Tulsi Gabbard’s Dangerous Shilling for the Ayatollahs

by Christopher W. Holton

Tulsi Gabbard, one of the minor candidates from the 20-strong field of Democrat presidential hopefuls, has been getting a considerable amount of attention due to Hillary Clinton’s deranged allegations that she is a “Russian asset.”

While it is true that Kremlin-backed web sites have published numerous articles about Gabbard, no sober person really believes she is a “Russian asset.” In my opinion the Russians like her because of her positions on U.S. national security, which, if they ever became policy, would essentially open great opportunities for Vladimir Putin to assert Russian influence in the world at America’s expense.

What warrants much more scrutiny are Gabbard’s bizarre, dangerous views on Iran. Her public statements on Iran almost amount to shilling for the Ayatollahs. She clearly admires Iran and she takes a “blame America first” position on relations between Iran and the U.S.

Her expressed knowledge of Iran-U.S. history is superficial at best.

Gabbard: The Ayatollahs’ Favorite Candidate

Her pro-Iran stance, combined with her anti-Semitic support for anti-BDS legislation directed at Israel put her far outside the mainstream of U.S. politics.

It’s not necessarily a bad thing to be outside the mainstream of U.S. politics, but when a politician’s views are so clearly supportive of a sworn enemy of our country, those views merit scrutiny–which is what I aim to do here.

Gabbard makes her views on Iran a feature of her stance on the issues. On her campaign web site she dedicates a page to Iran.

It’s too bad that so much of what she says there just isn’t true.

She starts off by saying she is “against war with Iran.” This is a thinly veiled accusation, frequently made by the Left, against always unnamed people who are supposedly calling for war with Iran. The problem is, no one ever produces evidence of anyone in US policymaking circles calling for going to war with Iran.

What Gabbard is doing here is using scare tactics: “Vote for me because I am against war with Iran, unlike others, who are for war with Iran.”

It’s just flat dishonest.

Another claim that Gabbard makes is that war with Iran would strengthen Al Qaeda. There is just as much evidence that going to war with Iran would weaken Al Qaeda as there is evidence that it would strengthen Iran.

After all, Iran has provided Al Qaeda with safe haven and, according to a verdict in U.S. federal court, Iran provided Al Qaeda with support for the September 11 attacks. Beyond that, Iran has a decades-long history of relations with Al Qaeda.

What Gabbard implies by saying war with Iran would strengthen Al Qaeda is that Iran is an enemy of Al Qaeda. That is not true and it never has been.

Gabbard is either ignorant or dishonest on this point.

Gabbard supported the flawed, fraudulent Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA). The JCPOA actually granted Iran a clear path to nuclear weapons, was largely unverifiable and failed to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, and sponsorship of terrorism.

To this day, Gabbard calls for the U.S. to re-enter that deal which Iran has violated and which overtly clears the way for Iran to have nuclear weapons in the future.

This is part of the false choice that Gabbard and those of her ilk deceive the American people into believing they have to make: That false choice is between war with Iran and accepting the flawed JCPOA.

Americans must not buy into such radical Leftist disinformation. It is possible to use American power to deter Iran and bolster our allies in the region. Showing weakness to a regime like that in Tehran encourages aggression. Responding with strength reduces the chances of war. The free world doesn’t have to accept genocidal Ayatollahs armed with nuclear weapons.

Why is Gabbard promoting this false choice?

Gabbard makes an outrageously oversimplified statement about Iran on her web site that shows, at best, a superficial understanding of our history with Iran.

  • “The history of the United States relationship with Iran is rooted in, and defined by, a decades-long policy of regime change, which began with the CIA-led overthrow of democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq in 1953 in order to keep U.S.-backed Mohammad Reza Shah in power. This ultimately sparked the 1979 Islamic Revolution which grew from strong opposition to years of U.S. interventionist policies in Iran and throughout the region. As Iran’s new anti-U.S. government took power, our threats of intervention grew and Iran started its nuclear program as a direct response to defend against the possibility of another U.S.-led intervention and regime change plot.”

