Trumps ‘big stick’!

“Occasional perceived craziness is a plus in both poker and high-stakes geostrategic diplomacy” siger Victor Davis Hanson i en afklædning af Obama-doktrinen på National Review.

hold-on-israel

Det meste af pressen er bekymrede over Donald Trumps manglende politiske erfaring og hans påståede ukendskab til Verden udenfor amerikanske realityshows tegner en udenrigspolitik der vil krabbe ubehjælpsomt mod krig og kaos. I den virkelige store Verden er der ikke plads til store armbevægelser og spontane Twitterkommentarer. Hans forgænger, Verdensmanden med de mange oprindelser, som han ikke helt ville vide af alligevel, forstod den fine balance på den internationale scene. Trump er elefanten i glasbutikken og allerede i overgangen mellem de to regeringer skaber Trumps ‘kontraordrer’ da også problemer, skiver bl.a Wall Street Journal.

De tog også anstød af at Trump passer sin twitter-konto og sin takke-turne og kun sparsomt deltager i de sikkerhedspolitiske møder. “I don’t have to be told the same thing in the same words every single day for the next eight years” forklarede han Fox News sin ‘efter-behov’ tilgang.

Trump er ikke en mad-man, men han har en rem af huden - og der lyttes til Trump.  Af alt, hvad der kommer ud af munden på ham så ved man det er alvor når han trækker en rød streg. Alan Dershowitz skriver i Algemeiner at Trump havde ret i at blande sig i Obamas svigt af Israel, da FNs sikkerhedsråd besluttede at gøre bl.a Østjerusalem til palæstinensisk territorium

The effect, therefore of the Obama decision to push for, and abstain from, a vote on this resolution is to deliberately tie the hands of the president’s successors, in particular President-elect Trump. That is why Trump did the right thing in reaction to Obama’s provocation. Had the lame-duck president not tried to tie the incoming president’s hands, Trump would not have intervened at this time. But if Trump had not urged the Egyptians to withdraw the resolution, he would have made it far more difficult for himself to try to bring about a negotiated resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The reason for this is that a Security Council resolution declaring the 1967 border to be sacrosanct, and any building behind those boarders to be illegal, would make it impossible for Palestinian leaders to accept less in a negotiation. Moreover, the passage of such a resolution would disincentivize the Palestinians from accepting Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s invitation to sit down and negotiate with no preconditions. Any such negotiations would require painful sacrifices on both sides if a resolution were to be reached. And a Security Council resolution siding with the Palestinians would give the Palestinians the false hope that they could get a state through the United Nations without having to make painful sacrifices.

Det har han gjort siden valget til kommende præsident og med god effekt. Eric Fernstrohm, der har været rådgiver for Mitt Romney, skriver om Trumps ‘can-do’ tilgang i Boston Globe

Trump has turned out to be the most energetic president-elect America has seen in a long time, intervening to save jobs and contain federal spending. Like Teddy Roosevelt, Trump is using the megaphone of his bully pulpit to get results.

He rescued 1,000 jobs by dangling tax incentives and the threat of retaliatory tariffs to convince air conditioning company Carrier not to move production from Indiana to Mexico. Democrats quibble over the number of jobs saved, but there’s no escaping the symbolism: Trump is on the side of workers, not big corporations.

Now there’s talk of a Trump effect, as more companies fearful of Trump’s “big stick” think twice about outsourcing American jobs.

Bill Ford, the chairman at Ford Motor Co., called Trump after the election to say the automaker changed its mind about moving some vehicle production offshore. Trump also said he lobbied Apple CEO Tim Cook about bringing manufacturing back to the United States.

“One of the things that will be a real achievement for me is when I get Apple to build a big plant in the United States, or many big plants in the United States, where instead of going to China, and going to Vietnam, and going to the places that you go to, you’re making your product right here,” Trump said he told Cook, according to a post-election interview with The New York Times.

Trump’s preinaugural swagger goes beyond the jobs front.

After Trump complained about the price tag for building the next Air Force One, the CEO of Boeing promised to limit costs. Trump put health care companies on notice that he wants drug prices, a major factor in exploding Medicare costs, to come down. His targeting of “out of control” overruns in the construction of F-35 fighter jets suggests defense contractors will feel the lash.

Trump may not get everything he wants, but if the transition is any indication, he seems to understand what his opponents do not. His success will hinge on jobs and bringing change to Washington, not how often he meets with intelligence briefers.

Og han ser ud til at få europæerne til at tage mere ansvar for eget forsvar. Den store kæp er mere end blot en sjofel reference til et af primærvalgenes lavpandede disputter, det er sikkerhedspolitik på det mest basale plan.

Derfor var hans nonchalante omtale af atomvåben under valgkampen også god sikkerhedspolitik og som skabt til en tid, hvor Verden ikke længere hviler nogenlunde trygt i at USA er den store hegemon. Ja, han var villig til at bruge atomvåben, hvis det lignede en god løsning - hvad ellers havde man dem for? Chokeret prøvede journalisten at finde en undtagelse i Trumps vanvid og spurgte om han også ville bruge atomvåben mod problemer i Europa

“Europe is a big place!” konstaterede Trump uden omsorg for pæne menneskers blodtryk og ængstelser - han talte heller ikke til dem.
Oliver og Obama, med sin fejlslagne (jeg lader tvivlen komme ham til gode) politik, kan gøre sig lystige alt det de vil. De er ikke relevante, de tabte valget og Trump bruger ikke deres medier til at tale med sine tilhængere. Trump talte til alle despoter og røvhuller ude den store verden, der har lært at grine ad Obamas svaghed og USA fald fra tronen. trump fortalte at når han kommer til, så har han allerede mandat i det amerikanske folk til at slå på gummen hvor han finder det for godt.
Det vidner om stor politisk indsigt at føre stormagtspolitik allerede inden man er valgt. Hillary gjorde det modsatte. Hun pustede sig op overfor vælgerne, mens hun legede med tanken om at gå i krig med Rusland.

På vej mod interessante tider

“Russia orders all officials to fly home any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war” skriver Daily Mail. Speisa skriver “Russian state TV warns viewers of war”. “Future war with Russia or China would be ‘extremely lethal and fast’, US generals warn” skrev Independent og tilføjede “Russia launches massive nuclear war training exercise that ‘involves 40 million people’” skrev IndependentOg på TV2 kunne man læse “Russiske atom-missiler kan nu nå Bornholm”.

“Wars are gathering”, skriver Victor Davis Hanson, “A hard rain is going to fall”

This summer, President Obama was often golfing. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were promising to let the world be. The end of summer seemed sleepy, the world relatively calm.

The summer of 1914 in Europe also seemed quiet. But on July 28, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip with help from his accomplices, fellow Serbian separatists. That isolated act sparked World War I.

In the summer of 1939, most observers thought Adolf Hitler was finally through with his serial bullying. Appeasement supposedly had satiated his once enormous territorial appetites. But on September 1, Nazi Germany unexpectedly invaded Poland and touched off World War II, which consumed some 60 million lives.

(…)

Russia has been massing troops on its border with Ukraine. Russian president Vladimir Putin apparently believes that Europe is in utter disarray and assumes that President Obama remains most interested in apologizing to foreigners for the past evils of the United States. Putin is wagering that no tired Western power could or would stop his reabsorption of Ukraine — or the Baltic states next. Who in hip Amsterdam cares what happens to faraway Kiev?

Iran swapped American hostages for cash. An Iranian missile narrowly missed a U.S. aircraft carrier not long ago. Iranians hijacked an American boat and buzzed our warships in the Persian Gulf. There are frequent promises from Tehran to destroy either Israel, America, or both. So much for the peace dividend of the “Iran deal.”

North Korea is more than just delusional. Recent nuclear tests and missile launches toward Japan suggest that North Korean strongman Kim Jong-un actually believes that he could win a war — and thereby gain even larger concessions from the West and from his Asian neighbors.

Radical Islamists likewise seem emboldened to try more attacks on the premise that Western nations will hardly respond with overwhelming power. The past weekend brought pipe bombings in Manhattan and New Jersey as well as a mass stabbing in a Minnesota mall — and American frustration.

Europe and the United States have been bewildered by huge numbers of largely young male migrants from the war-torn Middle East. Political correctness has paralyzed Western leaders from even articulating the threat, much less replying to it.

Instead, the American government appears more concerned with shutting down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ensuring that no administration official utters the words “Islamic terror,” and issuing warnings to Americans not to lash out due to their supposedly innate prejudices.

Aggressors are also encouraged by vast cutbacks in the U.S. defense budget. The lame-duck Obama presidency, lead-from-behind policies, and a culturally and racially divided America reflect voter weariness with overseas commitments.

(…)

Obama apparently assumes he can leave office as a peacemaker before his appeased chickens come home to roost in violent fashion. He has assured us that the world has never been calmer and quieter.

Et russisk billede midt i freden

obama-pa-russisk

Studie i Trump

Poul Høi mindede Berlingske Tidendes læsere om at “…en god del af [Trump]s tilhængere hører til derude, hvor man skal huske at blive vaccineret mod rabies. Den tidligere stordrage hos Ku Klux Klan støtter ham…” og derfor støttes af “60 pct. af stemmerne hos de lavtuddanede” i Nevada. Eller måske er det fordi Trump ikke er “a chemical cyborg with a personality that is driven by big pharma“, som tegneseriefiguren Dilberts skaber, Scott Adams mener (OBS DVT, doppler bestilt). Adams forudså meget tidligt at Trump ville vinde ikke blot republikanernes nominering som præsidentkandat, mens alle grinede ad hans hår, men også at han ville vinde præsidentvalget til november. Det fik selvfølgelig det venstreorienterede tidsskrift Salon til at kalde Adams for fascist - hvad andet kan man gøre på det overdrev?

Trump leverede et glimrende eksempel på  hvormed han med et enkelt tweet kan erobre dagsordenen. Som Demokraterne nominerede Hillary Clinton som præsidentkandidat skrev han: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”. Demokraterne og hele pressen gik i selvsving med eksperter der talte om muligt landsforrædderi, hvad der hvilede på den præmis at Hillary rent faktisk opbevarede statshemmeligheder på sine personlige servere. Jim O’Brian skriver i Western Journalism

First, Trump got most mainstream media news outlets to refocus on the Clinton email controversy with front-page vigor. The controversy never got that much attention when it was being investigated in Congress. Now, it is on the cover of every newspaper for the world to read.

Second, Trump’s comments stole the headlines from the Democrats’ vice presidential rollout and President Obama’s speech on day three of the convention. No one is talking about Tim Kaine, certainly, and Barack Obama’s oversized ego must be smarting from the lack of attention. Everyone is talking about Trump.

Third, he took another dig at the mainstream media, and they are printing his criticism everywhere. Re-quoting the brilliant line, “…I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press,” was sarcasm at its finest. Everyone knows that the press will never print anything negative about a Democrat unless forced to do so, or unless they’re trying to raise a friendly warning flag about changing course. Consequently, they will definitely not be “rewarded.” Republicans and conservative-leaning Independents should be laughing at this line.

Fourth, Trump reinforced the rigged system narrative. All week long, Bernie Sanders supporters and the DNC have been arguing over the obviously rigged system that favored Hillary Clinton. Now Trump has expounded upon that narrative. He knows you cannot steal deleted emails. After all, how could the Russians hack that to which FBI Director James Comey testified was destroyed beyond any possible recovery? Unless, of course, the FBI was lying…

Trump watered the mental seed that is growing in everyone who believes the system is rigged. If those emails do not exist, why worry about hacking? If they do exist, why did the FBI not produce them?

Fifth, Trump reopened a festering wound in the psyche of the Democratic voter: what if those emails do contain something that can sink Hillary in November? No doubt, a significant portion of the “outrage” over Trump’s alleged hacking comments was really just preemptive damage control. If Hillary Clinton did something so egregious that one of those emails contained more than yoga schedules, then the DNC will have a hard time distracting the American public from that news story. The only thing that might work is faux indignation over the possibility that a foreign government is intervening in our affairs.

The sixth and most brilliant Trump achievement was how hard the media bit. The accusations levied against Trump were over-the-top. From Russian collusion to treason, the words he actually said reached none of the hype the media reported them to be. Now, normal people who do not live in New York City, Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles are reading those words and thinking “wow, that comment is meaningless… hardly treasonous… the media really has it in for this guy.”

Man kan også se Michael Strongs interview med Scott Dilbert, der varer en halv time. Men Trump kan også være seriøs, som da han talte om sit forhold til Israel, sikkerhedssituationen i Mellemøsten og Obamas atom-aftale med Iran. Først og fremmest lover Trump en anden dagsorden, end den som gammelpartierne har administreret ud til det degenererede.

Peter Robinson taler med Charles Hill og General James Mattis om Iran-aftalen, demokrati og frihed

Hvis Obamas atom-aftale viser sig at være en Chamberlain 1938 så kan jeg nok tilgives for at hænge mig lidt i den

Recorded on July 16, 2015 - Hoover fellows Charles Hill and James Mattis discuss the Iran deal and the state of the world on Uncommon Knowledge with Hoover fellow Peter Robinson. In their view the United States has handed over its leading role to Iran and provided a dowry along with it. Iran will become the leading power in the region as the United States pulls back; as the sanctions are lifted Iran will start making a lot of money. No matter what Congress does at this point, the sanctions are gone. Furthermore, the president will veto anything Congress comes up with to move the deal forward. This de facto treaty circumvents the Constitution.
If we want better deals and a stronger presence in the international community, then the United States needs to compromise, and listen to one another other, and encourage other points of view, especially from the three branches of government. If the United States pulls back from the international community, we will need to relearn the lessons we learned after World War I. But if we engage more with the world and use solid strategies to protect and encourage democracy and freedom at home and abroad, then our military interventions will be fewer. The United States and the world will be in a better position to handle problems such as ISIS.

Iran-aftale

We’ll remember you’ve said that!“ Dennis Praeger skriver at ondskab ikke er mørk, men derimod så “painfully bright that people look away from it”

The Nazi regime’s great hatred was Jews. Iran’s great hatred is the Jewish state. The Nazis’ greatest aim was to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Iran’s greatest aim is to exterminate the Jewish state. Nazi Germany hated the West and its freedoms. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the West and its freedoms. Germany sought to dominate Europe. Iran seeks to dominate the Middle East and the Muslim world.

And exactly as Britain and France appeased Nazi Germany, the same two countries along with the United States have chosen to appease Iran.

(…)

Iran is responsible for more American deaths in the last quarter century than any other group or country. Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, and Major Chris Driver-Williams of British special forces, summarized it this way: “Iranian military action, often working through proxies using terrorist tactics, has led to the deaths of well over a thousand American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade and a half.”

The Neville Chamberlains of 2015 defend the agreement with Iran on two grounds — that the only alternative is war and that this agreement has the capacity to bring Iran into “the community of nations.”

The first is a falsehood. For three reasons.

First, the alternative to this agreement was continuing and tightening the sanctions that were weakening the Iranian regime and greatly diminishing its ability to fund terror groups around the world. Second, because the agreement so strengthens Iran, it makes war far more likely. When evil, expansionist regimes get richer, they don’t spend their wealth on building new hospitals. Third, because we have been at war with Iran for decades. But only one side has been fighting.

Mark Steyn mener at Obamas aftale er værre end Chamberlains (via Snaphanen)

Thomas Sowell endnu videre og sammenligner Iran aftalen med ‘den største historiske fejltagelse’, Yongle dynastiets opløsning af Zheng Hes ekspeditioner i 1433. Obama derimod sammenligner aftalen med Iran med atomaftalerne med Sovietunionen.

Hvad er det helt præcist, at Obama-regeringen tror har ændret sig vedrørende Irans ledelse?” spørger Douglas Murray på Gatestone Institute

Der må trods alt være noget, som en vestlig leder ser, når der gøres forsøg på at “normalisere” forholdet til et slyngelregime — noget Richard Nixon så i det kinesiske kommunistparti, som overbeviste ham om, at en optøning af forholdet var mulig, eller noget Margaret Thatcher så i Mikhail Gorbachevs øjne, som overbeviste hende om, at her var omsider en modpart, man kunne stole på.

De ydre tegn i forbindelse med Iran ser trods alt lidet lovende ud. Forleden fredag i Teheran, netop som P5+1 færdiggjorde deres aftale med iranerne, var Irans gader vært for “Al-Quds dag.” I den iranske kalender er dette dagen, indført af afdøde ayatollah Khomeini, hvor den anti-israelske og anti-amerikanske aktivitet træder i forgrunden i endnu højere grad end normalt. Opmuntrede af regimet, marcherede ti tusindvis af iranere i gaderne og råbte på udslettelse af Israel og “død over Amerika”. Der blev ikke blot afbrændt israelske og amerikanske flag – der blev også sat ild til britiske flag i en rørende påmindelse om, at Iran er det eneste land som stadig tror, at Storbritannien styrer verden.

Den seneste af en lang række af “moderate” iranske ledere, præsident Hassan Rouhani, dukkede selv op ved en af disse parader for at se de israelske og amerikanske flag blive brændt af. Greb han ind? Forklarede han folkemængden, at de havde fået fat i det forkerte notat – at Amerika nu er deres ven, og at de i det mindste burde koncentrere deres energi om masseafbrænding af davidsstjernerne? Nej, han deltog som han plejer, og mængden reagerede som den plejer.

Det var det samme for blot få uger siden, da det iranske parlament samledes for at drøfte Wienaftalen. Ved den lejlighed forlod det iranske parlament mødet, efter nogen bemyndiget debat, mens repræsentanterne råbte “død over Amerika.”

Et generøst menneske ville måske sige, at det ikke betyder noget – når man i Iran råber “død over Amerika,” svarer det til, at man klarer halsen. Det er netop, hvad vi får at vide – at disse budskaber “kun er til hjemligt brug” og ikke betyder noget.

(…)

Set udefra kan det virke, som om kun meget lidt har ændret sig i Irans retorik og at meget lidt har ændret sig i regimets adfærd. Det er grunden til, at mysteriet om, hvad det er for en forandring den amerikanske regering og dens partnere ser i ayatollahernes øjne, er ekstra gådefuldt.

Fordi aftalens karakter gør det ekstremt vigtigt, at der er en eller anden forandring. Inden for de næste ti år vil ayatollaherne, til gengæld for de formodet “gennemførte inspektioner” af et begrænset antal iranske kernekraftsteder, nyde godt af en handelseksplosion med en kontant guldgrube i størrelsesordenen 140 milliarder dollar i form af frigivne aktiver, blot for at sætte dem igang. I de samme ti år vil der ske en lempelse af restriktionerne på – blandt andet – iransk salg og køb af konventionelle våben og ammunition. Endelig vil Iran blive i stand til at købe det længe ventede anti-luftværnssystem, som russerne (der selvfølgelig også var til stede ved forhandlingsbordet i Wien) ønsker at sælge til dem. Dette system – som er blandt de mest avancerede jord-til-luft missilsystemer — vil være i stand til at skyde et hvilket som helst amerikansk, israelsk eller andet fly ned, skulle et sådant nogensinde dukke op for at ødelægge Irans atomprojekt.

Apropos det iranske regimes nye 100-150 mia dollars Ryan Mauro har på The Clarion Project samlet en liste over nuværende udgifter, her i uddrag, som kan komme Irans naboer til glæde og gavn

$6.5 Billion: Budget of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps

The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps is the elite security force that keeps the Iranian regime in power by oppressing the population and sponsors terrorism around the world. It is responsible for providing advanced IEDs that killed at least 500 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Moderate” President Rouhani increased the IRGC’s budget by almost half in 2015 at a time when Iran is strapped for money.

$6 Billion: Iran’s Yearly Donation to Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad

This figure was stated by the U.N.’s envoy to Syria. Other experts put it as high as $15 billion. Assad is a state sponsor of terrorism whose rule helps fuel Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. His determination to cling onto power has resulted in 320,000 dead and over 4 million refugees in a population of only 23 million since 2011.

$4-5 Billion: Estimated Spending By Iran on Terrorist Proxies

This figure was calculated by the Israeli Defense Forces’ Chief of Staff, who emphasized that this support is limited only by the current “economic limitations” of Iran, which will be expanded under the deal.

$2 Billion: Iran’s Annual Assistance to Extremist Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria

These militias have killed U.S. servicemen in the past and may target the 3,500 troops in Iraq now. The 140,000 members get $300 per month salary and $900 per month for arms and accommodations. The militias are brutal towards innocent Sunnis, indirectly assisting the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

Obama har sagt at han ville være en god præsident, hvis han fik en tredie periode. Han skal prise sig lykkelig for at det ikke kan lade sig gøre.

Død over Amerika, same procedure…

Atomvåben, Diverse, Folkevandring, Iran, USA, islam — Drokles on July 31, 2015 at 9:11 pm

Herhjemme vånder erhvervslivet sig sammen med venstrefløjen over at regeringen og dansk Folkeparti leger med tanken om oplysningsvideoer, rettet mod folkevandringen. Man er grundlæggende bange for vores renomme i udlandet, at højtuddannede udlændinge ikke vil komme til Danmark under indtryk af at kampagnen er rettet imod dem. Men Bosse og co. kan ånde lettet op, så smålige er de ikke i det store udland. Her kan man rask væk ønske død over hinanden og stadig indgå endsidige tillidsøvelser med masseudslettelsesvåben fortæller Daniel Greenfield for Frontpage Magazine

Secretary of State John Kerry is still seeking a nuanced explanation for Iran’s government saying, “Death to America”. He called the Iranian government’s cries of “Death to America” “not helpful” and suggested that the Supreme Leader might not really mean it.

And now Kerry would like to emphasize that aside from the “Death to America” chants and the nuclear bombs and constant threats of war, at no time was he made aware of an Iranian plan to destroy America.

(…)

Well there are two options.

1. Iran’s leaders keep saying things they don’t mean… which means we probably shouldn’t trust them not to go nuclear despite the deal

2. They do mean what they say… in which case we know why they want the nukes

So does Iran have a “Death to America” policy? Here you go, John.

In response to a question by a parliamentarian on how long this battle will continue, Khamenei said,“Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides.”

Sounds like a policy.

The New Yorker prøvede at forklare at det er en gammel vane at ønske død over hinanden og i øvrigt er det ikke flertallet af iranerne, der råber med

Nasser Hadian got his doctorate at the University of Tennessee and taught at Columbia. He is now a Tehran University political scientist and influential voice in policy circles. His daughter is in graduate school at Tulane. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is meaningless,” he told me. “It’s actually not acceptable in our culture, because they’re saying death to a whole people. It’s said by only twenty per cent of the population. And only a teeny per cent of that twenty per cent believes in it. They think America crystallizes and stands for all bad things in the world—the same way some Americans think about Iran. America has killed more Iranians than Iranians have killed Americans. The U.S. supported Saddam Hussein during his war with Iran, when hundreds of thousands died.”

He went on, “For others, it’s part of a religious ritual. But the élite who use it exploit the term for political reasons. Poll after poll shows that Iranians are greater supporters of America than any other Muslim country in the region.

“So whom does America want to rely on to judge public opinion?” Hadian asked. “The twenty per cent who do shout ‘Death to America!’ or the eighty per cent who don’t?”

Mere relevant vil nok være at spørge: Hvem får kontrollen over atom-arsenalet? De tyve procent, der har magten i landet eller de firs procent hvis mening tæller hat? De tyve procent var hurtige med deres svar

Fred i vor tid, død over Amerika!

Atomaftalen med Iran er måske ikke en garanti for fred i vor tid, men måske i stedet “Fred i vor tid!”. I hvert fald ser den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry ud til at have fået betænkeligheder ved at Irans indgroede had til Den Store Satan USA, der skal DØ! sammen med Israel oma. ikke forsvundetReuters skriver

DUBAI (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said a speech by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on Saturday vowing to defy American policies in the region despite a deal with world powers over Tehran’s nuclear program was “very disturbing”.

“I don’t know how to interpret it at this point in time, except to take it at face value, that that’s his policy,” he said in the interview with Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television, parts of which the network quoted on Tuesday.

“But I do know that often comments are made publicly and things can evolve that are different. If it is the policy, it’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling,” he added.

Ayatollah Khamenei told supporters on Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s, at a speech in a Tehran mosque punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”.

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said….

Mere hos Memri. Bruce Thorntorn i Frontpage Magazine at atomatalen med Iran er en katastrofe

We also know who bears the responsibility for this fiasco––Barack Obama. Historically ignorant and terminally narcissistic, Obama has all the superstitions and delusions of the progressive elite. And one of the most persistent and hoary of those beliefs is the fetish of diplomacy as a means to resolve disputes without force.

We must remember that Obama pointedly ran on the promise to “reinvigorate” American diplomacy. This trope was in fact a way to run against George Bush, whom the Dems and the media had caricatured as a “cowboy” with an itchy trigger finger, a gunslinger scornful of diplomacy and multilateralism. That charge was a lie––Bush wasted several months on diplomacy in an unsuccessful attempt to get the U.N.’s sanction for the war, even though the U.S. Congress had approved it, Hussein was in gross violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreement, and the U.N. already has passed 17 Security Council resolutions, all of which Hussein had violated.

Yet the narrative that Bush had “failed so miserably at diplomacy that we are now forced to war,” as then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle put it, lived on. For the progressives committed to crypto-pacifism and to the belief that America is a guilty aggressor, the story was too politically useful. Obama, one of the most programmatic progressives in the Senate, embodied all those superstitions. As senator he continually criticized the war in Iraq, scorned the ultimately successful “surge” of troops in 2007 as a “reckless escalation” and a “mistake,” and introduced legislation to remove all troops from Iraq by March 2008.

As a presidential candidate, his whole foreign policy was predicated on his being the “anti-Bush” who would “reinvigorate diplomacy” and initiate “engagement” with all our enemies in order to defuse conflict and create peace. As president, Obama has been true to his word. He has apologized, groveled, bowed to potentates, “reset” relations with our rivals, shaken hands with thugs, and now talked Iran into being a nuclear power. As for “peace,” it is nowhere to be found as violence and atrocities multiply from Ukraine to Yemen, Tunisia to Afghanistan.

(…)

The belief that words alone can transcend this eternal truth of human nature––a belief deeply engrained in the mentality of our leaders and foreign policy establishment–– led to the disaster of World War II, and will despite this lesson of history lead to a lesser, but still dangerous, disaster.

But there is yet another factor in this debacle that must be acknowledged: the tendency of democracies to privilege short-term comfort over long-term threats. In democracies the use of force must have the assent of the voters, who in the U.S. every 2 years hold leaders accountable at the ballot box. Setbacks, mistakes, atrocities, casualties, and all the other unfortunately eternal contingencies of mass violence try the patience of voters, and citizen control of the military gives them a means of expressing their impatience or anger. As de Tocqueville recognized more than 150 years ago, “The people are more apt to feel than to reason; and if their present sufferings are great, it is to be feared that the still greater sufferings attendant upon defeat will be forgotten.” That pretty much sums up America’s response so far to Obama’s agreement.

Charles Krauthammer har et glimrende indlæg i Telegraph

Who would have imagined we would be giving up the conventional arms and ballistic missile embargoes on Iran? In nuclear negotiations?

When asked at his Wednesday news conference why there is nothing in the deal about the four American hostages being held by Iran, President Obama explained that this is a separate issue, not part of nuclear talks.

Are conventional weapons not a separate issue? After all, conventional, by definition, means non-nuclear. Why are we giving up the embargoes?

(…)

The net effect of this capitulation will be not only to endanger our Middle East allies now under threat from Iran and its proxies, but to endanger our own naval forces in the Persian Gulf. Imagine how Iran’s acquisition of the most advanced anti-ship missiles would threaten our control over the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, waterways we have kept open for international commerce for a half-century.

The other major shock in the final deal is what happened to our insistence on “anytime, anywhere” inspections. Under the final agreement, Iran has the right to deny international inspectors access to any undeclared nuclear site. The denial is then adjudicated by a committee — on which Iran sits. It then goes through several other bodies, on all of which Iran sits. Even if the inspectors’ request prevails, the approval process can take 24 days.

And what do you think will be left to be found, left unscrubbed, after 24 days? The whole process is farcical.

Men det går fra farce til skandale. Obama underløber kongressen for at få sin aftale istand

Congress won’t get to vote on the deal until September. But Obama is taking the agreement to the U.N. Security Council for approval within days. Approval there will cancel all previous U.N. resolutions outlawing and sanctioning Iran’s nuclear activities.

Meaning: Whatever Congress ultimately does, it won’t matter because the legal underpinning for the entire international sanctions regime against Iran will have been dismantled at the Security Council. Ten years of painstakingly constructed international sanctions will vanish overnight, irretrievably.

Even if Congress rejects the agreement, do you think the Europeans, the Chinese or the Russians will reinstate sanctions? The result: The United States is left isolated while the rest of the world does thriving business with Iran.

“The astonishing thing, which no one has pointed out”, skriver den ægyptiske Imad Al-Din Adib, der sammenligner Iran-aftalen med Chamberlains München-aftale “is that even if Iran complies to the letter with the 85 sections of the agreement, the agreement itself, once its 10-year duration is up, allows [Iran] to produce a nuclear bomb in the 11th year.”

Venstrefløjen hader dem, der hader ondskab

Den amerikanske præsident Barak Hussein Obama bruger ofte udtrykket “en bankerot ideologi” om ISIS, Kalifatet i Irak og Levanten. Det er helt sikkert en ond ideologi og den hedder islam, men den er ikke bankerot. Den er sine steder, som hos ISIS ganske levende og dyrkes med stor nidkærhed og med et formål.

Hvad der derimod er bankerot ideologi er venstrefløjens dogmatiske kompleks af værdier. Så bankerot at Obama og mange andre med ham, end ikke kan sætte ord på det der skræmmer dem af frygt for at indrømme, deres eminente fejl og svigt. Dennis Prager diagnosticerer i Townhall venstrefløjens fortrængning af ondskabens realitet med udgangspunkt i netop Obama

There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

But there is another question: Why?

And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:

Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.

Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations that pose that threat.

It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as Israel. That’s why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone.

Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it.

Appeasers hate those who confront evil.

Haviv Rettig Gur giver i Times of Israel et fremragende portræt af Obama og hans foragt for Israels premierminister Benjamin Netanyahu

At a recent gathering of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations, the eminent former director general of the Foreign Ministry, Prof. Shlomo Avineri, called Obama’s foreign policy “provincial.” It was a strange choice of words to describe the policies of a president with such a cosmopolitan outlook and so much eagerness to engage the world.

But Avineri had a point.

Obama’s remarkable memoir, “Dreams from My Father,” includes a powerful account of how his experiences as a young, keenly observant social organizer in South Chicago instilled in him the sensibility that would come to define his presidency.

In the book, he describes his reaction upon hearing the children of a poor Chicago neighborhood divided into “good kids and bad kids – the distinction didn’t compute in my head.” If a particular child “ended up in a gang or in jail, would that prove his essence somehow, a wayward gene…or just the consequences of a malnourished world?”

“In every society, young men are going to have violent tendencies,” an educator in one majority-black Chicago high school told him in the late 1980s. “Either those tendencies are directed and disciplined in creative pursuits or those tendencies destroy the young men, or the society, or both.”

The book is full of such ruminations, and they echo throughout Obama’s rhetoric as president. In his last speech to the UN General Assembly, he asserted that “if young people live in places where the only option is between the dictates of a state or the lure of an extremist underground, no counterterrorism strategy can succeed.”

For Obama, terrorism is, at root, a product of social disintegration. War may be necessary to contain the spread of Islamic State, for example, but only social reform can really cure it.

Add to this social vision the experience of a consummate outsider – half-white and half-black, with a childhood and a family scattered around the world – and one begins to see the profile of a man with an automatic empathy for the marginalized and an almost instinctive sense that the most significant problems of the world are rooted not in ideology but in oppressive social and economic structures that reinforce marginalization. This sensibility is broader than any economic orthodoxy, and is rooted in the hard experience of South Chicago.

After taking the helm of the world’s preeminent superpower in January 2009, this social organizer set about constructing a foreign policy that translated this consciousness into geopolitical action.

“The imperative that he and his advisors felt was not only to introduce a post-Bush narrative but also a post-post-9/11 understanding of what needed to be done in the world,” James Traub noted in a recent Foreign Policy essay. “They believed that the great issues confronting the United States were not traditional state-to-state questions, but new ones that sought to advance global goods and required global cooperation — climate change, energy supply, weak and failing states, nuclear nonproliferation. It was precisely on such issues that one needed to enlist the support of citizens as well as leaders.”

The world was one large Chicago, its essential problems not categorically different from those of South Chicago’s blacks, and the solutions to those problems were rooted in the same essential human capacity for overcoming social divisions and inequities. This was Obama’s “provincialism” — his vision of the world that favored the disadvantaged and downtrodden, that saw the ideological and political clashes between governments as secondary to the more universal and ultimately social crises that troubled a tumultuous world.

Republikanerne erkender ondskaben og forærede Netanyahu en bronzebuste af Churchill.

Victor Davies Hanson om Obamaæraen, der rinder ud

Hanson skrev forleden i National Review at den amerikanske vensfløj (liberalism) lå i ideologiske ruiner. “Barack Obama has accomplished, in the fashion of British prime minister Stanley Baldwin in the Twenties and Thirties, will be to avoid minor confrontations on his watch — if he is lucky — while ensuring catastrophic ones for his successors.” konkluderede han og pegede på de 11 mio. illegale indvandrere, som, hvis det står til Obama, skal have amerikansk pas. Hanson minder ikke blot om at prisen først og fremmest betales af den amerikanske middelklasse og de nye jobsøgende, men at de iblandt de illegale, hvis tilstedeværelse i USA i første omgang er gjort mulig at de har brudt amerikansk lov findes en stor minoritet, der ikke deltager aktivt eller lovlydigt i det amerikanske samfund.

Henover den sekulære dyrkelse af klimaet “that filled a deep psychological longing for some sort of transcendent meaning” til Obamas opdyrkelse af racestridigheder fra Trayvon Martin til Michael Brown, godt assisteret af mediernes memer

After the disastrous Obama tenure, the U.S. will either return to the melting pot and the idea that race and tribe are incidental, not essential, to our characters, or it will eventually go the way of all dysfunctional societies for which that was not true — Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq.

Og Hanson ender med følgende skudsmål

Obama will go down in history as presiding over the most corrupt administration of the last half-century, when historians finally collate the IRS, VA, GSA, and Secret Service scandals; the erosion of constitutional jurisprudence; the serial untruths about Benghazi, amnesty, and Obamacare; the harassment of journalists; the record shakedown of Wall Street lucre in 2008 and 2012; and the flood of lobbyists into and out of the Obama administration. Eric Holder – with his jet-setting to sporting events on the public dime, spouting inflammatory racialist rhetoric, politicizing the Justice Department, selectively enforcing settled law, and being held in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents — managed what one might have thought impossible: He has made Nixon’s attorney general John Mitchell seem a minor rogue in comparison.

Men det er udenrigspolitikken der har lidt værst, midt i en periode med stigende udfordringer. Hanson skriv i går ligeledes i National Review at der er paralleller

We are entering a similarly dangerous interlude. Collapsing oil prices — a good thing for most of the world — will make troublemakers like oil-exporting Iran and Russia take even more risks.

Terrorist groups such as the Islamic State feel that conventional military power has no effect on their agendas. The West is seen as a tired culture of Black Friday shoppers and maxed-out credit-card holders.

NATO is underfunded and without strong American leadership. It can only hope that Vladimir Putin does not invade a NATO country such as Estonia, rather than prepare for the likelihood that he will, and soon.

The United States has slashed its defense budget to historic lows. It sends the message abroad that friendship with America brings few rewards while hostility toward the U.S. has even fewer consequences.

The bedrock American relationships with staunch allies such as Australia, Britain, Canada, Japan, and Israel are fading. Instead, we court new belligerents that don’t like the United States, such as Turkey and Iran.

Og

Under such conditions, history’s wars usually start when some opportunistic — but often relatively weaker — power does something unwise on the gamble that the perceived benefits outweigh the risks. That belligerence is only prevented when more powerful countries collectively make it clear to the aggressor that it would be suicidal to start a war that would end in the aggressor’s sure defeat.

What is scary in these unstable times is that a powerful United States either thinks that it is weak or believes that its past oversight of the postwar order was either wrong or too costly — or that after Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, America is no longer a force for positive change.

A large war is looming, one that will be far more costly than the preventive vigilance that might have stopped it.

“Vi vælger at rejse til Månen” proklamerede Kennedy på Rice University i 1962, “Ikke fordi det er let, men fordi det er svært!”.

[B]ecause that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win

For Kennedy æraen handlede det om at presse sig selv mod nye mål. “Yes we can” derimod sigter til det vi allerede kan. Det fornægter på sin vis ‘american exeptionalism’ i stedet for den teoretiske akademikers drøm om at kunne omdefinere verden væk fra dens iboende problemer. “Yes we can” siger ikke meget andet end at man vil gøre, hvad der er let, frem for, hvad der er rigtigt.

Nuclear Secrets & Pakistan’s Terror Trader

Atomvåben, BBC, Jihad, Pakistan, Terror, islam — Drokles on December 26, 2013 at 11:36 pm

Nuclear Secrets & Pakistan’s Terror Trader from Tarek Fatah on Vimeo.

Monokultur kører på WordPress