.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
+++
Oh, So That's How Critical Race Theory Creeps Into Our Schools
By Matt Vespa
+++
Senator Kennedy Stumped Biden's Supreme Court Nominee with One Question
+++
The First Black Woman Nominated to the Supreme Court Can't Define 'Woman'
+++++++++
Last night, Tucker Carlson expanded on the implication's of Judge Jackson's inability to define who or what is a woman and now I better understand the subtle ramifications.
In essence, he equates radical race theory people are interested in ridding America of the the first amendment. Why? Because radicals do not want citizens to have the luxury of speaking out in a factual, free manner.
Some wealthy billionaires are better suited to determine what you can and cannot say and he ascribes this to the possibility that Judge Jackson may live in their world and since she refuses to answer some fairly sensible questions we will never know until radical Democrats have stuck us with her life tenure.
It was ok to ask Justice Kavanaugh whether he liked beer and drank excessively but to ask Judge Jackson to define a woman is a no no.
When I first met Lynn I believed I was meeting a woman and after we married I knew damn well she was a woman. Why? Because a woman is a human, often with a pony tail and eyes that can melt you and makes your heart race, who get's married so she can henpeck a man and tell him what he can and cannot do and insists that he always do what she deems to be the right way to act. If he does what she wants then, she is willing to demonstrate that she is physically unlike he is and they stay married for 50 years as we have.
Hell, even Judge Jackson should have been able to answer that one regardless of what color she happens to be.
++++++++++++++++
When a major "mousey" officer of a major corporation decides to touch a hot political potato he will get egg on his face because he cannot win and only proves how stupid he is. Disney's top "mouse" joins the ranks of executives at Coca Cola, Delta and others.
Hundreds of Disney employees walked out of the company's California headquarters to protest Disney's response to Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill. Employees say Disney's response to the legislation "utterly failed to match the magnitude of the threat to LGBTQIA+ safety."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The self-imposed squeeze is on.
America Caught Between Russia and China Externally and the Left Internally
By Dennis Prager
America is caught between an external and an internal threat. The external is an economically aggressive and America-hating China and a nuclear-equipped, America-hating Russia; the internal is a non-nuclear, America-hating Left. (As I always note, “Left” is not the same as “liberal”; in fact, leftism poses a mortal threat to liberalism. The greatest contemporary tragedy in American life is that most liberals are unwilling to acknowledge this and continue to vote for the Left.)
To use one of the Left’s favorite terms, the Left poses an existential threat to America. Russia, unless it starts a nuclear war, does not. I should add that I do not discount the latter possibility. I was a high school freshman during the Cuban missile crisis, but I do not remember anyone my age or among my parents’ peers who believed the Cuban crisis would lead to nuclear war. I am less certain today. Russian President Vladimir Putin does not seem to be as rational as Nikita Khrushchev was, and Khrushchev had nowhere near the passion about Cuba that Putin has regarding Ukraine.
The Left may hate Putin, but hatred of America unites the Left and Putin. Again, this is not the case with liberals, most of whom love America. To illustrate this point, take the example of Superman. It was liberals, in 1938, who created Superman, an America-loving, American values-affirming (“Truth, Justice, and the American Way”) superhero. And it was leftists who destroyed Superman as an American hero. In 2011, they ended his American identity: Standing in front of the United Nations, Superman announced that he was renouncing his American citizenship to become a “citizen of the world.” “I’m tired of having my actions construed as instruments of U.S. policy,” he announced. Ten years later, DC comics announced that Superman’s motto would no longer be “Truth, Justice, and the American Way” but “Truth, Justice and a Better Tomorrow.”
Every left-wing movement in the world despises America — and for good reason. America has stood for everything the Left opposes. It is the most capitalist, most religious, and most nationalistic major democracy. America’s unique success has been the greatest possible rebuke to left-wing ideology. America must therefore be brought down. Specifically, it must abandon its capitalist economy, its Judeo-Christian values and its nationalism (as expressed, for example, in Americans’ celebration of the flag and national anthem; in Americans’ celebration of national holidays such as the Fourth of July and Thanksgiving; in Americans’ opposition to anything hinting of world government; and in Americans’ belief that their country is “the greatest country in the world”).
So, then, America finds itself today attacked by three anti-American forces: Putin and China externally and the American Left internally.