In 1953 the CIA did in fact engineer the overthrow of Mossadeq because he was a Soviet-backed communist. But it is not true that this led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Mossadeq was not an Islamist and the Islamists were not destined to have a role in his regime. The Islamists sought to seize power decades later on their own terms–not to install the regime that Mossadeq would have installed. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Make no mistake, the 1979 Islamic Revolution was carried out to establish an Islamic state ruled by sharia. Period. From the start the Ayatollahs were hostile to the U.S. and violated international law in invading our embassy in Tehran and taking diplomatic personnel hostage.

Iran went on to become the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism. Successive Democrat and Republican administrations have agreed on this. Not only do the Iranians sponsor Hezbollah, an organization responsible for killing hundred of Americans, they sponsor HAMAS, a Sunni jihadist organization bent on replacing Israel with an Islamic state ruled by sharia. As mentioned previously, Iran has also helped Al Qaeda.

Gabbard: Blaming America First

Claiming that the Iranians started their nuclear program as a result fear of U.S. intervention is false and ignores the article in the Iranian constitution that requires that the Iranians export the Islamic revolution worldwide.

In other words, the Iranians have a stated, constitutional policy of intervention.

Rather than intervening in Iran as Gabbard claims in “Blame America First” fashion, the U.S. has in fact shown incredible restraint in dealing with Iran. Consider some of the atrocities committed by Iran over the years.

Here is a partial list of what the Ayatollahs have done over the past 40 years:

So, while Tulsi Gabbard portrays the Ayatollahs as victims, the fact is they are perpetrators.

Tulsi Gabbard’s statements on Iran are inaccurate at best, and could be classified as outright dishonesty.

Preventing the Ayatollahs from obtaining nuclear weapons is the most urgent national security imperative today. Should the ayatollahs become armed with nuclear weapons, future generations will ask of us: “How did they ever let it happen?”

If Tulsi Gabbard gets elected president, the answer will be obvious.

The best way to deal with an aggressive opponent is from a position of strength. This does not mean that the U.S. should march irretrievably toward war with Iran. In dealing with Iran, history has shown that weakness emboldens them. In other words, weakness increases the likelihood of war and, doubtless, the Ayatollahs would like nothing more than to see Tulsi Gabbard as president of the United States.

 

 

Bill Clinton Let Iran Get Away With Murder

Former U.S. first lady Hillary Clinton (L) looks at her husband, President Bill Clinton, immediately following his address to the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC in this February 4, 1999 file photo. U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in her soon to be published book "Living History," said that when Bill Clinton told her of the relationship with Monica Lewinsky, "I could hardly breathe. Gulping for air, I started crying and yelling at him."    REUTERS/Win McNamee/File

This comes as no surprise. Former FBI director Louis Freeh all but said as much.

President Bill Clinton knew that Iran and Hezbollah were behind the Islamikaze bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 American servicemen were killed.

He, of course, did absolutely NOTHING about it.

Jihad metastasized on Bill Clinton’s watch while he philandered his way through 8 long years of disgrace. He is the phoniest person in the history of presidential politics. There is literally nothing authentic or genuine about this lowlife…

Former US president Bill Clinton’s administration had enough evidence of Iran’s sponsorship of a deadly terror attack in Saudi Arabia to prompt a communique to the Iranian president, but kept the information under wraps to avoid demands for a more forceful response…

http://www.timesofisrael.com/bill-clinton-knew-iran-was-behind-khobar-attack-cable-shows/

 

 

Two Important Articles from Dr. Andrew Bostom

Few, if any, Americans have a more sober and complete understanding of Islamic doctrine, particularly Shariah and Jihad, than Dr. Andrew Bostom.

Two days ago, he penned two very important and educational articles on the threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran and the willful blindness and denial Westerners and Americans in particular have when it comes to that threat. It is just this willful blindness and denial that has allowed us to sit back and watch for 20+ years as Iran builds nuclear infrastructure and ballistic missiles, all while sponsoring Jihadist terrorism directed at us…

Everyone should read these two articles…

http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/03/15/iran-denial-left-and-right-illustrated-simply-and-clearly/

http://pjmedia.com/blog/educating-conservatives-about-modern-shiite-quietists/?singlepage=true

 

 

 

The Democrats’ Broken Record on Iran

Over on Investor’s Business Daily, Michael Barone reports that Stratfor analyst Robert Kaplan has suggested that Obama is trying to forge some alliance of sorts with Iran.

As implausible as this might seem, Kaplan evidently makes a case for it and it certainly wouldn’t be the first move by Obama that defies all logic and appears to work directly against US interests and those of our allies:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/021014-689504-obama-shifting-mideast-alliance-to-iran.htm?p=full

The apparent basis for Obama’s obsequiousness toward Iran, a country that has sponsored Hezbollah in its campaigns of murder of US citizens and even cooperated with Al Qaeda (YES, Al Qaeda: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/223992/iranian-entanglements/christopher-w-holton)–not to mention Iran’s involvement in supporting insurgents battling US GIs in Iraq and Afghanistan–is the newly fashionable mythology that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani is at long-last the “moderate” Iranian leader that we have all been waiting for.

The basic flaw in this thinking is that the President of Iran has no real authority over foreign policy and national security issues and policy. That authority resides only with the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Despite the absurdity of the theory that Rouhani will make a real difference in US-Iranian relations, history suggests that it should not come as a real surprise that Team Obama is championing him. Democrats in office have held out this theory for decades. (Not that Republicans should get a free pass, since they too have sat idly by as Iran built up its nuclear infrastructure.)

The first known example of damaging Democratic naivete came, of course, during the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter. Carter’s UN ambassador, Andrew Young, declared that Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was akin to an Islamic “saint.” National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski considered Khomeini someone America could work with to oppose the Soviets. Young’s saint proceeded to seize political power despite public pledges not to do so and ordered the slaughter of thousands of opponents. He then dragged Iran back centuries with the imposition of Shariah law and began exporting the Islamic revolution through terrorism.

The next nauseating episode of Democratic gullibility when it came to Iran involved Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who served in several capacities in the Mullahs’ hierarchy in Iran, including Speaker of the Majles, a sort of parliament, and president of Iran from 1989-1997. Rafsanjani is one of the wealthiest men in Iran, his family having earned its fortune in the farming of pistachio nuts. The Clinton administration went to far as to ease sanctions on pistachio nut imports from Iran to the US under the misguided expectation that such a move would win favor with Rafsanjani, who many in the Clinton administration considered a “pragmatist.”

The rest is, as they say, history. Clinton’s pragmatist was evidently the Ayatollah in direct charge of kicking off Iran’s nuclear program to begin with.

In a 2001 speech, Rafsanjani had this to say about nuclear weapons and the conflict with Israel:

“If one day the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel’s possession – on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.”

This was not Rafsanjani’s first statement on nuclear weapons. Before he became president of Iran and long before Bill Clinton’s team came along to declare him a pragmatist, Rafsanjani was making worrying statements about Iran and nuclear weapons.  In a broadcast over Tehran radio in October 1988, when he was speaker of the Iranian Majlis, Ayatollah Rafsanjani made this chilling declaration that called for the development of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons:

“We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological and radiological weapons.” 

Rafsanjani was eventually replaced as president by Ayatollah Mohammad Khatami, another Great Iranian Hope for the Democratic Party in the US. Khatami served as president from 1997 to 2005 and many in the West portrayed him as a champion of reform and dialogue between the West and Iran.

Of course, none of that amounted to anything, perhaps because Khatami, as president, had no authority over foreign policy and served at the pleasure of the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But, like his predecessors, Khatami was not what he appeared to be. When he was Iran’s minister of culture and Islamic propagation, Khatami was directly involved in the creation of Hezbollah, the global Jihadist terrorist organization that has served as Iran’s proxy in waging war against the West. It should also be noted that Iran’s nuclear program accelerated during Khatami’s presidency.

So, now we have Rouhani and Obama’s apparent miscalculation to follow in the footsteps of Clinton and Carter before him. The difference now is that the Iranians are so much closer to becoming a nuclear power.

 

 

The Obama Perpetrated Iran Disaster Emerges

Well, the deed is all but done. The Obamanistas have gotten what they wanted all along: a false detente with the Ayatollahs.

John Kerry would have us believe that the Iranian nuclear program has been frozen by the “agreement” he “hammered” out with Iranian negotiators, but the subsequent remarks from Iranian leaders are very telling; they don’t appear to believe that they agreed to anything that truly curtails their nuclear ambitions.

Kerry is lying.

At BEST, this agreement seems to have set back the Iranian nuclear program all of 6 weeks. It is now inevitable that one day we will wake up and turn on the cable news shows and be treated to the news that Iran has nuclear weapons.

Make no mistake, Obama was NEVER committed to preventing the Iranians from becoming armed with nuclear weapons. To Obama’s world view, this is simply a balancing of world power. We have more nukes than anyone, so, what difference does it make that Iran has nukes? (Incidentally, this is essentially the same position that some Republicans, notably Rand Paul, have taken.)

Obama also has an underlying animosity toward Israel and no doubt sees Iran as a nuclear power in much the same light as Israel as a nuclear power.

Probably the most disappointing to liberals in the US who purported to support Israel, Hillary Clinton has gone along with the charade. To Hillary Clinton, everything is about political expedience and she sees it in her best political interests not to disagree with Obama on Iran.

In other words, there is no one in power in Washington who is truly concerned about Iran having the atomic bomb.

Leon Panetta may actually have believed it a few years ago when he said that the US would not allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, but he was being lied to by his colleagues in the Obama administration who claimed to hold that view. No one in the Obama administration is talking like that now.

John Kerry would have us believe that we can just turn sanctions back on like a light switch if the Iranians don’t hold up their end of the faux bargain. This is perhaps the biggest lie.

Maybe the US can turn on sanctions again, but such unilateral sanctions will have little effect because the Chinese and the Russians are running full-speed into expanding their operations in the Iranian market now and our allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea are headed back in too. None of those countries, all of whom have closer economic ties to Iran than the US, is likely to turn sanctions back on any time soon. Nope, the genie is out of the bottle.

Meanwhile, the Iranians are up to their usual nefarious activities. They are playing chess and we still think the game is checkers.

A high ranking member of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps recently stated that Iran has IRGC and Hezbollah sleeper cells inside of America ready to strike targets:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/01/iranian-commander-we-have-targets-within-america/

I absolutely believe his claim to be true. There is no reason to doubt it.

President Rouhani took office last year amid wide speculation that he would finally be the long-lost “moderate” who would reach out lovingly to the West. This broken record is really getting tiresome. As if to ensure that the myth is once again disposed of properly, the Iranians have ramped up executions on his watch:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/3/iranian-executions-spiking-despite-thaw-with-west-/

Meanwhile, Iran is using its oil wealth to exert its influence in America’s backyard. Through Hezbollah and activities emanating from Iran’s diplomatic facilities in the region, the Iranians are becoming involved in terrorism and criminal enterprises…

http://freebeacon.com/experts-iran-exerting-troubling-influence-in-latin-america/

And as we have pointed out previously, the nuclear agreement with Iran doesn’t even mention the Iranians’ ballistic missile program:

http://freebeacon.com/iranian-ballistic-missile-program-can-continue-under-deal/

Finally, amid all their nuclear ambitions, ballistic missile testing and sponsorship of terror, the US, thanks to the Obamanistas, is facilitating the Iranians’ access to long frozen financial resources. Money is the most fungible of all commodities. The Iranians might actually tell John Kerry and Barack Obama that this money won’t be spent on things like uranium enrichment, ballistic missiles and Hezbollah, but it makes no difference because it would definitely free up Iranian money elsewhere for such activity. We’ve known for decades that this is what the Ayatollahs do. That’s why this deal that John Kerry has perpetrated upon all of Western Civilization is criminal in its effect…

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/joseph-klein/pay-day-for-the-mullahs/

 

 

 

 

Iran and Hezbollah: An Analysis of the Threat by Clare Lopez

Retired CIA officer Clare Lopez has published an excellent, detailed analysis of the threat from Hezbollah as an arm of Iran’s arsenal.

Here is a brief excerpt and link to her report, entitled Hizballah: Iran’s Other Looming Threat to the West

The single most important fact to understand about Hizballah is that its chain of command goes directly to the Iranian Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by way of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Qods Force. That Iranian connection, as well as Hizballah’s close and long-standing relationship with al-Qa’eda, the global reach of this Shi’ite jihadist group, and above all, its extensive presence and criminal activities in the Western Hemisphere, including inside the United States, all merit a closer look. With U.S. national security directly in Hizballah’s cross-hairs, it’s more important than ever to understand what this group is, who leads it, what has motivated them along a bloody 30-year trail of terrorism, and what damage this group is capable of inflicting on American interests.

