Obama's backseat drivers have lots of advice for Trump on Iran

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tom B, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. Tom B

    Tom B

    Obama's backseat drivers, John Kerry, Susan Rice, and Ben Rhodes, have lots of advice for Trump on Iran

    Former secretary of state (and Vietnam veteran) John Kerry and former national security adviser Susan Rice seem to be shuddering. So does Ben Rhodes. Iran is having another freedom revolution, following the 2009 one the Obama administration flubbed, and they don't want President Trump to get his big bumbling hands on it. He might just...mess it up.

    Kerry emphasized that it is an "Iranian moment," meaning America's White House should say nothing.

    With humility about how little we know about what's happening inside Iran, this much is clear: it's an Iranian moment and not anyone else's. But the rights of people to protest peacefully and voice their aspirations are universal and governments everywhere should respect that.

    — John Kerry (@JohnKerry) December 31, 2017

    Rice had the same message, just more direct:

    How Can Trump Help Iran’s Protesters? Be Quiet. https://t.co/w0MNlWMkxG

    — Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) December 31, 2017

    Obama's "narrative" master, Ben Rhodes, who crafted the Iran deal, got in on the act, too:

    The Iranian people are rightfully demanding dignity, less corruption, more opportunity, and greater control over their lives. In looking at US twitter, it seems lost on too many that this is about what Iranians want for Iran, and not about us.

    — Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) December 31, 2017

    This comes as 300,000 Iranians have hit the streets demanding democracy.

    .@realDonaldTrump 300,000 march for democracy #Iran please retweet pic.twitter.com/fKmR8vGLVB @VP

    — Ali AlAhmed (@AliAlAhmed_en) December 31, 2017

    So the specter of failed leftists who threw in their troth with the mullahs, forking over billions for them in exchange for the easily violated Iran deal, pretty well throws that Obama legacy of appeasement and negotiation for its own sake onto the trash heap of history. Iranians in the streets just don't like it.

    It's actually worse than that: the billions that went to the mullahs, from Obama and friends, on pallets from secret flights, actually served to enrich the mullahs, not the people of Iran, as Rhodes and the rest of Team Obama assured would be the case. As Iranian mismanagement similar to Venezuela's takes hold in the country, with oil prices down and sanctions biting, together with shortages and high prices, ordinary Iranians see the mullahs living high on the hog and doing well based on those Obama dollars, and they want the whole disaster to stop. That's what's fueling protests, like gas on a flame.

    And why did it happen now? Because President Trump crushed ISIS, bombed Syria for chemical weapon attacks, pressed the Saudis to reform, and moved the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, showing U.S. muscle and strength. A strong America is emboldening Iran's democrats because they see, suddenly, that democracies can be strong.

    Trump's words of encouragement for them, contrary to the gibberings of the jealous and bitter Obamatons, are only encouraging the Iranians to press the mullahs further and take their fate into their own hands. What revolution out there wouldn't welcome words of encouragement from the world's biggest superpower?

    What we are seeing here is change for the better in the Middle East because Trump made America strong. That has got to cheese off these backseat drivers from the Obama administration, who made America weak. Their plaintive cries to Trump to stay out of this are nothing more than a desperate bid to preserve their own status quo and Obama legacy.

    Sorry, pals – it's the trash heap for you.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...f_advice_for_trump_on_iran.html#ixzz52zWhan84
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
  2. Tom B

    Tom B

    The left tells Trump to shut up about Iran
    By Rick Moran

    Are the protests that have broken out all over Iran because the economy is so bad? I have yet to see anyone risk getting gunned down in the street by the government for a better job. There is much more to these protests than the left is trying to make us believe, and yet the almost universal advice coming from liberals is to keep quiet.

    Meanwhile, at least a dozen Iranians have been killed by authorities during the protests, and, instead of intimidating the people, the violence has had the opposite effect. Demonstrations against the regime are growing, and the focus is definitely on kicking the clergy out of government.

    Associated Press:

    The state TV report said 10 were killed during clashes Sunday night, without elaborating. Two demonstrators were killed during a protest in western Iran late Saturday.

    "Some armed protesters tried to take over some police stations and military bases but faced serious resistance from security forces," state TV reported.

    Earlier Monday, the semi-official ILNA news agency quoted Hedayatollah Khademi, a representative for the town of Izeh, as saying two people died there Sunday night.

    He said the cause of death wasn't immediately known. Many in Izeh, some 455 kilometers (280 miles) southwest of Tehran, have hunting rifles in their homes.

    On Sunday, Iran blocked access to Instagram and the popular messaging app Telegram used by activists to organize. President Hassan Rouhani acknowledged the public's anger over the Islamic Republic's flagging economy, though he and others warned that the government wouldn't hesitate to crack down on those it considers lawbreakers.

    Donald Trump has placed the presidency of the United States clearly and unequivocally on the side of the protesters:

    Many reports of peaceful protests by Iranian citizens fed up with regime's corruption & its squandering of the nation's wealth to fund terrorism abroad. Iranian govt should respect their people's rights, including right to express themselves. The world is watching! #IranProtests

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2017

    Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. The world is watching! pic.twitter.com/kvv1uAqcZ9

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 30, 2017

    But there are many on the left who are advising Trump to stay out of Iranian internal politics. An op-ed in the New York Times by Phillip Gordon suggests that Trump remain silent:

    Mr. Trump, after all, has said Iran is responsible for nearly all the problems of the Middle East, and accuses the country of spreading "death destruction and chaos all around the globe." The president would no doubt love to announce that his tough approach has delivered results by undermining the repressive Iranian government, and that his predecessor's more conciliatory approach failed.

    I, too, want to see the government in Tehran weakened, moderated[,] or even removed. So let me offer Mr. Trump some unsolicited advice: [k]eep quiet and do nothing.

    That seems to be the best advice being offered by liberals: sit down and shut up. No one denies that the government of Iran would be livid with the kind of rhetorical interference being offered by Trump. In fact, Trump's statements may be used to incite support for the regime against the "Great Satan."

    But how successful would they be?

    John Kerry says this is an "Iranian moment" and that we don't know what's happening there:

    With humility about how little we know about what's happening inside Iran, this much is clear: it's an Iranian moment and not anyone else's. But the rights of people to protest peacefully and voice their aspirations are universal and governments everywhere should respect that.

    — John Kerry (@JohnKerry) December 31, 2017

    "Humility" won't stop the Iranian government from murdering its own citizens.

    Barack Obama showed "humility" in 2009, when the nation erupted in protests after the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole the presidential election. Obama's studied silence and indifference deflated the protesters and allowed the government crackdown to succeed. Now Iranians are in the streets again, and an American president is encouraging them.

    I suppose there's a chance Trump's support will backfire. There is no doubt a risk in Trump stepping up and encouraging Iranians to protest. But considering the stakes, isn't it a risk worth taking?

    Obama didn't think so, and the 2009 "Green Movement" was crushed with nary a peep from the president.

    While the Iranian government might take a dim view of Trump's interference, what about the protesters themselves? What do they think of the president's rhetoric?

    Perhaps we should ask someone who battled the oppression of the Soviet Union. Dissident Anton Sharansky, who spent ten years in the Gulag, recalls how he felt when he read of Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech in 1983.

    In 1983, I was confined to an eight-by-ten-foot prison cell on the border of Siberia. My Soviet jailers gave me the privilege of reading the latest copy of Pravda. Splashed across the front page was a condemnation of President Ronald Reagan for having the temerity to call the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan's "provocation" quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth – a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us.

    At the time, I never imagined that three years later, I would be in the White House telling this story to the president. When he summoned some of his staff to hear what I had said, I understood that there had been much criticism of Reagan's decision to cast the struggle between the superpowers as a battle between good and evil. Well, Reagan was right and his critics were wrong.

    The Iranian protesters now know they have a powerful and influential ally in the president of the United States. We can't know whether Trump's words of encouragement will make a difference. But we can be certain that Trump's failure to speak out would doom any resistance to the Iranian regime.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog...rump_to_shut_up_about_iran.html#ixzz52zXvBtWk
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
  3. Tom B

    Tom B

    Optionpro007 likes this.
  4. Snarkhund


    Interesting that the theocracy refers to the protestors as "leftists". Even more interesting is the fact that the leftist Obama regime made no effort to assist or support the Iranian people last time there were large scale protests.

    Trump makes no ideological distinction. He sees a large population oppressed by a violent government which also happens to be fomenting violence worldwide.

    I hope the people tear the mullahs apart, literally.
    Optionpro007 likes this.
  5. piezoe


    Never mind the fact that the money that went to Iran was 1: their money, not ours ; 2: there was nothing secret about it, return of their money was part of the Iran deal on nuclear weapons development.
  6. Tom B

    Tom B

    Why was it their money?
  7. piezoe


  8. This must be about the sixth time he's asked the same question .
    Tony Stark likes this.
  9. January 2, 2018
    If the Iranian regime falls, will President Trump get some credit?
    By Thomas Lifson
    We are supposed to maintain, if not believe, that the current wave of protests in at least 40 cities aimed at toppling the mullahcracy of Iran have been sparked entirely by indigenous factors. After all, painting the demonstrators as responding to American policy is supposed to endanger their cause, making support for the mullahs patriotic resistance to American imperialism. That is the "logic" (such as it is) for notorious liar Susan Rice:

    How Can Trump Help Iran's Protesters? Be Quiet. https://t.co/w0MNlWMkxG

    — Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice) December 31, 2017

    But in the real world, the people of Iran, with access to the world's media via satellite dishes and the internet, respond to signals from outside the country. When President Obama failed to support the "Green Revolution" protests in his first year in office, those massive demonstrations failed to overthrow the regime.

    Daniel Greenfield, the Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, reminds us that the current wave of protests was anticipated by President Trump in his address to the U.N. last fall.

    Months before the protests that are shaking the Islamic Republic of Iran began, President Trump stood before the entire world at the United Nations and boldly declared that the terror regime would fall.

    "The good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, ... Iran's people are what their leaders fear the most," he correctly predicted.

    As another day of protests begins, as the Islamist thugs of the IRGC face a choice between an outraged populace and a failing regime, his words in that September speech ring truer than ever.

    "The longest[] suffering victims of Iran's leaders are, in fact, its own people," he pointed out.

    "Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice. Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror? Or will the Iranian people return to the nation's proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?" he challenged.

    It is by no means assured that this time, the demonstrators will succeed in driving the theocrats from office, but if they do, President Trump's signal to them may rank with President Reagan's Berlin Wall speech with the immortal line: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

    I have great hopes that this time, reports such as the one Rick Moran cited are true, and the U.S. and Israel are collaborating in a strategy to bring down the Islamic Republic.

    I am certain that I am not only person who noticed that this ("U.S. and Israel formulate a plan to stop Iran – together") was directly followed by this ("Price protests turn political in Iran as rallies spread") only a day later.


    If the regime of the mullahs falls, not only will it be a boon to the long suffering people of Iran, but it would become a foreign policy triumph for Trump, an utter contrast to the feckless policies of President Obama and his "brain," Valerie Jarrett. Imagine what might be uncovered if the post-revolutionary regime opens its archives and reveals the content of discussions between the Obama regime and that of the mullahs.

    No wonder Susan Rice wants President Trump to be quiet!
    #10     Jan 2, 2018