Tag: Iran

Iran makes mockery of Obama, U.S. with seized sailors

January 13, 2016January 13, 2016by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

Obama under stress

The Iranian government seized 10 U.S. sailors and two ships in the Persian Gulf shortly before President Obama’s final State of the Union address on Tuesday. GPS equipment was taken from the ship, the U.S. issued an apology, the sailors were eventually returned this morning, and now the White House is preparing to unfreeze $100 billion in Iranian assets as part of the summer’s nuclear deal. Iran’s actions were meant to send a message to the world: The United States is a joke. Sadly, it’s hard to argue.

CNN’s Jake Tapper was flabbergasted when White House press secretary Josh Earnest shrugged off the actions of Obama’s diplomatic “partner” as no big deal.

“What do you say to people who say Iran fired upon, not hit, but fired a warning shot of sorts toward an American ship in the last couple of weeks … they test-fired a ballistic missile in the past couple of weeks, and yet, in a few days, they are scheduled to have the relief of all those sanctions?” Tapper said Tuesday night. “The basic question being: This does not seem like a country that is ready to be welcomed back to the community of nations.”

Earnest’s response: But…but…we got a nuclear deal with Iran! A deal, man. Cut us some slack.

“[This] is why the United States and this president made it a priority to organize the international community to reach an agreement with Iran that will prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” said Earnest.

“I hear you, but they have 10 American sailors in custody right now, Josh. I think there are probably a lot of Americans watching right now that are wondering why we are about to give them sanctions relief when they have 10 Americans – wherever they have them. In a boat, in a cell, whatever,” Tapper replied.

To add insult to injury, Iran scolded the U.S. upon the sailors’ return.

“This incident in the Persian Gulf, which probably will not be the American forces’ last mistake in the region, should be a lesson to troublemakers in the U.S. Congress,” Major General Hassan Firouzabadi, head of Iran’s armed forces, was quoted as saying by Tasnim news agency, Reuters reported.

There were about 10,000 ways Iran could have responded to two U.S. vessels that drifted too close or into its territorial waters, and it chose one of the most aggressive ways possible. It literally took U.S. forces captive and confiscated their equipment.

Ask yourself this question: For all of George W. Bush’s faults, would Iran have pulled a stunt like that under his watch — on the night of the State of the Union, no less?

The answer is “no.”

The country is in a sad place when Iran can seize American sailors with impunity and then laugh as a U.S. president oversees the release of $100 billion in Iranian assets just days later.

Iran seizes sailors

‘1980s are now calling’ mockery of Romney haunts Obama: Putin takes control in Syria

October 1, 2015October 1, 2015by Douglas Ernst8 Comments

It was only a few short years ago that President Obama openly mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was the greatest geopolitical threat to the America. Certain segments of the media thought his “zinger” was downright hilarious. Fast forward three years and Vladimir Putin has annexed Crimea, is primed to do the same in eastern Ukraine, and put himself in the driver’s seat in Syria.

The Huffington Post reported Oct. 22, 2012:

During the presidential debate on Monday evening, President Barack Obama deployed a Seinfeldian zinger to mock former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee. Romney had said that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are “rushing in” as revolutions shake up the Muslim world.

“Gov. Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat,” Obama said, “because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia.”

“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years,” Obama said.

What Mr. Obama didn’t realize is that the Cold War never ended for Vladimir Putin, which is odd because the Russian’s public statements have always made that very clear.

Reuters reported Thursday, Oct 1, 2015:

Hundreds of Iranian troops have arrived in Syria to join a major ground offensive on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad’s government, sources said on Thursday, a further sign of the rapid internationalization of a civil war in which every major country in the region has a stake.

Russian warplanes bombed a camp run by rebels trained by the CIA, the group’s commander said, putting Moscow and Washington on opposing sides in a Middle East conflict for the first time since the Cold War.

The U.S. and Russian militaries will hold talks at 11 a.m. EDT via video link to seek ways to keep their militaries apart as they wage parallel campaigns of air strikes in Syria, a U.S. defense official said.

Russian jets struck targets near the cities of Hama and Homs in western Syria on the second day of their surprise air campaign, which they launched on Wednesday.

Moscow said it had hit Islamic State positions, but the area where it struck is held by a rival insurgent alliance, which unlike Islamic State is supported by U.S. allies including Arab states and Turkey.

The problem with the Obama administration is that America’s adversaries around the globe telegraph exactly what their intentions are, and yet Mr. Obama and his hand-picked staff refuse to take them at their word.

Arizona Sen. John McCain pointed out this strange behavior out Wednesday on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell:

“John Kerry and his spokesperson said it is not clear what Russia’s intentions are. It was perfectly clear what Russia’s intentions are!”

A flashback to July 21 shows Kerry was also confused by Iran’s vow to undermine U.S. policy, which was made immediately after agreeing to a nuclear “deal” with the Obama administration.

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 troubling”.

“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.

“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.

Why is Mr. Kerry always confused? Perhaps it is because he mistakes U.S. fallibility (a trait of all nations) with the idea that threats exist because America is, for all intents and purposes, always at fault.

Mitt Romney knew what he was talking about in 2012, and the president sneered at him. The media laughed along with the “Seinfeldian zinger” – but the real joke was on the American people.

The only people who are laughing now are the Russians, the Iranians, the Assad regime and their allies all around the globe.

Obama: Iran deal failure may bring war — but at least you can now enjoy my Spotify playlist

August 15, 2015August 15, 2015by Douglas Ernst4 Comments

President Obama and his administration’s Twitter feeds are fascinating to read each week, given that the overall message can end up along the lines of: “If Congress doesn’t approve my Iran deal, then we may have to go to war. … In the meantime, at least you can sit back and relax to my newest Spotify playlist.”

Mr. Obama is a strange man. One day he is making the case that Americans really care that he likes to listen to Mos def’s “UMI Says,” and Erykah Badu’s “Woo,” and the next he is making the case that Republicans in Congress are no different than Iranians who chant “Death to America.”

The Hill reported August 7:

The president inflamed his critics with his tough tone in a major speech on Wednesday, defending the Iran deal.

Obama linked congressional Republicans opposed to the deal with Iranian hard-liners who chant “death to America,” saying they are “making a common cause with the Republican caucus.” …

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) dismissed Obama’s claim that the only alternative to the deal is war as an “absurd argument.”

“That’s never been the alternative,” he said. “It’s either this deal or a better deal, or more sanctions, and I think that’s been a huge mistake on his part.”

The Obama administration seems to believe the matter is serious enough to have an official “Iran Deal” Twitter account, but then turns it into a joke by sharing disingenuous memes inspired by “Straight Outta Compton.”

Remember: The weekend after Iran “agreed” to the nuclear deal, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei joined a “death to America” rally. The next weekend he said he would use the billions of dollars in sanctions relief to undermine U.S. foreign policy.

The fact of the matter is that Iran will not be “straight outta uranium.” The deal merely kicks the can ten years down the road, if one believes that Iran won’t find a way to cheat. Sadly, the only people on earth who seem to think Iran won’t be able to cheat are members of the Obama administration.

The world’s stage is filled with men like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Vladimir Putin. Terrorist organizations like the Islamic State group control large swathes of the Middle East and northern Africa. Ask yourself what the world’s worst actors think when they see Mr. Obama’s weird obsession with coming across as “cool” to people who will only understand foreign policy if it’s delivered with a “Straight Outta Compton” hook.

The short answer: America’s enemies laugh at Mr. Obama. He is a joke to the kind of man who kills political opponents with radioactive isotopes (research the death of Alexander Litvinenko) and he is a joke to people who chop off heads in the Middle East.

Whether the next commander in chief is a Democrat or a Republican, one can only pray that the individual does not continue to behave as America’s first Buzzfeed president.

Iran continues to spit in Obama’s eye after nuclear ‘deal’; Kerry finds it ‘disturbing’

July 26, 2015July 26, 2015by Douglas Ernst1 Comment

Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has used the past two weekends since securing a nuclear deal with the U.S. to rhetorically laugh and spit in the Obama administration’s face. The response by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has been to rub his index finger back-and-forth over his lips as fast as possible while saying “PeaceblubberblubberPeaceblubberblubberPeace.”

Yesterday it was the silhouetted image of President Obama with a gun to his head. Last Saturday it was a rally featuring “Death to America!” chants. In response to Iran’s “supreme” leader saying the Middle Eastern nation would continue to undermine U.S. foreign policy in the region, Mr. Kerry was left dumbfounded.

Reuters reported July 21:

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 troubling”.

“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.

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

How does one not know how to determine the meaning of “Death to America!” or explicit vows to undermine U.S. foreign policy? The Obama administration just freed up billions of dollars for Iran through sanctions relief, which will be funneled into the hands of Mr. Ali “Death to America!” Khamenei’s proxies in the region. The White House’s response to crystal clear signs that Iran has no intention of honoring its “deal” is to mumble “It’s very disturbing, it’s very troubling.”

The Obama administration declared victory in Libya (Remember Hillary Clinton’s interview with CBS?: “We came. We saw. He died. Haha!”) The Obama administration pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq and said our work was done there. The Obama administration declared relations with Russia were “reset.” The Obama administration declared it had a chemical weapons deal with Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The Obama administration said Yemen was proof that its foreign policy was working.

Question: How did all of those foreign policy successes work out?

Answer: Libya is a terrorist jungle gym. The Islamic State now controls large swathes of Iraq. Russia annexed Crimea and continues to support Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Assad never gave up all of his chemical weapons and the White House now weirdly uses the defense that chlorine isn’t “historically” a chemical weapon. Yemen’s president resigned and literally ran for his life from Islamic “Death to America!”-chanting radicals.

The “peace at any cost” mentality is a sure recipe for war. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama and his administration will be long gone when the bitter fruit of his foreign policy comes to market. Another man (or woman?) will be commander in chief when that happens. That individual will then be forced to take political lumps — and send U.S. troops into harm’s way — because Mr. Obama vouched for “deals” with leaders who attend “Death to America!” rallies.

One must wonder just how bizarrely belligerent Iran must become before members of the Obama administration admit that maybe — just maybe — they made a deal with dishonest brokers.

Obama needs Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to help save him in Iraq, which means he has failed

June 12, 2014June 13, 2014by Douglas Ernst7 Comments

As Iraq and Syria are being run over by Islamic radical nut jobs, the “blame Bush” crowd has been rather quiet. Perhaps that’s because it was only a few years ago that Vice President Joe Biden and the Obama administration were casting the relative stability in Iraq as a the next big “great achievement” … for them.

Let us Flash back to Joe Biden in 2010:

“I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government,” said Biden.

“I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.”

Now, it’s a complete different story. Business Insider reported Thursday:

Extremists from the al-Qaeda offshoot ISIS have blurred the border to Syria, captured Iraq’s second largest city, and advanced toward the capital. Kurds have taken Kirkuk, an oil-rich city in the northeast that borders Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran is deploying Revolutionary Guard forces to fight ISIS.

And, according to current and former U.S. officials, the administration of President Barack Obama indirectly facilitated the mayhem.

“Top State Department officials long argued that the civil war in Syria was the root cause of ISIS’s rise because it gave them a haven in which to operate and recruit,” Adam Entous and Julian Barnes of The Wall Street Journal report.

For the last two years, the main criticism on Obama’s policy toward Syria has been that the “United States, rather than read the signals early on and arm the Syrian opposition when it was making substantial gains, allowed a vacuum to form and then fretted when that vacuum was filled by jihadists.” …

Obama then left Syria to fester, which eventually led to ISIS consolidating territory across Syria and Iraq while the militants gained experience, lured new recruits, captured weaponry, made territorial advances, indoctrinated Syrian children, and piled up cash.

Where does one start with all of this? This is what happens when the U.S. “leads from behind.” This is what happens when you have a president whose instincts tell him it would be a good idea to speak to graduating West Point cadets less about being leaders and more about Climate Change.

When an American president desperately needs the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to help save the day, you know that he has failed — miserably.

America now finds itself in a no-win situation. Essentially, we need a bunch of state-sponsored terrorists to kill a bunch of Sunni terrorists and then hope that the end result somehow results in a safer world for Americans. What are the chances of that happening? At the moment: Slim to none.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday:

Some military officials now believe ISIS is the single greatest terrorist threat the U.S. and its allies face—stronger than the al Qaeda affiliates in Yemen or Africa and far more powerful than al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan. Other senior U.S. officials say ISIS has yet to carry out any attacks directly targeting the U.S.

“It makes you want to kill yourself,” a senior U.S. official said of the intelligence on ISIS, which was presented by U.S. and Gulf allies during the May [security] meeting in Jeddah.

It. Makes. You. Want. To. Kill. Yourself.

Why would an official say such a thing? Answer: Because he or she saw the enormity of the task before us and knew that a.) it was either too late to stop the blow back from reaching American shores, or b.) that the Obama administration was not capable of doing what needs to be done to reverse the jihadist tide.

This is going to get much worse before it gets better, in large part because the president is a political creature. The Middle East only presents a U.S. president with a multitude of difficult choices, and up until this point Mr. Obama has done his best to simply wash his hands of the matter. Only, that isn’t an option any longer. The world’s attention is on him and its waiting for an answer.

As Business Insider points out, his choice to simply look away since 2008 allowed problems to “fester.” The problem — Islamic terrorism — a term the White House didn’t even allow the State Department to use, never went away. In fact, it thrived in the chaos created by Syria’s civil war. And now it can not be denied any longer.

ISIS seeks to create an Islamic caliphate, and regardless of the upcoming battles it faces with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iraqis or coalition partners, it is now a force to be reckoned with. If you believe in the power of prayer, I suggest saying a few for Mr. Obama; he’s going to need as many as he can get in the months ahead.

Refugees fleeing from Mosul head to the self-ruled northern Kurdish region in Irbil, Iraq, north of Baghdad, June 12, 2014. (Associated Press)

Kerry determined to go full-Chamberlain with Iran ‘deal’: Peace for our time!

November 24, 2013November 24, 2013by Douglas Ernst9 Comments

John Kerry and most of the world are determined to go full-Chamberlain on Iran, and the late-breaking “deal” in Geneva over the country’s nuclear program proves it. Compare the headline of The Washington Post’s write-up on the nuclear agreement — ‘Iran, world powers reach historic nuclear deal’ — with the reality already playing out.

Not long after the accord was reached, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said the deal recognizes Tehran’s “right” to maintain an enrichment program.

Rouhani said, “Let anyone make his own reading, but this right is clearly stated in the text of the agreement that Iran can continue its enrichment, and I announce to our people that our enrichment activities will continue as before.”

But Kerry said in response on Sunday that the deal does not recognize a “right to enrich.”

“There is no inherent right to enrich,” Kerry said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And everywhere in this particular agreement it states that they could only do that by mutual agreement, and nothing is agreed on until everything is agreed on.”

Ouch. This sounds more like a “deal” that does nothing but give a number of nations more cover with which to blame Israel when it takes military action against a threat to its very existence. Could it get any worse? Yes.

Politico reports:

“There’s nothing built on trust,” Kerry said. “You don’t have to trust the people you’re dealing with, you have to have a mechanism put in place whereby you know exactly what you’re getting and you know exactly what they’re doing. … We’ve done arms control agreements in other parts of the world. … You don’t trust. It’s not based on trust. It’s based on verification.”

So the deal is so vague that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says it recognizes the country’s “right” to enrich uranium while Kerry says it does no such thing — but yet we’re supposed to believe it includes mechanisms that telegraph to the U.S. “exactly” what’s going on? Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sane man in a largely-insane world, doesn’t buy it for a second.

AFP reports:

Netanyahu told his cabinet on Sunday that “what was achieved yesterday in Geneva is not a historic agreement but rather a historic mistake.”

Speaking later at a ceremony in Jerusalem, he said that the more details emerged on the deal, “the more it becomes clear how bad the deal is for Israel, the region and the world.”

“Iran gets billions of dollars in sanction relief without paying an actual price,” said Netanyahu. “Iran gets written permission to breach UN Security Council” resolutions.

Sadly, the sane man in an insane world is insane. While the world deludes itself into believing it can play Patty Cake with Holocaust denying nut-jobs who are on record as saying they seek to erase Israel from existence, Netanyahu plugs away. While the world seems to be living in its own version of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Memento,’ Netanyahu’s memory is quite sound.

Flashback, November 2011:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — New intelligence the U.N. atomic agency plans to release on alleged nuclear weapons work by Iran is fabricated, the Iranian foreign minister said Saturday.

Diplomats have told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency plans to reveal intelligence in the coming week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead, as well as other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms.

The world needs a scapegoat for its own impotence in the face of Holocaust-denying monsters. What better scapegoat than the targets of said aggression? When Israel defends itself — and it will — prepare for the world to collectively howl at its true saviors.

No one will admit the obvious: We are at war with Iran

July 30, 2012July 30, 2012by Douglas Ernst7 Comments

APTOPIX Mideast Iran Nuclear — Stuxnet was a cyberweapon used against a regime that has attacked the civilized world for years. The problem is, no one has the courage to admit the truth: We are at war.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is on a five day trip throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Along the way he’s found time to state the obvious: Sanctions have done squat to change the Iranians’ desire for nukes. Let me repeat that again: Squat.

However, like most administrations, he then follows up the truth with an attempt to obscure it:

“What we all need to do is to continue the pressure on Iran, economically and diplomatically … to negotiate and to ultimately do what’s right in joining the international family,” [said Panetta].

After throwing up a little after the bit about joining the “international family” (How many families do you know that stone their women?) I was saddened because it’s obvious that this will all end militarily.Why? Because military operations have been going on for quite some time, even if media and politicians refuse to acknowledge that we’re at war.

What do you think Stuxnet was, my friends? That was a big, fat cyberweapon meant to slow down the creation of a big, fat nuclear weapon. It was an act of war perpetrated on a regime that has committed countless acts of war against free nations for decades with impunity — killing American servicemen on foreign soil by supplying weapons, training and cash to its proxy agents around the globe.

I’ve written before on how the world is living in its own little Christopher Nolan film, Memento, on the Iranian problem, but as the “oh crap, this is real” moment approaches, it’s worth repeating. The reason for writing this now is because three scenarios are likely to unfold:

Israel strikes Iran with conventional weapons before the presidential election. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* in office for just under four years, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).
Mitt Romney is elected president and he of course supports Israel (as any sane American president would) when they strike, and the anti-war movement — so mysteriously absent over the past few years during Obama’s Terror Tuesdays — rises from the dead to accuse President Romney of being a war monger of Bushian proportions.
President Obama is re-elected and Israel attacks. Despite having a Nobel Peace Prize winner *cough* starting his second term in office, George W. Bush will be blamed for going into Iraq when he should have been focused on “diplomatic” efforts with Iran (as if that would have helped).

See how that works? No matter how all of this plays out, the blame for fighting Barack Obama could not quell will fall onto someone else’s shoulders. Think of it like Obama’s defenders, who also find interesting ways to explain away his feckless YouTube diplomacy, his failures at the United Nations over Syria, and the $40 million dollar fiber optic upgrades to Guantanamo Bay.

Here is the bottom line: We are at war. President Obama won’t tell you that and Leon Panetta won’t tell you that, but the pawns have been in play for quite some time. Stuxnet was a fancy set of moves that required digital knights and bishops to enter the fray, and no one denies it. The sooner we realize what’s happening, the sooner we can figure out how to get ourselves out of this mess. If you disagree, that’s fine. I truly hope I’m wrong about the how all of this will end … but I don’t believe that will be the case. Just remember this blog post when the bombs you traditionally associate with warfare start exploding on your television screen.

Angelina Jolie calls for action in Syria, plans to blame Bush for blowback.

February 18, 2012May 14, 2013by Douglas Ernst6 Comments

Hollywood’s “United Nations High Commissioner,” Angelina Jolie, has called for intervention in Syria, which can only mean one thing: She’s found a way to blame George W. Bush for all the unintended consequences. Syria is part of the dysfunctional Middle Eastern spiderweb littered with Iranian spiders, but she doesn’t bother to think about that because a Democrat is in office. Have you ever plucked a web like it was a Spanish guitar, Ms. Jolie? The spiders come running… Military adventurism without accountability is one of the benefits bestowed upon Democrat presidents.

“I think Syria has got to a point, sadly, where certainly some form of intervention is absolutely necessary,” Jolie told Al Jazeera Balkans in an interview shown on the channel’s Internet site.

“It’s so sad, it’s so upsetting, it’s so horrible what’s happening,” Jolie said. “At this time we just must stop the civilians being slaughtered…When you see that kind of mass violence and murder on the street, you must do something,” added Jolie, who has served for years as a goodwill ambassador for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees…

Without naming China and Russia, she condemned “these countries that are choosing not to intervene” in Syria despite “global efforts,” (emphasis added).

What does Code Pink think about this? What does the mysteriously absent anti-war movement think about this? No one knows because they’ve been MIA since Barack Obama took office. Or perhaps they’re just confused as to what’s going on, because Hollywood’s “United Nations High Commissioners” don’t even have the courage to call out thug state actors like Russia and China.

Pay close attention to your liberal friends because they’ll often say we need to “do something.” They usually won’t give specifics. The passage of bad legislation is often better to them than no legislation because it indicates “something” is being done. Giving the people “something” indicates you care—never mind the fact that the cure is often worse than the disease.

If you want to kill a zombie, you need to chop off its head. If Angelina wanted to have a lasting impact on Syria she might want to consider an attack on Iran (especially since Leon Panetta thinks military escalation is only a matter of months away, anyway).

Question for the former Tomb Raider: If we militarily engage Syria and it spirals into a world war, will you call President Obama a warmonger, or will you wait until the next Republican is elected to conveniently call for his impeachment?

