.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
These are several successful tech executives from Silicon Valley who interview a wide variety of folks. They have no agenda other than truth and curiosity. Serious people left the mainstream media decades ago and learn about the world from citizen journalists like these and others like them.
This is one of the greatest interviews of Trump and I urge all of you at least listen and draw your own conclusions.
He was clear in his responses direct and he will blow Biden away. Anyone who continues to believe Trump is not knowledgeable, and does not have clear, rational solutions to our nation's problems is beyond prejudiced. I can only say they are simply pig headed.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/
+++
Why Trump must be re-elected and is essential both to world peace as well as America's survival as a democratic republic.
+++
Which will it be?
+++
|
|
|
|
Alisha Tischler, AIPAC
And:
Inevitable:
Finally:
|
|
++++
The Buck Stops with You Mr. Prime Minister
By Sherwin Pomerantz
The report in the Jerusalem Post of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s first interview in the Hebrew media since the outbreak of war, where he insinuated that threats by protesters against his government’s judicial reforms to stop serving in the IDF reserves played a part in Hamas’s decision to attack Israel on October 7th would be funny if his faulty logic was not so tragic for the country.
He is quoted as saying: “The refusal [to serve] is a disaster – and created illusions for our enemies.” Also, during the interview on Channel 14 Netanyahu criticized current protesters for calling for new elections.
There is no question, of course, that the nine months of protests against judicial reform in 2023 created a divisiveness in the country and certainly made us look weak in the face of our enemies. It would be folly not to recognize that. Nevertheless, in looking at the events of those nine months, at the fact that the Prime Minister and his right-wing coalition were attempting to push an unpopular set of reforms down the throats of the general public along with an unwillingness to compromise on any aspect of the reform, it is specious on his part to point to the threats of some reservists not to serve, as a cause of what occurred on October 7th when so much of the divisiveness was his doing in the first place.
Making this jump on the Prime Minister’s part is tantamount to the definition of chutzpah (unmitigated gall) where a son who just murdered his parents asks for mercy from the court because he is an orphan.
But Netanyahu’s remarks are in line with his general behavior as Prime Minister. At the end of the day, he takes the blame for nothing. Everything bad that happens, every challenge to the normal order of life is someone else’s fault.
October 7th happened for a host of reasons too numerous to deal with in a short op-ed. But (a) the size of Hamas’s attack, (b) the fact that the border was severely understaffed, (c) that data seems to indicate that warnings about the attack were issued regularly in the runup to October 7th and seem to have been dismissed or ignored, (d) that it took almost eight hours for the IDF to get its act together and begin to respond to the attack, and (e) that as a result, more than 1,200 of our citizens and others were slaughtered, dozens of others were sexually assaulted and 251 hostages were taken into Gaza (where over 100 still reman), all should leave everyone appalled at the level of devastation and unpreparedness that was evident that day regardless of the reasons behind the attack itself.
Who is to blame for THAT? By definition it is the leadership of the IDF and the civilian government whose job it was to make good on their contract with the population of Israel to protect us. The most senior people in both of those cohorts bear ultimate responsibility for what happened on October 7th which means specifically, the IDF Chief of Staff and the Prime Minister of Israel. Instead of taking responsibility for this, the Prime Minister seeks to blame the protesters who earlier in the year said they would not turn up for reserve duty on behalf of a government who they perceive was taking their freedoms away from them.
In Asian cultures, the leadership would have long ago asked for forgiveness from the citizenry of Israel and resigned. But not here. While some military leaders in the security area did admit responsibility and resign (and for that they should be applauded) nobody in the political wing has done so, nor has anyone even admitted responsibility.
Of course, the protests have begun again with a push for new elections and the majority understands that this government will not close itself down. We should all be grateful that there are people still willing to stand up for what they believe and demonstrate in support of those beliefs. There is no other avenue open to the public to make its opinion known other than through protests, whether its in favor of new elections or in favor of a deal with Hamas that gets the remaining hostages back while some are still alive.
Yet the Prime Minister takes after them now as well, when he said during the interview: “I say to the protesters – get it together. This is the time for unity, this is the time for greatness. Their goal is to bring down the government, and every time their excuse is different. I do not think that it reflects a majority of the people. I turn to the majority of the people and say – this is the time for unity.”
Actually, he is partially correct. It is the time for unity but the people know that it probably cannot be fully achieved under leadership that fails to take responsibility for its failures as well as its success.
In situations like this I often quote former US President Harry Truman, probably the last moral occupant of the White House in the last century when he said in his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, "The President--whoever he is--has to decide. He can't pass the buck to anybody. No one else can do the deciding for him. That's his job.”
Truman understood that at the end of the day he was responsible for what did and did not happen under his watch. The Prime Minister would do well for once in his life to internalize that principle and stop blaming others for his failures.
++++
Emptor beware. If the world cared and was awake and smart, attacks on Jews always gives a wake up call but seldom does anyone listen?
+++
+++
It may begin with the Jews, but it never ends with the Jews
A monster is incubating at Europe’s doors and within its walls and it will devour everyone who is not a Muslim. Is that so hard to understand? Opinion.
By Giulio Meotti
Islamic attacks against Christians across Asia and Africa. Islamic attacks against Jews in Israel. Islamic attacks in Paris, Mannheim and Malmö. Islamic attacks against synagogues and churches in Dagestan. But if you connect the dots you are just an “Islamophobic conspiracy theorist”.
It begins with the Jews, but it will never end with the Jews.
Take a territory that is part of the Russian state, but is 83 percent Muslim and where attempts are being made to eliminate what remains of Christianity and Judaism. Do you remember anything? European enclaves?
Dagestan, North Caucasus, Russian Federation. Terrorists killed 20 police officers in a series of attacks on a synagogue and two churches in the cities of Derbent and Makhachkala. An Orthodox priest, Nikolai Kotelnikov, had his throat slit on Orthodox Pentecost Sunday. Two of the terrorists were the sons of the head of the local governorate.
In a square in Derbent, the oldest city in all of Russia, there is a monument to the brotherhood of three religions: a rabbi, an Orthodox priest and an imam. After all, Derbent is one of the first Christian cities in Russia, has one of the oldest Jewish communities in Europe and the muezzin's singing was first heard here. What better place to make a multi-religious Russian salad?
But if every figure in the statue has an alter ego and Russian salads are good on the plate but less so from a religious point of view, the priest in the center of the statue is Father Nikolai, killed by Islamic terrorists.
The Jewish community of Dagestan dates back to the eighth century, one of the oldest in the European diaspora. Derbent, attacked by Islamic terrorists, was a hub for Jewish life and boasted numerous synagogues before the Bolshevik revolution. Its Jews survived the Nazi massacres of the Eintzagruppen.
During the Second World War, Hitler joined the jihad by mobilizing North Caucasian Muslims against the USSR (and the Jews). Collaborating mullahs proclaimed Hitler the "grand imam of the Caucasus". During the occupation of the North Caucasus, five newspapers were published, one of which, Gazawat, bore an epigraph: “Allah is above us, Hitler is at our side.”
In Derbent in 2024 only the Kele-Numaz synagogue remained active. Now it was set on fire. During the Soviet era, Jews managed to maintain their religious practices, such as baking matza bread for Passover and lighting candles on the Sabbath. They survived although St. George's Cathedral was destroyed in 1938 to make way for a giant statue of Lenin.
But where Communism and Nazism failed, Islamic fundamentalism has succeeded: the Jewish population in Dagestan has plummeted from 50,000 to less than 10,000 in recent years, with many moving to Israel, the United States or elsewhere in Russia.
And it was such a beautiful story that it seemed to have come out of a volume of Tales and Legends of the Caucasus or a Soviet promotional leaflet praising “friendship between peoples”, but it's true: the rabbi of Makhachkala is named Eli-Sultan Alkhazov, because his father, himself a rabbi, had a Muslim as his best friend. Since the Muslim friend could not have children, he asked his Jewish friend to give his eldest son his name. Thus the rabbi has a Muslim name, transformed into Eli-Sultan so as not to confuse the faithful too much.
The terrorists wrote numbers from verses of the Koran on the gate of the Derbent synagogue.
The Islamization of this strategic region began in 773, when the city of Derbent was incorporated into the Arab-Muslim caliphate. Today we see the hunt for the remains of the "infidels". And both the synagogues of Derbent and Rouen, in Normandy, are burned.
After "Black Saturday" on October 7, when the rumor of a plane arriving from Israel spread, the hunt for the Jew was unleashed in the airport in Dagestan with the cry of "Allahu Akbar". Russia was forced to divert flights from the airport. Arriving passengers began to disembark, only to be forced back onto the plane as protesters waving Palestinian flags ran towards them to lynch them. An air force officer called them back to the plane by shouting "quickly!". The crowd then tried to prevent the buses from leaving the airport and also entered the buses el looking for Jews. And earlier an Islamic terrorist had attacked a church in Kizlyar, also in Dagestan.
This is why the attack on churches and synagogues does not only concern Putin's Russia and does not only concern Orthodox Christians or Caucasian Jews: it concerns all the West too. A monster is incubating at Europe’s doors and within its walls.
It was Födor Dostoevsky, on page 504 of “The Diary of a Writer”, who first warned us: "The fanaticism of Islam will be thrown against Europe”. And again: “But sorry, if he is so sensitive, he may also be offended by the fact that in the same street where his mosque is located, our Orthodox church is also located; must we tear it down so that he doesn't get offended?”.
Have we really not figured it out yet?
++++
Are times really changing? Did a white New York dude beat a black anti-Semite liar in his own district? Amazing.
+++
George Latimer ousts ‘Squad’ Rep. Jamaal
Bowman in NY-16 District Democratic primary
By Vaughn Golden ,
Head for the (fire) exit, Jamaal!
Westchester County Executive George Latimer sent Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) packing from Congress Tuesday night, defeating the far-left “Squad” member in the 16th District’s Democratic primary.
“Tonight, we turn the page and we say that we believe in the inclusion of everybody,” Latimer told cheering supporters in White Plains.
“It doesn’t matter your age, religion, sexual identity, whether you’re a right-hander or left-hander, whether you’re a Met fan or a Yankee fan — our inclusiveness in Westchester County is how we govern the people,” he added. “You can’t destroy this country with your rhetoric and your arguments. We have to have unity.”
Bowman’s four-year House tenure will come to an end following the most expensive congressional primary ever in terms of ad spending – a race which pitted pro-Bowman groups like Justice Democrats and the Working Families Party against an alliance of moderates turned off by the incumbent’s stances, mainly on Israel.
The incumbent took an early lead Tuesday night after the first results came in from the Bronx portion of the district, where Bowman racked up 83% of the vote.
But the picture changed as the Westchester precincts reported an overwhelming vote for Latimer. With
Latimer told supporters that it is time to “say that we believe in the inclusion of everybody.” LP Media
Latimer’s coalition of well-funded backers included the United Democracy Project, a super PAC affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) that spent a staggering $14 million in the race, and a cryptocurrency group called Fair Shake that bankrolled another $2 million worth of spots.
The race quickly developed into a referendum on the Israel-Hamas war and Bowman’s public comments about the Jewish state and followers of that religion.
Last week, in an interview with WNYC’s Brian Lehrer, Bowman accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
In that same interview, Bowman belatedly apologized for denying the horrific rapes of Israeli women during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that killed an estimated 1,200 people — including 33 Americans.
Over the weekend, Politico quoted Bowman as saying that Jews had “segregated” themselves from the rest of Westchester, and had “made a decision to do that for their own reasons,” drawing the ire of South Bronx Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY)
++++
This analysis of recent Scotus decisions is from a dear lawyer fiend and fellow memo reader.
+++
Several of you have asked me about the major cases that have been decided. I am going to give you my thoughts one case at a time. Your comments and feedback is welcome.
The case of Fischer v US dealt with the use of the Sarbanes Oxley Act to charge Joseph Fischer (and by extension hundreds of others) with "obstruction of an official proceeding" as a result of the January 6, 2021 riot in DC. The statute imposes criminal liability on anyone who corruptly "alters, destroys, mutilates or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object"s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding". The statute further provides in the following subsection that criminal liability applies if a party "otherwise obtructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so".
Before discussing the legal issues, I suggest we consider the problem of prosecutorial overreach. In other words, we have prosecutors (and the governmental officials standing behind them) who will stretch criminal statutes to pressure people charged with crimes to enter into plea deals and the twin problem of turning minor crimes with short sentences into major crimes with much longer sentences. We have just witnessed that with the Trump trial and conviction in New York. In the case of January 6 defendants, many of whom engaged in no acts of violence or damage to property, simply charging them with a trespass would have resulted in a minor sentence or fine. By charging them with "obstruction of an official proceeding",the potential prison time was 20 years. In the hands of a political prosecutor, prosecutorial overreach becomes a weapon to be used against dissenters and opponents of those in power. A danger closely related to prosecutorial overreach is prosecutorial discretion. When exercised responsibly and in an even handed manner, prosecutorial discretion is, of course, an acceptable part of any justice system. Conversely, it can be used to favor friends and punish opponents. We should all recall Congressman Jeffries pulling a fire alarm to stop a vote by Congress. He was not charged with "obstruction of an official proceeding".
I invite you to reread the statute quoted above and focus on the words "corruptly", "official proceeding" and "otherwise" as you consider the opinion by the Supreme Court in this case.
Fischer moved to dismiss the charge against him under this statute. It should be noted that he was charged with and convicted of numerous other violations but only his conviction under the Sarbanes Oxley Act quoted above was at issue before the Supreme Court. Fischer's motion asserted that the statute applies to the availability or integrity of evidence and the word "otherwise" must be applied only if the availability or integrity of evidence was affected by his actions.
The DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, rejected Fischer's position, saying that the word "otherwise" covers "all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding" and not only an obstruction involving documents or evidence. The Circuit Court gave little consideration to whether the alleged "obstruction" by Fischer was corrupt and whether the meeting by Congress to certify the Electoral College votes was an "official proceeding".
Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion. It was joined by Justices Thomas Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaigh and Jackson. Justice Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion (and I congratulate for her honesty in saying that reading the statute in a manner that complies with Congress's intent is required).Justice Barrett dissented and her dissent was joined by Justices Sotmayer and Kagan. It is notable that Justice Jackson voted with the majority while Justice Barrett voted with the dissenting minority.
Justice Roberts opinion held that the charge under the Sarbanes Oxley Act was legally improper, saying that in interpreting a general phrase it was necessary to consider it with the specific phrases linked to it. Here the specific phrases dealt with the protection of the availability and integrity of evidence. To read "otherwise" as applying beyond the protection of the availability and integrity of evidence would swallow up the specific acts described in the prior subsection of the statute. He discussed the history behind the adoption of this statute, pointing out that Congress was closing a loophole in then existing law which "imposed criminal liability on anyone who "knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, threatens or corruptly persuades another person" to,among other things, shred documents", but did not impose criminal liability on the person actually shredding the documents. Justice Roberts further pointed out the many separate sections of the chapter of the criminal code containing the statute in issue that deal with specific acts and types of obstruction, each with their own level of punishment, and he said that the broad reading of "otherwise" as asserted by the government would make all of these specific sections superfluous and undermines the carefully delineated level of punishment for different acts of obstruction.
As examples of what "otherwise" might cover, Justice Roberts says, "creating false evidence" or forging documents would be included.
The government attempted to distinguish the separate specific sections dealing with obstruction by pointing out that they do not require that a party acted "corruptly" but Justice Roberts concluded that all of those sections require that the party charged acted "knowingly" to intimidate, threaten or physically harm another, which has no meaningful distinction from "corruptly".
Justice Roberts did not consider or mention whether the meeting of Congress to certify the Electoral College vote was an "official proceeding". In my view, this is a major missed opportunity to limit the ability of prosecutors to overreach. If, as the Court held, this statute is to be limited to the preservation and integrity of evidence, the only "official proceeding" can be a proceeding involving crime or violation of a statute. The meeting of Congress to certify Electoral College results was not an evidentiary meeting. Nobody was on trial or might be on trial as a result of that meeting (as would be the case of a grand jury proceeding). To read the term "official proceeding" as broadly as the government did would perhaps make peaceful demonstrations against Congress meeting to consider legislation or against the Supreme Court meeting to consider cases as violations of this statute.
As noted above, Justice Barrett dissented. The most noteworthy sentence in her dissent is:: "The Court does not dispute that Congress's joint session qualifies as an "official proceeding"; that rioters delayed the proceedings; or even that Fischer's alleged conduct ...was part of a successful effort to halt the certification of the election result". She further defines "otherwise" as "in a different manner, i.e., not involving documents or evidence. With due respect to Justice Barrett and her fellow dissenters-- Justices Sotomayor and Kagan-- this is exactly the way prosecutors are able to overreach.
