Biden Will Change Foreign Policies, Is This A Good Idea?

American foreign policy may change drastically during the Biden era from an aggressive stance to a more accommodative attitude. In this regard, I’m very concerned that the new president will decrease pressure on those countries that wish us harm and those that look to the US to assume the cost of their defense.

Iran is putting maximum pressure on the US to decrease sanctions by threatening to accelerate efforts to build nuclear weapons. The ayatollahs and their representatives are liars. They will never live up to the terms of any agreement with America.

Joe Biden said he will attempt to establish better relations with Iran. This strategy will ultimately encourage the production of an existential weapon with the oil money that will flow into Iran’s coffers. Additionally, it will provide financing for Iran’s terrorist activities. The only sensible strategy is to encourage a regime change by increasing sanctions that will cause Iran’s economy to implode.

Biden and other Democrats have an affinity towards China. This regime cannot be trusted either. They are expanding their influence in Asia and provoking our naval forces that patrol that part of the world.

The country’s leaders are sanctioning efforts to steal technology and boost their economy in competition with the US. And they relentlessly spy on us.

America must call out China and treat them like the enemy they are. Sanctions should be bolstered to offset tariffs the Chinese have attached to US goods. In a perfect world, a peace treaty with China would be wonderful, but it is interested in diminishing US influence globally and crushing us economically. They also have no intention of abiding by generally accepted human rights standards.

All of the advances Trump has made with their Israel, that include signing agreements to establish peaceful relations with neighbors, are now in jeopardy. Some Biden supporters are suggesting that Trump moved too fast. I would say any movement, even with some untrustworthy nations, is better than the lack of progress in the Middle East during the past 75 years.

Re-signing the climate change pact is a farce. The world definitely needs to focus on the damage being done to our environment. However, signing bogus agreements with countries that have no intention to adhere to the terms of agreements is a waste of time and money.

Developing countries like China, Brazil and India will not decelerate the speed of their respective industrial revolutions. For instance, the use of coal by China is highly detrimental to our environment. But its prohibition would leave many millions of Chinese without a way to heat their homes.

The US must continue to sign into law mandates that will end pollution and avoid making unenforceable deals with other countries.

The US’s tendency to buy influence across the globe needs to be reexamined. In the past century, billions of dollars have been spent in lesser developed countries in an attempt to “buy” friends. Trump examined many of these diplomatic ploys and found them to be bad arrangements for America.

The major problem is that after accepting our aid, too many countries throughout the world reject our friendship and openly lambaste American diplomacy. If you question this observation, you need only to look at the United Nations. The US sponsors the organization and yet in nearly every critical vote, our friends voted against our perspectives and strongly support our opponents. Further, many of these countries damn America and its citizens overtly.

Biden will, unsuccessfully, try to rebrand America’s image overseas. He will revert to an old Obama tactic of assigning blame on the US for all the problems in the world. He will find positivity in the actions of countries that have the most human rights violations including China, Cuba, some South American countries and the poorest and most violent nations in Africa.

The world looks at the US as a dangerous nation that wants to claim valuable assets and territory owned by other countries. Biden should work to dispel these imperialistic and colonialistic misconceptions and no longer throw away money into countries that are envious of America’s success and leadership.

Biden Wants To Negotiate With Iran, Not A Good Idea

Tom Friedman of the New York Times wrote an instructive piece about the rogue state of Iran and its intentions moving forward. It’s about time a columnist on the left called out the ayatollahs for what they really are. Re-negotiating the Obama nuclear deal with Iran is not the best course for the new administration. Certainly, Friedman thinks not. I think it is idiocy.

It appears that Iran is still far from building a deliverable nuclear weapon, although it is difficult to be sure given all the secrecy surrounding the program. The continued assassinations of Iran’s nuclear scientists by Israel will serve to delay the schedule to an extent.

It’s a goal of the country’s leadership to have a WMD because the threat of a bomb would enable it to intimidate their neighbors in the Middle East. Friedman says the ayatollahs would never actually use it because Israel would retaliate and obliterate its mortal enemy. But why take this chance?

“The Iranian Air Force launched drones and precision-guided cruise missiles at Saudi Arabia’s most important oil fields and processing centers [several week ago] causing huge damage.” The Israelis called the attack a “Middle East Pearl Harbor.”  Neither the US, Saudi Arabia nor the UAE responded in kind. Unbelievably, not one country returned fire.

“The US did nothing.” Trump wants the Saudis to pay the US to respond militarily. This was part of his strategy to let the Arabs fight it out without US interference, right or wrong. This action will likely cause Israel and Saudi Arabia to increase their ties against a common enemy.

Bibi Netanyahu has already visited the Saudi Arabian leadership. These countries and other Gulf states will surely have a lot to say about Biden’s reported plans to re-establish a relationship with Iran, by easing sanctions and re-upping to the flawed nuclear deal.

Another point Friedman emphasizes is the development of precision-guided missiles, a more likely weapon to use, as opposed to initiating a nuclear Holocaust with a WMD. In the past, Iran provided missiles to terrorist organizations and countries surrounding Israel. They were inaccurate and did little damage. The Iranians proved that their precision missile are very accurate, and if unleashed on any of their enemies, they can create havoc.

Iran is a menace. The ayatollahs cannot be trusted. The leaders want to dominate the Muslim world, eliminate Israel and diminish the US presence in the region. The question is what kind of weapons will they use to try to achieve their goals?

Biden should play tough with Iran, increase sanctions and push for regime change. There will be no peace in the Middle East, so long as Iran has the money to build new armaments. The US need to be diligent about any effort to produce a nuke.

Biden Intends To Do Business With Iran

Joe Biden has already stipulated that he will go down the very dangerous path of trying to make peace with the Iranian ayatollahs. It’s a hopeless endeavor mostly because Iran is not trustworthy and very dangerous.

Iran wants three things, the ability to develop a nuclear bomb, elimination of US sanctions and domination of Muslims in the Middle East and beyond.

It should be noted that President Trump did everything in his power to rein in Iran, short of a military invasion. He put pressure on Iran with sanctions in an effort to prevent it from building a weapon of mass destruction. He increased economic sanctions on Iran to encourage it to change its ways.

Soon after becoming president, Trump abrogated the inane nuclear deal that Obama signed onto. The arrangement is/was not strong enough because it only delayed Iran’s goal of building a nuclear weapon for about a decade.

For decades, the US was committed to halting nuclear proliferation globally, and then Obama caved while dealing with America’s number one adversary to build his legacy. Obama’s minions gave in on virtually every important issue. Obama even ordered the release of $150 billion of Iranian funds captured in the US and paid the ayatollahs $1.8 billion dollars in cash.

Did Obama really believe that Iran would honor the treaty and not hide illegal nuclear activities? How could the president be so naive about the intentions of Iran when its leaders and citizens often call for the destruction of the US?

Other signatories on the nuclear deal sided with Iran in its dispute with the US even though they are/were at more risk from Iran’s possession of a nuclear bomb than the US. Why you ask? Because several of the signatories had lucrative economic arrangements with Iran. Joe Biden has said that he will re-up to the original deal, which, by the way, was never confirmed by the Senate.

Re-endorsing the nuclear deal will give clear sailing to Iran to finish building a weapon. Iran also has demanded compensation for the aforementioned economic sanctions. It was folly to make this deal the first time around and would be governmental malfeasance to do it again.

By decreasing or eliminating sanctions, Iran will be able to sell its oil on the world market to fund its nuclear development and a reign of terror on its neighbors and other countries in the Middle East.