Do you know what else is “sad” and “upsetting”, Angelina? That liberals take any opportunity they can get to cut funding for the military, only to find new ways to treat them as humanitarian playthings when a Democrat is in office.

Iranian Groundhog Day: Ending Won’t Resemble Bill Murray Flick.

February 2, 2012February 2, 2012by Douglas ErnstLeave a comment

I’ve posted on Iran quite a few times over the past few years, usually lamenting the Christopher Nolan Momento-ish feel to the whole situation. However, I think articles like Why We’re Not Going to War with Iran, that touch on the same observation, are flawed. Sure, it’s Bill Murray’s Groundhog Day with the Iranian nuclear crisis, but even Groundhog Day comes to an end.

There was great librarian at The Library of Congress I used to see every few months, and he’d always tell the story of the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One would grab its tail, one would grab its trunk, one would wrap his arms around a leg, and the last man would grab its stomach. Of course, each blind man had a completely different take on how to best describe an elephant, and they were all essentially wrong. Likewise, what’s going on in Iran is much bigger than we think. It requires commentators to step far back to have a fighting chance at predicting the end game.

Wars don’t happen over night. Liberals tried to make it sound like that’s what happened with the Iraq War, but it didn’t. The build-up lasted years, even if many of us don’t want to admit it. In the internet age, our ability to accurately read events on a lengthened timelines has atrophied. We can’t see wars forming in slow motion on the horizon and stop them, and when they do begin we expect them wrapped up like a 30 minute television show. It doesn’t work that way.

Right now Leon Panetta is on record as saying he thinks there is a “strong likelihood” Israel will strike in April, May or June. Cable news is covering the play-by-play, but what matters is the trajectory we’re on. And the trajectory clear.

Movies that star Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in place of Bill Murray don’t end well, and one of the sad footnotes to this story is that there are people who are paid a ridiculous amount of money to know that…who don’t.

UK to Expel Iranian Diplomats. Iran Still Crazy.

November 30, 2011November 30, 2011by Douglas ErnstLeave a comment

ahmadinejad1 — England is expelling Iranian diplomats from their soil. Newsflash: It doesn't change the fact that Iranian leaders are nuts.

The United Kingdom isn’t happy with the Iranian stooges who stormed their Embassy in Iran, eloquently screamed, “Death to England!” and burned the Union Jack. In fact, they’re so perturbed that they’re expelling Iranian diplomats on British soil. Britain’s Foreign Secretary William Hague has a point when he says:

“If any country makes it impossible for us to operate on their soil they cannot expect to have a functioning embassy here.”

Jazz Shaw over at hotair does a fine job covering the story, but the caption under the home page photo that read “Destabilization” is a bit misleading. That’s a word you hear quite a bit when it comes to the Middle East–‘destabilization’–but what does it mean? Using it implies that there was stability to begin with. There wasn’t. There hasn’t been for…a long time. In fact, an argument can be made that the entire region is nuts.

The “fear societies” that Natan Sharansky speaks of in The Case for Democracy litter the region. Unlike the old Soviet Union, however, many of the thugs in charge aren’t frozen by a concept like “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD), but are encouraged by it.

Question: Is a country stable if its leaders believe an apocalyptic nightmare scenario is necessary for “The Hidden Imam” to heal the world?

Even Better Question: What does it say about Western Civilization that tyrannical regimes around the world openly state their desire for the death and destruction of free nations—follow up on the rhetoric with concrete steps to realize those goals—and the reaction of Western diplomats is to pretend we’re all living in Christopher Nolan’s debut film, Memento?

Somewhere along the line we were convinced we had to “get along” with “the international community.” We don’t. In fact, we shouldn’t “get along” with dictators and despots and warlords running roughshod over the human rights of their people while enriching themselves and building weapons of war. The United States should get along with civilized nations, and it should work to bring backwards nations into the fold when possible (I’m talking to you, Burma). But what the American people need when it comes to international skid marks like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il is clarity.

If the Iranian government wants to allow students to hop around concrete slabs like animals, fine. If Iran wants to allow those animals to endanger the lives of British diplomats working on foreign soil, then England has no choice put to bring them home. However, it’s incumbent upon British leaders to artfully articulate what’s happening and who’s to blame. When violence breaks out there will inevitably be the useful idiots on the left who will place blame squarely on the shoulders of the free world. While conservatives will know that isn’t the case, it’s better to have it all on record now.

Cheers,

Doug