- The Islamic Republic of Iran, since its founding in 1979, has had an ideology that seeks to “export the Islamic revolution” — if necessary, by force.
- Despite what President Obama likes to say, it is not true that the agreement “permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” or “cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb.” This agreement means the U.S. has accepted that after 15 years, or sooner, Iran may build as many bombs as it likes.
- Iran is not a country busy trying to preserve its own sovereignty. Iran, instead, undermines other countries’ sovereignty.
- Iran’s regime is extremely pragmatic: it sees that its survival is not, threatened no matter what it does. It sees — as does everyone else – that transgressions are, in fact, rewarded.
- Why does the U.S. wish to allow a regime that wants to destroy America’s closest Middle East ally to acquire more advanced conventional — and later, nuclear — weapons? Why would anyone allow a country that gives missiles to terrorists to get hold of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)?
- If this agreement were about peace, why does Iran need more weapons? If Iran wants peace, why don’t they scrap their missile program and stop supporting terrorist organizations? If Iran wants peace, why does it want missiles that can reach other continents?
- Hitler duped Chamberlain and presented himself as a man of peace. No one has duped President Obama. The mullahs openly say “Death to America.” Does Obama not know at whom the Iranians will point their nuclear-tipped ICBMs?
- In the worst-case scenario, walking away from the deal still leaves the world in a position of deterrence that offers it better choices — before Iran becomes nuclear, not after.
If someone had asked you a year ago what would be the most efficient way to cause a major war in the Middle East, you might well have said: Giving the mullahs in Iran the opportunity to get advanced conventional weapons, ICBMs, nuclear weapons and tens of billion of dollars to fund terrorist organizations and destabilize other countries in the region. You might have argued that a regime that does not hesitate to attack targets in Washington or Berlin might not be the most prudent one to shower with gigantic quantities of money and the deadliest weapons. Continue reading
WASHINGTON – Budget reductions could render the Army at “high risk to meet even one major war,” according to documents obtained by USA TODAY, a warning the Army is sounding because it sees another war as inevitable before long.
The Army provided its assessment as each of the services is conducting a four-year scrub of its strategy and the resources needed to meet it, a process called the Quadrennial Defense Review. Continue reading
The escalating fuel riots in Khartoum, and increasingly in other cities in Sudan, serve as a stark reminder of the inherent fragility and instability of the country.
The riots were sparked by the spiraling prices of all fuel products following the abolition of subsidies and the growing shortages of all fuel products. Moreover, the recurring shortages of fuel have resulted in shortages of food and other products and goods brought into Khartoum from both the Red Sea ports and the countryside.
Within a few days, the riots became the worst since the 1989 riots which led to the military coup which brought Omar Bashir to power. Continue reading
A ‘major war’ against who, exactly? From the state-owned Russian propaganda outlet, RIA Novosti:
MOSCOW, January 26 (RIA Novosti) – Russia’s armed forces are ready for a major war, Chief of the military’s General Staff Col. Gen. Valery Gerasimov said on Saturday. Continue reading