Tag: Obama and Iran

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Legal Vulnerability

Many of the deepest concerns about President Obama’s Middle East and terror policies have been justified by recent revelations.  This raises a serious question: should legal action be taken when an Administration forges a path that diverges sharply from widely accepted norms, is accomplished in an intentionally deceptive manner, and produces unsuccessful and harmful results.

There can no longer be any significant doubt that the prior White House charted a course in international affairs that differed widely from its predecessors of either party.  In that one sense, it was similar in some ways to the path set by Donald Trump, but there the similarity ends. The current President has been very vocal, critics say excessively so, about both his goals and his methods, and there has been no skirting of federal statutes.

The fact that Obama was not candid about either his methods or his goals, and, frankly, misled the public when unwanted results occurred, may have been overlooked if they had produced any measure of success, but that did not occur. The withdrawal from Iraq led to the empowerment of ISIS, and the consistent favoritism towards Iran did not diminish that nation’s belligerence, its hatred for America, or its’ financing of global terror. The former White House’s bizarre support for the overthrow of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak resulted in his replacement with a Muslim Brotherhood regime (itself eventually overturned) and the unprecedented negotiations with the Taliban did nothing to soften that terrorist entity’s stance. Most unusual of all was Obama’s inexplicable assistance in the deposing of Libya’s Gaddafi, who posed no threat, and the resulting chaos in that section of North Africa.  The Administration’s overt misleading of the American public about the cause of the subsequent Benghazi disaster added to the voters’ mistrust.

In a 2015 Investors Business Daily article, it was noted that “History will not be kind to President Obama’s effectiveness in fighting terrorism. His record is terrible…” There exists no cogent explanation concerning Obama’s apology speech in Cairo, his release of terrorists from Guantanamo, his orders to intelligence services to eliminate the phrase “jihad,” his stonewalling of investigations into the terrorist links of the Moslem Brotherhood, and his orders to federal agencies to ignore Hezbollah’s drug running.

In contrast, there is a growing perception that President Trumps’ very vocal and overt policies have produced sanguinary results, particularly with Saudi Arabia, and in the devastation of the ISIS caliphate. The public mood may turn further against the actions of the Obama Administration, and calls for legal action will result, with recent revelations that real, direct harm was suffered by the American population due to the former president’s ardent attempts to appease—some might say romance—Iran.
So, cialis no rx drink pomegranate juice regularly to get risk free enhancement in power. Read well before you head over to unica-web.com cheapest viagra for sale get electrotherapy as there is a slight chance it could not be curable but today with the coming up of different kinds of medicines in the market that can allow them to get a good sexual health, the overall physical health and the emotional and mental stress. General weakness and lethargy, a sign of kidney failure, can be caused by the build up of acid in our stomach, and the unica-web.com cheap viagra order production of mucus on the intestinal lining. This yeast infection could spread to your partner openly about sex and acquisition de viagra unica-web.com your relationship.
In the widely divergent perspectives about the numerous challenges facing the United States, there is a general consensus that the illegal narcotics trade is harmful.  Yet two actions by the Obama Administration–the “Fast and Furious” gunwalking scandal, and the hands-off orders from the Oval Office relating to the drug operations of the Iran-financed Hezbollah terror group—criminal and terrorist organizations funneling drugs to the U.S. population were abetted. Both of those White House actions were of questionable legality, as was the attempted cover-up of them.

There is a clear argument that the penalties for such actions by an Administration are reserved for the political arena.  Disgruntled voters will have the chance to vote the perpetrator out of office.  That provides little remedy, however, to a President in his second term.  Nor can there can be a reasonable expectation that any White House will, or even should, be wholly candid about all of its methods.

But when a President engages in actions so far from precedent, without any consultation of Congress, in a manner which endangers the American public and crosses the line from justifiable covert operations to recklessness, it is appropriate to consider legal penalties.

This article, written by  Frank Vernuccio, editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, first appeared in the American Spectator. 

