Saturday, August 29, 2020

President Trump Offers a Choice Between Loving and Destroying America - Daniel Greenfield


by Daniel Greenfield

The “People’s President” gives Americans back their country. Will they take it?




When President Trump walked down the staircase to the strains of Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA, followed by chants of, "USA, USA", it was not only a callback to his famous escalator moment, no longer at Trump Tower, but at the White House, but a contrast between the parties.

"How can the Democratic party lead our country when they spend so much time tearing down our country?” President Trump asked.

Where the DNC had the feel of some long zoom session in a liberal suburb where everyone works from home and tries to keep up with the latest politically correct trends, the RNC was unapologetically physical and patriotic, its speakers embraced the great landmarks and trademarks of the nation, demonstrating that you can be diverse without destroying America.

The final night of the RNC wasn’t just a powerful antidote to the DNC, or even to the mainstream media alone, but to the hypocritical totalitarianism and the corporate buzzwords that we have been drowning in since the winter gave way to the spring, and to fear and violence.

President Trump and the array of speakers for the fourth night did not deny that we are a nation in crisis, instead they lit a torch to light the nation’s way out of the tyranny of terror and lies. 

Introducing her father, Ivanka Trump had called him, the “people’s president”, and in his opening remarks, President Trump referred to the White House as the “people’s house”. In two brief sentences, he called out and dismissed the entire Democrat platform and its root leftist ideology.

“Our opponents say that redemption for you can only come from giving power to them,” he told the nation. “But in this country, we don’t look to career politicians for salvation. In America, we don’t turn to government to restore our souls – we put our faith in Almighty God.”

On the South Lawn, the gathered patriots sat hearing sirens in the background, the now commonplace noise of a nation under siege. Not far from the White House, the flag-burners and racists, the guillotine choppers and molotov cocktail hurlers, had gathered to call for an end to America. And the media and its pet experts had put the nation into a state of endless terror, dividing families, destroying jobs and businesses wholesale, and terrorizing countless millions.

Before Trump, they and the nation had heard from grieving mothers, fathers, and wives, from cops and war heroes, from leaders and workers about the struggles they had faced. And, even in the face of tragedy and terror, they had persevered, they had not given up fighting and living.

The most powerful speeches of the final night came from ordinary people telling their stories, not just because they were deeply heartfelt, but because these are the stories that could not be told. These were the stories that the media would not air and that most people had never heard.

The description of the White House as the “people’s house” was more than rhetoric. Like the State of the Union addresses, the president had made his platform into the people’s platform.

“They shot David in cold blood and then livestreamed his execution," Ann Dorn told millions who knew George Floyd’s name and Jacob Blake’s name, but had never heard Captain David Dorn’s name. “I relive that horror in my mind every single day. My hope is that having you relive it with me now will help shake this country from the nightmare we are witnessing in our cities.”

Even as Americans were watching scenes of the Democrat apocalypse from Kenosha, ordinary people, police officers, and leaders warned that the radical violence was coming to your town.

"The Democrats have walked away from us. They have walked away from police officers. And they've walked away from the innocent people we protect,” the PBA’s Pat Lynch warned, speaking on behalf of 50,000 NYPD officers. “You won't be safe in Joe Biden's America.”

“A vote for Biden brings the risk you will bring this lawlessness to your town, to your city, to your suburb,” former Mayor Rudy Giuliani warned. “Mr. President, make our nation safe again.”

Senator Tom Cotton laid out a case for President Trump’s military leadership, taking on China, while denouncing Biden’s role in allowing the Chinese fentanyl drug trade to flourish.

“We need a president who stands up for America, not one who takes a knee,” he declared.

That duality lay at the heart of President Trump’s acceptance speech, of the fourth night, and of the entire Republican campaign against Biden and the radicals using him as their puppet.

America can’t be made great, restored, repaired, and protected by a movement that hates her.

“The party had moved from liberal to radical,” Rep. Van Drew, a former Democrat, warned. “This new Democrat Party wasn't just for higher taxes, now they were for open borders, against our police and against our God-given rights.”

Speaker after speaker laid out the case that Biden and the Democrats had abandoned America because they despised her and her people, that a newly radical party could only envision a relentless drumbeat of change that would utterly destroy everything we love and believe in.

“This is the most important election in the history of our country. At no time before have voters faced a clearer choice between two parties, two visions, two philosophies, or two agendas. This election will decide whether we save the American Dream, or whether we allow a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny,” President Trump told a watching nation.

Elsewhere in Washington D.C., and in embattled Democrat cities across the nation, a physical war was raging, a battle of bricks and tear gas, guns and lasers, shields and firebombs, but there in the illusory placidity of the South Lawn, President Trump had laid out the stakes.

The battle that so many were watching on television was coming for all of us.

The destruction in Kenosha was real, but it was also a metaphor. Kenosha was America. And it could be destroyed with fire and steel. But it could also be hamstrung, torn down, and broken with pieces of paper, with propaganda, and with the terror that had broken so many spirits.

"Many Americans, including me, have sadly lost friends and cherished loved ones to this horrible disease. As one nation, we mourn, we grieve, and we hold in our hearts forever the memories of all of those lives so that have been so tragically taken,” President Trump said, paying tribute to those who had died in the pandemic, as he had done for the Americans facing the wrath of the storm, and to those who had suffered from the Black Lives Matter riots.

Where the Republicans differed so fundamentally from Democrats lay in their answer.

As Ben Carson had asked earlier in the evening, “Do we believe in the power and wisdom of the people to self-govern?” It was the same question raised by two other presidents whom President Trump had invoked in his acceptance speech: Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt.

Can Americans solve their problems, heal racial conflicts, reform government,and stay safe, or do they need to be scolded, lectured, and locked up by a government that knows better?

A government empowered by the people can take the lead, as President Trump had done, in locating supplies, dispatching hospital ships, and providing guidance, but it isn’t the answer. And those who believe that government is the answer to everything don’t believe in America.

The triumphant conclusion of the convention in a blaze of fireworks, of upturned faces watching the sky, and seeing hope and optimism instead of burning buildings defined the Republican vision. In the same way that the charred rubble in Kenosha, the bleeding bodies and bullets had defined the Democrat vision of a nation eternally divided by radicals who thrive on division.

President Trump called for “a new spirit of unity that can only be realized through love for our country.” The Democrats promise unity through submission to their ideology. Their big tent has shrunk to a diversity of radicals who hate America differently, but for the same basic reasons.

Not only the Republican, but the American message, was embodied by President Trump’s conviction that, “what united generations past was an unshakable confidence in America’s destiny, and an unbreakable faith in the American People.” Without that belief, all else fails.

