David Brooks, "The Sexual Politics of 2016": Obama Can Turn the Other Cheek but Can't Walk on Water

Tweet

Remember Obama's Nowruz greetings to Iran earlier this month ("the fact that we are now talking to each other on a regular basis, for the first time in decades, gives us an opportunity, a window, to resolve other issues")? Well, if Obama thinks that Iran changed its tune as a consequence of his message (in February, tens of thousands of persons chanted "Death to America! in Tehran's Azadi Square to celebrate the 1979 Islamic Revolution)," he is mistaken. Supreme Leader Khamenei told Iranians on the first day of the Persian New Year that America is moving "in a bid to be able to reinstate their previous hegemony."

And then there was Obama's trip to Cuba and his clowning at a baseball game in Havana while Brussels burned. Did Obama's visit alter anything? Not a chance. As soon as Obama left the island, Fidel Castro wrote:

"[W]e don't need the empire to give us any presents.

. . . .

Obama gave a speech in which he used the most syrupy words.

. . . .

Nobody has any illusion that the people of this noble and selfless country will surrender glory and rights and the spiritual wealth that has come through the development of education, science and culture."

Ouch, that stings! Obama obviously can turn the other cheek, but he can't walk on water. Obviously, there will be no miracle of transformation, i.e. the turning of despots into humanitarians.

All of which brings me to David Brooks's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Sexual Politics of 2016" in which he tells us of a "great redefinition of masculinity" . . . until along came Donald Trump. Brooks writes:

"Today’s ideal man honors the women in his life in whatever they want to do. He treats them with respect in the workplace and romance in the bedroom. He is successful in the competitive world of the marketplace but enthusiastic in the kitchen and gentle during kids’ bath time.

. . . .

Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is a revolution in manners, a rejection of the civility codes of the educated class. As part of this, he rejects the new and balanced masculine/feminine ideal that has emerged over the past generation. Trump embraces a masculine identity — old in some ways, new in others — built upon unvarnished misogyny.

. . . .

Trump represents the spread of something brutal. He takes economic anxiety and turns it into sexual hostility. He effectively tells men: You may be struggling, but at least you’re better than women, Mexicans and Muslims."

I agree with David; however, I would go a step further: Trump represents the anti-Obama. Whereas Obama is quick to turn the other cheek, Trump refuses to apologize. Whereas Obama surrounded himself with female advisers and heads of department, Trump demeans women.

Brooks's conclusion:

"But in the realm of cultural politics, Trump voters do need to be held to account. They are participating in a descent into darkness. They are supporting a degrading wrong. This is the world your daughters are going to grow up in."

Again, I agree with David, but there can be no denying that the rise of Trump is a direct consequence of a "progressive," i.e. far-left, Obama presidency, which left middle-class white men in the lurch, with increasing numbers opting for suicide. Remember how Obama once said, back in 2007, that he could "bring the country together"? It didn't happen, and we are now observing the backlash.

Khamenei: America Will Be Reduced to Rubble Within 25 Years

Tweet

As reported by Iran's Choskhor News Agency, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatolah Khamenei stated today that America will be reduced to rubble within 25 years. Khamenei's declaration followed his earlier pronouncement that "God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years."

Did Khamenei actually say this about the "Great Satan"? No (at least not to any media outlet). But what would be the response of Democratic senators and representatives if he had made such a declaration? Would they continue to approve of Obama's nuclear deal with Iran? Would they explain to their constituents that Khamenei's threat was pure rhetoric intended for his hardline supporters? In fact, they wouldn't dare.

Yet, notwithstanding Khamenei's prediction of Israel's demise within 25 years, Democrats remain apathetic. After all, Israel is half a world away, and who cares if a steadfast ally is being threatened by the removal of nuclear restrictions upon Iran over the course of the coming years? It's more important to flesh out the president's legacy.

Go figure . . .

Obama Surrenders to Khamenei: What Happened to "No Deal Is Better Than a Bad Deal"?

Tweet


Yesterday, we learned that Prime Minister Netanyahu had stated to an Israeli cabinet meeting:

"We see before our very eyes that the world powers are retreating from the red lines they set for themselves recently and publicly. There is no reason to rush to sign this bad deal, which becomes worse every day. It’s not too late to go back and make demands that will really prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, and will prevent it from receiving funds that will sponsor its aggression, its expansion, and the terror attacks that it carries out all over the world."

What was the reason for Netanyahu's concern? It wasn't clear. Today, however, we know the answer. DEBKAfile now informs us of three horrifying concessions made by Obama to Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei:

"1. After barring International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections of suspect sites for years, Tehran will now be allowed to submit a paper with answers to queries about its past clandestine activities at those military sites, such as suspected tests of nuclear bomb detonators and explosives.

. . . .

2. Obama and Kerry have withdrawn the 'any time, anywhere' stipulation for snap inspections of suspect nuclear facilities, as mandated by the Additional Protocol signed by Iran. They now agree that international monitors must first submit a request to an 'Iranian Committee' (not even a joint US-Iranian committee) for advance permission to inspect nuclear facilities.

. . . .

3. Washington has backed down on its insistence on predicating sanctions relief on Iran’s compliance with its obligations under the final accord. After Tehran countered with a demand for the sanctions to be lifted immediately upon the signing of the accord, the Obama administration agreed to remove them in three stages:

a) Straight after the deal is signed.

b) After ratification of the accord by the US Congress and Iranian Majlis. This process is expected to take place by the end of 2015, and so Iran will win two multibillion windfalls this year without being required to meet any obligations beyond its signature. Obama counts on the support of 34 US senators. In any case, Congress is not empowered to reject or delay the deal.

c) All remaining sanctions will be lifted when implementation of the accord begins."

This amounts to little less than abject surrender on the part of Obama. Is there anyone willing to oppose America's president? Could it be that Obama is continuing to seek revenge against Netanyahu? You will recall how Obama and Kerry sought to impose Turkish and Qatari mediation upon Netanyahu during Israel's war with Hamas last summer. With a year and a half remaining of his presidency, Obama is revealing his true colors.

