“But I don’t want to go among the mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can’t help that,” said the [Cheshire] cat, “We’re all mad here. I’m mad, you’re mad.” “How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the cat, “or else you wouldn’t have come here.” ~ Lewis Carol, Alice in Wonderland.
What’s New With Russia?
Did any surprise come from yesterday’s New York speeches to the United Nations General Assembly by President Barak Obama and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and their meeting afterward?
With all the blather from the weekend major media and yesterday, you might think something notable happened . . . but it is unclear why. Notwithstanding the exchange of blunt criticisms over Syria, Ukraine and other matters in their respective speeches and whatever happened behind closed doors, little new should be expected.
After all, President Obama quite some time ago turned over to Putin leadership in the Middle East (and perhaps throughout the world)—and chose a policy derisively referred to as “leading from behind.”
That euphemism that masquerades a policy of appeasement leads one to recall the beloved Yogi Berra, who passed away last week at age 90. But Yogi’s witty sayings are memorable for their implied wisdom—this cannot be said for “leading from behind,” given the global consequences of the President’s dubious approach to U.S. foreign policy—apparent to some at the outset of his administration and now after almost seven years obvious to all.
Take his administration’s dealing with Russia.
In February 2009, Vice President Joe Biden called for a “reset in U.S.-Russian relationship” at a security conference in Munich. A month later, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton echoed this call in presenting a “reset” policy “red button” to Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov—which was mislabeled in Russian as “peregruzka,” which means “overcharged” in Russian.
The Russian mislabeling—humorous at the time—turned out to be prophetic. The United States shortly thereafter accepted a NewStart Treaty that was unbalanced in Russia’s favor—and with compromised verification standards as compared to the START and INF Treaties that met Ronald Reagan’s standard: “Trust, but verify.”
We indeed permitted Russia to push the “overcharged” button—to the shame of several Republican senators who went along with the ratification of the NewStart Treaty!
Then There’s Iran.
Furthermore, the American people have been “overcharged” multiple times as the Obama administration “leads from behind,” a fact reflected in spades in the recent even more unbalanced terrible Iran deal.
As previously discussed, in spite of claims to the contrary—even by folks who should know better, this Iranian deal is not verifiable—and it is definitely not in our interest. “Overcharged” again, as the United States permitted an unverifiable deal that releases over a hundred billion dollars of sanctions—as Iran wanted, with little if any compensation for American (or Israeli) interests.
Even under the best of circumstances—when one assumes Iran will abide by the deal, it only paves the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons—and Iran already has multiple means to deliver them, against Israel, America and our overseas troops and allies. And that is, to repeat, an optimistic assumption.
I joined several knowledgeable colleagues in authoring a ROLL CALL article emphasizing that this is the “worst possible deal” because prudent policymakers should assume that Iran already has nuclear weapons. Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons for 65 years, in a crash mode for the past 25 years—and existing nuclear states have developed their nuclear weapons in only 3-12 years.
Notably, Iran’s ally North Korea took 10 years … with Iran as a close-up witness to much of that development. Why should Iran take so long? Anyway, they could use some of the released sanctions funding to “outsource” their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile development to North Korea.
Moreover, Iranian leaders have declared Iran’s intention not to abide by the terms of the deal, while our leaders foolishly discuss so-called “snap-back” provisions to re-impose the sanctions on Iran.
Perhaps President Obama is looking for guidance from Putin about where the disturbing events are leading, including Russia’s deployment of thousands of troops, dozens of aircraft and other military equipment into the region, presumably to prop up its long-time allies in the Middle East, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad and the Mullahs of Iran.
And we are expecting Putin to lead in defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?
Is there any wonder that the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) reported on last Sunday’s ABC’s This Week that President Obama’s Middle East foreign policy “is failing on every single measure.” He also noted that the President needed to draw some “red lines” regarding Putin’s movement of a major military forces into Syria.
Red Lines and All That.
Need I recall for you the “red line” President Obama drew in the Syrian sand in 2013 and what came of that?
The Washington Post followed the fallout after a year—but did not give out Pinocchios …. noting only that “the President made an ill-considered rhetorical statement a year ago, without consulting his aides. But the White House staff decided they could not take it back and even considered it a useful example of firm presidential leadership when they needed to inform Congress of evidence of chemical weapons use by Syria.”
Oh that’s right, Obama turned that problem over to Putin so that he could work with his ally al-Assad to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Obviously, we shouldn’t have been holding our breath anticipating a lot of progress there in our interest. However, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently indicated a willingness to work with Russia in countering ISIS, provided Russia would abandon al-Assad … fat chance.
And what about in Iraq? You recall that President Obama called ISIS a Jayvee Team—and now we are seeking to help train Iraqi soldiers to fight them, after having grasped defeat from the jaws of victory by withdrawing our ground forces from Iraq—except for intermittent air strikes of dubious value.
And how’s that training mission going? CENTCOM Commander General Lloyd Austin testified last week that we had spent $500 million to train 4-or-5 Syrian soldiers—a hundred million dollars apiece if my math is right.
CENTOM also revealed that a quarter of the weapons cache that we had provided to Syrain rebels had been voluntarily given to al Qaeda’s Syria arm, Jabhhat al Nursa. Did we not see this act before—as ISIS early on expanded its intended caliphate throughout Iraq and Syria using arms we had left behind when we left Iraq?
The possibility that ISIS or others can strike beyond Iraq and Syria should not be ignored. America’s most senior NATO representative in Europe, Robert Bell, last week warned that ISIS posed a threat to the continent, given their potential of obtaining ballistic missiles. He discussed this possibility in conjunction with emphasizing the deployment of four Aegis ships now forming a defensive shield against nuclear and ballistic missile attacks from the Middle East.
This leading from behind strategy really sucks!
Then There’s Nuke Trouble Beyond the Middle East.
As we worry about an Iranian nuclear capability, we should not lose sight of the fact that Pakistan has over a hundred nuclear weapons—and that it is the home of the Taliban. Recall that Osama bin Laden received refuge for years only 800 yards from Pakistan’s “West Point” military academy. Hard to believe that no Pakistani authorities knew.
For a sobering discussion of this threat, consider the September 18, 2015 Investor’s Business Daily editorial, entitled “Will Taliban Steal a Nuke Before Iran Builds One?”
This question came on the heels of a recent Taliban attack on a supposedly secure Pakistani military base, with 30 killed. The IBD poignantly asked: “How long can it be before Islamist terrorists find Pakistan’s 120-plus nuclear bombs?”
Good question. But not to turn from the Iranian threat—the world could well soon see threats that stem from both Pakistan and Iran.
As noted above, I along with several of my long-time colleagues think Iran also may already have nuclear weapons—at least we should be planning as if that is the case. As we concluded there:
“Prudent policymakers should recognize Iran almost certainly has the bomb, probably nuclear warheads for the Shahab-III missile, and maybe for intercontinental delivery by satellite. Iran will not stop at a few nukes on the shelf. It aims for a nuclear missile force that is usable against its region, Europe and U.S. targets.
“What to do?
“Prohibit Iran from testing long-range missiles or orbiting satellites — assure our missile defense systems can shoot them down. Harden the electric grid and other critical infrastructures against nuclear EMP attack. Re-impose sanctions and support Iranian dissidents, a majority of the population, that are seeking regime change. Pursue policies and programs to demonstrate the U.S. is willing and able to use military options to disarm Iran. Strengthen sanctions and insist on compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
This last recommendation for demanding compliance with the NPT is urgent, because a likely consequence of the Obama failed “leading from behind” policies will be a “Sunni-Shia” nuclear arms race in the Middle East.
Bear in mind the warning from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that U.S. intelligence officials have a “huge concern” about the Islamic State’s ability to infiltrate waves of Syrian war refugees flowing into Europe and potentially the United States as pressure mounts on Western nations to take in a growing number of people fleeing the conflict in the heart of the Middle East.
The Syrian refugee crisis is a prime opportunity for ISIS attack—an unprecedented danger. The “refugees” are coming from all over the “extended” Middle East, not just Syria, and are flooding into Europe—and President Obama has decided to increase the numbers coming into the United States by an additional 10,000 this year to 70,000 with the total planned for 2016 and 2017 growing to 85,000 and 100,000 respectively.
Reportedly, 75-80 percent of these are young men—18-35 years old from many places other than Syria. And we are not manned to screen them all.
James Simpson notes in his September 22, 2015 American Thinker article that warnings have been issued that 2 in every 100 refugees is an ISIS fighter. “Do the math, of 15,000 that would equate to 300 members of ISIS here in the U.S.” And that does not count those already here—we’ve been told they are in all 50 states.
The powers that be should stop this madness! American lives matter!
Near Term High Frontier Plans.
We will continue to inform our readers of the looming threat discussed above—and where appropriate urge them to engage in countering that threat. Our leaders are failing at their sworn duty “to provide for the common defense”
We will press for building the most cost-effective ballistic missile defenses possible and working with South Carolina folks to build a coalition to engage constructively with private citizens and their local and state representatives and other authorities to work with the SC National Guard in understanding and responding to the existential threats to the electric power grid.
We are especially focused on the nuclear power reactors that produce 60 percent of SC electricity—and more generally 20-percent of the nation’s electricity.
If it can be assured that they “operate through” a major blackout of the electric power grid, they can play a very important role for resurrecting it over an extended time and supporting the general public’s survival in the meantime. Click here to see the recent Washington Examiner article to infer the urgent importance of assuring this capability for our nuclear power reactors.
What can you do?
Join us in praying for our nation, and for a rebirth of the freedom sought, achieved and passed to us by those who came before us.
Help us to spread our message to the grass roots and to encourage all “powers that be” to provide for the common defense as they are sworn to do.
Begin by passing this message to your friends and suggest they visit our webpage www.highfrontier.org, for more information. Also, please encourage your sphere of influence to sign up for our weekly e-newsletter.
Encourage them to review our past email messages, posted on www.highfrontier.org, to learn about many details related to the existential manmade and natural EMP threats and how we can protect America against them. I hope you will help us with our urgently needed efforts, which I will be discussing in future messages.
Click here to make a tax deductible gift. If you prefer to mail a check, Please send it to 500 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
E-Mail Message 150929
Be sure to follow us on our Social Sites!