Tag Archives: Iran

International news

Can we believe a POTUS who cannot tell the truth?

This must be said, so I will say it.

Donald Trump’s penchant for prevarication, his unwillingness to tell the truth puts everything he says about the killing of a bloodthirsty terrorist into serious doubt.

Do not misconstrue me, please. Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader Qassem Sulemaini needed to die. Donald Trump ordered an airstrike this week that killed a man responsible for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. service personnel. The call took guts to make and I salute the president for ordering the strike.

However, he now says it was done to prevent a planned attack on U.S. forces, that it was done as a defensive move.

I am only wondering now whether Donald Trump is telling the truth on that matter. Was there actually a strike in the offing from the Iranian forces? Can we trust this nation’s current president to tell us the truth, without equivocation, of the context surrounding the air strike?

I long ago stopped attaching credibility to virtually anything that the president tells me, but yet, I want this statement from Trump to ring true. I just need to be convinced.

International news

Oh, my … Trump’s words still echo

This is too good to let it sit quietly.

Donald Trump made a dire prediction about how his immediate presidential predecessor might handle ongoing tensions with Iran. He said Barack Obama would have domestic political consequences in mind.

This is absolutely priceless.

So … if someone were to suggest such a thing in light of what happened Thursday, with the killing of the Revolutionary Guard monster, what will the current president say?

Wow! We’d all better hope for a miracle that Donald Trump knows what he’s doing.

International news

Hyperbole ignores serious questions

Here comes the hyperbole.

Conservative media have begun the counterattack against those who are questioning the wisdom of Donald Trump’s decision to kill the Iranian Revolutionary Guard leader. They are saying that liberals want to coddle terrorists. Why? Because they wonder whether the commander in chief is steady enough to handle what many fear is the inevitable response from Iran over the air strike.

Qassem Sulemaini is dead. I haven’t heard a single skeptic say that the revered Iranian military leader should still be alive. I, too, believe the guy needed to die and I am glad our forces struck down the leader of forces responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service personnel.

However, there is legitimate concern about whether the commander in chief has given thorough consideration about how he intends to respond to the retaliation that many fear is coming from Iran. Such concern does not suggest any softening of U.S. resolve in the fight against international terrorist organization. It speaks instead to concern about the preparation at the highest level of our military command for what comes next.

By “highest level,” I refer to the individual in charge of it all, the current president of the United States.

We all have witnessed too many instances of acting on impulse. Trump orders military action without consulting with the Joint Chiefs of Staff or with his national security adviser. He makes decisions based on phone chats with hostile foreign leaders.

None of us knows the pre-strike planning that went into this raid. I happen to be glad that Suleimani is dead. Many of us have legitimate concern about whether we’re prepared for how the Iranians will respond. That does not mean anyone is more concerned about the bad guys than they are about protecting American lives.

International news

Are we ready for the Iranian response?

The U.S.-Iran tension has just been kicked squarely in the gut with reports that a drone strike has killed a leading Iranian military leader responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American service personnel.

Major Gen. Quassim Suleimani is dead. He was the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. He was an evil individual. I happen to believe he needed killin’, as the saying goes. To that extent I also happen to applaud the action taken by U.S. military officials, reportedly at the direction of Donald Trump. The strike occurred in Baghdad, Iraq, where the Revolutionary Guard has been involved in fomenting violence.

Here, though, is the major qualifier we need to understand fully. The consequence of this strike is likely to produce a retaliation from Iran.

Are we ready for such a reaction? Are our forces set to respond to whatever Iran intends to do to avenge the death of someone considered to be a revered leader in Iran?

It’s one thing to launch a strike against a primary military leader. It’s quite another to take such action without a strategy lined out to deal with the response that is sure to be directed at this country or our allies in the Middle East.

I am hopeful the Pentagon brass has developed that strategy and is prepared to deploy it when it becomes necessary.

International news

On the brink of conflict with Iran … or what?

Donald Trump is giving me the heebie-jeebies.

The president of the United States ordered a military strike against Iran because the Iranians shot down an unarmed drone apparently over international waters. The Iranians contend the surveillance craft had flown into their air space, which is why they knocked it out of the sky.

But then the president changed his mind and called off the strike against Iran.

I’m wondering today: Why did the president change his mind? What prompted him to order the aircraft back to their bases? Did he get a call from the mullahs? Did they admit to making the “mistake” to which he alluded earlier in the day?

Well, at this moment — but that could change in the next moment — I am glad he called off the hit against military targets in Iran. I heard something this morning about the reported threat to civilians had the strike been allowed to continue.

Let’s not be coy. Iran presents a serious threat to the entire region if we hit them hard. They hate the Saudis, and the Iranians damn sure hate Israel. The mullahs are in control of a terrorist state, which suggests to me that they can seek their vengeance against targets all around the world.

Please keep that in mind, Mr. President, as you ponder the best way to respond to the shootdown of an unmanned military asset.

national news

No war with Iran!

Donald John Trump continues to send astonishingly conflicting messages.

Back when he was running for president of the United States, Trump said he opposed sending U.S. troops into “useless” wars. He cited the Iraq War as Example No. 1 of a war that wasn’t worth the fight. I happen to agree with him.

Now here he is, two-plus years into his term and the president is threatening to go to war with Iran. What the hell?

Why is that? Iranian-backed Yemeni forces have been launching rocket attacks against Saudi shipping. They are threatening the flow of oil out of the region. Trump says Iran’s continuing provocation could prompt a devastating response from this country.

We have sent the USS Abraham Lincoln battle group into the Persian Gulf. We’re flexing our muscles. We’re telling the Iranians: Don’t mess up, here, or else you’re going to pay too drastic a price.

Trump made the correct call to end our involvement in these wars with no end. Now, though, he has surrounded himself with a cabal of uber-hawks — led by national security adviser John Bolton — who seem hell bent on going to war with the intention of overthrowing the ayatollahs who run the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I am not prone to insist that Trump rely on his own instincts, but on this matter, he should do exactly that.

However, Trump also says Iran shouldn’t have nuclear weapons. But wait! We had that treaty that aimed to end Iran’s nuclear development; then the president pulled us out. But . . . there are reports from other nations still involved in the agreement that suggest that Iran is actually complying with the conditions set forth by then-President Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry.

I’m baffled. Confused. Bumfuzzled.

Listen to that wiser angel whispering in your ear, Mr. President.

International news, national news, national security

Trump tosses needless insults at intelligence brass

Try for a moment to wrap your arms around this bit of idiocy.

Donald J. Trump, the guy admits to not wanting to read policy briefings, has declared that the nation’s top-level intelligence command is “naïve.”

He wrote this on Twitter:

The Intelligence people seem to be extremely passive and naive when it comes to the dangers of Iran. They are wrong! When I became President Iran was making trouble all over the Middle East, and beyond. Since ending the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, they are MUCH different, but….

….a source of potential danger and conflict. They are testing Rockets (last week) and more, and are coming very close to the edge. There economy is now crashing, which is the only thing holding them back. Be careful of Iran. Perhaps Intelligence should go back to school!

These individuals, all seasoned political figures and national intelligence experts, have contradicted the president’s assertions about Iran, North Korea and the Islamic State.

CIA Director Gina Haspel, a career spook who has spent her entire career with the spy agency, says Iran is complying with previous restrictions enacted designed to keep the Islamic Republic from obtaining nuclear weapons. Trump calls Iran an existential threat to the Middle East.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, a veteran U.S. senator from Indiana with serious foreign policy chops, said the Islamic State poses a dramatic threat to the civilized world. Trump says the United States and our allies have “defeated” ISIS in Syria.

FBI Director Christopher Wray, who’s forged a career in law enforcement and counter-terrorism, joined his colleagues in suggesting that North Korea is still looking to develop nuclear weapons. Trump has said that North Korea is no longer a threat.

Who do you believe? The seasoned, experienced and serious intelligence professionals? Or do you believe a political novice with zero experience in anything even remotely connected with intelligence, counter-intelligence or counter-terrorism? The serious public servants or the man who spent his entire public life devoted to self-promotion, self-aggrandizement and self-enrichment?

I am going to go with the intelligence and law enforcement pros.

Now I must ask: How much of this denigration of their skill, knowledge and experience are they going to take from the carnival barker who managed to get elected president of the United States?

International news

Time for Saudi sanctions, Mr. President

OK, Mr. President, you’ve got a problem.

Saudi Arabia has denied any involvement in the brutal assassination of a Saudi-born journalist in Istanbul, Turkey. But wait! Now the CIA has determined that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.

What are you going to do about it, Mr. President?

You see, the United States has some skin in this game. Khashoggi was a journalist employed by the Washington Post. He was a U.S. resident who wrote columns for the newspaper and, indeed, his final essay called for greater tolerance of political dissent in Saudi Arabia. The crown prince, the de facto ruler of the kingdom, took umbrage at Khashoggi’s view.

So he had him killed. Maybe he even ordered the reported dismembering of Khashoggi, torturing him while he was still alive, screaming for his life.

How in the world do we let this pass, Mr. President?

I wish I could presume you’ll accept the CIA assessment. I mean, you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to endorse the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia attacked our electoral system in 2016.

But the CIA now is being run by one of your appointees. Gina Haspel is a career spook. She is a first-rate spymaster. Her agency also is among the best intelligence outfits in the world. But you know that already. Right?

You need to set aside that top-dollar arms deal the Saudis want done. Those high-performance jet fighters the Saudis ordered ought to be put back in the hangar.

The Saudis are bad actors at many levels. Sure, they’re our “allies” in the effort to corral the Islamic Republic of Iran. They are brutal, though, in their handling of political dissent, as Jamal Khashoggi’s hideous fate would attest.

The CIA says the crown prince is involved. You, sir, need to act.

International news

Respond to Iran threats? Yes, but do so the right way

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani issued a threat to the United States.

The U.S. president took it seriously. So seriously that he employed his favorite forum to respond: Twitter. He fired off an all-cap response that says Iran had better think twice about issuing threats.

Hey, I no longer am surprised by Donald Trump’s Twitter fetish. He’s got it bad, man.

I just long ago grew tired of reading these tweets when he decides to issue policy pronouncements or when he articulates some sort of threat to a foreign adversary.

I don’t have a particular problem with Trump responding to Iran’s bluster. My concern is the forum the president keeps using. He blathers these counter-threats for all the world to hear.

I wonder if it ever occurs to Trump to just pick up the telephone in the Oval Office and phoning some intermediary nation (since we have no diplomatic relations with Iran) and offering a warning to Iran to pipe down with the tough talk.

It’s called back-channel diplomacy.

Donald Trump, though, knows nothing of how these matters ought to be resolved. None of that is a surprise, given the utter absence of any understanding of government in Trump’s background.

He goes with his gut, his instinct, his penchant for showmanship.

Dangerous.

International news

Verbal threats prompt this kind of response? Wow!

The Iranian government makes a verbal threat to launch “the mother of all wars” against the United States.

The response from the president? He fires off a tweet — written in all capital letters — that Iran should “NEVER, EVER” threaten the United States or else face the consequence of a full military strike.

This is where we’ve come? A rogue nation’s head of state makes a foolish statement and the commander in chief responds with threats of total annihilation, again via Twitter.

Sheesh.