Iran

Obama’s Inappropriate Relationships With Arab Nations

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

President Obama is finding himself on the wrong side of several critical issues in the Middle East. They include his ambivalence towards Egypt under its new secular president, encouragement of secret negotiations that may lead to an Iranian nuclear capability and animosity towards the State of Israel and its Prime Minister.

 

“The Counter Jihad Report” discussed a speech by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in which he “attacks the root causes of continuing conflict between certain adherents of Islam and freedom-loving secularists . . .”

 

The Muslim Brotherhood, a theocratic based political group, took control of the country in 2012 under the leadership of former President Mohammed Morsi. He was subsequently deposed in 2014 by el-Sisi, a secular leader, who imprisoned his predecessor along with many of his followers.

 

President Obama has been supportive of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 2009, he made a speech at the University of Cairo and lauded President Morsi and his organization. Since Morsi’s incarceration, Obama “has seemingly turned his back on Egypt . . .”

 

“It is truly fascinating that here is the one leader in the Muslim world who has the courage not only to confront the enemy, but also its ideology.” El-Sisi has been “calling out Islamists and the clerics, mullahs [and] imams who are causing strife globally.” Yet, Obama has not been responsive to him.

 

“ . . . we cannot shy away from defining this enemy . . . It is unbelievable that anyone would refer to the Islamic terrorists who wrought savage carnage this week [in Paris] as activists.”

 

At the same time, President Obama is staunchly defiant of Congress’ suggestion that more conditional sanctions against Iran should be enacted. In fact, he threatened to veto any laws to that effect during his State of the Union address.

 

Many in Congress, including powerful Democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) are uncomfortable with negotiations relating to the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon. The president believes that his closed-door meetings will be negatively impacted if Congress moves to introduce new sanctions. The opposition to these negotiations does not believe Iran can be trusted, and the country has been an impediment to peace in the region.

 

On a related note, the New York Times reports that Iran’s supreme leader released a letter to “youths in the United States and Europe imploring them to learn about Islam from original sources . . .” The Ayatollah is concerned about the image of Islam on the heels of the Charlie Hebdo attack. The cleric indicated, “ . . . researchers and historians are deeply ashamed of the bloodshed wrought in the name of religion between the Catholics and Protestants or in the name of nationality and ethnicity during [WWII].” The intent of the letter was to transfer blame for current hostilities to the west.

 

Obama is determined to appease Iran during the negotiations even as the vast majority of Americans and Congress are becoming more uncomfortable with the potential of Iran having a nuclear weapon.

 

Israel considers the development of nuclear capability by Iran to be an existential problem. It is inconceivable that any person could come to another conclusion, particularly the man who is the leader of Israel’s most important ally. Time and again, Obama has not supported Israel to assure its survival. His attitude has made the Jewish state all the more vulnerable during his tenure.

 

In an act of defiance, Congress invited Prime Minister Netanyahu to address the body without endorsement of the administration. The story is reported in the New York Times. The topics dearest to Netanyahu are Iran, its ambition to have a nuclear weapon and implementation of more sanctions. The Prime Minister’s appearance flies in the face of the president who objects to any interference of his negotiations with Iran.

 

The writing is on the wall. President Obama is regularly kowtowing to the interests of Muslim countries that are hostile to the U.S. It is a mystery why he has adopted this tactic. We should expect Congress to delve deeply into Obama’s motivations in the months ahead and to obstruct many of his initiatives.

 

President Obama’s diplomacy relating to the Islamic world needs to be vetted by his critics. Apologists of the president should stand aside and give politicians and leaders who disagree with Obama a chance to express their views.

Should Obama Continue War Against ISIS Without Congressional Approval?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

There are several troublesome issues relating the president’s decision to double the U.S. soldiers in Iraq. An article in the New York Times addresses some of them.

The timing of the announcement is noteworthy and suspicious to say the least. Yet, the administration said it did not intentionally delay the announcement until after the mid term elections. Such an action before voters went to the polls might have spooked the electorate and resulted in a worse fate for Democrats. It is difficult for some to accept the administration’s response.

Is the new mini-surge a precursor to a greater deployment of troops in the near future? The president insisted that the latest manpower increase does not represent any change in his previous edict that the U.S. would not provide ground support in the fight against ISIS. The article indicates that the new soldiers will be operating in the field not in protected areas. What level of U.S. troop deployments would represent a change in policy, 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000 more troops?

The cost of this latest adventure in Iraq is expected to be over $5 billion, $1.8 billion of which will be dedicated to training Iraqi soldiers. It should be noted that the U.S. spent $60 billion per year during the highpoint of the previous occupation. After all that military assistance, the Iraqis were totally ineffective against ISIS in their initial encounters. Are Americans supposed to believe $1.8 billion will be sufficient to convert Iraqi soldiers into a lean and mean fighting machine? Ironically, the administration found a third party to blame for the decline in battlefield readiness of Iraqi forces- the former Iraq administration led by Nouri al-Maliki.

The president is walking on a dangerous constitutional line. The U.S. invaded Iraq and Syria using the War Powers Act. But, the country has been engaged long enough to require a mandatory approval of the military operations or a declaration of war by Congress. When is this going to happen? Or, will the president continue to prosecute the war on his own authority? Congress has an obligation to oversee the mission, costs, deployment of troops and materiel and a timetable for the end of hostilities.

Exacerbating the situation is an impending deal with Iran, in which the U.S. is likely to eliminate or reduce economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s help in fighting ISIS. If this deal enables Iran to move closer to a nuclear capability, the current skirmish in Iraq and Syria will become a much larger confrontation.

Iran’s Nuclear Program And ISIS

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reports that a major breakthrough is possible in the negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear energy program.

This development could be critical not only for the safety of the Middle East, but also for the ISIS crisis. If a deal can be struck that prevents Iran from using its uranium to build a weapon, the world will be safer. If this situation is rectified, it opens the possibility that Iran could become a productive member of the coalition fighting ISIS.

Now the bad news. The U.S. and Russia have not been as antagonistic towards each other since the Cold War ended. Russia is currently invading Ukraine, and the U.S. led a successful effort to implement economic sanctions in protest. The competition between the two super powers has reached an apex.

The U.S.’s status in the world has been greatly impacted by its ambivalent diplomacy. Frankly, most nations are skeptical about the U.S.’s integrity and willingness to keep promises made to its allies. This attitude is particularly prevalent in the Middle East where much of the trouble is brewing.

Perhaps Iran can live with a program in which its uranium is shipped to Russia and converted into fuel rods that can only be used for peaceful purposes. A plethora of other issues need to be settled before a deal is consummated, including the number of permitted centrifuges, the fate of a heavy-water reactor that produces plutonium and the inspection process.

Most important are the differing endgames of the U.S., Iran and Russia. Neither the U.S. nor Russia wants Iran to possess a nuclear weapon; Iran has not agreed to comply. Russia wants to assess Iran exorbitant fees to convert the uranium; the U.S. is not excited about any new programs that benefit the Russian economy. Russia would like to become more engaged in the Middle East; the U.S. certainly does not want yet another antagonist disrupting the region. The U.S. must be concerned with Israel reacting aggressively about the chances of Iran developing a nuclear weapon.

It is highly likely that negotiations relating to Iran’s role in fighting ISIS will spill over into the nuclear discussions. This is problematic because it may influence the U.S. to make a very bad long-term decision for a short-term benefit. Moreover, the Obama administration is so hungry for a diplomatic success that it might agree to something that will have disastrous consequences.

We should be enthusiastic about new negotiations that could decrease nuclear proliferation. However, it is too early to celebrate because the U.S. must deal with some very devious adversaries.

Eliminating Iran Sanctions In Exchange For Cooperation Against ISIS Is Foolish

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Is the West prepared to effectively give Iran a green light to build a nuclear bomb by eliminating economic sanctions in exchange for Iran’s participation in the battle with ISIS? A Newsweek article indicates that negotiations are already underway to forge together a deal “that would end sanctions in return for assurances [Iran will] not develop a nuclear weapon.”

It appears that the U.S. and Iran are negotiating two different transactions. The U.S. wants Iran to agree to not build a bomb, whereas Iran still maintains that it has a right to a nuclear program, which effectively enables it to build a bomb. It will be a monumental effort for each party to accomplish their objectives.

Before the U.S. agrees to cooperate, it should reconsider whom it is dealing with and whether there are other ways to defeat ISIS that would not include arming Iran.

Iran has not given up its dream to build a nuclear device, no matter what it says publicly. It is the only way that Iran can achieve a level of parity with Israel, which has a nuclear capability. In this regard, Iran will lie, cheat and steal to achieve its goal. The most important question is: Can Iran be trusted to live up to guarantees after economic sanctions are eliminated? Considering Iran’s nefarious activities throughout the Middle East, the U.S. should have concerns about Iran’s trustworthiness.

The Newsweek article indicates several disturbing things. Iran is supporting a militia that has destabilized Yemen. President Bashar al-Assad will be protected by Iran, even as nearly every Arab nation has called for Assad to step down. Iran has maintained contact with Nouri al-Maliki, Iraq’s former prime minister, which will enable it to disrupt conciliation between the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis.

The willingness of the U.S. to deal with Iran should be affected by its longstanding feud with it. Diplomatic relations ended in 1979 when Iranian clerics encouraged radicals to take 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for a year.

Iran continues to commit human rights violations. For example, Newsweek reported that Iran executed 1,000 people last year. Iran security forces continue to harass and arrest peaceful protesters as well as journalists. Most disturbing is the support Iran affords Hezbollah, a ruthless terrorist organization. Despite all these concerns, some western countries are anxious to ally with Iran against ISIS.

What does Iran bring to the table militarily? GFP indicates that Iran has 500 thousand active soldiers and 1.8 million reservists. It has 2,400 tanks and various types of fighting vehicles and rocket launchers. Aircraft total 481 including attack planes and helicopters.

The Jerusalem Post points out that Iran’s military resume is not impressive. The country’s efforts to spread its ideology have been less than impressive and with a “lack of follow through.” In a nutshell, Iran has been cautious about employing its military. Rather, it relies heavily upon “indirect diplomacy, menace and intrigue.” Nevertheless, Iran has been emboldened by the U.S.’s meek responses to crises in the region.

Iran did not perform admirably in its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Some people attribute this to “overestimated nationalism” and Iranian “unwillingness to sacrifice.” So, what might we expect from Iran in the ISIS war? The allies should not be too optimistic.

A nuclear weapon would enable Iran to assert itself without directly confronting its enemies. The threat of a nuclear strike is the hammer that Iran will wield if left unchecked.

A trade off would be acceptable if Iran was honorable and lived up to guarantees and promises about its nuclear program. Since Iran leaders have repeatedly said the country has a right to do whatever it wants, nobody should derive any comfort. Sanctions are the only power we hold over Iran, other than the threat of an outright assault. Giving up sanctions would be disastrous.

With this in mind, I think the deal that is percolating is foolish, naïve and shortsighted. The coalition cannot be sure that Iran will engage fully and effectively with ISIS, or even whether it can repel ISIS terrorists.

Meanwhile, Israel and Sunni Gulf Arabs are not going to sit by idly and allow Iran to build a nuclear bomb. It is entirely possible that Israel will take action against what it believes is an existential threat. Similarly, Saudi Arabia is likely to set loose insurgents to destabilize Shiite bastions in response to an Iranian deal.

President Obama had better be sure that mechanisms are in place to prevent the development of a bomb by Iran, as a nuclear event could materially change the Middle East.

After The ISIS War There Will Be No Peace In The Middle East

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The ISIS War has become a huge public relations problem for all the interested parties, as the definition of “winning the war” is becoming more elusive over time.

The U.S. is in a precarious position because the president said ISIS would be defeated. Most believe this means the terrorists will be killed and will no longer threaten the Middle East.

It is not happening up to this point. ISIS is recruiting new fighters and selling more commandeered oil every day to finance its operations. Everybody (including the president and his aides) knows that effective ground support for U.S. bombing sorties is not going to materialize. Winning the war without boots on the ground will be impossible.

President Obama said no U.S. ground forces would be deployed. Frankly, Americans cannot stomach another occupation and inevitable casualties, so it is easy to appreciate the decision to withhold soldiers. However, the mission is to kill off ISIS, but that’s not realistic because ISIS fighters will annihilate ground troops supplied by any of the countries in the region. Sadly, the American people have been misled, once again, about the rationale and resolution of yet another conflict.

So, what’s next for America? Hostilities will likely continue so long as the U.S. continues to bomb ISIS forces. At some point, the U.S. will retreat and allow the Arabs to fight it out. This eventuality extends the current losing streak to four in a row for the U.S., Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq twice.

Iraq is also a loser no matter what happens to ISIS. The country, or what will be left of it after ISIS annexes large chunks of it, will experience a continuation of the year’s old civil war pitting embedded Shiites (supported by Iran) against the rebel Sunnis (supported by Saudi Arabian insurgents).

Syria will also be in total confusion after the ISIS crisis. Currently, Bashar al-Assad and rebel Sunnis are busy fighting ISIS. If they survive the onslaught, they will reengage with each other in civil war. The rebels will likely receive support from Turkey, maybe the U.S. and other Arab countries. Assad will be aided by both Iran and Russia. It’s unclear how this imbroglio will play out.

Nothing will change for Israel after the war ends. Arab nations are united in their hatred for the Jewish state. The Israelis will continue to battle with Palestinians in perpetuity and refocus on Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear capability.

Some say Iran is obsessed with the wrong issues. It wants the U.S. to rescind economic sanctions and increase flexibility relating to nuclear material in exchange for support against ISIS. Rather, Iran should direct its efforts towards ISIS exclusively, as it is already close to its border. The ability of Iran’s military to repel an ISIS invasion is not a sure bet. Iran does not have a good track record in overt conflicts. Its specialties are insurgency and internal security.

The major concern is that Israel might attack Iran if the U.S. is too lenient with Iran. The development of a nuclear bomb is the only way that Iran can gain parity with Israel militarily. No way will Israel allow this to happen, in the opinion of many.

Turkey is a wild card. It hates ISIS, Syria (and Assad) and Kurds. Its president, Erdogan, has stated publicly that each of these situations is of equal importance to his country. In effect, fighting three individual wars will dilute Turkey’s strength and its diplomatic clout. It has been a totally unreliable ally of the west and not deserving of NATO membership. The Turks should recalibrate their focus on ISIS, which is mustering its strength in nearby Kobani.

The final piece of the puzzle is Saudi Arabia. It represents the biggest prize for ISIS. It’s not clear what countries would come to Saudi Arabia’s rescue if ISIS approaches the country. The disruption of an overthrown regime on oil reserves would be devastating globally.

ISIS will soon redraw the map of the Middle East because of the lack of commitment to destroy it by the U.S. and its allies. When the ISIS war ends, hostilities will continue as old feuds, resentment and threats are responded to. The Middle East will not see peace for at least another generation. Unfortunately, allowing ISIS to grow and finance itself has created grave new concerns.

Iraq And Iran May Be The Keys To Stopping ISIS

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Iraq and Iran may the keys to stopping ISIS. Both countries, along with Syria, are at the greatest risk from logistical and religious perspectives, but they both possess military capabilities that could stem the tide of the terrorists. The big question is whether they will do what is necessary to assist the U.S.-led coalition.

Iraq’s participation in the ISIS war is going to be hampered by its fluid and contentious religious issues. Before Iraq was invaded and occupied by the U.S., Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, oppressed the Shiite majority. Since his downfall, democratic elections enabled the Shiite majority to take control of the government and exclude Sunnis from key political positions. Iraqi Sunnis and Sunni insurgents have been conducting terrorist activity in protest and opposition to the sitting government ever since the fall of Saddam.

ISIS has temporarily diverted Iraqis from their civil war. The situation is interesting because the government has asked Sunnis throughout the country to resist the interlopers. But, Iraqi Sunnis have not been enthusiastic about assisting the Shiite-controlled government.

Exacerbating the problem is the competence and loyalty of Iraqi forces needed to fight against ISIS. In earlier battles, many Iraqi soldiers laid down their arms and deserted. Was this because of fear or Sunni/Iraqi soldier solidarity with the ISIS Sunnis? No one can be sure. But, the ability of Iraqis to provide ground support for U.S. airstrikes seems dubious at best.

If ISIS is successful, the Shiite government of Iraq will fall and be replaced with a Sunni-dominated group, possibly consisting of some Iraqi Sunnis. This will result in a new chapter of the civil war. If ISIS is defeated, Iraqi Sunnis together with insurgent supporters will enflame sectarian violence that could eventually destabilize the government.

Iran is dominated by Shiites, and it is generally supportive of all Shiites in the region, supporting governments and terrorist groups.

Iran must be concerned with the advances of ISIS as the terrorists are but a stone’s throw away from the Iranian border. Yet, Iran has not shown any inclination to enter the fray, probably because the U.S. is leading the effort against ISIS. Iran’s attitude is also greatly influenced by its desire to secure Bashar al-Assad’s position, the president of Syria. The U.S. wants Assad to step down potentially causing another rift with Iran.

It is inconceivable that Iran will not link any support of the coalition with a decrease in economic sanctions. And, Iran will also be seeking “flexibility” relating to its nuclear program. Many people around the world, including Israelis and Sunnis in the region, are concerned about the existential threat of an Iranian nuclear capability. And so, they hope President Obama does not rescind sanctions or make it easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons in exchange for Iran’s support in fighting ISIS.

Iraq and Iran are probably going to be critical in the war against ISIS. Individually or together, they could provide ground troops needed to fight the terrorists, although Iraq’s contributions are not expected to be great for the foreseeable future. Iran, on the other hand, could provide significant resistance to ISIS advancements immediately.

The questions are if and when will Iran decide to move against ISIS. An invasion of Iran would certainly inspire a military response, but ISIS leadership knows this. So, although Iran is surely on their hit list, ISIS must be careful not to move too soon.

In the meantime, the U.S. is dropping bombs and making little progress. The president’s mission is not proceeding well.

Iran Nuclear Discussions Will Impact The ISIS Crisis

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Buried in the New York Times today is a story about the current negotiations with Iran relating to its nuclear program. The importance of these discussions cannot be overstated.

The Obama administration, the article suggests, is attempting to exclude Congress from the deliberations, possibly creating yet another constitutional crisis if the administration agrees to eliminate economic sanctions. The president cannot sign a treaty without Senate approval, but he can, in the short term, decrease or eliminate economic sanctions against Iran. This could be his tactic even though the Senate voted 99-0 to install the current sanctions. Neither political party would be happy about being excluded from such an important diplomatic event.

Development of a nuclear weapon by the Iranian regime would destabilize the Middle East, and represent an existential threat to Israel, all Sunni states and even ISIS, should it eventually create its own country. Allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon now or any time in the foreseeable future would be a dangerous mistake.

The global community is for the most part not in favor of another rogue nation developing a nuclear capacity. Iran has proven time and again that its political and religious aspirations are not benign by any measure. A nuclear weapon would severely tilt the tenuous balance in the region.

A U.S. decision to terminate sanctions against Iran if it agrees only to “defer” the enrichment of material needed to make a weapon could impact diplomatic conversations relating to ISIS. Despite Iran’s proximity to ISIS forces and the likelihood it will become an active target of the terrorists, Iran has not been overtly involved in the hostilities. It is inconceivable that Iran will not somehow attempt to link its engagement with ISIS to a relaxation or elimination of sanctions and increased latitude to pursue its nuclear vision.

Many believe economic sanctions are having a profound impact on Iran’s economy. And, the continuing implementation of sanctions lessens the possibility that someday the U.S will need to bomb Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon. So, decreasing the leverage afforded by the sanctions at any time is unwise.

All this speaks to the utter disdain Obama has towards Congress and his questionable judgment relating to the diplomatic and military tactics being used in the ISIS conflict.

Bankrupt Iran If It Refuses To End Its Nuclear Aspirations

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

It must be very depressing to be Barack Obama these days. Daily, the media and politicians from both sides of the aisle are critical of the administration’s foreign policy tactics. The Iran negotiations relating to its nuclear development program are currently front and center.

 

American negotiators agreed to a four-month extension of the Iran nuclear talks. The deadline for substantive concessions by Iran has passed and the U.S., once again, allowed another enemy to step across a line “drawn in the sand.” It’s difficult to be specific, but it appears that Iran is continuing to move towards the development of a nuclear weapons capability while it applies its latest version of “rope a dope” delays. You can figure out who the dope is.

 

The “mumbo” from the mouths of the Iranian government is exasperated by the “jumbo” from the president and John Kerry. The only thing that is definite is that the U.S. released $2 billion plus in Iranian cash for the extension of negotiations. All the blathering about centrifuges, which enable Iran to crate weapons grade material is impossible to decipher by all of us mere mortals. So, I conclude that the U.S. paid Iran to agree to a delay.

 

The Iran government lead by its all-powerful clergy believes it has a “divine” right to develop a nuclear bomb. The rest of the world, led by the U.S. and Israel, believe such a capability creates an existential threat to Israel.

 

The fact is no nation, especially those that border Iran, should be sleeping comfortably. If Iran successfully develops a bomb and the ability to deliver it, the Middle East will be a much more dangerous place, if that’s even possible. Fortunately, Gaddafi and Hussein were unable to develop a bomb. If either had, does anyone doubt that these men would use it in a fit of rage?

 

The Iran clerics are not that different than past despots from where I stand. Iran has gleefully participated in all of the regional hassles between Shiite and Sunni factions (Iran supports Shiite causes). Why wouldn’t Iran use the clout of a nuke to bully its neighbors? Why wouldn’t it employ a nuke in a limited way to eliminate an enemy? Who is going to stop Iran when it has a nuke in its arsenal?

 

Frankly, I don’t care if Iran has a right to build weapons of mass destruction. Iran is our enemy, and the enemy of about half of the Arab world (the Sunnis). I do not trust the Iranians to be responsible with such power.

 

Besides a preemptive military strike against Iran facilities producing nukes, there is another nonmilitary option. The U.S. should bankrupt Iran with sanctions unless they agree to end their nuclear aspirations.