Iran hates America, but it despises Sunni countries even more. It has vigorously attacked its Sunni enemies covertly and overtly. It’s unholy alliance with Russia and Syria has seriously impacted efforts to organize a lasting peace in Iraq and in Syria. Iran still proclaims that it will do anything in its power to destroy the State of Israel.

Even if Iran does not employ its nuclear weapons against Israel or others, it will use its new-found power to intimidate other nations in its region. An existential weapon does that for rogue countries.

During his tenure, President Trump has facilitated relationships with the Gulf States, who are mostly Sunnis. The new arrangements serve as a buffer against Iran’s domination in the region. If the US does not prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, others, Iran’s numerous enemies, will likely develop or buy nuclear weapons to protect themselves.

Joe Biden is preparing to allow these things to happen. America has sided with Sunni Arabs. Biden will stymie this beneficial foreign relationship gambit.

Biden’s Focus In The Short Term

Some of Joe Biden’s promises will be detrimental to the security and economic stability of America. Many of these items can be attained even if The Republicans retain control of the Senate. Here are a few of the more important issues that Biden will address early in his tenure.

The New York Times published a story on Tuesday that definitively stated that the US/Israeli relationship will suffer under a Biden administration, and that Bibi Netanyahu, a great ally of the US, is in serious political jeopardy. Decreasing American support of the State of Israel would be an unfortunate strategy. Setting aside Bibi’s personal issues, he is a great partner in the fight against terrorism in partnership with the United States. Israel stands between the US and radical religious groups and theocracies.

Israelis are our eyes and ears in the region. Israel’s military strength and intelligence assets are important reasons why one of the most volatile areas in the world is enjoying a period of calm at this time. And finally, Israel is ready to fight shoulder to shoulder with Americans if conditions worsen. Biden intentions to decrease the bond between US and Israel make no sense.

Many believed the US/Iran nuclear deal orchestrated by Biden’s mentor was the most inane in recent history. Obama believed that he could reason with Iran. All he did was give the ayatollahs a pathway to build and deliver a nuclear bomb in just over 10 years. For a long time, US policy was to prevent rogue nations from producing existential armaments. The Iranians out negotiated Obama and his minions enabling him to erect a neutral nuclear legacy for himself while accepting an existential threat to America’s allies in the region. Trump smartly undid the arrangement, and Biden intends to reinstall it.

The abrogation of ACA is based upon a mandate that was formerly part of it. In order for the law to be effective, it was necessary that citizens participate or be fined. This element of the law was deemed to be unconstitutional. Without it, many experts say the law is unworkable. The Supreme Court will deliberate the viability of ACA in the near future. Biden wants to rescue the law. Note: It appears that the Court will not rule against ACA. It will likely be the focal point of Biden’s effort to federalize health care in the country.

The real issue is not whether America should ensure that health care is available to everybody. We need to care for those without coverage. The real issue is whether a one payer insurance plan is wise because it would necessitate elimination of millions of private insurance plans. Many Americans are happy with their coverage. It would be too expensive to replace the plan with government coverage.

Americans should carefully follow the aforementioned issues. Even with Senate support, Biden could do great harm to our country by issuing executive orders.

Trump Should Be More Aggressive With Iran

Iran’s violent and aggressive posture towards the US has resulted in an exchange of relatively minor attacks during the past week, and a strong reaction from many in the region. Increased military action on both sides was, and is, inevitable, based upon the rhetoric emanating from both parties, and to a great extent, Iranian attempts to create instability in the Middle East.

A US strike with drones was conducted against an Iranian-backed militia group in Iraq. President Trump ordered it in response to the murder of an American contractor in the country. The drone killed 24 insurgents along with Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, an Iranian terrorist who has targeted Americans in the region.

Trump said the strike was ordered “to stop a war and to prevent future attacks on Americans.” He also said “Suliemani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”

This all raises the question of whether a US president has the authority to hunt down killers like Suleimani. The US did the same and captured Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. They were either brought to justice and executed or killed on the spot.

There was no outrage from the opposing political party in the US or from the press at the time. Why are Trump’s motivations and actions always under such negative scrutiny? Is it possible that Democrats and their liberal press allies are siding with the maniacal actions and ideology of Iran?

Although it is difficult to believe, Trump also indicated that he’s not trying to encourage regime change in Iran. Rather, he call for Iran’s “aggression in the region to end immediately.” In fact Trump should be doing everything in his power to stymie the efforts of Iran to build a nuclear bomb and to destabilize the Middle East. He cannot allow Iran Shiites to dominate the region and persecute Sunnis and other religious groups.

There is little doubt that the trajectory of the US/Iran relationship is moving towards greater conflict. Iran will continue to conduct violent operations in Iraq (which for some reason believes having Iranian militias in the country is better than having American peacekeepers), and elsewhere in the region that soon should provoke even greater and more violent responses from the US.

The real problem for Iran is the abrogation of Obama’s nuclear treaty and economic sanctions. The former makes Iran vulnerable to an all-out assault by the US when and if Trump decides that Iran is close to building a deliverable nuclear strike, thereby threatening other non-Shiite countries including Israel.

The latter, economic sanctions, are decimating Iran, especially restrictions relating to oil production and sales. In fact regime change will most likely be greatly influenced by the total economic failure of Iran.

In the meantime Iran will utilize social media and staged protests against America. The Iranians have employed high tech criminals to foment anti-American sentiment on the Internet. And it will probably attempt to employ cyber warfare tactics to disrupt our elections an/or private industry in the US.

During this time of strife, nuclear threats, cyber attacks and social media activity, it is unwise to do anything less than support Trump as he deals with our greatest enemy, Iran. In the past the press has moderated its criticism, as did Congress. They should allow Trump and his intelligence advisors to address the Iranian threat. To this point Trump has responded with restraint, which will need to change as Iran strives to create more hostility in various hot spots throughout the Middle East.

 

Is A War With Iran Inevitable?

As a matter of policy the US does not preemptively attack its enemies. It resorts to violence only after being provoked by antagonists that threaten America and its allies. The behavior of Iran during the course of the last year does in fact justify a military response.

Military action can take many forms ranging from an outright invasion to limited strikes against strategic targets. It could also mean establishing embargoes and conducting cyber warfare that disrupts the enemy’s economy and infrastructure.

After President Trump abrogated an inane and highly ineffective nuclear arrangement with the Iranians (designed by President Obama), Iran began to ramp up its nuclear development. Much of this relates to enriching uranium for creating weapons of mass destruction. The country is moving ahead with its plans to build a deliverable bomb.

Iran is participating in a number of horrific adventures throughout the Middle East, that includes arming terrorists in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Syria. This has resulted in a huge number of casualties and refugees, along with famine and disease.

The ayatollahs have also sanctioned action against oil tankers operating in international waters. And most recently, Iran launched cruise missiles that destroyed critical oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are mortal enemies of the Iranians. Together they have created a very dangerous standoff that pits Sunnis against Shiites, the two major Islamic sects.

President Trump has been restrained in his reactions to Iranian aggression, which has emboldened the rogue state and the religions zealots that govern Iran’s theocracy.

Trump’s restraint is interpreted as weakness in some circles. Does the American leader have the courage to do what’s necessary to control Iran? Constant US threats that are not supported by action could lead to another situation similar to Syria, where Obama drew a line in the sand relating to genocide conducted by Assad. The Syrian leader stepped across the line and Obama did nothing. Inaction led to Syrian cooperation with Russia and Iran.

What actions by Iran justify military action? If Iran maliciously kills one American or attacks any locations occupied by Americans, deadly force would be in order. After 9/11 the US responded by launching military attacks against Afghanistan.

The destruction of US property by Iran (such as the US drones that Iran shot down) would justify retaliation, but in a much less severe manner. This could be the destruction of Iranian military equipment and long-range armaments that were used in an attack.

If Iran assaults our allies, Saudi Arabia and Israel being the obvious choices, the US must be prepared to respond in kind. The recent attack on Saudi oil fields falls into this category. An aggressive US response is called for, and the president is making a mistake by not responding to it.

Massive attacks that endanger innocents must be avoided at almost all costs. But Iran’s armies, missile launch sites, radar equipment, artillery batteries and command and control centers should be priority targets.

A confrontation with Iran is inevitable unless sanctions bring down the current regime. Trump may be depending upon this outcome. It would be a misstep to do so. The US should be preparing to attack this enemy with or without concurrence of other nations. The peril the world faces by waiting any longer is unacceptable.

Four Things That Will Hurt Democrats In 2020

Democrat candidates for president are saying quite a few things that are alienating voters. As discussed many times, presidential aspirants, in the primaries, must personify progressive ideologies to win. The theory goes that when the nomination is won, the candidate must then pivot to a more tolerant perspective to lure independents and moderate voters.

I’m going to give Democrats some free advice and outline four areas that will help Donald Trump win in 2020. Rest assured the most radical elements in the party will not listen. They certainly will try to win votes by denigrating Trump, calling him names and saying he is bad for America. These strategies will fail.

The four issues to be discussed are:

 

  • Russian collusion and obstruction of justice involving Donald Trump
  • The US relationship with Saudi Arabia
  • The US relationship with Israel
  • Trump’s terrible persona

 

  1. Russia and collusion. Nobody wants to rehash these issues any further except the liberal chairmen of several congressional committees in the House. The charges have been investigated by far too many politicians and investigators hired by them.

Mueller’s two-year odyssey was a colossal waste of time and money. The Special Counsel worked very hard along with his sycophants to dig up dirt that would be grounds to impeach, but he and his soldiers were unable to do so. Mueller even admitted this fact.

Notwithstanding the costs involved, Democrats investigate onward. My favorite comment was that Democrats stipulated that none of Trump’s specific actions, behavior and rhetoric were sufficient alone to justify impeachment, but taken as a whole, they do provide a path to oust the president. I didn’t know that you could add up crimes to make one big one.

I sincerely hope their constituencies will punish the diehards who are unable to give up their fruitless crusade, in 2020. Their sanctimonious attitude has resulted in very little action taken by Congress to “fix” the country. I’m referring to bridges and tunnels, schools, veteran affairs, bad treaties, health care, immigration, gun control and so on.

  1. The US relationship with Saudi Arabia. It was inevitable that a president would at some point choose to take the side of Saudi Arabia or Iran. Wisely, Trump selected the Saudis in spite of the unfortunate murder of a dissident that was allegedly orchestrated by the Crowned Prince.

Over the years Sunni radicals in Saudi Arabia have created havoc in the Middle East. These terrorists are blinded by their religious fervor. They have paid for and encouraged terrorism that has resulted in many deaths. Moreover, their country, notwithstanding its great wealth, is not interested in encouraging religious and personal freedom.

But Saudi Arabia is the sworn enemy of Iran and all states and groups that are Shiite. Iran is the most vicious member of this group and a fomenter of senseless, religious-driven, violence.

For some reason the Obama administration believed it could negotiate with Iran, make a deal to stem the tide of nuclear proliferation in the area and become buddies with the ayatollahs. All Obama accomplished was a delay in Iran’s dream to have nukes. It was an inane and dangerous legacy ploy by the former president. And, along with Obamacare, the deal fell flat on its face.

Most importantly, Obama disregarded the US policy of no nuclear armaments for Iran that was in place since the early 1980s. He thought Iran would act responsibly with a nuclear bomb in their arsenal. Iran does not act diplomatically without a WMD, why would anyone think it would do otherwise with much greater military power?

The world is safer, although tensions between Iran the US have escalated. Trump is trying to renegotiate the nuke deal by imposing greater sanctions on the Iran regime. It seems to be having great effect.

Democrats have turned against the regime in Saudi Arabia. For the stability of the region, Trump must continue to look away from the distasteful actions by the Saudis. American voters are beginning to understand the importance of Saudi Arabia as a close ally of the US, in spite of recent unfortunate events.

  1. The relationship with Israel. The State of Israel is the most important ally of the US. Israel serves as a watchdog and outpost for the US, as the region becomes more dangerous every day. Since the establishment of the nation, the US has unequivocally supported and protected Israel’s right to exist. This has become a more difficult endeavor every year.

Most Jews in the US, even those that believe the current regime is too aggressive towards Palestine, want Israel to persevere and be available to those that are persecuted. Democratic antagonism towards the Israelis will hurt their chances in the national election. In the end, many Jews will support Trump because of this issue alone.

  1. Trump’s lousy attitude. Many Americans detest Trump’s personality. Yet he’s been getting results. Perhaps this aggressive demeanor is what America needed to stop the unfair arrangements that past president agreed to for diplomatic reasons. Trade deals, nuclear pacts, etc. need renegotiation even if we hurt some feelings along the way. Our determination to protect others is recognized sooner or later when nations are under distress and need a friend. Democrats are wasting their time criticizing Trump personally because a. he doesn’t care what they say, b. Trump’s base is with him to the bitter end and c. criticizing Trump’s personality is not going to turn the election.

Democrats, I know you won’t heed my warnings. After the 2020 elections you will be licking your wounds and wondering why you lost the presidency and so many congressional seats.

 

A Nuclear Deal With Iran Is Opposed By Congress, Sunni Arabs And Israel

By Sal Bommarito

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece today, titled “ObamaCare for Arms Control” by Daniel Henninger, excoriates the efforts of the Obama administration to sign an Iranian nuclear treaty without the support of Congress and the political opposition. The author claims that the initiative will not persevere without buy-in by the electorate represented by a vast majority of our elected lawmakers.

The author goes on to compare the tactics being used now by the president to those used in the enactment of Obamacare. “Just as ObamaCare was a massive entitlement program enacted with no Republicans support (unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), [Obama] is bypassing a traditional vote in the Senate.” The article indicates, “[An Iran nuclear deal] is going to be another ObamaCare, a poorly designed mega-project others will have to clean up later.”

The Senate is not sitting on its hands; it is working in a bipartisan manner to repel Obama’s ploy to bypass its constitutional responsibilities. “The heavily bipartisan Corker-Menendez bill, which would require the [Iran deal] to be submitted to Congress and which the White House has denounced, is a few votes away from a veto-proof majority.” It is inconceivable that a U.S. president would eschew his Congress and his own political party in this manner.

The president is attempting to “find” support by “substituting the judgment of the [United Nations] Security Council . . . for the consent from the U.S. Senate.” Keep in mind that the Security Council includes China and Russia, not exactly close allies of America.

The response from Sunni Arabs has been overwhelming against any deal with the Shiite-led government of Iran. The Saudi’s have indicated that it and its Sunni partners will demand the same nuclear accommodations as Iran. That means that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and the UAE could become nuclear. In the pressure cooker known as the Middle East, does the world want random counties with nuclear capabilities?

The author is critical of Obama’s “modus operandi.” He says that Obama “[structures] the issue as a choice between what he wants to do and an unacceptable extreme . . . With Iran, it’s Mr. Obama’s deal or a ‘rush to war.’”

According to the article, “political damage” has been inflicted on the “traditional relationships” between the presidency and those that the administration has “marginalized” (Congress).

The world does not need another rogue nuclear state. Incidentally, Israel will have much more to say about the nuclear negotiations, as they proceed. The question is, why is the president so anxious to arm Iran, our sworn enemy? Ego, arrogance and legacy must have something to do with the administration’s illogical adventure with Iran and his continuing attitude towards Congress.