This is all the more reason, beyond the ones I detailed yesterday, why it is good that Tillerson is gone. The Iran nuclear deal is catastrophically bad for the U.S. and the free world in general; I detail exactly how bad in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to Iran. All the supporters of the Iran deal should be swept out of the State Department. Will Pompeo do that? Will it even be possible? We can only hope.
“Tillerson Fired Over Rogue Bid to Save Iran Nuke Deal,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, March 13, 2018:
The abrupt firing Tuesday of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson follows months of infighting between the State Department and White House over efforts by Tillerson to save the Iran nuclear deal and ignore President Donald Trump’s demands that the agreement be fixed or completely scrapped by the United States, according to multiple sources with knowledge of the situation who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.
In the weeks leading up to Tillerson’s departure, he had been spearheading efforts to convince European allies to agree to a range of fixes to the nuclear deal that would address Iran’s ongoing ballistic missile program and continued nuclear research.
While Trump had prescribed a range of fixes that he viewed as tightening the deal’s flaws, Tillerson recently caved to European pressure to walk back these demands and appease Tehran while preserving the deal, according to these sources. The Free Beacon first disclosed this tension last week in a wide-ranging report.
White House allies warned Tillerson’s senior staff for weeks that efforts to save the nuclear deal and balk on Trump’s key demands regarding the deal could cost Tillerson his job, a warning that became reality Tuesday when Trump fired Tillerson by tweet.
Tillerson will be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo, a former member of Congress who established a record as being tough on Iran and echoing many of the policies called for by Trump. Insiders expect Pompeo to take a much harder line on the nuclear deal and pursue many of the fixes advocated by Trump, such as outlawing Iran’s ballistic missile program and instating fierce repercussions for any future breach.
While Tillerson’s exit had been rumored for months, multiple sources with knowledge of the situation said the former secretary’s repeated attempts to balk the White House and pursue his own diplomatic strategy, particularly regarding Iran, triggered his sudden exit.
Sources with knowledge of the matter said the White House informed Tillerson on Friday that Trump was seeking to make a change.
Rep. Ron DeSantis (R., Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and vocal opponent of the nuclear deal, said he expects Pompeo to more faithfully execute Trump’s policies regarding Iran.
“President Trump has been clear that the Iran deal is terrible policy and has sought ways to hold Iran accountable,” DeSantis told the Free Beacon. “With Mike Pompeo, Trump will have a Secretary of State who sees the threat posed by the JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] and by Tehran in a similar light as he does.”
One veteran Iran policy expert who is close to the White House and worked repeatedly with the State Department told the Free Beacon that Tillerson worked to save the Iran deal as Trump was publicly advocating to scrap the agreement.
This tension between the White House and Foggy Bottom came to a head in recent days, prompting Trump to fire Tillerson and bring in Pompeo, an official who Trump believes will pressure European allies to more seriously fix a range of flaws in the nuclear deal.
“Tillerson staked his position on saving the Iran deal by threading the needle. He promised the president he could strengthen it enough to be good, but not so much the Europeans would backlash or the Iranians would bolt,” said the source, who would only speak about the sensitive matter on background. “That was always going to be tricky, then it became impossible, then it became embarrassing. The Europeans weren’t giving us enough on missiles and were refusing to budge on sunsets. And so here we are.”
Opponents of the Iran deal on Capitol Hill welcomed the news of Tillerson’s exit, telling the Free Beacon that as the deadline approaches for the United States and European allies to fix the Iran deal, Pompeo can help push Trump’s hardline stance.
“As the deadline approaches to fix the Iran Deal, Tillerson’s departure is welcome news. We need our top diplomat to share the president’s view on the disastrous nature of the JCPOA, and CIA Director Pompeo is the right man for the job,” said one senior congressional official who works on the Iran issue. “Hopefully now our European partners understand the president’s resolve and will work with us to permanently prevent Iran from going nuclear.”
Shortly after Trump fired Tillerson, the former secretary’s spokesman issued a statement claiming Tillerson was not sure of the reason for his dismissal.
“The secretary did not speak to the president and is unaware of the reason,” Steve Goldstein, undersecretary for public diplomacy, told reporters. Goldstein was fired later in the day due to his statement….
Steve says
How did this dhimmi stooge get the position in the first place? Who was advising Trump that this swamp creature be hired?
Wellington says
Well, actually, Tillerson was not part of the Swamp. He was a businessman and eventually became CEO of ExxonMobil.
Yes, as CEO he did business with Middle Eastern nations, but he wasn’t a Washington bureaucrat or politician. Frankly, I think he’s a decent man who has some bad ideas and thus I too am glad President Trump replaced him with Mike Pompeo but it seems Pompeo thinks the Iraq War in its entirety was a good thing and this make me wary.
I do believe Bush 43 had to take out Saddam Hussein who was out of control, regularly violating the truce terms of the 1991 War (e.g., firing on British and American jets patrolling the two no-fly zones) and was the only dictator in the world who had WMDs AND had used them. Moreover, every major intelligence agency thought SH wasn’t coming clean on his WMDs and Bush couldn’t take the chance of leaving such a man in power. Where Bush erred was in thinking he could install democracy in Iraq. He should have kept the Iraqi military in tact and selected a competent authoritarian from the officer corps to run Iraq, but Bush didn’t do this and, unless I am mistaken, Pompeo still doesn’t understand to this day this was an error by Bush. Perhaps, though, Pompeo has learned. Hope so.
balam says
Pompeo will be a good counter match against Putin.
Wellington says
“Pompeo will be a good counter match against Putin.”
I hope so since Putin so deserves lots of counter-matches. The more unchecked Putin is, the worse it is for loads of others. He’s behaving in typical anti-freedom, xenophobic, paranoid, Moscow-is-the-third Rome, authoritarian Russian mode. It’s become an exceedingly tedious, even dumb, mode. While individual Russians can excel most impressively, and Russian courage and artistic and intellectual excellence cannot be questioned, Russia as a whole remains backwards because its zeitgeist is all screwed up.
In short, the parts are greater than the whole and the plan of any polity, whether city-state, nation-state or even empire, should be having the whole even greater than the parts. Russia has never achieved this. And it never will under Putin. Russia is sorely in need of a George Washington, an Abraham Lincoln, a Ronald Reagan. Never has gotten one. What a damn shame and what a waste.
gravenimage says
I hope so, balam. But as awful as Putin is–note the recent poisonings in London–Islam is an ever greater threat.
Pompeo’s uncritical support for the Iraq war is denifinely a concern. But it is also true that he is hated and feared by Muslim apologists, and that is a mark in his favor in and of itself.
christianblood says
balam
Whether Pompeo, Tillerson or any US politician for that matter, Russia and its leaders will pursue what is good for Russia and will also be a good counter balance against the crazy US’s pro-islamist, pro-jihadist, globalist liberal imperialist agenda. Just to give you a fresh example,
Two days ago, the US government have threatened to attack the Syrian government in order to ease pressure of their encircled jihadist buddies in Eastern Ghouta, a city in Syria and Russia warned that it if the US bombs the Syrian government soldiers that are encircling these jihadists, then Russia will respond and this can easily develop into a full scale nuclear war between the US and Russia! That is how dangerous a world we live in! Read the Russian General’s stark warning to the US that was issued yesterday and it is very remarkable that the pro-islamist, Western MSM did not even report this and many of you are not even aware of it. What a crazy world are we living in! Read it below:
https://russia-insider.com/en/chief-russian-general-staff-says-will-target-us-aircraft-if-strikes-syrian-army-endanger-his-men
gravenimage says
Christianblood, I do not believe that poisoning journalists is “good for Russia”. Good for Putin, maybe–you do know that these are not always the same thing?
christianblood says
gravenimage
“poisoning journalists”? Which journalists?
The latest so-called poisoning of the double agent in UK is nothing but a set up, a false flag by the “deep state” to demonize Russia and its leader and it is already failing, because the Brits refuse to show any evidence of it or who actually who carried it out.
gravenimage says
Uh….right. Are you claiming that every one of these poisonings have been by the West to make Russia look bad? Sounds familiar…
Putin does not deny poisonings, here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2018/03/13/putin-response-russian-spy-lon-orig-bks.cnn
Moreover, many of the victims–where they survived–or loved ones and associates, have said that it was Russia–not the West–that poisoned them.
Are we to believe that it is the West that is poisoning so many of Putin’s enemies for him?
Terry Gain says
Installing a new dictator would not have solved the problem of preventing Iraq from developing nuclear ambitions. If Hussein had been left in power Iraq today would be developing nuclear weapons. A dictator would likely have pursued the same goal. Bush essentially had no choice as I discovered when I read McGrory and Bhattia’s book Saddam’s Bomb and learned just how close Saddam was to having nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait and caused the Gulf War.
The cost of the Iraq war must be measured against the cost of Iraq having nuclear weapons. Few even attempt to contemplate that development.
gravenimage says
Yes–just a mess all the way around.
christianblood says
Terry Gain
The destruction of Iraq with false flag of WMD had nothing to do with nukes. It was a plan for the warmongering US neocons to destroy 7 countries in the Middle East and Iraq was the first. Please watch as Gen. Wesley Clark explains this on the video clip below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E
And by the way, do you know that Saudi Arabia, with the help of the US is going nuclear? Check it below:
http://theduran.com/with-americas-help-saudi-arabia-is-moving-to-become-a-nuclear-power/
Wellington says
I respectfully disagree, Terry Gain. After Saddam Hussein was overthrown the chances were good (though not a guarantee) a Mubarak type from the Iraqi officer corps could have been installed in power ON CONDITION that he let the US make absolutely certain that no WMDs remained and that said officer would not pursue nuclear or any WMD capacity.
At the point that SH was overthrown in 2003, America was holding all the cards and Bush, perhaps understandably but still wrongly, thought that democracy could be implanted in a Muslim country. No it can’t. You either have an authoritarian regime which is hopefully not too brutal (Mubarak as opposed to SH) or you have an Islamic theocratic regime. Besides, right now, Iraq is quite subservient to Iran, but had Bush done what I proposed a strong, secular Iraqi military would to this day serve as a good counter to Iranian ambitions.
Wellington says
Christianblood: There was no false flag about Saddam Hussein, his WMDs and his not coming clean about them. Every major intelligence agency in the world, including Russian intelligence, thought that SH was not forthcoming about his WMDs. Bush invaded Iraq to get rid of a megalomaniac who was the only dictator in the world who had WMDs AND had used them (e.g., against the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq and against the Kurds) and he was being very coy about whether he still had such horrible weaponry. Bush couldn’t take the chance of leaving such an unstable and ruthless man in power.
Dislike America if you want, but don’t make up stuff. Besides, Putin is a bad dude and your continued defense of this authoritarian does not redound to your credit.
gravenimage says
Spot on posts, Wellington.
I see that Christianblood is even good with defending Muslim dictators if he thinks he can get a dig in against the hated United States. *Ugh*.
DAN III says
Evidently the same stooge who advised POTUS 45 to install Swamp Weasel Jeff “Do-Nothing” Sessions as Attorney General !
Now, FIRE Sessions and get an AG who will “Lock her up !”
J D S says
Maybe by “trial” and “error” President Trump will eventually get people in place that will work to bring the U.S. up to where it should be. Lets hope that the”error” stage has just left some scars and not wounds.
JawsV says
Rex was fired because he called Trump a moron in 2017.
gravenimage says
If that was the only reason then one wonders why he was not fired sooner, Jaws.
JawsV says
It’s pretty soon. Less than a year. Of course Trump couldn’t do it right away. But the insult was smoldering. You don’t call Trump a moron and get away with it. Henry 8 didn’t behead people right away either. Time passed. Then when they least expected it (like Rex) it was off to the Tower.
StellaSaidSo says
+1
‘Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.’
JawsV says
The target is completely flummoxed when the axe comes down. Henry 8 used this strategy on Thomas Cromwell after he screwed up with the Anne of Cleves debacle.
gravenimage says
Jaws, I don’t think we want a president like Henry VIII, if that is what you are advocating. Do you *really* think someone should be executed for suggesting a mate not to the king’s liking?
By the way, the king later regretted having killed Cromwell–his closest ally.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/03/13/ten-issues-divided-trump-tillerson/
John Penn says
Video just published on youtube of Lauren Southern speaking at the EU. Please visit the video and share it. Search by this phrase: European Parliament on Right-Wingers Banned From UK. Anyway regarding Tillerson, I am very glad he is gone! For a number of reasons.
Politicianophobia says
Good, now move on and get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood who see the Brotherhood daily life to be governed by Islamic teachings as interpreted by Islamic judges with no need for states rulers to impose man-made or general laws. Islam is NOT the solution.
Politicianophobia says
McMaster next—— yes Enough of the gradual construct of Islam in America–basic regulation of Brotherhood Article 4 section 2 –will always prefer gradual advancement. Keep draining Mr. President.
Tjhawk says
?
Tjhawk says
Don’t let the door hit you in the ass Rex.
I’d kind of like that dickhead H. R. McMaster to get an unceremonious Twitter firing too. There has got to be someone better.
Sometimes I wish Trump would back off on Twitter, but for some reason I found it hilarious that he fired Rex by twitter.
Kiki says
I disagree with Tillerson over the Iran Nuclear Deal, but it worries me to see Trump firing so many people who disagree with him. It’s not a good idea for any democracy for a president to surround himself with people who agree with him all the time.
One problem with politics today is that politicians on both sides just want to ‘beat’ the other side, not work out solutions. Compromise isn’t perfect, but it’s better than a several year’s-long-stalemate.
Dg says
Kiki – the US and the world do not have 99.2 temperature. Tough decisions need to be made NOW. If you ain’t up for it you can forget working for Trump. Heck…wait till we get to $20,000,000,000,000 in debt – God will be fired.
Mayhem
Garfield says
Huh? The time for nicey-nice watered down action is over. Trump SHOULD be surrounded by people who agree wit him instead of give an inch take a mile types who are not about cooperation anyway!
You can’t “work out solutions” with obstructionists bent on pleasing everyone and being PC. Or phony liars like the Palestinians who don’t even WANT solutions. Evil people thrive on chaos and love to waste time.
We need to ignore the snowflakes and gender issue idiots and focus on safety and sanity. Trump is doing a good job, considering the horrible media bias and special interest groups and Soros funded nutcases.
StellaSaidSo says
+1
gravenimage says
True, Kiki–it can be good to have people around who don’t agree with you on every point–an echo chamber is not good. Reasonable disagreement can be good–Abraham Lincoln understood this very well.
But supporting a deal enabling a *nuclear Iran* is not part of reasonable disagreement, especially if he was going behind the president’s back to try to save this Obama deal.
Phil Copson says
There’s a big difference between disagreeing with your boss, and trying to rail-road them into accepting your ideas by setting-up a deal without authority, and then putting a pen in their hand.
Why would Trump even care what the EU thinks about Iran anyway ? With their eagerness to see the relatively civilised country Iran once was, destroyed by the blood-thirsty maniac Khomeini and sign deals with the evil dictatorship he installed, they have lost all right to speak.
Nothing the EU says about Rhodesia/Zimbabwe or South Africa should be regarded either; how loud the do-gooders were (and still are) to sing their own praises about having ended “the evils of apartheid” – (the BBC were at it again today, when discussing sanctions on Russia) – and how little they care now about the corruption, suffering, poverty, and violence that distinguishes those countries now, and which they helped usher in.
Whatever faults Ian Smith may have had, I don’t remember that they included having people chopped-up with machetes, executing them by placing burning petrol-soaked tyres round their necks, or ever seeing his cabinet dancing about like savages calling for the mass murder of their opponents.
Britain had a duty to the people of Rhodesia, and we turned our backs on them.
StellaSaidSo says
+1
Frank Anderson says
Kiki, we had a course called Humanities our senior year in military high school during the mid-1960’s. Part of the reason for the course was to prevent our being vulnerable to brainwashing lies in the event we served in the military and were captured. During the Korean war many US captives “bought” out of shear ignorance the NK lies and collaborated. One of the issues covered in the course was the Communist doctrine of “dialectical materialism” (thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis) which was explained tersely as “What’s mine is mine; What’s yours is negotiable.”
During law school in the late 1970’s I read every book on negotiation that I could find (about 6 in all). I felt the best was titled “Getting to Yes” and still have a copy in my collection. How can one compromise where the issue is his life or death. (sarc/on) Perhaps instead of death now, death later, say 20 years. And no offspring to continue the line of the person allowing himself to be killed? (sarc/off) In order for any negotiation to be successful, the subject must be one that can be settled to the mutual satisfaction and benefit of the parties; and the parties must be trustworthy to keep the settlement once made. I ask you to look further into where and when compromise is acceptable and where it should be completely out of any question. My life and posterity are not negotiable with a bunch of people who live to lie and to murder people like me. Nor should yours.
Walter Sieruk says
The folly and foolishness of Obama and Kerry must have no limit that they had felt they could have come to a worthwhile deal of good value with that tyrannical “mullah regime” of Iran by attempting to work out a compromise with those Muslim tyrants in power in Iran. The outcome of foolishly trying to work out a compromise resulted that the hoax and farce of a “deal.” A former US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt , had well-spoken when he said “There has never been – there never can be – successful compromise between good and evil.”
Walter Sieruk says
President Trump will do much better than Obama did on handling the subject of the dangers posed by the Islamic rogue state of Iran. It’s rather obvious that President Trump will do better since Obama could not have done much worse. Furthermore, It’s very obvious that the tyrants in power in this Islamic regime had and have no real or sincere intentions even for the start of keeping any of their promises in a nuclear “agreement deal” with Western nations. As for ,example , a “test firing” of a missile by Iran, In addition , it was reported on CBN on 5/7/16 only two days before this CBN report the Iran not only launched other “test firing” of missile. The “test firing” of that missile and it even had printed on that missile words in Hebrew that read “Israel must be wiped off the map.” This along exposes the vicious and destructive intention of the mullahs and others in power in this Islamic rogue state of Iran. There were other “test firing of other missiles by earlier this very year by the Islamic tyranny of Iran. This shows the gall and defiance of those mullahs and ayatollahs along those other Muslim villains in power in this tyrannical Islamic regime of Iran their total arrogant contempt for the US and the other Western nations in this so called “deal.” Those Muslim clerics and other Muslim tyrants in power in this cruel and oppressive Islamic tyranny are, in character, reflected in the Bible in Psalm 73:6-9. Which reads, “Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. From their callous hearts comes iniquity; the evil conceits of their mind know limits. They scoff and speak with malice; in their arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth.” [N.I.V.]
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
https://www.rt.com/news/421319-may-russia-skripal-livingstone/
gravenimage says
Tillerson fired over rogue bid to save Iran nuke deal
…………………..
Geez. I’m glad he’s out.
Wellington says
“Geez. I’m glad he’s out.”
So am I, gravenimage. Many times over. And here’s the worst of it for me: Tillerson is not a bad guy. But being “not a bad guy” kind of person can end up being someone who does more harm than a pure bad guy. People like Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter come to mind here (arguably Bush 41 and Bush 43 too).
gravenimage says
Agreed, Wellington.
But despite his errors–and they were many–I’m not sure I’d put George Bush in the same category. The Iraq and Afghan wars turned into terrible messes, no doubt, and his foolish belief that Islam was a “religion of peace” was harmful, but over all Muslims still feared Bush in a way that was never the case with Obama.
I am glad that, depite Trump having some of the same blindspots, that we are at least back to the footing vis-a-vis Islam that we have under Bush 43. Not perfect, certainly, but a vast improvement over Obama–and over what is going on in much of Europe.
Wellington says
I’ll give you, gravenimage, that Bush 43 was preferable to Obama (Chamberlain and Carter too). No contest in fact. But if the best America and the West can do is Bush 43, we’re still in a heap of trouble.
It’s just not nearly good enough to have Bush 43 as your best bet. I have no doubt you will agree with me here. After all, while mediocrity is preferable to pure appeasement, mediocrity is virtually never enough to save civilization. And we’re talking here about the most impressive civilization of all time, i.e., the West, and if Bush 43 is the best the West can produce when its back is against the wall (and right now the West’s back is definitely against the wall), oh brother.
Nope, Bush 43 simply will not do. I’m not sure Trump will (actually, probably not but right now he’s freedom’s best hope, which, of course, is completely lost on the Left). No, Churchills, Thatchers, Lincolns and Washingtons are needed. Virtually none in sight. Damn, because Islam and the Left (and especially their iniquitous alliance) bodes liberty ill. Big time. To combat these twin evils great, very great people, are required. No doubt.
gravenimage says
Agree, Wellington. How I wish we had a Churchill in the offing. Still, I will accept better over worse–even when it is less than perfect.
Janwaar Bibi says
I understand that the Saudi and Israeli overlords of US foreign policy are delighted but I fail to understand why the average American should celebrate the abrogation of the Iran deal. The European powers who are co-signatories to the agreement have stated that Iran has kept its side of the bargain. Abrogating the treaty will make it even harder to reach an agreement with North Korea.
The US is now a rogue nation, attacking countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria in violation of the UN charter. None of these countries was a threat to the US and all three have been destroyed and millions of lives have been lost. Coming from India, I have no love for Islam but I am sorry to see Spencer promoting these evil policies.
Wellington says
“….but I fail to understand why the average American should celebrate the abrogation of the Iran deal.”
Here’s why (and I am an “average American”): The Iran deal, negotiated by the previous President, in my opinion the worst President in American history (and I taught American history at the high school then college level for a third of a century), is the most despicable, craven and stupid deal ever negotiated by an American President and, specifically, because, AT BEST, it only delays (if even this) Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry and does not STOP Iran from acquiring such extraordinarily lethal weapons.
The world’s most terrible weapons should, ideally, be in the hands of the world’s most decent and free powers. Barack Obama’s heinous deal with the Iranian regime, which included providing said regime with some 160 billion dollars so it can lavishly fund more terror across the world, functions as a disgrace by the greatest power on earth with one of the most despicable powers on earth.
I trust you get all this. I hope so.
Janwaar Bibi says
1) The $160 billion figure is fiction. The actual amount was closer to $33 billion, and the money belonged to Iran, not to the US taxpayer. See the Washington Post article below. Roughly speaking, the US confiscated Iranian money in various international banks and then returned it to them as part of the agreement.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/real-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-2nd-2016-presidential-debate/fact-check-trumps-claim-that-iran-got-150-billion-from-the-united-states/?utm_term=.9b8162dae108
2) When it comes to being the “one of the most despicable powers on earth,” Iran surely has a lot of competition from close US allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The Saudi despot, who is waging a genocidal war in Yemen, is being feted in the UK during his state visit, and Pakistan, where Hindus, Christians and Sikhs are being exterminated, receives roughly $2 billion of aid each year from the US, because is a Great Ally in the Fight Against Terrorism. I don’t particularly care for the mullahs but why are they despicable when the Saudis and Pakistanis are Washington’s BFFs?
3) “The world’s most terrible weapons should, ideally, be in the hands of the world’s most decent and free powers.” Like Russia, China, and Pakistan? Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program, and he was promptly attacked and liquidated by the US, UK and France, with approval from Israel. Iran and North Korea have taken note.
4) Iran and Israel are enemies. Iran and the Saudis are enemies. But Iran and the US have no fundamental quarrel, and there is no reason for the US to be drawn into religious wars in the Middle East even if that is what the Saudi and Israeli lobbies demand.
gravenimage says
More from Janwaar Bibi:
1) The $160 billion figure is fiction. The actual amount was closer to $33 billion, and the money belonged to Iran, not to the US taxpayer.
………………………….
That deal was made with the Shah–not the Mullahs, as Janwaar Bibi pretends.
More:
2) When it comes to being the “one of the most despicable powers on earth,” Iran surely has a lot of competition from close US allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan…I don’t particularly care for the mullahs but why are they despicable when the Saudis and Pakistanis are Washington’s BFFs?
………………………….
It has been pointed out many times here that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are no allies of ours, as Janwaar Bibi no doubt knows.
Getting from no Muslim nation being an ally of ours to the idea that we have to appease the sanguinary Islamic Republic of Iran makes no sense.
As for Janwaar Bibi not particularly caring for the bloody Mullahs, this does not seem likely, given the tone of the posts here.
More:
3) “The world’s most terrible weapons should, ideally, be in the hands of the world’s most decent and free powers.” Like Russia, China, and Pakistan? Gaddafi gave up his nuclear program, and he was promptly attacked and liquidated by the US, UK and France, with approval from Israel. Iran and North Korea have taken note.
………………………….
What a load of crap. Gaddafi was killed by Jihadists. Janwaar Bibi pretending that Jihadists are actually the US, Britain, France, and Israel–rather than Muslims–is very revealing.
And the idea that since nukes are already in the hands of bad actors that this means that we should enable other thugs to get their hands on them is a *very* strange reasoning–and probably not to be taken at face value.
More:
4) Iran and Israel are enemies. Iran and the Saudis are enemies. But Iran and the US have no fundamental quarrel, and there is no reason for the US to be drawn into religious wars in the Middle East even if that is what the Saudi and Israeli lobbies demand.
………………………….
Now, *this* is a load of crap.
Are we supposed to forget the seizing of our embassy, terrorizing of our diplomatic staff, saber rattling, and constant screaming of “Death to America!”?
Apparently so, as Janwaar Bibi would have it.
To think that we have no “fundamamental quarrel” with one of the most hideous Shari’ah states–and pretending that these Jihadists have no quarrel with the free world–is just ludicrous.
And look at that last–the idea that the problem is “religious wars”, and that civilized, democratic Israel is no different from Saudi Arabia and Iran.
But this is bs–there is a raging Jihad against Israel–Isreal is just defending herself. And violence against Israel is on the basis of Islam, which urges violence and genocide against Jews.
But there is no such Jewish diktat against Muslims, as the dishonest Janwaar Bibi implies.
That we should throw our staunch democratic ally Israel to the Muslim wolves is just sickening.
Moreover, Janwaar Bibi–like so many Muslim apologists–is pretending that the only issue is between Isreal and the Muslim world. But this is utterly false–9/11 was not about Israel, Beslan was not about Israel, the London Tube bombings were not about Israel, the Mumbai attacks were not about Israel, nor were the attacks on Paris.
The idea that Jihad is only against Israel, and is no concern or the other Infidels, is grotesquely false.
gravenimage says
Janwaar Bibi wrote:
I understand that the Saudi and Israeli overlords of US foreign policy are delighted but I fail to understand why the average American should celebrate the abrogation of the Iran deal. The European powers who are co-signatories to the agreement have stated that Iran has kept its side of the bargain. Abrogating the treaty will make it even harder to reach an agreement with North Korea.
………………
What claptrap. The average American does *not* want to see a nuclear Iran, nor the destruction of Israel—nor is there any reason why they should.
More:
The US is now a rogue nation, attacking countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria in violation of the UN charter. None of these countries was a threat to the US and all three have been destroyed and millions of lives have been lost. Coming from India, I have no love for Islam but I am sorry to see Spencer promoting these evil policies.
………………
Morevover, Spencer has been quite critical of many American policies, including those in Iraq and Syria.
That we should welcome the empowerment of the vicious Mullahs as a result is grotesque, though.
I have never seen this poster here before, though the implication is a familiarity with Spencer’s work. Certainly, this poster gives no indication that they have a problem with the horrors of Jihad.
Janwaar Bibi says
Certainly, this poster gives no indication that they have a problem with the horrors of Jihad.
Hindus in India have been at the receiving end of jihad since 711 AD when the first Arab armies invaded Sind. In my own lifetime, I have seen Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and other religious minorities exterminated almost entirely from Pakistan and for the most part, from Bangladesh. In 1971 alone, some 3 million Hindus were murdered by the Pakistani army in what is now Bangladesh. I have read several books by Spencer and I respect his courage and his dedication to the anti-jihad cause.
That said, opposing jihad does not require signing on to current US foreign policy in the Middle East. The biggest exporter of jihadi ideology is Saudi Arabia, whose Wahabbism has radicalized Muslims in places as far flung as Bosnia, Indonesia and Kerala. Yet the US is the biggest supporter of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi lobby is extremely powerful in Washington. Pakistan is another US ally with a totally despicable human rights record, guilty of everything from genocide (1971) to sharia-sanctioned apartheid of non-Muslims. Since 1947, the proportion of non-Muslims in Pakistan has collapsed from 22% to about 1% today. Almost every other day, our soldiers in India are killed by jihadists sent over from Pakistan. Yet the US sends Pakistan roughly $2 billion a year in economic and military aid, and Pakistan is considered to be an ally in the war on terrorism! Nothing that Iran has done compares to the record of these two Sunni godfathers of terrorism. In India, our problems are with Sunnis – by and large, we have good relations with the Shia and as far as I know, there are no serious terrorism problems with our local Shia. Yet Iran is the bad guy while Saudi and Pakistan are US BFFs??
US foreign policy in the Middle East is designed to create more jihadism. Secular Arab dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are attacked under one pretext or the other and their countries are destroyed by the US with help from the UK and France. The resulting vacuum is filled by Islamists, salafists and assorted thugs. There was no Islamic State in Iraq or Syria before the illegal attack by the US and UK on Iraq. Vast areas of Libya are now controlled by the IS and Al Qaeda, and it is only Russian intervention that prevented the collapse of Syria and its takeover by the “Free Syrian Army” aka jihadist scum.
Cui bono? There are only two countries that want Iran destroyed just like Iraq, Syria and Libya have been destroyed – Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Saudis and Israelis are strong enough to take care of themselves. We do not need to be in the business of murdering Iranians to please our Saudi and Israeli paymasters – we have enough Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian blood on our hands.
gravenimage says
Janwaar Bibi wrote:
Certainly, this poster gives no indication that they have a problem with the horrors of Jihad.
Hindus in India have been at the receiving end of jihad since 711 AD when the first Arab armies invaded Sind…I have read several books by Spencer and I respect his courage and his dedication to the anti-jihad cause.
……………………
Okay…note that Janwaar Bibi does not say how this jibes with urging the enabling of a nuclear Iran, nor of minimizing the horrors of that bloody Shari’ah state.
More:
That said, opposing jihad does not require signing on to current US foreign policy in the Middle East. The biggest exporter of jihadi ideology is Saudi Arabia, whose Wahabbism has radicalized Muslims in places as far flung as Bosnia, Indonesia and Kerala. Yet the US is the biggest supporter of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi lobby is extremely powerful in Washington. Pakistan is another US ally with a totally despicable human rights record…
……………………
As I have noted, pretty much no one here thinks that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are allies of ours, nor pretends they are anything but horrifying Shari’ah states.
And the Trump administration has become increasingly critical of Pakistan:
“Trump administration official: Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s moves against terrorism ‘reversible, superficial’”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/02/trump-administration-official-islamic-republic-of-pakistans-moves-against-terrorism-reversible-superficial
More:
In India, our problems are with Sunnis – by and large, we have good relations with the Shia and as far as I know, there are no serious terrorism problems with our local Shia. Yet Iran is the bad guy while Saudi and Pakistan are US BFFs??
……………………
“Good relations” with Muslim thugs who crush freedom of speech, threaten to wipe democratic Isreal off the map, hang gay people, and stone women to death? Decent people here note that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are brutal Shari’ah states–Janwaar Bibi appears to have no such compunctions about the bloody Mullahs. *Ugh*.
More:
US foreign policy in the Middle East is designed to create more jihadism. Secular Arab dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are attacked under one pretext or the other and their countries are destroyed by the US with help from the UK and France…
……………………
There is no doubt that the West has made many errors–pretending that Jihad is created by the US, Britain, and France is ludicrous, however.
More:
Cui bono? There are only two countries that want Iran destroyed just like Iraq, Syria and Libya have been destroyed – Saudi Arabia and Israel. The Saudis and Israelis are strong enough to take care of themselves. We do not need to be in the business of murdering Iranians to please our Saudi and Israeli paymasters – we have enough Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian blood on our hands.
……………………
My God, what crap.
The idea that opposing the enabling of a nuclear Iran is “destroying Iran” or “murdering Iranians” is just sickeningly false.
alex9234 says
“The biggest exporter of jihadi ideology is Saudi Arabia”
No, that would be Iran.
“Pakistan is another US ally with a totally despicable human rights record, guilty of everything from genocide (1971) to sharia-sanctioned apartheid of non-Muslims.”
Have you been paying attention at all? The U.S. is cutting ties with Pakistan. Trump has ended funding and military aid for Pakistan.
“Free Syrian Army” aka jihadist scum.”
Except the FSA isn’t a “Sunni Jihadist group”, it is barely a single group. It is this broad brand name umbrella that contained a ton of groups, many of whom were indeed Sunni Jihadists (like the kind Assad managed).
“Secular Arab dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad are attacked under one pretext or the other and their countries are destroyed by the US with help from the UK and France.”
Ya, no.
A decade before the Arab Winter, most of a year before the Invasion of Iraq, and so on, Assad was already making life for Levantine minorities terrible like his father before him. They have zero interest or respect for minority rights beyond the degree to which they can be used as propaganda tools, and even then only just.
The only way that Baathist Syria can be called a “secular” country is in contrast to the outright theocracies like its’ ally Iran, or Religio-Monarchist shiteholes like Saudi Arabia. And that’s largely because there aren’t enough members of the extended Assad family clan or Alawites (but given the degree of intermarrying I largely repeat myself) to form either a stable monarchy or a theocracy.
And it is no more civilized than the average bog standard Soviet client dictatorship of the region, like Nasserite Egypt and Yemen, FLN Algeria, or Northern Sudan. Does that compare favorable to Ghana, Nigeria and so on? Sure.
“Pakistan are US BFFs??”
You’re confusing the U.S. with China. The Chinese have been funding jihadis in Pakistan for years now.
“we have enough Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian blood on our hands.”
As for “being in the business of murdering Iranians” as well as Syrians, I personally say: “Sounds good! Where do I sign up to get behind a policy like that?”
Does that sound harsh? Cruel perhaps?
Boo hoo. Tough.
Because Syrian and Iranian ultranationalists helped fan the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Lebanese, Israelis, Egyptians, Yemenis, Americans, Brits, French, Canadians and yes, Libyans and Syrians over the past 40 years.
If Assad didn’t want opposing states to meddle in Syrian internal affairs and support opposition to his dictatorship, he should NEVER have run an aggressive, authoritarian dictatorship that is best friends with Shiite Islamists, Russia, China, etc., and which categorically REJECTED the territorial integrity of its’ neighboring countries, especially Lebanon and Israel.
This is the revenge of REALITY. And while I despise how Obama or most American leaders have handled it, that is a problem of efficiency, not principle.
I feel that Assad deserves the same amount of mercy he afforded to our troops in Iraq, the Israelis in their homes, and Lebanese and Syrians who dared to oppose him.
None.
Those who live by the sword can die by it as well.
Are you one of Putin’s trolls? You sound like someone who is paraphrasing Infowars or Shoebat.
Janwaar Bibi says
As I have noted, pretty much no one here thinks that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are allies of ours, nor pretends they are anything but horrifying Shari’ah states. gravenimage
Perhaps but no one here is making policy in Washington. The people who are making policy are in bed with Saudi Arabia (see Trump’s sword dance with his Saudi BFFs, MbS’s red-carpet welcome in the UK last week, the enormous arms deals with the Saudis, etc.). These policy makers are not talking about attacking Saudi Arabia even though it is Saudi, not Iran, that is exporting terrorism all over the world. Why do you think that is?
There is no doubt that the West has made many errors–pretending that Jihad is created by the US, Britain, and France is ludicrous, however. gravenimage
Right… It is possible to believe that the illegal attack on Iraq and the destruction of that country was an “error.” But to do the same thing again in Libya, and then attempt to do this once again in Syria? As Oscar Wilde wrote “To lose one parent may be regarded as a tragedy, to lose both looks like carelessness.” Anyone who believes all these attacks are just “errors” is very naive.
Finally, I never said jihad was created by the US, Britain and France. Jihad predates the US, Britain and France, and it is an Islamic concept. What I wrote was that actions by the West, such as attacks on secular Arab dictators like Gaddafi and Assad, are strengthening the hand of jihadists, which is an entirely different and defensible proposition.
The fact that you cannot defend your views without putting words in my mouth or using expletives tells me you have nothing to say.
alex9234 says
“attempt to do this once again in Syria?”
It was a mistake to destroy Syria. But that mistake as Bashar al-Assad’s, not Obama’s.
Obama’s mistake was how to manage it. But in the end it was the Assad regime’s policies that bred the resentment that led to the protests, and their responses to them (coupled with putting some unwise trust in a number of military leaders) that started the war.
“such as attacks on secular Arab dictators like Gaddafi and Assad”
If you think Assad runs a secular civilization, then I don’t think that the word “secular” means what you think it means. Do you know who his main moneyman is? Or who his primary Lebanese proxy is?
Assad’s Syria is even less secular than Kemalist Turkey was, where they pretty much kept the same Islamic supremacist that drove late Ottoman policy but repressed overt Sunni religiousity.
Also, the Sunni Jihadis are only willing to tolerate “secular civilization run by Assad” when it suits their purposes. Like when he provided them safe shelter to conduct terror attacks on coalition troops and Iraqi government officials in Iraq or Israeli civilians.
I’ve noticed that you don’t criticize Russia, Iran or China for anything. That’s all I need to know about you.
gravenimage says
More from Janwaar Bibi:
As I have noted, pretty much no one here thinks that Saudi Arabia or Pakistan are allies of ours, nor pretends they are anything but horrifying Shari’ah states. gravenimage
Perhaps but no one here is making policy in Washington. The people who are making policy are in bed with Saudi Arabia (see Trump’s sword dance with his Saudi BFFs, MbS’s red-carpet welcome in the UK last week, the enormous arms deals with the Saudis, etc.). These policy makers are not talking about attacking Saudi Arabia even though it is Saudi, not Iran, that is exporting terrorism all over the world. Why do you think that is?
………………………………….
Many people here are working on changing Western policy with regard to Saudi Arabia–they are not spouting apologia for that regime or any other hideous Shari’ah state, unlike Janwaar Bibi.
The mistake of considering Saudi Arabia an ally is an old one; it was not invented by Donald Trump.
As for why that is, the idea that it is because the United State is responsible for Jihad terror is ludicrous.
More:
There is no doubt that the West has made many errors–pretending that Jihad is created by the US, Britain, and France is ludicrous, however. gravenimage
Right… It is possible to believe that the illegal attack on Iraq and the destruction of that country was an “error.”
………………………………….
Saddam Hussein was not a good guy, as Janwaar Bibi pretends. George Bush hoping to turn Iraq into a democracy was foolish, but not evil.
Whereas, Janwaar Bibi seems fine with the horrors of Iran just as they are.
More:
But to do the same thing again in Libya, and then attempt to do this once again in Syria? As Oscar Wilde wrote “To lose one parent may be regarded as a tragedy, to lose both looks like carelessness.” Anyone who believes all these attacks are just “errors” is very naive.
………………………………….
Once again, the claim that it was theWest that killed Gaddafi is quite false–he was killed by Jihadists. Unless Janwaar Bibi is indeed claiming that Jihadists are actually Americans, British, and French rather than Muslims, this makes no sense.
As for Syria, Assad is not a good guy, either. But what would replace him is likely even worse, as I have noted many times here. This is not a contradiction.
Is Janwaar Bibi also upset that the US took such a role in dismantling the Islamic State?
More:
Finally, I never said jihad was created by the US, Britain and France. Jihad predates the US, Britain and France, and it is an Islamic concept. What I wrote was that actions by the West, such as attacks on secular Arab dictators like Gaddafi and Assad, are strengthening the hand of jihadists, which is an entirely different and defensible proposition.
………………………………….
Gaddafi himself was a Jihadist. Pretending that the horror of Lockerbie is not Jihad is grotesque–but it does not surprise.
Again, though, Gaddafi was killed by Jihadists–not Americans, Britons, or French, as Janwaar Bibi pretends.
More:
The fact that you cannot defend your views without putting words in my mouth or using expletives tells me you have nothing to say.
………………………………….
I said nothing inaccurate here. As for expletives, the mere fact that Janwaar Bibi is incensed by the use of the mild word “crap”, but has nothing critical to say about Iran hanging gay people, imprisoning women who dare remove their Hijabs, and stoning those accused of “adultery” to death is velly telling as to moral sense. *Ugh*.
alex9234 says
Which nation are you from? Russia, Iran or China?
Janwaar Bibi says
As I wrote above, I am from India, where we have first-hand experience in dealing with the consequences of American stupidity and callous disregard for the lives of people in other countries, such as (i) US support for Pakistan during their 1971 genocide of Hindus in what is now Bangladesh, (ii) the bromance between the Taliban and Ronald “The Taliban are the moral equivalent of our founding fathers” Reagan, and (iii) the American love affair with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which lasted through the 80’s and 90’s and ended only after 9/11.
Which nation are you from? The US, Israel or Saudi Arabia?
Chand says
Ever since the struggle against Communism, the US has, step by step, undermined all secular Muslim leaders, backed the fundamentalist Saudis and Pakistanis and finally facilitated the Jihadis, albeit mistakenly, in their war against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Too late now, Jihadism is out of the bottle and hovering everywhere. US policies caused this, indirectly but not necessarily deliberately, although they were naively mistaken in believing that Marxist atheism was more dangerous that Islamic Jihadism.
Now this struggle with Jihad, the WW 3 we are in, will carry on for a couple of generations until Islam reforms and the Jihadis eliminated and that ideology rejected by exhausted, non jihadi Muslims.
I agree with you, Janwaar Bibi.
Politicianophobia says
Next McMaster will be out and Bolton in–Ikhwan may be getting nervous.
Politicianophobia says
The Brotherhood has built a grassroots base and used this democratic process, despite the group’s political goal of un-democratic Islamic rule. Nihad Awad/Cair hopefully will be ousted. This is a good day on the teeter totter.
Cordi says
This looks like like a lot of trouble coming. Plans to destroy Israel by a pan-muslim army?
Found on MEMRI: President Erdogan Calls To Form Joint Islamic Army To Fight Israel https://www.memri.org/reports/turkish-newspaper-close-president-erdogan-calls-form-joint-islamic-army-fight-israel
“On December 12, 2017, ahead of the summit of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in Istanbul, the Turkish daily Yeni Şafak, which is close to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his ruling AKP party, published an article titled “A Call for Urgent Action,”[1] which also appeared on the paper’s website under the title “What If an Army of Islam Was Formed against Israel?”[2] The article called on the 57 member states of the OIC to form a joint “Army of Islam” to besiege and attack the state of Israel. It notes that such a joint army will greatly exceed the Israeli army in manpower, equipment and budget, and presents statistics to prove this. It also advocates establishing joint bases for the army’s ground, air and naval forces that will arrive from all over the Muslim world to besiege Israel, while noting that Pakistan, as the only nuclear country, has “a special status” among the OIC countries. An interactive map provides information on military forces stationed in various locations and the role they can play in the potential joint Muslim attack on Israel.”
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/03/14/gaffney-tillersons-ouster-secretary-state-next-order-business-h-r-mcmaster-must-go/
mortimer says
In an interview before his political career, Donald Trump responded to the accusation that he like to use the words, ‘You’re fired.’ He said that the process for firing someone took about two years in his company. The person was given many chances to meet the requirements of the job before dismissal. It looks like he did the same with Tillerson. Tillerson was the ultimately the wrong fit for the job and apparently, Tillerson had little or no understanding of the JIHAD DOCTRINE and little or no interest in learning about the JIHAD DOCTRINE, the TAQIYYA doctrine, the KAFIR doctrine, the DHIMMI doctrine or other NORMATIVE, SUPREMACIST and BACKWARD teachings of Islam. He was trying to approach Muslims as a CEO confronting reasonable competitors. The Shi’ites are not like the competitors Tillerson has met.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
It is good to tear up thé nuclear deal for Iran to carry out nuclear warheads already produced.
Politicianophobia says
Cordi, The Brotherhood has always said Introduce Shari’ah as the basis of controlling the affairs of the state and society and work to achieve unification among the Islamic countries and states, mainly among Arab states and liberating them from foreign imperialism. Sayyid Qutb said “The affliction could be corrected by implementation of Shari’ah, brought about by offensive jihad and the killing of secular state officials.” The Brotherhood sees the caliphate and its re-establishment as a top priority. Mike Pompeo is not naïve when it comes to the Brotherhood–They are terrorists.
Ibrahim itace muhammed says
Qutbi was talking about unity among all muslims, not just among Arabs Who constitutes less than 10% of world muslim population. Qutbi is islamist not advocate of Arab Nationalism, which is a pagan secularism.