Thomas Friedman, "Cold War Without the Fun": The World Stands in Awe of America's Big Wallet?

Tweet

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Cold War Without the Fun," Thomas Friedman concludes:

"In short, the attraction of the U.S. economy and the bite of U.S. sanctions are more vital than ever in managing the post-post-Cold War game of nations, including bringing Iran to nuclear talks. We may be back to traditional geopolitics, but it’s in a much more interdependent world, where our economic clout is still a source of restraint on Moscow and Beijing. Putin doesn’t disguise his military involvement in Ukraine for nothing; he’s afraid of more U.S. banking sanctions. China doesn’t circumscribe its behavior in the South China Sea for nothing; it can’t grow without exporting to America. It’s not just our guns; it’s our butter. It’s why we should be expanding U.S.-shaped free-trade deals with Asia and Europe, and it’s why the most important source of stability in the world today is the health of the U.S. economy. We can walk softly only as long as we carry a big stick — and a big wallet."

Yes, Supreme Leader Khamenei is frightened to death of America's "big wallet," as evidenced by his demands for further concessions from Obama, even as the nuclear deal being contemplated by the US and its P5+1 partners only extends Iran's atomic bomb breakout time from two months to three months.

And as regards that "big wallet," US national debt now stands at an unsustainable $18.3 trillion. My guess is that China, which holds about eight percent of US national debt, is growing more worried about an ultimate default by the American government and less worried about the sale of goods manufactured by slave labor to American consumers.

Khamenei Demands Further Concessions From Obama

Tweet

As the June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 nears, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei declared on Tuesday from Tehran:

"Termination of the sanctions should depend on the fulfillment of Iran's undertakings; they should avoid saying that we should do our undertakings and then the Agency (IAEA) needs to verify them before the sanctions are removed, (because) we absolutely do not accept such a thing.

. . . .

We oppose the condition that fulfillment of the opposite side's undertakings depend on the IAEA (verification) report because the Agency has proved time and again that it is not independent and fair; hence we have a pessimistic view about it."

Khamenei also repeated his opposition to "unconventional inspections, interrogation of Iranian figures and inspection of military centers."

Will Khamenei's last-minute demands wring further concessions from the first invertebrate ever to inhabit the Oval Office? As matters stand now, the proposed agreement will, as explained by Professor Alan J. Kuperman in a New York Times guest op-ed entitled "The Iran Deal’s Fatal Flaw," only lengthen Iran's breakout time from "a little under two months" to three months. However, Obama is desperate, and "No deal is better than a bad deal" is no longer being trumpeted from the White House or the State Department.

Stay tuned . . .

[A comment published in response to Prof. Kuperman's op-ed by the "moderators" of The New York Times:

"'Showering Iran with rewards for making illusory concessions poses grave risks.'

Only to a Zionist is eliminating illegal, petty, vindictive, (Zionist-dictated) sanctions 'showering Iran with rewards.'

More than their racism, it is the mendacity of the Zionists that is so so appalling."

As stated by Dr. Martin Luthor King: "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You're talking anti-Semitism."

Yup, anti-Semitism continues to raise its ugly head at The New York Times.]

E.J. Dionne Jr., "How to read the Iran debate": Wearing His Naivete on His Sleeve

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "How to read the Iran debate," E.J. Dionne Jr. writes:

"I also see the possibility — not a probability, but a chance — that an agreement could open up Iran and strengthen those inside pushing for more freedom. Lest you think this is foolish, consider that both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher thought that betting on Mikhail Gorbachev could lead to change in the Soviet Union. ('I like Mr. Gorbachev,' Thatcher said. 'We can do business together.') Many of their traditional supporters thought they were dangerously wrong, possibly naive. But they were right.

Moreover, I don’t think that we should give Saudi Arabia or other Sunni states a veto over our foreign policy, and I do think that, in the long run, Israel will be safer, not in greater danger, if we can contain Iran in this way. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphatically disagrees, but I suspect that if the United States gets the deal it wants, many American supporters of Israel will take issue with him."

Dionne would compare Khamenei with Gorbachev? I don't know anyone in the West who is saying, "I like Khamenei" and "We can do business together."

"If the United States gets the deal it wants"? The US already has not gotten the deal it wants. As The Washington Post recently declared in an editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals":

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

Moreover, given that Iran strenuously disputes the claims of the US State Department fact sheet describing the so-called Lausanne "understanding," we can expect further concessions from Obama and friends in order to reach a final agreement by the end of June.

Yes, Dionne wears his naivete on his sleeve.

Jackson Diehl, "Obama’s next earthquake": As Part of His Legacy, Is Obama Seeking to Break Israel?

I have always believed that Obama is a radical in moderate's clothing. A moderate doesn't "hang around" with the likes of Rashid Khalidi, the Reverend Wright, and former Weatherman Bill Ayers. How the American electorate chose to ignore this "baggage," which would sink any other candidate, is a testimony to David Axelrod's public relations wizardry. Now, as we edge toward the end of Obama's second term, he is beginning to cast away some of his "moderate" disguise, particularly as he undertakes measures to ensure the enfeeblement of Israel.

Regarding Iran, Obama doesn't care if Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei responds to chants of "Death to America" by declaring "Of course yes, death to America." Obama doesn't care if Khamenei continues to call for the annihilation of Israel. And Obama doesn't care if Iran has effectively achieved suzerainty over large swaths of Iraq, Syria and Yemen. After all, Obama has dedicated what is left of his presidency to establishing the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals and stones to death women accused of adultery, as a "very successful regional power."

And even as Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency, describes Obama's Middle East policy as one of "willful ignorance," Obama persists in capitulating to all of Khamenei's terms in order to reach a Swiss cheese-like arrangement in Lausanne, purportedly reining in Iran's nuclear development program.

As reported today by The New York Times in an article entitled "Iran Backs Away From Key Detail in Nuclear Deal" by David E. Sanger and Michael R. Gordonmarch, Iran is now backing away from a requirement to ship their atomic fuel to Russia, two days away from the deadline for an interim agreement. Obviously, Khamenei knows that Obama is desperate to do this deal and that he will find some new means to appease him, so as to avoid new Congressional sanctions.

But making Iran into a regional power appears to be only one of the measures being pursued by Obama in order to bring Israel to its knees. In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s next earthquake," Jackson Diehl today tells us:

"Now Obama is contemplating going forward with a [UN] resolution that was drafted last year by Secretary of State John Kerry and his Mideast negotiations team at the State Department. The language was drawn up in response to efforts by the Palestinians and France to win support for Security Council resolutions following the collapse of Kerry’s attempt to get Israeli and Palestinian assent to a 'framework agreement.'

. . . .

Why go forward with a text that both sides would spurn? Obama’s hope would be that his initiative could win unanimous support from the Security Council and thus set the terms of reference for a future settlement, presumably under different Israeli and Palestinian leaders. He could eventually become the grandfather of Middle East peace; at a minimum, diplomats who now talk of the 'Clinton parameters' from 2000 would henceforth speak of the 'Obama framework.'

There would be other effects, of course, among them an unprecedented breach in U.S.-Israeli relations and a vast acceleration of the global movement to boycott and sanction the Jewish state in the likely event it resisted the U.N. terms. But judging from Obama’s demeanor in assailing Netanyahu last week, the president might welcome that legacy, too."

With the entire Middle East embroiled in chaos, America's Narcissist-in-Chief, convinced of his own omniscience, wishes to add the "Obama framework" to this seething cauldron? Isn't there someone in his inner circle capable of telling him that he has already done enough damage in the region, bringing American credibility and deterrent power to a unfathomable nadir?

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "The Method to Obama’s Middle East Mess," Ross Douthat claims that Obama is shifting from a "Pax Americana Model" in the Middle East to an "offshore balancing system":

"In an offshore balancing system, our clients are fewer, and our commitments are reduced. Regional powers bear the primary responsibility for dealing with crises on the ground, our military strategy is oriented toward policing the sea lanes and the skies, and direct intervention is contemplated only when the balance of power is dramatically upset."

However, if sea lanes remain important pursuant to this offshore balancing system, the Strait of Hormuz, adjoining Iran and controlling shipment of much of the world's oil, is now under Khamenei's control. Moreover, with Shiite Houthi rebels under the patronage of Iran gaining control of Yemen, the Strait of Bab al-Mandab, controlling access to the Suez Canal from the Arabian Sea, could also fall under Iran's thumb.

Yes, Obama has made a muddle of the world, and it remains to be seen if future American presidents will be able to repair the damage. Israel? It is already counting the days until Obama leaves office.

Fareed Zakaria, "Israel’s threat from within": Killing Israel Softly?

Do you recall Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei's November 8, 2014  tweet calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Well, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel’s threat from within," Obama acolyte Fareed Zakaria would have us know that Iran seeks to destroy Israel, but not by means of war. Zakaria writes:

"Let me be clear. Iran’s supreme leader is a radical, anti-Western ideologue whose Twitter feed is filled with hate and hostility — and he means Israel only harm. But he is also a canny politician who has survived and thrived in Iran’s complex political system. What is the message he is sending?

Khamenei speaks often about the destruction of Israel. But he rejects doing so by means of a war. 'We recommend neither a classical war by the army of Muslim countries nor to throw migrated Jews at sea.' (It’s good to know that he is against drowning Jews en masse!) Akbar Ganji, Iran’s best-known dissident, who was jailed for criticizing Khamenei, argues that the supreme leader has been consistent in this position for years — no war, certainly not by Iran."

"No war, certainly not by Iran"? Fascinating. Consider how Hassan Nasrallah, who heads Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, declared in 2002: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Okay, that statement was made more than a decade ago, but in the meantime, Iran has supplied Hezbollah with some 70,000 missiles, some of which are capable of striking the entirety of Israel.

Consider also how, two months ago, Iranian Revolutionary Guards General Mohammad Ali Allah-Dadi, accompanied by senior Hezbollah operatives, was killed by an Israeli strike while on a "reconnaissance" tour in the Golan Heights opposite the Israeli border. The Iranian general wasn't there on a mission to pick wild flowers.

Turning to Gaza, the covenant of Hamas, which is armed by Iran, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. As reported in an August 5, 2014 International Business Times article entitled "Gaza Strip Crisis: Iran Admits Supplying Missile Technology to Hamas" by Vasudevan Sridharan:

"A top Iranian military official has admitted that Tehran supplied military technology to the Palestine-based militant group Hamas in its battle against Israel.

'Palestinian resistance missiles are the blessings of Iran's transfer of technology. We need to transfer defensive and military technology to Palestinians so that they can build weapons under the blockade and defend themselves,' Mohsen Rezaei, a senior official at the Expediency Discernment Council, told the state-run Arabic channel Al-Alam."

Iran plans to "annihilate" Israel by peaceful means? Only Barack Obama could possibly believe Zakaria's rubbish.

* * * *

In other news, we now know that US Secretary of State is "deeply disturbed" by reports that Assad attacked the Syrian town of Sarmin with chlorine. Kerry declared, "While we cannot yet confirm details, if true, this would be only the latest tragic example of the Assad regime's atrocities against the Syrian people, which the entire international community must condemn."

Ah yes, the international community, including Khamenei and Putin, should "condemn" the attack. That should send shudders up Assad's spine.

But whereas Kerry is "disturbed" by this latest use of chemical weapons by Assad, Obama plans to punish Netanyahu for emerging victorious in Israel's parliamentary elections by withholding support for Israel at the UN.

Go figure.

Jackson Diehl, "A deal bigger than Iran": My Query, Would Obama Have Inked a Deal With Hitler?

What are the intentions of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Supreme Leader Khamenei regarding Israel and world Jewry? Actually, they are fairly obvious. Khamenei, in a recent tweet, called for the annihilation of Israel. Iran holds annual cartoon competitions mocking the Holocaust. Iran was responsible for the bombing of the Jewish community center in distant Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 people. Hassan Nasrallah, who heads Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy in Lebanon, declared in 2002: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." And the covenant of Hamas, which is armed by Iran, calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

Obama would have us ignore these declarations and the actions of Iran and its proxies, as he seeks to finalize an agreement with Iran, providing the mullahs with a nuclear arsenal within 10 years (seven years if Tehran has its way in the negotiations). Obama either believes, or would have us believe, that Iranian President Rouhani is a "moderate," who needs support in a purported battle with Iranian "hardliners." Do you recall Obama's "historic" 15-minute phone call to Rouhani in September 2013, while Rouhani was en route from the United Nations to the airport? Well, the Iranian poet Hashem Shaabani was subsequently hanged in January 2014 after the "moderate" Rouhani approved the death sentence.

What do I think when someone threatens to kill me? Unlike Obama, I believe him. On the other hand, it is also possible that a narcissistic Obama, who listened apathetically to the anti-Semitic harangues of the Reverend Wright for 20 years without objection, doesn't care about threats to Israel or world Jewry.

Query: Do Iranian threats to annihilate Israel apply only to Israel and the Jews? I don't think so. While campaigning for Iran's presidency, the "moderate" Rouhani declared on May 8, 2013 in the city of Karaj:

"We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."

Apparently, Obama would also discount this threat.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "A deal bigger than Iran," Jackson Diehl concludes:

"The point is that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are not just about whether it will obtain a nuclear weapon; they are about the future of the Middle East. Notwithstanding the White House spin, the outcome is unlikely to lead to war in the near future. But it may determine who wins the long-term contest for influence between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf."

Diehl is wrong. First, Iran is already involved in wars throughout the Middle East: in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Moreover, the consequences of an Obama deal with Khamenei are anything but "long-term." Does Diehl honestly believe that Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will stand idly by as Iran develops an arsenal of ICBMs (such development does not even fall within the framework of the P5+1's discussions with Iran)? If Obama is responsible for inking a deal with Iran that gives the mullahs nuclear weapons within a decade, these nations will also be certain to initiate nuclear weapons development programs of their own. And if in a decade, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey all have atomic weapons, I can promise you that they will be used. After all, there have been dozens of Middle East conflicts over the past several decades not even including wars involving Israel.

In the event of a Sunni/Shiite conflict, might a nuclear-tipped Iranian ICBM also fall on New York or Washington, thus speeding the coming of the Mahdi, who will will lead Shiite Muslim armies to victory over infidels in the final days? You would have to be quite naive to discount this possibility. After all, Iran is a country that stones to death women and hangs homosexuals.

Now back to the question posed in the title of this blog entry: If the year was 1938 and Obama stood in the place of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, would America's president have sought "peace for our time"? Would he have found Nazi "moderates" with whom to talk? Would he have signed a conciliatory deal with Hitler? I'm certain of it. In fact, during his 2013 second inaugural address, Obama declared (my emphasis in red):

"And we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice — not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice."

The way to attain "peace in our time" is to reach out to monsters who sentence poets to death? Again, I don't think so. Instead, you stop them in their tracks while you still can.

David Ignatius, "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible": Echoing Obama

In response to the open letter to Iran from 47 Republican senators, David Ignatius, in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "GOP senators’ letter to Iran is dangerous and irresponsible," writes:

"To this assertion of the impermanence of an agreement, Khamenei and other hard-liners might well respond with an Iranian version of 'Amen.' Indeed, they could use the Senate GOP letter as a rationale for abandoning aspects of the deal they find too constraining. That would force the United States to consider military action. The casus belli, bizarrely, might begin with an argument made by Senate Republicans."

"Khamenei and other hard-liners"? What Ignatius doesn't understand is that there is only one person calling the shots in Iran and that's Khamenei. Everyone else in Iran is subservient to him.

Iranian "moderates"? Who are they? Iranian President Hassan Rouhani? As reported in December 2014 in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Execution rate accelerates in Iran under Rouhani" by Hagai Lap:

"The rise in the number of trials and death sentences during the rule of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, runs counter to the expectations of improved human rights in Iran following the rule of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The number of death trials have risen by 16% in comparison with last year of Ahmadinejad's presidency, which is the highest in 15 years."

And let's not forget Rouhani's pre-election interview in which he boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is a "moderate"? Last week he said the Netanyahu regime "should be annihilated."

Of course, Ignatius is only echoing what Obama told reporters yesterday: "I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran," but why should this surprise us?

Jackson Diehl, "In appealing to Congress, Netanyahu places a dicey political bet": Sorry, It's Not All About Politics

Obama is in a panic. Netanyahu has decided to reveal to Congress details of the pending deal between the P5+1 and Iran, and it's not a pretty picture. Although Iran might delay assembly of its first nuclear weapon until after Obama finishes his second term as president, Iran will likely possess its first atomic bomb within five years. Within a decade, when the restrictions of the agreement no longer apply, Iran will have ICBMs with nuclear warheads capable of striking the US.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "In appealing to Congress, Netanyahu places a dicey political bet," Jackson Diehl today concludes:

"If Netanyahu is defeated, U.S.Israeli relations may return swiftly to comity, as happened after the 1999 and 1992 elections. If the election produces a centrist coalition of the Likud and Labor parties, tensions might also drop. But if Netanyahu succeeds in breaking the past pattern and forms another right-wing coalition, an alliance that has been the heart of American engagement in the Middle East will, like the U.S. relationship with Iran, be headed toward an upheaval."

Yes, Netanyahu is a political animal, but the Iranian nuclear threat transcends politics. And although Senator Dianne Feinstein can call Netanyahu "arrogant" and declare that he does not speak for her as a Jew, he will be speaking for me before Congress at a time when Obama is putting the pieces in place for a second holocaust. Moreover, if Feinstein believes that the Israeli Labor Party, should it come to power, will ignore the Iranian threat in the years to come, she is sorely mistaken.

Before proclaiming other people's arrogance, Feinstein might wish to consider taking the time to read Ray Takeyh's Washington Post opinion piece, also of today's date, entitled "The strategic genius of Iran’s supreme leader." Takeyh, born in Tehran and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes:

"Khamenei is also a first-rate strategic genius who is patiently negotiating his way to a bomb.

After years of defiance, Khamenei seems to appreciate that his most advantageous path to nuclear arms is through an agreement.

. . . .

As Khamenei presses toward an accord that will place him in an enviable nuclear position, he can also be assured that technical violations of his commitments would not be firmly opposed. Once a deal is transacted, the most essential sanctions against Iran will evaporate. It is unlikely that Europeans, much less China or Russia, would agree to their reconstitution should Iran be caught cheating. And as far as the use of force is concerned, the United States has negotiated arms-control compacts for at least five decades and has never used force to punish a state that has incrementally violated its treaty obligations."

Then there is also today's declaration by the director general of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano:

"The Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities."

Obama doesn't know all of this? Of course he does. The man is a radical, who, nearing the end of his presidency, is prepared to shed any pretense of moderation. Remarkably, 81-year-old Feinstein, blinded by partisanship and age, continues to march in lockstep behind him, singing hosannas.

David Brooks, "Converting the Ayatollahs": Only a Naif Such as Obama Would Not Take Khamenei at His Word

Some 80 years ago, Hitler told anyone who would listen that he was intent upon annihilating world Jewry. No one listened, including Europe's Jews, two-thirds of whom would be killed by Nazi Germany during the ensuing decade. Today, Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, busy holding competitions to mock the Holocaust, is repeatedly telling us that he intends to annihilate Israel. Should we believe him? I do. Obama doesn't.

Today, in an important New York Times op-ed entitled "Converting the Ayatollahs," David Brooks concludes:

"If the Iranian leaders believe what they say, then United States policy should be exactly the opposite of the one now being pursued. Instead of embracing and enriching Iran, sanctions should be toughened to further isolate and weaken it. Instead of accepting a nuclear capacity, eliminating that capacity should be restored as the centerpiece of American policy. Instead of a condominium with Iran that offends traditional allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel, the U.S. should build a regional strategy around strengthening relations with those historic pillars.

It’s hard to know what’s going on in the souls of Iran’s leadership class, but a giant bet is being placed on one interpretation. March could be a ruinous month for the Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel could weaken U.S.-Israeli relations, especially on the Democratic left. The world might accept an Iranian nuclear capacity. Efforts designed to palliate a rogue regime may end up enriching and emboldening it."

Convert Khamenei? Make this monster a friend and ally of the West? Cause him to love his neighbors as himself? Compel this leopard to change his spots? I don't think so.

As I stated earlier today, given that Iran stones to death women accused of adultery, hangs homosexuals, persecutes Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, abuses Sunni Muslims, funds Hezbollah, supports Assad, brutally quashes political opposition, and perpetrated the bombing of a Jewish community center in distant Argentina resulting in the deaths of 87 persons, only a fool would not take Khamenei at his word.

Obama's Secret Negotiations With Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei

The Wall Street Journal's recent revelation that Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei sent a secret "respectful" but noncommittal letter to Obama in response to the American president's overtures seeking cooperation in the fight against ISIS should come as no surprise. In 2013, secret meetings were held in Oman between ranking Obama administration personnel and Iranian officials in an effort to jump-start the P5+1's negotiations with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. These stealthy communications and discussions are just further proof of Obama's willy-nilly determination to reach agreement with Khamenei no matter what the price.

The most recent communications between Obama and Khamenei come at a time when Iranian-backed Houthis have taken control over much of Yemen, a country which had been viewed by Obama as a successful cornerstone in his fight against ISIS.

Iranian-backed militias are indeed battling ISIS in Iraq; however, they do not want American bombing assistance. Moreover, these militias are also committing atrocities against Sunni Muslims in Iraq.

But most troublesome is Obama's insistence upon reaching agreement with a regime that stones to death women accused of adultery, hangs homosexuals, persecutes Baha'is, oppresses Kurds, abuses Sunni Muslims, and brutally quashes political opposition, while threatening to annihilate Israel. Is the Khamenei regime any better than ISIS? Answer: No.

We can only hope that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in his March 3 speech before Congress will expose Obama's furtive negotiating channels and obscene concessions, e.g., 6,500 centrifuges spinning enriched uranium, intended to facilitate detente with the Islamic Republic of Iran without consideration of the long-term consequences.

Charles Krauthammer, "Crusaders and appeasers": "Lassitude and Passivity" or Ineptitude and Depravity?

You would have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to understand that Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East is unraveling. As reported yesterday by Katie Pavlich in a Townhall article entitled
"Yemen Falls Apart: Marines Forced to Destroy Weapons, U.S. Embassy Evacuated, Al Qaeda Seizes Military Base":

"Despite President Obama claiming in September that U.S. strategy used to combat terrorism in Yemen has been a 'success,' so successful in fact that it should be used to defeat ISIS, the country continues to fall apart. Late yesterday the United States evacuated the U.S. embassy in Yemen and Marines were bizarrely ordered by the State Department to destroy issued weapons on their way out. The British and French also closed and evacuated their embassies yesterday citing safety and security concerns."

Meanwhile, as Yemen is divided up by al-Qaeda and the Iranian backed Houthis, Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and his minions are voicing open contempt for Obama. As you will recall, in November 2014, the P5 + 1 and Iran announced that they would extend their "Joint Plan of Action" for reaching agreement over Iran's nuclear program. It was determined that the parties would conclude an understanding of general principles for a deal by March 24, 2015 and then finalize the details by July 1, 2015. However, in a speech earlier this week before Iranian air force commanders, Khamenei declared that he was not interested in reaching a framework agreement in March:

"I do not favor remarks that we should agree on some principles and later on details. I dislike it when they say that there should be a deal on general principles at one stage and then we can talk about details. Given our experience with the other side, they will use this as a tool for repeatedly making excuses regarding details. If they want a deal, they should cover both generalities and details in a single session, instead of leaving details for later and separating generalities which are vague and leave room for different interpretations. This is not logical."

Ouch!

And then there was the statement made last Wednesday by the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri:

"Iran's missile programs and defense capability, irrespective of their purpose, are not negotiable in any foreign circle.

. . . .

Gone are the days when the US was a superpower, but some still haven't realized it."

General Jazayeri's comments came in response to Jen Psaki's claim two weeks ago that Iran's ballistic missile program was also being negotiated.

In a cogent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Crusaders and appeasers," Charles Krauthammer observes:

"His secretary of defense says, 'The world is exploding all over.' His attorney general says that the threat of terror 'keeps me up at night.' The world bears them out. On Tuesday, American hostage Kayla Mueller is confirmed dead. On Wednesday, the U.S. evacuates its embassy in Yemen, a country cited by President Obama last September as an American success in fighting terrorism.

Yet Obama’s reaction to, shall we say, turmoil abroad has been one of alarming lassitude and passivity.

. . . .

The Islamic State burns to death a Jordanian pilot. Iran extends its hegemony over four Arab capitals — Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and now Sanaa."

"Lassitude and passivity" or, in fact, ineptitude and depravity?

David Ignatius, "Proceed with caution on Iran diplomacy": Ignorance and Ignomy

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Proceed with caution on Iran diplomacy," David Ignatius asks what should the United States and Iran do if their negotiations over Iran's nuclear development program should fail. Ignatius tells us that nothing should be done:

"[A]t least initially, both sides would be wise to do nothing. It’s like a labor negotiation where both parties conclude that it’s in their interest to keep working by the old rules even after a contract has expired."

Why should the US do nothing? Apparently, Ignatius thinks that by doing "something," the US might undermine Iran's so-called moderate president, Hassan Rouhani:

"That raises another delicate question for Washington if talks break down: how to avoid collapsing the authority of President Hassan Rouhani, who has favored negotiations, and reinforcing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s suspicion that the talks were just a U.S. trick."

Or in other words, Ignatius is buying into Iran's "good cop/bad cop" routine. But in reality, Rouhani would not dare to contradict the desires of Khamenei. And if anyone seeks evidence of Rouhani's true intentions, he/she need only have a look at the pre-election interview in which Rouhani boasted how, in the past, he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Ignatius claims that Iran would control its nuclear weapons ambitions even in the event that a deal is not reached:

"Iran must also reckon with the dangerous prospect that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and perhaps Turkey would begin their own bomb-making programs, in a post-negotiation world."

But Ignatius is ascribing rational thinking to a regime that hangs homosexuals, stones to death women accused of adultery, discriminates against its Kurdish minority, commits atrocities against Baha'is, and continues to threaten Israel with annihilation. Does David really think that Tehran is concerned that the Saudis might build their own atomic weapons many years hence? Khamenei would also threaten the House of Saud with extinction.

By now it should be clear to all, except Obama and his die-hard friends, that Western rules do not govern the behavior of radical Islam. Oops, I used the words "radical Islam." Pardon my faux pas.

Robert Kagan, "Five reasons Netanyahu should not address Congress": Jews Should Again Walk Passively Into the Gas Chambers?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Five reasons Netanyahu should not address Congress," Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, explains why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu should not address Congress at the invitation of House Speaker Boehner in March. First and foremost, Kagan declares that such an address would be "inappropriate."

"Inappropriate"? Why? Because, as explained by Kagan, "Allies don’t go big-footing around in each other’s politics." Kagan tells us how, in 1793, it was unacceptable for Citizen Genêt to seek support for revolutionary France in newly independent and neutral America. However, Kagan fails to mention that France and its citizens at the time were not facing threats of extermination. He also forgets to tells us of a letter from Texas Senator Ted Cruz and New York Representative Lee Zeldin sent on Thursday to Secretary of State John Kerry asking "for information regarding media reports that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being used to fund efforts to influence upcoming elections in Israel."

Oh sure, Kagan makes passing reference to the Iranian threat to Israel:

"In the case of Iran, Israel is uniquely threatened and, as a U.S. ally, it deserves a serious and appropriate hearing here. But it is a mistake for Congress to treat Israel as if it were fundamentally different from all other U.S. allies, some of whom also face dire threats."

Israel is "uniquely threatened"? Consider the following  recent tweet from Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Yup, I suppose we can call that being "uniquely threatened," but it's not enough for Kagan to acquiesce to an address by the Israeli prime minister before Congress. After all, Netanyahu's mere words pose a "unique threat" to Obama's compulsive need to reach a deal with Iran over its nuclear weapons development program. You will recall Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes's assertion regarding such an agreement:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

If you have the time, have a look at Charles Krauthammer's Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Do we really mean ‘never again’?" Krauthammer writes today:

"On the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz, mourning dead Jews is easy. And, forgive me, cheap. Want to truly honor the dead? Show solidarity with the living — Israel and its 6 million Jews. Make 'never again' more than an empty phrase. It took Nazi Germany seven years to kill 6 million Jews. It would take a nuclear Iran one day.

The Iranian bomb is a national security issue, an alliance issue and a regional Middle East issue. But it is also a uniquely Jewish issue because of Israel’s situation as the only state on earth overtly threatened with extinction, facing a potential nuclear power overtly threatening that extinction."

Me? I have never voted for Netanyahu, but I want him speaking before Congress and delineating the Iranian threat. I don't give a damn about Kagan's concern with what is appropriate or not. On the 70th anniversary of Auschwitz, my family and I are not prepared to walk passively into the gas chambers, and I apologize in advance to the Obama administration for any offense or discomfort that Netanyahu's factual exposition might cause.

New York Times Editorial, "Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran": Setting a New Benchmark for Depravity

In an editorial entitled "Saving the Nuclear Deal With Iran," The New York Times begins by declaring (my emphasis in red):

"Twice recently, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, has acted boldly in support of his biggest political gamble, pursuit of a nuclear agreement with the major powers. In a speech last Sunday on Iran’s troubled economy, he argued that Iran will never enjoy sustained growth if it is isolated from the rest of the world. Three weeks earlier, he made clear that he would confront Iran’s hard-liners in his efforts to clinch a deal in which Iran would agree never to produce a nuclear weapon in return for the lifting of crippling international sanctions.

But Mr. Rouhani is not the only leader trying to keep a potential agreement from being savaged by domestic opponents. President Obama has a similar problem in Congress, where Senators Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey, and Mark Kirk, a Republican from Illinois, are expected to introduce legislation that could torpedo any deal by imposing new sanctions on Iran, including tighter controls on its battered oil industry."

Whoa! The Times would truly compare senators Menendez and Kirk with Iran's hardliners at a time when Iran continues to incarcerate Baha'is, hang homosexuals and oppress women? And then there was that recent tweet from Khamenei calling for the "annihilation" of Israel:

"This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated."

Or in other words, in the aftermath of the recent terrorist and anti-Semitic attacks in Paris, the editorial board of the Times sees fit to ask the US to find common ground with the Khamenei regime. Why? Because as was noted by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a possible nuclear deal with Iran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

Needless to say, there is no mention by the Times how "good cop" Rouhani has overseen a spike of executions in Iran. As reported in an October 14, 2014 Washington Times article entitled "Iran executions surge amid U.S. nuclear talks" by Guy Taylor:

"Iran’s abuse of human rights, including the hangings of hundreds of dubiously convicted citizens — in several cases minors — has soared over the past year, even as the Obama administration has yielded to Tehran’s demand for an extension in precarious international talks over the Islamic republic’s disputed nuclear program.

. . . .

During the 14 months since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani took office, Iranian authorities have carried out at least 936 executions, according to data compiled by the Connecticut-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

. . . .

An advance copy provided to The Washington Times notes the executions of at least 22 women since Mr. Rouhani took office and highlights more than a dozen cases of people younger than 18 accused of crimes and hanged. One case involved Iraj Nassiri, whom the report says was 'less than 15' when Iranian authorities accused him of 'premeditated murder.'"  

Likewise, there is no mention by the Times of how Rouhani, in a pre-election interview, bragged how he had lulled the West into complacency while radically expanding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

A pity the author of this Times editorial is able to spew this sewage under a veil of anonymity. 

Obama's Secret Correspondence With Khamenei: American Dogs to Stage "Poop Down" at White House

Americans yawned when it was revealed on Thursday that President Obama sent a secret letter last month to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei, seeking Iranian assistance against ISIS in exchange for more lenient terms involving a possible nuclear deal with the P5+1. Well, not everyone is yawning. In fact, there are those who are barking.

America's dogs are enraged by the revelation that canine owners in Iran could soon be facing fines and up to 74 lashes. As reported yesterday in a Times of Israel article entitled "Iran dog lovers face lashes, fines," a draft Iranian bill contemplates draconian action against those keeping dogs:

"Iran’s morality police, who deploy in public places, have previously stopped dog walkers and either cautioned them or confiscated the animals.

But if the new bill is passed by parliament then those guilty of dog-related offences could face lashes or fines ranging from 10 million rials to 100 million rials ($370 to $3,700 at official rates).

Patting dogs or coming into contact with their saliva is seen as 'najis' — direct contact and behaviour that leaves the body unclean — in the Islamic republic.

'Anyone who walks or plays with animals such as dogs or monkeys in public places will damage Islamic culture, as well as the hygiene and peace of others, especially women and children,' the draft law states."

Well, it has become known to JG Caesarea that America's dogs don't intend to take any of this lying down. Intent upon staging a public display of their dismay over attempts by Obama to appease Khamenei notwithstanding Iran's horrific crackdown against fellow canines, American dogs of all breeds are planning a massive "poop down" in front of the White House later this month. Stay tuned for further details concerning this protest as they become known.

Roger Cohen, "Iran, the Thinkable Ally": Sick!

Today, in an editorial evidencing extreme ignorance entitled "The Fundamental Horror of ISIS," The New York Times declares:

"The mind rebels at the reports of cruelty by the Islamic State, the beheadings, crucifixions, tortures, rapes and slaughter of captives, children, women, Christians, Shiites. The evidence is there on YouTube, in gruesome images and the cries of witnesses too numerous to deny or doubt.

. . . .

[N]o Islamist group before, no other offshoot of Al Qaeda or Hamas or Hezbollah, has so nakedly adopted a cult of sadism, not only as a weapon in its stated goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate but as the very reason for its existence.

. . . .

Even to call what this group does 'crimes against humanity' is to put a legalistic spin on raw evil; as Roger Cohen, the New York Times columnist, wrote in a recent piece about ISIS, there is no 'why' in the heart of darkness."

No other Islamist group "has so nakedly adopted a cult of sadism"? Rubbish! The editorial board of The New York Times has chosen to turn a blind eye to Iran's stoning to death of women, hanging of homosexuals, and persecution and oppression of Baha'is, Kurds, Christians and Sunnis. Believe it or not, Iran, which has the second highest annual number of executions after China, sentences its citizens to death for such "crimes" as "enmity toward God."  Last week, Mohsen Amir Aslani was hanged in Iran for "corruption on earth and heresy in religion" after daring to declare that Jonah was not swallowed by a whale.

In its editorial, The New York Times would make a moral compass of columnist Roger Cohen. Cohen? You will recall that during the first six months of 2009, while engaged in a campaign to seek rapprochement between the United States and Iran, Cohen took the position that Iran is not totalitarian. Ignoring Iran's executions and systematic persecution of minorities, Cohen, in a June 2009 op-ed entiled "Iran Awakens Yet Again," declared:

"For months now, I’ve been urging another look at Iran, beyond dangerous demonization of it as a totalitarian state. Seldom has the country looked less like one than in these giddy June days."

But much to Cohen's chagrin, this opinion piece was soon followed by Iran's brutal suppression of the Green Revolution in July 2009, which shattered his hopes for a Pulitzer Prize.

But Cohen was not about to quit. In 2013, Cohen again told us, "Iran is no Nazi-like totalitarian state with a single authority but an authoritarian regime subject to liberalizing and repressive waves."  Once more, not a totalitarian state with no single authority? Oh really? As reported by Joshua Norman in a 2011 CBS News article entitled "The world's enduring dictators: Sayyid Ali Khamenei, Iran":

"Ayatollah Khamenei was president of Iran from 1981 to 1989, when he ascended to the role of Supreme Leader. While current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may garner all the international headlines, make no mistake about it, Khamenei is the Islamic Republic of Iran's spiritual leader and highest authority until he chooses to give up the post, dies, or is deposed. His veto is final in Iranian political affairs.

Iran has long been plagued by widespread allegations of abuse, torture and summary executions of political opponents. Public executions are also regularly held for those accused of drug use and possession, murder, prostitution and being gay. In late 2009, hundreds may have been killed after government forces crushed a mass popular uprising over the disputed presidential elections that year which saw Ahmadinejad reelected. Iran was also accused of using child soldiers to crush more recent protests against the hard-line government."

But why believe Joshua Norman? During the June 4, 2013 funeral of the Iranian dissident cleric Ayatollah Jalaluddin Taheri, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets calling for the death of the dictator Khamenei.

Today, in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Iran, the Thinkable Ally," Cohen is back to his old tricks. Calling for the United States to reach agreement with Iran over its nuclear development program prior to the November 24 deadline for conclusion of the P5+1 negotiations, Cohen writes:

"The Islamic Republic, 35 years after the revolution, is — like it or not — a serious and stable power in an unstable region. Its highly educated population is pro-Western. Its actions and interests are often opposed to the United States and America’s allies, and its human rights record is appalling, but then that is true of several countries with which Washington does business.

. . . .

A deal can and must be done for the simple reason it is far better — for Iran, the United States, Europe and Israel — than any of the alternatives."

Employing the same logic, Cohen would have supported Chamberlain's call for "peace for our time" in 1939.

By contrast, in an editorial entitled "Hold the line with Iran," The Washington Post today observes:

"U.S. negotiators have responded to Iranian intransigence on key issues with creative but sometimes disturbing counterproposals. Most notably, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has declared that the regime will not dismantle any of the 19,000 centrifuges it has constructed to enrich uranium. So the United States and its allies, which once insisted that most of the machines be eliminated, reportedly have floated a proposal to leave the centrifuges in place but take away the plumbing that connects them.

If Iran has made similar efforts to bridge the gaps between the two sides, there is no report of them. Instead, Tehran appears to be sticking to its insistence on maintaining and eventually vastly expanding its nuclear infrastructure while offering only a temporary slowdown in uranium enrichment and 'increased transparency.' It is refusing to discuss its ballistic missile program and still isn’t cooperating with international inspectors’ probe into its past nuclear weapons design work."

The US should offer Khamenei further concessions to strike a deal with this maniacal state, which is on the verge of building its first atomic weapon? I don't think so.

Is the United States Coordinating Attacks on ISIS with Assad and Khamenei?

On Tuesday, deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, informed reporters on Air Force One that American air strikes against ISIS are not being coordinated with Syrian president (and mass murderer) Assad:

"First of all, the President obviously declared publicly our intention to take military action in Syria. Subsequent to that, there was a direct contact to the Syrian regime to notify them of the fact that we would take direct action. That was undertaken at the United Nations by Samantha Power to the Syrian Permanent Representative to the United Nations.

I want to be very clear, though, that we did not coordinate with them, we did not provide them advance notice of the timing or of targets that the U.S. was going to strike. In fact, we warned them to not pose a threat to our aircraft. And again, going forward, there is no plan to have any coordination whatsoever with the Assad regime. Again, this was simply consistent with what the President had said -- a notification that we would be taking this action; frankly, a warning to not pose a risk to our aircraft. And it was in no way an effort to coordinate or provide specific information about the types of targets or timing of targets that we would hit."

Also on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki declared:

"We did not request the regime’s permission. We did not coordinate our actions with the Syrian government."

However, as reported by Reuters on Tuesday in an article entitled "Exclusive: U.S. told Iran of intent to strike Islamic State in Syria - source" by Parisa Hafezi, Louis Charbonneau and Arshad Mohammed:

"The United States informed Iran in advance of its intention to strike Islamic State militants in Syria and assured Tehran that it would not target the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

. . . .

Iranian officials told Reuters privately that Iran already was cooperating with Washington in the fight against the jihadist rebels."

Is the Obama administration also claiming that it is not coordinating its attacks on ISIS with Iran? Both Rhodes and Psaki did not mention Iran in their denials. But as known to all, the Assad regime in what is left of Syria is a proxy of Iran.

The US is not coordinating its attacks on ISIS with Assad? Why does this sound familiar to Kerry's denial that the US is at war with ISIS, which was followed by Kerry's admission three days later that the US is at war with ISIS?

Is this all just a matter of wordplay and semantics for the Obama administration to avoid embarrassing acknowledgements of fact? Is this a precursor to the Obama administration turning a blind eye to Iran's nuclear weapons development program?

Equally important, as even observed by a New York Times editorial entitled "Wrong Turn on Syria: Helping Assad?," "direct coordination is a moot point if the attacks solidify Mr. Assad’s grip on power."

Meanwhile, to avoid trouble with Turkey, the Obama administration is doing almost nothing to assist Syria's Kurdish minority from the ISIS onslaught.

We'll have to wait and see if US bombing runs extend beyond American midterm elections in less than a month and a half.