Posts with the tag 'Iran'
Pajamas Media has the story:
[Editor’s note: Pajamas Media has spoken with “Reza Khalili’s” attorney in Washington, D.C. who confirmed Khalili “had a working relationship with a US intelligence agency.” We have also seen a copy of the June 5, 2008 email sent by the agency’s “Manuscript Review” department authorizing the publication of this article.
In an interview with Roger L. Simon, “Khalili” further amplifies his accusation of Iranian involvement in Lockerbie and addresses the controversial question of whether the Shiite mullahs would form alliances with Sunnis. A transcript of the interview is here. More interviews with “Khalili” in disguised video form will be coming in the future from PJM. ]
The men who ordered the destruction of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie and the bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia are pursuing the nuclear program in Iran and with one goal in mind: to obtain The Bomb.
And they want to destroy you.
After the Iranian Revolution, I was an officer in the Revolutionary Guards. I was also a spy working for the CIA, code name Wally. My position in the Guards gave me access to the Khomeini regime’s deep secrets and a firsthand look at the unfolding horror: torture, rapes, executions, assassinations, suicide bombers, training of terrorists, and the transfer of arms and explosives to other countries to support terrorist attacks. I risked my life and my family’s trying to expose this regime because I believed it should be stopped. Once again I incur such risks to bring awareness that lack of action endangers the world.
In the mid-80s, I reported to the CIA that the Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence unit had information that Saddam Hussein had made a strategic decision to acquire nuclear arms. I heard this from several sources within the Guards and also in a conversation with a member of the intelligence unit, who told me that the Guards were informed through arms dealers in the black market that Saddam was desperately looking for an atomic bomb. It was then that the Guards’ commanders and Iranian leadership decided to go nuclear and actively shop for components in the black market because they made a determination that the Iran-Iraq war could not have been won without a nuclear bomb. Mohsen Rezaei, then-commander of the Revolutionary Guards, requested permission from Ayatollah Khomeini to make Iran a nuclear power. Khomeini agreed…
Do read the whole thing - most of what is discussed is pretty well known to those who have paid attention over the years, at least in the sense that some of the horrible things which have happened (Lockerbie, eg) almost certainly had an Iranian origin. Its good to get some inside confirmation, but more important is the light this sheds on the attitudes of Iran’s leaders - the people Obama wants to talk to without preconditions, that is.
As Winston Churchill once pointed out, “jaw jaw is better than war war” - let us, indeed, talk to the Iranians till the cows come home (or the 12th Imam arrives, which ever is sooner) but let us also have no illusions: we’re dealing with a hodge-podge of human debris which is cowardly, corrupt, cruel and insane, with the added uncertainty of never knowing which element is predominant at any given time. For our advantage, “cowardly” and “corrupt” work best…dealing with greedy chickens is pretty easy, after all. But given that “cruel” and “insane” can pop up at any time we must keep our minds fixed on this one thing: The current Iranian government must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
There is no set of circumstances where the world will be safer with nuclear-armed mullahs. There is no set of circumstances where military action to prevent such a thing will be worse than allowing the mullahs to obtain nuclear weapons. It is literally a matter of millions of lives - perhaps tens of millions - being at risk with a nuclear-armed Iran, while the life risk of military action would not run higher than into the tens of thousands, in the worst case scenarios (and, well done, would probably only risk into the low thousands). Do keep in mind that we never, ever have to invade Iran - military action would be naval and aerial, with some special forces work and, perhaps, some temporary landings on the Iranian coast to destroy missile and naval facilities. The bugbear the left throws at us of having to march on Tehran is just bluster designed to scare us off any action at all.
I would have preferred we dealt with Iran back in 2006, or 2007 at the latest - President Bush determined otherwise, and I hope to one day find out whether there was a really good reason for not acting. Be that as it may, its now mid-2008 and the mullahs are tooling along steadily towards a nuclear weapon (and, good people, there is no other possible interpretation on Iran’s nuclear effort - only the willfully blind could consider it as a peaceful use of nuclear energy); the next President will have to deal with this. And in so dealing, the next President - rather quickly in his term, I suspect - will have to decide whether he wants to allow Iran to obtain nukes (and thus place us in a junior-league, but much nastier, Cold War with the prospect of huge casualties if “insane” comes out on top), or if he wants to cut out the cancer by military action with a hope that by the time the mullahs can reconstitute their progam, they will finally have been overthrown by the long suffering - but increasingly restive - Iranian people.
Tags: Iran, nuclear weapons, Terrorism
July 9th, 2008
From McCain AIPAC speech:
The threats to Israel’s security are large and growing, and America’s commitment must grow as well. I strongly support the increase in military aid to Israel, scheduled to begin in October. I am committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Israel’s enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small, and our shared interests and values too great for us to follow any other policy.
Foremost in all our minds is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran. The Iranian president has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and suggested that Israel’s Jewish population should return to Europe. He calls Israel a “stinking corpse” that is “on its way to annihilation.” But the Iranian leadership does far more than issue vile insults. It acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and the United States.
A sponsor of both Hamas and Hezbollah, the leadership of Iran has repeatedly used violence to undermine Israel and the Middle East peace process. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq who have killed American soldiers fighting to bring freedom to that country. It remains the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism and threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East, from Basra to Beirut.
Tehran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel free to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to join a nuclear arms race. The world would have to live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Armed as well with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to the people of Israel.
European negotiators have proposed a peaceful endgame for Tehran, should it abandon its nuclear ambitions and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. The plan offers far-reaching economic incentives, external support for a civilian nuclear energy program, and integration into the international community. But Tehran has said no…
…we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before. Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.
Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on.
It is purblind idiocy, sorry to say, when Obama says he will meet with the Iranian leadership without preconditions. If an enemy of the United States wanted to figure out the best way to strengthen the mullahs, diminish America and set the stage for global catastrophe, he couldn’t script anything better than an American President kowtowing to Iran’s murderous government. McCain, on the other hand, notes that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons - with the implication being that military action will be used if nothing else works - and lays out a program of international diplomacy and economic warfare to bring Iran’s government to heel. Key to this is attacking Iran’s Achilles heel - the fact that Iran imports most of its gasoline; deny Iran this gasoline, and Iran’s economy will grind swiftly to a halt, and if that doesn’t get them to talk, nothing will, ever.
Iran with nuclear weapons is a standing threat to the lives of millions of innocent human beings, including innocent Iranians. Iraq with nuclear weapons is a nation which will feel free to sponsor terrorism all around the globe, safe under a nuclear umbrella from any direct retaliation. Iran with nuclear weapons is something which cannot be allowed to happen - and by electing McCain to carry forward policies designed to force Iran to back down, we’ll have a good shot at preventing a nuclear Iran. By electing Obama we will just ensure that Iran obtains nuclear weapons, and becomes a horrible threat to the entire world.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iran, John McCain, nuclear weapons, Terrorism
June 3rd, 2008
Crediting our enemies with the success of our troops and our Iraqi allies - that does go entirely too far:
In an interview yesterday with the San Francisco Chronicle, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed the U.S. troop surge failed to accomplish its goal. She then partially credited the success of the troop surge to “the goodwill of the Iranians,” claiming that they were responsible for ending violence in the southern city of Basra.
Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge’s positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded:
Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.
This is an inexcusable slander. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki brought the Sadrists militias to their knees in a month-long battle that enabled Iraq’s largest Sunni bloc to rejoin the government. Furthermore, when Pelosi met with Prime Minister al-Maliki in Mosul she sang quite a different tune. She had “welcomed Iraq’s progress in passing a budget as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power among local officials,” and stated, “We’re assured the elections will happen here, they will be transparent, they will be inclusive and they will take Iraq closer to the reconciliation we all want it to have.”
Discounting the success of the American military, denying the accomplishments of U.S. allies, and giving the credit to our most dangerous enemies seems like an especially productive week for a Democrat on Capitol Hill. After Nancy Pelosi’s post-Iraq hat trick, there’s really no need for Barack Obama to make this trip after all.
If Pelosi had an ounce of honor in her body - and ounce, that is, of genuine patriotism for the United States of America - she would immediately apologise to our troops, our Iraqi allies and then she’d resign her position. The US and Iraqi militaries are the reason peace is coming to Iraq, not the benevolence of the lunatics who govern Iran, and who are responsible for the deaths of very many Americans and Iraqis. This is not honest dissent, this is treasonous. Al-Qaeda has its back to the wall, Syria is talking a separate peace with Israel and Iran finds itself isolated, having angered the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and having nothing to show for all their efforts over the past 5 years…Pelosi’s statement is, in a way, giving aid and comfort to our enemies; what she said is akin to saying that the Nazis deserve credit for our liberation of Rome in 1944 because they chose to withdraw rather than fight for the city…if there is anything which will keep the enemy fighting in their hopeless cause it is the belief that the Democrats will come in and be the “weak horse” they expected us to be all along.
If anyone out there needed a reason to fight hard to defeat the Democrats in 2008, here it is - a Democratic victory in November will elevate into complete power that very 60’s radicalism which nearly destroyed this nation 40 years ago, and which is bound and determined to have another shot at wrecking the country. People like Pelosi act the part of traitor, even if they don’t know it (and my bet is that 90% of them really don’t know it - so entirely ignorant of their own ideological background are they); we can’t afford to have this mindset in power.
Tags: Defeaticrats, Iran, Iraq, Nancy Pelosi
May 31st, 2008
Robert Ferrigno, author of “Prayers for the Assassin” and his latest, “Sins of the Assassin” has an article of what an Obama presidency may look like, in the eyes of Mahamoud Ahmawhackjob. Read the whole thing.
I had a correspondence today with Mr. Ferrigno, in which I compared Obama with the movie, “Being There,” with Peter Sellers playing “Chance,” the cognitively-challenged gardener (Chauncy Gardner), who at the end of the movie is being considered for a run for POTUS.
Mr. Ferrigno responded,
“Leo
you nailed it with the Being There analogy. amazing. the guy truly is a blank screen on which people project their deepest desires. we’re in for some rough water, i’m afraid.
Robert
Is Barack Obama a life imitating art in this case? One would think so.
Tags: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran, Robert Ferrigno
May 28th, 2008
Powerline has it - in the form of a 1960 debate question about negotiating with the Soviets, and the responses of Kennedy and Nixon to the question. Read the whole thing, but to bottom line it - neither man was willing to meet with the Soviets without preconditions.
The basics of diplomacy are that the national leaders only meet after the ground has been cleared and there is at least some chance of a final deal being reached at the summit - to just trot over to the enemy and start talking about whatever comes to mind is a formula for disaster, and it bears no relation to the actual use of diplomacy as a means of resolving issues between States.
Obama has far too high a learning curve for us to trust him with the White House - perhaps if he’d go back to Illinois, run for governor and spend some time making real world decisions he is responsible for, that would season him enough to be entrusted with the most powerful office in the world, but as of right now, he’s got no business being President.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, John F Kennedy, John McCain, Richard Nixon
May 25th, 2008
Senator Lieberman points out the harsh reality of Democratic opposition to the war:
The reversal began, like so much else in our time, on September 11, 2001. The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.
Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own, because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves. By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy — not bin Laden, but Mr. Bush — activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.
Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party’s left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
The plain fact of the matter is that it wasn’t but a few months after 9/11 before Democrats were seeking ways and means of defeating President Bush and the GOP over the war - it was only a few voices to start with, but by late 2003 it was becoming a crescendo on the Democratic side…for them, Bush was the enemy; and this was so because President Bush stood between them and more power. Some say that if President Bush had done this or that it would all have come out differently - but as regards the Democrats, it didn’t matter what Bush did, they would attack him on it…always, always keep in mind that had we not invaded Iraq - had we, that is, gone along with the French, Russians and Germans in 2003 - then today the very same Democrats who condemn Iraq as a failure would be condemning President Bush for not liberating Iraq. Too often we’ve seen Democrats turn 180 degrees because it is political expedient at the moment - the most recent example of this is Obama’s 2004 harsh words about Iran contrasted to his 2008 “Iran is tiny” rhetoric…in 2004, it was wise to be bellicose towards Iran…in 2008, the kook left is ruling the Democratic roost and thus it is now politically expedient to be as anti-war as possible…even at the cost of personal honor and dignity.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, John McCain
May 23rd, 2008
Until he was running on the kook-left platform for the Democratic nomination - from Best of the Web Today:
Blogger Lance Adams unearths a 2004 Chicago Tribune article depicting Barack Obama–then a candidate for U.S. Senate–striking a much more hawkish tone toward Iran than he has done recently:
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” . . .
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations. . . .”
This is quite a contrast to Obama’s recent comment, which we noted yesterday:
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela–these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”
Perhaps Obama, running in the primaries, is cynically appealing to the faction within his party that is reflexively sympathetic to America’s enemies. Or perhaps he reckons that the public mood has changed since 2004 and Americans in general are more skittish about military action.
Taranto goes on to note that Obama, installed as President, might just flip-flop back to “Iran is a threat” - but, to me, the whole thing is just another indicator of how Democrats are entirely irresponsible these days…they just don’t care. You get the distinct impression that figures that, come what may, they’ll remain rich and powerful, so everything is subordinated to the goal of greater wealth and power, and who cares what happens to America and the world? Appeasement is bad, but worse is someone who blows hot and cold - as Bill Clinton did with his periodic outbursts of military action followed by lethargy in matters of national security, the ultimate result being our enemies holding us in contempt. I’d still vote against Obama is I were sure he’d appease, but my worry is that he’ll start a war if the polling indicates that it will help him and his party go better at election time. Obama is the sort of clueless man who throughout history has generated massive wars simply by failure to understand what is happening around him.
America is too precious a bulwark of liberty to be placed in such incompetant hands as Obama’s - we need a President who will have the sense to see things as they are and the courage to do the right thing no matter what the latest poll is saying.
Tags: Barack Obama, Iran, liberal lies
May 22nd, 2008
Loud and clear, as usual:
Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran. Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is ‘tiny’ compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union. Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had. But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant. On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers. They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East. And their President, who has called Israel a ’stinking corpse,’ has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction. Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons. The biggest national security challenge the United States cur rently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed. They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but ‘tiny’.
Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.
This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.
Obama by his statement of willingness to meet with Iranian leaders without pre-conditions immediately disqualified himself in the minds of all thinking Americans from the Presidency of the United States. Never has a major Presidential candidate made such an obtuse statement - a statement so at odds with facts, logic and the way affairs between States are governed that one questions whether Obama has ever entertained a serious thought about foreign affairs. Obama, installed in the White House, would be a mere tool in the hands of whatever liberal extremists wind up in charge of foreign policy - unable to tell when he’s being conned in foreign affairs, Obama would fall into trap after trap, to the detriment of American prestige, and to the risk of the peace and liberty of the world.
The sort of policy idiocy we can expect from an Obama Administration is best illustrated by a preposterous opinion piece I read in the local paper today (unable to find a link), which figures its ok for Iran to have nukes, because the US could promise Israel to exterminate Iran if Iran ever exterminated Israel…as if the death of tens of millions is something a civilized person really contemplates; as if the Israelis will be happy, once dead, as long as they know that tens of millions of innocent Iranians are murdered, too; as if Iran’s leaders are like Russia’s leaders, possessed of a desire to lay wrapped in wealth and power, rather than a messianic desire to remake the Caliphate and usher in the end of the world…
We must have people in power who understand that some of the differences in the world aren’t the result of misunderstandings or hurt feelings - some times the differences stem from the fact that the two sides are antagonistic to each other and can’t get along while one side remains as it is. Iran’s government is cruel, inhuman and evil - it has no redeeming qualities, and there is no evidence that there are enough “moderates” in it to prevent the radicals from doing whatever they please. We can, perhaps, work out some livable arrangement between ourselves and the government of Iran - but not at the cost of an Iranian nulcear force, not at the risk of another Holocaust and not while Iran and its agents are killing Americans in Iraq. Period. End of story.
McCain understands this. Obama doesn’t. And that, really, is all we need to know for November.
Tags: Barack Obama, Defeaticrats, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain
May 20th, 2008
Loud and clear:
Earlier today, Senator Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America . No issue is more important. Senator Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Senator Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ’stinking corpse’ and arms terrorist who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.
It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment, and determination to keep us safe.
Barack Obama proves himself again and again manifestly incompetent to be President of the United States of America - Iran’s government is responsible for the death of Americans as well as our brave Iraqi allies…we’re supposed to ask them if they’ll kindly leave off killing us? Ask them if they’ll kindly stay out of Iraq? Ask them if they’ll kindly give up nuclear weapons? Ask them if they’ll kindly not pursue another Holocaust against the Jews?
No, we don’t ask - we instruct. Iran must give up its nuclear ambitions and must give up its dreams of destroying Israel - only after the Iranian government has done these things can talks with Iran about other outstanding issues ensue.
Tags: Barak Obama, Defeaticrats, Iran, Iraq, John McCain
May 16th, 2008
Older Posts
