FLASHBACK: John Bolton Described Trump and Zelensky Call as “Warm and Cordial”…


A Bolton interview supportive of President Trump’s Zelensky conversation before termination indicates sour grapes policy differences after firing. MEANING: Despite Dem lies and misrepresentations, Bolton’s leaked excerpt does NOT indicate High Crimes, Misdemeanors and definitely not Treason BUT does indicate policy differences which Constitutionally enabled President Trump to fire Bolton.

 

JRH 1/29/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

***************************

FLASHBACK: John Bolton Described Trump and Zelensky Call as “Warm and Cordial” Back in August Before He Was Fired (VIDEO)

 

By Jim Hoft

January 29, 2020

The Gateway Pundit

 

Well, this didn’t make any headlines this week.

 

Just one month before former National Security Advisor John Bolton was fired he praised President Trump in his phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky.

 

In an interview in August John Bolton praised President Trump and called his call with Zelensky “warm and cordial.”

 

John Bolton on RadioFreeEurope Interview

 

Cristina Laila reported this Bolton interview with Radio Free Europe in August.

 

Via Mark Levin.

 

Here is the full interview.

 

VIDEO: RFE/RL’s Full Interview With U.S. National-Security Adviser John Bolton On Iran, Ukraine, and Russia

 

 

[Posted by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

74.9K subscribers – Aug 28, 2019

 

U.S. national-security adviser John Bolton sat down for an interview with RFE/RL’s Olena Removska on August 27 in Kyiv. Bolton told her that Iran cannot hope for sanctions relief without a “comprehensive deal,” that Washington would be “happy” to join talks mediating between Ukraine and Russia, and that U.S. sanctions on Moscow are tougher than those imposed by the European Union.]

+++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

______________________________

© 2020 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

If Bolton testifies, so should Schiff, the Bidens, the ‘whistleblower,’ and the fired Ukrainian prosecutor


It is apparent that John Bolton – a person whose hawkish views I once admired – is intent on stabbing President Trump in the back to the glee of coup-minded Dems and RINOs. I like the musing of Rick Manning the leader of Americans for Limited Government; viz., if Bolton is a witness the entire Pandora’s Box of witnesses that undoubtedly incriminates Dem crimes must also testify.

 

JRH 1/27/20

Your generosity is always appreciated – various credit, check 

& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee. 

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

*****************************

If Bolton testifies, so should Schiff, the Bidens, the ‘whistleblower,’ and the fired Ukrainian prosecutor

 

By ALG press

January 27, 2020

Americans for Limited Government

 

Jan. 27, 2020, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning today issued the following statement regarding the leak of portions of John Bolton’s book:

 

“The leak of parts of John Bolton’s book out of the National Security Council is clearly designed to impact the impeachment trial. No matter what the book claims, the facts remain the same. The Ukrainian government had zero knowledge that the funds were being held until a story ran on August 28.  Senator Ron Johnson, who was meeting with the Ukrainians on September 1 along with Vice President Pence, called President Trump about what they should ask for in exchange for the aid being released, to which the President replied, ‘No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?’ And, that he would likely be happy with the decision that was made: ‘We’re reviewing it now, and you’ll probably like my final decision.’

 

“No matter what any witnesses say about the President’s internal thoughts or even complaints about the unfairness of a system that spent three years investigating him when he did nothing and closes its eyes to obvious abuses of power and corruption by the Clintons and Bidens, the bottom line fact is that the Ukrainians were never told by U.S. officials that aid was being withheld prior to the Politico story, and that the aid was released two weeks after the hold was reported, three weeks prior to the deadline.

 

“Facts matter.  The actions taken were perfectly legal and the impeachment continues to be nothing more than a continuation of the three-year coup against the duly-elected President of the United States.  And given the persistent leaks from the National Security Council staff, it is clear that the only people seeking to have an undue influence on the 2020 U.S. election are the Obama holdovers in the White House and their ongoing efforts to knee-cap President Trump.  The Senate needs to take the evidence that is being laid before them and acquit the President, rather than being buffeted by the same kind of campaign of disinformation that the nation endured throughout the Mueller investigation.  Dragging out this trial for any longer does a grievous disservice to our nation, as fairness would dictate that if witnesses are allowed to be called, then any and every witness the President wishes to bring forward should be allowed including the so-called whistleblower, Adam Schiff, the Schiff staff that colluded with the ‘whistleblower’, Clinton operatives who worked the Ukraine for cash, the Ukrainian prosecutors who investigated Biden corruption and the New York Times reporters who received the selective leaks of the Bolton book.  Let’s hear the NY Times reporters claim source protection privilege when the President is not afforded the basic Executive Privileges that every Chief Executive has had and defended since George Washington.”

 

“The Senate has a choice.  Either end this fraudulent impeachment, or open it up into a free for all.  After three years of being ‘prosecuted’ in the press and three months of the House ‘impeachment’ hearings, mostly held in secret, the President deserves to be able to completely and fully make his case if additional House witnesses are allowed to be called.  If the Senate doesn’t have the stomach for opening the door to a full inquiry into the corruption of the Ukrainian involvement on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, the Bidens money grab and the shady Schiff House process, then they should not open the door to any additional witnesses.”

++++++++++++++++++++++

BLOG EDITOR: I’ve apparently been placed in restricted Facebook Jail! The restriction was relegated after criticizing Democrats for supporting abortion in one post and criticizing Virginia Dems for gun-grabbing legislation and levying protestor restrictions. Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me completely. Conservatives are a huge portion of Facebook. If more or all Conservatives are banned, it will affect the Facebook advertising revenue paradigm. SO FIGHT CENSORSHIP BY SHARE – SHARE – SHARE!!! Facebook notified me in pop-up on 1/20/20: “You’re temporarily restricted from joining and posting to groups that you do not manage until April 18 at 7:04 PM.”

_____________________________

Interview Availability: Please contact Americans for Limited Government at 703-383-0880 ext. 1 or at media@limitgov.org.

 

©2020 Americans for Limited Government. All rights reserved.

 

The Democrats Reach A New Low – The Dan Bongino Show


Dan Bongino exposes idiot Dems and Dem propaganda MSM siding with Iran over death of Iran’s General Soleimani by an American reaper drone. Some would call this Dem coverage treason. I call it treason. I’m an Independent asking voters to vote GOP to stop this treasonous idiocy from the airwaves.

 

(Endure the Bongino ads, he has bills to pay like us all)

 

JRH 1/7/20

Your generosity is always appreciated: 

Please Support NCCR

Or support by getting in the Coffee from home business – 

OR just buy some FEEL GOOD coffee.

 

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

**************************

VIDEO: Ep. 1152 The Democrats Reach A New Low – The Dan Bongino Show.

 

Posted by Dan Bongino

337K subscribers – Jan 7, 2020

 

For show notes, visit https://bongino.com/ep-1152-the-democrats-reach-a-new-low/

 

[Blog Editor: The Show notes:

 

In this episode, I address the outrageous media response to the killing of one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists. I also address a fascinating interview with Devin Nunes where he drops an explosive piece of information. Finally, I address what John Bolton, and the Democrats, are really up to with the impeachment hoax.

 

News Picks:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE TO READ at Youtube

++++++++++++++++++++

Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.

 

Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state


National Security Advisor John Bolton stated the obvious about the Arabs pretending to be Palestinians; viz., Palestine is not a State.

 

The remarks came at a White House presser announcing the USA is no longer a party to the world body International Court of Justice (ICJ). The move primarily asserts that the United States will not lose its National Sovereignty to a world government body. And secondly the remarks thumb a news at those who interfere in Israel’s National Sovereignty by telling the Jewish State where and where not it can place its Capital City within the (true) Nation’s national borders.

 

JRH 10/5/18 (Hat Tip: Ali H. of G+ Community United We Stand One Nation Under God)

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

***********************

Bolton: ‘Palestine’ is not a state

 

By Batya Jerenberg

October 4, 2018

World Israel News

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton speaks during a briefing at the White House in Washington, Oct. 3, 2018. (AP/Susan Walsh)

 

It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” US National Security Adviser John Bolton stated.

 

US National Security Adviser John Bolton put the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official status into perspective at a Wednesday press briefing when he announced that the United States would no longer be a signatory party to the United Nations’ International Court of Justice (ICJ).

 

“The president has decided that the United States will withdraw from the optional protocol and dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called state of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant [in the ICJ], challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem,” Bolton said.

 

White House reporters immediately jumped on the adjective, asking whether calling the Palestinian Authority (PA) a “so-called state” was “productive,” considering that President Donald Trump had said he was working towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Bolton’s answer was unequivocal.

 

“It’s not a state now. It does not meet the customary international law test of statehood,” he said. “It doesn’t control defined boundaries. It doesn’t fulfill the normal functions of government. There are a whole host of reasons why it’s not a state.”

 

“It could become a state, as the president said, but that requires diplomatic negotiations with Israel and others,” he added. “So calling it the ‘so-called state of Palestine’ defines exactly what it has been. [That’s] the position that the United States government has pursued uniformly since 1988, when the Palestinian Authority declared itself to be the State of Palestine.”

 

VIDEO: At White House presser, National Security Advisor Bolton insists Palestine has no claim to statehood

 

[Posted by Raw Story

Published on Oct 3, 2018]

 

Bolton might have been referring to the fact that 137 countries have recognized the PA as a state since that date. He reiterated the US rejection of this position on a bipartisan level.

 

“We don’t recognize it as a state… We have consistently, across Democratic and Republican administrations, opposed the admission of ‘Palestine’ to the UN as a state because it’s not a state.”

 

Although the PA is only a “non-member observer state” at the UN, it was allowed to formally join the International Criminal Court in 2015. Since the court’s decisions are binding, the US, by leaving the protocol, blocked the Palestinian case.

 

Bolton added that the withdrawal was part of a general effort by the Trump administration to protect US sovereignty from the reach of the international court.

 

“We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice,” he said. “The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicized claims are brought against us.”

________________________

World Israel News 

 

About WIN

 

World Israel News (WIN) is an online news outlet that presents
readers with important news from Israel and around the world.

 

Our audience consists of people who are concerned about Israel and
seek the truth. They want to know what’s really happening in Israel
and how these events can impact the world.

 

The goal of this website is to provide easy access to the latest news from Israel, presented in a truthful, honest way, with a focus on maximizing the user experience.

 

Constructive debate and exchange of ideas about the Jewish State is warmly welcomed.


We encourage our readers to participate openly and honestly.

 

It’s important to constantly improve the World Israel News website. Therefore, feedback and suggestions are greatly encouraged and appreciated!

 

Click here to contact us.

 

Bolton Gets ICC and Palestinian Authority Attention


John R. Houk

© September 14, 2018

 

Here’s something in the news cycle you probably have not read or heard about due anti-Trump media bias and anti-Trump media platform bias.

 

National Security Advisor John Bolton issue a stern warning to the International Criminal Court (ICC) if they unjustly go after the USA or our nation’s allies – SUCH AS ISRAEL – with fake accusations of global crimes merely because the alleged crime is a thumbing of the nose to the evils of Multiculturalism or National self-preservation. AND in conjunction to the Bolton warning, the U.S. has booted the Palestinian Authority out of Washington DC and set up the U.S. Embassy to Israel in Jerusalem.

 

KEEP IN MIND there never has been a Palestinian nation or people of Arab ancestry in world history. The designation of a “Palestinian People” ONLY came as the now defunct Soviet Union and the Arab League nations created them as a result of failed multiple Arab nations invasions of Israel between 1948 (Israel reclaims their heritage via independence) and 1973.

 

The pretext for future Arab invasions of Israel was the of liberating Arab-Palestinians  from Israel. Hence the Arab League nations and the Communist USSR formed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in 1964. The Arab nations NEVER had any intention of setting up a so-called Palestinian nation. They wanted to invade and fight over who got what land for their own nation’s National Interest. A great analysis of Arabs vs. Jews in what is now Israel is at Stratfor which should be read in entirety but for the purpose of this post – here is a tidbit of relevant info:

 

Palestinian nationalism’s first enemy is Israel, but if Israel ceased to exist, the question of an independent Palestinian state would not be settled. All of the countries bordering such a state would have serious claims on its lands, not to mention a profound distrust of Palestinian intentions. The end of Israel thus would not guarantee a Palestinian state. One of the remarkable things about Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza was that no Arab state moved quickly to take aggressive steps on the Gazans’ behalf. Apart from ritual condemnation, weeks into the offensive no Arab state had done anything significant. This was not accidental: The Arab states do not view the creation of a Palestinian state as being in their interests. They do view the destruction of Israel as being in their interests, but since they do not expect that to come about anytime soon, it is in their interest to reach some sort of understanding with the Israelis while keeping the Palestinians contained.

 

The emergence of a Palestinian state in the context of an Israeli state also is not something the Arab regimes see as in their interest — and this is not a new phenomenon. They have never simply acknowledged Palestinian rights beyond the destruction of Israel. In theory, they have backed the Palestinian cause, but in practice they have ranged from indifferent to hostile toward it. Indeed, the major power that is now attempting to act on behalf of the Palestinians is Iran — a non-Arab state whose involvement is regarded by the Arab regimes as one more reason to distrust the Palestinians. (The Geopolitics of the Palestinians; Stratfor Worldview; 5/15/11 05:00 GMT)

 

Israel Hayom posted a great editorial on John Bolton, the USA position, Israel and the pseudo-Palestinians (includes cut funding to UNWRA which aided Hamas terrorism in Gaza). I am cross posting from Israpundit where I discovered the editorial.

 

JRH 9/14/18

In this current state of media censorship & defunding, consider chipping in a few bucks for enjoying (or even despising yet read) this Blog.

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Putting the PLO in its place

 

By Ariel Kahana

Originally at Israel Hayom

September 14, 2018

Israpundit

 

Twelve hours and an ocean separated two important speeches this week. On Monday, U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton addressed the Federalist Society in Washington. The next day, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini spoke before the EU Parliament in Strasbourg, France.

 

Bolton made an unprecedented attack on the International Criminal Court in The Hague, saying, “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court,” he said.

 

“If the court comes after us, Israel or other US allies, we will not sit quietly,” Bolton said, adding that ICC judges and prosecutors could face personal sanctions from the U.S., including being banned from entering the U.S. and/or prosecution in the U.S. justice system.

Little was said about Bolton’s speech in Israel but the appreciation for it was as great as the silence about it. The ICC is a major concern for the country’s leaders. The threat of Israelis being tried in The Hague hangs like a sword over their heads. IDF soldiers and commanders could be tried for actions taken as part of their military service, and any approval of construction plans in Greater Jerusalem or on the Golan Heights or in Samaria, could be defined by the ICC as a war crime. This is the widely held position in the ICC, which is exactly where law and politics meet.

 

Over the years, Israel has taken steps to prevent ICC intervention, but as with any other legal measure, it is hard to know whether they were sufficient. Therefore, we need another level of defense, which Bolton and U.S. President Donald Trump have just supplied. The defense tactics of one small Middle Eastern country bear no similarity to explicit threats from the only superpower in the world. Because the ICC, like all international law, includes both law and politics, there is no doubt that the American threats are having an effect. For years, the ICC has been trying to increase its international legitimacy. Western Europe and Japan are behind it, but the U.S. is not a member, and plenty of other countries criticize its approach and policies.

 

The ICC might have responded to Bolton’s speech by saying declaring it would continue to work undeterred, but even in The Hague they know that while if you spit in America’s face, it gets wet, but if America spits back, you’ll drown.

 

Less than a day after Bolton spoke, Mogherini stood up before the EU Parliament. She also discussed justice, the law, and Israel, but took a slightly different line, saying: “The Israeli High Court last week rejected the petitions by the residents of the Palestinian village of Khan al-Ahmar. … [The demolition] would be contrary to Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law [AK: a misleading statement, the High Court of Justice spent a decade reviewing the petitions and is obligated to international law]. … The demolition of Khan al-Ahmar, together with plans for further settlement expansions in the same area, would also severely threaten the viability of the two-state solution [AK: untrue].”

 

Mogherini added that the evacuation and demolition of Khan al-Ahmar would have “grave humanitarian consequences.”

 

Mogherini and Bolton are an ocean apart, and not only in the geographical sense. A thousand years would be insufficient for the continent in whose name Mogherini speaks to pay its historic debt to the Jewish people. And still, the EU foreign policy chief stands at the head of the anti-Israel front, mixing up politics with law and justice in accordance with traditional European hypocrisy. On the one hand, she allows illegal African migrants to drown at sea or be slaughtered by Libyan militias. On the other, she preaches morality to Israel. And only to Israel.

 

The Europeans, who owe us so much, bandy around some very lofty talk, but as usual are fanning the fires of hatred. The U.S., which doesn’t owe us a thing, is supplying us a shield the likes of which we have never enjoyed in the name of justice and freedom. That’s the unbridgeable gap between Europe and the U.S.

 

Under Trump, America and Europe are growing farther apart, and not only when it comes to Israel. In any case, we can predict who will win. America doesn’t need Europe. Europe, on the other hand, really does need the U.S. Sooner or later, the old country will call in the new one, as it did twice last century. We can only hope it won’t be because of World War III.

 

Mogherini’s hostile speech did, however, contain one accurate sentence. “The two-state solution is today under serious threat – more than ever before.” Indeed, the U.S. announcement that it was closing the PLO mission in Washington is a death blow to the Palestinian movement.

 

To understand how serious a move it was, we need to go back in history. From its founding in 1964 until now, the Palestine Liberation Organization (under Yasser Arafat and now Mahmoud Abbas) has sought international support. The hypocritical Europeans aligned themselves with it in the 1970s in what later turned out to be “protection” for the PLO not carrying out terrorist attacks on the continent. The U.S. was the only country who refused at the time to give legitimacy to the biggest killer of Jews since the Holocaust. As a nation of values, it saw terrorism as unacceptable and refused any ties with the PLO. Aside from one small “information office” in New York and, of course, intelligence ties, the American response to the organization was boycott.

 

The tough U.S. stance was effective and was one of the factors in Arafat declaring at the end of 1988 that he was turning away from terrorism and would recognize Israel. Then-President Ronald Reagan, who was at the end of his second term, fell into the trap.

 

“The initiation of a dialogue between the United States and PLO representatives is an important step in the peace process. … The United States’ special commitment to Israel’s security and well-being remains unshakable. Indeed, a major reason for our entry into this dialogue is to help Israel achieve the recognition and security it deserves,” Reagan declared on Dec. 14, 1988. The rest of that dialogue never happened, but the U.S. recognition of the PLO was already a fait accompli. Five years later, when the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords, the Clinton administration upgraded the PLO office to the status of an official delegation. In 2010 former President Barack Obama boosted it a step higher on the diplomatic ladder.

 

With a tailwind of support from Obama and the Europeans crossing their fingers, the Palestinians persuaded the entire world to turn around them. They were surrounded by economic aid and moral, political, and media support from every direction. This development hit two peaks: one when the U.N. General Assembly recognized Palestine as a nonmember state in 2012, and the other when the U.N. Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which condemned Israeli settlements as illegal and deemed the Western Wall “occupied territory,” to massive applause. This was the core of the Obama legacy, which tried to taint Israel and set parameters for any future peace deal.

 

Then Trump arrived. By the end of 2017, the president and then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson were already threatening not to extend the PLO’s mandated presence in Washington. They did so partly because of the Palestinian boycott of the administration, but also because the PLO had violated an American law that explicitly forbids the PA to appeal to international entities such as the ICC. But the Palestinians failed to heed the warnings and didn’t realize that Trump meant what he said.

 

Now Bolton has appeared and finished the job. By closing the PLO mission, Trump, Bolton, and all the rest of the president’s men have rolled the Palestinian issue 30 years back in time to where it stood in the 1980s. Things the Palestinians and the world as a whole took for granted – like a future Palestinian state or a demi-embassy on American soil – slipped from their grasp. Trump dropped them to the bottom of the barrel and has called the legitimacy of what has become known as the “Palestinian struggle” into question.

 

In all this, Israel is like a small child surrounded by toys he never thought he’d actually get. The U.S. recognition of Jerusalem last December and the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to the capital this year, as well as the U.S. cuts to funding for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, cuts to money that goes to pay Palestinian terrorists, and a total hands-off policy when it comes to criticizing Israel – not to mention shutting down the PLO mission and threatening the ICC – are just a partial list, and Trump hasn’t even been in office for two years.

 

But a lot of the recent American steps went over Israel’s head, without it knowing about them or even despite some mild objections by its diplomatic officials. At the end of the day, the Trump administration is grinding all the paradigms of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into dust. This daring approach leaves those who until recently were considered local experts on the conflict and peace process speechless.

 

It’s not only the people in the peace industry who are left embarrassed in the face of the lavish gifts from Uncle Sam. The Israeli Right, including those factions represented in the cabinet, doesn’t really know what to do with all this abundance. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is justifiably proud of withstanding the Obama currents, is finding it hard to ride the Trump wave.

 

Instead of walking around grinning, the government should lay a list of historic and irreversible steps in front of Trump that would anchor our vital interests in Judea and Samaria. The first should be to link Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim. Netanyahu, as well as his predecessors, recognized how crucial it is for Israel to build in E1 as a way of keeping a permanent hold on Jerusalem. Thus far, the government hasn’t presented the Trump administration with any plan of that kind, U.S. Ambassador David Friedman told Israel Hayom in an exclusive interview last weekend.

 

And it’s not only Jerusalem. The first Netanyahu government decided in 1988 to define the areas of Judea and Samaria that were of strategic importance to Israel. Now it’s time to lay them before the Americans. And we should also kill the idea of a Palestinian state. Trump declared when he first took office that he didn’t care if a peace deal entailed two states or one.

 

Because Trump’s “deal of the century” for peace between Israel and the Palestinians isn’t moving forward, and now that it’s been made clear that the president isn’t afraid to put the Palestinians in their place, it’s time for Israel to drop the two-state idea. Ever since Trump took office, Netanyahu has refrained from a clear statement on the issue, or from asking Trump to make a binding statement. But who knows when this opportunity will present itself again?

 

Trump has at least two years left in the White House. His successor could be as hostile to Israel as Trump is supportive. So Netanyahu needs to take advantage of the remaining time to diplomatically fortify Israel so that whoever comes after Trump won’t be able to harm us. But for that to happen, we cannot remain passive spectators. This time, Netanyahu must be proactive.

___________________________

Bolton Gets ICC and Palestinian Authority Attention

John R. Houk

© September 14, 2018

____________________________

Putting the PLO in its place

 

Copyright © 2017- Israpundit – All Rights Reserved

All rights reserved to Israel Hayom

 

DONATE to ISRAPUNDIT

 

America Will Not Be Held Hostage


Justin Smith examines President Trump’s withdrawal from Obama’s idiotic Iran Nuke Deal as a message to Iran, perhaps North Korea and the appeasement minded EU nations that America will not be held hostage by threats of war.

 

JRH 5/12/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

America Will Not Be Held Hostage

Avoiding a Dark Future

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 5/10/2018 9:44 PM

 

On Tuesday May 8, 2018, President Donald Trump announced the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, a bad unilateral presidential agreement and a terrible milestone of American history made by his predecessor, and it was great to see President Trump making this strong and definitive decision, for a number of reasons that all bear on our national security. He made the right and the only sound decision, especially in light of recent revelations, that the Iranians had never stopped pursuing their nuclear weapons, as promised, and, in defiance of our European allies and escalating tensions with Iran, he walked away from a promise made by Obama and not the American people.

 

Last month during an address from the Israeli Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced to the world, “Tonight I’m here to tell you one thing. Iran lied — big time.”

 

Shorabad District of Iran. photo 8-27-17

 

Netanyahu continued and revealed Israeli Intelligence had acquired 100,000 files and 55,000 Iranian documents, from the Shorabad District of Iran, which exhibited Iran was still continuing with its nuclear weapons program, referred to as Amad, despite the 2015 deal it made with Obama and the international community. Both Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, and President Hassan Rouhani lied when they said Iran had no interest in nuclear weapons.

 

The White House stated on April 30th: “These facts are consistent with what the United States has long known: Iran had a robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program that it has tried and failed to hide from the world … “.

 

From day one, I admonished Congress and the American people not to place any trust in anything the Iranian Mullahs had to tell us or any agreement entered with them. I noted that the International Atomic Energy Commission didn’t even know about Iran’s pursuit of nukes for twenty years. Even between 2000 and 2004, when many sources stated Iran was pursuing nukes, Iran denied it, until it came out in 2004, whereupon they still denied it. And don’t forget too that former IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei, a Muslim Brotherhood agent and sympathizer, hid Iran’s nuclear progress right through 2007, with him and Iran denying it all along.

 

Failing to account for Iran’s corrupt nature was one of the more stupid and serious flaws in Obama’s deal, since history has shown the Mullahs of Iran are bad faith actors, malevolent and evil, and they cannot be trusted to negotiate anything honestly. And flawed deals like this one have exacted a heavy price from the world, as witnessed in 1938 and Neville Chamberlain’s “peace for our time”.

 

When the Grand Fool Barack Obama, his Court Jester John Kerry and former Ambassador to the U.N Samantha Powers speak as though Obama alleviated the possibility of Iran’s nuclear program, they are outright lying. The deal explicitly allowed the Iranian nuclear program to move full steam ahead unrestrained by any international consequences.

 

This terrible Iran Nuclear Deal, which I wrote about in detail in 2015 in ‘Obama’s Dismal Legacy’ and ‘Iran and Nuclear Terrorism’, gave Iran $150 billion that it has used to continue its ongoing campaign of terror in Yemen and Syria, through Houthis and Hezbollah proxies, and its funding of Hamas terrorists in Gaza, while its Mullahs continue on with the development of long-range ballistic missiles; and, just days ago, they burned a paper American flag, as they chanted “Death to America.” All of this has come by way of Barack Obama’s failed Middle East policies, which further enabled the hell now flourishing.

 

Iran Lawmakers burn paper U.S. Flag chant Death to America

 

Since at least 2006, myself and many others have been warning about Iran and Hezbollah’s growing presence and influence in both the Triangle Area of South America and the Northern Triangle of Central America. On May 8th, my friend, Judith Bergman gave an important advance warning:

 

According to Emmanuel Ottolenghi, speaking at the April hearing on Iran’s global terrorism networks: ‘A survey of cases prosecuted against Hezbollah operatives in the past two decades shows that the terror group remains a threat to the security of the U.S. homeland and the integrity of its financial system. Iran and Hezbollah sought to carry out high casualty attacks against U.S. targets multiple times. Additionally, they built networks they used to procure weapons, sell drugs, and conduct illicit financial activities inside the United States.'”

 

Just imagine the horror they will unleash, if Iran achieves a fully capable nuclear weapon. Does anyone believe that given the chance, these terrorists won’t smuggle nukes into America and detonate them?

 

Criticizing Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal as “weak” and “insane”,  President Trump stated in part: “The Iran deal is defective at its core … America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction, and we will not allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ to gain access to the most deadly weapons on Earth.”

 

Shortly afterwards, National Security Advisor John Bolton stated that all U.S. sanctions related to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, that had been lifted, were now back in effect. “We’re out of the deal. Right now. We’re out of the deal” Bolton said.

 

It’s a complex and dangerous game unfolding, and the longer it continues, the more dangerous it gets for America. Despite progress with North Korea and the release of three Americans,  do not expect either North Korea or Iran to really abandon their nuclear weapons program. They’re fully out in the open now with these programs, and they both are nearly completely finished with the technological tweaking necessary to build a full arsenal of nuclear weapons; and, they both worked together on their programs out of a mutual hatred of the United States, aided and abetted at different points by both China and Russia. And the day after President Trump’s announcement, Iranian missiles rained down on both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

 

Look for one of these rogue nations to deliver a nuke or two to some rabid Islamic terrorist group, or even some crazed commie Antifa bastard, in one or more U.S. cities over the next decade, so they can have plausible deniability, when an American city goes poof in a blinding nuclear flash and a 300 mile per hour radiation laden aftershock. This is the biggest factor that should demand the United States and her leaders move forcefully to remove both the North Korean and the Iranian regimes from power, even if it means reducing their nations to glass to achieve this end.

 

President Trump’s withdrawal from this bad deal is moving America closer to recovering its moral character, by rebuking Obama’s bitter fruit of appeasement and ensuring the United States will not allow Iran to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons, under any circumstances. Considerably less danger exists in a preemptive strike on Iran’s and even North Korea’s nuclear facilities, all their government buildings, and all their military installations, if it proves necessary, rather than going forward with a bitter fruit that only promises a dark future filled with exponentially larger conflagrations, massive wars and chaos.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All source links are by the Editor except Justin’s link to Dr. Emmanuel Ottolenghi quote in the 40-page PDF entitled, “State Sponsors of Terrorism: An Examination of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network” dated 4/17/18.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber


Act for America emailed an excerpt of an article from The Federalist with the email subject line “The Muslim Brotherhood is Rattled”. The Federalist article by Ben Weingarten highlights that John Bolton’s appointment as National Security Advisor has rattled the transnational Islamic terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Ikhwan to many Arab speaking people) because Bolton has had the correct assessment that the terrorist network indeed should be on the State Department’s designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).

 

Here is the Act for America email intro:

 

The left has made it their mission to smear anyone who opposes violent jihad, and cast them as “Islamophobic.” Recently, former ambassador John Bolton has been the target of such attacks because of his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) to the President. This is not only an attempt to discredit John Bolton, it is an attempt to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from finally being designated a terrorist organization.

 

As patriotic American’s we must stand up and not only support the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton, but also tell Congress it is time, once and for all, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Click here to tell your local Members of Congress enough is enough.

 

JRH 4/6/18

Please Support NCCR

***************************

John Bolton

 

John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.

 

By Ben Weingarten

APRIL 5, 2018

The Federalist

 

The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.

 

First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-building as imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”

 

Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.

 

Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”

 

But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.

 

Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam

 

Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.

 

“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.

 

As the representative par excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.

 

Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t

 

Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.

 

Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

 

Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.

 

No, the political arm engages in political and ideological warfare, tactfully seeking to impose its will through policy and subterfuge. “Social welfare” activities provide a convenient cover for the group’s ultimate aims. As the Brotherhood put it in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America:

 

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

 

On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:

 

The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts

 

The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves

 

The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history] …

 

Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot

 

On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.

 

The Brotherhood undertook an extensive lobbying and information operation designed to dissuade the administration’s plans, reportedly backed by millions of dollars. The U.S. foreign policy establishment quickly proliferated articles and comments in prominent mainstream publications defending the Muslim Brotherhood against charges of being a jihadist group, adding that designated it as such would be impractical and impracticable. Notably, The New York Times went so far as to print an op-ed in the Brotherhood’s defense written by Clinton Foundation-linked Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad.

 

In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation.

 

Concurrently, counterjihadists throughout the Trump administration were subjected to a barrage of attacks. Many would ultimately be sidelined, though some like Secretary of State-designate Mike Pompeo survived. He, like Bolton, is being attacked as an Islamophobic bigot as well.

 

Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:

 

There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.

 

Bolton’s riposte?

 

Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.

 

This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.

 

As I have written previously, CAIR’s Muslim Brotherhood and jihadi ties are numerous and longstanding, involving not only its founders and present leaders to Hamas, but its harboring of apologists for Islamic terrorism, and alleged impeding of counterterrorism efforts.

 

Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.

 

Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:

 

  • Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs

 

  • The Iran deal

 

  • Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon

 

  • Qatar’s bellicosity

 

  • Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan

 

The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.

 

Photo Gage Skidmore / Flickr

________________________

Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.

 

Copyright © 2018 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.

 

Introducing Anti-Deep State Posts


John R. Houk, Blog Editor

March 24, 2018

I found two Gateway Pundit posts that demonstrate that an Anti-Deep State is preparing to confront the Obamanite/Clintonista Deep State that not only desires to take down President Trump by any means necessary BUT ALSO keep the Leftist Transformation of American society in constant motion.

 

The first post focuses on a video news piece on William Binney conducted by OAN. Gateway Pundit alludes Binney is pushing the Anti-Deep State which has the acronym “JTFMAGA” (OAN writes the acronym “JTF MAGA”) which stands for Joint Task Force Make America Great Again.

 

The second Gateway Pundit post suggests John Bolton as National Security Advisor will do some swamp draining of Obama holdovers and leakers in the White House.

 

JRH 3/24/18

Please Support NCCR

**************************

VIDEO: ‘Deep State Whistleblowers’ Form Supergroup To Expose Illegal Surveillance, Support President Trump

 

By Joshua Caplan

March 24, 2018

Gateway Pundit

 

Former members of the ‘Deep State,’ have formed a supergroup to expose illegal government surveillance and support President Donald Trump. The group, led by William Binney, who was part of an ‘elite NSA team which built an intelligence-gathering system to collect data on terrorism threats,’ is made up of former Justice Department, FBI, and intelligence community officials that call themselves ‘JTFMAGA.’

 

Deep State War – Photo credit: Stefan Molyneux

 

VIDEO: Deep State Whistleblowers Form Group to Support President Trump

 

Posted by One America News Network

Published on Mar 21, 2018

 

Former members of the deep state form a new group dedicated to exposing illegal surveillance by government agencies. One America’s Neil McCabe has more from Washington.

 

Below is a partial transcript of OAN’s report with Binney.

 

BINNEY: “If you really want to get away from their surveillance, you basically have to stop using any electronic device, even your credit card. They know where you are, what you bought and fundamentally have a good idea when you left.

 

OAN: “Binney said another abuse is the practice of Parallel Construction, where an intelligence agency can comb through an individual’s life until they find something illegal. Because this search is without a warrant, it is up to the police to contrive an investigation where they look for what they already have.”

 

BINNEY: “They pass that information to state and local police for them to go arrest those people and when they do that, they have another set of rules that come down from the DOJ that they can’t talk about the source of information that allowed them to direct the police to do the arrest.”

 

OAN: “Binney said when it came to the Obama administration’s surveillance of the Trump campaign, the reason the FBI only needed FISA warrants on two people, Carter Page and Paul Manafort, is that President Barack Obama signed an order making two-hop surveillance the default. Two-hops mean that surveillance can start with Paul Manafort and then go one hop more to everyone he had contact with. The second hop means the government can also monitor everyone those people had contact with. Binney said JTFMAGA is coming together now to encourage other members of the Deep State to come forward and expose more abuses of the NSA surveillance program and to support President Donald Trump.”

 

BINNEY: “[Trump] is the best opportunity to have this chanced.”

 

OAN: “Binney and his fellow members of JTFMAGA say they are motivated by the conduct of the FBI and other government agencies during the 2016 election cycle. They don’t deny they are ‘Deep-Staters,’ but they would say they are ‘Deep-Staters,’ wearing the white hats.’

 

+++++

They ‘Should Start Packing Their Sh*t’: John Bolton Set To Purge Obama Holdovers From White House

 

By Joshua Caplan

March 24, 2018

Gateway Pundit

 

Attention Obama holdovers currently working to undermine President Trump’s foreign policy: your days in the White House are reportedly numbered. 

 

John Bolton

 

Daily Caller reports:

 

Sources told Foreign Policy that Bolton’s planned purge will start with Obama administration holdovers and eventually broaden to include leakers and those disloyal to the president.

 

“Bolton can and will clean house,” a former White House official told Foreign Policy.

 

Another official issued a warning to former Obama officials — “Everyone who was there during Obama years should start packing their shit.”

 

But the purge reportedly won’t stop with former Obama appointees. A source told Foreign Policy that Bolton intends to “remove almost all the political [appointees] McMaster brought in.”

 

As The Gateway Pundit‘s Jim Hoft reported, President Trump announced Thursday that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton will replace H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor next month.

 

“I am pleased to announce that, effective 4/9/18, @AmbJohnBolton will be my new National Security Advisor. I am very thankful for the service of General H.R. McMaster who has done an outstanding job & will always remain my friend. There will be an official contact handover on 4/9,” Trump tweeted.

 

______________________

© 2018 The Gateway Pundit – All Rights Reserved.

 

About The Gateway Pundit

 

In late 2004 I started The Gateway Pundit blog after the presidential election. At that time I had my twin brother Joe and my buddy Chris as regular readers. A lot has changed since then.

 

Today The Gateway Pundit is one of the top political websites. The Gateway Pundit has 15 million visits each month (Stat Counter – Google Analytics). It is consistently ranked as one of the top political blogs in the nation. TGP has been cited by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Drudge Report, The Blaze, Mark Levin, FOX Nation and by several international news organizations.

 

Jim Hoft was awarded the READ THE REST

 

McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood


John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018

 

The swamp is draining slowly but to date, it is draining with the Dems and Deep State Obamanites/Clintonistas screaming all the way. With that in mind, President Trump’s business globalist-minded business-oriented Secretary of State is out. And Three-Star General H.R. McMaster is out seemingly more for abrasiveness with President and his own National Security staff than ideological differences.

 

I think a March 4 Wall Street Journal article provides the most cogent explanation of how Lt. Gen. McMaster lost favor in the Trump Administration:

 

 

… Gen. McMaster through the year positioned himself as one of Mr. Trump’s most hawkish allies in fractured debates on the president’s top national-security challenges, including North Korea.

 

But that, in turn, has put Gen. McMaster at odds with other members of the national-security team, especially Secretary of State Rex Tillerson [Gone] and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who have pushed for more measured approaches in policy debates, according to current and former Trump administration officials.

 

 

Hobbled in his ability to translate Mr. Trump’s sometimes-unorthodox ideas into concepts acceptable to more cautious members of the national-security team …

 

 

“In general, I think H.R. has been slightly more hawkish on most questions than most cabinet members and, in that regard, he’s aligned with the president’s instincts,” said Sen. Tom Cotton …

 

The issue that has brought the internal divisions to the forefront is North Korea, where Gen. McMaster has been a firm advocate for beefing up the military options, according to administration officials.

 

Gen. McMaster has raised the idea of taking a “preventive” strike against North Korea’s nuclear-missile program if diplomacy fails. And he has promoted the administration’s “maximum pressure” strategy against Pyongyang.

 

That has created alarm at the Pentagon and State Department, where officials worry that Gen. McMaster’s efforts could make it more likely that Mr. Trump would decide to strike North Korea.

 

 

Gen. McMaster also has alienated prospective allies in the military by directly calling combatant commanders around the world without first telling Mr. Mattis, U.S. officials said. …

 

 

Inside the White House, meanwhile, he has struggled to retain support from a volatile president who has lashed out over Gen. McMaster’s successful push to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and to preserve former President Barack Obama’s nuclear-containment deal with Iran.

 

He has been known to speak over other members of the national-security team in Situation Room meetings when he doesn’t like what he’s hearing and to frustrate the president with lengthy policy dissertations in the Oval Office.

 

“He doesn’t have any chemistry with the president,” said one former Trump administration official. “He lectures, and you can’t lecture the president.”

 

Last month, Mr. Trump READ ENTIRETY (Undermined and Beleaguered, H.R. McMaster Soldiers On; By Dion Nissenbaum and Gordon Lubold; WSJ; Updated 3/4/18 6:36 p.m. ET)

 

If the WSJ perspective is accurate, it seems to me McMaster didn’t disagree with the substance of President Trump, but rather the method. McMaster is being replaced by former UN Ambassador John Bolton as National Security Advisor. Mr. Bolton definitely follows the same substance of the President and Lt. Gen. McMaster. The trick will be if Mr. Bolton and President Trump can work together without arguing. I suspect Bolton will run into the same issues with the National Security Council staff as McMaster did. Time will of a Bolton/Military camaraderie.

 

Now that John Bolton will become the National Security Advisor, Counterjihad writer Ryan Mauro believes the stage is not complete to move to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the State Department’s Terrorist Watch List. Certain obstacles within the Trump Administration has been preventing the obvious move to occur. The exit of Tillerson being replaced by Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and the fortuitous anti-terrorist Gina Haspel as the first female CIA Director (pending Senate confirmation) were some of the first moves making it possible the Muslim Brotherhood where it belongs – bloody global Caliphate-minded Islamic terrorists.

 

Haspel detractors despise that she was involved in Black Site waterboard interrogation. Those that call waterboarding torture do not understand what true torture is. Torture that maims, physically and mentally incapacitates or results in death is true torture. Waterboarding does none of those things. It does provide the illusion of drowning which regardless of what detractors tell you, worked effectively in gaining information against Islamic terrorists (See: WATERBOARDING: A TOOL OF POLITICAL GOTCHASmall Wars Journal; The Architect Of Bush’s ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ Program Wrote A Book About What Terrorists Told Him And It Is ELECTRIC Daily Caller 11/30/16; Perspectives on Enhanced Interrogation TechniquesCongressional Research Service 1/8/16, The CRS pdf shows facts without right and wrong conclusions).

 

Sign The Clarion Project’s petition to place the Muslim Brotherhood on the Terrorist Watch List now that the stage is set to make such a move effective.

 

JRH 3/23/18

Please Support NCCR

***************************

American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?

 

BY RYAN MAURO 

March 22, 2018 

Clarion Project

Supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (Photo: Reuters)

 

The Muslim Brotherhood’s sigh of relief after being rescued by Secretary of State Tillerson and National Security Adviser McMaster has been replaced by a sweaty panic.

 

With Tillerson out and Pompeo in and McMaster’s days numbered, it is now probable that the Muslim Brotherhood will finally be designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, paving the way for its infrastructure in America to begin being dismantled.

 

Groups associated with the Muslim Brotherhood network like the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat ul-Fuqra are likely to see a similar fate. President Trump’s desire to pressure Pakistan and more closely ally with India adds to the likelihood that these Pakistani-led groups will be blacklisted.

 

The incoming secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, was one of the earliest cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a member of Congress. Now, as secretary of state, he has the authority to designate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs).

 

The newest version of the legislation is backed by 75 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate version introduced by Senator Ted Cruz has 4 cosponsors.

 

Now, most of the Trump Administration’s top officials are staunch foes of the Brotherhood, including:

 

  • Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was one of the few early cosponsors of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act when he was a Senator.

 

  • Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who was forced to withdrawa senior appointment he desired who was a strong ally of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. However, he has articulately made the case for identifying the enemy as “political Islam” and described the negative impact of the Obama Administration’s friendly attitude towards the Brotherhood.

 

  • Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney, who was a cosponsor of the legislation when he was a congressman.

 

  • Senior adviser and chief speechwriter Stephen Miller

 

  • National Security Council’s Deputy Assistant to the President for Strategic Communications Michael Anton

 

  • Senior White House Adviser to the Department of Homeland Security Frank Wuco

 

  • Senior Department of Homeland Security Adviser Katharine Gorka (who is the wife of former Deputy Assistant to the President Dr. Sebastian Gorka)

 

It is almost universally reported that National Security Adviser McMaster is about to be replaced, despite Trump’s denials (just like his denials before Tillerson was fired).

 

The leading candidate for his job is former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, another known supporter of FTO designation for the Brotherhood.

 

Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, is presumably on the same page because Pompeo recommended her. However, she is expected to have a fight ahead of her to get confirmed by the Senate.

 

U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley’s position is not known. She previously struck a neutral tone when asked about designating the Brotherhood, stopping short of defending Tillerson and McMaster’s known positions at the time, saying, “That is not something that has been discussed within the administration.”

 

Outside of the White House, President Trump is back to consulting with his former Deputy Assistant Dr. Sebastian Gorka, a passionate voice for designating the Brotherhood as an FTO.

 

Pompeo’s appointment represents a stunning reversal of fortune for the Muslim Brotherhood, which previously succeeded in getting plans for such a designation shelved. One Brotherhood official said the Islamist group had spent $5 million to lobby officials and influence the media. Brotherhood apologists even succeeded in influencing CIA assessments that conveniently leaked to the media.

 

The Brotherhood also deployed its defenders to Washington, D.C. and Qatar went on a spending binge hiring lobbyists, particularly those with close ties to the Trump campaign and the ability to influence Jewish Americans.

 

Qatar even managed to seduce a former senior staffer to Senator Ted Cruz—the very man who introduced the Senate version of the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act—with a contract for $50,000 per month. Even President Trump reversed course on Qatar.

 

And now—the Muslim Brotherhood network is screaming.

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), identified by the Justice Department as an “entity” of the Muslim Brotherhood, is fighting tooth and nail to stop Pompeo from getting confirmed by the Senate. One of the favorite tactics of the Brotherhood, especially CAIR, is deception.

 

CAIR has predictably labeled Pompeo as an “Islamophobe,” even though he empowered a convert to Sunni Islam at the CIA to fight Al-Qaeda and Iran. Its factsheet uses out-of-context quotes to paint Pompeo as an extremist, while CAIR paints the Brotherhood as “moderate.”

 

The evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist group is overwhelming, including terrorist activity in the U.S. Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist group, is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian wing. Al-Qaeda’s 9/11 plot had links to the Brotherhood’s network in America.

 

The terror-funding trial of the Holy Land Foundation proved, in detail, that the Brotherhood’s international leadership runs a Hamas support network on American soil.

 

The Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood has long been intertwined with Al-Qaeda, just like the Libyan and Syrian branches. The Jordanian branch is essentially a single unit with Hamas. The biggest resistance is in regards to the Egyptian wing, the birthplace of the Brotherhood.

 

Investigator Patrick Poole’s three-part interview with a former senior Egyptian counterterrorism official connects the dots between the Brotherhood and the terrorists it claims are “rogues” that it should not be held accountable for.

 

Failing a blanket designation of the Brotherhood, an alternative approach would be to designate several Brotherhood branches where the group’s connection to terrorism is clearer. This approach would meet less political resistance.

 

The changes within the Trump Administration indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood’s day of reckoning is finally near.

 

PETITION – NO PLACE FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN U.S.

 

PETITION – NO PLACE FOR MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD IN U.S.

_______________________

McMaster Out – Bolton In and the Muslim Brotherhood

John R. Houk

© March 23, 2018

____________________

American Day of Reckoning for Muslim Brotherhood?

 

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s Shillman Fellow and national security analyst and an adjunct professor of counter-terrorism. He is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio.

 

The Clarion Project (formerly Clarion Fund) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to educating both policy makers and the public about the growing phenomenon of Islamic extremism. The Clarion Project is committed to working towards safeguarding human rights for all peoples.

 

About Clarion Project

 

Clarion Project is a non-profit organization that educates the public about the dangers of radical Islam.

 

Clarion’s award-winning films, seen by more than 85-million people, expose how radical Islamists use terrorism, murder, subjugation of women, indoctrination of children, religious persecution, genocide of minorities, widespread human rights abuses, nuclear proliferation and cultural jihad — to threaten the West.

 

The ClarionProject.org web site delivers news, expert analysis, videos, and unique perspectives about radical Islam, while giving a platform to moderate Muslims and human rights activists to speak out against extremism.

 

Clarion Project engages in grassroots activism to achieve its goals.

 

Clarion Project is READ THE REAT

 

 

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation


John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

 

The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released an open letter that was also sent to President Trump pertaining to Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). For clarity’s sake, the JCPOA was not a treaty confirmed by the U.S. Senate as the Constitution stipulates for binding international agreements. Rather Obama chose to by-pass the Senate and made largely Classified undisclosed agreement components (AIM – 9/8/16 and Fox News 2/7/17) with Iran allegedly to prevent militarization of nuclear power for – GET THIS – only ten years.

 

Obama’s JCPOA is a classic 21st century version of pre-WWII agreements between Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Germany’s Fuehrer Adolf Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain declared he negotiated a successful peace for our time. That peace was delusional as Hitler was permitted to carve up Czechoslovakia in the name of peace which emboldened Hitler to invade Poland which began WWII.

 

Bolton’s alternative to the JCPOA is not a renegotiation with Iran, rather it’s a strategic alternative to check Iranian expansionism and nuclear militarization.

 

Trump has been falling for the lie Iran has been complying to the JCPOA and thus has recertified that idiotic agreement contrary to the campaign promises. I pray the President listens to the signatories of this letter.

 

JRH 9/23/17

Please Support NCCR

************

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

Email sent by Center for Security Policy

Email Contact Maya Carlin

Email Sent 9/21/2017 11:13 AM

PDF Version

 

(Washington, D.C.):  Today 45 national security experts, many of whom held senior positions in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, sent a letter to President Trump urging him to withdraw the United States from the deeply flawed 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) using a comprehensive plan drafted by former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

 

The signatories believe President Trump was exactly right during the campaign when he said the JCPOA is one of the worst agreements ever negotiated.  They believe this agreement is dangerous because it allows Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons while the deal is in effect, has extremely weak verification provisions, and ignores Iran’s increasingly destabilizing behavior.  Because of the enormous risks the JCPOA poses to American and international security and the impossibility of convincing Iran to amend the agreement, the signers believe the only option is for the United States to withdraw and initiate a new, more comprehensive approach that addresses all of the threats posed by Iran – including its missile program and sponsorship of terrorism – with a broad alliance that includes Israel and America’s Gulf State allies.

 

The signatories endorse Ambassador Bolton’s plan to implement this approach by withdrawing from the JCPOA in coordination with America’s allies.  The signers believe the Bolton plan is the best way to reverse the damage done by the reckless concessions that Obama officials made to Iran to negotiate the JCPOA and to prevent the Iranian nuclear program from spinning out of control as North Korea’s nuclear effort has.

 

Some of the eminent individuals who signed the letter include:

 

  • Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.), Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

  • Ambassador Henry F. “Hank” Cooper, Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

  • Manfred Eimer, Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

  • Douglas J. Feith, Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

  • William R. Graham, Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

 

  • Ambassador Robert G. Joseph, Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security

 

  • Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories

 

  • Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

The full text of the letter is below.

 

September 21, 2017

 

The Honorable Donald J. Trump

President of the United States

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC

 

Dear President Trump:

 

We are writing to you as national security experts, many who worked in the nuclear weapons, arms control, nonproliferation and intelligence fields, to express our strong opposition to the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) and to ask that you withdraw the United States from this dangerous agreement as soon as possible.

 

We also call on your administration to declare to Congress next month that Iran has not been complying with this agreement and that it is not in the national security interests of the United States.

 

We strongly supported your statements during the 2016 presidential campaign that the JCPOA was one of the worst international agreements ever negotiated and as president that you would either withdraw from or renegotiate this deal.  Your campaign statements accurately reflected that the JCPOA is a fraud since it allows Iran to continue its nuclear weapons program while the agreement is in effect by permitting it to enrich uranium, operate and develop advanced uranium centrifuges and operate a heavy-water reactor.  Such limited restrictions as the deal actually imposes on Iran’s enrichment program will expire in eight years.  In addition, the JCPOA’s inspection provisions are wholly inadequate.

 

We also note that a joint July 11, 2017 letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from Senators Cruz, Rubio, Cotton and Perdue outlined significant violations of the JCPOA by Iran, the most important of which is Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections of military facilities.

 

In addition, although the JCPOA did not require Iran to halt its belligerent and destabilizing behavior, President Obama and Secretary Kerry repeatedly claimed it would lead to an improvement.  This has not happened.  To the contrary, after the JCPOA, Iran’s behavior has significantly worsened.  Tehran stepped up its ballistic missile program and missile launches.  There was a 90% increase in Iran’s 2016-2017 military budget.  Iran has increased its support to terrorist groups and sent troops into Syria.  Harassment of shipping in the Persian Gulf and Red Sea also increased, including missiles fired at U.S. and Gulf state ships by the Houthi rebels, an Iranian proxy in Yemen.

 

Moreover, in light of major advances in North Korea’s nuclear program, we are very concerned that North Korea and Iran are actively sharing nuclear weapons technology and that Iran is providing funding for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.  CIA Director Mike Pompeo suggested this possibility during a September 11 Fox News interview.

 

We are unconvinced by doom-and-gloom predictions of the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA.  The sky did not fall when you withdrew the United States from the Paris Climate Accord.  Claims that Iran will step up its nuclear program or engage in more belligerent behavior must be considered against the backdrop of what Iran is allowed to do under the JCPOA and its actual conduct since this “political understanding” was announced.

 

Some Iran deal advocates argue that the United States should remain in the JCPOA and instead try to amend it to fix its flaws over several years.  A few contend you could decertify the agreement to Congress, but remain in the deal and then try to amend it.  Since Iran has made it clear it will not agree to changes to the JCPOA, we believe these proposals are unrealistic.  Continuing to legitimate the agreement is not conducive to its renegotiation.  The day will never come when the mullahs agree to amend the sweetheart deal they got in the JCPOA.

 

Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran.  This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran.  He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

 

Unlike the JCPOA, which was negotiated with no input from America’s allies in the Middle East, Ambassador Bolton outlines a multilateral campaign to forge a new comprehensive approach to the threat from Iran that includes the Gulf States and Israel to assure that their security interests are taken into account.

 

We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement.

 

As national security experts who understand the urgency of addressing the growing threat from Iran, we urge you to implement the Bolton plan, withdraw from the dangerous Iran nuclear deal and not certify Iranian compliance to Congress next month.  It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.

 

ATTACHMENT: “Abrogating The Iran Deal: The Way Forward” By Ambassador John Bolton [Blog Editor: The “ATTACHMENT” at the end of the signatures in this CSP email. But if you are impatient, here is the National Review version by John Bolton]

 

Sincerely,

 

Winston Lewis Amselem

U.S. Foreign Service Officer, Minister-Counselor (Ret.)

 

Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, USA (Ret.)

Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

 

Ambassador Henry F. Cooper

Former Chief U.S. Negotiator for Defense and Space and SDI Director

 

Stephen Coughlin

Former Joint Chiefs of Staff intelligence analyst

 

Jack David

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction and Negotiations Policy

 

Paula A. DeSutter

Former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance

 

Joseph E. diGenova

Former U.S. Attorney District of Columbia

 

Jessie Jane Duff

Gunnery Sergeant USMC (Ret.)

Senior Fellow London Center for Policy Research

 

Dr. Manfred Eimer

Former Assistant Director for Verification and Intelligence, U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

 

Fritz Ermarth

Retired CIA officer.  Former chairman of the National Intelligence Council

 

Douglas J. Feith

Former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 

Frederick Fleitz

Former CIA analyst and Professional Staff Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 

Kevin D. Freeman, National Security Investment Counsel Institute

 

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

Former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (Acting)

 

Daniel J. Gallington

Former General Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Member, U.S. Delegation to the Nuclear & Space Talks

 

D. Scott George

Brigadier General, USAF (Ret.). President/CEO, IN-Cyber Vision, Inc.

 

Dr. William R. Graham

Former Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Science Advisor to the President; NASA Administrator and Chairman of the General Advisory Committee (GAC) on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Larry K. Grundhauser

Brigadier General, USAF Retired

 

Philip Haney

Department of Homeland Security founding staff member and former U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer

 

George William Heiser II

Former Director for Arms Control, Reagan National Security Council Staff

 

Richard T. Higgins

Former Director for Strategic Planning, Trump National Security Council

 

Peter Huessy

President, GeoStrategic Analysis, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for International Energy Security

 

Ambassador Eric M. Javits

Former US Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament and to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

 

Ambassador Robert G. Joseph

Former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security; Assistant to the President on Arms Control and Nonproliferation; and Chairman of the ABM Treaty Standing Consultative Commission

 

Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) National President

 

Dr. Charles M. Kupperman

Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; former Executive Director, General Advisory Committee to the President on Arms Control and Disarmament

 

Herbert I. London

President, London Center for Policy Research

 

Robert L. Luaces

Foreign Service Officer (Ret.). Former Director, State Department Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs

 

Admiral James A. Lyons

U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Commander-in Chief, Pacific Fleet

 

Lt. Gen Thomas McInerney, US Air Force (Ret.)

Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Director of the Defense Performance Review

 

Vice Admiral Robert R. Monroe, U.S. Navy (Ret.).  Former Director, Defense Nuclear Agency

 

Daniel Pollak

Co-Director of Government Relations, Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)

 

Dr. Peter Vincent Pry

Executive Director, Task Force on National and Homeland Security; Senior Staff on the Congressional EMP Commission, Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA

 

George Rasley

Editor of ConservativeHQ and consultant

 

Major General Edward M. Reeder

U.S. Army (Ret.)

 

Ambassador C. Paul Robinson

Former President and Director of Sandia National Laboratories.  Head of the Nuclear Weapons and National Security programs at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Chief Negotiator and Head of the U.S. Delegation to the U.S./Soviet Union Nuclear Testing Talks

 

Nina Rosenwald

Founder and President, Gatestone Institute

 

Mark Schneider

Senior analyst, National Institute for Public Policy.  Former Senior Director for Forces Policy and Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense.  Former Senior Foreign Service Officer.

 

Tony Shaffer, LTC (ret)

Vice President for Strategic Initiatives and Operations, London Center for Policy Research.  Former CIA-trained senior intelligence operative

 

Sarah Stern

Founder and President, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

Kenneth R. Timmerman

President and CEO, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

 

Victoria Toensing

Former Chief Counsel, Senate Intelligence Committee

 

Adam Turner

General Counsel and Legislative Affairs Director, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET)

 

J. Michael Waller

Founding Editorial Board Member, NATO Defence Strategic Communications

 

David Wurmser

Former Senior Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney

 

 

 

ABROGATING THE IRAN DEAL: THE WAY FORWARD

By Ambassador John Bolton

 

I. Background:

 

The Trump Administration is required to certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with the July 2015 nuclear deal (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — JCPOA), and that this agreement is in the national-security interest of the United States.1 While a comprehensive Iranian policy review is currently underway, America’s Iran policy should not be frozen. The JCPOA is a threat to U.S. national-security interests, growing more serious by the day. If the President decides to abrogate the JCPOA, a comprehensive plan must be developed and executed to build domestic and international support for the new policy.

 

Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, the President must certify every 90 days that:

 

(i)  Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement, including all related technical or additional agreements;

 

(ii)  Iran has not committed a material breach with respect to the agreement or, if Iran has committed a material breach, Iran has cured the material breach;

 

(iii)  Iran has not taken any action, including covert activities, that could significantly advance its nuclear weapons program; and

 

(iv)  Suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the agreement is –

 

(I)  appropriate and proportionate to the specific and verifiable measures taken by Iran with respect to terminating its illicit nuclear program; and

 

(II) vital to the national-security interests of the United States.

 

U.S. leadership here is critical, especially through a diplomatic and public education effort to explain a decision not to certify and to abrogate the JCPOA. Like any global campaign, it must be persuasive, thorough, and accurate. Opponents, particularly those who participated in drafting and implementing the JCPOA, will argue strongly against such a decision, contending that it is reckless, ill-advised, and will have negative economic and security consequences.

 

Accordingly, we must explain the grave threat to the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. The JCPOA’s vague and ambiguous wording; its manifest imbalance in Iran’s direction; Iran’s significant violations; and its continued, indeed, increasingly, unacceptable conduct at the strategic level internationally demonstrate convincingly that the JCPOA is not in the national-security interests of the United States. We can bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behavior around the world.

 

But as with prior Presidential decisions, such as withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty, a new “reality” will be created. We will need to assure the international community that the U.S. decision will in fact enhance international peace and security, unlike the JCPOA, the provisions of which shield Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop deliverable nuclear weapons. The Administration should announce that it is abrogating the JCPOA due to significant Iranian violations, Iran’s unacceptable international conduct more broadly, and because the JCPOA threatens American national-security interests.

 

The Administration’s explanation in a “white paper” should stress the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.

 

Even the previous Administration knew the JCPOA was so disadvantageous to the United States that it feared to submit the agreement for Senate ratification. Moreover, key American allies in the Middle East directly affected by this agreement, especially Israel and the Gulf states, did not have their legitimate interests adequately taken into account. The explanation must also demonstrate the linkage between Iran and North Korea.

 

We must also highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The reasons Ronald Reagan named Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism in 1984 remain fully applicable today.

 

II. Campaign Plan Components

 

There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.

 

  1. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.

 

III. Execution Concepts and Tactics

 

  1. Early, quiet consultations with key players

 

It is critical that a worldwide effort be initiated to inform our allies, partners, and others about Iran’s unacceptable behavior. While this effort could well leak to the press, it is nonetheless critical that we inform and consult with our allies and partners at the earliest possible moment, and, where appropriate, build into our effort their concerns and suggestions.

 

This quiet effort will articulate the nature and details of the violations and the type of relationship the U.S. foresees in the future, thereby laying the foundation for imposing new sanctions barring the transfer of nuclear and missile technology or dual use technology to Iran. With Israel and selected others, we will discuss military options. With others in the Gulf region, we can also discuss means to address their concerns from Iran’s menacing behavior.

 

The advance consultations could begin with private calls by the President, followed by more extensive discussions in capitals by senior Administration envoys. Promptly elaborating a comprehensive tactical diplomatic plan should be a high priority.

 

  1. Prepare the documented strategic case

 

The White House, coordinating all other relevant Federal agencies, must forcefully articulate the strong case regarding U.S. national-security interests. The effort should produce a “white paper” that will be the starting point for the diplomatic and domestic discussion of the Administration decision to abrogate the JCPOA, and why Iran must be denied access to nuclear technology indefinitely. The white paper should be an unclassified, written statement of the Administration’s case, prepared faultlessly, with scrupulous attention to accuracy and candor. It should not be limited to the inadequacies of the JCPOA as written, or Iran’s violations, but cover the entire range of Iran’s continuing unacceptable international behavior.

 

Although the white paper will not be issued until the announcement of the decision to abrogate the JCPOA, initiating work on drafting the document is the highest priority, and its completion will dictate the timing of the abrogation announcement.

 

A thorough review and declassification strategy, including both U.S. and foreign intelligence in our possession should be initiated to ensure that the public has as much information as possible about Iranian behavior that is currently classified, consistent with protecting intelligence sources and methods. We should be prepared to “name names” and expose the underbelly of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard business activities and how they are central to the efforts that undermine American and allied national interests. In particular, we should consider declassifying information related to activities such as the Iran-North Korea partnership, and how they undermine fundamental interests of our allies and partners.

 

  1. Greatly expanded diplomatic campaign post-announcement

 

The Administration, through the NSC process, should develop a tactical plan that uses all available diplomatic tools to build support for our decision, including what actions we recommend other countries to take. But America must provide the leadership. It will take substantial time and effort and will require a “full court press” by U.S. embassies worldwide and officials in Washington to drive the process forward. We should ensure that U.S. officials fully understand the decision, and its finality, to help ensure the most positive impact with their interlocutors.

 

Our embassies worldwide should demarche their host governments with talking points (tailored as may be necessary) and data to explain and justify abrogating JCPOA. We will need parallel efforts at the United Nations and other appropriate multilateral organizations. Our embassies should not limit themselves to delivering the demarche, however, but should undertake extensive public diplomacy as well.

 

After explaining and justifying the decision to abrogate the deal, the next objective should be to recreate a new counter-proliferation coalition to replace the one squandered by the previous Administration, including our European allies, Israel, and the Gulf states. In that regard, we should solicit suggestions for imposing new sanctions on Iran and other measures in response to its nuclear and ballistic-missile programs, sponsorship of terrorism, and generally belligerent behavior, including its meddling in Iraq and Syria.

 

Russia and China obviously warrant careful attention in the post-announcement campaign. They could be informed just prior to the public announcement as a courtesy, but should not be part of the pre-announcement diplomatic effort described above. We should welcome their full engagement to eliminate these threats, but we will move ahead with or without them.

 

Iran is not likely to seek further negotiations once the JCPOA is abrogated, but the Administration may wish to consider rhetorically leaving that possibility open in order to demonstrate Iran’s actual underlying intention to develop deliverable nuclear weapons, an intention that has never flagged.

 

In preparation for the diplomatic campaign, the NSC interagency process should review U.S. foreign-assistance programs as they might assist our efforts. The DNI should prepare a comprehensive, worldwide list of companies and activities that aid Iran’s terrorist activities.

 

  1. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts

 

The Administration should have a Capitol Hill plan to inform members of Congress already concerned about Iran, and develop momentum for imposing broad sanctions against Iran, far more comprehensive than the pinprick sanctions favored under prior Administrations. Strong congressional support will be critical. We should be prepared to link Iranian behavior around the world, including its relationship with North Korea, and its terrorist activities. And we should demonstrate the linkage between Iranian behavior and missile proliferation as part of the overall effort that justifies a national-security determination that U.S. interests would not be furthered with the JCPOA.

 

Unilateral U.S. sanctions should be imposed outside the framework of Security Council Resolution 2231 so that Iran’s defenders cannot water them down; multilateral sanctions from others who support us can follow quickly.

 

The Administration should also encourage discussions in Congress and in public debate for further steps that might be taken to go beyond the abrogation decision. These further steps, advanced for discussion purposes and to stimulate debate, should collectively demonstrate our resolve to limit Iran’s malicious activities and global adventurism. Some would relate directly to Iran; others would protect our allies and partners more broadly from the nuclear proliferation and terrorist threats, such as providing F-35s to Israel or THAAD resources to Japan. Other actions could include:

 

  • End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;

 

  • End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;

 

  • Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
    • Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;

 

  • Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;

 

  • Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labor unions, students, and women’s groups;

 

  • Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

 

IV. Conclusion

 

This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.

 

  1. Although this paper will refer to “the JCPOA,” the abrogation decision should also encompass the July 14, 2015, statement by the Security Council’s five permanent members and Germany, attached as Annex B to Security Council Resolution 2231. The JCPOA is attached as Annex A to Resolution 2231.

 

[CLICK HERE FOR PDF COPY OF THIS RELEASE]

______________

National Security Experts Exhort JCPOA Abrogation

John R. Houk

© September 23, 2017

______________

45 National Security Experts Urge President Trump to Withdraw From Nuclear Deal with Iran Using the Bolton Plan

 

About The Center for Security Policy

 

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org