Admittedly, we stole today’s headline from a great column by William Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, and a fellow alumnus of the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
The key point Prof. Otis made, with which we agree wholeheartedly is talking to Iran is worse than a waste of time; it's a weapon Iran uses to sew doubt in the U.S. while it makes ready to keep killing.
In our view, based on our knowledge of how the Iranians operate, is that these “negotiations” are another fruitless dead-end, as those conducted by Obama and Biden were, because they don’t want any deal that that will not leave the Ayatollahs in power to continue their reign as the #1 state sponsor of terrorism, and to continue their pursuit of the nuclear weapons necessary to start the great war Shia Muslim “Twelvers” believe is necessary to usher in the worldwide reign of Islam.
You can’t separate the negotiating position of the Iranian theocracy from the theology and eschatology that underpin the regime. This is something other presidents have never understood.
Editor’s Note: Some think Obama may have understood it and been on the other side.
We have long been critical of President Trump’s seeming failure to seize the moment presented by the nationwide protests against the Ayatollahs. However, as our friend former Navy intelligence officer and NSC staffer Dr. David Wormser observed recently, President Trump’s seeming foot-dragging is more likely Donald Trump the master negotiator playing out the negotiations until everything is in place for a devastating strike on the Islamic Republic.
And, we note, it also allows President Trump to claim to other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, that fear the chaos and economic instability of regime-change in Iran, that he pursued peace and stability in the region, but his reasonable offers were rejected by the Ayatollahs.
President Trump has vowed to hit Iran “with speed and violence” if it does not accept three demands: ending its nuclear program and discarding its enriched uranium stockpile; reducing the number and range of ballistic missiles; and ending its support for militant groups across the region.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the talks needed to include ballistic missiles, Iran’s aligned militias and its treatment of its own people “in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful,” the New York Times reported.
Those four goals: The end of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, including the transfer of its weapons-grade nuclear stockpile, reducing its missile program, ceasing support for terrorism, and ending its domestic human rights abuses, have allegedly been U.S. policy for many years.
Obama and Biden paid lip service to them in public, even as they negotiated away American leverage over Iran and gave the Ayatollahs billions in no-strings-attached cash that went to fund terrorism and the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Paul Mirengoff, whom you may recognize from his many prescient columns on Power Line, is of the opinion that Iran will not agree to a deal that satisfies Trump. Mr. Mirengoff thinks Trump will realize this sooner rather than later, and instead of having our forces sit in the region or go home having accomplished nothing, he will order some form of attack on Iran.
Mirengoff offered two reasons, with which we agree: First, Iran can’t be trusted to adhere to a tough deal, and Trump won’t be president long enough to assure future compliance.
Second, assuming that the deal would involve a lifting or lightening of sanctions, it would help the mullahs maintain their stranglehold on power. How sad it would be if, following the recent rebellion and Trump’s promises of support, the U.S. ends up further entrenching the regime. That is something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned against, and we hope the President is listening.
Everyone who is realistic about the now 47-year-old war Iran’s theocratic regime declared on America knows that regime change is the only way to permanently stop Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
Prof. Otis suggests that President Trump is not up to the task of taking on the Ayatollah’s and forcing regime change in Iran.
However, we disagree with that proposition and think that Rubio, Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John D. Caine are cleareyed about the challenge and the necessity.
The weakness of Iran’s system of Wilayat al-Faqih has never been more obvious and the opportunity to undermine it from within rarely greater. If we want to end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the time to decapitate the Iranian theocracy and replace it with something else is now.
Click here for a presentation prepared by CHQ Editor George Rasley for the American Security Council Foundation on if war with Iran is inevitable.
George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for former Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for retired Rep. Mac Thornberry formerly a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
The key point Prof. Otis made, with which we agree wholeheartedly is talking to Iran is worse than a waste of time; it's a weapon Iran uses to sew doubt in the U.S. while it makes ready to keep killing.
In our view, based on our knowledge of how the Iranians operate, is that these “negotiations” are another fruitless dead-end, as those conducted by Obama and Biden were, because they don’t want any deal that that will not leave the Ayatollahs in power to continue their reign as the #1 state sponsor of terrorism, and to continue their pursuit of the nuclear weapons necessary to start the great war Shia Muslim “Twelvers” believe is necessary to usher in the worldwide reign of Islam.
You can’t separate the negotiating position of the Iranian theocracy from the theology and eschatology that underpin the regime. This is something other presidents have never understood.
Editor’s Note: Some think Obama may have understood it and been on the other side.
We have long been critical of President Trump’s seeming failure to seize the moment presented by the nationwide protests against the Ayatollahs. However, as our friend former Navy intelligence officer and NSC staffer Dr. David Wormser observed recently, President Trump’s seeming foot-dragging is more likely Donald Trump the master negotiator playing out the negotiations until everything is in place for a devastating strike on the Islamic Republic.
And, we note, it also allows President Trump to claim to other regional powers, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, that fear the chaos and economic instability of regime-change in Iran, that he pursued peace and stability in the region, but his reasonable offers were rejected by the Ayatollahs.
President Trump has vowed to hit Iran “with speed and violence” if it does not accept three demands: ending its nuclear program and discarding its enriched uranium stockpile; reducing the number and range of ballistic missiles; and ending its support for militant groups across the region.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the talks needed to include ballistic missiles, Iran’s aligned militias and its treatment of its own people “in order for talks to actually lead to something meaningful,” the New York Times reported.
Those four goals: The end of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, including the transfer of its weapons-grade nuclear stockpile, reducing its missile program, ceasing support for terrorism, and ending its domestic human rights abuses, have allegedly been U.S. policy for many years.
Obama and Biden paid lip service to them in public, even as they negotiated away American leverage over Iran and gave the Ayatollahs billions in no-strings-attached cash that went to fund terrorism and the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Paul Mirengoff, whom you may recognize from his many prescient columns on Power Line, is of the opinion that Iran will not agree to a deal that satisfies Trump. Mr. Mirengoff thinks Trump will realize this sooner rather than later, and instead of having our forces sit in the region or go home having accomplished nothing, he will order some form of attack on Iran.
Mirengoff offered two reasons, with which we agree: First, Iran can’t be trusted to adhere to a tough deal, and Trump won’t be president long enough to assure future compliance.
Second, assuming that the deal would involve a lifting or lightening of sanctions, it would help the mullahs maintain their stranglehold on power. How sad it would be if, following the recent rebellion and Trump’s promises of support, the U.S. ends up further entrenching the regime. That is something that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned against, and we hope the President is listening.
Everyone who is realistic about the now 47-year-old war Iran’s theocratic regime declared on America knows that regime change is the only way to permanently stop Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons.
Prof. Otis suggests that President Trump is not up to the task of taking on the Ayatollah’s and forcing regime change in Iran.
However, we disagree with that proposition and think that Rubio, Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John D. Caine are cleareyed about the challenge and the necessity.
The weakness of Iran’s system of Wilayat al-Faqih has never been more obvious and the opportunity to undermine it from within rarely greater. If we want to end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, the time to decapitate the Iranian theocracy and replace it with something else is now.
Click here for a presentation prepared by CHQ Editor George Rasley for the American Security Council Foundation on if war with Iran is inevitable.
George Rasley is editor of Richard Viguerie's ConservativeHQ.com and is a veteran of over 300 political campaigns. A member of American MENSA, he served on the staff of Vice President Dan Quayle, as Director of Policy and Communication for former Congressman Adam Putnam (FL-12) then Vice Chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, and as spokesman for retired Rep. Mac Thornberry formerly a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