For even as Hizballah is an Islamic terror organization, an Iranian proxy for power projection, a Transnational Criminal Organization, and a Lebanese military, political, and social domestic entity, it is above all a direct threat to U.S. national security. After all, and despite a complete media blackout on the topic that prevails to this day, on Iranian orders and working together with al-Qa’eda, Hizballah participated in the worst strike ever against the American homeland: the attacks of 9/11. There is no threshold, ideological or otherwise, that Hizballah has not already crossed or would not cross again, given a direct order from Tehran. 

Word out of London in late 2013 is that the U.S. is engaged in secret, indirect negotiations with Hizballah, with British diplomats acting as intermediaries. Those talks followed closely on the U.S. capitulation to Iran over its nuclear weapons program during November 2013 discussions in Geneva and reflect a White House policy of seeking to normalize relations with the regime designated by the Department of State as the number one global state sponsor of terror. Hizballah remains a designated terror organization on the Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) list. And while the story about the U.S.-Hizballah talks in London made the Israeli and U.K. media, not one major U.S. media outlet thought it significant to report that the U.S. administration is reaching out to mend relations with what many describe as the most dangerous Islamic terror organization in the world.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/hizballah-irans-other-looming-threat-to-the-west?f=must_reads#ixzz2ohv16rm3

 

hezbollah_flag-1200px-001

Report: Iran accuses White House of lying on nuke agreement

Given Obama’s track record, it’s tough to know where the truth lies here. But either way, the news is bad.

Either Obama lied and made an even worse deal with the Ayatollahs than he is telling us, or he is telling the truth and the Ayatollahs have already decided to re-interpret the agreement in such a way as to allow maximum overdrive in their continued quest for nuclear weapons.

It doesn’t really matter which at this point because Obama already opened Pandora’s Box with this terrible agreement. The Ayatollahs have broken down decades of work by Republicans and Democrats alike in America to do our best to isolate Iran economically through sanctions. Perhaps even more than Obamacare, that will be Obama’s legacy: Atomic Ayatollahs–the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism armed with nuclear weaponry.

Thanks to Obama and his disgraced Secretary of State John Kerry, the Iranians will very soon have billions of additional dollars with which to develop nuclear technology, build ballistic missiles and sponsor Jihadist terrorism around the globe.

From the Free Beacon article:

Iranian officials say that the White House is misleading the public about the details of an interim nuclear agreement reached over the weekend in Geneva.

The White House released a multi-page fact sheet containing details of the draft agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

However, [an] Iranian foreign ministry official on Tuesday rejected the White House’s version of the deal as “invalid” and accused Washington of releasing a factually inaccurate primer that misleads the American public.

Afkham and officials said that the White House has “modified” key details of the deal and released their own version of the agreement in the fact sheet.

Iran’s right to enrich uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon, is fully recognized under the draft released by Tehran.

http://freebeacon.com/iran-white-house-lying-about-details-of-nuke-deal/

It is clear that Iran knows that uranium enrichment is key to its quest for nuclear weapons and they have every intention of continuing that activity. What is not being discussed in the so-called “mainstream” media in the US is the fact that Iran’s uranium enrichment operations are already in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a party.

Why does anyone think that the Ayatollahs would suddenly begin playing by the rules now?

It is once again worth noting that we have seen this scenario before. Way back in 1994, in a deal referred to as the “Agreed Framework,” Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter combined to forge a deal with North Korea that was supposed to prevent that country from building nuclear weapons. It failed. In fact, Jimmy Carter can rightly be referred to as the Father of the North Korean Atomic Bomb. North Korea took the largesse that that deal provided and kept up its work on building bombs. Clinton and Carter to this day continue to lie about what the Agreed Framework accomplished. What it actually accomplished was to provide the cover necessary for a rogue nation to become a nuclear power. It is significant that the Agreed Framework was fashioned in such a way as to avoid the necessity for Senate ratification.

Today, the Obama-Kerry-Ayatollah agreement does the exact same thing. It bypasses the Senate’s constitutional authority and responsibility to ratify foreign treaties. And the inevitable result will be Iran as a nuclear power. This will be a gargantuan problem that successive presidents will have to deal with long after Obama steals away in the dark of night from his work at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.