If there is no nuclear war with Russia, by far the greatest of these threats emanates from the American Left. It has successfully de-Americanized and ruined every major institution it has touched: nearly all educational institutions from elementary schools through universities; virtually all major mainstream news media; the intelligence agencies (51 heads of intelligence agencies declared revelations of Biden family corruption emanating from Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop “Russian disinformation”); the economy (the worst inflation rate in nearly half a century is the result of the cavalier spending of trillions of dollars and the Left’s energy policies which, within a few months, transformed America from energy-exporting to energy-importing); and even medicine (the American Medical Association and more and more medical schools are fully “woke”).
The only way to save America from its internal existential threat is for liberals to understand that the threat to their core values emanates from the Left, not the Right. Just to cite two examples, it is not the Right that opposes liberalism’s commitment to free speech; it is the Left that cancels people for saying anything the Left differs with — including stating obvious scientific and moral truths, such as that it is unfair to women to allow biological males to compete in women’s sports. And it is not the Right that opposes liberalism’s commitment to racial integration; it is the Left (holding the same position as the Ku Klux Klan) that calls for all-black dormitories on college campuses and all-black graduations.
America cannot defeat Russia and China without the help of other nations. And America cannot defeat the Left without the help of liberals. To put it in political terms, if America’s liberals voted their values, the Democratic Party would not win another major election — and it would either become irrelevant or decide to return to its liberal roots. Only America’s liberals, working in common cause with conservatives, can save America. Then America can deal with any threat — internal or external.
This column was originally posted on Townhall.com.
And:
A squeeze of another kind is likely to be imposed on Israel by Biden who is engaged in paying Obama back.
The Implications for Israel of a Return to the Dangerous Iran Deal
Moderate states looking to compensate for American weakness will move closer to Israel.
By Yossi Kuperwasser, JNS.org
According to the March 4 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),1 Iran has already accumulated:
• 33.2 kg. of enriched uranium to a very high level of 60 percent (compared to 17.7 kg in November);
• 182 kg. of enriched uranium to a high level of 20% (compared to 113 kg. in November), produced at the Fordow enrichment facility, which is deep in the heart of a mountain;
• and about 1,278 kg. of enriched uranium to a level of up to 4.5% used to feed the enriching centrifuges to 20% and 60%.
The enrichment rate has increased in recent months from about 4.9 kg. of uranium enriched to 60% per month to 5.7 kg. per month. Iran already industrially operates advanced centrifuges of several types (IR-2m, IR-4, IR-6), and therefore, if Iran decides to enrich this uranium to a military level (more than 90%), it will take only about three weeks to produce 25 kg., i.e., enough uranium for the first nuclear explosive device (including the time required for configuration changes in the centrifuge system).
After that, it will take an additional two weeks to produce the quantity required for a second nuclear explosive device. Within four months, Iran could have enough enriched uranium to a military level for four nuclear explosive devices.
Last year, Iran already converted 20% enriched uranium to uranium metal (a component of nuclear weapons). It is also developing its missile system to shorten the time it takes to turn uranium enriched to a military grade into a deliverable nuclear weapon.
Although Iran promised during IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi’s visit to provide the IAEA with information about the four facilities exposed when Israel revealed Iran’s nuclear archive, it is only willing to do so after the agreement is reached and before the restrictions on it take effect. Implicitly, in May, Grossi already expressed his dissatisfaction with Iran’s insufficient cooperation.
Since the IAEA inspectors cannot visit “anywhere anytime,” it is impossible to be sure that Iran does not have additional secret facilities established after 2003, just like the facility in Fordow. These facilities may be used to store and process the missing uranium and the systems that were used to enrich it.
This recent Iranian activity, which is a violation of both the 2015 nuclear agreement and Iran’s commitments to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its additional protocol, followed President Donald Trump’s decision in May 2018 to leave the agreement. However, the vast majority of violations were made after Joe Biden was elected president and following his administration’s inauguration.
Exploiting US Anxieties
The violations were intended to exploit the administration’s anxiety about the possibility of a confrontation with Iran and increase the pressure on the administration to agree to return to the nuclear agreement under Iranian conditions, primarily the complete lifting of U.S. sanctions imposed on Iran since 2015, regardless of whether they are related to the nuclear issue or not.
The Iranian regime took some risk in adopting this policy, since it could have agreed to return to the agreement according to the American framework, i.e., without the lifting of all sanctions, thereby alleviating its economic distress.
Iran’s sober assessment, however, was that, in the face of a risk-hating and weak U.S. administration, it could insist on its demands while continuing the consistent progress toward achieving the status of a nuclear-threshold state, and thus force a collapse of the American demands. Meanwhile, the regime would be able to address the growing challenges at home.
The disorganized American withdrawal from Afghanistan and the cautious American response to the Russian buildup and attack against Ukraine convinced the rulers in Tehran, especially in the wake of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi’s election as president, that their policy was justified and encouraged them to stick to their position.
The United States could have pressured Iran to renounce the dangerous advances towards producing nuclear weapons and demanded a much better agreement through a combination of sanctions (as it does with Russia) and a credible threat to use force. However, in practice, recent reports indicate that the United States surrendered to Iranian demands on sanctions.
The practical implication is that the dangerous Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will no longer be designated as a terrorist organization and that sanctions will be lifted on Iranian individuals involved in some of the worst attacks against the United States, Jews and Israel. It remains to be seen how the sequence of the parties’ return to the agreement will be specified, though it appears that this matter may have already been resolved.
Sunset Clauses
Ominously, an apparent return to the nuclear deal is dangerous in itself, even without the lifting of additional sanctions. In exchange for Iran’s renunciation of most of its enriched uranium, which would distance it slightly from the status of a threshold state, it could continue to advance its nuclear program without fear of punitive action.
Within two years, it will be able to resume the operation of advanced centrifuges. Two years later, it will be able to increase without limit the amount of enriched uranium to a low level it accumulates, and within nine years, it will be able to enrich uranium to any level and in any quantity, thus achieving the ability to produce a vast quantity of nuclear weapons.
This scenario of a nuclear buildup is in contrast to the current situation in which Iran still has to cross a dangerous threshold, where it could be the target of an American or Israeli attack if it tries to advance toward the production of one to four nuclear weapons. Moreover, once it reenters the JCPOA, it will gain access to its frozen assets (about $100 billion) and increased revenues from oil exports.
The vast sums can fortify the regime at home, where it has recently faced ongoing unrest, increase its activity to export the Islamic revolution in the region and beyond and strengthen its malignant proxies like the Houthis and the terrorist organizations operating against Israel, such as Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The Houthis have already been emboldened by the coming agreement and intensified their attacks against Saudi facilities in recent days.
Iran will also be able to present the return to the agreement on its terms as an achievement that proves the righteousness of its path and the weakness of the West. That message is meant to entice potential friends to the path of the Islamic revolution.
The Americans recognize that this is not a return to the original dangerous JCPOA nuclear agreement, but rather a worse agreement, because it is impossible for Iran to regress from the progress it has already made—in violation of the agreement—in the development and operation of advanced centrifuges, the production of high-level enriched uranium, the development of the missile system and the production of uranium metal.
It is also clear now that the illusions strewn by the Obama administration’s nuclear-talks team, whose members are also involved in leading the current team, were unfounded. Iran will not abandon its support for terrorism and its radical ideology. The agreement will not put it within a year of producing enough fissile material for the first nuclear explosive device, since even without surging forward in full force, Iran came very close to this point in just over a year.
The Implications of Iran’s Approach to Becoming a Nuclear-Threshold State.
What are the implications for Israel of Iran’s progress towards becoming a nuclear-threshold state and the American surrender?
First, it was made clear that Israel’s most important ally and foremost backstop suffers from a weakness that reflects on Israel, as well. In light of this, Israel must rely, first and foremost, on itself.
The United States is very cautious and reluctant to engage in any conflict. Although it can shape a different reality, it prefers to avoid using its capabilities and allows its adversaries to advance their interests at its expense.
Even worse, if, in the past, the nexus of Israeli and American interests was an essential element in cooperation between the two countries—beyond their shared values—then, under the Biden administration, the commonality of interests is becoming more and more tenuous. The Americans are focused on conflicts with Russia and China, in which Israel is less committed to the American position, and the United States is reducing its involvement in the Middle East.
The consolidation of Iran’s position is not a sufficiently significant threat for the administration to mobilize to thwart it. Even if American leaders declare their commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and they are convinced that a return to the agreement will contribute to that goal, in practice, the pact paves a safe path for Iran to becoming a nuclear power.
