdrew from the nuclear deal, Iran threatened to follow suit. 'Rouhani did not signal the end of the deal entirely,' reported CNBC.com, 'but gave Europe an ultimatum: It will have 60 days to either follow the Trump administration or resume oil trade with Iran to save the agreement, violating US sanctions. A failure to do the latter would prompt Teheran to return to high level uranium enrichment, the Iranian leader said.' This isn’t diplomacy. It’s nuclear blackmail. And it’s a sign of desperation. The Iranians are in a box. US sanctions are crushing the economy, but if they leave the agreement with Europe, they will be back to square one. To escape the box, you try to punch your way out. That’s why Iran has assumed a threatening posture : Provoking an American attack could bolster waning domestic support for the regime and divide the Western alliance." • • • THE IRANIAN THREAT IS REAL. Townhall wrote on Thursday : "The intelligence that caused the White House to escalate its warnings about a threat from Iran came from photographs of missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf that were put on board by Iranian paramilitary forces, three American officials said. Overhead imagery showed fully assembled missiles, stoking fears that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps would fire them at United States naval ships. Additional pieces of intelligence picked up threats against commercial shipping and potential attacks by Arab militias with Iran ties on American troops in Iraq." Secretary told Townhall's Guy Benson : "So all of this -- all of this is part and parcel of the challenge of a revolutionary regime that wants the 'Great Satan' and Israel to go away. So you have to take the data set along with -- right -- it’s always about capability and will, demonstrated will, ill will against the United States of America. So the things that you see, and I can’t comment on the New York Times story, other than to say that the things that you’ve seen us do to attempt to achieve deterrence against the Islamic Republic of Iran, from their malign activity, is a direct response to eight years of an administration that allowed the terror regime to expand....During the JCPOA, we had increased missile capabilities coming out of Iran. We had their capacity to deliver harm from Houthi rebels in Yemen -- all of these things Iran did happened because the previous administration appeased the Islamic Republic of Iran....when you push back, tension does increase. Our mission set is very clear. We know what we’re asking the Iranian leadership to do, and we are very focused on achieving that, and we’re trying to do so in a way to make sure that we keep every American diplomat and every American soldier, sailor, airman and Marine safe as well....It is ahistorical and completely unhelpful when previous secretaries of state [John Kerry] are continuing to engage in the tasks that they engaged in when they were the secretary of state. I’ll leave it at that in the sense of it’s time to get off the stage for the previous administration. I understand they have different views than we have; they are entitled to those views. But talking with senior leaders around the world and suggesting to them somehow that waiting out this administration is the best course of action for those countries is something that is unheard of, it is fundamentally different than any previous administration has undertaken, and they ought to leave the foreign policy to us. And then do their best to give folks with foreign policy views that have appeased the Iranians, that allowed Chairman Kim Jong-un to continue to advance his nuclear threat, that put us prostrate around the world -- if those are the policies they want, they should go fight for them at the ballot box." • To look again to Al-Jazeera, last Monday, it wrote this : "President Hassan Rouhani has called for unity among Iran's political factions to overcome conditions which he said may be harder than those during the 1980s war with Iraq. As Iran faces tightening US sanctions, Rouhani said on Saturday that his country was under unprecedented pressure comparable to when Saddam Hussein's army invaded Iran in 1980, which prompted eight years of intense fighting and economic problems. 'Today, it cannot be said whether conditions are better or worse than the (1980-88) war period, but during the war we did not have a problem with our banks, oil sales or imports and exports, and there were only sanctions on arms purchases,' Iran's state news agency IRNA quoted Rouhani as saying." That statement from the President of Iran certainly suggests strongly that President Trump's sanctions strategy is biting Iran hard. • Saudi Arabia feels the threat from Iran and is prepared to respond. Adel al-Jubeir, Saudi state minister of foreign affairs, says the ball is in Iran's court to determine its fate. Saudi Arabia wants to avert war in the region but stands ready to respond with "all strength and determination" after last week's attacks on Saudi oil assets, he said, adding that the ball was now in Iran's court. The remarks came as Saudi Arabia's King Salman invited Gulf and Arab leaders to convene emergency summits in Mecca on May 30 to discuss implications of the attacks. The US Navy Fifth Fleet released a statement saying that Gulf countries were "specifically increasing communication and coordination with each other in support of regional naval cooperation and maritime security operations in the Arabian Gulf." Al-Jazeera says : "The UAE has not blamed anyone for the tanker operation, pending an investigation. No one has claimed responsibility, but two US government sources said last week that US officials believed Iran had encouraged the Houthi group or Iraq-based Shia militias to carry it out. The Houthis claimed the attack on the pipelines....In a sign of the heightened tension, Exxon Mobil evacuated foreign staff from an oilfield in neighbouring Iraq. Bahrain on Saturday warned its citizens against travel to Iraq and Iran and asked those already there to return. The Federal Aviation Administration has issued an advisory to US commercial airliners flying over the waters of the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman to exercise caution." The New York Times said last Thursday that troops from Germany and the Netherlands were "pulled back to bases in Iraq. Spanish defense officials, to avoid entanglement in any upcoming conflict with Iran, withdrew a frigate that was part of the American-led carrier strike group heading to the Persian Gulf. Training efforts by France and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are continuing as normal. The State Department ordered 'nonemergency US government employees' at both the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Erbil, the Kurdish capital, to leave the country. The order applied primarily to full-time diplomats posted to Iraq; an embassy statement said that visa services in Iraq would be suspended as a result. Contractors who provide security, food and other such services will remain in place for now." • • • DEAR READERS, Townhall reports that Republican Senator Marco Rubio has referred former Secretary of State John Kerry for investigation over his undermining of American foreign policy through continued conversations with Iranian leaders. This is the second time he has done so. Senator Rubio wrote to AG Jeff Sessions, asking him to investigate Kerry. Rubio noted that letter in he new letter to AG Barr : "I write to make you aware of a September 18, 2018 letter I sent to your predecessor regarding potential violations of the Logan Act (18 U.S.C. § 953) and the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U.S.C. § 611 et seq.) by former Secretary of State John F. Kerry. As you know, former Secretary Kerry’s actions since leaving office have come under scrutiny as they related to the Iran nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)....Former Secretary Kerry publicly admitted that he has met with Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarid 'probably three or four times,' including in the United States, since leaving office. Kerry 'is coordinating his push with a group of officials who were his top advisors at the State Department, and who helped craft and negotiate the Iran deal in the first place, and that this group 'claims to be responsible for 100 news articles, 34 television and radio hits, and 37 opinion pieces on the Iran question. They do fact checks of criticism of the agreement and blast them out to an e-mail list of nearly 4,000 policy makes and foreign policy experts." • House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the US must avoid war with Iran and she warned the White House has "no business" moving toward a Middle East confrontation without approval from Congress. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer chimed in, asking if we had learned nothing for the last ten years. • Our answer to Senator Schumer is that we, and President Trump, have learned a lot from the Obama years -- Do not pull out of Iraq or anywhere else in the highly volatile Middle East precipitously. Do not cave in to Iran's ayatollahs and their nuclear nightmare scenario, and above all, do no pay them billions so that they can feed terror in the region and around the world while developing their nuclear agenda. Do not turn your back on America's true friend in the Mideast, Israel. Do not snub two other good friends and allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And, above all, do not ever presume that Iran's intentions are honorable or that its leaders can be taken at their word. Do not trust. Verify. Prepare for the worst. And be sure America's peace flag is accompanied by a big stick. The ayatollahs understand that.