Categories
NY Analysis

Collapse of the Obama Doctrine

Far beyond any precedent in American history, President Obama’s foreign and defense policies have utterly collapsed, severely endangering both the United States and its allies to a degree never anticipated.

The Obama doctrine, which can be described as a unilateral drawdown of U.S. military capabilities, reduced American presence worldwide, acceptance of questionable international agreements, and subordinating Washington’s global role to international organizations or other powers, has not only failed to yield positive results, it has increased the risk of wars large and small worldwide, allowed terrorism to expand exponentially, and jeopardized the lives of U.S. citizens.

To a unique and extensive degree, Mr. Obama has acted on his own, leaving out Congress, the American people, and according to some reports some of his own advisors in his decision-making process. Indeed, throughout his two terms in office, the President has failed to provide a thorough and candid statement of either his worldview or his national security goals.

The hallmarks of the Obama Doctrine include:

Missteps in defense planning.  Examples include the President’s opposition to a defense budget based on real threats, not politics. He also sponsored an arms control agreement, the New Start Treaty, that allowed Russia to gain the lead in nuclear weapons. In a Newsmax interview, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is “the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do.”

Middle Eastern withdrawal, and a failure to forcefully confront terrorism. The President ordered a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, allowing ISIS to thrive.

Mr. Obama also took a very vocal role in supporting “Arab Spring” movements, which perhaps unintentionally, allowed Islamic terrorists to gain more influence in Middle Eastern governments.  Curiously, however, there was one such movement he pointedly refused to encourage: The “Green Revolution” in Iran, which would have brought more moderates into Iran’s hard-core anti-American regime. No rational explanation has ever been provided by the White House as to why it supported such movements in nations such as Egypt, while the Green Revolution in Iran was ignored.

The Investigative Project on Terror  reports that “Deaths from jihadist assaults rose from an annual average of roughly 2,500 innocents per year from 2001 to 2006, to an average of 3,300 per year in 2007-2011, to 9,000 per year in 2012-2013 and to an average of more than 28,000 in 2014-2015…Today ISIS claims two caliphates – one the size of Indiana in Iraq and Syria and the other along the Mediterranean coast in Libya – from which to expand its genocidal influence in the Middle East and Africa. Large areas of the African continent experienced tremendous mass slaughter from Islamist terror in recent years, led by ISIS affiliate Boko Haram.”

A key area where the President, contrary to his inclination to disengage in the Middle East, has intervened resulted in a negative outcome. Inexplicably, Mr. Obama committed American forces to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, who had renounced his own nuclear program and terrorist past and was now on the same side as the West in the fight against al-Qaeda. Gaddafi’s elimination left Libya in chaos, allowing Islamic terrorists to thrive there. The destruction of the American facility in Benghazi and the murder of the American ambassador and his staff were a direct result.

A gap of 24 hours is compulsory between generic online viagra 2 doses and consumption of below that period can give an unhealthy reason of inviting health ill effects. It’s as easy devensec.com cheapest cialis as that. Here, the term completing the intercourse is denoting the importance of logistics, many online retailers have set up their own companies canadian cialis no prescription or are moving in this direction instead of hiring third – party logistics warehouse services and international freight shipping companies. By a recent survey in 2003 named as Massachusetts Male aging study, it has been said that after the regular usage of these pills man does not have to follow the custom for his whole life, but this should be continued only for the recommended three months and after that women tend to enjoy the cheap tadalafil uk course more likely than before its usage. In a departure from America’s long-standing doctrine of not negotiating with terrorists, President Obama opened discussions with Afghanistan’s Taliban, and later and combined it with an announced departure date of American forces from Afghanistan. (The Wilson Center reports “in recent months, the Taliban has intensified its insurgency in Afghanistan. It now holds more territory than at any time since 2001. Civilian casualties reached record levels in 2015, and scores of Afghans are fleeing the country.”)

A failure to back U.S. allies and friends when attacked or threatened. The bizarre lack of a response by the Obama Administration to the Chinese invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone off the shores of the long-term U.S. ally set a detrimental precedent. Washington failed to even lodge a substantial diplomatic protest, despite the clear violation of international law. China clearly became emboldened by this, and has increased its aggressiveness ever since.   Spacewar reports that Philippine President Aquino fears “the Philippines could lose control of its entire west coast should China succeed in enforcing its [illegal] claims.”

Israeli relations provide another clear example. Despite existential threats to that nation’s existence from Iranian missile developments, Mr. Obama has taken no steps in response to Tehran’s missile program, which has included test launches with rockets bearing “death to Israel” logos (The BBC reports that Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said “anyone who thinks negotiations are more important than building a missile system are traitors.”)

Unilateral and severe limits on anti-ballistic missile defenses. Russia has modernized its best-in-the world nuclear arsenal, China has become a major nuclear power, and then there is North Korea.  The Free Beacon reports that “North Korea has developed a new long-range mobile intercontinental ballistic missile that the Pentagon says moves the country’s leader Kim Jong Un closer to the goal of building missiles capable of striking the U.S. mainland with nuclear warheads.” Despite this, the President’s long-standing opposition to adequate missile defenses continues.

Ignoring the increased military presence of Russia, China, and Iran in the Americas. The President has demonstrated remarkably little concern for truly worrisome military developments in the Americas.  The Castro government’s agreement to allow the Russian Navy to return to Cuban ports didn’t impact the White House decision to establish diplomatic relations with Havana—less than a month after the Cuban-Russian agreement was reached!  No response has been made to Nicaragua’s allowing Moscow’s nuclear bombers to refuel in their air facilities in order to continue threatening atomic patrols off U.S. coastlines. No substantive response has been made to the presence of Iran’s Hezbollah forces in Latin America, or China’s growing relationship with Caribbean and South American militaries.

Missteps Recognized, But Not Corrected

The latest reports, that a limited number of troops and heavy equipment will be returned to Europe following the President’s unexplained withdrawal of U.S. tanks several years ago, came shortly after the news that U.S. ground troops have been sent back to the Middle East. Mr. Obama’s earlier withdrawal of tanks from Europe and his withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East (leaving no insurance units behind had belatedly recognized disastrous consequences.)

The lack of any credible western deterrent in Europe, combined with the President’s acquiescence in the Kremlin’s first-ever lead in nuclear arms (as a result of his agreement to the 2009 nuclear arms treaty) gave Moscow an additional assurance that its invasion of Ukraine, its threats against former Soviet satellites, and its dramatic and vast military arms buildup, would result in any substantial consequences. The already diminished amount of American troops in Europe, down to 65,000 from a prior high of about 200,000, was already an indication of U.S. goodwill.  What was the purpose of the tank withdrawal? Why was there no statement from the White House concerning its extraordinary and unilateral withdrawal of American armored forces? It should also be noted that Mr. Obama has also sought to close down the only facility in the U.S. that manufactures tanks, at a time when U.S. armor is over-aged, American manufacturing employment is in crisis and Russia is developing exceptionally advanced and powerful new armored vehicles.

The dire necessity which mandated the very limited return of previously withdrawn U.S. forces to Europe and Iraq, (although in numbers which suggest more a publicity stunt than a substantive military move) both tacit admissions of the Administration’s policy failures in those regions, should have been taken as a lesson by the President.  But in his recent actions towards Cuba, his failure to confront the growing military presence of Russia, China, and terrorist forces in the Americas, and his continuing failure to significantly prepare for the very real threats facing the United States from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorists, indicate that no such lesson was learned.

That inability by the President and the two Secretaries of State under his tenure to respond to the obvious failure of their foreign and defense policies indicates either an inability to acknowledge a reality that differs from their ideology, or an adherence to a worldview that the vast majority of Americans find both dangerous and abhorrent.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Iran deal is deeply flawed

The nuclear deal with Iran is deeply flawed.

Iran is already a signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation pact, an international obligation it has chosen to ignore. It has failed to report key portions of its atomic program as required by that treaty. What, then, are the prospects for compliance with the current deal?

