Obama Lied, Americans Died
The scope of Obama’s fecklessness has widened considerably.
The scope of the Obama administration’s utter fecklessness with regard to the Iranian nuclear deal has widened considerably.
Earlier this month, it was revealed that Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani made a recent trip to Moscow, where he met with a senior Russian official — for the purposes of conducting weapons deals. He did this despite the reality he has been subject to UN Resolution 1747 that froze the assets and restricted the travel of individuals engaged in Iran’s “proliferation-sensitive” nuclear activities since 2007. Soleimani was one such individual, and any country that abides his travel is violating that resolution. Since Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is impossible for the Kremlin to feign ignorance in that regard. Nonetheless, the man suspected of orchestrating the failed 2011 assassination attempt on the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States met with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu.
During the Aug. 6 Republican presidential debate, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) reminded Americans of the far more germane aspects of Soleimani’s thuggery, along with Russia’s thinly veiled contempt for the Obama administration Soleimani’s visit represents. “He’s directly responsible for the murder of over 500 American servicemen in Iraq and part of this Iranian deal was lifting international sanctions on Gen. Soleimani,” Cruz declared. “The day Gen. Soleimani flew back from Moscow to Iran was the day we believe Russia used cyber warfare against the Joint Chiefs.”
Outgoing U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno backed up that assertion. “Qassem Soleimani is the one who has been exporting malign activities throughout the Middle East for some time now,” Odierno said. “He’s absolutely responsible for killing many Americans. In fact, I would say the last two years I was there, the majority of our casualties came from his surrogates, not Sunni or al-Qaida.”
Soleimani was initially designated a terrorist and sanctioned by the U.S. two years before the UN resolution went into effect. His presence in Moscow completely undercuts Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion that Soleimani and the Quds Force will continue to face sanctions from the U.S. Treasury after UN sanctions are lifted. “Under the United States’ initiative, Qassem Soleimani will never be relieved of any sanctions,” Kerry insisted on July 29, in response to a question posed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR).
Really? Soleimani arrived in Moscow five days before Kerry made those assurances, but 10 days after the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 powers was announced. That deal includes the lifting of the Iranian arms embargo. Since Iran has freely acknowledged the visit, either Kerry’s assertion rings exceedingly hollow, or Iran is already defying the parameters of the deal.
And just in case Obama and company aren’t quite up to speed with regard to the contempt in which they are held by both nations, it should be noted that two Russian warships docked in Iran’s Anzali port on Aug. 9 for the purpose of conducting “joint naval exercises during the three-day stay of the warships in Iran,” according to a report in Iran’s state-controlled Fars News Agency.
The move follows other thumb-in-the-eye efforts aimed at the Obama administration, including Russia’s decision in April to sell to the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism an advanced S-300 air defense missile system in violation of a “red line” Obama established in 2010, and Moscow’s June decision to begin building a second nuclear power plant in that nation later this year.
Remember that when you hear Obama talking about how sanctions can be “snapped back” into place.
According to Politico, one of the Left’s most reliable media shills, Obama could “effectively halt many U.S. sanctions on Iran” [emphasis added] using his power as commander in chief to do so. Why would Obama do that? As Politico asserts, “to persuade Tehran to meet its end of the bargain.”
As bad as that is, it gets worse. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, Obama’s original assertion for pursuing this deal is also an utter fabrication. Obama sold this deal to the public based on the idea that Iran had transitioned in 2013 from hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the far more moderate Hassan Rouhani, thus opening the way for negotiation. In reality, negotiations began while the Holocaust-denying, “Israel should be wiped off the map”-spewing Ahmadinejad was still in power. Worse still, the administration sent a letter to the regime written by John Kerry, then a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, recognizing its right to enrich uranium on its own soil. That enormous concession was a direct contravention of U.S. policy and numerous UN Security Council resolutions underscoring the reality Iran had no such right. Even more infuriating, Obama chose to double down on his timeline lie in his Aug. 5 speech at American University.
In other words, while Iranians were killing Americans in Iraq with explosively formed projectiles (EFPs), Obama and company were negotiating with their murderers.
“I was blown up by an Iranian bomb. … [T]hat’s who we’re making a deal with,” says sergeant Robert Bartlett, critically injured while serving in Iraq in 2005. “Every politician who’s involved in this will be held accountable. … A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism.” Bartlett and his clearly scarred face are part of an ad campaign by Veterans Against the Deal. One is left to wonder if Obama believes men who have actually walked the walk are also making the same “common cause with Iranian hardliners” that he accused Republicans of in that same Aug. 5 speech.
In truth, it is the Obama administration itself that has come to an unconscionable alignment with Iran’s murderous mullahs, one best described by columnist Mark Steyn. “I’m not a conspiracy theorist, because conspiracies are generally a comforting illusion: the real problem with Obama is that the citizens of the global superpower twice elected him to office,” Steyn writes. “Yet one way to look at the current ‘leader of the free world’ is this: If he were working for the other side, what exactly would he be doing differently?”
Start a conversation using these share links: