US Strategy: Ukraine, Syria and Fracking

Aid to Ukraine was under discussion this week.  The Budapest Memorandum, signed by the Clinton administration in 1994, guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in return for the surrender of 1,800 ex-Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. It was signed by the US, UK and Russia. The US has given no arms to Ukraine after Putin seized the Crimea and sponsored the separation of two rebel areas in eastern Ukraine from Kiev. Our inaction demonstrates that our word, at least in executive agreements involving nuclear weapons, is no good. We have done absolutely nothing to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.

Putin has two big problems. The low price of oil means he's broke, and his suppression of the Union of Mothers of Soldiers of Russia for counting casualties from the Ukrainian conflict, means he can't take large casualties. Putin is trying to distract his populace from their economic problems with military victories.

The way to handle Putin is to give long range artillery and man portable guided anti-tank rockets to the Ukrainians, along with the training to use them properly. The 40 million people of Ukraine are very willing to fight, but they need more effective weapons to increase the cost of Putin's adventurism. The Russians have been fighting us with proxies they armed since the end of World War II. Putin can hardly object to us if we use proxies against him.

If Putin is defeated in Ukraine, he will have to retreat from Syria. If Putin is defeated in Ukraine, he may lose office and, without his position to defend himself, he may lose his life. The last time oil prices were this low, Russia went bankrupt, Boris Yeltsin was forced out of office. That's how Putin gained power. It could easily happen again.

This will not put ISIS in control in Damascus.  ISIS is in the process of being wiped out as a conventional military force that can hold territory. It turns out that the US Air Force can actually kill ISIS forces if the rules of engagement are reasonable, as they are now under Trump. Air power is only ineffective when the president wants it to be, like the Smartest President Ever seemed to want.

Iran wants a Persian Empire stretching from Pakistan to the Mediterranean Sea. Russia has interveniened in Syria to help Iran achieve their goal of empire. I don't think it's in our interests. Iran prays daily for "Death to America." I choose to take them at their word.

I gave you a slight exaggeration on the price of oil.  When Boris Yeltsin was forced out of office, the price of oil was about $25 a barrel.  But the point is that wars are expensive, and up to 80% of Russian export earnings come from energy exports. At $50 a barrel, the Russian government is running a big deficit because it's spending too much.

President Trump's energy policies are going to expand US energy exports and put pressure on world energy prices. Trump withdrew from the stupid Paris agreement. Trump stopped the EPA's war on coal. Trump has opened almost all federal land, including the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, to drilling. Under Trump, the federal government has quickly approved every application for a liquid natural gas export terminal. All of the pipelines Obama stopped, Trump approved already.

In natural gas, the Russians are going to lose market share. The European price for natural gas is currently about $5.20 per million Btus. The US price is about $3. Even allowing for transportation costs, the price in Europe has to fall as more US LNG reaches the market there.


 It will be harder for Iran to get everything it wants without Russian help. They will have to chose between nukes and empire. I think they will chose nukes. Your opinion may vary. The most likely outcome in Syria is partition. Damascus will remain under Bashar al Assad's control. A mixed group of Kurds and Arabs will control the Northeast. Shiites or chaos will rule the Southeast. Jordan and Israel will try to keep Sunis in control of the Southwest.

The Russians win in the Middle East if they make a mess, because all they want is for the price of oil to go higher. If there's chaos in the Middle East, there will be less oil production. It's as simple as that. Not giving the Ukrainians any help at all means that nobody will ever give up their nukes ever again. They will know they will get NOTHING in return. Giving the Ukrainians enough arms to stop further Russian attacks is just good sense. It shows Putin that it costs him too much to attack westward. Would you rather wait for Putin to attack a NATO country, like Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia?

Liberals say, "If Assad were removed and replaced be by Sunnis the most likely outcome would be Hezzbollah in Lebanon would be cut off and the result in Lebanon would be Sunni genocide against Christians and Shia"

Malarkey! Hezbollah is the most powerful armed force in Lebanon. Hezbollah controls the Beriut Airport. Iran ships arms to Hezbollah through the Beirut Airport and also through the Damascus Airport and then by truck convoy to Hezbollah territory in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah is the reason that Assad can't be driven from his core territory. They back him up.

Before the Russian intervention, ISIS was the biggest Sunni power. The US, the Kurds and the Iraqi Army have flattened ISIS and killed most of their fighters. They ain't coming back from the dead. The Sunnis in general are not coming back for at least 5 years.

The Syrian civil war has resulted in mutual exhaustion of the local Syrian forces, except for the Kurds in the northeast. That's why all of the locals called in outside help. For example, the Iranians hire Afghan Shiite mercenaries to fight in Syria, because Assad is out of people who will fight for him. The people who still nominally back Assad will fight only to protect their own villages and local areas. It's a matter of self preservation and religious freedom. Assad is the enemy of their enemies. That does not mean they support everything he does.

Liberals need to check their bi-coastal elitist privilege. There’s a whole world out here where arugula ain’t on the menu. The Democrats' openly socialist ideology is a joke out here in flyover country because, like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat, it’s a trick that never works. The latest example is Venezuela, a once mildly prosperous petro state now experiencing famine and food riots. My advice to liberals: if you’re going to be arrogant and dismissive, try to have something behind it other than bluster and manure from MSNBC.

I thought liberals or progressives or whatever were all angry that Trump was selling out to Putin. Their responses on arming Ukraine sound more like they really wanted to sell out to Russia themselves, and are angry that Trump may have beaten them to it.  All of that assumes they believe their own propaganda.  So far, Russian contacts aren't illegal.  In a delicious irony, Hillary's campaign is reported to have contacted Ukrainian sources for dirt on Trump.  But we all know the law only applies to enemies of Democrats.

Article I reacted to:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450140/arming-ukraine-bad-idea?fb_comment_id=fbc_1492167384211642_1492400224188358_1492400224188358

Huge Damage from Electromagnetic Pulse

Since a solar flares can do the same damage as North Korean or Iranian nukes by creating their own electromagnetic pulse, I think it's time to harden the electrical net in the US..  This is the Holy Grail of federal spending.  It's shovel ready, because it doesn't require new right of way and environmental studies.  It strengthens national defense.  It's an infrastructure project with lots of money spent all over the country, in every congressional district.  It could save the planet from a natural disaster of cosmic proportions.  It should be completely bipartisan.

The fact that Democrats don't want to harden the grid exposes progressives to charges of both treason and not believing in science under progressive rules of evidence required for making allegations.  I really enjoy using liberal rules of allegations.  They are completely unrestricted warfare on the opposition.  So make charges like a liberal.  Throw lots of manure, just to see what sticks.  Remember it takes offense to win the game.

Lifting US Oil Export Ban: Big Foreign Policy Win!

Many people think that lifting the US oil export ban was a hollow victory for Republicans in the Omnibus spending bill this year.  It looks hollow now, but it’s a big foreign policy win for the future.

Three of our most dangerous enemies, Russia, Iran and ISIS, finance their military and terrorist operations with oil sales.  Russia and Iran need a crude oil price of about $100 a barrel to maintain spending at current levels.  ISIS needs about $80 a barrel to be able to sell its smuggled oil at an attractive discount.  With European benchmark crude selling for about $37 a barrel, all three are really hurting financially.

In the US, most oil production uses ever improving fracking technology. Fracking injects a solution of water, sand and secret ingredients under pressure to fracture rock formations that contain oil and natural gas.  Fracking technology can ramp up production much more quickly than ordinary drilling.  When the price of oil is low, you stop injecting.  When the price goes up, you resume injecting.  Break even for US fracking operations is somewhere between $45 and $60 a barrel.

Lifting the US oil export ban means that Russia, Iran and ISIS will not see an oil price above $60 in the next 5-10 years.  They will be financially incapable of continuing their aggressive violent strategies.  The last time oil prices were this low, inflation in Russia topped 80% a year, Russia defaulted on its government bonds and Boris Yeltsin was forced out of power.  Prolonged financial difficulty may destabilize three of our most dangerous enemies, based on a concession the Democrats didn’t think was worth anything.

Iran Agreement: They Don't Want to Talk About It

Democrats are so proud of their Iran nuclear agreement with Iran, they don’t want to talk about it.  Last week 42 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster the consideration of the Iran nuclear agreement that they voted for when they passed the Corker bill, officially the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act.  The Corker bill was supposed to force a vote in the Senate and House on the merits of the Iran agreement.  It was also supposed to force disclosure of the whole agreement including all of the secret side deals.  The Corker bill failed at both of these tasks due to the total lack of good faith from Democrats, who never really wanted to subject the agreement to any discussion at all.  The reason the Democrats voted for the filibuster was to spare the president from the embarrassment of having to veto a bill disapproving the Iran Agreement.  Evidently, the terms of the agreement itself are not embarrassing, but having to veto a bill disapproving it would be.

The successful filibuster is hailed by the Pravda Press as a great success for President Obama.  I guess I’m just a redneck, but I don’t get it.  The agreement is opposed by a large majority of Americans in every poll.  The Democrats could not get a majority of either House to vote for it, let alone the 2/3 of the Senate normally required for a treaty.  The secret side deals between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, basically allow the Iranians to stall any inspection for 24 days and also let the Iranians inspect themselves in areas where they refused to allow foreign inspectors.  It’s likely there are more secret provisions that have not been revealed publicly.  The US achieved none of our original negotiating objectives.  We have not stopped Iran’s nuclear enrichment.  We do not have inspections anywhere anytime.  Barry the Brilliant has just agreed to pay the Mad Mullahs about $150 billion to take our surrender.  The Mad Mullahs are thrilled because their oil revenues run only about $55 billion a year.

All of this ruthless action was to provide President Obama with a legacy agreement with Iran.  The Middle East is on fire because Obama needed Iran’s approval to get his legacy agreement.  We could not leave troops in Iraq to support a nonsectarian regime, support the civilian protests in Tehran against a rigged election or get rid of Bashir Al Assad no matter how many Syrian civilians he killed with barrel bombs or poison gas.  Any of these actions would have upset the Iranian government and made the legacy nuclear agreement impossible.  This agreement was worth the deaths of several hundred thousand Syrians.  This agreement was worth allowing the rise of ISIS.  This agreement was worth trashing the Constitutional treaty ratification mechanism.  And the agreement is so bad, Democrats filibustered it in the Senate because they don’t want to talk about it.  

Given that Iran's leadership believe Allah has ordered them to wipe Israel off the map and kill us if we don't convert, would you want to talk about it?

US Intelligence Alone Not Good Enough Verification

The whole basis for "Bush lied people died" was that our intelligence is flawless so Bush had to cook the results. Now liberals believe their own propaganda. They believe intelligence alone can tell us how close the Iranians are to a bomb. After all, our satellites can read a license plate from orbit. Liberals are shocked to find out that the license plate can't be read if Jihadis smear mud on it.

The truth is our intelligence on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.  Everyone, including the CIA, Israeli Mossad, British MI6 and the French DGSE thought they were there. Either they never were there, or they were shipped to Syria before the war started. However, it shows that our intelligence isn't good enough to trust for verifying Iranian compliance. 

Article I was commenting on:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419746/nuclear-concessions-iran-obama-administration

US Strategy So Complex, It's Incoherent

The US Middle East strategy is so complex, it's incoherent. Our Dear Leader is making it up as he goes along. Barry the Brilliant's tilt towards Iran was meant to win us an arms control treaty. Nothing else mattered. And we are so close! Just a few more days and we can wrap it all up! Sure. In the meantime we have a mess where the US provided close air support for the Iranian Quds Force militias in Iraq, while we provide intelligence to the Saudis so they can attack an Iranian Quds Force militia in Yemen.

For those of you not familiar with the Quds Force, it's the part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard responsible for sponsoring terrorism and paramilitary organizations in foreign countries. The Quds Force has managed to combine the less attractive aspects of the German SS and the Russian KGB with numerous terrorist bombings. The Shi'ite militias that just took Tikrit, Iraq, after helpful US air strikes are run by Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force. He had his picture taken in several places all over Iraq, including near Tikrit. He was touring Iraq like he owned the place, because he does. The Quds Force militias are the friendly folks who planted the deadliest roadside bombs that killed and maimed hundreds of Americans during the Iraq War. If you think supporting Quds Force militias is a popular thing to do in US military circles then you will believe almost anything the Smartest President Ever says.

In the meantime, we are helping our friends the Saudis and the Egyptians with their Yemen problems. The Yemen problems are from Houthi militia trained and supplied by the Quds Force. In military terms, sanitized for a family publication, this is a cluster foul up. To believe the Middle East situation was the result of some grand master plan, a military analyst would need a ton of Maui Wowie consumed in the company of your buddy Jose Cuervo.

The only good thing to come out of it is that the Saudis and Israelis are so scared of the Iranians that they are negotiating quietly on military cooperation with each other. That fact alone says a lot about how bad things are.

Continued Sanctions Would Be Much Better Than Obama's Bad Deal

Every Liberal in creation is saying the choice is between Obama's bad deal and immediate war with Iran.  I think that's a false choice.  It's possible that sanctions combined with the falling price of oil may seriously weaken the regime. Manufacturing and running centrifuges is expensive. The Iranians also have a huge and expensive security structure. They are sponsoring Shi'ite militias or armies in wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. They have expensive internal subsidies for food and gasoline to keep the populace under control. All of this has to be paid for by oil revenues. Estimates vary, but the Mad Mullahs need somewhere between $100 to $130 a barrel of oil to pay for all of this. Right now the price is about $55 a barrel. Iran has lots of natural gas reserves, but no export terminals and limited export pipelines. They will not be able to borrow money for export facilities if they are under sanctions. The US could put even more pressure on them by legalizing the export of crude oil and natural gas.

While I'm sure that the Mullahs won't cut the centrifuges, if they cut sponsoring wars and terrorism, their allies would be defeated. Defeats in foreign adventures can be deadly to the prestige authoritarian governments need for survival. If they cut in domestic subsidies they could be overthrown in the resulting unrest. If they cut domestic security they could lose control of dissidents and be overthrown. Add to the mix that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has terminal cancer and is expected to die within 2 years. The combination of financial stress and a succession struggle could topple the whole regime. It's worth at shot. The current agreement guarantees an Iranian nuclear weapon within 10 years or less.  That's a lock on a nuclear war in 10 years or less.

Legal Trash Talk: Liberal Reaction to The Letter

There is a lot of legal trash talk this week about “The Letter.”  Liberals called the 47 Republican Senators “Traitors” in big headlines.  The Pravda Press said that the letter was a violation of the Logan Act.  The commentators said the letter violated the Constitution’s allocation of all foreign negotiations to the president.  All of this was hogwash.

Just so everyone is clear on this, the Constitution defines treason:  "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."  I know liberals don't read the Constitution because it reminds them of the Tea Party, but it really helps to occasionally know what you're talking about. 

The Logan act was passed in 1799.  It outlawed negotiations between private parties and foreign governments.  The last and only prosecution under the Logan Act was in 1803.  It did not result in a conviction.  Since the Republican Senators did not negotiate and since they are Senators and not private individuals, the Logan Act doesn’t seem to apply.  Low information voters don’t know any of this, so the smear worked.

Since Barry the Brilliant said he would veto any attempt by Congress to advise him on negotiations with Iran and then consent to any agreement, the person ignoring the Constitution was the president, not the Senate Republicans who wrote the letter.  Treaties are supposed to be made with the advice and consent of the Senate, according to the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2.  As with many other things, our Dear Leader is ignoring the Constitution in this regard also.  Since no remedy is specified, 47 Republican Senators chose to help themselves by writing an open letter to the Iranians to remind everybody, the Iranians, the president and the public that agreements which happen without the advice and consent of the Senate are not binding.  If one side is ignoring the Constitution, you can hardly complain when in reaction the other side fails to preserve decorum. 

I think any agreement President Obama signs will have exactly the same binding power on the next administration as the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 has had on the Obama Administration, in other words none.  The Budapest Memorandum, signed by the Clinton administration, guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine in return for the surrender of 1,800 ex-Soviet nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. It was signed by the US, UK and Russia. The UK has special forces in the Ukraine right now training Ukrainian forces. Obama sent MREs (meals ready to eat).  According to the German ambassador to the US, Obama told Angela Merkel that the US would not send military aid to the Ukraine. So the US is not helping the Ukraine defend itself from piecemeal annexation by Russia at all.

Liberals seem to go to the Lewis Carroll school of legal interpretation.   I need to quote Mr. Carroll extensively so you understand how this really works.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

In simpler terms, heads means liberals win, tails means conservatives lose. Liberals are to be the master. There are no laws any more, just liberal interpretations to suit liberal convenience.   The Constitution is to be interpreted out of existence.  It seems the liberal elite prefers a dictatorship of the liberal elite to the rule of law.  The trash talk is just there to justify their actions to the low information voters who don’t know any better.

Senator Cotton Speaks Truth to Power

How dare Senator Cotton speak truth to power!  Just because everything in the letter was completely true is no excuse.  Senator Cotton has interrupted delicate negotiations which were to conclude with an agreement that could never command even a majority in the Senate, let alone a 2/3 vote needed to ratify a treaty.  It was very rude of him and his 46 colleagues to notice that Emperor Barry the Brilliant can't bind the United States to a deal without ratification.  Who does Senator Cotton think he is anyway, a Senator or something? 

I think Conservatives and Liberals differ greatly in our views of the Iranian regime.  When Iranians chant "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," I believe them.  Since 1979, the Mad Mullahs have said they are at war with America.  And they have backed it up with acts of war starting with taking our embassy in 1979 and then continuing with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983 and the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996.  More recently, Iran was the major supplier of the deadliest IEDs used against US troops in Iraq.  I do not believe for a minute that the Iranian government wants peace.  I believe they want world domination, because that's what they say all the time.

Every Liberal press flack in creation is attacking Senator Tom Cotton personally as a stupid war monger. Senator Cotton has a Bachelor of Arts degree magna cum laude from Harvard.  He also has a Harvard Law degree.  One of his professors was Elizabeth Warren. His academic record is better that Obama’s, or at least what we know of it.  Cotton is not an ignorant hick.  Tom Cotton is a US Army combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan.  He was awarded a Bronze Star for heroism under fire in Afghanistan.  He does not take war lightly.  As a Vietnam Era veteran, I find personal attacks on Senator Cotton's motivation for writing the letter to be extremely offensive.

The letter that everyone is complaining about was entirely accurate.  There were no lies in the letter, as even John Kerry was forced to admit that executive agreements do not have any binding power on future administrations.  The letter inconveniently pointed out that Emperor Barry the Brilliant had no clothes, that he can’t deliver what he was promising the Iranians without a Senate vote.  The timing might not have been what liberals would have preferred, but free speech is valid all the time whether you're a Republican or Democrat, Senator or President.

The agreement in prospect will remove economic sanctions against Iran.  The letter writers want sanctions to continue and actually to get stronger.  I also want the sanctions to be strengthened.  I think the sanctions combined with the current price of oil would be extremely effective.

The fall in the price of oil puts Iran in a very bad position economically.  Oil is at about $55 a barrel.  Iran needs oil at over $100 a barrel to fund all of their terrorism, wars and centrifuges.  They have a huge military and internal security structure which is very expensive.  The have large internal subsidies for food and energy.  The Iranian inflation rate is 30.3% according to the Iran central bank.  They are broke.  Continued sanctions could lead to a much better Iran arms deal.  Continued sanctions might even lead to the collapse of the current regime. 

One way to keep the price of oil low would be to allow American crude oil to be exported.  In the US, existing oil storage tanks are almost completely full.  Right now the difference between West Texas Intermediate, the American benchmark oil price, and Brent Crude, the international price, is about $10 a barrel.  The prices would be roughly the same if the US could sell crude on the international market.  Right now, that’s illegal.  

Signing the current deal as it's described in the press is much more likely to lead to was than continuing the sanctions.  In reaction, Saudi Arabia signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea.  The Saudis have also made it clear that if they need to, they can purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan.

The Israelis have no way to attack Iranian centrifuges in the deeply buried concrete bunkers with conventional weapons.  The Israelis would have to use multiple nuclear ground bursts to do the job.  There would be a lot of radioactive dirt thrown into the air.  If the Iranians look like they are about to break out with nuclear weapons, there is a strong possibility of Israeli preemptive attack.

My conclusion is that the deal in prospect is more dangerous than no deal at all.  The letter was a legitimate exercise in free speech by a decorated combat veteran and Senators whose duty to the country was to head off what they saw as a very bad deal by reminding everyone of the obvious.  Without Senate approval, the deal is not binding.

The Letter:

http://www.cotton.senate.gov/sites/default/files/150309%20Cotton%20Open%20Letter%20to%20Iranian%20Leaders.pdf

Iranian Inflation

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/06/08/366072/iran-inflation-rate-falls-by-98/

Oil Storage Full:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-12/oil-storage-squeeze-may-lead-to-another-price-crash

Jews: The Canaries in the Coal Mine

There are a lot of idiots who think everything that's wrong in the Middle East would be fixed if only Israel was removed. Many believe we don't need to continue to support Israel because they have enough weapons to make it on their own. Both ideas are totally manure.

The terrorist tactics that ISIS and Al Qaeda use today were tested on Israelis by Palestinian terrorists starting in the 1970's. Then, lots of people said the Jews brought it on themselves and it was nobody else's problem. Now, the terrorism has expanded to include everybody else who doesn't practice Islam exactly according to whichever Jihadist nut is holding a gun to their head. As Jews were in the run up to World War II, Jews are today the canary in the coal mine. It may start with them, but it never ends with them.

By now, everyone should realize we have big problems with Islamofacism, whether it's Sunni ISIS or Shi'ite Iran. Of the two, Iran is the more dangerous. Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. Iranian leaders organize frequent government sponsored street demonstrations around two slogans, "Death to America" and "Death to Israel." Iranian leaders have called Israel a one bomb country. They also have said that even if Israel retaliates with nuclear weapons, Muslims will win because there will still be over a billion Muslims and no Jews. Further, they are also working on an ICBM that can reach the US. The best we can hope for there is that they want to discourage us from protecting Israel. The worst case is that they are crazy enough to attack us. Everyone thought Hitler was a joke. It would be a big mistake to believe Iran is a joke.

If we leave Israel to fend for itself, we are risking a general war in the Middle East. The Saudi's and the Gulf States are so scared of a nuclear Iran that they will make a deal with the Israelis for a coordinated attack on Iran. The attack might include nuclear weapons, because against the Iranian air defense systems the Israeli Air Force can't deliver a conventional weapon big enough to destroy the Iranian centrifuges in their deep underground bunkers. They would have to use nukes.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414643/standing-our-friends-standing-our-enemies-scott-walker

Why Does US Still Favor Baghdad over the Kurds?

The article linked below is an interview with the Kurdistan Regional Government's High Representative to the US. In it she reveals that all military shipments to Iraqi Kurdistan are first landed in Baghdad for inspection and only after inspection are the given to the Kurds. This is ridiculous. The Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq and the Kurdish YPG in Syria have proven their combat effectiveness in every battle they've fought as long as their ammunition held out. Even in retreat, they never abandon any weapons for ISIS to capture.  The Iraqi Army, on the other hand, was one of the main sources of arms for ISIS. They abandoned all of their US supplied equipment and ran away before ISIS could even get to them. Iran is supplying the Shi'ite militias around Baghdad with all of the weapons they need. Why aren't we doing the same for the Kurds? 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/26/obama-lacks-islamic-state-plan-should-increase-arm/?page=all

Liberals Take Undeserved Credit for Cheap Oil

Liberals are trying to take credit for falling oil and natural gas prices, which is ludicrous.  Fracking in the US and Saudi Arabian oil production policy are the main causes of big moves in energy prices.  The initial falling prices of oil and natural gas came from fracking, which Liberals strongly oppose and have outlawed in New York and California. If the Keystone Pipeline had been built and if it was legal to export crude oil from the US, the price of oil would be even lower. Liberals oppose both of those actions in the name of preventing global warming. The other contributing factor to crashing oil prices is Saudi Arabia's conclusion that the Chicago Machine Prodigy in Chief will not stop the Iranians from building nuclear weapons. They decided to maintain Saudi oil production at current levels to crash the price and bankrupt the Iranian mullahs. For the Saudis, damage to Russia was a nice side benefit, as the Russians sell weapons and reactors to Iran. Which of these actions did our Dear Leader have any positive contribution towards? I grant that the "Reset" with Russia and the endless nuclear negotiations with Iran caused the Saudis to conclude they had to act alone. Do you think that was the intended consequence when the Smartest President Ever made those moves?

Saudis Use Oil Weapon Against Iran

A lot of pundits are treating the falling price of oil as a Saudi move to try to preserve market share.  I think Saudi Arabia is trying to put the Iranian mullahs out of the nuclear arms business. The House of Saud is so scared of an Iran with nukes, they talk about how much they have in common with Israel during newspaper interviews. I think they have rightfully concluded that the Chicago Machine Prodigy in Chief will not treat the Iranians anywhere near as tough as he does Republicans and that it's up to them or the Israelis to stop an Iranian bomb. The Israelis would have to use nukes to do the job, so the Saudis decided to use the oil weapon. The Iranian government depends on oil revenue for 65% of its budget. The mullahs need an oil price of $100 to $130 a barrel in order to support their internal subsidies for food and gasoline, pay for their extensive and expensive internal security organizations and support Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria and Shiite militia groups in Iraq. All those centrifuges processing uranium to make weapons are hugely expensive also.  Iran has minimal foreign exchange reserves. At $50 a barrel for their oil, the Iranian government goes broke in a year or two, maybe less. The Saudis are getting the added benefit of crippling Russia at the same time. Saudis would like to damage Russia because Putin has been selling arms to Assad in Syria and, in addition to arms, has sold a reactor to Iran that can be used to make plutonium for a bomb. Russia gains most of its foreign exchange from oil and natural gas sales. The price of natural gas is under pressure from US fracking and the prospect of increasing US liquid natural gas exports. With the oil price at half of the $100 a barrel Putin needs to stay in business and the ruble down 30-40% against the dollar, things don't look so good for Putin. All the companies his oligarch buddies own have a lot of debt to European banks due in the next two years.  They can't refinance because of the sanctions prompted by Putin's Ukrainian aggression. The oligarchs may be tempted to replace Putin with somebody who would be better for business just like mobsters get rid of guys who attract too much heat from the cops. I think the stress that the lower oil price puts on US producers is a side benefit for the Saudis. The main target is Iran, with a secondary target of Russia.

Iran is Bigger Threat than ISIS

I think negotiating with the Iranian Mullahs about their nukes is going to be a far bigger disaster than Iraq. Coupled with doing as little as possible in Syria after Assad used poison gas, the policy of nuclear negotiations with Iran is pressuring the Saudis and Qataris to buy some Pakistani nukes. It is also encouraging Israel to nuke Iran. The Chicago Prodigy in Chief has no clue what he's doing. All he can say is Bush did it. Even if it were true, what difference, at this point, does it make? What's our Dear Leader going to do to mitigate the mess? 

High value Iranian nuclear sites are burred very deeply with a lot of concrete hardening. The only effective non-nuclear weapon that can destroy these sites is a 30,000 pound bunker buster. Israel does not have the capability to deliver a 30,000 pound bunker buster bomb against the Iranian air defense system even if the US gave them a few. F-16 airplanes can't destroy hardened targets with conventional weapons. I agree that Israel is closely watching Iran, but the only way Israel can destroy hardened Iranian nuclear sites is to use its nuclear weapons. I don't find the prospect of nuclear war in the Middle East comforting. I also don't believe the Chicago Hack in Chief is ever going to order a US strike on Iran, even if Iran successfully tests their own nuclear bomb.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/iraq-is-broken-we-cant-fix-it-and-theres-no-good-reason-to-try/article/2549910

Encouraging Israel to Nuke Iran

The fact is the only way Israel can destroy enough Iranian centrifuges is to nuke their underground facilities.  Please explain to this ignorant red neck why it's wise to encourage the Israelis to nuke the Iranians.  While the unanticipated result of Obama's foreign policy is to reconcile Israel and Saudi Arabia, the improved relationship itself shows just how terrified both countries are of a nuclear Iran.  Add in the Kurds, who are already very friendly with the Israelis and are getting friendlier with Saudi Arabia, and a general war in the Middle East becomes much more likely.  The world in general is very reminiscent of 1914, when a minor league assassination set off World War I and millions died.  In the face of all this, commenters on this site are talking about John Bolton's mustache.  A new level in Liberal/Progressive ignorance. 

http://triblive.com/opinion/featuredcommentary/5373872-74/iran-iraq-obama#axzz2qHvjuswy

Iran: False Equivalence

Liberals like to ask why Israel is allowed nukes but Iran is not.   Countries need to sign treaties to be bound by them.  Israel never signed the Non-Proliferation treaty.  Iran did.  Also, Israel does not have government orchestrated demonstrations organized around the slogans "Death to America" and "Death to Israel."  Iran does.  Israel is not the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.  Iran is.  Israel is no threat to the United States.  Iran is.  I could go on at length, but willful ignorance is hard to break through.  However Liberals, answer me this.  Where would you rather be a citizen, Israel or Iran?  Have you ever been to either one or even talked to anyone who lived in either place? 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/363497/how-bad-deal-it-ask-bibi-elliott-abrams

Treat Iranians Like Republicans

I would feel more confident about the Smartest President Ever if he treated the Russians, Syrians and Iranians as if they were Tea Party Republicans. Unfortunately, The One seems to believe that John Boehner is a bigger threat to our Republic than the Iranian Ayatollahs. 

Liberals ask, "What's our interest in supporting a dictator that oppresses women and religious minorities?" They ask a very good question. I have no idea why the One supported Morsi in Egypt on his quest to become a dictator, with Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood buddies burning down a number of Christian churches in the process. I also don't understand why our Maximum Leader did not do anything to encourage the 2009 Iranian protest against their theocratic and dictatorial government, whose slogan is, "Death to America." Perhaps The One We Were Waiting For, having been groomed by the Chicago Machine, believes that fixed elections are nothing to get upset about?  Clearly our Dear Leader favors the Iranians and the Muslim Brotherhood because their policies towards women and gays are so enlightened, in contrast to Congressional Republicans. 

Arms Race: Missile Defenses v Rogue State Nukes

The Iranians are threatening Israel with annihilation, not the other way around.  Iranian demonstrators have been encouraged by their government for years to chant “Death to America” and “Death to Israel”  ever since 1979.  The ayatollahs say they will wipe Israel off the map.   My guess, based on the Israeli view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to, especially when the Iranians explicitly threaten them.  The fact is that Israel has nuclear capable ballistic missiles that can reach Iran.  My guess, based on their view of the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust, is that Israel will use their nukes if they have to.   Israel also has a formidable air force.  However, it's likely that only the US, and not Israel, has the capability to significantly damage Iran's nuclear program with conventional weapons.  If the US does not take care of the Iran threat, then we may force the Israelis to use their missiles with nuclear warheads to preclude an Iranian nuclear breakout.  The only thing that could stop Israel from attacking is a significant missile defense capability.  So as it stands now, it’s a race between Israeli missile defense and Iranian nuclear weapon development.  The president says that all options are on the table.  However, he seems to be signaling, with all of his diplomacy, that the US will sit this one out militarily.  Does that seem like a smart thing to do?  

The US needs robust missile defenses as well.  Missile defenses make a small number of ICBM's less valuable.  They would tend to discourage North Korea from trying to build enough ICBM's to be effective as a credible threat to the US, because the cost would be prohibitive for them.  The argument that US missile defenses might offend the Russians and Chinese is appeasement pure and simple.  The liberal line on these issues is always in favor of spending less on defending ourselves, so we can spend more on domestic "investment," like Solyndra and Fisker.  It's how liberals buy their votes, but  it is not a rational approach to defending ourselves.

Article on need for missile defenses

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346579/our-much-needed-missile-defense

Description of Israeli Ballistic Missile Capability

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ICBMs