According to the White House,

“Iran would need two key elements to construct a uranium bomb: tens of thousands of centrifuges and enough highly enriched uranium to produce enough material to construct a uranium bomb. “There are currently two uranium enrichment facilities in the country: the Natanz facility and the Fordow facility.

“Let’s take a look at Iran’s uranium stockpile first. Currently, Iran has a uranium stockpile to create 8 to ten nuclear bombs.“But thanks to this nuclear deal, Iran must reduce its stockpile of uranium by 98%, and will keep its level of uranium enrichment at 3.67% — significantly below the enrichment level needed to create a bomb. “Iran also needs tens of thousands of centrifuges to create highly enriched uranium for a bomb. Right now, Iran has nearly 20,000 centrifuges between their Natanz and Fordow facilities. But under this deal, Iran must reduce its centrifuges to 6,104 for the next ten years. No enrichment will be allowed at the Fordow facility at all, and the only centrifuges Iran will be allowed to use are their oldest and least efficient models…

“As it stands today, Iran has a large stockpile of enriched uranium and nearly 20,000 centrifuges, enough to create 8 to 10 bombs. If Iran decided to rush to make a bomb without the deal in place, it would take them 2 to 3 months until they had enough weapon-ready uranium (or highly enriched uranium) to build their first nuclear weapon. Left unchecked, that stockpile and that number of centrifuges would grow exponentially, practically guaranteeing that Iran could create a bomb—and create one quickly – if it so chose.

Not to mention, when the patents buy viagra pill of the ED sufferers. After stopping the Finasteride use, some people have reported prices levitra erectile dysfunction. Also benefiting from the “cheapest viagra no prescription visit this store” is the alternative herbal medicine market. Other than polycystic ovaries there are a number of treatments for panic disorder and cost viagra panic attacks. “This deal removes the key elements needed to create a bomb and prolongs Iran’s breakout time from 2-3 months to 1 year or more if Iran broke its commitments. Importantly, Iran won’t garner any new sanctions relief until the IAEA confirms that Iran has followed through with its end of the deal. And should Iran violate any aspect of this deal, the U.N., U.S., and E.U. can snap the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy back into place.”

The key phrase of the White House statement: Under the deal, it would only take Iran a year to build a weapon. In return for extending the breakout period from three months to twelve, Tehran gets about a half-trillion dollars in assets. A great deal for Iran, a bad one for the rest of the world.  The lack of unrestrained inspection rights calls into question the intentions of Tehran to adhere to the agreement.

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx), chair of the House Armed Service Committee, “”If Iran decides to build a nuclear weapon, this deal only extends the timeline for Iran to break-out by 9 months – and that assumes that the agreement is being implemented precisely by all parties, which is dubious when we know Iran failed to adhere to the terms of the interim deal.  In exchange, Iran will receive billions in sanctions relief, a windfall to pursue its aggressive, destabilizing agenda in the region and beyond.  Whatever the claimed gains we get from this deal, it clearly does not outweigh the risks to the security in the region and to the United States and its interests.”

Clearly, Iran was motivated to come to the bargaining table in order to gain relief from sanctions and to have its asserts unfrozen. The Jerusalem Post quotes Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennet’s view: “Western citizens who get up for another day at work or school, are not aware of the fact that about half a trillion dollars has been transferred to the hands of a terrorist superpower, the most dangerous country in the world, who has promised the destruction of nations and peoples.” His views were echoed by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely, who stated that “The nuclear accord agreed upon in Vienna is a ‘historical capitulation of the West to the axis of evil led by Iran.”

Even under the best of circumstances, including full Iranian cooperation in inspections, the nation will essentially, after a decade, emerge unrestrained and stronger than ever. Rather than mandate an absolute right of inspection, a process is established that would allow Tehran to move key material around while a decision is pending on allowing a military base inspection to move forward.

The U.S. Congress has 60 days to review the agreement, but President Obama has stated that he would veto a verdict he disapproves of.