Iran

“This is another bold act of presidential leadership in support of one of America’s most important allies, Israel.  The president recognized that Israel’s control of the Golan Heights is the reality, and this is not going to change.  President Trump also sent a signal to Iran that the U.S. will not tolerate it using Syria as a platform to threaten Israel’s security.” Fred Fleitz, President and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.

Iran broke out of its isolation for two reasons. First, George W. Bush came in and overthrew its Taliban enemies on its eastern border, and then he overthrew Saddam Hussein, the enemy on its western border. As Trump contends, ISIS has been defeated and driven from its twin capitals — Raqqa in Syria and Mosul in Iraq. But it is also true that ISIS and al-Qaida still have tens of thousands of jihadists living among the peoples of the Middle East. And the great question remains: Are U.S. troops necessary over there — to prevent terrorists from coming over here? Or are they over here — because we are over there?

While Trump has urged that the U.S. pull out of these Mideast wars, Pompeo has corrected him, "When America retreats, chaos often follows." Is Trump looking for a showdown with Iran, which could result in a war that might vault his approval rating, but be a disaster for the Middle East and world economy and do for him what Operation Iraqi Freedom did for George W. Bush? One thing may confidently be said of the rhetoric and actions of Bolton and Pompeo: This is not what brought out the new populists who made Donald Trump president, the people who still share his desire to "stop the endless wars."

Washington’s overall objective should be to bring peace to America, not micro-manage other nations’ conflicts. Washington policymakers come up with long lists of objectives which are not worth the cost, in this case essentially permanent war. Withdrawal from Syria is long overdue.

General James Mattis deserves our respect and appreciation for his many years of service to our country, but as Secretary of Defense his departure is not to be feared, and should be viewed as an opportunity to undo the remaining vestiges of Obama’s damaging influence on our military culture and to chart a new course in the war Islam has declared on the West.

A congressional commission found America is weak, isolated, beleaguered, and endangered. Military spending must be greatly increased or Washington will lose its ability to run the world. In which case a new Dark Age may envelop the earth.

President Trump is right, there is little value in staying in Syria if Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iraq are prepared to mop-up the scattered remnants of ISIS, but the President is wrong, and deeply so, if he thinks that killing a few thousand jihadis and retaking some desolate ground in the Middle East ends the war political Islam, and Iran in particular, have declared on the West.

As for Trump, I think once again he is being smart not following the herd.  If MBS turns out to be a total swine, there's plenty of time to react accordingly.  If not, the president has properly hedged his bets.  In any case, in a world (the M. E.) where practically all leaders, other than Israelis, are various degrees of thugs, it may come down to the regrettable choice of the traditional the  "enemy of my enemy," etc. Thanks to Obama's giveaway of billions, we know who that mainly is - Iran and its client Hezbollah.

The U.S. cannot look aside at a royal Saudi hand in the murder of a U.S.-based journalist in its consulate in Istanbul. But before we separate ourselves from the Riyadh regime, we should ask what is the alternative if the House of Saud should be destabilized or fall? Wars are hell on monarchies. And if a new and larger Middle East war, with Iran, should break out in the Gulf, some of the Arab kings, emirs and sultans will likely fall. And when they do, history shows, it is not usually democrats who rise to replace them.

President Trump’s remarks at the UN were noteworthy, not so much for their radical departure from the interventionist policies of the two Bush presidents, and their rejection of the weakness and globalism of Obama, but for their return to the principles of George Washington.

The Trump administration appears to share the belief of prior administrations that it can transform the Middle East in America’s image. But Washington’s record in the Middle East is catastrophic. It is time to bring home America’s troops.

For the late Senator John McCain, war was a first resort, the obvious answer to most any international problem, whatever the specifics. If only Washington would impose its will abroad, Pax America would emerge.

Any shooting war in the Persian Gulf could see insurance rates for tankers soar, a constriction of oil exports, and surging prices, plunging us into a worldwide recession for which one man would be held responsible: Donald Trump. If we start a war with Iran, on top of the five in which we are engaged still, then the party that offers to extricate us will be listened to, as Trump was listened to, when he promised to extricate us from the forever wars of the Middle East.

When the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran rightly cry "Death to the Dictator," Khamenei is the man they are talking about. Trump must meet with him. Mike Pompeo can deal with Rouhani. (Incidentally, the idea that Rouhani is a "moderate" is eyewash believed only by John Kerry and the editors of the New York Times. He has put more people to death than his supposedly hardline predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.)

Candidate Trump appeared to understand Saudi Arabia. President Trump acts like other submissive royal retainers George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush. Instead of campaigning to hand the Middle East over to the Saudi royals, the Trump administration should stand for America’s interests.

There is no sense in issuing threats that require the choice between ill-advised U.S. action or lost U.S. credibility. President Trump's hard-headed realism has thus far restricted the Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions, reduced its expansionist power, and deterred its aggression. The president should not abandon that course in favor of emotive rhetoric that risks unnecessary conflict.

U.S. threats to crush Iran and North Korea may yet work, but as of now neither Tehran nor Pyongyang appears to be intimidated. Where, then, are we headed? Surely, a partial, verifiable nuclear disarmament of North Korea is preferable to war on the peninsula. And, surely, a new nuclear deal with Iran with restrictions on missiles is preferable to war in the Gulf. Again, we cannot make the perfect the enemy of the good.

In both the Iran deal and a potential North Korea deal, the United States has enormous leverage — and it should never forget that fact. Global sanctions can wreck the relatively small and vulnerable Iranian and North Korean economies. Even American sanctions alone and the ripples from them can injure Tehran and Pyongyang. The U.S. can also deter Iran and North Korea in a variety of other ways. For all their obnoxious bluster, the rogue governments of North Korea and Iran are more vulnerable than ever.

The U.S. is at war in Yemen. Special Forces are on the ground in Saudi Arabia, while Washington is providing Riyadh’s military with munitions, targeting assistance, and aerial refueling. All to bomb a nation whose people have done nothing against Americans.

President Trump has made the right decision to take us out of the Obama nuclear weapons deal by reimposing sanctions on Iran and assembling a broad coalition to counter the totality of the regime’s malign activities. However, those “malign activities” are not things that only occur in the Middle East, Iran is conducting a war against us right here in the United States and fighting them here needs to be part of the President's new policy.