Israel’s Choices
As long as possible, Israel should try to prevent the return to the agreement by vigorously appealing to U.S. officials on both sides of the political spectrum who recognize the seriousness of the current move. Congress may have the tools to make it harder for the administration to realize its intentions.
One can also hope that the Iranians will not accept the American terms of surrender and demand even more, or that the demands that Russia has raised (not applying anti-Russian sanctions in the context of its economic relations with Iran) will delay the reaching of an agreement.
If the agreement does go into effect, Israel will have to mount a covert campaign to thwart Iran’s nuclear program, since, despite Israel’s declaration that it is not bound by the agreement, overt action at the first stage is less necessary and even less acceptable, given the American commitment to it.
In the immediate term, Iran will slightly back away from the nuclear threshold. Israel must use this additional time to develop the ability to thwart the nuclear program with a use of force, if and when needed, and to deal with the complex consequences of such a move. Failure to reach an agreement now, a scenario that still has little chance of materializing, may require such action within a short time.
At the same time, Israel must continue to tighten its ties with the pragmatic Arab states, which are deeply troubled by Iran’s consolidation of forces and the U.S.’s apparent weakness. Under these circumstances, the moderate states may be looking to compensate for American weakness by moving closer to Israel or, alternatively, closer to Iran and its protégés, such as Syrian President Bashar Assad. In addition, some of the states are likely to try to increase their ability to stock up on nuclear weapons themselves.
Finally:
A New Iran Deal Leaves Us Meeker and Weaker
By BRET STEPHENS
What does President Biden think he will get out of a new nuclear deal with Iran?
A year ago, the answer seemed reasonably clear to the administration: Tehran had responded to Donald Trump’s decision to walk away from the original 2015 deal — known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or J.C.P.O.A. — by enriching uranium to ever-higher levels of purity, bringing it increasingly close to a nuclear bomb, or at least the capability to build one quickly. Barring a new deal that put limits on enrichment, Iran seemed destined to cross the nuclear finish line sooner rather than later. Hence the urgency of a deal.
But today we live in a different world. It’s a world in which Russia and China — parties to both the J.C.P.O.A. and the current negotiations — are definitely not our well-wishers, and a world in which Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates wouldn’t answer Joe Biden’s phone calls in the midst of the greatest geopolitical crisis of the 21st century. Maybe the administration needs to think through the broader implications of a new deal a little more carefully before it signs on again.
So far, that isn’t happening. The deal is said to be mostly finalized, barring last-minute haggling over whether the United States will remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps — which Washington has said is responsible for killing hundreds of Americans — from the list of sanctioned foreign terrorist organizations.
Asked earlier this month whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would affect the nuclear negotiations, Antony Blinken was definitive: “These things are totally different and are just, are not, in any way, linked together,” the secretary of state told Margaret Brennan of CBS.
But they are linked together, in ways large and small, tactical and strategic. The United States isn’t even negotiating directly with Tehran — the Iranians wouldn’t allow the Americans into the room, and the administration, incredibly, agreed — but is instead relying on its intermediaries.
And how are those intermediaries doing? “I am absolutely sincere in this regard when I say that Iran got much more than it could expect, much more,” Mikhail Ulyanov, the top Russian diplomat at the negotiations, said earlier this month in an interview. “Our Chinese friends were also very efficient and useful co-negotiators.”
Maybe Ulyanov was exaggerating. But with or without the deal, Moscow will be able to build nuclear power plants in Iran, irrespective of the sanctions over the war in Ukraine. And Beijing — which in 2021 signed a 25-year, $400 billion strategic partnership with Tehran — will be able to conduct a lucrative business in Iran with little concern for U.S. sanctions.
Combined with February’s “no limits” friendship pact between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, an Iran deal represents another step toward a new antidemocratic Tripartite Pact.
But what about the nuclear deal’s upside? Last year, Blinken promised an agreement that would be “longer and stronger,” hinting that it would seek to extend some of the J.C.P.O.A.’s sunset provisions that were set to expire in the next decade, as well as place limits on Iran’s testing of ballistic missiles.
It isn’t clear the new deal will meet either goal, but at a minimum it will likely extend Iran’s “breakout time” — the time it needs to acquire sufficient enriched uranium for a bomb — from as little as three weeks to about six months, establish an intrusive nuclear-inspection regime, give future diplomacy more time to work, and forestall, for now, a nuclear crisis in the Middle East while the world’s attention is engaged elsewhere.
This is not nothing, and — should the deal go through — the administration will work hard to make the case that this is a good-enough answer for a problem to which every other solution is worse. It will also stress that “all options are on the table” should Iran choose to go for a bomb.
Except nobody in the region seems to believe that line or any other U.S. security assurances — hence the phone call snub. Reaching a kick-the-can-down-the-road agreement may seem like a diplomatic victory to the State Department. But it’s a strategic defeat when it does little more than delay a crisis for the future in exchange for strengthening our adversaries in the present. Tehran attacked Iraq with ballistic missiles earlier this month and (through its Houthi proxies) launched missile and drone strikes on Abu Dhabi in January. What can Iran’s neighbors expect from it when its coffers are refreshed with tens of billions in oil revenues, free from sanctions?
Though the administration and its friends will fiercely deny it, the principal geopolitical challenge the United States faces today is the perception, shared by friends and foes alike, that we are weak — diffident, distracted and divided. The heroic resistance that Ukraine has put up against Russia, bolstered by American military aid and the power of our sanctions, has helped shift that perception, at least somewhat. But we are still far from achieving any kind of victory there, much less gaining the upper hand against the new axis of autocracy.
The Biden administration urgently needs to telegraph strength. An Iran deal that leaves us even weaker and meeker than the previous deal accomplishes the opposite at a moment when we can’t afford another reversal.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Justice Clarence Thomas
Supreme Court
500 Indiana Ave NW
Washington, DC 20001
Dear Justice Thomas:
The speediest and hoping the fullest of recoveries.
Our nation needs you.
All best wishes,
Respectfully
Richard Berkowitz
6 Pineside lane
Savannah, Ga, 31411
3/23/2022
And:
STAR'S CORNER
Clarence and Ginni Thomas, American Patriots
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is once again in the crosshairs of liberals.
This has been going on since his confirmation hearings in 1991, when President George H.W. Bush had the temerity to nominate a Black conservative to take the Supreme Court seat of Thurgood Marshall.
Thomas’ confirmation hearings provided a laboratory showing how low liberals are willing to go to try to discredit a conservative, even more so one who is Black
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I understand Biden would like a unanimous and cohesive NATO that confronts Putin by marching in lockstep. I also understand Biden does not want to get too far ahead of where NATO happens to be and seems to want to lead from the rear.
That is a luxury which has cost the West/the World/ Ukraine dearly. It is time for NATO to tell Putin what dance he will do rather than the reverse as has been happening.
That requires bold and wise leadership. Something one has no reason to expect considering Biden has been on the wrong side of virtually every major decision he has made since taking office some 50years ago.
Khaled is a bright, informed and courageous friend:
+++
America's New Terrorist Allies: 'The Mother of all Disasters'
by Khaled Abu Toameh
The Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are already under attack by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. The Biden administration removed the Houthis from the list of foreign terrorist organizations and has since refused to reclassify it as a terrorist organization, despite the missile and drone attacks on Washington's Arab allies and friends as recently as this week.
Unlike the Biden administration, many Arabs do not distinguish between one terrorist group and another. That is why news about the possibility that the Biden administration is considering removing the Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from the terrorism blacklist has been received by many Arabs with disbelief and shock.
The Arabs hold the mullahs and the IRGC responsible for various war crimes and atrocities against several countries and people around the world. Just last week, the IRGC claimed credit for a missile attack on an alleged "Zionist base" in the city of Erbil in northern Iraq. Days later, the IRGC issued a threat to launch missiles at the Gulf states.
The Gulf states, in particular Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), are already under attack by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen. The Biden administration removed the Houthis from the list of foreign terrorist organizations and has since refused to reclassify it as a terrorist organization, despite the missile and drone attacks on Washington's Arab allies and friends as recently as this week.
After the recent drone and missile attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi militia in Yemen, Saudi Arabia statement that said:
"The Kingdom stresses the importance of the international community realizing the gravity of Iran's continued behavior of equipping the terrorist Houthi militia with the technology of the ballistic missiles and advanced UAVs with which they target the Kingdom's production sites of oil, gas and refined products."
When the Saudis and other Arabs in the Gulf talk about the international community, they are specifically referring to the US administration, which continues to ignore their demand to re-designate the Houthi militia as a terrorist organization.
Instead of listening to its Arab allies, the Biden administration is now reportedly studying the possibility of removing Iran's IRGC -- an even more dangerous organization -- from the list of foreign terrorists.
The news has come as a shock to the Arabs, especially those in the Gulf who say that the appeasement policies of the Biden administration towards Iran pose a real threat to security and stability in the Middle East.
"Removing the Revolutionary Guard from the blacklist of foreign terrorist organizations would be tantamount to the shameful US withdrawal from Afghanistan last year," wrote Saudi journalist Tarik Al-Hamid, former editor-in-chief of the pan-Arab Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper.
"We will remember two historical events that had -- and will have -- the biggest impact on destabilizing the security and stability of our region. First, when Ayatollah Khomeini boarded a plane and flew from France to Tehran Airport; second, when the Biden administration removes the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from the list of foreign terrorist organizations."
Al-Hamid warned that if the Biden administration removes the IRGC from the terrorism list, "we will be faced with a real American absurdity, not less than the absurdity of the invasion of Iraq and the absurdity of the withdrawal from Afghanistan."
"It is true that the United States wants to withdraw from the region, but Washington will then have given China, Russia and Iran unprecedented strength. If this is not political absurdity, what can it be called? By removing the Revolutionary Guards from the list of terrorist organizations, Washington will grant Iran the freedom to move and act in the region in the context of a Russian-Chinese-Iranian alliance."
The prominent Saudi journalist warned that the policies of the Biden administration would "strengthen the axis of resistance to the US once again."
"By lifting the sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards, the US administration will fulfill the aspirations of former President Barack Obama when he spoke in his famous interview with The Atlantic magazine under the title 'Obama Doctrine' about sharing the region with Iran. At the time, Obama said: 'The Saudis need to share the Middle East with their Iranian opponents.'"
Al-Hamid reminded the Biden administration that Saudi Arabia "is the exact opposite of Iran, as it does not want control, but rather the stability and independence of countries."
"Therefore, removing the Iranian Revolutionary Guards from the sanctions list is nothing but a conspiracy against the region as a whole, especially after the Revolutionary Guard took credit for the recent firing of 12 ballistic missiles on Iraq. Lifting the sanctions while Hezbollah revels in Lebanon and Syria, and Iranian militias wreak havoc in Iraq amid Iran's continued support for the Houthis in Yemen, is nothing but a crime against our region."
Abdullah bin Bejad Al-Otaibi, a Saudi political analyst and researcher of Islamic groups, wrote that the US during the Biden era "is very similar to Obama's America in terms of vision, policies, and directions."
The Biden administration's appeasement of Iran and its plans to remove the IRGC from the list of foreign terrorist organizations represents political absurdity, Al-Otaibi argued.
"The signing of the (2015) nuclear agreement with the Iranian regime took place during the Obama era without any consideration for the interests of the Gulf states and Arab countries, and it was just a postponement, not a cancellation, of Iran's military nuclear project. The administration of President Biden has been eager to revive the ominous agreement. It has also been attacking the Arab countries not only with blatant statements, but also through its regional and international policies and positions. Arab and Gulf countries have not changed their stance toward America, but the opposite is what happened. America's positions have become more extreme and less concerned about partnership and support for allies. The problem with this American change is that it came while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are leading internal and regional efforts to bring stability and moderation. Bahrain and the UAE have normalized relations with Israel. The Saudi crown prince stated that Saudi Arabia does not view Israel as an enemy, but rather as a potential ally."
Al-Otaibi reminded the Biden administration that the IRGC and the mullahs are "the head of regional and international terrorism, from Al-Qaeda to ISIS, and from the Lebanese Hezbollah to the Shiite terror militias all over the world."
Referring to the possibility that the IRGC may be removed from the list of terrorism, the Saudi analyst said:
"This would be a direct threat and danger not only to the Arab countries, but to the whole world, and an unprecedented support for terrorism and its groups and organizations. The Arab countries and Israel will be the first victims. There is an American and Western policy that cannot be condoned, which is the insistence on making Saudi Arabia and the UAE militarily exposed to the attacks of the Iranian Houthi militia in Yemen, ballistic missiles and drones, and imposing illogical requirements on the export of arms to confront these serious threats. The hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, which enabled the Taliban to seize control of the country, removing the Houthi militia from the terrorism list, seeking to remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from the list of terrorism, silence about Iranian bombing of Iraqi Kurdistan -- these are very dangerous policies for the world and the Arab countries that support stability and peace...
