Thursday, October 19, 2017

VIDEO: How the Obama Presidency Destroyed Todays Democratic Party - Victor D. Hanson

by Victor D. Hanson

Hat tip: Ms. Marty Fox

A Clear and concise analysis of major trends in American politics - the rise (and fall) of Obama and the rise of the most unlikely of all possible conservative presidents

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. As a National Review Institute fellow, he has been a commentator on modern warfare and contemporary politics for National Review and other media outlets. He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson is perhaps best known for his 2001 book, Carnage and Culture.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Israel: No peace talks with Palestinian government reliant on Hamas - Israel Hayom

by Israel Hayom

Hamas must recognize Israel, relinquish terrorism and disarm completely before Israel agrees to resume peace talks, cabinet statement says

Israel said on Tuesday it would not hold peace negotiations with a Palestinian government dependent on the Hamas terrorist group.

Longtime rival factions Hamas and Fatah sealed a deal last week in Cairo in which Hamas agreed to cede administrative control of Gaza, including the key Rafah border crossing, to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' government.

Under the Egyptian-brokered accord, the Fatah-backed government headed by Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah will run Gaza and the West Bank and Palestinian officials said there were no plans to add Hamas ministers to the government.

Previous reconciliation attempts between Hamas and Fatah have failed within months, but analysts said the current deal is more likely to stick, given Hamas' growing isolation from its donor states and its leaders' realization of how hard it would be to govern and rebuild Gaza.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet on Tuesday to discuss the Palestinian rapprochement.

In a statement released following the meeting, Netanyahu reaffirmed longstanding Israeli demands that Hamas recognize Israel and disarm completely.

"Pursuant to previous decisions, the government of Israel will not conduct diplomatic negotiations with a Palestinian government that relies on Hamas, a terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of Israel, as long as it does not fulfill the following conditions: Hamas will recognize Israel and desist from terrorism, as per the Quartet conditions; Hamas must be disarmed, and fallen IDF soldiers and Israeli civilians held by Hamas must be returned," the statement, posted on the Prime Minister's Office's website, read.

Other conditions stipulated by Israel included the following: "The Palestinian Authority must exercise full security control in Gaza, including at the crossings, and prevent smuggling; The PA will continue to act against Hamas terrorist infrastructures in Judea and Samaria; Hamas will sever its ties with Iran; and Funds and humanitarian equipment will continue to flow into Gaza only via the PA and the mechanisms that have been established for this purpose."

During the meeting, Netanyahu said Israel finds it unacceptable for Gaza to "replicated the Lebanon model," referring to the intricate part the Lebanese Shiite terrorist group plays in Beirut's politics.

Abbas, he said, "Is once again seeking an alliance with an organization whose creed urges Muslims to kill Jews."

A senior diplomatic official told Israel Hayom that the statement meant the de facto suspension of any move meant to reignite the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, stalled since 2014, including those by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The Palestinians, for their part, were unfazed by Israel's decision.

Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh said the Palestinians would not be swayed by Israel’s statement as it "will not change the official Palestinian position to move forward with reconciliation efforts."

He said the deal and the PA's return to Gaza had been welcomed by major powers including the United States and this would "achieve the aspirations of our people … ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state."

Israel Hayom


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

How Much Did Mueller and Rosenstein Know about Uranium One? - Daniel John Sobieski

by Daniel John Sobieski

If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair are not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, what is?

Back in July, I called for a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s collusion with Russia to turn over control of 20 percent of our uranium supplies to Russian interests in return for some $145 million in donation to the Clinton Foundation. Now it turns out that there was one, an FBI investigation dating back to 2009, with current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to their eyeballs in covering up evidence of Hillary’s collusion, bordering on treason, with Vladimir Putin’s Russia:
Prior to the Obama administration approving the very controversial deal in 2010 giving Russia 20% of America’s Uranium, the FBI had evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering in order to benefit Vladimir Putin, says a report by The Hill….
John Solomon and Alison Spann of The Hill: Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show….
From today’s report we find out that the investigation was supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, who is now President Trump’s Deputy Attorney General, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, who is now the deputy FBI director under Trump.
Robert Mueller was head of the FBI from Sept 2001-Sept 2013 until James Comey took over as FBI Director in 2013. They were BOTH involved in this Russian scam being that this case started in 2009 and ended in 2015.
If evidence of bribery, kickbacks, extortion, and money laundering in the Uranium One affair are not grounds for a special prosecutor assigned to investigate Hillary Clinton, what is? Rosenstein and Mueller, by their silence on this investigation hidden from Congress and the American people, are unindicted coconspirators in Hillary’s crimes and should be terminated immediately.

One can understand the Obama Justice Department covering up and slow-waking this investigation, but what about the Trump DOJ and our missing-in-action Attorney General Jeff Sessions? Was this the reason Democrats were hot-to-trot on him recusing himself from all things Russian? How could Rosenstein sit before Congress and not say anything, only to appoint Mueller to investigate Team Trump? Rosenstein and Mueller are poster children for duplicity and corruption.

Collusion itself is not a crime but jeopardizing American national security by conspiring to supply the Russian nuclear program with our uranium is a crime of the highest order. No one to date has provided any evidence that any favor was granted as a result of that meeting or that the Trump campaign benefited in any way from the meeting.

One cannot say the same thing about Hillary Clinton and her role in the Uranium One deal with Russia. Clinton played a pivotal role in the UraniumOne deal which ended up giving Russian interests control of 20 percent of our uranium supply in exchange for donations of $145 million to the Clinton Foundation. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a federal crime. As Clinton Cash author Peter Schweitzer has noted:
Tuesday on Fox Business Network, “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” Breitbart editor at large and the author of “Clinton Cash,” Peter Schweizer said there needs to be a federal investigation into the Russian uranium deal then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved after the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One…
Discussing the Clinton Foundation receiving $145 million from the shareholders of Uranium One, he continued, “Look, there are couple of things that are extremely troubling about the deal we touched on. number one is the amount of money $145 million. We are not talking about a super PAC giving a million dollars to support a candidate. We are not talking about campaign donations. We are talking about $145 million which by the way is 75 percent or more of the annual budget of the Clinton Foundation itself so it’s a huge sum of money. Second of all we are talking about a fundamental issue of national security which is uranium -- it’s not like oil and gas that you can find all sorts of places. They are precious few places you can mine for uranium, in the United States is one of those areas. And number three we are talking about the Russian government. A lot of people don’t realize it now, in parts of the Midwest American soil is owned by Vladimir Putin’s government because this deal went through. And in addition to the $145 million Bill Clinton got half a million dollars, $500,000 for a 20-minute speech from a Russian investment bank tied to the Kremlin, two months before the State Department signed off on this deal. It just stinks to high heaven and I think it requires a major investigation by the federal government.”
Yet seemingly the only thing warranting a major federal investigation is a wasted 20 minutes of Donald Trump Jr’s life that he will never get back. Democrats and the media and, again, apologies for the redundancy, had no problem with Bill Hillary Clinton brokering deals giving Russia and Putin 20 percent of our uranium supply to benefit Clinton Foundation donors, including Canadian billionaire Frank Giustra.

Giustra earlier had a cozy relationship with Bill Clinton and participated in and benefitted from his involvement in a scam run by the Clinton Foundation in Colombia.
Clinton donor Giustra benefited significantly from his association, even if the people of Columbia didn’t:
When we met him (Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo) in his wood-paneled office in Colombia’s Capitol building in May, his desk was stacked high with papers related to Pacific Rubiales’s labor practices, the result of years of investigative work by his staff. He did not see the Clinton Foundation and its partnership with Giustra’s Pacific Rubiales as either progressive or positive. “The territory where Pacific Rubiales operated,” he said, thumbing through pages of alleged human-rights violations, “was a type of concentration camp for workers.”…
In September 2005, Giustra and Clinton flew to Kazakhstan together to meet the Central Asian nation’s president. Shortly thereafter, Giustra secured a lucrative concession to mine Kazakh uranium, despite his company’s lack of experience with the radioactive ore. As Bill Clinton opened doors for Giustra, the financier gave generously to Clinton’s foundation.
As the New York Times reported, this mutual back-scratching gave Clinton donor Giustra control of a significant portion of the world’s uranium supply:
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton…
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges…
In February 2007, a company called Uranium One agreed to pay $3.1 billion to acquire UrAsia. Mr. Giustra, a director and major shareholder in UrAsia, would be paid $7.05 per share for a company that just two years earlier was trading at 10 cents per share.
Now isn’t that special? Both the Clintons and their donor made out handsomely. Uranium One, which was gradually taken over by the Russians, would later be involved in a curious deal involving Hillary Clinton when she was Secretary of State. As the New York Times reported:
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well…
Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah.
So in exchange for donations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill, gave Vladimir Putin’s Russia, a nuclear power, control of 20 percent of the world’s uranium supply. Is that what Hillary Clinton meant by a “Russian reset”? Yet neither Congressional Democrats, who accuse Trump and his son of being too cozy with Moscow, nor their wholly owned subsidiary, the mainstream media, are eager to talk about the Clinton uranium deals with Russia.

Actually, we no longer need an investigation of Hillary Clinton and Uranium One. This FBI investigation in conjunction to what we already knew is prima facie evidence of criminal corruption and intentionally putting of American national security at risk for personal financial gain. If an indictment of Hilary Clinton is not forthcoming, then Jeff Sessions should also be fired.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications. 


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Jeff Sessions and the Conservative Talkers - James Tygart

by James Tygart

Why are conservative talkers ignoring Jeff Sessions's unwillingness to go after the miscreants of the Obama administration?

Over the last few years a good guess suggests that at least 50% of conservative talk content has been devoted to the inter-connected scandals of: Clinton-Rhodes-Lerner-Holder-Comey-Lynch-Powers-Rice-Mueller. And, of course, their boss. Let’s call it the Stack of Miscreants, after Rush Limbaugh’s Stack of Stuff. The names, at this point, are all the reference we need. We’re already steeped in the details. Our Conservative Talk champions have drilled it into us year after year; day after day; hour after hour.

Yet now, after all the thousands of hours of skilled analysis and sometimes Churchillian rhetoric, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and their Conservative Talk kin appear to be content, watching their efforts to expose the Stack of Miscreants go wasted, because Jeff Sessions has decided to just let it slide. Where is their eloquence on this single point of failure?

Lois Lerner and the IRS are off the hook for Tea Party persecution, apparently. Of all the scandals wasn’t this the most provable? It seemed to be from Conservative Talk’s steady stream of analyses. Selective targeting of political groups. Destruction of data, trashing computers. Pleading the fifth, requests for information obstructed and ignored. All part of the historical record. Everything already nicely laid out for a sane grand jury to authorize full prosecution. Was Conservative Talk wrong about Lois Lerner? Why aren’t you mad as hell at this? Why all the slack for Sessions?

In July, the refrain from Conservative Talk, responding to Trump’s (admittedly juvenile) bout of anti-Session twittering, was “give a guy a chance” and “let him do his job.” Or how about the suggestion that behind the scenes crafty Jeff was lining up all his ducks for judgement day. Well, after the get-out-of-jail-free card for Lois Lerner, that’s no longer a tenable view. Jeff Session’s only justice craft appears to be finding ways to avoid prosecuting it.

The articles and blog posts calling for Session’s resignation are multiplying (and not just in American Thinker). The once kindly looking old legislator now appears in internet images like an age-enfeebled, slightly creepy looking version of Stewie Griffin (ala “Family Guy”). Except when Stewie’s around, there’s no lack of action.

Among the conservatives notables, only FOX News’ even-keeled Gregg Jarrett appears to have the guts to openly assess the performance of Jeff Sessions as impotent, meriting resignation or termination. But from Conservative Talk: Nothing doing. A couple disturbing incidents: When a recent female caller to Rush Limbaugh referred to the Jarrett article, the grand master beat a hasty retreat to a commercial, which was perhaps unavoidable, but then never returned to what should have been a juicy, teachable moment. And Rush loves teachable moments. Mark Levin, after a lengthy dissection of one scandal (I forget which one, but it hardly matters), concluded his effective argumentation with a bland, not-too-confidant, and I hope my friend Jeff Sessions is doing something about this.

Mr. Levin, your friend is not doing anything. As William Buckley asked his friend and President, Richard Nixon, to do the right thing for the country and resign, can you imagine that Jeff Sessions may now need the prompting of a true friend to step down himself, while still in some good standing with history. 

Thought experiment: Where would we be now with one of the following firebrands as AG?
  • Jeanine Pirro,
  • Allan West,
  • Greg Abbott.
Or someone else capable of getting through the senate, but also equipped with the intelligence and speech-making skills to implement a genuine offense against the former administration’s lawbreakers. Imagine the non-stop flood of stories seizing the momentum in the media, overwhelming the fraudulent reporting of Russian-Trump collusion with a slew of fact-driven investigations into real collusions and real circumventions related to unmasking, Benghazi, Iran, pay to play Clinton Foundation schemes, etc. Imagine the current status of the untethered Mueller investigation: (1) He’s never appointed in the first place. (2) He gets appointed but with a defined deliverable within a defined time-frame, and Rosenstein gets a pink slip. (3) He gets appointed but is shamed into closing shop by a counter investigation into spending abuses and hiring a politically biased staff pursuing politically-biased aims. (4) Or best of all, he simply gets terminated by Attorney General West-Pirro-Abbott for the abuses of number 3.

And now, as I watch my evening of FOX, Sean Hannity is relaying the latest in the Uranium One scandal, and it points to massive collusion and corruption by Mueller, Comey, Holder, Clinton, Lynch, and probably Obama. Conclusive evidence we’re told. It just needs to be acted upon. Will it be? Or will it just be another avenue for Jeff Sessions to demonstrate his remarkable capacity for doing nothing.

Sean, Rush, Mark, Conservative Talk as a group, to have any effect this time you must assail more than just the specific scandal, you must assail, simultaneously, the single point of senescence that currently occupies the AG’s seat, the mediocre obstructionist who has demonstrated over and over he will never, ever act.

James Tygart


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Win-Win: How Tax Reform Will Help Defense Spending and the Economy - Peter Huessy

by Peter Huessy

Unfortunately, there remains a widely held assumption that unless tax reform is "revenue-neutral," deficits will increase.

  • While America's adversaries have been increasing their defense budgets and the power of their armed forces, the United States has been doing the opposite.
  • Although the Senate and House Armed Services Committees passed a bill for 2018 that would exceed President Trump's defense budget request, there is still the problem of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which caps defense spending at an extremely low level. Modernization has been curtailed significantly.
  • Unfortunately, there remains a widely held assumption that unless tax reform is "revenue-neutral," deficits will increase. The trouble with this assumption is that although revenue-neutral tax reform may make the system more efficient or fair, it neither increases government revenue nor generates additional investment in the private sector. The purpose of the new tax-reform plan is to do both: increase revenue and spur economic growth at the same time.
One crucial aspect of the new tax reform bill, unveiled by President Donald Trump and the "Big Six" group of Republican tax negotiators at the end of September, is the potentially positive effect it will have on the US defense budget, which is sorely in need of an increase.

The assertion made by former President Barack Obama during his final State of the Union address in January 2016, that the United States spends "more on our military than the next eight nations combined," bolstered the belief that America's national-security needs are beyond being met. However, as a recent Heritage Foundation report reveals, such claims, which have led to the conclusion that the United States allocates an excessive amount to the defense budget, are "disingenuous," as they "give no consideration to the decisions driving defense spending or the factors contributing to costs across national economies."

As the Heritage Foundation points out, although "the U.S. military remains the largest and most capable in the world... [t]he security environment in which in which the U.S. military is expected to operate has grown increasingly complex, and national defense resourcing warrants more than a solitary sentence of discussion."

America's major military adversaries, Russia and China, pay their soldiers, sailors and pilots far less than America pays the members of its own forces, which enables Moscow and Beijing to spend more on weapons and research. In addition, unlike the U.S., Russia and China are not transparent about their defense spending at best, and lie about it at worst, with the former reportedly "cooking its defense books," and the latter publishing nothing about its nuclear weapons program. In addition, while America's adversaries have been increasing their defense budgets and the power of their armed forces, the United States has been doing the opposite. As former US Senator James Talent wrote in 2013:
"...[T]he picture isn't pretty. Congress and the president [Obama] will probably agree to increase defense spending by a small amount, but they will probably also take money away from future defense budgets. This will allow them to say that they have increased defense spending while in reality the wholesale unraveling of American power will continue."
In addition -- according to USAF Maj Gen Garrett Harencak -- during decades of a "procurement holiday," America failed to upgrade its nuclear-deterrent capabilities.

This is the bad news. The good news is:
"For the first time in nearly 35 years, the United States is back on track to modernize its entire nuclear deterrent. After previously approving the building of 12 new Columbia class submarines and a new B-21 nuclear-capable bomber, the United States has selected two contractors to compete to build the next land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) nuclear deterrent. This would be the first new land-based ICBM since the Peacekeeper missile was deployed in 1986 and completes a nuclear modernization effort plan promised by the administration."
Unfortunately, however, the defense budget as it stands is not adequate to support the plan. Although the Senate and House Armed Services Committees passed a bill for 2018 that would exceed President Trump's defense budget request, there is still the problem of the 2011 Budget Control Act, which caps defense spending at an extremely low level. Even with an upward adjustment in 2014-15, the shortfall has remained, and modernization has been curtailed significantly.

The situation is further complicated by the current federal deficit, which approaches $600 billion annually. With infrastructure investment requirements and significant multiple billions now needed for hurricane relief, it is not surprising that much of the accepted narrative is that extra money for the military is impossible under these circumstances.

This conventional wisdom is wrong, however. Historically, tax reform has secured more, not less, revenue for the federal government -- and the current plan would be no different, thus enabling a restoration of military spending. Unfortunately, there remains a widely held assumption that unless tax reform is "revenue-neutral," deficits will increase. The trouble with this assumption is that although revenue-neutral tax reform may make the system more efficient or fair -- as was the aim of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 -- it neither increases government revenue nor generates additional investment in the private sector.

The purpose of the new tax-reform plan is to do both: increase revenue and spur economic growth at the same time. Months before it was proposed, however -- and it has yet to be reviewed thoroughly, debated or passed by Congress -- the Congressional Budget Office already projected an annual revenue increase of $160-$212 billion over the next decade, even with a low 2.1% average economic growth rate. A 3% growth rate created by tax reform would increase revenue by a hefty $350 billion annually. This means that it would be possible to increase defense spending by $60-70 billion per year, an increase of 11% over current spending, which is lower than the 13.2% increase in defense spending that Congress approved in 1997-2000 -- while the country was also undergoing welfare reform, balancing the budget and implementing tax cuts.

To attract sufficient votes in Congress to pass the current bill, defense-spending increases should probably be coupled with additional private and public funding for cyber- and border-security, long-term health care research, and nationwide infrastructure improvement.

It is time that the false notions that America neither needs an increase in defense spending, nor can afford it, are put to rest.

(Image source: U.S. Navy)

Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He was also for 20 years, the senior defense consultant at the National Defense University Foundation.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

From Russia to Hillary: Bribes, Extortion, Uranium and Lies - Daniel Greenfield

by Daniel Greenfield

How an FBI Uranium investigation was corrupted to protect the Clinton’s Russian connection.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

Hillary is demanding to know the truth about Trump and Russia. The truth is that every accusation about Russian ties that Hillary and her associates have hurled at President Trump is really true of the Clintons.

In ’14, Hillary Clinton made headlines by comparing Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Hitler. But if the Russian strongman really was ‘Hitler’, what did that make stooges like Hillary, Bill and Barack Obama?

Five years earlier, Hillary had been posing with a ‘Reset Button” with one of Putin’s henchmen. But Hillary was bringing a lot more to the meeting than a mislabeled button pilfered from a swimming pool. The ‘Reset’ had the same pattern as other Clinton scandal: a shadowy foreign financial pal with an agenda, the Clinton Foundation being used to launder money and a government cover-up.

Officially, the ‘Reset’ was pushing Obama’s nuclear arms reduction plan and a joint effort to address Iran’s nuclear program. But the nuclear materials that truly interested Hillary Clinton weren’t in Russian missiles or in Iranian reactors, but in the ground in Kazakhstan. By the time Hillary showed off the ‘Reset Button’, the Clintons had been enjoying a long relationship with Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining mogul. Giustra had moved tens of millions into Clintonworld and Bill built up his profile in Kazakhstan.

But by ’09, the Clintons had a lot more to trade on than a Senate seat and ex-presidential prestige.

When Secretary of State Clinton unveiled the ‘Reset’, the unspoken truths outnumbered the spoken platitudes. Some of the unspoken truths were obvious. Hillary Clinton and Obama would break with Bush’s criticisms of human rights in Russia. From now on, they would have nothing to say about it.

The man who allegedly agreed to that dirty deal was Michael McFaul who is currently bashing President Trump for being “soft” on Putin.

But the bigger unspoken truth was that Giustra’s company had been bought by Uranium One. And the Russians were sniffing around Kazakhstan. Either the Russians would get Uranium One. Or they would expose the dubious ways that Uranium One had gotten its Kazakhstan mining rights. But if Rosatom, a Russian government corporation, bought into Uranium One, it would need approval from State because such a deal would provide Russia with control over more than 20% of America’s Uranium supply.

Good thing, Uranium One and Putin had a friend in Hillary Clinton. And not just Hillary.
Uranium One and Rosatom didn’t just need the State Department. They also needed the Justice Department to turn a blind eye. And they got that too from Attorney General Eric Holder.

The same year that Hillary brought over her ‘Reset Button’, the FBI was investigating a top Rosatom figure in America for racketeering, extortion, bribery and money laundering. The investigation was supervised by the controversial current Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe who has his own financial ties to the Clintons. The investigation dragged out for five years. Just enough time for the Rosatom deal to be approved. When the charges were brought in ’14, the Russians had gotten it all. And the charges were a whitewash that ignored the most damning accusations. Especially those involving the Clintons.

Holder’s DOJ, like Hillary’s State, signed off on the Rosatom-Uranium One deal despite the ongoing investigation. Holder and his associates at the DOJ kept the investigation under their hats. The trails leading to the Clintons were closed off. And the nails were hammered in hard to keep them closed.

“Victim 1”, the FBI’s confidential witness in the case, was an American businessman who was making payments to a Rosatom figure. He knew firsthand about the Russian efforts to influence Bill and Hillary, and through them, the Obama administration, but wasn’t allowed to talk about it. Instead Obama’s DOJ threatened him with criminal charges if he revealed what he knew. And what he knew included comments by FBI agents about political pressure from the DOJ during the Uranium One-Rosatom approval process.

Meanwhile, during the approval process, Bill Clinton was getting paid $500,000 by a Russian bank with Russian government ties, even as his wife had the power to block a deal by Rosatom. While Clinton and Obama cronies are scurrying around to tie Trump to Russia, their own bosses were giving a Russian state corporation whose branches included the nuclear weapons complex access to our nuclear materials.

And Rosatom is also involved in Iran’s nuclear program. The same program that Clinton and Obama cronies are desperately fighting to save by preserving Obama’s blank check for Iran’s nukes.

Not only did Obama and his people at the DOJ and FBI turn a blind eye to Russian nuclear malfeasance in America, but they covered up evidence tying that malfeasance to the Clintons, and then threatened an informant to protect that cover-up. Democracy really does die in darkness. Just ask the media.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is demanding information from ten federal agencies. And, as usual, the Clinton and Obama loyalists embedded there will obstruct and subvert any effort to learn the truth.

Fast forward to ‘14. The Russians had taken complete control of Uranium One a year earlier. By the end of ’13, the fiction that Uranium One was anything other than Rosatom had ended. And with the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, the Russians no longer needed the Clintons. And so the Reset Button was pushed again. And Hillary’s old sugar daddy was now Hitler.

Charges were finally brought in the Rosatom case. Though these charges carefully avoided the crucial deal period. And Hillary was finally free to denounce Putin now that the money wasn’t coming in.

What a difference a year makes. What a difference a deal makes.

Once Hillary lost the election, her operatives cobbled together the myth that blamed her defeat on a Russian influence operation that had had actually targeted viewpoints across the political spectrum.

But Hillary knew better than anyone how easy it was for the Russians to influence Americans.

The millions flowing to the Clinton Foundation bought not just silence, but complicity. And by corrupting the Clintons, the Russians had also managed to corrupt multiple levels and figures within the government. Including the Justice Department and senior leadership within the FBI.

"The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them," Lenin had once allegedly quipped.

It’s unclear if the capitalists will, but the socialists have certainly proven themselves eager to sell.

Having betrayed American national security in the Rosatom deal, the Clintons and their allies are busy accusing President Trump and his associates of their own crimes. They were the ones who took bribes. They were the ones who subverted the Justice Department to protect their Russian ties. They engaged in obstruction of justice to the extent of threatening a witness with criminal charges if he spoke out.

And they did it while nuking American national security in order to satisfy their own shameless greed.

Daniel Greenfield


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The New Big Palestinian Lie - Bassam Tawil

by Bassam Tawil

For the past two and a half years, these leaders have been accusing Israel and Jews of seeking to turn the Israeli-Arab conflict into a religious one.

  • It is precisely the inflammatory speech of Abbas and his senior officials, expressed at every possible podium, which has been trying to turn the conflict into a religious one.
  • If any side has turned the conflict into a religious one, it is the Palestinian side, which has long depicted Jews as sons of monkeys and pigs, enemies of Allah, and killers of prophets. When Abbas and other Palestinians accuse Jews on a daily basis of "storming" and "desecrating" the Al-Aqsa Mosque, they are firing the first shots in their religious war against Israel and Jews.
  • By turning the conflict into a religious one, the Palestinians are hoping to avoid any discussion about important issues such as security, borders, the status of Jerusalem, anti-Israel incitement and assaults on public freedoms under the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. Palestinian leaders do not feel comfortable discussing any of these issues; that is why they prefer to make the debate appear as if it is about religious issues.
Despite vocal and self-righteous claims to the contrary, Palestinian leaders continue to incite their people and the rest of the Arab and Muslim world against Israel and Jews. For the past two and a half years, these leaders have been accusing Israel and Jews of seeking to turn the Israeli-Arab conflict into a religious one. The accusation refers specifically to visits by Jews to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The truth, however, is just the opposite: it is the Palestinians that have been aiming at every turn to transform the political and territorial conflict into a religious one.

By turning the conflict into a religious one, the Palestinians are hoping to avoid any discussion about important issues such as security, borders, the status of Jerusalem, anti-Israel incitement and assaults on public freedoms under the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas. Palestinian leaders do not feel comfortable discussing any of these issues; that is why they prefer to make the debate appear as if it is about religious issues.

Palestinian leaders are also hoping that the entire Islamic world will rally against Israel once they are told that Islamic holy sites are allegedly being targeted and desecrated by Jews.

The Palestinian Authority is toe-to-toe with Hamas in this unceasing incitement. The two rival Palestinian parties may disagree about almost everything, but when it comes to libeling Israel and Jews, they have no differences.

Jewish tours of the Temple Mount in the past two and a half years, contrary to Palestinian claims, have not affected the "status quo" or existing state of affairs at the holy site whatsoever. The Islamic holy sites, Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, have not been "defiled" or "destroyed" as the result of the presence of Jews at the Temple Mount. More significantly, Muslims' access to their holy sites on the Temple Mount remains unchanged. Every day, thousands of Muslim worshippers converge on the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock to perform prayers. On Fridays, the number of Muslim worshippers is sometimes estimated at tens of thousands.

Jewish visits to the Temple Mount are restricted to the early hours of the morning. Jewish visitors, in fact, are even banned from praying at the Temple Mount. The current regulations on the Temple Mount explicitly forbids praying by Jews, and the police have banned Jews from carrying any articles that might lead a Jew to pray. Jews who visited the Temple Mount during the recent autumn harvest holiday of Sukkot were forbidden from bringing the "Four Species" -- the citrus, myrtle, willow and palm frond -- that are mandated by the Torah to be used as part of the services on each of the seven days of the holiday.

These restrictions, however, have not stopped the Palestinians from pursuing their campaign of incitement against Israel and Jews. At the core of this campaign is the false and libelous claim that Israel is seeking to destroy the Islamic holy sites and rebuild the Third Temple on their ruins. They supplement this fabricated and malicious charge with the unholy statement that the Jews are "defiling with their filthy feet" the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

Notably, it is the same excuse that Osama bin Laden used against the United States when he said that Americans were "defiling" Saudi Arabia simply by walking on the ground there.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's famous statements from September 2015 continue to reverberate:
"The Al-Aqsa Mosque is ours, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is ours, and they (Jews) have no right to defile them with their filthy feet. We will not allow them to, and we will do everything in our power to protect Jerusalem. We bless every drop of blood that has been spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah, Allah willing."
Shortly after Abbas made that announcement – an echo of the same false charge issued in 1941 by the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini not only to expel Jews from the land but to murder them, and that has been dusted off and used ever since -- the Palestinians launched what has become known as the "Knife Intifada," a wave of terror attacks that has so far resulted in the murder of more than 40 Israelis.

Abbas has never retracted his blood libel, or even tried to educate his people for peace. Instead, exactly as the Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini did, Abbas has doubled down on inciting his people against Israel and Jews while using Jewish visits to the Temple Mount as a pretext.

The blood of Israeli, Christian and Palestinian victims is on his hands – including many Muslim terrorists who were inspired and driven to their deaths by his deliberately subversive rhetoric.

It is precisely the inflammatory speech of Abbas and his senior officials, expressed at every possible podium, which has been trying to turn the conflict into a religious one.

The latest example occurred this week, when one of Abbas's top associates, Fatah leader Azzam Al-Ahmed, repeated the tired old claim that Israel's actions were threatening to turn the conflict into a religious one. Al-Ahmed told parliamentarians from around the world, with his tongue in his cheek: "We won't allow the conflict with Israel to turn into a religious conflict, as right-wing extremist Israeli groups are trying to do against Islamic and Christian holy sites under the protection of the occupation forces."

Al-Ahmed's statement is part of a Palestinian propaganda campaign designed to frame Israel and Jews and depict them as being responsible for triggering a religious war against Muslims and Christians. These libels advance anti-Semitism and provide ammunition to Israel- and Jew-haters worldwide. It is also the kind of rhetoric that drives many Palestinians to grab a knife and set out to kill the first Jew they meet.

The Palestinians are seeking to turn the conflict into a religious one as part of a strategy to rally as many Muslims and Christians as possible against Israel and Jews. By talking endlessly about a religious conflict, the Palestinians are actually revealing their true desire. They seek a religious conflict because such an incendiary situation distracts attention from the morass of problems at home, particularly the failure of Palestinian leaders to provide a better living for their people and to end corruption and bad government.

Palestinian leaders, from both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, are redirecting the conflict to the topic of religion the better to promote the blood libel that Jews are evil and supposedly even "killed some of the prophets" as is claimed in the Koran:
And [recall] when you said, "O Moses, we can never endure one [kind of] food. So call upon your Lord to bring forth for us from the earth its green herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions." [Moses] said, "Would you exchange what is better for what is less? Go into [any] settlement and indeed, you will have what you have asked." And they were covered with humiliation and poverty and returned with anger from Allah [upon them.] That was because they [repeatedly] disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right. (Koran 2:61-62)
If any side has turned the conflict into a religious one, it is the Palestinian side, which has long depicted Jews as sons of monkeys and pigs, enemies of Allah and killers of prophets. When Abbas and other Palestinians accuse Jews on a daily basis of "storming" and "desecrating" the Al-Aqsa Mosque, they are firing the first shots in their religious war against Israel and Jews. In their charge that Israel is conducting excavation work beneath the Temple Mount in order to bring about the collapse of the Islamic holy sites, no one but they are fanning the flames of religious war. Finally, the stalwart Palestinian denial of any Jewish link to the Temple Mount, where the Jews say that their first and second Temples once stood, is a clear declaration of what they hope will be received as a religious war on Israel and Jews.

Bassam Tawil is a Muslim based in the Middle East.


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Hamas sets sights on PLO - Prof. Eyal Zisser

by Prof. Eyal Zisser

Former Hamas leader Mashaal wants to follow in the footsteps of Yasser Arafat, who took control of the Palestine Liberation Organization as an outsider.

Reports, according to which the Palestinian reconciliation accord between rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah will pave the way for Hamas joining the Palestine Liberation Organization and at a later stage even allow it and its former leader, Khaled Mashaal, to seize the leadership crown, are not surprising and could even explain Hamas' sudden willingness to first reach a deal with the Palestinian Authority; all while conceding, even if only symbolically, its government in the Gaza Strip.

It is important to remember that after Hamas' hostile takeover of Gaza in June 2007, it became the sovereign power in the coastal enclave and therefore responsible for the well-being of its 2 million residents, but that did not give it inter-Palestinian and international legitimacy, nor the gravitas it needed to transform from a terrorist group with a political arm into an entity that garners global recognition as the representative leader of the Palestinians.

At the end of the day, even former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat during his time took the PLO leadership by force. His first steps, incidentally, were with the Fatah organization, which he co-founded in January 1965, in Damascus under Syrian patronage. Fatah was meant to serve as a counterweight to the rival PLO, the more senior organization, which came into existence under Egyptian patronage. Arafat, however, was relegated to the sidelines in the Palestinian arena. It was only after the 1967 Six-Day War that he exploited the resounding defeat of Israel's Arab armies to join the PLO as the leader of Fatah, which he eventually came to control.

Mashaal, therefore, wants to follow in Arafat's footsteps – a necessary maneuver for a man who aspires to lead the Palestinian national movement, particularly after realizing that military might and even a hostile takeover of one territory or another will not grant him the legitimacy he craves.

It is hard to believe that Fatah will willingly hand over the keys to leadership and it is also safe to assume that Egypt does not want to see Hamas grow stronger. But quasi-democratic developments such as these have their own dynamics. In 2006, Israel was persuaded by Washington to allow Hamas to run in the general Palestinian elections, thinking the Islamist group had no chance of winning. But Hamas won those elections. We can assume Mashaal will now look to repeat that political ploy by joining the PLO and vying for its leadership.

Prof. Eyal Zisser


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

London rejects anti-Israel ad campaign - Tal Polon

by Tal Polon

Ahead of Balfour Declaration centennial, British officials don't take kindly to efforts painting the Declaration as a 'crime.'

BDS - Anti-Israel protest in London
BDS - Anti-Israel protest in London
As the centennial of the Balfour Declaration approaches, British officials continue to exhibit zero tolerance for the intensifying campaign of anti-Israel Arab forces against the Declaration, the "crime" that led to "the sowing of a Zionist entity that steals and invades," as those forces put it.

The November 2, 1917, Balfour Declaration was sent by then-British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour and proclaimed Britain’s support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in British-Mandate Palestine.

In recent months, the PLO has headed a campaign in an attempt to force Great Britain to apologize for the Balfour Declaration. The organization has gone so far as to threaten to sue Britain over the document.

The British government in April rejected the demand to apologize for the Declaration, saying, “The Balfour Declaration is an historic statement for which HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) does not intend to apologize. We are proud of our role in creating the State of Israel. The task now is to encourage moves towards peace.”

The Guardian reported that, in the latest efforts against the Declaration, PA representatives in London sought to hang in the London underground and on buses a series of “before and after” posters juxtaposing the presumed idyllic life of Palestinian Arabs before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 with their low quality of life afterward.

The posters also cited a seemingly ironic phrase from the Balfour Declaration, whereby “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

However, the London municipality’s transportation branch (TfL) rejected the campaign, stating that it “did not comply fully with our guidelines,” which ban “images or messages which relate to matters of public controversy or sensitivity” and are “party political.”

While TfL will often allow advertisers to amend questionable aspects of their campaigns, in this case the campaign was rejected without such consultation.

In response to the decision, the PA ambassador to the UK Manuel Hassassian said on Tuesday that “Palestinian history” was being “censored.”

“Palestinian history is a censored history. There has been a 100-year-long cover-up of the British government’s broken promise, in the Balfour declaration, to safeguard the rights of the Palestinians when it gave away their country to another people. TfL’s decision is not surprising as it is, at best, susceptible to or, at worst, complicit with, all the institutional forces and active lobby groups which continuously work to silence the Palestinian narrative. There may be free speech in Britain on every issue under the sun but not on Palestine.”

According to The Guardian, TfL and the British Foreign Office denied they had discussed the advertising campaign, and the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, was not involved in the decision.

Tal Polon


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

The Opportunities and Risks of Trump's Iran Initiative - Caroline Glick

by Caroline Glick

Trump lays the groundwork for a real strategy against Iran to begin.

Originally published the Jerusalem Post

On Friday, US President Donald Trump initiated an important change in US policy toward Iran.

No, in his speech decertifying Iran’s compliance with the nuclear accord it struck with his predecessor Barack Obama, Trump didn’t announce a new strategy for preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or stemming its hegemonic rise in the Middle East, or limiting its ability to sponsor terrorism.

Trump’s move was not operational. It was directional.

In his address Friday, Trump changed the policy dynamics that dictate US policy on Iran. For the first time since 2009, when Obama backed the murderous regime in Tehran, spurning the millions of Iranians who rose up in the Green Revolution, Trump opened up the possibility that the US may begin to base its policies toward Iran on reality.

Trump began his remarks by setting out Iran’s long rap sheet of aggression against America.

Starting with the US embassy seizure and hostage crisis, Trump described Iran’s crimes and acts of war against America in greater detail than any of his predecessors ever did.

Trump’s dossier was interlaced with condemnations of the regime’s repression of its own people.

By merging Iran’s external aggression with its internal repression, Trump signaled a readiness to drive a wedge – or expand the wedge – between the authoritarian theocrats that rule Iran and the largely secular, multiethnic and pro-Western people of Iran.

Trump then turned his attention to Iran’s illicit ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of terrorism, including its links to al-Qaida, its aggression against its neighbors, its aggressive acts against maritime traffic in the Straits of Hormuz, and its bids to destabilize and control large swaths of the Middle East through its proxies.

It is notable that these remarks preceded Trump’s discussion of the nuclear deal – which was the ostensible subject of his speech. Before Trump discussed Iran’s breaches of the nuclear deal, he first demonstrated that contrary to the expressed views of his top advisers, it is impossible to limit a realistic discussion of the threat Iran constitutes to US national security and interests to whether or not and it what manner it is breaching the nuclear accord.

This was a critical point because for the past two years, US discourse on Iran has focused solely on whether or not Iran was complying with Obama’s nuclear pact. By placing the nuclear deal in the context of Iran’s consistent, overarching hostility and aggression, Trump made it self-evident that no US interest is served in continuing to give Iran a free pass from congressional sanctions.

After accomplishing that goal, Trump turned his attention to how Iran is actually breaching the letter and spirit of the nuclear pact. Only then, almost as an afterthought, did he announce that he was decertifying Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal, setting the conditions for the renewal of congressional sanctions on Iran and opening the floodgates of congressional sanctions on Iran in retaliation for the full spectrum of its aggressive and illicit acts against the US, its interests and allies.

By empowering Congress to prohibit economic cooperation with Iran, Trump put the Europeans, Chinese and Russians on notice that they may soon face a choice between conducting business with the US and conducting business with Iran.

After putting them on notice, Trump discussed the possibility of improving Obama’s nuclear accord. Among other things, he suggested expanding the inspection regime against Iran’s nuclear installations and canceling the so-called “sunset” clause that places an end date on the restrictions governing certain components of Iran’s nuclear advancement.

Trump’s address has the potential to serve as the foundation of a major, positive shift in US policy toward Iran. Such a shift could potentially facilitate the achievement of Trump’s goals of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, containing its regional aggression and empowerment and defeating its terrorist proxies.

Unfortunately, it is also likely, indeed, it is more likely, that his words will not be translated into policies to achieve these critical aims.

Trump’s decision to transfer immediate responsibility to Congress for holding Iran accountable for its hostile actions on the military and other fronts is a risky move. He has a lot of enemies, and the nuclear deal has a lot of supporters on Capitol Hill.

Obama would have never been able to implement his nuclear deal if Senator Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, hadn’t agreed to cast the Constitution aside and ignore Obama’s constitutional duty to present the nuclear deal to the Senate for ratification as a treaty.

Over the past week, Trump and Corker have been involved in an ugly public fight precipitated by Corker’s announcement that he will not be seeking reelection next year.

Today Corker has nothing to restrain him from scuttling Trump’s agenda. If he wishes, out of spite, Corker can block effective sanctions from being passed. And he may do so even though the implications for his Senate colleagues would be dire and even though doing so would render him an unofficial protector of Iran’s nuclear program.

What is true for Corker is doubly true for the Democrats.

Leading Democratic senators like Robert Menendez, Ben Cardin and Chuck Schumer, who opposed Obama’s Iran deal may now feel that as opponents of the Trump administration, they are required to oppose any change to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.

Indeed, given the rise of radical forces in their party it is likely that they would rather give Iran a free pass for its anti-American aggression and nuclear proliferation than work with Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

Then again, by framing the issue of Iran’s threat to America as he did, and by transferring responsibility for reinstating sanctions and passing further sanctions on Iran to Congress, Trump opened up the possibility that Congress will conduct substantive – rather than personal – debates on Iran.

And the more substantive those debates become, the further away the US discourse will move from the mendacious assumptions of Obama’s Iran policy – that the Iranian regime is a responsible actor and potential US ally, and that there is nothing inherently aggressive or problematic about Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program.

The second major risk inherent in Trump’s approach is that he will get his way; that the Europeans, Russians and Chinese and the Iranians will agree to improve the nuclear deal. The problem here is not obvious. Clearly, it is better if the deal is amended to delete the sunset clauses and expand the inspections regime.

Yet even an amended, improved deal will still serve as a shield to Iran’s nuclear program. An improved deal won’t destroy Iran’s centrifuges.

It won’t take away Iran’s enriched uranium. It won’t destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. And it won’t bring down the regime which by its nature ensures all of these things will remain a menace to the US, its allies and international security as a whole.

So long as the US continues to maintain a policy based on the false view that all that is necessary to destroy the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a combination of the nuclear deal and economic sanctions, it will continue to ensure that Iran and its nuclear program remain a major threat. Distressingly, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, the most outspoken supporter of decertifying Iranian compliance in the Trump administration, told NBC on Sunday that the US intends to remain in the nuclear deal.

To understand what must be done we must return to Trump’s speech and its strategic significance.

By taking a holistic view of the Iranian threat – grounded in a recognition of the inherent hostility of the regime – Trump opened up the possibility that the US and its allies can develop a holistic policy for confronting and defeating Iran and its proxies. If the Iran deal and sanctions are two components to a larger strategy rather than the entire strategy, they can be helpful.

A wider strategy would target Iran’s regional aggression by weakening its proxies and clients from Hezbollah and Hamas to the regimes in Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. It would target the regime itself by empowering the ayatollahs’ domestic opponents. It would pin down Iranian forces by arming and otherwise assisting the Iraqi Kurds to defend and maintain their control over their territory along the Iranian border while strengthening the ties between Iranian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds.

Friday, Trump created the possibility for such a strategy. It is up to members of Congress, and US allies like Israel and the Sunni Arab states to help Trump conceive and implement it. If they fail, the possibility Trump created will be lost, perhaps irrevocably.

Caroline Glick


Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.