Iran

Unremitting Iranian Hostility Means It's Time to Reconsider Regime Change

Roger L. Simon, PJ Media

In contrast to Kim Jong Un and the North Koreans, the Iranians have an ideology (Khomeinist Islam) that aims to take over the world for their version of Allah and automatically makes them imperialists of the most extreme sort. Who knows how many of their leaders truly believe all the Twelfth Imam, end days mumbo-jumbo, but enough to make it the guiding light of a deranged culture. It's worth paying attention when they shout "Death to America! Death to Israel!" as they have since most of their populace was alive. I am not at all advocating war — "going kinetic" in the parlance — with the Islamic Republic. I'm talking about giving moral support to the Iranian people against a regime of greedy, fascistic religious fanatics that is oppressing them.

Iran and the Levers of Global Power

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

The United States is almost immune from the sort of pressures that usually coalesce to dictate, modify, or thwart U.S. decision-making in the Middle East. Such liberation from outside coercion is singularly unusual in the post-war American overseas experience. Trump has some choices with Iran that few other presidents have enjoyed. After considering all the bad alternatives, Trump will likely conclude that the good one is to stay calm as Iran implodes, to not play omnipotent global cop responsible for the safe commerce of those who oppose U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal, and to not weaken sanctions — and be ready to hit back hard should Iran be so foolish as to kill Americans in international space.

Memo to Trump: Trade Bolton for Tulsi

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

The problem Gabbard presents for Democrats is that she takes positions that split her party, while her rivals prefer to talk about what unites the party, like the terribleness of Trump, free college tuition and soaking the rich. Given more airtime, she will present problems for the GOP as well. For the foreign policy Tulsi Gabbard is calling for is not far off from the foreign policy Donald Trump promised in 2016 but has since failed to deliver. We still have 2,000 troops in Syria, 5,000 in Iraq, 14,000 in Afghanistan. We just moved an aircraft carrier task force, B-52s and 1,000 troops to the Persian Gulf to confront Iran. We are about to impose sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister with whom we would need to negotiate to avoid a war.

The U.S. Can Afford to Stay Calm with Iran

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

How can the U.S. deter Iranian escalation without getting into an unpopular war before the heated 2020 election? It merely needs to persist in the present standoff: Ramp up the sanctions even tighter and ignore pathetic Iranian attacks on foreign ships. If Tehran preemptively attacks an American ship or plane, it will be met by a disproportionate response, preferably one aimed not at civilian infrastructure but at the Iranian military hierarchy, Revolutionary Guard, and theocratic elite. Otherwise, the Trump administration can sit back and monitor Iran’s international ostracism and economic isolation while remaining unpredictable and enigmatic, ready to hit back hard at any attack on Americans.

Trump Must Choose: War President or Anti-Interventionist

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

If war is to be avoided, either Iran is going to have to capitulate, or the U.S. is going to have to walk back its maximalist position. And who would Trump name to negotiate with Tehran for the United States? The longer the sanctions remain in place and the deeper they bite, the greater the likelihood Iran will respond to our economic warfare with its own asymmetric warfare. Has the president decided to take that risk? We appear to be at a turning point in the Trump presidency. Does he want to run in 2020 as the president who led us into war with Iran, or as the anti-interventionist president who began to bring U.S. troops home from that region that has produced so many wars?

Iran: To Neocon or Not to Neocon, Is That the Question?

Roger L. Simon, PJ Media

Ideology is for children and college professors. The question is how do we use common sense? That sense tells me that Trump has now cleared the way for serious action against the mullahs when they pull another stunt, as we can assume they will. Indeed if they have any brains — and some of them must, even with their berserk belief system — they probably see this too. If I were Iran, I'd be afraid. I'd be very afraid. I might even come to the table. And, needless to say, Trump has no interest whatsoever in a ground war with Iran, as well he shouldn't. That part of the neocon lesson holds. Any action should and would come from the air.

U.S. Holds All the Cards in the Showdown with Iran

Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

The U.S. is not only the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas, but soon to become the largest exporter of energy — and without getting near the Iranian coast. Likewise, American allies in the Middle East such as Israel are energy independent. America’s Arab friends enjoy seeing competing Iranian oil all but off the market. Time, then, is on the Americans’ side. But it is certainly not on the side of a bankrupt and impoverished Iran that either must escalate or face ruin. If Iran starts sinking ships or attacking U.S. assets, Trump can simply replay the ISIS strategy of selective off-and-on bombing. The U.S. did not lose a single pilot to enemy action.

War With Iran Would Make Trump A One-Term President

W. James Antle III, The American Conservative

Not even Trump’s opinion should matter most. The Constitution vests the power to declare war in Congress. To justify a new war based on an outdated resolution passed nearly 20 years ago to authorize retaliation against the 9/11 attackers would be an unconscionable power grab by the executive branch that lawmakers should not countenance. Yet time and again, Congress has shirked its constitutional duties. The Democrats in the House have an opportunity to put their money where their mouths are. But maybe they won’t. An Iraq-like war in Iran would go a long way toward accomplishing their main goal: making Donald Trump a one-term president.

Donald Trump Would Own a War With Iran

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

If war comes now, it would forever be known as “Trump’s War.” One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I’s demand that he get his army out of Kuwait. Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, and who oppose every effort of Trump’s to extricate us from those wars. Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil. And America, thanks to fracking, is no longer dependent on the Middle East even for that.

On War With Iran, It’s Trump Versus the Founding Fathers

Doug Bandow, The American Conservative

The possibility that the chief executive might rush or be pushed into such a disastrous war is exactly why the Founders obliged presidents to go to Congress for approval. The Constitution places the power to declare war in the hands of the legislature. Yet modern presidents routinely claim monarchical powers, using the military without proper authority. Legislators often avoid taking responsibility for wars that might turn unpopular. But neither unconstitutional nor irresponsible behavior justifies chief executives doing the same. Trump has proven no more faithful to the Constitution than his predecessors.

Who Wants This War With Iran?

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

Who wants us to plunge back into the Middle East, to fight a new and wider war than the ones we already fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen? Answer: Pompeo and Bolton, Bibi Netanyahu, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and the Sunni kings, princes, emirs, sultans, and the other assorted Jeffersonian democrats on the south shore of the Persian Gulf. And lest we forget, the Never Trumpers and neocons in exile nursing their bruised egos, whose idea of sweet revenge is a U.S. return to the Mideast in a war with Iran. That, they think, will finally bring an end to the Trump presidency.

Are All the World's Problems Ours?

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

After an exhausting two weeks, one is tempted to ask: How many quarrels, clashes and conflicts can even a superpower manage at one time? And is it not time for the United States, preoccupied with so many crises, to begin asking, "Why is this our problem?" During the uprising in Caracas, Bolton cited the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. But according to President James Monroe, and Mike Pompeo's predecessor John Quincy Adams, who wrote the message to Congress, under the Doctrine, while European powers were to keep their hands off our hemisphere — we would reciprocate and stay out of Europe's quarrels and wars. Wise folks, those Founding Fathers.

Bolton’s War Whispers Sounding More Like Battle Cries

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

Taken together, the Bolton-Pompeo threats add up to an ultimatum that any attack by Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, or Iran-backed militias — on Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE or U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria or the Gulf states — will bring a U.S. retaliatory response on Iran itself. Today, Trump's approval rating in the Gallup Poll has reached an all-time high, 46%, a level surely related to the astonishing performance of the U.S. economy following Trump's tax cuts and sweeping deregulation. While a Gulf war with Iran might be popular at the outset, what would it do for the U.S. economy or our ability to exit the forever war of the Middle East, as Trump has pledged to do?

Why Is This Enemy Even Allowed To Speak Here?

If President Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo are serious about stopping the Iranian Islamist threat to the West, their first order of business should be to stop giving the Iranians American forums from which they can threaten Israel and undermine our policies.

Golan Heights Announcement: Trump’s Strategic Vision And Israel

This is another bold act of presidential leadership in support of one of America’s most important allies, Israel.  The president recognized that Israel’s control of the Golan Heights is the reality, and this is not going to change.  President Trump also sent a signal to Iran that the U.S. will not tolerate it using Syria as a platform to threaten Israel’s security.” Fred Fleitz, President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.

Trump vs. the Spy Chiefs: Who's Right?

Patrick J. Buchanan, CNS News

Iran broke out of its isolation for two reasons. First, George W. Bush came in and overthrew its Taliban enemies on its eastern border, and then he overthrew Saddam Hussein, the enemy on its western border. As Trump contends, ISIS has been defeated and driven from its twin capitals — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. But it is also true that ISIS and al-Qaida still have tens of thousands of jihadists living among the peoples of the Middle East. And the great question remains: Are U.S. troops necessary over there — to prevent terrorists from coming over here? Or are they over here — because we are over there?

Is Bolton at the Steering Wheel, Headed Straight for Iran?

Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative

While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, "When America retreats, chaos often follows." Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush? One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to "stop the endless wars."

On Syria Donald Trump Finally Acts Like President Trump

Washington’s overall objective should be to bring peace to America, not micro-manage other nations’ conflicts. Washington policymakers come up with long lists of objectives which are not worth the cost, in this case essentially permanent war. Withdrawal from Syria is long overdue.

Mattis Resignation Not To Be Feared

General James Mattis deserves our respect and appreciation for his many years of service to our country, but as Secretary of Defense his departure is not to be feared, and should be viewed as an opportunity to undo the remaining vestiges of Obama’s damaging influence on our military culture and to chart a new course in the war Islam has declared on the West.

Congressional Commission Demands More Wasteful Spending on War

A congressional commission found America is weak, isolated, beleaguered, and endangered. Military spending must be greatly increased or Washington will lose its ability to run the world. In which case a new Dark Age may envelop the earth.