++++
The Obama and Biden Administrations: Paving the Way for a Nuclear-Armed Iran
by Majid Rafizadeh
America's "diplomatic efforts," instead of putting a stop to Iran's nuclear program, have only resulted in a series of concessions that have empowered the Iranian regime. The lack of stringent enforcement and verification measures, and especially lifting secondary sanctions -- by which any country that does business with Iran is prohibited from doing business with America -- have allowed Iran to accelerate its nuclear activities "under the radar."
Iran's continued development of ballistic missile technology and its persistent test firings of missiles, both in clear violation of UN resolutions, were largely overlooked. In addition, the growing bellicosity of Iran's huge militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as the nuclear program itself, were apparently never addressed with the seriousness they warranted -- thereby allowing Iran to expand its military capabilities and regional aggression unchecked.
The Iranian regime strategically allocated these funds to support and expand its own proxy presence throughout the region, including, among other spots, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso and the Gaza Strip.
The Trump administration implemented a "maximum pressure" policy aimed at curtailing Iran's economic capabilities by particularly focusing on reducing the country's oil exports, and, most importantly, establishing "secondary sanctions" that banned any country doing business with Iran from doing business with the US.
The Biden administration's passive approach of trying to use what might look like "protection money" to try to bribe Iran into compliance has simply backfired. Iran took the billions and, unsurprisingly, appears to have fungibly used them to finance several wars in the region -- Hamas and Hezbollah's war against Israel, the Houthis' war against Israel and the US, and Iran's own April 13 missile- and drone-attack against Israel -- as well as Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The Biden administration, sadly, seems to have been the enabling factor in Iran's continued regional assertiveness and nuclear advancement. The administration's series of policies favorable to Iran significantly strengthened the regime to the point where Iran and its proxies are now actively engaged in a comprehensive war against Israel, the Sunni Arab Gulf States and, since October, more than 150 attacks on US troops in the region.
America's "diplomatic efforts," instead of putting a stop to Iran's nuclear program, have only resulted in a series of concessions that have empowered the Iranian regime. (Image source: iStock)
As Iran is on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, the responsibility for this development lies squarely on the shoulders of the Obama and Biden administrations. Through a series of misinformed and misguided policies, they have paved the way for Iran to realize its nuclear ambitions.
America's "diplomatic efforts," instead of putting a stop to Iran's nuclear program, have only resulted in a series of concessions that have empowered the Iranian regime. The lack of stringent enforcement and verification measures, and especially lifting secondary sanctions -- by which any country that does business with Iran is prohibited from doing business with America -- have allowed Iran to accelerate its nuclear activities "under the radar." The leniency and strategic missteps of both the Obama and Biden administrations have thus critically undermined global non-proliferation efforts, bringing the world to the current situation where Iran stands about to become a nuclear-armed state.
The concept of granting concessions to Iran, which originated with the Obama administration, culminated in what became known as the "nuclear deal." The deal marked a significant shift in international relations with Iran. On the very first day of implementing the deal, the international community saw the removal of crippling United Nations Security Council sanctions. These sanctions, which had taken decades to establish, represented a robust international effort to contain Iran's nuclear plans.
Iran's continued development of ballistic missile technology and its persistent test firings of missiles, both in clear violation of UN resolutions, were largely overlooked. In addition, the growing bellicosity of Iran's huge militia, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), as well as the nuclear program itself, were apparently never addressed with the seriousness they warranted -- thereby allowing Iran to expand its military capabilities and regional aggression unchecked.
Meanwhile, reports have surfaced, disclosed by whistleblowers to Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, that the Obama-Biden State Department went so far as to "actively interfere" with the efforts of the FBI to arrest certain individuals who were in the United States illegally and suspected of supporting Iran's financial endeavors aimed at developing nuclear weapons. Interference by the State Department would have involved obstructing the FBI's law enforcement actions, which were crucial in addressing the illegal activities related to Iran's ambitions for weapons development. The decision to intervene and prevent these arrests raises serious questions about the administration's priorities and commitment to national security. This revelation adds another layer of complexity to the narrative surrounding the administration's approach to Iran, suggesting an eagerness to overlook potential threats.
The newfound legitimacy that Obama granted to Iran, coupled with his lifting sanctions, generated a flood of billions of dollars for the IRGC, as well as for various other militias and terrorist groups supported by the regime. The windfall enabled Tehran to significantly bolster its military and paramilitary operations, and extend its influence across the Middle East. The Iranian regime strategically allocated these funds to support and expand its own proxy presence throughout the region, including, among other spots, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Mali, Burkina Faso and the Gaza Strip.
In Syria, Iran's backing has been pivotal in bolstering the Assad regime by providing military and logistical support, which helped turn the civil war in Assad's favor. Similarly, in Yemen, Iran's financial and military aid to the Houthi rebels fueled an ongoing conflict that has had devastating humanitarian consequences and has further destabilized the region. In Lebanon, Iran's support for Hezbollah strengthened the group's military capabilities and political clout and made Lebanon into a solid Iranian proxy. Iran's expansion campaign, underpinned by the substantial revenue boost from sanctions lifted by the Biden administration, proved to be immensely successful, significantly intensifying Iran's grip across the Middle East.
When the Trump administration came to office, the fortunes of Iran shifted dramatically. The Trump administration implemented a "maximum pressure" policy aimed at curtailing Iran's economic capabilities by particularly focusing on reducing the country's oil exports, and, most importantly, establishing "secondary sanctions" that banned any country doing business with Iran from doing business with the US. This highly effective policy significantly slashed Iran's oil revenues, a major source of funding for the regime. The Trump administration's re-imposition and expansion of sanctions exerted immense economic pressure on the Iranian government and forced Iranian leaders to make difficult financial decisions, such as cutting back on funding to their regional allies, as well as to Iran's militias and terror groups. As the Islamic regime's proxies and aligned groups found themselves with fewer resources to sustain their activities, the reduction in financial support effectively hobbled Iran's operational capabilities. The "maximum pressure" campaign, therefore, not only weakened Iran's domestic economy but also curtailed its ability to project power and influence through its network of regional proxies.
When President Joe Biden assumed office, Iran experienced a renewed sense of optimism and relief. The Biden administration swiftly took steps that were seen as favorable to Tehran. One of the new administration's first actions was to remove Yemen's Houthi rebels from the U.S. List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, a move that was perceived as a significant concession. The Houthis reciprocated the goodwill gesture by launching missiles and attack drones on its neighbors in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The Biden administration also tried to revive the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the "Iran nuclear deal," which had guaranteed Iran nuclear weapons in just a few years, and was therefore abandoned by the Trump administration. As these financial and diplomatic overtures took shape, Iran's oil exports began to climb, reaching new heights estimated at $100 billion. This resurgence in oil revenue once again empowered Iran to finance its hegemonic regional ambitions and support its network of militias, proxies and allied groups.
Worse, reports indicate that the Biden administration has not only overlooked Iran's advances in its nuclear program, but that it is also actively discouraging the European Union from rebuking Iran for its defiance and progress in nuclear development. The Biden administration's passive approach of trying to use what might look like "protection money" to try to bribe Iran into compliance has simply backfired. Iran took the billions and, unsurprisingly, appears to have fungibly used them to finance several wars in the region -- Hamas and Hezbollah's war against Israel, the Houthis' war against Israel and the US, and Iran's own April 13 missile- and drone-attack against Israel -- as well as Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The Biden administration, sadly, seems to have been the enabling factor in Iran's continued regional assertiveness and nuclear advancement. The administration's series of policies favorable to Iran significantly strengthened the regime to the point where Iran and its proxies are now actively engaged in a comprehensive war against Israel, the Sunni Arab Gulf States and, since October, more than 150 attacks on US troops in the region.
Drawing from historical precedents, it is easy to understand the efficacy of certain measures: imposing stringent sanctions, and especially secondary sanctions, targeting Iran's oil sales to curtail revenue flows to the regime, and considering the deployment of military options to address Iran's nuclear program. These strategic actions are now more crucial than ever in ensuring regional stability, curbing Iran's ambitions and safeguarding global security interests.
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh is a business strategist and advisor, Harvard-educated scholar, political scientist, board member of Harvard International Review, and president of the International American Council on the Middle East. He has authored several books on Islam and US Foreign Policy. He can be reached at Dr.Rafizadeh@Post.Harvard.Edu
++++
No comments:
Post a Comment