Iran, Obama, and Clinton

Flag of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Trump just trashed a "deal" with them. (Will war result?) Time to imagine a post-Ayatollah Iran. Did Obama try to wangle an October Surprise in Iran? Maybe, but he probably didn't get it. And today: shall we grant asylum to those who might propose to impose "Iranian" government values on us?
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

To allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons is to make a strategic error of historic proportions. Indeed, the George W. Bush administration made its greatest error by refraining from attacking Iran. Bush knew, after the November 2008 American election, that Barack Obama, a far-left liberal (to put it mildly), would succeed him. John Bolton, former US ambassador to the United Nations, urged Israel to attack Iran, with US backing (a problematic factor). Did he do that, knowing of the succession?

Iran already has long-range missiles

As may be, suppose Iran had just crossed the red line on being a nuclear power. The US failed to attack Iran before it had reached this point. So surely the US would not launch a preemptive strike once Iran deployed nuclear ballistic missiles.

Now, in August 2009, Dr. Uzi Rubin, who has long taken part in Israeli military research and engineering programs, reported: (1) “The Iranians have upgraded their ballistic missiles to become satellite launchers.” (2) “Iran will face no significant hurdle in up-scaling its Sejii missile into an intermediate-range ballistic missile. [Its current] range of 3,600 km [can] put the EU [and eventually the US under threat].”

Dr. Rubin also pointed out in August 2009 that Iran’s Sejii missile range of 2,500 km “could reach Warsaw and six European countries: Poland, Slovakia, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Greece.” He said that seven years ago. By now, we may assume that Iran’s latest missiles can reach the USA.

Nuclear blackmail

Dr. Rubin warned that Iran’s launching area is bigger than Israel and half of Jordan. “It’s about 50,000 sq. km., full of mountains, valleys, and canyons. You can hide thousands of ballistic missiles there with a very high probability of survival. So the capability to make a survivable missile that can threaten Europe now exists in Iran.”

Post-Christian Europe, inundated by Muslims, will surely succumb to Iranian nuclear blackmail. Merely the partial loss of the European economy would cripple America’s.

Americans don’t get it

Contrast, therefore, the cerebral capacity of the Americans even before their having been Obamatized or lobotomized by a con-artist who can’t speak without a teleprompter. Contrast, I say, the casual mentality of America with that of her single-minded global enemy. Sheltered American academics obscurely call that enemy “Islamism” or “political Islam” or “radical Islam” or some other abbreviated or lobotomized conception of Islam.

If the Iranians had indeed, in 2009, already upgraded their ballistic missile system to become satellite launchers of sufficient range to strike all of Europe, can they not obviously deploy nuclear weapons of sufficient range, if deemed necessary, to strike the United States?

Containment?

As may be, some academic “experts” advocate a “containment” policy toward Iran. They recommended the same policy the United States pursued in the long drawn out Cold War vis-à-vis the Soviet Union. Let me therefore quote a Soviet leader who scornfully told the Americans:

We will always be able to turn out more missiles than you. The reason is that our people are willing to sacrifice for these things, and yours are not. Our people don’t require a dozen colors of toilet paper in six different scents to be happy as Americans now do. For that reason you will never be able to sustain public support for military expenditures.

We had better leaders once

Ronald Reagan proved him wrong. But a very different President now occupies the White House. Communists do not threaten America today. Instead, Muslims do—Muslims who use their own children as human bombs. Former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used Iranian children to walk over and explode enemy mine fields to facilitate his soldiers’ attack on Iraq. Muslims take war and their enemies with deadly seriousness.

In contrast, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, having trivialized Islam’s global threat to America, placed her email server, containing top secret information, in her toilet.

She shows a casual or liberal as well as ideologically nonjudgmental attitude toward Islam. This corresponds to President Obama’s flaccid or morally indifferent attitude toward Islamic terrorism. It also corresponds to FBI Director Comey’s casual or liberal reaction to Secretary Clinton’s reckless handling of top secret information in her email server. This prompted him, inappropriately, to assume a power not of the FBI but of the Attorney General. So he recommend (or not recommend) the indictment of that mendacious Secretary of State.

Unqualified leaders today

Have both these Americans no clear ideological perception of Iran? Do neither Secretary Clinton nor FBI Director Comey hold an ideologically informed conviction or policy that defines Islam as an existential threat to the United States?

If the otherwise acute minds of these highly placed government officials have not been dulled or dissipated by moral relativism, or if they simply felt ambivalent as to whether Islam is a mortal enemy of the United States – an ambivalence one might feel about the best color of toilet paper – this should suffice to disqualify them from handling classified information, FBI Director James Comey notwithstanding.☼

 

11 Responses to Iran, Obama, and Clinton

  1. sherwelbuilding says:

    @Steven & Barbara.

    The US government didn’t give Iran any money, the returned Iranian money the US ceased as part of past sanctions. This whole article is Zionist propaganda with no basis in reality. Iran’s nuclear development has ceased and most of its high grade material is being sent to Russia. These are the facts.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.