Why We Went To War In Iraq.

NOTE: The Public Law that authorized war against Iraq in 2002 never stated that Iraq had nuclear weapons at that time.  Nonetheless, it was clear, according to intelligence reports at the time, that Iraq had a clear desire to develop a nuclear weapon capability.  Read Public Law 107-243 below for the reasons that we went to war with Iraq. 

PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY 
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 


116 STAT. 1498 PUBLIC LAW 107–243—OCT. 16, 2002 

Oct. 16, 2002 

[H.J. Res. 114] 
Public Law 107–243 

107th Congress 
Joint Resolution 

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. 

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against 
and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a 
coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order 
to defend the national security of the United States and enforce 
United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq; 

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into 
a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to 
which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate 
its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the 
means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for 
international terrorism; 

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United 
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery 
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and 
a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had 
an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was 
much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence 
reporting had previously indicated; 

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, 
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify 
and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and 
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal 
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998; 

Whereas in Public Law 105–235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded 
that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs 
threatened vital United States interests and international 
peace and security, declared Iraq to be in ‘‘material and unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations’’ and urged the President 
‘‘to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
compliance with its international obligations’’; 

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security 
of the United States and international peace and security in 
the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations by, among other things, 
continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and 
biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons 
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations; 

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations 
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression 
of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace 
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, 
or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, 
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property 
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability 
and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other 
nations and its own people; 

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing 
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, 
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President 
Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United 
States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; 

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility 
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, 
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are 
known to be in Iraq; 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist 
organizations, including organizations that threaten the 
lives and safety of United States citizens; 

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, 
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition 
of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist 
organizations; 

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use 
weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi 
regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise 
attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide 
them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme 
magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and 
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by 
the United States to defend itself; 

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) 
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent 
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities 
that threaten international peace and security, including the 
development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or 
obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation 
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression 
of its civilian population in violation of United Nations 
Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors 
or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994); 

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against 
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1), Congress has authorized 
the President ‘‘to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order 
to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 
661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’’; 

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that 
it ‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals 
of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent 
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against 

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1),’’ that Iraq’s repression of 
its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 688 and ‘‘constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, 
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’’ and that Congress, 
‘‘supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688’’; 

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338) 
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic 
government to replace that regime; 

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
United States to ‘‘work with the United Nations Security Council 
to meet our common challenge’’ posed by Iraq and to ‘‘work 
for the necessary resolutions,’’ while also making clear that ‘‘the 
Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just 
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be 
unavoidable’’; 

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war 
on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist 
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass 
destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 
cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions 
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the 
United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that 
all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be 
enforced, including through the use of force if necessary; 

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war 
on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding 
requested by the President to take the necessary actions against 
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including 
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, 
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 
11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations; 

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue 
to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists 
and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, 
or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided 
the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
harbored such persons or organizations; 

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to 
take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international 
terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in 
the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force 
(Public Law 107–40); and 

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States 
to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf 
region: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘‘Authorization for 
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’’. 

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS. 

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
the President to— 

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq 
and encourages him in those efforts; and 

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. 

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. 

(a) AUTHORIZATION.—The President is authorized to use the 
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary 
and appropriate in order to— 

(1) defend the national security of the United States against 
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq. 

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the 
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force 
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter 
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising 
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his 
determination that— 

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic 
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
protect the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead 
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions regarding Iraq; and 

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent 
with the United States and other countries continuing to take 
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist 
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or 
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist 
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. 

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.— 

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with 
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory 
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 
War Powers Resolution. 

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in 
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War 
Powers Resolution. 

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS. 

(a) REPORTS.—The President shall, at least once every 60 days, President. 
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint 
resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of 
authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts 
that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, 
including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation 
Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–338). 

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT.—To the extent that the 
submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with 
the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this 
joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress 
pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution 
(Public Law 93–148), all such reports may be submitted as 
a single consolidated report to the Congress. 

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—To the extent that the information 
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military 
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102–1) is included in 
the report required by this section, such report shall be considered 
as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution. 

Approved October 16, 2002. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46): 

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107–721 (Comm. on International Relations). 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002): 

Oct. 8, 9, considered in House. 

Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate. 
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002): 

Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement. 

Iran Does Not Belong in the U.N -- Neither Does The U.S.

Iran doesn't belong in the UN or IMF

Any member that persistently violates the U.N. Charter can be expelled. That certainly sounds like Tehran.

John R. Bolton, Mark Wallace, Kristen Silverberg

The Wall Street Journal

August 14, 2012

A traffic controller gestures in front of a banner, referring to President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, during the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development summit in Rio de Janeiro June 21, 2012.

Article Highlights

• The Iranian nuclear crisis has dragged on for 20 years despite UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions @AmbJohnBolton
• While many believe military force will stop Iran, even Tehran doesn’t appear to take such a threat seriously.
• One step the international community hasn’t taken is ostracizing Iran from the UN and the IMF. This needs to change.
  
  

The Iranian nuclear crisis has dragged on for some 20 years, despite multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions and a phalanx of national sanctions. Many believe that only military force will stop Iran, but even now Tehran doesn't appear to take such a threat seriously.

One step short of force that the "international community" has been unwilling to take is ostracizing Iran from international organizations, such as the U.N. and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This needs to change.

Iran's participation in these organizations undermines their foundational principles. The U.N. Charter provides that membership is open to "peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and . . . are able and willing to carry out these obligations." The Islamic Republic clearly doesn't fit this bill.

Iran has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, using anti-Semitic, anti-Israel rhetoric in violation of the Genocide Convention. It has been repeatedly sanctioned by the Security Council and condemned by the International Atomic Energy Agency for violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has also been cited for aiding the Assad regime's slaughter of Syrian citizens. Tehran regularly hosts Holocaust-denial conferences. 

Yet the U.N. has embraced Iranian leaders. Iran was elected unanimously to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women in 2010. This is a country that flogs women for violating Islamic dress norms and stones them for adultery. Soon after Iran's election, the commission singled out just one country for condemnation: Israel. During a recent U.N. anti-narcotics conference in Tehran, Iran accused "Zionists" of spreading illegal drugs around the world.

Just this past year, Iran was elected to a leadership role in the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty negotiations—despite its history of arming state sponsors of terror and terrorist groups.

Iran undermines other international organizations, too. Currently, the IMF holds an account with Bank Markazi, Iran's central bank, totaling some $1 billion. Both the U.S. and the European Union have sanctioned that bank for its money-laundering activities, including funneling money to Iran's military and nuclear weapons-related facilities.

Iran's participation in these organizations is unacceptable. Tehran should be held accountable for its defiance of international law. Article 6 of the U.N. Charter explicitly provides for the expulsion of any member "which has persistently violated the Principles contained" therein. That certainly sounds like Iran.

A lesser penalty, under Article 5, is suspension "from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership." The U.N. also has the power to reject the credentials of a delegation, as it did in 1974 with regard to the South African delegation, citing its "constant violation of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Adopting any of these measures would be extraordinarily difficult. Suspension from the U.N. requires approval by the Security Council and a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly. But there are real advantages in making Iran's friends stand out in the sunshine. Will Russia and China veto a suspension resolution in the council, as they have recently vetoed sanctions resolutions against the Assad dictatorship in Syria? If so, let them reveal the true character of their own regimes, and the behind-the-scenes reality of the U.N. itself.

Both the U.S. and the EU have adopted laws prohibiting their taxpayers' revenues from lining the pockets of Iranian regime officials and institutions. Yet at the same time, both heavily fund the U.N. and the IMF, facilitating Iran's destabilizing activities.

Iran's continued participation in the U.N. and the IMF affords it international legitimacy and platforms to advance its agenda—gutting economic sanctions, among them—and undermines important Western foreign-policy interests.

This September, New York will be forced once again to host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who will undoubtedly use his speech before the U.N. General Assembly to spew anti-U.S. and anti-Semitic rhetoric. It is time for individual countries to prohibit international institutions from ignoring their own principles.

This is no longer just about Iran flouting the rules and undermining the integrity of international institutions. These institutions are directly enabling Iran's diplomatic and financial efforts to advance its pursuit of nuclear weapons and destabilizing activities in the Middle East. Many governments and private companies have taken seriously their responsibility to pressure Iran to change course. International organizations must now do the same.
Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007). Ms. Silverberg and Mr. Wallace are the president and CEO, respectively, of United Against Nuclear Iran.

Obama Ushers In A Nuclear Iran

President's Policy On Iran's Nuclear Program Lacks Coherence

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

 Posted 09/13/2012

There are two positions one can take regarding the Iranian nuclear program: (a) it doesn't matter, we can deter them, or (b) it does matter, we must stop them.

In my view, the first position — that we can contain Iran as we did the Soviet Union — is totally wrong, a product of wishful thinking and misread history.

But at least it's internally coherent.

What is incoherent is President Obama's position. He declares the Iranian program intolerable — "I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon" — yet stands by as Iran rapidly approaches nuclearization.

A policy so incoherent, so knowingly and obviously contradictory, is a declaration of weakness and passivity. And this, as Anthony Cordesman, James Phillips and others have argued, can increase the chance of war.

It creates, writes Cordesman, "the same conditions that helped trigger World War II — years of negotiations and threats, where the threats failed to be taken seriously until war became all too real."

This has precipitated the current U.S.-Israeli crisis, sharpened by the president's rebuff of the Israeli prime minister's request for a meeting during his upcoming U.S. visit. Ominous new developments; no Obama response. Alarm bells going off everywhere; Obama plays deaf.

The old arguments, old excuses, old pretensions have become ridiculous:

1. Sanctions. The director of national intelligence testified to Congress at the beginning of the year that they had zero effect in slowing the nuclear program. Now the International Atomic Energy Agency reports (Aug. 30) that the Iranian nuclear program, far from slowing, is actually accelerating. Iran has doubled the number of high-speed centrifuges at Fordow, the facility outside Qom built into a mountain to make it impregnable to air attack.

This week, the IAEA reported Iranian advances in calculating the explosive power of an atomic warhead. It noted once again Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its weapons testing facility at Parchin, and cited satellite evidence of Iranian attempts to clean up and hide what's gone on there.

The administration's ritual response is that it has imposed the toughest sanctions ever. So what? They're a means, not an end. And they've had no effect on the nuclear program.

2. Negotiations. The latest, supposedly last-ditch round of talks in Istanbul, Baghdad, then Moscow has completely collapsed. The West even conceded to Iran the right to enrich — shattering a decade-long consensus and six Security Council resolutions demanding its cessation.

Iran's response? Contemptuous rejection. Why not? The mullahs have strung Obama along for more than three years and still see no credible threat emanating from the one country that could disarm them.

3. Diplomatic isolation. The administration boasts that Iran is becoming increasingly isolated. Really? Just two weeks ago, 120 nations showed up in Tehran for a meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement — against U.S. entreaties not to attend. Even the U.N. secretary-general attended — after the administration implored him not to.

Which shows you what American entreaties are worth today. And the farcical nature of Iran's alleged isolation.

The Obama policy is in shambles. Which is why Cordesman argues that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran without war is to establish a credible military threat to make Iran recalculate and reconsider. That means U.S. red lines: deadlines beyond which Washington will not allow itself to be strung, as well as benchmark actions that would trigger a response, such as the further hardening of Iran's nuclear facilities to the point of invulnerability and, therefore, irreversibility.

Which made all the more shocking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's dismissal last Sunday of the very notion of any U.S. red lines. No deadlines. No bright-line action beyond which Iran must not go. The sleeping giant continues to slumber. And to wait. As the administration likes to put it, "for Iran to live up to its international obligations."

This is beyond feckless. The Obama policy is a double game: a rhetorical commitment to stopping Iran, yet real-life actions that everyone understands will allow Iran to go nuclear.

Yet at the same time it does nothing, the administration warns Israel sternly, repeatedly, publicly, even threateningly not to strike the Iranian nuclear program. With zero prospect of his policy succeeding, Obama insists on Israeli inaction, even as Iran races to close the window of opportunity for any successful attack.

Not since its birth six decades ago has Israel been so cast adrift by its closest ally.

Terrorists: Coming To A Neighborhood Near You

Iran's Hezbollah Creeping Toward Our Doorstep

Posted 09/07/2012

IBD Editorial 

National Security: With America's focus turned to elections, enemies are not resting idle. Well beneath the radar, terrorists such as Hezbollah and their anti-U.S. allies are creeping toward our border.

National Security: With U.S. focus on elections, America's enemies are not resting idle. South of our border, Marxist-Islamofascist activity is surging. From beneath the radar, the war on terror is creeping toward our border. A first clue that all is not quiet on the southern front can be found in the latest news:

— U.S. Marines are reportedly hunting for Los Zetas cartel members in south Guatemala in "Operation Martillo."

— Two CIA employees were accidentally shot by Mexican Federales at a checkpoint ahead of a drug training session in Mexico.

— Navy SEALs are reportedly on a mission to hunt down Sinaloa Cartel kingpin Chapo Guzman, who may be hiding out in Mexico, northern Honduras or the tri-corner area of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil.

These are not ordinary law enforcement operations, like the large-scale Drug Enforcement Administration task force that destroyed Colombia's Medellin Cartel in 1993.

They are national security operations, led by the Departments of State and Defense, whose strategic statements say their first mission is to defend the U.S. and its interests.

The operations seem to have the appearance of hunting for drugs. But their real mission is to end the threat of cartels that are not only menacing small Central American states, but also acting as critical intermediaries for terror groups such as Hezbollah.

The Iranian-linked terror organization uses cartels to run arms into the U.S. and draws backing from de facto state sponsors of terror such as Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela, creating an unholy triangle. In testimony to Congress last year, Gen. Douglas Fraser noted that the Southern Command was watching for "the implications of activities of nations such as Iran in our area of responsibility."

According to Jon Perdue, author of a new book, "The War of All The People," these anti-American states, the drug cartels and Islamofascist terrorists have now forged an alliance not seen since the '70s or '80s.

"Three impending events — the Venezuelan elections in October, the U.S. elections in November and what Israel discerns as the closing window of opportunity in which a strike on Iran would have a reasonable chance of success — are all increasing the pressure to know what's going on south of our border," Perdue told IBD.

"Iran's proxies have been in the region for enough time to pose a cross-border threat to the U.S. in retaliation for any Israeli strike."

U.S. officials in far-flung places are sounding the same warning of possible attacks:

"We are increasingly concerned about Hezbollah's activities on a number of fronts, including their stepped-up terrorism campaign around the world with their members' and supporters' growing involvement in large-scale, international criminal activity," said an anonymous U.S. diplomatic source in an interview last month with Lebanon Now.

"Our assessment is that Hezbollah and Iran will both continue to maintain a heightened level of terrorist activity and operations in the near future."

That makes the recent news from Israeli Radio that Iran has set up and supplied a Hezbollah training camp for 30 terrorists in Nicaragua near the Honduran border all the more significant. The base serves as a "meeting point for drug cartels" to acquire weapons and launder money, Israeli Radio says.

Incredibly, it's not the first such base in our hemisphere. Iran already has a forward operating base in north Venezuela, where a hostile, anti-American regime is a magnet for terror and drug groups.

Eighty percent of Colombian cocaine is shipped through the country, presumably with help from the Venezuelan military. The U.S. lists Venezuela's defense minister, Henry Rangel Silva, as a drug kingpin with ties to Hezbollah and FARC.

As a result, national security agencies are involved in an improbable surge of drug operations at least partly fueled by Iran's terror presence. As defense agencies move into drug cases, DEA drug ops are morphing into national security cases as well.

"Last month," according to DEA administrator Michele M. Leonhart, "DEA seized $150 million from the Lebanese-Canadian Bank after gathering evidence that the bank laundered Venezuelan- and Colombian-origin drug money on behalf of Los Zetas and Hezbollah." The bank "played a key role in facilitating money laundering for Hezbollah controlled organizations around the globe."

DEA also thwarted a plot by Iranian state agents who conspired with Los Zetas — again — to kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C., in October 2011.

"Hezbollah are absolute masters at forming close relationships with existing crime groups around the world that helps them facilitate what they need to do to move their agenda forward," Michael Braun, former DEA chief of operations, told CNS News last February. "I don't want to sound too crude, but I think there's going to be hell to pay in the not-too-distant future."

This is worth noting, because the U.S. has been caught off guard in the past. The Obama administration has already cut the military budget for these operations and is reluctant to confront Hezbollah's sponsors such as Venezuela even when the evidence of its complicity is obvious. Venezuela, President Obama has said, "is not a threat." He also leaves our border unguarded.

Iran, however, seems to be looking for a way to a wedge to project power. The mounting evidence is that as we sleep, it has found one through the rogue states and drug cartels of Latin America.

Obama: Appeaser-in-Chief!

The wages of appeasement           

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: December 15

“Ask Osama bin Laden . . . whether I engage in appeasement.”

— Barack Obama, Dec. 8

Fair enough. Barack Obama didn’t appease Osama bin Laden. He killed him. And for ordering the raid and taking the risk, Obama deserves credit. Credit for decisiveness and political courage.

However, the bin Laden case was no test of policy. No serious person of either party ever suggested negotiation or concession. Obama demonstrated decisiveness, but forgoing a non-option says nothing about the soundness of one’s foreign policy. That comes into play when there are choices to be made.

And here the story is different. Take Obama’s two major foreign policy initiatives — toward Russia and Iran.

The administration came into office determined to warm relations with Russia. It was called “reset,” an antidote to the “dangerous drift” (Vice President Biden’s phrase) in relations during the Bush years.

In fact, Bush’s increasing coolness toward Russia was grounded in certain unpleasant realities: growing Kremlin authoritarianism that was systematically dismantling a fledgling democracy; naked aggression against a small, vulnerable, pro-American state (Georgia); the drive to reestablish a Russian sphere of influence in the near-abroad and; support, from Syria to Venezuela, of the world’s more ostentatiously anti-American regimes.

Unmoored from such inconvenient realities, Obama went about his reset. The signature decision was the abrupt cancellation of a Polish- and Czech-based U.S. missile defense system bitterly opposed by Moscow.

The cancellation deeply undercut two very pro-American allies who had aligned themselves with Washington in the face of both Russian threats and popular unease. Obama not only left them twisting in the wind, he showed the world that the Central Europeans’ hard-won independence was only partial and tentative. With American acquiescence, their ostensibly sovereign decisions were subject to a Russian veto.

This major concession, together with a New START treaty far more needed by Russia than America, was supposed to ease U.S.-Russia relations, assuage Russian opposition to missile defense and enlist its assistance in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

Three years in, how is that reset working out? The Russians are back on the warpath about missile defense. They’re denouncing the watered-down Obama substitute. They threaten not only to target any Europe-based U.S. missile defenses but also to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad. They threaten additionally to withdraw from START, which the administration had touted as a great foreign policy achievement.

As for assistance on Iran, Moscow has thwarted us at every turn, weakening or blocking resolution after resolution. And now, when even the International Atomic Energy Agency has testified to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia declares that it will oppose any new sanctions.

Finally, adding contempt to mere injury, Vladimir Putin responded to recent anti-government demonstrations by unleashing a crude Soviet-style attack on America as the secret power behind the protests. Putin personally accused Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of sending “a signal” that activated internal spies and other agents of imperial America.

Such are the wages of appeasement. Makes one pine for mere “drift.”

Even worse has been Obama’s vaunted “engagement” with Iran. He began his presidency apologetically acknowledging U.S. involvement in a coup that happened more than 50 years ago. He then offered bilateral negotiations that, predictably, failed miserably. Most egregiously, he adopted a studied and scandalous neutrality during the popular revolution of 2009, a near-miraculous opportunity — now lost — for regime change.

Obama imagined that his silver tongue and exquisite sensitivity to Islam would persuade the mullahs to give up their weapons program. Amazingly, they resisted his charms, choosing instead to become a nuclear power. The negotiations did nothing but confer legitimacy on the regime at its point of maximum vulnerability (and savagery), as well as give it time for further uranium enrichment and bomb development.

For his exertions, Obama earned (a) continued lethal Iranian assistance to guerrillas killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, (b) a plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by blowing up a Washington restaurant, (c) the announcement just this week by a member of parliament of Iranian naval exercises to shut down the Strait of Hormuz, and (d) undoubted Chinese and Russian access to a captured U.S. drone for the copying and countering of its high-tech secrets.

How did Obama answer that one?

On Monday, he politely asked for the drone back.

On Tuesday, with Putin-like contempt, Iran demanded that Obama apologize instead. “Obama begs Iran to give him back his toy plane,” reveled the semiofficial Fars News Agency.

Just a few hours earlier, Secretary Clinton asserted yet again that “we want to see the Iranians engage. . . . We are not giving up on it.”

Blessed are the cheek-turners. But do these people have no limit?

War Is On The Way!

Gaffney: Rise of Sharia Law Will Bring War to the Middle East

Monday, October 24, 2011 06:56 PM

By: Martin Gould and Kathleen Walter

War is on its way in the Middle East as Muslim countries are determined to force a showdown over the future of Israel, Ronald Reagan’s assistant defense secretary Frank Gaffney warned in an exclusive Newsmax.TV interview.

“I’m afraid there’s a war coming, a very serious, perhaps cataclysmic regional war,” he said. “It will be presumably over, at least in part, the future existence of the state of Israel. It may involve all of its neighbors, as they have in the past, attacking Israel to try, as they say, to drive the Jews into the sea.

“It may involve the use of nuclear weapons,” Gaffney predicted. “But whatever form it takes and whenever it occurs, it is unlikely to be contained to that region, and we must do everything we can to prevent freedom’s enemies from thinking they have an opportunity to engage in that kind of warfare.”

That means standing “absolutely, unmistakably” as one with Israel and doing everything to prevent Iran getting its hands on nuclear weapons.

Gaffney, who now heads up the nonprofit Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., was speaking on the day that the “moderate” Islamist party Ennahda claimed victory at the ballot box in Tunisia and the day after Libya’s new rulers declared that country will be run on Islamic principles and under Sharia law.

Gaffney does not believe Ennahda is really a moderating force. “I don’t believe there is such a thing as a moderate Islamist party,” he said. “The challenge with Islamists is that they seek to impose what they call Sharia on everybody, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

“They may, as a matter of tactical expediency, choose to do so in incremental ways, often nonviolently, at least initially.

“The problem is that, because ultimately they must — according to Sharia, according to what they believe is God’s will — make everyone feel subdued in order to achieve their God-mandated direction, they will not remain moderate. They will not be satisfied with anything less than the ultimate supremacy of Sharia and they certainly will not resist the use of violence when it becomes expedient to get their way.”

Gaffney, who writes a regular column for Newsmax, foresees a rising tide of Islamist governments growing throughout Middle East and North Africa and spreading even further.

“We’re witnessing not just the violent kind of jihad that these Islamists believe God compels them to engage in, but also, where they must for tactical reasons, a more stealthy kind, or civilizational jihad as the Muslim Brotherhood calls it. We’re witnessing that playing out, not only in places in the Middle East but also in Europe, in Australia, in Canada and here in the United States as well,” he said.

The spread of Sharia, which Gaffney said often is referred to as “Communism with a god,” is “the most urgent and grievous challenge we face as a free people.

“Those who follow this program of Sharia believe that God is directing them to engage in jihad or whatever form of warfare is necessary to accomplish their goals . . . .Through stealth, they have successfully penetrated important parts of the free world including our own government and civil society institutions.”

The Obama administration has to stop “embracing” the Muslim Brotherhood, Gaffney said.

“This is legitimating our enemies,” he said. “It is facilitating their influence operations and their penetration and it greatly increases the prospect that they will be successful at what the Muslim Brotherhood’s own documents indicate is their desire, which is to destroy western civilization from within.”

Gaffney noted that Ennahda had won what appears to be a clean election in Tunisia, but that doesn’t mean there ever will be another vote there.

“The problem is not simply democracy. People are pointing to Tunisia as a perfect example of democracy at work. Democracy is fine if all you want is one-man-one-vote one-time. That is precisely what the Muslim Brotherhood and its like-minded Islamist friends want.”

The Obama administration must apply pressure to ensure that democracy has a future there and elsewhere in the region, Gaffney said.

“The president and his administration are not even pursuing that,” he said. “What we are likely to wind up with, not just in Tunisia, not just in Libya, not just in Egypt, but probably in due course in Syria — as we have in Lebanon, as we have in Gaza and probably will have down the road in Yemen, Bahrain, maybe Saudi Arabia — is the takeover, the unmistakable takeover, perhaps through the ballot box, of people who will not seek or allow others freedom, who will impose Sharia and who will use whatever resources they amass as a result, not only to suppress their own people, but to endanger us.”

"Iran And The Bomb" Coming To A Theater Near You!

Iran to Test First Nuclear Bomb by 2012?

Reports claim that Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered the testing program to proceed immediately.

June 9, 2011 - 11:00 am - by 'Reza Kahlili'

According to sources in the Revolutionary Guards of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei has ordered them to proceed immediately with the completion of the Iranian atomic bomb project, including testing and arming of missiles with nuclear payload.

Ayatollah Khamenei’s decision is based on a belief by the Islamic regime’s strategists that both America and Israel lack the courage and the ability to dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities. The Iranian regime believes that America and Israel fear Iran’s retaliation, and that it has had them frozen in place and confused as to what action to take next. They have concluded that this presents a great opportunity for the Iranian regime to become a nuclear-armed state without any interference from the outside.

Khamenei offered the same message on June 1 at the Imam Hussein Military Academy:

The Great Satan, since the early days of the Revolution, has mobilized its military, financial, propaganda, and political empire to defeat the Islamic Revolution and the Iranian nation, but the political realities in Iran and the region show that the U.S. has been brought to its knees by the Islamic Revolution.

He further stated that the failure of the U.S. policies in the Middle East and the promising revival of Islam in the region are the realization of the divine promises to the Iranian nation — and that the recent events herald the realization of God’s promise that Islam and the Muslims will ultimately triumph.

The authorization for nuclear weapons by the supreme leader has been followed by the recent announcement by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI), Fereidoon Abbasi, that Iran will start the installation of more advanced centrifuges at the previously secret site, the Fordo plant near the city of Qom. He also said that this will triple Iran’s production of 20 percent enriched uranium.

A chilling article titled “The Next Day after the Iranian Nuclear Bomb Test Will be a Normal Day” recently appeared on an Iranian website, Gerdab.ir, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. This is the first time that an outlet belonging to the Iranian government openly talked about a nuclear bomb — Iran has insisted repeatedly that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The commentary states that after the Iranian nuclear bomb test, everyone will be able to go about their business as usual. The explosion will not be so strong as to bring destruction to the neighboring areas, though not so weak that the Iranian scientists have difficulties with their test. But it will be a day for Iranians to be filled with pride. The article even predicts playfully how Western media will cover the event.

Most chilling is how the article ends with a quote from the Quran (Al Enfal 60):

And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah.

Iran, which was for years enriching only to the 3.5 percent level due to fear of retaliation by the international community, started its enrichment to the 20 percent level last year after the Obama administration’s soft approach toward the regime. Twenty percent enrichment is 80 percent of the way to weaponization.

Iran currently has over 3600 kilograms of enriched uranium at 3.5 percent, enough for three nuclear bombs if enriched further. It also has an announced inventory of 40 kilograms of 20 percent enriched uranium. If true, it will take the Iranians only two months to further enrich that stockpile into 20 kilograms of enriched uranium over 90 percent, sufficient for one nuclear warhead.

The IAEA revealed in a recent report that Iran has sought and experimented with certain technologies that could make a type of atom bomb known as an implosion device, considered more advanced than the bomb America used on Hiroshima.

I revealed on May 31 that the Revolutionary Guards are now in possession of two nuclear capable warheads, with eight more to be delivered within the next ten months. The Guards expect to have at least two fully armed nuclear warheads before the end of the current Iranian calendar year, March 2012.

America and its European allies have continuously tried to change the behavior of the regime with incentives and negotiations. The Iranian leaders refused every time to accept any offer, buying time in order to get to the point of no return. The jihadists in Iran will have their nuclear bomb, and we have only ourselves to blame.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.