Stating The Obvious

The Hill posted an article on Friday about some recent comments by President Obama regarding the nuclear deal with Iran.

The article reports:

In comments following the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, Obama denied speculation that the United States would ease rules preventing dollars from being used in financial transactions with Iran, in order to boost the country’s engagement with the rest of the world.

 Instead, Obama claimed, that Iran’s troubles even after the lifting of sanctions under the nuclear deal were due to its continued support of Hezbollah, ballistic missile tests and other aggressive behavior.

Iran so far has followed the letter of the agreement, but the spirit of the agreement involves Iran also sending signals to the world community and businesses that it is not going to be engaging in a range of provocative actions that are going to scare businesses off,” Obama said at a press conference.

“When they launch ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel, that makes businesses nervous.”

The ballistic missiles with slogans calling for the destruction of Israel are not an indication of a new attitude. The Quds Force is named the Quds Force because Quds is the Iranian name for Jerusalem. The Quds Force is the group that will be given the ‘honor’ of taking Jerusalem when ‘the time comes.’ This represents the attitude of Iran since the Iranian revolution in 1979. I don’t know what President Obama thought was going to change when he agreed to the nuclear treaty.

The article concludes:

Despite the lifting of sanctions, American companies are still banned from doing business in Iran and foreign banks are prohibited from using the U.S. dollar for their Iranian dealings. Earlier this week, multiple reports indicated that the White House was considering easing financial rules to let foreign companies use the dollar to do business with Iran.

But on Friday, Obama appeared to shoot the idea down.

“That’s not actually the approach that we’re taking,” he said.

“It is not necessary that we take the approach of them going through dollar transactions,” he added. “It is possible for them to work through European financial institutions as well.”

Instead, Obama said, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and other U.S. officials would help “provide clarity” to global businesses about what kinds of work they can do in Iran under current rules.

That sounds an awful lot like ‘the rules will be what I say they are.’

One Of Many Reasons We Need A New Policy Regarding Iran

Iran‘s nuclear program has nothing to do with generating energy. Iran has openly stated that it is working toward the destruction of Israel. This is not a country that is interested in being part of a peaceful family of nations. Recently, they were caught again engaging in activities that undermine peace in the Middle East.

On Friday World Net Daily reported that a Revolutionary Guard spokesman, Ramadan Sherif, confirmed that Iranian General Hassan Shateri was killed when Israeli aircraft bombed a convoy in Syria that had been on its way to Lebanon.

The article reports that Iran described Shateri’s mission in Lebanon as rebuilding public schools, hospitals and mosques that had been impacted by the 2006 Israel-Lebanon War.

The article at World Net Daily (WND) reports:

However, informed Middle Eastern security officials speaking to WND identified Shateri as the Quds Force commander responsible for coordinating the arming of Hezbollah in Lebanon, including restocking the terrorist group with advanced missiles.

The Quds Force is a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard responsible for what the Guard calls its “extraterritorial operations.”

Until someone stands up to Iran, they are going to continue to foment unrest in the Middle East.Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Things To Keep In Mind About The Recently Discovered Iranian Plot Against The United States

The recently-discovered Iranian plot against America was a shock to all of us. It shouldn’t have been–Iran has been killing American soldiers since we first went into Afghanistan, but it was.  I have heard a few questions about the timing of the news on this plot and the motives behind them. My best source on this is Andrew C. McCarthy.

Mr. McCarthy posted an article at National Review’s The Corner with his perspective on the foiled plot.

Mr. McCarthy reports:

The case is being handled by my old office (the Southern District of New York), where the U.S. attorney is a very honorable guy and the prosecutors are notoriously resistant to micro-management by Main Justice. The FBI director is also a straight arrow, as are the vast, vast majority of agents. There are just too many people involved — good, hardworking people, who would take no part in a charade designed to take the heat off the AG.

The article further points out that historically Iran has been willing to work with almost anyone if it involves working against American interests in the world. To quote the article directly:

Al Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist organization that is not overly fond of Shiite Muslims. The Taliban was Iran’s nemesis when it was running Afghanistan. Yet, the Iranians have colluded with al Qaeda and armed the Taliban for what they see as the greater good of making trouble for us.

Mr. McCarthy reminds us that the brazenness of the attack should not be a surprise–Iran has been attacking us for some time, and we have not responded strongly. Why not continue if there are no consequences? He points out that in our search for moderates in the Iranian government, we are willing to avoid responding to almost anything–including an attempt at a direct attack within America.

At some point America is going to have to decide whether or not we are worth defending. Either our way of life is worth preserving or it is not. How should we deal with those who are determined to put an end to the American way of life?

Enhanced by Zemanta