Skip to comments.John Bolton Is Good for the U.S. and Bad for Iran
Posted on 04/02/2018 1:28:46 PM PDT by Kaslin
Judging by the rhetoric coming out of Tehran, John Boltons appointment as Americas National Security Advisor is the worst thing that ever happened.
The Secretary of Irans Supreme National Security Council labeled Boltons appointment a matter of shame.
The Chairman of the Iranian Parliament's Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy declared, "The use of hardline elements against the Islamic Republic of Iran shows that the Americans seek to exert more pressure on Iran.
First Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri opined, They (US officials) are wrong to assume that the Iranian nation will give in to their threats against the Islamic Republic.
The Fars News Agency, the mouthpiece of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) editorialized, Bolton advocates a foreign policy that exaggerates threats, belittles diplomacy, shows contempt for international institutions, and is quick to use violence Bolton wants to shred the Iran nuclear deal and bomb Iran, whose policy has consistently favored stability . Experts and policy-makers in Tehran see the Trump theater as no more than a bluff as the U.S. lacks the needed economic, political and military potentials and legitimacy to go for yet another adventurism in the world.
Irans protests validate the wisdom of making John Bolton Americas National Security Advisor. If Iran thinks hes bad, he must be good. One thing is certain: the United States will no longer pursue a policy of appeasement toward the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Since 2008, U.S. policymakers have been bending over backwards to accommodate the mullahs in Tehran. President Obamas decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq left that country at the mercy of Iran. Obamas capitulation in Syria allowed Iran (and Russia) to keep Assad in power and to wantonly massacre hundreds of thousands of Syrians with impunity. The lifting of sanctions as part of the nuclear deal put $150 billion into the pockets of Irans leaders, which they have used to finance the terrorist depredations of the IRGC and to bankroll their proxies in Lebanon, Yemen and Bahrain.
Irans regional neighbors are not the only ones who have suffered from the revolutionary fervor of the Islamic Republics leaders. Iran is the most repressive country in the Middle East. It executes more of its citizens, per capita, than any other country in the world. Ninety percent of all executions throughout the Middle East take place in Iran. The recent uprisings in over 140 cities throughout Iran show that the people are sick to death of this theocratic dictatorship. They long for freedom, justice, democracy and the rule of law.
Whatever flaws one might ascribe to John Bolton, inconsistency is not among them. He has been advocating a tough policy toward Tehran for the past two decades. Struan Stevenson, a former member of the European Parliament from Scotland, put it best when he wrote of Boltons appointment: Chamberlains policy encouraged Hitler to go to war. Obamas Iran policy encouraged the regime to export its terrorism and meddling in the region. There is only one way to stop the current conflicts and wars in the region: adopting a firm line with the Iranian regime and supporting the popular uprising for a democratic change in Iran.
With John Bolton, America finally has a senior official who will translate these wise words into action.
Critics in Iran and the United States have condemned Boltons affiliation with the exiled Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (PMOI/MEK). Here, John Bolton is in good company. A bipartisan group of American luminaries and international leaders have lent their support to the group. They include, among others, Senators Joe Lieberman and Bob Torricelli; Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Speaker Newt Gingrich; retired Generals James Jones, Hugh Shelton, and James Conway; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge; former Attorney General Mike Mukasey; former FBI Director Louis Freeh; former Democratic National Committee Chairs Ed Rendell and Howard Dean; former Ambassadors Bill Richardson, Lincoln Bloomfield Jr., Marc Ginsberg, and Kenneth Blackwell; former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner; former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi; former Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird, and former Algerian Prime Minister Sid Ahmed Ghozali.
Support for opposition political movements is not a crime, and the United States has a long history of helping the victims of political persecution. Over the course of four months, during the summer of 1988, the Iranian regime executed an estimated 30,000 men, women and juveniles who had been imprisoned for their affiliation with MEK. During Operation Enduring Freedom in Iraq, the U.S. Government pursued a policy of protecting MEK members there from attack by Iranian-affiliated forces.
On at least two issues, there should be no doubt: accommodating the Iranian regime will not bring peace to the region and the people of Iran want change. With John Bolton at the helm of the National Security Council, there is at last a glimmer of hope that the period of appeasement is over and that the mullahs days are numbered.
Seems to me that an “Islamic Republic” is a contradiction in terms—an impossibility.
Yes. Bolton was a good choice.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, Russia's Vladimir Putin and Turkey's Tayyip Erdogan meet in Sochi, Russia November 22, 2017. (photo credit: SPUTNIK/MIKHAIL METZEL/KREMLIN VIA REUTERS)
The Three Amigos
The FIRST and most historically sensible piece on Bolton's appointment. Remember this guy in the photo?
Errrr...right! Just before WWII and 60 million+ DEAD. So the trade back in the 30s was very real risk of SOME lost to avoid a larger conflict that took over 60 MILLION and devastated much of Europe and two atomic bombs to Japan! Yes, let's FIRST be absolutely sure who means to do us harm - then let them know their aggression WILL NOT STAND.
I've heard rumors that Hitler confided to associates that if the other nations had stopped him when he re-militarized the Rhineland in March of '39, he'd have understood that they were serious and he'd have rethought his plan of further violation of the Treaty of Versailles. What is needed today is some serious thought - and action - vis-a-vis these modern would-be Hitlers. (And, yes, the onerous provisions of that Treaty that literally created Hitler needed discussion but it's too late for that now. It's NOT too late, however, to remind today's bad actors of the dire consequences they face if they persist.)
I know all about the Military-Industrial Complex and General Smedley Butler and "War is a Racket". But, it's better to nip this crap EARLY rather than later! Frankly, the bigger the war, the bigger the payday for the M-I Complex. What say we deal with this EARLY rather than later and, at the same time, let the M-I Complex know that we're on to their game as well?
Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland in 1936, not 1939.
But yes, if the French had responded forcefully at that time it would have changed the course of Hitler’s career, and might well have brought down his govt.
I just read that Bolton is in favor of Sodomite marriage posing as “whatever”. Another social leftist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.