"A new approach is knocking on the doors of the world with force and an unprecedented need to close ranks, strengthen alliances and build partnerships, and any neutral observer will find a blatant contradiction in the Biden administration's policies towards Iran and Saudi Arabia, as it courts Iran in an unprecedented way and does not behave in the same way with Saudi Arabia."
Syrian writer Dr. Mahmoud Al-Shami expressed astonishment over the Biden administration's weak and hypocritical attitude towards Iran and its terrorist proxies:
"America condemns the Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia and says they must stop, while it has since removed Houthis from the list of terrorism, and will also remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from the terrorism list as well. [The condemnation came] while America was claiming that Saudi Arabia is its ally and that it will defend it if it is subjected to any aggression. Have you seen bigger liars?"
Dr. Mohamed El-Sherif, an Egyptian, also took to social media to express disgust with the policies of the Biden administration towards the mullahs and their terrorist organizations.
"What did the Revolutionary Guard offer America as a price for the reward of being removed from the list of terrorist organizations and making billions of dollars available to it by lifting sanctions on Iran so that it could finance its terrorist activities at the expense of threatening the security of the Gulf and the stability of the Middle East?"
Kuwaiti university lecturer Professor Abdullah Al-Shayji noted that the US was continuing to lose its credibility among the Arabs:
"Will Biden re-designate the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization after President Trump classified them as terrorists during his presidency?... Will Biden, in the nuclear negotiations with Iran, cancel the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to succeed with the nuclear deal?! We are witnessing a decline in trust in America."
Saudi writer Abdul Hadi Al-Shehri warned the Biden administration that it would be making a grave mistake by removing the IRGC from the terrorism list:
"I think that when you remove the Iranian Revolutionary Guard from the list of terrorist organizations, you will make a big mistake, and this will lead to the spread of Iranian terrorism and this will affect the region and allies, and America and Europe will be vulnerable to direct Iranian terrorism."
Bahraini journalist and political analyst Abdul Majed Jalal accused the Biden administration of "betraying" its Arab allies.
"The Biden administration is considering canceling the decision to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization as part of its efforts to revive the nuclear deal with Iran. The mere idea is a clear American betrayal of its allies in the Gulf! The Gulf no longer has much trust in America."
Dr. Fahad bin Jumah, former member of the Economy and Energy Committee in Saudi Arabia, commented:
"Supporting Iran, returning to the nuclear agreement, and trying to remove the Revolutionary Guard from the list of terrorism, as he did previously with the Houthis, are among the unforgivable mistakes of Mr. Biden."
Masood A. R., an Iranian opponent of the mullahs, Addressing US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, wrote:
"Mr. Blinken, it will be a true holiday for Iranians when they get rid of the murderous [Iranian] regime to which you are making terrible concessions. Mr. Blinken, the Iranian people will not forgive the US if the Revolutionary Guard, the largest terrorist organization backed by an official government, is removed from the list of terrorism."
Iraqi social media user Kirar Al-Atiyya added his voice to that of an increasing number of Arabs who were shocked by the news concerning the IRGC:
"If this news is true about the Biden administration's intention to remove the Revolutionary Guard militia from the list of terrorism, this would be the mother of all disasters. The Revolutionary Guard gangs have committed many crimes. They also contributed to the recruitment of children into the ranks of the terrorist Houthi militia."
Judging from the severe consternation in the Arab countries over Biden's mistaken and disastrous policies towards Iran and its terrorist proxies, it's safe to assume that US credibility has plummeted in the Arab world.
From the Arab point of view, it seems as though the US has chosen to side with the world's largest terrorist organization -- the IRGC -- a move that poses an imminent threat to Arab security and the stability of the entire region.
The question arises: If the Biden administration believes that the Houthi militia and the IRGC are not terrorist organizations, then why not also remove Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the blacklist? Indeed, if the US administration believes that it can do business with these terrorists and their sponsors in Tehran, then why not own up to its policies and straightforwardly declare all these terrorist groups as America's newest allies?
Khaled Abu Toameh is an award-winning journalist based in Jerusalem.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment