Tag Archive for: nuclear weapons

Biden Pact Would Force U.S. Soldiers to Die for Saudi Arabia

Even before anti-American ideologues held public rallies justifying terrorist violence in the name of “decolonization,” Joe Biden sought to hammer out an agreement that could force American soldiers to fight and die for Saudi Arabia. The terms could also give the Saudis, the world’s foremost funders of radical Islam, access to a “civilian” nuclear program and rein in Israel’s response to terrorist attacks.

The Biden administration has sought to build on President Donald Trump’s Abraham Accords by getting Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel. But in exchange, the Gulf states hope to receive an “ironclad” mutual defense agreement: If they are attacked, the U.S. will come to their aid. The Saudis also seek increased arms sales and U.S. assistance in developing “peaceful” nuclear technology. Each step would be counterproductive — as would unequally yoking Washington with Riyadh.

Marching to Mecca?

History proves an enlarged U.S. military presence provides a tantalizing target for Muslim terrorists. In a prelude to 9/11, al-Qaeda killed 19 American servicemen by blowing up the Khobar Towers in 1996. Osama bin Laden later said he intended the bombing “to drive out the enemy who has occupied our land … and to rid the land of the two Holy Mosques from their presence.” Increasing the U.S. military footprint would present no less incitement or excitement for the region’s bountiful extremists 25 years later.

America certainly does not need a defense pact with the Saudis because we lack opportunities to intervene in irrelevant or counterproductive foreign wars. According to Tufts University professor Michael Beckley, by 2015 the U.S. had some form of defense pact with 69 nations around the world, requiring the U.S. military to protect two billion people, or one-quarter of the Earth’s population. Yet the pronoun-obsessed U.S. military cannot fight two wars at the same time.

Remember, too, that any U.S. military conflict in the Middle East will be presided over by President Biden, who considers the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan one of his foreign policy successes, who abandoned U.S. civilians in Afghanistan, and who has taken exacting time in rescuing American citizens from war-torn Israel. After miring the military in a fruitless proxy war with Russia in Ukraine that depleted our munitions stockpile, Biden now seeks to open a second front in the Middle East. China may determine it has become an opportune time to open a third front in the South China Sea, possibly punctuated by a North Korean nuclear explosion over the Sea of Japan. This could be followed by the attack of a Hamas sleeper cell in the American heartland.

While a Biden defense pact might fall short of a NATO-style agreement, it could resemble Barack Obama’s plan to confer Major Non-NATO Ally status. Among other things, that would make Muslim states “eligible for consideration to purchase depleted uranium ammunition.”

Revving Up the Mideast Nuclear Arms Race

Biden’s negotiators are more likely to approve the Saudis’ request for help with their nuclear program — purportedly intended to provide nuclear power for a nation that sits atop 259 billion barrels of untapped oil. History should be a guide here, as well. The Saudis could violate the agreement’s strictures to develop nuclear weapons, as North Korea did after Bill Clinton agreed to a 1994 deal hammered out by former President Jimmy Carter giving Pyongyang two light water nuclear reactors. Barack Obama incorporated a similar model into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran. Now Biden would like to widen the circle by furnishing Saudi Arabia with access to fissile nuclear material, bolstering the Saudis’ nuclear arms race against Iran … and Israel.

‘Can Two Walk Together, Except they be Agreed?’

To sustain such potentially catastrophic risks, this agreement would have to promote significant U.S. interests. Yet it is unclear how enhancing Saudi aims advances U.S. values. No fewer than 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 hailed from Saudi Arabia. While the State Department classifies the kingdom as “a full partner and active participant” in counterterrorism efforts, Saudi Arabia is also the world’s leading funder and exporter of Wahhabi Islam — the fundamentalist Islamic ideology that fueled the terrorism of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and ISIS. Saudi Arabia has reportedly spent $86 billion promoting Wahhabi Islam globally over the last 50 years, funding 24,000 madrassas in Pakistan in 2016 alone.

Although then-candidate Pete Buttigieg branded Islamism as “not unlike Christianity,” wiser analysts understand no president should risk U.S. troops to promote Saudi interests. “Saudi Arabia is actively undermining American interests in the Middle East while the United States continues to provide security for the kingdom,” writes Jon Hoffman of the Cato Institute. “Unwavering U.S. support has emboldened Riyadh to pursue reckless and destabilizing policies because it is comfortable in the assurance that the United States will come to its aid and not hold it responsible for its actions.”

Why would the U.S. enter a pact with such a nation? “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3). What fellowship hath the Land of the Pilgrim’s Pride with the cradle of al-Qaeda?

Subverting the Will of the People

No wonder a majority of Americans (58%) say a mutual defense agreement with the Saudis would be a “bad deal for the U.S., and there is no justification for committing U.S. soldiers to defend Saudi Arabia,” according to a Quincy Institute/Harris poll taken last month. Pollsters found “no significant differences on views of this deal among political affiliation.” But then, the will of the American people rarely rules anything, especially foreign policy. Most Americans opposed our undeclared wars and military interventions against SerbiaKosovoLibya, and Syria, as well as additional foreign aid to Ukraine. All proceeded apace.

President Biden has already subverted democracy by pursuing a policy 180-degrees away from his 2020 campaign promises. “I would make it very clear we were not going to in fact sell more weapons to” Saudi Arabia, Biden assured Democratic primary voters during a 2019 debate. “We were going to in fact make them pay the price, and make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.” But Biden has since announced that he will not, in fact, do that. Last July, Biden fist-bumped the blood-soaked hand of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who ordered his military to murder Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi and dismember him with a bone saw inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey.

The Biden administration seems ready to sideline the American majority once again. When Biden officials signed a similar defense agreement with Bahrain last month, they did not submit it for Senate ratification. The agreement, which an administration official described as “legally binding,” requires the U.S. to “implement appropriate defense and deterrent responses as decided upon by” the two nations. Instead, Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the document, and perhaps its adoption process, as “a framework for additional countries” to follow.

Sapping U.S. Strength for Saudi Success

History, too, should make us realize that needless foreign military interventions degrade America’s power and prestige. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal ran an article titled “How the Israel-Hamas War is Tilting the Global Power Balance in Favor of Russia, China.” It explained the Israeli conflict is already “affecting the global balance of power, stretching American and European resources while relieving pressure on Russia and providing new opportunities to China.” That came before the United States tapped 2,000 U.S. troops for possible deployment to the Middle East — and sent an additional 2,000 members of the Marine Expeditionary Unit moving toward Israel via the Red Sea. The ground forces are poised to join two U.S. aircraft carriers, the USS Ford and the USS Eisenhower, in patrolling the region.

If this is true of a war that had not yet formally embroiled U.S. troops, imagine a war fought alongside a member of BRICS. In August, Saudi Arabia and five other nations asked to join BRICS — the Chinese-led global coalition intended to become a regional counterweight and eventual successor to U.S. global hegemony. The new members will form “BRICS plus six” on January 1, 2024.

A treaty with Saudi Arabia fulfills the typical leftists’ criteria for waging war: It serves no U.S. interests; it pursues Marxist “decolonization”; it advances fundamentalist Islam; and it increases the power of the president and/or international bodies at the expense of constitutional checks-and-balances and American sovereignty, respectively. But, in true progressive fashion, this treaty would go further: It would force U.S. soldiers to actively war against American interests.

A Tool of Left-Wing Foreign Policy

The Left also hopes to use the Saudi defense agreement as an additional locus of pressure against Israel. Two weeks ago, 20 Democratic senators — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raphael Warnock, and John Fetterman — signed a letter tentatively opposing the measure. “A high degree of proof would be required to show that a binding defense treaty with Saudi Arabia — an authoritarian regime which regularly undermines U.S. interests in the region, has a deeply concerning human rights record, and has pursued an aggressive and reckless foreign policy agenda — aligns with U.S. interests,” they wrote. But they eventually got around to their real concern: the fear that the Biden administration would be too pro-Israeli. “[T]he agreement should include meaningful, clearly defined and enforceable provisions” aimed at “preserving the option of a two-state solution,” especially “a commitment by Israel not to annex any or all of the West Bank.”

The U.S. has no formal treaty commitment to defend Israel from military attacks. Should we sign such a treaty with Saudi Arabia, U.S. soldiers could one day fight in the Middle East to “defend” Riyadh against Tel Aviv.

The Israeli-Hamas conflict has momentarily scuttled the Saudis’ interest in pursuing the agreement as it stands. MBS kept Blinken “waiting several hours” Sunday night, according to The Washington Post, arriving the next morning. Instead, the Saudis entered talks with Iran. But Biden officials remain optimistic they can foist this pact on the American people. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan told “Meet the Press” on Sunday, “There’s not some kind of formal pause” in the talks,” because “the long-term goal” of inking a mutual security defense pact with the Saudi kingdom “remains very much a focus of U.S. foreign policy.”

A U.S. defense pact with Saudi Arabia would be a ludicrous policy under any president, worthy of being invalidated by any Congress. Should Biden’s team approve the pact, Congress should pass legislation annulling it at once. U.S. soldiers should never become the janissaries of the Wahhabi Islamic kingdom.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Appeasement is the Art of Losing Slowly

I am a student of America’s foreign policy. During my twenty-three years in the U.S. Army I helped implement our foreign policy both here and abroad. The primary enemy of the United States during my career was the former Soviet Union. I say former because we won the Cold War.

During my twenty-three years of active duty I served seven U.S. Presidents. Some were strong and some were weak when dealing with the Soviet Union. For a third of my career “détente” was the basis of our foreign policy. The term was used in reference to the general easing of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1971, a thawing at a period roughly in the middle of the Cold War. Détente ended after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on December 24, 1979.

May I suggest that détente was another word for appeasement, which is the art of losing slowly?

I was stationed in Germany on a date that is etched forever in my mind — September 5, 1972. On that day an Islamist group called Black September invaded the peaceful Olympic village in Munich, Germany. Sixteen innocent and unarmed Israeli athletes and one German police officer were killed. This year marks the 51st Anniversary of that attack. So what did I learn about Islamists on that fateful day? I learned that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I also learned on that day everything I needed to know about shariah Islamists and their ideology.

Let us fast forward to November 4, 1979 and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran. On that date the United States learned in very stark terms all it needed to know about shariah Islamists when fifty-five U.S. embassy employees were taken hostage. But what did President Carter learn from that experience? Appeasement is the art of losing slowly because in the end President Carter lost the Presidency to Ronald Reagan. It was only minutes after President Reagan was sworn in that the hostages were on an airplane headed home. Why, because the Iranians knew that President Reagan would not appease them rather he would use the full force of our military to end the hostage crisis. It was President Reagan who called the former Soviet Union an “evil empire” and confronted its leaders rather than appease them. President Reagan knew that appeasement is the art of losing slowly.

Let us fast forward to September 11, 2001 and the fateful events on that day. Yet again we saw the resiliency of shariah Islamists to do what they say they will do. It also showed how both Presidents George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clinton misunderstood the lessons of September 5, 1972 and November 4, 1979. While President Bush did push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait he failed to see the global threat posed by shariah Islam. President Clinton had numerous opportunities to take Osama bin Laden into custody but failed to do so. President Clinton continued to deal with the issues in the Middle East by negotiations and appeasement of the Palestinians. His hope for a solution led to intifada – a holy war against Israel that has not ended.

Let us again fast forward to the P-5 +1 talks concerning Iran and its quest to obtain nuclear weapons. Since September 5, 1972 every U.S. President has tried diplomacy and sanctions to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Détente, the failure to define Iran as an enemy and diplomacy are different forms of appeasement. Each slowly leads to the appeaser losing. Time is always on the side of those who are being appeased.

Dr. Jay Bergman, Professor of History at Central Connecticut State University, in his column “Understanding the Iran talks” writes, “[A]n analogy comes to mind that suggests what the results of these negotiations are likely to be. The analogy is with the Munich conference at the end of September 1938, at which Nazi Germany, Italy, France, and Great Britain forced Czechoslovakia to cede to Germany the so-called Sudetenland, in the western part of the country, where some (but by no means all) of the three million ethnic Germans living there were demanding, in the name of self-determination, that it become part of Germany.

“For good reason Munich has become code for the appeasement of regimes that cannot be appeased because there is no limit to the demands they will make,” notes Professor Bergman.

We have new words for détente, they are coexist and tolerance.

Let us fast forward to today. Our leaders tell us we must peacefully coexist with shariah Islam and embrace Islamic beliefs in the name of religious tolerance. We cannot criticize those who daily criticize us. We cannot call for the end of oppression under Islamist rulers, secular and theocratic alike, even though these Islamists call for our death and destruction on a daily basis. We must tolerate those who have sworn to kill us in the name of our Judeo/Christian beliefs.

Jerry Gordon, Editor of the New English Review and Middle East expert put it best when he wrote, “Islamic countries are wedded to an ossified totalitarian creed denying civil and human rights and a future – the basis of the Judeo Christian value system and Western dynamism.”

I close with the words of Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, author of “A Battle for the Soul of Islam”, whose family for three generations has fought political Islam in Syria and the United States. Dr. Jasser writes, “If the Islamists have their way, the United States will find itself with a nation within a nation, one governed by the precepts of the U.S. Constitution, the other under the sway of shariah.”

Dr. Jasser notes the observation of French philosopher Joseph de Maistre who wrote, “Every nation has the government it deserves.”

I for one want to retain and strengthen our Constitutional Republican form of government. Something every American, regardless of faith or belief, must embrace or we will continue to lose slowly our liberty and freedoms.

Fast forward to Saturday, October 7th, 2023 and the unprovoked attack against innocent men, women and children by Hamas. This is all because of the appeasement of Iran, the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah and others by the current administration.

History is repeating itself.

Chamberlain appeased Hitler in 1938 with the Munich Agreement and now Biden is appeasing Hamas and Iran with his Iranian Nuclear Deal

The Munich Agreement led to WW II. The Iranian Nuclear Deal is leading to WW III.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Hypocrisy Over Gaza


Israel’s Last Leftist Government Issued 17,000 Work Permits to Gazans That Helped Hamas Enter Israel

The War Against Israel Is All About Islam, and Islam Is All About Terror

THE WAR ON X: WW III The Global War Against Islamic Terrorism — Day 9

White House worried that Iran could obtain sufficient fissile material for a nuclear bomb in weeks

Imagine where we would be if Biden’s handlers had spent the last fifteen months trying to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, instead of bending over backwards to appease the mullahs.

Corrected (Official) White House worried Iran could develop nuclear weapon in weeks

Reuters, April 26, 2022:

The White House is worried Iran could develop a nuclear weapon in weeks, press secretary Jen Psaki said on Tuesday, after Secretary of State Antony Blinken noted earlier in the day the country has accelerated its nuclear program.

“Yes it definitely worries us,” Psaki said.

The White House clarified on Wednesday that although Psaki responded to a question about nuclear weapons, she was referring to the breakout time, which is the time it would take to obtain sufficient fissile material for one nuclear bomb, and was not referring to the production of an actual nuclear weapon.


Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board: ‘What you’re seeing is a full-scale attack on free speech’

Bin Laden wanted to replicate 9/11 jihad attacks, didn’t expect magnitude of US response to them

Chances of new Iran nuke deal now ‘slim to none’ because of US refusal to remove IRGC from terror list

France: Muslim inmates beat prisoners for not obeying Ramadan, ‘Some no longer eat pork because they’re pressured’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

THE CHOICE IS OURS: What will it be?

A timeless paean for peace, written millennia ago by the Biblical Jewish prophet Isaiah, appears on a wall across the street from the entrance to the building in New York City ironically housing that most unholy and unjust organization: the United Nations. The delegates from every part of the world walk by it but most see and understand it not. The words include:

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift-up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. Isaiah 2:4.

On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson once wrote:

Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.

In a perfect world, Isaiah’s words should be paramount. But this is not a perfect world; it never has been. Jefferson knew it, and it may sadly be much delayed before it yet becomes such a world as envisioned by Isaiah. All we can do is strive mightily to bring the world to a better place than it is now.

But the first two decades of the 21st century do not augur well for humanity. It is, therefore, prudent to maintain personal and national defense against all who harbor ill will and genocidal ambitions against us.

There is suffocating hypocrisy in the United Nations where up is down, day is night, and a veritable Kafkaesque worldview exists. There is towering deceit and mendacity in the international corridors of power. Few nations can be trusted. Most act in their own best interests, despite agreements between them. Atrocities in Syria, Libya, the Sudan, Iraq, Nigeria, Iran, Somalia, to name a very few of the world’s benighted lands, make the very angels in heaven weep.

Liberals and the all-pervasive and pernicious Left would ban guns for personal and legitimate self-defense if they could; and they try mightily to do so. Similarly, the Left eviscerates national defense whenever it comes into power. In the 1930s, Britain let down its guard by slashing its military, despite all the clear and present warnings of German rearmament and the strident war cry spewing from the mouth of Adolf Hitler and his adoring German Nazi sycophants.

Winston Churchill, forced into the political wilderness, saw clearly what was coming and he, almost alone, pleaded in the House of Commons for the British nation to wake up before it was too late. For his efforts he was demonized as a war monger for far too long. And we all know how things turned out.

Do we all have to go forward into the past? Do we all have to decry and vilify those who today warn us against the coming new war; a Jihadist war that will transcend in human depravity even the horrors unleashed by Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. It is coming, and it is the same ultimate horrific combination of a religion wrapped in an ideology that the same Winston Churchill warned about many years before the rise of National Socialism (Nazis) and Communism.

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s crazed mullahs are so close now to producing a nuclear weapon in 2022 – and they will use it if they can.  

Churchill called it, Mohammedanism, and he wrote the following in his book, The River War:

“No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

Atrocities committed in the name of Islam go hand in hand with a stealthy infiltration of Sharia law into every facet of life in the West. Vast sums of money befoul European and American universities, enslaving their ability to attain and maintain the moral high ground. Instead, insidious examples of moral equivalence abound in what Michael Savage once famously described as the “colleges of lower learning.

Anti-Semitism corrodes the very fabric of the halls of academia as beguiled and besmirched student bodies fall victim to the malignant lies and poison of the immensely well-funded Arab and Muslim student organizations whose limitless coffers are again enriched by the Biden presidency which turned us from being energy independent and the world’s leading exporter of energy to begging Saudi Arabia to produce more oil.

The students are the leaders of tomorrow. With few exceptions they are now infected, perhaps terminally, with an aberrant hatred of Jews and of Israel. Remember, the Jews are the canaries in the coal mine and whatever befalls them, eventually befalls all.

Everything points to a new dark age with the combined stench of Marxism along with Arab and Muslim oil suffocating all clarity of thought and, perhaps, finally ushering in the victory that the followers of Islam have sought over those they have impudently called “infidels” since the 7th century. Remember also, even for those who yet mock the Bible, Genesis 12:3 remains an everlasting reproach and warning to those who would curse embattled Israel and its people.

Churchill, Adams, Jefferson all understood the ever present and mortal Islamic threat. They spoke with conviction and knowledge in an age where the debilitating and impoverishing insanity of political correctness had not yet arrived to stifle free speech. There are those today who also warn us. But must we be fated yet again to ignore them and walk blindly into the darkest night of all?

©Victor Sharp. All rights reserved.

Bidenites Warn Israel to Stop its Attacks on Iran

The U.S. has issued a warning about Iran’s nuclear program. No, it wasn’t a warning issued to Iran, telling the Supreme Leader that the U.S. was getting fed up with Iran’s stalling tactics, or that it was determined to “lengthen and strengthen” the 2015 Iran deal, or that it was now looking at “all other options” that it might employ to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Instead, it was a warning issued to Israel, the country that is in the gravest danger from Iran’ nuclear program. The Bidenites apparently do not think it “helpful” for Israel to continue its sabotage of Iran’s nuclear facilities and want it to stop. A preliminary Jihad Watch report on this scarcely believable development is here, and more on this is here: “US Warns Israel Attacks on Iran Nuclear Facilities ‘Counterproductive,’” i24 News, November 22, 2021:

US officials have warned Israel that attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities are “counterproductive” and are encouraging Tehran to speed up its nuclear program, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

So the Americans – that is, the Bidenites – apparently believe that every attack by Israel intended to slow down Iran’s nuclear program only prompted Tehran “to speed up its nuclear program,” as if it were not already moving as fast as it could. Israel manages to introduce the Stuxnet computer worm into Iranian computers that then cause 1,000 centrifuges to speed up so fast they destroy themselves, and what happens? Iran builds even more, and faster, centrifuges to replace those destroyed. But who is to say that they would not have built more, and faster centrifuges, even without Stuxnet? Israel destroys the nuclear facility at Natanz through sabotage by Mossad agents, and then builds another facility at Natanz, but this time it’s built 50 meters underground, and yet it is also destroyed. But this, we are supposed to believe, is what led Iran to build another facility deep inside a mountain at Fordow. No one can say that the Fordow facility was built because of Israel’s sabotage at Natanz. It might have been in the works before that sabotage. The Israelis are convinced that their many, and various, attacks are working; they have slowed down Iran’s progress toward a bomb, possibly by as much as several years.

I trust the judgement of the IDF and Mossad. They are convinced that attacks meant to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have indeed done exactly that instead of speeding up Iran’s program, as the Bidenites now want Israel to believe, and that Israel’s information from Mossad agents who report on deep demoralization within the Iranian military because of so much successful sabotage by Israel, should be believed. The Stuxnet computer worm, the saboteurs responsible for four major explosions, two of them destroying the nuclear facilities at Natanz, the killing of five top Iranian scientists, have done exactly what Israel hoped: set back Iran’s nuclear project by years. And the Israelis keep coming up with new ways to delay Iranian progress. Perform the gedankenexperiment, the thought experiment, and imagine that there had never been a Stuxnet computer worm, nor assassination of Iran’s best nuclear scientists, nor sabotage of the two Natanz centrifuge plants. Where would Iran’ nuclear program be today? The Bidenites insist we should believe them, not Israel’s Mossad, in their insistence that Israeli sabotage accomplished the reverse of what was intended. All those successful attacks by Israel on nuclear facilities and scientists, we are expected to believe, merely served to speed up, rather than slow down, Iran’s nuclear project. This not only sounds absurd – it is absurd.

Citing officials familiar with the private talks between Washington and Jerusalem, the report said that Israeli officials dismissed the warning and said that they have no intention of changing the strategy.

The Israelis, hard-headed as usual, simply waved away the Bidenites’ advice. They are not about to bring an end to their impressive record of throwing so many spanners in the works of Iran’s nuclear project. Even now they surely have a half-dozen “projects” in the works, including an attack on the facilities inside the mountain at Fordow, which will make use of a new compact MOP (Multiple Ordnance Penetrator), or bunker buster, weighing 5,000 pounds but packing the punch of the 30,000-pound bunker buster in the American armory, the latest advance by Israeli scientists that keeps Iranian generals up at night in Teheran.

The report [about the Bidenites insistence that Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear project were counterproductive] was published ahead of the resumption of talks between Iran and world powers on reviving the 2015 nuclear deal that former US president Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The negotiations are scheduled to take place in Vienna starting on November 29.

Talks stalled in June following the election of hardline president Ebrahim Raisi.

According to the report, the US cautioned that Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities may be “tactically satisfying,” but that Iran has been able to resume enrichment, often installing newer machines that can enrich uranium faster.

Iran can resume enrichment of uranium, but it takes time to build facilities to replace those destroyed. And time is what Israel is trying to buy, hoping to set back Iran’s program so that it keeps receding into the distance. And if Iran has newer machines that can enrich uranium faster than was previously possible, it will install them with or without Israel’s destruction of those slower models. The Americans are assuming that these “new machines” were put in service only because Israel had destroyed the previous model. This is the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy with a vengeance. What are Biden and Blinken and Sullivan drinking these days?

The US cited four explosions at Iranian nuclear facilities attributed to Israel and the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by Mossad operatives….

So contrary to the beliefs of the Israelis – what do they know, the Bidenites think, about what works and what doesn’t in trying to slow down Iran’s race to the bomb? – those four explosions that they set off at Natanz and elsewhere not only didn’t slow Iran down, but spurred it on, ever faster, as it hopes to race to the finish and to build that bomb. Also sprach Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Jake Sullivan. And the killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? The Americans must think his reputation as Iran’s top nuclear scientist was exaggerated, or perhaps they believe he was replaced by someone even more impressive, who had been waiting in the wings.

Of all the things that the Biden Administration has done wrong, surely this attempt to convince the Israelis not to act against a mortal threat to the Jewish state is among the worst. The Bidenites’ attempt – I don’t know whether to call it Orwellian or Kafkaesque — to convince Israel that its attacks to slow down Iran’s nuclear project have only caused it to speed up, is both absurd and sinister. The Bidenites don’t want Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear project not because such attacks are counterproductive, but because they make Iran less likely to accept a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, and the Bidenites have their hearts set on achieving that goal. It would be a feather in Biden’s hat, and Blinken’s, they apparently think, to tell the world they “managed to persuade” Iran to return to the 2015 deal which “will accomplish all that we wanted,” because “Iran will now be committed to the original deal.”

In fact, an Iranian return to the terrible 2015 deal would not prevent Iran from its building a ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, would do nothing to limit Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East through its allies and proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen, the Kataib Hezbollah militia in Iraq, the Alawite-led army in Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and – most worrisome – would allow Iran in 2030 to produce nuclear weapons without any limit.

The Israelis were right to dismiss the Bidenites’ request that they stop attacking Iran’s nuclear sites. Prime Minister Bennett, and IDF Chief Aviv Kochavi and Mossad Head David Barnea know what they are doing while the Bidenites, it is my sad duty to report, know not what they do. Keep up those extraordinary acts of derring-do. Only the Israelis – not people sitting way out of Iran’s missile range in Washington, and desperately eager to make a deal with Iran — can decide what must be done to keep their state and people safe from possible catastrophe.



German public broadcaster makes Jerusalem jihad mass murderer into a victim

Islamic States uses TikTok to recruit jihad suicide bombers for Christmas jihad massacres

UK: Mosque complains after councillor stops working with its manager, who praised Taliban prayer

Pakistan: Hindu community decides to pay fines imposed on 11 Muslim leaders involved in attack on Hindu temple

Iran deported over 1,000,000 Afghan migrants this year, 28,000 in one week

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

I am outraged by Iran’s Nuke Deal

I am outraged, deeply saddened and have lost all my respect for Western Powers and especially the Liberal government of Canada for accepting the evil Iran Nuke Deal and for endorsing that terrorist regime.

In January 1979, leaders of United States, England, France and Germany met in Guadalupe Island and had a three-day conference from January 3-7 where they decided to remove the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and replaced him with a medieval minded jihadi Shiite Muslim ayatollah who was living in exile in France. They thought the Shah was too competent and modern for them. In this decision, the Iranian nation also played a huge role as without the masses power, the Western Powers  would not be able to topple the Shah.

At Guadalupe conf., the Western Powers decided to destroy the Middle East, and her peace, and stability which history has proved it and we know what happened since.

37 years later, yesterday on January 16, 2016, the World Powers completed their evil mission and signed a very dangerous #nukedeal with the Khomeneist regime in Iran and buried Peace, Freedom and Democracy in the Word. Sadly, the Iranian nation, still is asleep and cheerfully endorses this deal. The nation is without the clue that by this deal, the World powers have signed their oppression and locked them up in Iran-jail for eternity.

And West underestimated that while US releases $ 150B to Tehran regime, the Iran regime acknowledges 200,000 armed youth in 5 countries and  creating over 50 proxy Shiite terrorist groups only in Iraq and Syria.

Iran’s terrorist Forces, IRGC works outside Iran through it’s terrorist Quds Forces, which is led by their terrorist general, Qassem Soleimani creates massive unrest in the region through the Iranian proxies.

According to a report by AAWSAT.COM, “Tehran regime Acknowledge 200 Thousand Armed Youth in Five Countries.” Iran’s  IRGC has four major forces, which are the Ground Forces, Air Force, Navy, and Missile Force. Recently, and according to an expert who observes Iranian affairs, the IRGG introduced its fifth force, which is the “Electronic, Intelligence and Cultural Deterrence Force”.

Shabnam Assadollahi is a veteran human rights advocate who has worked extensively helping newcomers and refugees resettle in Canada and has distinguished herself as a broadcaster, writer and public speaker. While her primary and heartfelt interest focuses on the Iranian community and world events effecting women and minority communities in the land of her birth – she also advocates for the emancipation of women and minority religious communities worldwide. A resident of Ottawa she is active in community affairs including cultural, educational and humanitarian activities.

JCPOA’s blueprint for creating patient pathways for Iran to nuclear weapons and fortifying itself against sanctions.

Trudeau Liberals signed mass executions of thousands of voiceless Iranians by accepting this Nuke deal which has also ended the world Peace.


ANALYSIS: Obama’s fantasy of a new Iran endangers us all

Why Canada Shut down the Iranian embassy in Ottawa: Shut Down Iran’s Embassy in Canada by Christine Williams August 9, 2012

Iran’s “Fifth Column” Targets Canadian Schoolchildren by David Harris

Iran Infiltrates Canada, Calls to Attack America by Christine Williams July 11, 2012

Activists protest Iran’s execution of political dissidents

The Islamic Republic of Iran­­—State sponsor of Terrorism

Obama to Veto new Congressional Counter-terror Measures to protect Iran

“If the Americans pursue the plan, they will destroy an achievement with their own hands since it is against the [nuclear deal], and it will trouble them.” The nuclear deal is going to trouble us in any case.

“Obama Admin Will Veto Counter-Terror Measures to Save Nuke Deal,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 21, 2015:

Secretary of State John Kerry is working to reassure Iranian leaders that recent congressional efforts to tighten counter-terrorism measures will not harm Iranian interests, according to a letter sent by Kerry to Iran’s foreign minister.

The assurances come following efforts by Congress to tighten restrictions in the visa waiver program, which they claim has gaping loopholes that may enable suspected terrorists to legally enter the United States with few background checks.

Iranian leaders expressed anger over the move in recent days, prompting senior Obama administration officials to convey their own concerns to lawmakers.

Kerry wrote to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif late last week, promising that the Obama administration could veto these new counter-terrorism laws in order ensure Iran is not negatively impacted.

“I want to confirm to you that we remain fully committed to the sanctions lifting provided for under the [nuclear deal],” Kerry wrote Zarif in a Dec. 19 letter that came a day after the two met in person. “We will adhere to the full measure of our commitments, per the agreement. Our team is working hard to be prepared and as soon as we reach implementation day we will lift appropriate sanctions.

A copy of the letter was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council, a pro-Iran advocacy group long suspected by critics of working on behalf of the Iranian regime.

Kerry vows to ignore new counter-terrorism measures if they impact the administration’s ability to uphold the deal. Iran in recent months has already been accused in recent months of violating the accord by testing multiple ballistic missiles that could carry a nuclear payload.

“I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress, which the administration has the authority to waive, will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] commitments, and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran,” Kerry wrote, outlining the “tools” the administration has to ignore new visa waiver restrictions.

“We have a number of potential tools available to us, including multiple entry ten-year business visas, programs for expediting business visas, and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation,” Kerry wrote. “I am happy to discuss this further and provide any additional clarification.”

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that recent congressional efforts to tighten restrictions “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

Iranian leaders also have expressed anger over the situation.

Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran’s parliament, said last week that newly tightened measures “are aimed at harassment” and that they “blatantly violate the nuclear agreement,” according to comments carried by the Iranian state-controlled press.

Larijani warned that this action will detonate the deal before it has even been implemented.

“If the Americans pursue the plan, they will destroy an achievement with their own hands since it is against the [nuclear deal], and it will trouble them,” he warned….


Brunei bans public Christmas celebrations, including wearing Santa hats

U.S. lets in four times as many suspected terrorists as it keeps out

The Arab Spring: Iran’s Unexpected Windfall

Even before this week it was clear that the only real beneficiary of the events pre-emptively described as the ‘Arab Spring’ looked likely to be Iran. This week that grim realisation became clearer still.

Firstly of course there is the realisation that Iran looks likely to ‘win’ in Syria. The fact that Russia has now come into the war fully on the same side as the Mullahs, fundamentally changes the prospects for the war’s outcome. The clarification of that war – a clarification Assad, Putin and the Mullahs always sought – between the most appalling force imaginable (ISIS) and the Assad regime makes it unlikely that any international body would not back Assad in such a final battle. It was not necessary that the Syrian war ended this way, but Western inaction coupled with intensive Iranian and Russian action helped make it so. Yet while everybody has considered the results of ISIS dominating Syria after a victory, few people in the West seem to have considered the possibility of what the region will look like after an Iranian-backed win in Syria. Not least what Hezbollah will look like in that country and how it will be emboldened in the wider region.

But it is not only in this theatre of operations, but on the global and nuclear stage that Iran has now made another gain.

This week the P5+1 nuclear deal with Iran was ratified by the Iranian Parliament. There had been some confusion in the Western press about this, and not only over what role the Iranian Parliament had. The reports were also replete with moral confusions. Numerous papers on both sides of the Atlantic reported that ‘ring-wing’ ideologues in Iran had been trying to stop the deal. This allowed them to make a neat and offensive symmetry between Republicans and others opposed to the deal in the U.S. and those opposed in Iran. The none-too-subtle innuendo was that we’ve all got our nutters: Obama’s got the Republicans and the Iranians have got their equivalent.

Like so much that goes in to coverage about Iran, the significance of this vote is not understood. The fact that the nuclear deal has been ratified by the Iranian Parliament against some opposition is not a reminder that there are hardliners in Iran but rather a reminder that a majority of Iranian representatives saw what a good deal this was for them and their wider ambitions.

Iran looks set to win in Syria at around the same time they get tens of billions of cash injections thanks to the P5+1. And of course the right to continue their nuclear programme with Western blessing and an oversight and inspections system which is fit to do neither of these tasks. And of course this week Iran also test fired a new long-range ballistic missile. People in the West who were worried about Iran when it was cowed by sanctions are going to love what Iran does next after such a batch of victories.



For all their manufactured nature, every now and again, a TV debate that you happen to be in ends up resonating. So it has been today with a Sky News debate on whether British Prime Minister David Cameron has a coherent foreign policy. I happen to believe that he does, although this is not always immediately apparent.

As I explained in a recent article for Fathom about the Conservatives’ Israel policy here in the UK, Cameron has shown an “instinctive and decisive response to foreign policy crises” throughout his leadership tenure, despite these sometimes being shackled by realist tendencies around him. He has also had to deal with fractious Coalition politics and a growing isolationism among Conservative MPs which have restricted his freedom of movement. The real question is not what has passed but what is to be. In general, Western foreign policies have been guilty of a timid and confused approach over the past few years to any number of international problems.

What we now desperately need is Mr Cameron to not just take advantage of his changed domestic circumstances – where he has a majority, albeit small, and a number of Labour MPs now willing to vote to do the right thing on international matters regardless of the party whip to offset his own rebels – but to rediscover the interventionist verve and take charge. The post of Leader of the Free World, abandoned by President Obama, is vacant. Will Mr Cameron be bold enough to try and fill it?

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

VIDEO: An analysis of President Obama’s disastrous Iran Nuclear “Deal”

Recently I had the opportunity to speak at the TEA Party Fort Lauderdale. The topic was the nuclear deal with Iran. Please take the time to listen to my remarks.

A Canadian Iranian’s Perspective

In 1968, I was only three years old and very keen to start school early. With some help, I had finished reading Grade one text books along with eight English novels. My parents enrolled me in a private school, so that I could be in a more protected and secure environment. Nevertheless, given my tiny appearance, a few girls always bullied me and I lost my confidence during my years in elementary school. My mother had to come to school to literally feed me so that I would eat my lunch. I regained my self-confidence after signing up for martial arts courses for a few years, where I excelled to a brown belt in karate.

I was just 13 when Khomeini came into power by hijacking the people’s revolution and overnight all women, including elementary school girls, were forced to cover their bodies from head to toe and were ordered to only wear dark colours. We were no longer allowed to attend school with the opposite sex. Our once praised school curriculum was now replaced by Arabic, Islamic studies and the Quran; which most of us simply loathed. It was at this time that I had an awakening and started my activism. I was robbed of my teen years by a radical regime that sought to force its values on the masses by devastating force. My childhood memories were replaced by a reality created by a regime where women were now treated as second class citizens to men and even the most mundane detail of our lives was strictly controlled by Khomeini’s Revolutionary Guards and the morality police.

Like most teenagers in high school, I also spoke my mind about the changes that were happening in my country. In a modern society, teenagers attend school, openly spend time with friends, listen to their favorite music and do all the things that teenagers do. In going about their lives, they do not have to worry about political and religious consequences of engaging in normal everyday activities enforced by their government… They do not have to live in fear of expressing their opinion, no matter how unpopular that opinion. What we no longer had and would never have again under the Islamic Republic, simply put, was freedom of speech. Those who did speak up put themselves and their families in grave danger or simply disappeared behind the walls of the notorious Evin prison in Tehran. At that time even 12 year old children faced the firing squad for political dissidence.

Imagine for a moment a mother living a quiet uneventful life with her children in the safety of her own home. Imagine the horror of that same woman when in the early hours of the morning she comes face-to-face with the infamous Revolutionary Guards. Unannounced, they forced their way into her home and arrested their 16 year old daughter. The young girl, her only daughter and the eldest of her three children, was taken to the much feared Evin prison where she knew her child would be interrogated and tortured. She also knew that many mothers never saw their children again as that time people simply vanished without a trace. That child was me. I was arrested by five very large, heavy set guards. I remember distinctly four vehicles that came to our house to take me away; a 16 year old girl who barely weighed 90 pounds. Imagine the terror and anguish felt by that child. This may be unfathomable to the western mind, but this was to be my reality for the next 18 months.

In my young trustful mind, I did not think that a simple conversation, having an opinion and simply expressing it, would put my life in danger. I never considered the possibility of being tortured as a teenager and that my life would be forever changed and that I would be reminded of this torture every time I would look in the mirror and the terrible scar on my face.

My interrogator was a man known simply as the “rapist of Evin.” I never saw his face as we were always blindfolded. Both the guards and interrogators were very protective of their identity as if they knew that someday they may be the hunted like the Nazis. This gave me a clue that they knew well what they were doing was wrong or they simply could not look into the face of a child when they tortured her/him. As time went by, I realized that my interrogator had taken pity on me and decided to leave me outside the torture chambers from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. every day, blindfolded, cold and hungry, instead of physically torturing me. I can tell you that there is only one experience worse that being tortured; having to listen to others scream and beg, not for their lives but for their death.

At the end I was given an 18-month sentence but in reality I should have been hanged for my anti-Islamic and anti-revolutionary views. To this day I have no idea why and how my life was spared. But I do remember making a deal with God, in that corner of the torture chamber, that if he spared not me but my parents of the pain of my death, I would dedicate my life to fighting the Islamic Republic to my very last breath. I also silently promised each and every one of those who screamed in pain that I would live and bear witness for them. I wanted to live as surviving was the only act of resistance in Evin. At night I would count around 60-70 bullets which meant 60-70 souls had been executed and I was hearing the last shot they would give the victim in the head. Many of my beautiful cell mates were taken before my eyes. All left bravely and without fear in their eyes and soul. We had decided that dying proudly was our final act of resistance. We were children but we wanted to die like high ranking officers….proud and defiant.

After I was freed from the clutches of Evin, I decided to find out exactly why I was taken and why so many were killed.

I found out that the Islamic Republic of Iran demanded absolute compliance with the penalty of torture and death for those that dared question it. There is absolutely no room for error by the citizen and there is no forgiveness. There were teenagers who were shot for simply being in the possession of leaflets or books of the opposition. The Islamic Republic ran elections to give an image of democracy, while allowing the masses to choose only among its carefully handpicked candidates who had subscribed to the fundamental beliefs of the regime and had an invested interest in seeing the continued survival of a dictatorship.

What are these beliefs? That boys and girls are separated throughout their schooling. That girls as young as nine years of age are forced into marriages, traded like property. Women are treated as second class citizens only second to men. Islamic Republic of Iran demands compliance to the regime and does not tolerate dissent. Young men and women that speak against the regime are rounded up and sent to notorious prisons, where they are tortured and left with scars for life, and others executed, some in public settings to teach a lesson to others. Sex outside of the marriage is at times punished by a brutal practice of stoning to death.

Outside of Iran, the regime openly and covertly supports terrorist activities. The Islamic Republic of Iran supports terrorist organizations including, the Hezbollah and Hamas in the Middle East. Those who hold positions of authority in Iran have been found responsible for bombings in Argentina and murders in Germany, to name a few. These are not isolated cases, with growing evidence of Iranian covert and terrorist activities in the Americas. 1 Inspired by North Korea, it has sought to further guarantee its existence by building its nuclear know-how.

There has been a great deal of effort by the international community to persuade Iran to slow down its nuclear program. Promises of relaxing economic sanctions and opening up relations have been put on the table. In fear of Iran becoming a nuclear power, world leaders are willing to put aside the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran is a dictatorship that continues to deny its people their fundamental rights and will remain on course to export its radical ideology. Removing sanctions and opening relations will make it easier for Iran to achieve this end.

The regime and its followers are trying hard to revive and better market a dictatorship that has brought so much pain and suffering to Iranian people for 35 years. I wish that Khomeini never started an Islamic revolution (or devolution) 35 years ago let alone try to revive it today.

The Islamic Republic of Iran enshrined the clergy and brought three decades of pain to an entire society and humanity as a whole. It speaks of moderation, reform and protecting the establishment yet during the regime’s time in power, has restricted human rights, engaged in mass executions, taken hostages, and stood in defiance of the world.

The reformists who are part of this establishment have blood on their hands. Today it is time for them and the regime which Khomeini was so instrumental in establishing to go.

Let’s hope this regime is overthrown soon so that our world is set free from this dangerous contamination. I hope that Iranians can live in a free society and have their deserved human rights which this regime has taken away from them completely. The truth about the Islamic Republic of Iran needs to reach the ears and hearts of the world for knowledge is the vessel of constructive change.

I believe that many world organizations and politicians have made the Islamic Republic stronger by refusing to hold it accountable for its dubious activities both inside and outside Iran. The regime has become even more brutal and vicious due to the impunity it has been given for the last 35 years by the international community.


  1. Prosecutor in Argentina Sees Iranian Plot in Latin America, New York Times website, 29 May 2013.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Mackenzie Institute website. Featured photo courtesy of the Mackenzie Institute.

GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security by Ryan Mauro

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.


Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5th place in Iowa (5%); 8th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11th place nationally (2%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (2%), 9th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12th place in South Carolina (2%).


Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1st place nationally (31%). He is in 1st place in Iowa (28%), 1st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1st place in South Carolina (34%).

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson did not display an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs and national security. Serious damage may have been done when the moderator asked about his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Carson explained that he told President Bush to focus instead on energy independence, which Christie politely took him to task for.

Carson also made sure to point out that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He is currently in 2nd place nationally (20%). He is in 2nd place in Iowa (23%), 2nd place in New Hampshire (15%) and 2nd place in South Carolina (19%).

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

Paul repeatedly stated his anti-interventionist view and said that U.S. military operations often backfire. A new poll shows that 69% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents favor having America active abroad.

Paul boasted that he “made a career” out of opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and argued that the U.S. should not topple secular dictators because they are replaced by radical Islamic forces. Paul and Trump were the only candidates to express opposition to a policy of overthrowing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. He also said that U.S. backing of Syrian rebels would mean arming enemies of America.

He said it is “absurd” to immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran unless the regime violates it. He spoke in favor of continued diplomacy with Iran and Russia, pointing out that President Reagan met with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Paul also said he opposes using U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State, but supports continued airstrikes and arming Kurds.

He is currently in 7th place nationally (3%). He is in 9th place in Iowa (4%), 7th place in New Hampshire (5%) and 11th place in South Carolina (2%).

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich damaged his chances by refusing to say that he’d scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the U.S. should move in coordination with allies and not withdraw from the agreement unilaterally. He said that the U.S. should sanction Iran if they violate the deal or sponsor terrorism. Rand Paul likewise said maintenance of the agreement would depend upon Iranian compliance.

He was also twice criticized by Graham during the undercard debate for supporting the closure of some U.S. military bases. Graham countered that he’d increase the number of bases.

He is currently in 10th place nationally (3%). He is in 10th place in Iowa (3%), 3rd place in New Hampshire (10%) and 8th place in South Carolina (4%).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

Bush criticized rivals who focused on their pledges to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He would not commit to doing so and said that the discussion needs to be about an Iran strategy rather than a strategy to tear up the deal.

Bush encouraged viewers to review his 9-point plan for fighting the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

He is currently in 3rd place nationally (8%). He is in 4th place in Iowa (5%), 5th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 3rd place in South Carolina (7%).

Other Candidates

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz’s standout moment was when he promised to “rip to shreds” the “catastrophic” nuclear deal with Iran.

Cruz said that he opposed giving President Obama authority for airstrikes on the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical weapons because vital national security interests were not at stake. He said that the administration could not answer his questions about how Syrian weapons of mass destruction would be prevented from falling into the hands of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

He is currently in 4th place nationally (7%). He is in 3rd place in Iowa (8%), 6th place in New Hampshire (6%) and 4th place in South Carolina (6%).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Huckabee spoke passionately against the nuclear deal with Iran and said every candidate should announce that, if elected, he or she will not honor it and, as president, will “destroy” it.

He is currently in 6th place nationally (5%). He is in 8th place in Iowa (4%), 11th place in New Hampshire (1%) and 10th place in South Carolina (3%).

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s standout moment was when he said that Muslim leaders must move beyond generic condemnations of terrorism and condemn terrorists by name. He called on Muslim leaders to preach that these terrorists do not qualify as “martyrs” and are destined for hell.

Jindal said that U.S. policy should be to force Syrian dictator Bashar Assad out of power.

He is currently in 13th place nationally (1%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (3%), 14th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and 13th place in South Carolina (1%).

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki said he would immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and provide Israel with Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs). However, he may have damaged himself by refusing to endorse Santorum’s call to target Iranian nuclear scientists. He also gave a vague answer about how he’d fight the Islamic State and expressed disagreement with Graham’s plan for a ground offensive with U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

He is currently in 15th place nationally with less than a single percent of support. He is in 15th place in Iowa with less than one percent, 13th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and in 15th place in South Carolina with less than one percent.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum

Santorum boasted that he authored legislation to sanction Iran and Syria when he was in the Senate. The moderator mentioned his past declaration that the U.S. should target Iranian nuclear scientists, which George Pataki refused to endorse.

He described the Iranian regime as an “apocalyptic death cult” and claimed that two-thirds of Iraqi and Iranian Shiites believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime. Santorum was making the point that the Iranian regime exports its radical ideology.

Santorum said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 10,000 to fight against the Islamic State and that he’d support Lindsey Graham’s proposal for 20,000 troops if necessary. He stated that the legitimacy of the caliphate is based on its holding of territory.

He is currently in 12th place nationally (1%). He is in 12th place in Iowa (2%) and in 15th place in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with less than one percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Walker’s comments on foreign policy focused on criticizing the nuclear deal with Iran, which he promised to scrap during his first day in office.

He is currently in 9th place nationally (3%). He is in 7th place in Iowa (4%), 10th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 9th place in South Carolina (3%).

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore

Gilmore failed to make the cut for the debate because he scores less than 1% in national polls. He registers less than a single percent in each of the three early states.


Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Scientist, Activist, Beauty Queen – Meet Fabiola al-Ibrahim

Getting Personal: The Ayatollah’s Agitprop Video Against the US

Danish Teen Murders Own Mother After ISIS Radicalization

Keep the Beard or Lose Your Head: New Draconian ISIS Rules

Anti-Iran Nuclear Deal Rally Video: Beck, Levin, Trump & Bachmann

The Stop Iran Deal rally in Washington, D.C. was sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots and covered by Reason TV. The event drew several hundred people who showed equal amounts of contempt for the Islamic Republic of Iran, President Barack Obama—and the congressional leadership of the Republican Party.

There doesn’t seem to be a clear libertarian position on the Iran deal—some think it will open Iran up to moderating Western influence while others think it doesn’t do enough to keep the mullah’s nuclear ambitions at bay.

Reason TV caught up with Glenn Beck of The Blaze (2:18), radio host and best-seller Mark Levin (1:00), and former Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (5:10), all of whom ragged on establishment Republicans as much or more than they did on Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and Islamic clerics

And we managed also to find out what Donald Trump—the big draw at today’s event—thinks about libertarians. (:51)


The Iran deal bait-and-switch – The Boston Globe

Op-ed: The “Candy” the Mullahs Gave to Obama

Iran says finds unexpectedly high uranium reserve

EDITORS NOTE: Please visit Reason.com for full text, links, and downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV’s YouTube Channel to receive immediate updates when new material goes live. Produced by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg. Photographs by Todd Krainin. The featured image is an AP Photo by Wilfredo Lee.

Video Message to the U.S. Congress: Tear Up the Iran Deal — Pass a Resolution Killing It!

This video presents a straightforward analysis as to why the United States Congress should rip up the Iran deal and instead pass a Resolution rejecting the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that was negotiated between the Obama Administration and Iran, the number one state sponsor of Islamic terror.

The rejection of the JCPOA is based up the Senator Corker Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, signed by President Obama, which prohibits a vote of disapproval if the complete deal, including any side deals between Iran and any other parties are not handed over to Congress for their proper and professional review.

Our analysis is based upon the outstanding and extensive work of former U.S. Prosecutor, Andy McCarthy.

For an excellent summary, see Andy McCarthy’s National Review article “Obama’s Iran Deal Is Still far from Settled.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama, It’s Time to Reverse Course on Iran Deal

VIDEO: Six Patriots explain why the Iran Nuke Deal is a ‘Bad Deal’ for U.S.

The United West video taped six American patriots on the Iran nuclear deal. These six distinguished individuals include: a Rabbi, a former Iranian prisoner and dissident, a gold star father, a wounded warrior veteran of Iraq, a retired Army Lieutenant General and a former CIA operations officer.

A statement by William Kristol, Chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel, on the potential vote in Congress on the Iran deal reads:

“The Obama Administration has not complied with the legal requirement that it provide Congress ‘any additional materials’ related to the Iran deal, including ‘side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future.’ The Administration has not given Congress a key side agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, one which describes how key questions about the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program will be resolved, as well as how the verification regime will work.

“Congress should not accept this evasion of the law by the Obama Administration. Congress should insist on the text of this and any other side agreements. Lacking this, Congress can and should take the position that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress to review, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions.

“We understand the temptation of leadership to get to a vote on a resolution of disapproval and then to move on to other votes. But the Iran deal isn’t just another legislative issue where some corner-cutting by the Administration is to be accepted with a brief expression of discontent followed by a weary sigh of resignation.

“The Iran deal is the most important foreign policy issue this Congress will have before it. Congress should rise to the occasion and insist on its prerogative — and the American people’s prerogative — to see the whole deal. The first resolution the House should consider when it returns tomorrow should be one stating that Congress has not been provided the material it needs, that the Iran deal has not been properly submitted to Congress, and therefore that the president has no authority to waive or suspend sanctions on Iran.”

Please take the time to watch all the videos or one that interests you the most. It is important to keep the pressure on those 34 Democrat U.S. Senators who have decided that the interests of Iran far outweigh the interests of the American people.

Thanks for taking the time to watch, share and send this compilation to your U.S. Senators and member of Congress.

VIDEO #1: Billy Vaughn and Staff Sargent Robert Bartlett. Gold Star father Billy Vaughn and U.S. Army Staff Sergeant (Ret.) Robert Bartlett urge everyone to call their Congressman and Senators to vote NO on the Iran Deal. Our soldiers died and sacrificed for your freedoms, pay them back by simply making your voice heard.

VIDEO #2: LTG Jerry Boykin. Retired U.S. Army General Jerry Boykin is one of America’s most significant leaders on national security issues, including Iran’s march to Atomic weapons. Moreover, Boykin is an ordained Minister serving as the Executive Vice President at the Family Research Council in Washington DC. Listen to this his critically important and insightful analysis of the Obama/Iran Nuclear Deal.

VIDEO #3: Amir Fakhravar. Amir Abbas Fakhravar, (Siavash) is an Iranian jailed dissident and award winning writer. Amir exposes the Blindfolded inspection procedure under the current Iran deal. Currently Fakhravar serves as Research Fellow and Visiting Lecturer at the Institute of World Politics.

VIDEO #4: Clare Lopez. Clare Lopez is a retired CIA Operations Officer, currently VP of Research & Analysis at Center for Security Policy. Recently in Montecito California she presented an amazing, short, insightful deconstruction of this horrendous deal that President Obama has made with the Iranian Ayatollah.

VIDEO #5: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg. Unedited footage of Efrem Goldberg protesting Joe Biden on the Iran deal in Broward County FL, at a Jewish Community Center.

VIDEO #6: Rabbi Efrem Goldberg at his Boca Raton synagogue. Senior Rabbi at the prestigious Boca Raton Synagogue in Florida delivers a powerful, on-point message against the Obama Iran Nuclear deal. Please listen to this very brave man!

VIDEO #7: Ryan Mauro, Research Analyst for the Clarion Project, producers of award-winning documentaries on national security issues presents a powerful deconstruction of the Iran/Obama Nuke Deal at the Montecito Luncheon Briefing.

VIDEO: The ‘Nine Red Lines’ in the Iran Nuke Deal

Here are my remarks at the “Stop Iran Now” luncheon in Santa Barbara, California on August 30th, 2015.

I briefly outline the Center for Security Policy’s Nine Red Lines, which make this Iran Nuclear deal a bad one for the United State, Israel and the Western world.

To read more about the Nine Red Lines of the Iran Nuclear Agreement click here.