Back in April, I did the first blog on our "deal" with Iran, the initial framework for the nuclear deal that we are trying to strike. I said then that it would not work, and that the deal was just too one-sided, all in favor of Iran. Netanyahu of Israel called it the worst deal in history, and for that he has been ostracized, criticized, and generally black-balled by the current administration. From the start we made concessions, releasing frozen funds and relaxing some of the sanctions. This, of course, was not announced to the American public! We also made concessions in the form of allowing Iran to enter Iraq to fight ISIS, thereby raising Iran's stock in the Islamic world. Like everything else connected with that deal, nothing has worked out in our favor and everything has helped Iran.
There has been one extension after another.....as soon as the round of talks fail to reach agreement by the deadline, we establish another deadline. We just set another deadline, until July 13. This is so typical of this administration's constant re-drawing of the "thin red-line." I keep using that expression because it is, in my opinion, the very crux of the problem that we have. Our president used that expression several years ago in describing how the U.S. would step-in should Syria's regime cross the "thin red-line" that he drew. Well, Syria has crossed that line more than a dozen times and we have done nothing! This, incidentally, gave Putin a very clear signal that our government wasn't going to back up its word! We all know what this led to in Ukraine! So now, we are constantly redrawing the line in our dealing with Iran. In the process, we are making more and more concessions! If the "worst deal of the Century" is ever actually struck, Iran will receive 150 billion dollars in cash assets immediately with no strings attached. What guarantee do we have that the money will not be used to finance terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah? None. Congress is desperately trying to come up with language that will insure that Iran will not use the money to finance terrorist activity, but so far, the administration has not said anything. No doubt because Iran insists on no strings being attached to these funds or any other concessions that we make.
Supposedly, the deal will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for the next ten or fifteen (the number of years have not been established) years. This is on Iran's word, there are no written guarantees, and we all know how good Iran's word is! In the meantime, with the relaxed sanctions and inflow of money, Iran will not only prosper but will benefit tremendously militarily as well. Iran will only agree to allow inspection of sites that they choose, and we are agreeing to that! When asked about the "delaying tactics" philosophy employed by the administration, Obama replied that it was better to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons now then ten years from now. What? I don't follow that logic! Shouldn't we just prevent them from having nukes all together?
I will not go into details, but there are numerous demands by Iran that we and the so-called "other" nations are agreeing to. The "other" nations, which include Russia and China, both have a vested interest in Iran's nuclear development and military build-up, since they are the biggest suppliers of material to Iran, both conventional and nuclear. So why shouldn't they agree? The better question is, why are we agreeing to this one sided deal? Are we trying to create another Islamic state with nuclear power? Pakistan already has nukes, but at least Pakistan is supposedly on our side. The idea that the deal is good because it will keep Iran from developing nukes in the next ten years or so just doesn't make sense. It sounds to me like, "as long as it doesn't happen on my watch" philosophy! It seems that is exactly what this administration is doing and thereby trying to establish a legacy that "Obama kept Iran from having nukes!"
But my frustration with this administration's foreign policy does not end with this disastrous nuclear deal that it is trying to strike. Let's look at our war against ISIS, the Islamic extremist group that is now overshadowing Al Qaeda and Taliban. A year ago President Obama on national television referred to ISIS as the "junior varsity" of the Islamic terrorists. Those were his words, I am not making it up! Four months later he declared that the ISIS situation was "regional," apparently not something to be overly concerned with here in the U.S. Again, those were his words, not mine. Now, this week, he announced that the war against ISIS will be a long one that will last years, perhaps decades! How can you change your opinion so drastically? It goes from insignificant "junior varsity," to "regional," and now an enemy that we may be fighting for "decades"? So, if that is indeed what his opinion is currently, what are his plans? What is the strategy to defeat this cancer? Apparently it is very secret, "stealth" type strategy, which to date has not worked! At least that is what the administration would like us to think. Quite frankly, I don't think Washington has a strategy! Senator John McCain said it best just the other day when he criticized our "none" strategy against ISIS after Obama's announcement that it may take "decades" of fighting. McCain said that "if you are not winning the war, then there is only one answer, you are losing!"
Almost at the same time as Obama's announcement that we should be prepared to face ISIS for decades, the U.S. Army announced the reduction of its soldiers by 40,000 and civilian employees by 17,000 due to the shrinking budget. That will bring down our standing army to about 400,000 men. During the peak of our fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were over 500,000 soldiers on active duty. That was not enough, so that National Guard and Reserves were almost exhausted and regular army troops were seeing two three deployments in two year's time. In case of Special Operations troops, they were seeing even more frequent deployments! Enlistments and re-enlistments dropped dramatically because many troops were exhausted, couldn't take the frequent deployments. It was too much a financial and emotional strain and hell on their families!
So, let me get this straight. With the announcement by the president that we should be prepared to face ISIS for possibly decades, we are reducing the number of regular army troops. There is something that is not quite right in this scenario. Are our troops going to see even more frequent deployments than during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Has Washington discovered some kind of secret weapon that will replace the troops? We obviously have some sort of a "stealth" strategy to this war against ISIS. It may have not worked yet, but it will soon, or so it seems.
I don't wish to be so negative about the situation, but we seem to be going in the wrong direction, or to put it another way, we seem to have no direction! You might say that complaining is easy, but where are the solutions? Do I have anything to suggest or offer? Yes I do.
On the subject of nuclear deal with Iran. Forget it. Enough time and money has been already wasted. The sanctions were working, Iran was on the verge of collapsing, then we came in an offered them an "out." Why? So Obama can claim it as his legacy? It makes absolutely no sense. Just go back to the old sanctions, keep squeezing, Iran will give in!
On the subject of ISIS, very simply, get U.S. involved more directly and if need be, although not a popular move by any stretch, send U.S. ground troops. Obama's popularity with the liberals may drop in the polls, but it will get the job done.
But neither one of the things I suggested will take place, at least not any time soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment