2008 Security Pact Between Iran and Turkey Should Call Into Question Turkey’s NATO Membership

A security pact signed in 2008 between Turkey and Iran should call into question Turkey’s membership in NATO.

Given that most of NATO’s members have some level of sanctions imposed on Iran and given that Iran has attacked US and NATO forces indirectly through proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is simply no excuse for a NATO member having a security agreement with the world’s foremost sponsor of Jihadist terrorism.

This should not be tolerated. Turkey must be forced to choose between NATO and Iran.

It is by no means certain which side Turkey is on. After all, Turkey refused to allow the US Army’s 4th Mechanized Infantry Division to travel through its territory during Operation Iraqi Freedom, greatly complicating US strategy and probably allowing the insurgency to flourish faster and more than it should have in the wake of the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein…

Security agreement between Iran and Turkey


Columbia University: Dining With a Monster

In what can only be described as a vile, disgusting repeat of an unpatriotic publicity stunt, the overrated, true morons at Columbia University will once again dine with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A similar shameful stunt was pulled in 2007 when the Iranian thug came to the United States.

Columbia must be so proud, especially given the fact that Iran has been shown to be complicit in the terrorist attack on New York ten years ago, where nearly 3,000 decent, innocent New Yorkers lost their lives.

This tarnishes what was once a proud academic institution, but which has sunk into the depths of irrelevance in recent years…



Wishful Thinking on Nuclear Iran from Soros Stooge Matthew Duss in Foreign Policy Magazine


A political alliance between the Libertarian/Neo-Isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the hard Left of the Democrat Party is attempting to prepare America for a nuclear Iran with what can only be described as a snow job.

The meme from these strange bedfellows maintains that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons is no big deal, not any different, but of a lower magnitude, than the Soviet nuclear threat of the Cold War.

In an article published this week in Foreign Policy magazine, Matthew Duss, who works for the Soros-funded, radical Leftist Center for American Progress, tries to articulate this flawed position. But there are key flaws in Duss’s argument.

Duss scoffs at assertions by Newt Gingrich and others that Iran might be willing to sacrifice large numbers of Iranians in a nuclear exchange. In so doing he ignores two important pieces of evidence that contradict his position:

• Iranian leaders themselves have stated outright that in a war with Israel, Iran could absorb a large number of casualties–a number that would virtually wipe out Israel.

• During the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians sent large numbers of young boys into minefields and ahead of combat formations to clear the way as cannon fodder.

So, despite what Duss may falsely declare, the Iranians do indeed have an extensive, recent history of using martyrdom to fight their enemies.

Duss also points to episodes in which President Ahmadinejad was–or was rumored to have been–rebuked by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or other clerics. But what Duss fails to explain is that Ahmadinejad essentially serves as the pleasure of Khamenei. If Khamenei did not want Ahmadinejad  to be president of Iran, he wouldn’t be. So, dismissing Ahmadinejad’s ranting about state martyrdom and the return of the Mahdi is in fact reckless. The inescapable conclusion is that Khamenei must have some level of approval of Ahmadinejad’s philosophy.

As Iran gets closer to achieving nuclear power status, we can expect 5th columnists and useful idiots, such as Matthew Duss, to generate these smoke screens to try to convince us that Iran is nothing to worry about. It is very important that Americans realize that these smoke screens are terribly misguided and harmful.


‘Ambassador of Death’ unleashed

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Sunday inaugurated the country’s first domestically built unmanned bomber aircraft, calling it an “ambassador of death” to Iran’s enemies.

The 4-meter-long drone aircraft can carry up to four cruise missiles and will have a range of 620 miles (1,000 kilometers), according to a state TV report — not far enough to reach archenemy Israel.

“The jet, as well as being an ambassador of death for the enemies of humanity, has a main message of peace and friendship,” said Ahmadinejad at the inauguration ceremony, which fell on the country’s national day for its defense industries.


5 Reasons Why Meeting with Ahmadinejad is a Stupid Idea–even for Obama

Obama and Ahmadinejad

A report has surfaced in the British press indicating that President Barack Obama is set to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Increasingly, the British press is playing the role of watchdog when it comes to the Obama administration since US “journolists” have become essentially messengers for the regime.)

In this case, as Obama promised in his presidential campaign, he is reportedly set to meet directly with the Iranian president. Readers may recall that during the campaign Obama spun this idea by claiming that he was “not afraid” to meet with Ahmadinejad.

This is a foolish concept.

Meeting with Ahmadinejad is a mistake on several levels:

1. Meeting with Ahmadinejad represents a poor risk/reward ratio. It is highly unlikely that anything positive will come out of such a meeting, since Iran has been lying about its nuclear intentions all along. On the other had, the Persians invented chess. The Iranians would no doubt dangle carrots in front of Obama, who, like Pavlov’s dog, would salivate at the thought of reaching a grand bargain with Iran. This would buy the Iranians time–and time is really all they need at this point to finish enriching enough uranium (in violation of an international treaty and in defiance of UN resolutions) to arm bombs.

2. Meeting with Ahmadinejad makes no sense from a practical political standpoint. The President of Iran has no authority over foreign affairs or national security. He is essentially the “mayor of the country,” responsible for domestic issues. The final authority over matters involving foreign affairs and national security lies with the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a ruthless man who took over from the infamous Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini at the time of his death in 1989. In fact, all the real power in Iran is in the hands of Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad serves at the pleasure of the Supreme Ayatollah. The Supreme Ayatollah has to approve the candidates for president in the first place and, rest assured, no one opposed to Khamenei will ever get the opportunity to run, much less serve. You can also rest assured that, if Khamenei decided tomorrow morning that he didn’t like Ahmadinejad any more, Ahmadinejad would be on his way out very quickly, one way or another. In other words, Obama, the president of the most powerful nation in the world and the leader of the free world, is set to meet with a deputy, an underling, from a third-rate, rogue power. This will accomplish nothing, except to win more support for Iran in the Islamic world, where that support is not absolutely a sure thing.

3. Meeting with Ahmadinejad is an insult to victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks and their surviving families. On multiple occasions in the past, Ahmadinejad has suggested that the attacks were an “inside job,” the work of the US government, or Israel. He has also said that the casualty toll was exaggerated and that no Jews were killed in the attacks because they were warned ahead of time not to go to work that morning. What good will meeting with such an irrational individual do for the security of the United States?

4. Meeting with Ahmadinejad is an insult to victims of the Holocaust and their surviving families, as well as all veterans of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. On multiple occasions, Ahmadinejad has denied that the Holocaust occurred, or claimed that it was exaggerated. He has even hosted conferences and cartoon contests on this subject. Obama may as well have a beer with David Duke if he is going to meet with Ahmadinejad.

5. Meeting with Ahmadinejad is an insult to US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen who have served in the War on Terror, particularly in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Iran has provided training, arms and safe haven for insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Keep these five factors in mind when and if Obama decides it’s a good idea to meet with Ahmadinejad.


Ahmadinejad: Iran building three-stage rocket

“The country’s scientists are working on a three-stage rocket that will take us to 1,000 kilometres,” according to Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian president said the rocket’s engines would have a thrust of between 120 and 140 tonnes, or four times higher than the rocket used to launch Iran’s first satellite into space in February 2009.

“Last time, we sent a satellite to 250 kilometres … Next year it will be sent to 700 kilometres, and the year after that to 1,000 kilometres,” he said.

This is obviously very worrying, since the technology involved in multiple stage rocketry to put a satellite in orbit is little different from that required to send a warhead over intercontinental distances. Couple this development with Iran’s uranium enrichment program, and we have a gathering storm…


Tea Party endorses Israel’s right to attack Iran

Almost two dozen Tea Party-affiliated lawmakers cosponsored a new resolution late last week that expresses their support for Israel “to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force.”

The lead sponsor of the resolution was Texas Republican Louie Gohmert, one of four congressmen to announce the formation of the 44-member Tea Party caucus at a press conference on July 21. The other three Tea Party Caucus leaders, Michele Bachmann, R-MN, Steve King, R-IA, and John Culberson, R-TX, are also sponsors of the resolution. In total, 21 Tea Party Caucus members have signed on, according to the latest list of caucus members put out by Bachmann’s office.

The resolution cites threats by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to “annihilate” the state of Israel, endorses other means to persuade Iran to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and states the lawmakers’ support for an Israeli military strike “if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time.”

“Members of the Tea Party caucus can and do speak for themselves,” said Gohmert in an emailed statement, “but most if not all members have strong beliefs that we should not turn on our backs on our best friends and reward those bent on our destruction. This resolution was borne out of concern for the threat, not merely to Israel, but also to the United States.”


Iran postponed nuclear talks for two months

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday that Iran will penalize world powers by freezing nuclear talks for two months, as he laid down several conditions for resuming the negotiations.

The hardliner said Iran wanted more countries to be involved in talks over its nuclear program, and added world powers must clarify Israel’s status of nuclear arsenal and what exactly they sought from the discussions.


Stop threats for nuke deal: Ahmadinejad

Iran is ready to strike a uranium enrichment deal if the United States and the West respect the Islamic Republic and stop making threats, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says.