Or as Lee Greenwood put it much more simply, “Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away.”

Democrats contend that America progresses and becomes greater by becoming less American, by feeling shame and guilt, by nurturing rage, fear, and doubt, and by abandoning our dreams.

Republicans believe that America progresses by becoming not less, but more American. What strengthens America isn’t fear, rage, or guilt, but our aspirations, our struggles, and our dreams.

As the fireworks rose in the air, so did hope and pride in a nation trembling on the edge.

Out of the fire and fury of a hellish year comes the peril of a Democrat damnation or the promise of a new Republican rebirth.
 

Photo: Deadline


Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

Source: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/08/president-trump-offers-choice-between-loving-and-daniel-greenfield/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The savage immaturity of the left and their proxies in the streets - Patricia McCarthy


by Patricia McCarthy

Bottom line? The Democrat party has devolved into a gang of hoodlums. They taunt and demean anyone with whom they disagree, and they enable violence


Everyone, even Democrats, can agree that the DNC convention was an embarrassing bust, a poorly produced concoction of vapidity, anger and wrath. They overdid the “let’s make everyone afraid of covid” bit, no audiences, masks on everyone even when alone on a stage. It was a joke perpetrated by people who, to the core of their beings, think the American people are really stupid.

This core belief, that they can stupefy and manipulate us all, is why they produced a ridiculous covid-fearful four-night convention so boring no one watched it… because it was unwatchable. John Kerry? Bill Clinton? John Kasich? Bernie Sanders? Who on this planet cares about anything these corruptocrats have to say? No one, not even the current crop of apoplectic Trump haters, especially those among the media. The entire endeavor was a joke born of the left’s contempt for middle America. They actually think that by making common cause with Antifa and Black Lives Matter, they can win.

Now that we’ve seen and reveled in the joyous tone of the RNC convention, the abyss between the two parties is writ gloriously large. The left is angry and rattled because they’ve lost their grip on the power that they’ve always taken for granted, even when there was a Republican in the White House.

They are not running the show, Trump is, and his attempt to drain the swamp is making inroads, despite all their treasonous efforts to destroy the man and his presidency. The ferocity of their hate for Trump has led them to reveal their inner souls and it is not a pretty picture. They are an ugly bunch. The termagant Nancy Pelosi charges that Trump and his supporters are “enemies of the state”! How is that for projection?

Now she is advising Biden not to debate Trump. Of course, she is; like everyone else, she knows Biden is cognitively unable to debate the President. Pelosi and her partners in crimes against America have done incalculable damage to this country, to their own cities, and to the Constitution itself. If Biden were to win, who would be running the country? Certainly not no-show-Joe. Joe is done, over. He belongs at home with a caregiver.

But Biden will not be the face of the presidency; he is going to lose, probably badly. The magnificence of the RNC convention, the overpowering profundity of each and every speaker, exposed the sheer vacuity of the Democrat party as currently constituted. It is not only vacuous but thoroughly deranged. For months they have actually believed that the riots in the streets would help them defeat Trump! So besotted by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, both violent Marxist organizations, they forgot to remember the precise meaning of the word “civilization.”

This kind of violent protest got Nixon elected in a landslide. Perhaps they counted on two generations of leftist indoctrination to serve them well, but no, it won’t. Most Americans still favor law and order over barbarity and bloodshed. They do not look kindly on their small businesses being destroyed by thugs in the euphemistic name of “peaceful protests” and “systemic racism.”

Just who are the racists? The oh-so-intolerant left and the Democrats who refuse to condemn their monstrous behavior. Consider the cruel attacks on those leaving the White House after the final convention event. The inept mayor of DC allowed this; she loves it. She thinks it will reverberate in her favor. Like the mayors of Seattle, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, the governors of New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Pennsylvania, California and New York, DC mayor Muriel Bowser is a fool, willing to sacrifice the safety of her citizens for dangerous political purposes.

What is most distressing are the painfully sophomoric responses by adult leftists. Bette Midler posted vile comments about Melania’s lovely and gracious speech. She insulted her accent, forgetting apparently that she speaks five languages fluently. The always execrable Joe Lockhart of Clinton administration infamy (the Obamas bought his DC Kalorama mansion) stupidly went after Nick Sandmann, the eighteen-year-old our disgusting media unfairly eviscerated in 2018. He has had the last laugh. Lockhart is a childish, smug bully in adult clothing, and he is one of many such jerks on the left. Rob Reiner, Rosie O’Donnell, Stephen King, Kathy Griffin and their lot all exposed themselves for being the ill-mannered, malicious people they are. Yamiche Alcindor of PBS tweeted an attack on the young, wheelchair-bound Madison Cawthorn for standing up at the end of his short speech. She said his standing was an insult to social justice warriors! Jake Tapper melted down, calling the last night of the convention a “super-spreader event.” Rachel Maddow and Joy Reid cannot bear to hear good words about our nation. They and their media clones hate this country and are severely triggered by those of us who love it. The loathsome Joe and Mika? Well, there are really no words to adequately describe their mendacity. Do any of these people have children? I hope not for they are all extremely poor role models.

Kamala Harris delivered a spiteful prebuttal speech that was an embarrassment. She blamed the President for Covid, as though he himself created it. She blamed him for all the deaths despite his very early grasp of the potential seriousness of the virus. She blamed him for the shock to our economy rather than all the Democrat governors who locked down their states in the hope it would hurt Trump. They destroyed the economies of their own states to take out a president they hate!

As for their citizens, their constituents and their small businesses? Too bad. Their sacrifice is the cost of doing the left’s bidding. Every word out of Harris’s mouth was a lie, every single word. She is a very nasty piece of work and a phony. She will do and/or say whatever it takes to promote herself. She initially encouraged the riots and has even been raising money to bail out the vandals and looters across the nation. One can see that she is dying to cut Biden off at the knees, the sooner the better. He should probably hire a food taster.

These hate-filled people also prove what all conservatives already know, that the Democrat party is viciously intolerant of people with views in opposition to their own. They call black conservatives “Uncle Toms” thinking that is a slur. Clearly, they’ve not read Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Toms Cabin, for Uncle Tom is the finest character in the novel.

Bottom line? The Democrat party has devolved into a gang of hoodlums. They taunt and demean anyone with whom they disagree, and they enable the violence and the looting in the streets of Minneapolis, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Denver, et. al. or at least they did until Thursday when new talking points were distributed. The polls that show Americans revere their police and expect law and order to be enforced by their elected officials must have come as a shock.

Are they that clueless, that deluded? Indeed, they are. They prove it each and every day since President Trump was elected. They’ve been infantilized by their own rage and they increasingly behave like despicably mean middle school bullies. Vernon Jones, the Georgia state rep and former Democrat who supports Trump aptly described the democrat party in his speech on the first night of the RNC convention:
“The Democrat party has become infected with a pandemic of intolerance, bigotry, socialism, anti-law enforcement bias, and a dangerous tolerance for people who attack others, destroy their property and terrorize their own communities.”
Sad but true. This election actually is the most important since Lincoln’s; the choice is between freedom and the soul-numbing imposition of tyrannical socialism.


Patricia McCarthy

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/08/the_savage_immaturity_of_the_left_and_their_proxies_in_the_streets.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



China's 'Debt-Trap' Diplomacy with Third-World Nations - Lawrence A. Franklin


by Lawrence A. Franklin

BRI projects seem not designed so much to win new friends as to win new dependents, especially in areas either neglected by the West or in the Western sphere of influence.

  • Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping's grand thoroughfares are now global in scope, extending as far as Djibouti, a strategic maritime chokepoint in Africa, just west of the Arabian Peninsula, or Ecuador, home to South America's third-largest oil reserves.
  • The economic benefits, however, of some of these deals between China and poor "Third World" countries in Africa and Latin America are questionable. A few of these bilateral packages appear contrived to imprison already impoverished states into realms of permanent economic vassalage to China.
  • The objectives of China's global BRI programs are clearly as much strategic and political as they are economic. BRI projects seem not designed so much to win new friends as to win new dependents, especially in areas either neglected by the West or in the Western sphere of influence.
  • The ultimate objective of the global dimension of China's BRI enterprise appears to be geared toward replacing the existing political, military and economic dimension of the West's liberal democratic order -- again not surprisingly -- with one dominated solely by the Communist Party of China.

Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping's grand thoroughfares are now global in scope, extending as far as Djibouti, a strategic maritime chokepoint in Africa, just west of the Arabian Peninsula, or Ecuador, home to South America's third-largest oil reserves. Pictured: Soldiers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army at the opening ceremony of China's military base in Djibouti, on August 1, 2017. (Photo by STR/AFP via Getty Images)

Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping's signature foreign policy proposal has been the "Belt and Road Initiative" (BRI) commercial and strategic program. At first, the network was pitched as a restoration of the ancient overland trade route, the "Silk Road," that linked China to Europe. This "New Silk Road," like its predecessor, would traverse the vast steppes of Central Asia -- but the contemporary BRI is allegedly meant to serve also as an economic boon for all the countries along the route.

Xi quickly followed the overland BRI with a maritime version, presumably to connect Chinese ports on the South China Sea to seaports in the Indian Ocean, continuing on to the Middle East states and ultimately reaching European ports. Initially, these proposals had only involved countries along BRI routes. Now Xi's grand thoroughfares are global in scope, extending as far as Djibouti, a strategic maritime chokepoint in Africa, just west of the Arabian Peninsula, or Ecuador, home to South America's third-largest oil reserves. The economic benefits, however, of some of these deals between China and poor "Third World" countries in Africa and Latin America are questionable. A few of these bilateral packages appear contrived to imprison already impoverished states into realms of permanent economic vassalage to China.

The BRI networks clearly intend to benefit China, either by stimulating an enormous increase in commerce, or, when debts cannot be repaid, by appropriating whatever assets China selects. China, as the world's largest importer of oil, will be able to diversify its sources of petroleum as a consequence of several bilateral BRI deals. China most likely also hopes to secure political benefits through BRI arrangements. Countries participating in China's BRI, and generally friendly to the US and its allies, might shy away from supporting the West's national security concerns for fear of losing large Chinese investments in their local economies.

There is already plenty of evidence concerning some BRI participating states of muting criticism of China's poor record on human rights. Many Islamic countries, for example, remain silent on China's near-genocidal treatment of millions of Muslim Uyghurs in its northwestern province of Xinjiang. Some Muslim states have even praised China's domestic policies toward Xinjiang's ethnic Uyghurs. Not one Muslim-majority state voted to condemn treatment of the Uighurs in support of the West's UN resolution to publicly sanction Beijing.

Critics of China's BRI program point out that Chinese loan agreements lack transparency and that contracts sometimes serve China's interests in a racketeering way, oblivious to local concerns. Sri Lanka, for instance, after having failed to meet its debt obligations to China, ceded the port of Hambantota to Beijing. Venezuela delivers oil to China instead of its worthless currency. Ecuador, in the first full year of Xi's presidency, already was exporting 90% of its oil to China, perhaps even below the world market price. In addition, Ecuador cannot seem to prevent the rape of its marine life just on the edge of its sovereign maritime economic zone by hundreds of Chinese fishing boats near the Galapagos Islands. "They just pull up everything!" said a sea captain who asked not to be named.

Critics also accuse China of favoring BRI contracts with countries that have authoritarian regimes. Beijing has invested in Zimbabwe in Africa, Laos in Southeast Asia, and Venezuela in South America. A new, particularly ominous Western criticism is that China distributes its facial recognition technology to BRI-affiliated countries where Chinese surveillance systems have been installed, in states such as Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador.

China's disregard for the human rights of its own citizens not surprisingly extends to the rights of the citizens of its host nations. China's extraction of raw materials and minerals in Ecuador, for instance, has elicited protests by the Shuar and Waorani natives, concerned about the environment. While some of China's infrastructure projects are beneficial but costly -- such as the construction of a rail line in Kenya from the capital Nairobi to the main port of Mombasa -- others are "white elephants." One such marginally useful project is a road built by Chinese engineers from Uganda's capital Kampala to the country's international airport at Entebbe. The project is expected to improve traffic but will have little to no other benefits -- apart from moving local resources to China.

An additional shortcoming of the massive outlay of Chinese loans that finance infrastructure projects are that host nations are forced to put up with what CCP Chairman Xi calls "Chinese characteristics." When Beijing settles on an infrastructure project, large numbers of Chinese workers arrive in the host country, establish their own living area, complete the project and then leave. There is little or no hiring of local workers or training of locals in skills that could exact a benefit from the extended presence of China's skilled professionals. Some Chinese teams even bring their own chefs and rarely engage in social activities with the citizens of the host nation.

The objectives of China's global BRI programs are clearly as much strategic and political as they are economic. BRI projects seem not designed so much to win new friends as to win new dependents, especially in areas either neglected by the West or in the Western sphere of influence.

The ultimate objective of the global dimension of China's BRI enterprise appears to be geared toward replacing the existing political, military and economic dimension of the West's liberal democratic order -- again not surprisingly -- with one dominated solely by the Communist Party of China.


Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin was the Iran Desk Officer for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. He also served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve.

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16396/china-debt-trap-diplomacy

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Watch for Election Meddling by Iran and Other Adversaries of America - Majid Rafizadeh


by Majid Rafizadeh

The American public needs to be extremely vigilant of the attempts by adversaries of the US to interfere in the upcoming election to manipulate the public vote in favor of the candidate who they think will be most malleable in agreeing to their demands.

  • Tehran used that influx of revenues to expand its influence throughout the region and beyond, including in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Venezuela and the tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. The expansion campaign proved to be immensely successful.
  • A recent statement issued by William Evanina, director of the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), warned the American public that other countries are using "covert and overt influence measures" to sway the vote. The Iranian regime is named one of three countries, alongside Russia and China, about which the NCSC is particularly concerned.
  • The American public needs to be extremely vigilant of the attempts by adversaries of the US to interfere in the upcoming election to manipulate the public vote in favor of the candidate who they think will be most malleable in agreeing to their demands.

A recent statement issued by William Evanina (pictured), director of the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), warned the American public that other countries are using "covert and overt influence measures" to sway the vote. The Iranian regime is named one of three countries, alongside Russia and China, about which the NCSC is particularly concerned. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

When it comes to what policies should be pursued towards the ruling mullahs of Iran, the difference between the former Vice President Joe Biden and President Donald J. Trump is striking.

The Trump administration has been in favor of the "maximum pressure" policy, cutting the flow of funds to the Iranian regime and its proxies, reducing Tehran's oil exports, and isolating the regime in the region and globally. Now, the Iranian regime is facing an unprecedented level of pressure, which, if it continues, can threaten the ruling mullahs' hold on power. As a result of this maximum pressure policy, the Iranian leaders have cut their funding to their allies, militia and terror groups.

Iran's currency, the rial, which has been in free fall in the last few weeks, has plunged to a record low. As of August 22, 2020, a US dollar is now worth approximately 235,000 rials. Before the current US administration imposed a "maximum pressure" policy against Tehran, a US dollar had equaled nearly 30,000 rials. Iran's oil exports have also sunk to a record low. The country's budget heavily relies on selling oil. Three years ago, Iran was exporting roughly 2.5 million barrels of oil a day. According to the latest reports, Iran's oil export is now around 70,000 barrels a day -- a reduction of nearly 97%.

The 2020 Democratic nominee, Biden, will probably want to revive the Obama-era appeasement policies toward the ruling mullahs. This approach can mean lifting all the sanctions that the Trump administration has so far imposed on the ruling clerics, helping the mullahs rejoin the global financial system, and bringing Tehran out of isolation.

During the eight-year administration of former President Barack Obama, the president and Biden made unprecedented concessions, including the gift of "$150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash," in an attempt to ingratiate themselves to the ruling mullahs. The Obama-Biden administration met the mullahs with generosity and flexibility every step of the way, including waiving inspections of military sites and the ultimate prize: permission at the "sunset" of the agreement for Iran to have deliverable nuclear weapons. What was the outcome?

As sanctions against Iran were lifted during the Obama-Biden administration, it quickly became clear that in the eyes of the international community, those actions gave Iran global legitimacy. This newfound legitimacy and the lifting of sanctions generated billions of dollars in revenue for Iran's military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as for Iran's proxy militias and terror groups. Tehran used that influx of revenues to expand its influence throughout the region and beyond, including in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Venezuela and the tri-border area of Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. The expansion campaign proved to be immensely successful.

The Iranian regime will most likely do everything in its power to influence, meddle in and sway the 2020 US presidential election.

A recent statement issued by William Evanina, director of the US National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC), warned the American public that other countries are using "covert and overt influence measures" to sway the vote. The Iranian regime is named one of three countries, alongside Russia and China, about which the NCSC is particularly concerned.

The Iranian regime has various ways of trying to influence the US election. The regime can, of course, employ sophisticated and skilled hackers to help, for example. According to a statement released by tech giant Microsoft, hackers linked to the Iranian government had already started targeting the 2020 election:
"Today we're sharing that we've recently seen significant cyber activity by a threat group we call Phosphorus, which we believe originates from Iran and is linked to the Iranian government.
"In a 30-day period between August and September, the Microsoft Threat Intelligence Center (MSTIC) observed Phosphorus making more than 2,700 attempts to identify consumer email accounts belonging to specific Microsoft customers and then attack 241 of those accounts. The targeted accounts are associated with a U.S. presidential campaign, current and former U.S. government officials, journalists covering global politics and prominent Iranians living outside Iran."
The Iranian regime, like other adversaries, can also spread misinformation, fake news and false narratives on social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. In 2018 alone, Facebook removed "652 pages, groups and accounts for coordinated inauthentic behavior that originated in Iran and targeted people across multiple Internet services." The likes of Twitter and Google owner Alphabet have also identified hundreds of "inauthentic" accounts that seem to have originated in Iran.

By spreading false information, the regime is most likely attempting to advance specific narratives against the Trump administration, which would ultimately serve the interests of the mullahs and their militias, and strengthen the ruling clerics' hold on power.

The American public needs to be extremely vigilant of the attempts by adversaries of the US to interfere in the upcoming election to manipulate the public vote in favor of the candidate who might be the most malleable in agreeing to their demands.

  • Follow Majid Rafizadeh on Twitter

Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US foreign policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu

Source: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16403/us-election-interference

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The 2020 US Presidential Election: A Seminal Moment in Western History - Dr. Hanan Shai


by Dr. Hanan Shai

The US elections will be a contest not just between political figures and rival parties but between opposing worldviews.

BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,716, August 28, 2020


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The US elections will be a contest not just between political figures and rival parties but between opposing worldviews. Biden’s intention to “Europeanize” American democracy would leave the international system bereft of the democracy that saved humanity multiple times from the calamities wreaked upon it by European utopian thought.


President Donald Trump’s declaration in his Mount Rushmore speech of his intention to defend the traditional values of the United States, and Joe Biden’s declaration (backed by Bernie Sanders) of his intention to bring about a transformation of the United States, indicate that the 2020 elections will not be, as in the past, a democratic contest between two personalities and parties but a fateful contest between cultures: the Hebrew-biblical cultural of freedom from which the Anglo-Saxon democracies derived their values versus the Hellenistic culture of freedom from which the European democracies derived theirs.


There is a fundamental difference between the values of the two ancient cultures that formed the crucible of the modern West. The values of the Hebrew-biblical culture were derived from universal logic, the laws of which constitute an absolute and eternal truth and among which a harmony and coherence exists that is designed to foster a similar harmony (social justice) among human beings. The values of the Hellenistic culture, by contrast, were derived from human logic, which asserts that humanity is the standard that determines good and evil, there is no external standard for the moral judgment of human acts, and certain ideas exist that constitute an absolute truth that only elite individuals can discover and impose, by means of “keepers,” on a society that is “chained in a cave.”

European liberalism’s reliance on human logic led to the growth of the Jacobin, socialist, communist, and Nazi doctrines, which were foisted on the masses by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. Conversely, the forefathers of American democracy (Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin)—some of whom, like John Locke and other British thinkers, read and spoke Hebrew—adopted the values of Hebrew-biblical morality as the basis of the values of the United States.


The fact that in American democracy not only science but also humanism is based on natural law gave rise to a longstanding stability and prosperity, as well as a capability and a principled commitment to volunteer to salvage and rehabilitate the world from the severe calamities wreaked upon it by Europe’s utopian thinkers.


Apparently complacent from its victory over Nazism and communism, at the end of the 20th century American democracy failed to identify the danger of another erroneous theory that developed in Europe: post-structuralism (or progressive liberalism). That theory has penetrated deeply into American culture. Among other things, it claims that the calamities of the 20th century were caused by a proliferation of “truths” that emerged in Europe, and that preventing similar calamities in the future entails denying the existence of a single foundational truth and dismantling rational subjects that constitute a source of stability and authority (such as the family, nationalism and the nation-state, gender, the military, the police, and more) while “critically” examining their historical development. This is because the formation and activity of some of these social frameworks were tied to processes, in some instances very far back in history, that involved force and oppression.


The murder of George Floyd and the zealous protests that followed revealed three painful facts about American democracy as it stands today:

  • It is suffering severe social disharmony that stems from a longstanding interpretation of the values of freedom and justice that contravenes their original spirit.
  • The domains of humanism and society have been completely taken over by the ideas of progressive liberalism.
  • There is no intellectual elite that can mobilize to defend the values of American democracy against the progressive delusion in the manner of the “conservative” intellectual elite of the previous century that mobilized to defend the country against the communist delusion.

Only the reestablishment of American democracy in the spirit of the original values of freedom and justice on which it was based will rehabilitate the American project and afford it further long-term vitality. Conversely, an ideological transformation—i.e., a “Europeanization” of American democracy along the lines that Biden envisages—will put an end to both the successful American project and the democratic framework that saved humanity from the chain of calamities wrought by European liberal thought. This dangerous transformation could also open the door to the next “social project”—whose path to the West is already being paved by China with its “One Belt, One Road” initiative.


What is needed is a massive mobilization that ignores contemporary figures and problematic personality traits. Preventing the 2020 elections from becoming a negative seminal moment in the history of Western civilization is a supreme civilizational imperative.





Dr. Hanan Shai is lecturer in strategic, political, and military thought in the Political Science Department at Bar-Ilan University.

Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/us-presidential-election-2020/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Does the left think blacks are stupid? - Parker Beauregard


by Parker Beauregard

From a leftist worldview, how is it possible that Trump is a racist, but blacks can celebrate him?


How does anyone who leans even slightly left reconcile the fact all Trump-supporters are at virulent white supremacists with the most racially diverse Republican National Convention in the history of Republican conventions? More to the point, not only was it racially diverse, but each black speaker celebrated both President Trump as an individual and America as a whole. There was not a hint of oppression or victimhood. (The same commentary could also be made of the amazing women as well — 2024 ticket of Noem/Haley anyone? Oh wait, never mind — we hate women, too.)

From a leftist worldview, how is it possible that Trump is a racist, but blacks can celebrate him? 

Seriously, though, how do the left and those infected by its pernicious thoughtlessness explain the presence of such powerful black voices and honest advocacy for Trumpian politics from the likes of Tim Scott, Daniel Cameron, Ja'Ron Smith, Kim Klacik, and others? Apparently, the fact that a black man from the American Deep South can experience a generational transition "from cotton to Congress" does not impress all folks. 

As if on cue, media outlets immediately began assigning these prominent and successful individuals as the Republican Party's token "black friends." The term "Uncle Tom" even trended on Twitter. Lest the black community — nay, black individuals — wrestle with political identity and philosophy on their own, the media and leftist elites announced how they should viscerally react to dissident black voices.

The most incongruous aspect of all of this is that this crop of fiercely independent blacks are simultaneously not black if they vote for Trump, according to the Democratic candidate for president, and also tokens of the black community if they stand on stage supporting him. Which one is it?

To the left, it is impossible that a black could support Republicans, so unless they got paid off, duped, or hustled, the only remaining conclusion is that angry leftist voices consider black Republicans as less than. If a white leftist says it, is that not racist by definition — a white being better than a black? 

All of this is a tiring exercise. In the political sphere, what else is Trump supposed to do exactly with the black community? He can ignore it and be a racist or focus on it and be a racist, but not both. 

The left regularly impugns his character with hackneyed and outlandish charges of racism. He was compared to Hitler for caging immigrant kids, but it turned out that Obama built the facilities and "caged" them for years prior to the arrival of The Donald. He cracked down on unmitigated travel from what happened to be Muslim countries and even left off the most populous Muslim country in the world (Indonesia) but still got branded an Islamophobic xenophobe despite the implementation being a continuation of Obama-era policies. He got flak for calling Baltimore third-world, but then Kim Klacik came along and sounded off even more. Bernie got a pass for saying the exact same thing.

None of it sticks, but the beliefs persist.

All of this effort at fomenting hate, despite Trump intentionally seeking to redress real issues in the black community, from prison reform under 2018's First Step Act that alleviated low-level incarceration in the black community to historic levels of HBCU funding (just to name two). Articles by independent black women — including the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — here and here, go into more accomplishments through their own lens.

In the case of the HBCU funding, the president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund was quoted as saying at the time Trump assumed office: "This was something that, frankly, the black college community assumed would have been easily accomplished with the first African-American president, and after over eight years of repeated requests, to think that within 45 days of his presidency we were able to convene all of the [HBCU] presidents in the Oval Office..."

Even things as minor as pardoning Jack Johnson go to the root of righting wrongs. Where was Obama, the first black president, in tackling any of the real issues keeping the black community down? How did he help anyone? 

The reality is that the media will focus on whatever is or is not happening and portray it negatively. There is no truth too stretched or fact too inconvenient. If Trump comes out in support of police, he is a white supremacist upholding institutional racism. If he champions the black community by directing funds to its needs or employing a diverse field of qualified individuals, he panders to them or houses a cadre of Uncle Toms whom he pays in silver pieces.

Americans, especially the black community, are starting to wake up to the empty promises and dangerous consequences of voting blue. If you live in Chicago, Seattle, New York, Minneapolis, Portland, etc., do you feel safer? Does the lack of police make your life better? If you stop to ask black Americans what they want, over 80% of them say they want the same level of policing or more compared to pre–George Floyd. Nevertheless, the lie marches on that Democrats have blacks' interest best at heart.

In an honest world, the likes of Tim Scott, Daniel Cameron, Ja'Ron Smith, and Kim Klacik would be elevated as exemplars of what is possible in America. They are all black Americans who have overcome the legacies of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation through their own familial and individual determinations and not let their circumstances dictate their outcomes.

Senator Scott admitted to his record of driving while black, and while it is a point of frustration for him and a terrific focus for societal improvement, it need not define his life or prevent him from achieving greatness. In a state with five million people, he is one of two U.S. senators representing all of them. That's pretty good for anybody, let alone a black man in a country alleged to hunt down blacks wherever possible.

Ms. Klacik has her own special background, which, before entering politics, includes starting a non-profit focused on assisting women intent on re-entering the workforce and obtaining financial independence. Gosh, she sounds like a monster.

For daring to speak up about the opportunity that this great nation has afforded them, they are labeled as sell-outs and tokens. When emotions run high enough, those labels are tossed aside, and pundits outright question their thought process for landing on conservative values.

So does the left think black people are stupid? Yes.


Parker Beauregard writes cultural commentary for ordinary Americans. He has been published on American Thinker, Liberty Nation, Right Wire Report, and blogs at thelastbesthope.xyz. Contact him at thelastbesthope@protonmail.com.

Source: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/does_the_left_think_blacks_are_stupid.html

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Israel’s Security Barrier: A Political Ruse in the Guise of Security - Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen


by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

US Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross when the barrier was being built: “It looks like a border, it smells like a border, it is a border!”




BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,715, August 28, 2020

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The security barrier between Israel and the West Bank constitutes one of the most prolonged and expensive projects Israel has ever carried out, and its adverse implications for Israel’s future borders are of profound significance. The massive crossing of the barrier in recent weeks by West Bank Palestinians offers an opportunity to open the eyes of the public to its real function as a dangerous political ruse in the guise of security.

Thousands of West Bank Palestinians, maybe even tens of thousands, recently crossed the security barrier and arrived in buses to various beaches in Israel. The barrier was mainly crossed in the area of Tulkarem-Qalqilya, where the fence has many breaches. While many were alarmed by this event, it should come as no surprise.

A barrier that is not closely monitored along its entire length, at all times, and with a broad order of battle cannot obstruct those who want to cross it. The IDF and the Israel Police never had the manpower required for this. About two years ago, I published a detailed study of the subject that maintained that the security barrier was built as a political ruse to exploit the fear of terror in order to unilaterally establish a political border.

As an obstacle, a barrier is undoubtedly beneficial to an overall effort at tactical defense. The question of its usefulness arises when this tactical tool becomes a strategic orientation. The most basic question about the barrier is how necessary it really is to prevent terrorism. The success of the IDF and the security forces in suppressing West Bank terrorism since Operation Defensive Shield (2002) indicates that terrorism has been thwarted primarily by ongoing daily efforts deep in the West Bank, not by activity along the barrier. Therein also lies the important difference between the effectiveness of counterterrorist operations in the West Bank and the IDF’s inconclusive activity along the Gaza Strip barrier.

The debate over the barrier is not just about security, especially when its route runs, for the most part, along the Green Line. This was candidly noted by US Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross back when the building of the barrier began. In a tour of the route that was under construction, Ross stopped, looked at the nascent barrier with satisfaction, and said, “It looks like a border, it smells like a border, it is a border!”

The idea of building a security barrier began to emerge in the early 1990s, when there was an outbreak of suicide bombings after the inking of the Oslo Accords, and by 1995 the Rabin government was considering the idea. However, PM Rabin’s realization that the barrier’s construction would have far-reaching political implications, in effect determining the route of the political border, led him to reject it.

There were others in the then-ruling Labor coalition, however, who saw the fight against terrorism as an opportunity to launch a major move: a simple, quick, and effective way to separate the Israelis and the Palestinians and cede the West Bank by setting in train a process on the ground without having to worry about an Israeli public debate, negotiations, or an agreement.

In the ongoing debate in Israel between those advocates of a withdrawal to the Green Line and proponents of extending sovereignty to part of the West Bank, the decision to build the barrier marked a highly significant shift in the direction of withdrawal. Its architects foresaw a solution in two stages: first, a barrier would be built with the IDF operating on both sides; then the IDF would be deployed only along the Israeli side of the barrier thus creating a de facto border.

The security barrier is one of the most prolonged and expensive projects that Israel has ever carried out. Its cost is thus far estimated at more than 15 billion shekels (over $4 billion), and its adverse implications for Israel’s future borders are of profound significance. Its recent massive crossing offers an opportunity to open the eyes of the public to the barrier’s real function as a dangerous political ruse in the guise of security.



Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen is a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. He served in the IDF for 42 years. He commanded troops in battles with Egypt and Syria. He was formerly a corps commander and commander of the IDF Military Colleges.

Source: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israel-security-barrier/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



Are California’s Green-Energy-Induced Woes America’s Future? - H. Sterling Burnett


by H. Sterling Burnett

[A]ccording to the elitist current and former governors of California, the answer to the state’s politically induced energy crisis is for people to swelter in the dark.

Coming to a city and state near you: California-style energy shortages and blackouts. At least that will be the case if Democrats keep their campaign promises and impose the type of zero carbon dioxide emission green energy mandates and fossil fuel restrictions on the nation that California has forced upon its residents.

It’s not enough that Californians are suffering through extreme heat and seeing their communities go up in smoke amid awful wildfires. Residents and businesses in the state are also suffering government-inflicted harm as power blackouts roll through California. The cause of the blackouts is the ever-growing spate of taxes and restrictions placed on the use of fossil fuels to generate electric power in the state, leaving it dependent on government-favored, intermittent, renewable power sources.

The news satire site The Sacramento Brie described the situation in a hilarious article, “Gov. Newsom: California successfully tests power blackouts as state prepares for 2025,” filled with made-up but basically accurate quotes. As the Brie notes, in 2018 California enacted a law requiring 50 percent of the electricity delivered in the state come from renewable sources by 2025, 60 percent by 2030, and that all electricity in the state come from sources emitting no carbon dioxide during generation by 2050. As such, the Brie writes—with good humor, a wink, and a nod—the rolling blackouts in California over the past few weeks are a preview of the state’s future.

The Brie article satirically “quotes” Gov. Gavin Newsom (D): “‘These blackouts, which occurred without prior warning or time for preparation between 3 p.m. and 10 p.m., demonstrate exactly the kind of green energy capability California government has been shooting for,’ Newsom said at a meeting of energy professionals on Sunday.”

“[R]esidents, communities and other governmental organizations did not receive sufficient warning that these de-energizations would occur, which is exactly what we expect to happen—but on a much larger scale—as the state moves toward 100 percent renewable energy in 2045,” the Brie imagines Newsom saying.

Although these quotes are fictional, they describe the situation accurately. In the past few weeks, dozens of news outlets have carried stories outlining how California’s green energy policies have resulted in repeated failures of the power supply in recent years.

For instance, an article in the California Globe, “California’s Electric Grid Is Near Collapse,” explicitly links the state’s repeated blackouts to its embrace of renewable energy sources to the exclusion of historically reliable and inexpensive electricity generated by fossil fuels. “California’s bet on renewables and shunning of natural gas and nuclear power, is directly responsible for the state’s blackouts and high electricity prices,” the author writes.

High and mighty in their mansions, the architects of the policies that have led to this power failure—such as former California governor Jerry Brown (D) and current governor Newsom—blamed the state’s common people, the unwashed hoi polloi, for the blackouts, admonishing them in multiple tweets to turn out their lights and turn up their thermostats. The latter direction from Brown is especially galling, coming as it did during a deadly heat wave. You read that right: according to the elitist current and former governors of California, the answer to the state’s politically induced energy crisis is for people to swelter in the dark.

In a rare honest moment for Newsom, he and other California officials finally admitted at a press event the renewable power mandates were responsible for the power failures across the state, as reported by Breitbart.

“California Gov. Gavin Newsom said [on August 17] the state had to ‘sober up’ about the fact that renewable energy sources had failed to provide enough power for the state at peak demand, and needed ‘backup’ and ‘insurance’ from other sources,” Breitbart reports. Newsome went on to admit the critical reason the state lacked power was its overreliance on renewable power sources, in particular wind and solar. But then Newsom lapsed back into typical political obfuscation, saying, “We failed to predict and plan these shortages.”

Who is this “we”? Analysts from think tanks in California (Reason Foundation, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Independent Institute), Washington, D.C. (the Competitive Enterprise Institute), and in between (my own think tank, The Heartland Institute in Illinois) have warned for years California’s policies would cause dangerous power shortages. And, too little, too late, on June 11, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) admitted as much, approving the use of up to 450 megawatts of diesel generators to fill in when renewable power sources failed to supply sufficient energy. One cannot honestly say no one knew this could happen.

Unfortunately for Californians, the recent power shortfalls exceeded 1,000 megawatts, more than double the allowed diesel backup. As more and more green energy is added to the grid, the gap between the reliable power demanded and what is available on any particular day will only grow.

California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts, a senior fellow with The Heartland Institute, perhaps summed up the source of the state’s energy shortfall best:

We are on the cusp of a massive failure of the electricity grid in California. Solar power has this thorny problem; it disappears after sunset. Now, California is paying the price for abandoning reliable energy sources in favor of green energy sources such as wind and solar power, which don’t work when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. During heat waves like California is experiencing now, there’s typically plenty of sunshine, but winds are often stagnant.
The situation is even worse than what Watts describes. Peak electricity use in California occurs in the summer, which coincides with wildfire season, so even when the sun is shining brightly, smoke often blocks much light from reaching rooftop solar panels. Also, if homes with solar panels are destroyed by the wildfires, even this minimal input to the system is lost.
As to wind power, winds are often stagnant in California during the early part of the summer, meaning wind turbines are not adding much to the system, but later in the summer, during peak wildfire season, the Santa Ana winds often strike. The high winds make it difficult to fight wildfires. They also sometimes cause utilities to shut down the wind turbines because winds that are too high can destroy them. Ironically, like the porridge in the fairy tale Goldilocks and the Three Bears, wind speeds have to be “just right” for wind farms to provide energy.

California could have easily avoided these problems, if only bureaucrats and politicians had allowed even one modern large coal-fueled power plant to remain open, or had they allowed new natural gas plants to be built. They could have provided more than enough power to make up for any shortfall from wind and solar. Unfortunately, California politicos care more about the approbation of fringe radical environmentalists than the well-being of the average Californian.

The Democrat Party is promising to impose California-style energy policies on the entire country if it wins power nationally in the November election. Consider yourself warned. Paraphrasing Smokey the Bear, “Only you can prevent power blackouts!”—at the ballot box.



H. Sterling Burnett

Source: heartland.org

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter



The JCPOA and the Demise of the Post-Cold War Order - Caroline Glick


by Caroline Glick

The Security Council’s rejection of America’s self-evident right to trigger the snapback clauses in Resolution 2231 has triggered the end of Scowcroft’s institutionalist post-Cold War foreign policy.




Many eulogies of Brent Scowcroft, president George H.W. Bush’s national security advisor who died on August 6, have referred to him as a foreign policy realist. Whereas the question of his putative realism boils down to how you define the term, it is very clear that Scowcroft was an institutionalist.

His institutionalism passed away at the UN Security Council last Thursday.

As one of the chief architects of the United States’ post-Cold War foreign policy, Scowcroft believed the end of the U.S.-Soviet rivalry ushered in a new period of great power comity that would enable international institutions—first and foremost, the United Nations—to replace states as the primary actors on the world stage.

In a 1999 interview, Scowcroft explained that he reached this conclusion after the Soviets supported U.S. condemnations of Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

In his words, “I hypothesized that the fact of the Soviets standing up beside us and denouncing [Iraq’s] aggression in Kuwait was a seminal event in the world. We had set up the United Nations in ’45 with the notion that the Great Powers would really have responsibility for security around the world. It had never worked. We [the U.S. and the USSR] came up on the opposite sides of every crisis. Maybe that was ending. If that was ending, could we look forward to a world where the kind of naked aggression that had been the bane of mankind could be ended, that the Great Powers could actually act as the framers of the U.N. had in mind?”

The Soviet support for the U.S. at the UN in the lead-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War fed the hopes of Scowcroft and his colleagues that we were indeed witness to the UN’s emergence as the central instrument of a cooperative post-Cold War “New World Order.”

But far from a seminal event in world history, the Kremlin’s support was an expression of profound, albeit momentary, weakness. Months after the Gulf War, the Soviet Union collapsed and was replaced by the Russian Federation. As Russia emerged on the world stage, like the Soviet Union before it, it built its power and position as a superpower in opposition to the U.S.

Scowcroft’s institutionalist legacy of U.S. action in the framework of the UN Security Council died last Thursday, when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that in light of Iran’s substantive breaches of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, (JCPOA, i.e., the Iran nuclear deal), the U.S. is triggering the so-called “snapback” clauses of UN Security Council Resolution 2231.

Resolution 2231, passed in 2015, serves as the legal anchor to the JCPOA, which was itself an informal, unsigned agreement between Iran, the U.S., the EU, Russia, China, France, the U.K. and Germany.

Resolution 2231 empowers parties to the resolution to inform the Security Council if Iran is in breach of the limitations it accepted on its nuclear activities in the JCPOA. Iran began openly breaching the deal’s limits last year.

Under the so-called snapback clauses of Resolution 2231, 30 days after a party to the resolution informs the Security Council of Iranian breaches, Security Council sanctions that were suspended with the implementation of the JCPOA are automatically reinstated.

Rather than respect 2231’s snapback clauses that the U.S. triggered last Thursday, Russia, China, the EU, the U.K., France and Germany responded to Pompeo’s announcement by claiming that the U.S. lacks the power to trigger the snapback sanctions because the Trump administration abandoned the JCPOA in 2018.

We now face the prospect of the UN breaching its own binding resolution to block the U.S. from using the power the resolution unambiguously granted it. Washington is likely to ignore the Security Council’s action and enforce the UN sanctions with assistance from allies. To this end, Pompeo is traveling through the Middle East this week to expand the alliance initiated by Israel and the United Arab Emirates two weeks ago to include other regional actors and neighbors of Iran, including Sudan, Bahrain and Oman.

Administration critics claim that Pompeo’s action at the UN undercut U.S. veto power and weakened the U.S. going forward, because a precedent of ignoring U.S action at the Security Council has now been set. Consequently, future U.S. vetoes may be ignored.

It may be true that the Security Council will repeat its rogue action. But it will be the UN and the states that use the UN to leverage their power against the U.S. that will themselves be harmed.

The three presidential administrations that followed George H.W. Bush shared Scowcroft’s foreign policy institutionalism. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama all aspired to carry out U.S. foreign policy in the framework of the UN, which they accorded vast legitimacy and prestige. Clinton and Bush’s efforts were both met with failure.

As Russia rose from the ashes of the Soviet Union, in 1998 it blocked Clinton administration efforts to pass a Security Council resolution authorizing the bombing of Serbia. The second Bush administration expended massive efforts and prestige in its failed bid to secure Security Council support for its invasion of Iraq.

The Clinton administration was compelled to operate in Serbia under the NATO umbrella.
With its Iraq plans blocked at the UN, George W. Bush formed a “coalition of the willing” to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003.

These rejections didn’t temper either administration’s desire for UN approval. For instance, instead of supporting Israel in its war against Hezbollah in 2006, then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice worked with France and the Hezbollah-controlled Lebanese government to negotiate a ceasefire deal through the Security Council. Resolution 1701 enabled Hezbollah’s takeover of Lebanon in the 2008 coup by treating the Iranian terror proxy as a legitimate geopolitical actor. The resolution expanded UNIFIL, the UN force in Lebanon, in a manner that ensured it would serve as a cover for Hezbollah’s rearmament and control over the border with Israel.

Rather than ditch the ceasefire talks as they led to a resolution that strengthened U.S. enemies Iran and Hezbollah at Israel’s expense, Rice put process before substance and hailed 1701 as a triumph of U.S. diplomacy.

For its part, the Obama administration viewed the Security Council as a means to weaken its political opponents. The purpose of Resolution 2231 was to subvert the Senate’s constitutional power to ratify treaties. As Henry Kissinger noted at the time, the JCPOA, which legitimized the greatest state sponsor of terrorism’s illicit nuclear weapons program, upended 70 years of U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts. By presenting it as an informal agreement, and then giving it the force of a Security Council resolution, Obama effectively compelled Congress to treat the JCPOA as if it were a ratified treaty.

The Trump administration is the first post-Cold War U.S. administration that has forthrightly and consistently rejected Scowcroft’s international institutionalism, preferring instead President Donald Trump’s “America First” foreign policy.

Trump’s foreign policy has been condemned by its critics as immoral for its preference of transactional partnerships based on common interests over permanent, treaty-based alliances. But as the Security Council members’ responses to Pompeo’s triggering of the snapback sanctions last Thursday makes clear, the opposite is the case.

China and Russia wish to give Iran a pass for its illicit nuclear activities because they want to make money on weapons deals with Tehran. Unlike the U.S., they are not concerned about Iran’s support for terrorism or pursuit of nuclear weapons because they don’t believe Iran threatens them.

The Europeans side with Russia, China and Iran against the U.S. for many reasons. None are moral. Chief among them is their certainty that the U.S. will block Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of what they do. Operating as free-riders, the Europeans feel safe appeasing Tehran at Washington’s expense.

In contrast, both the Trump administration’s decision to walk away from the JCPOA and reimpose U.S. sanctions on Iran and its efforts to reimpose UN sanctions against Iran under Resolution 2231’s snapback clauses reflect the administration’s deep-seated commitment to preventing a rogue regime, which has pledged to annihilate Israel and aspires to destroy the United States, from acquiring the means to build a nuclear arsenal. Obviously, it is not the Trump administration that is behaving immorally.

The Trump administration’s contempt for international institutionalism doesn’t translate into sanctifying unilateralism. To the contrary, by strengthening foreign partners that share its interest in blocking Iran’s nuclear project rather than tying itself to an institution that supports Iran’s nuclear program, the administration is employing multilateralism effectively.

Scowcroft is remembered as a foreign policy realist, but his institutionalism bound the U.S. to international bodies that did not share its real national interests. The Security Council’s rejection of America’s self-evident right to trigger the snapback clauses in Resolution 2231 has triggered the end of Scowcroft’s institutionalist post-Cold War foreign policy. Its demise is not a blow to the U.S. Rather, it is a blow to the prestige of the experts who preferred UN action that harmed U.S. interests and undermined its goals over the transactional partnerships that advance them.

Originally published in Newsweek.


Caroline Glick

Source: http://carolineglick.com/the-jcpoa-and-the-demise-of-the-post-cold-war-order/

Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter