Is Iran in Our Gun Sights Now?

Is Iran in Our Gun Sights Now?

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Iran must be free. The dictatorship must be destroyed. Containment is appeasement and appeasement is surrender.”

Thus does our Churchill, Newt Gingrich, dismiss, in dealing with Iran, the policy of containment crafted by George Kennan and pursued by nine U.S. presidents to bloodless victory in the Cold War.

Why is containment surrender? “Because freedom is threatened everywhere so long as this dictatorship stays in power,” says Gingrich.

But how is our freedom threatened by a regime with 3 percent of our GDP that has been around since Jimmy Carter was president?

Fortunately, Gingrich has found a leader to bring down the Iranian regime and ensure the freedom of mankind. “In our country that was George Washington and … the Marquis de Lafayette. In Italy it was Garibaldi,” says Gingrich.

Whom has he found to rival Washington and Garibaldi? Says Gingrich, “Maryam Rajavi.”

Who is she? The leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, or Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, which opposed the Shah, broke with the old Ayatollah, collaborated with Saddam Hussein, and, until 2012, was designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. Department of State.

At the NCRI conference in Paris in July where Gingrich spoke, and the speaking fees were reportedly excellent, John Bolton and Rudy Giuliani were also on hand.

Calling Iran’s twice-elected President Hassan Rouhani, “a violent, vicious murderer,” Giuliani said, “the time has come for regime change.”

Bolton followed suit. “Tehran is not merely a nuclear weapons threat, it is not merely a terrorist threat, it is a conventional threat to everybody in the region,” he said. Hence, “the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran.”

Have something to say about this column?
Visit Pat's FaceBook page and post your comments….

We will all celebrate in Tehran in 2019, Bolton assured the NCRI faithful.

Good luck. Yet, as The New York Times said yesterday, all this talk, echoed all over this capital, is driving us straight toward war. “A drumbeat of provocative words, outright threats and actions — from President Trump and some of his top aides as well as Sunni Arab leaders and American activists — is raising tensions that could lead to armed conflict with Iran.”

Is this what America wants or needs — a new Mideast war against a country three times the size of Iraq?

After Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, would America and the world be well-served by a war with Iran that could explode into a Sunni-Shiite religious war across the Middle East?

Bolton calls Iran “a nuclear weapons threat.”

But in 2007, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies declared with high confidence Iran had no nuclear weapons program. They stated this again in 2011. Under the nuclear deal, Iran exported almost all of its uranium, stopped enriching to 20 percent, shut down thousands of centrifuges, poured concrete into the core of its heavy water reactor, and allows U.N. inspectors to crawl all over every facility.

Is Iran, despite all this, operating a secret nuclear weapons program? Or is this War Party propaganda meant to drag us into another Mideast war?

To ascertain the truth, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should call the heads of the CIA and DIA, and the Director of National Intelligence, to testify in open session.

We are told we are menaced also by a Shiite Crescent rising and stretching from Beirut to Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

And who created this Shiite Crescent?

It was George W. Bush who ordered the Sunni regime of Saddam overthrown, delivering Iraq to its Shiite majority. It was Israel whose invasion and occupation of Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 gave birth to the Shiite resistance now known as Hezbollah.

As for Bashar Assad in Syria, his father sent troops to fight alongside Americans in the Gulf War.

The Ayatollah’s regime, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij militia are deeply hostile to this country. But Iran does not want war with the United States — for the best of reasons. Iran would be smashed like Iraq, and its inevitable rise, as the largest and most advanced country on the Persian Gulf, would be aborted.

Moreover, we have interests in common: Peace in the Gulf, from which Iran’s oil flows and without which Iran cannot grow, as Rouhani intends, by deepening Iran’s ties to Europe and the advanced world.

And we have enemies in common: ISIS, al-Qaida and all the Sunni terrorists whose wildest dream is to see their American enemies fight their Shiite enemies.

Who else wants a U.S. war with Iran, besides ISIS?

Unfortunately, their number is legion: Saudis, Israelis, neocons and their think tanks, websites and magazines, hawks in both parties on Capitol Hill, democracy crusaders, and many in the Pentagon who want to deliver payback for what the Iranian-backed Shiite militias did to us in Iraq.

President Trump is key. If he does the War Party’s bidding, that will be his legacy, as the Iraq War is the legacy of George W. Bush.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our
Emails and Website?
Let us know how we are doing –
Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Hanging Rudy Out to Dry

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Back in 1987, this writer was invited by friends to advise them on a press conference they had called to oppose President Reagan’s signing of an INF treaty to remove all nuclear missiles from Europe.

My advice: Deplore the treaty; do not attack the president.

The next day, Howard Phillips declared that Ronald Reagan had become a “useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.”

Howie captured the headlines, as did Rudy Giuliani after that dinner at 21 Club for Gov. Scott Walker, where the mayor spontaneously rose to declaim, “I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America. … He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up, through love of his country.”

The next day, Rudy doubled down, bringing up Obama’s old ties to socialists and communists: Stalinist Frank Marshall Davis, radical Saul Alinsky, 1970s bomber Bill Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Rudy could not understand why at the National Prayer Breakfast the president launched an attack on the Crusades and the Inquisition, done “in the name of Christ.” The mayor could not understand why Obama had trouble identifying and naming ISIS as radical Islamic terrorists.

Though this writer heard several radio talk show hosts Friday cheer Rudy on, Republicans swiftly declared that Obama’s love for America must not be questioned. Urged to put space between themselves and Rudy, most Republican leaders swiftly did.

The consultant class’ advice was near unanimous: Cut Rudy loose.

Sensing retreat, the left pursued. And it is not letting go. They still demand to know why Walker did not renounce Rudy and whether he believes Obama is a Christian. For weeks the governor has been bedeviled for refusing to say in London if he believes in evolution.

Walker’s initial response to whether he thought Obama was a Christian was, “I don’t know. … To me this is a classic example of why people hate Washington, and, increasingly, they dislike the press.”

Yet, Walker’s spokesperson hastily issued this corrective statement, “Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian.”

Monday, Rudy walked back his remark that Obama does not love America, writing in the Wall Street Journal, “I didn’t intend to question President Obama’s motives or the content of his heart.”

The Republican rout was complete.

While this, too, shall pass away, what it reveals is the balance of power in the culture war and which side has the whip hand. And what it portends is a drive by the left to pull the GOP back onto the terrain of moral and social issues where its candidates are, or can be portrayed, as out of step with modernity.

Lately, this writer heard a political analyst say that if the GOP platform opposes same-sex marriage, the party can write off California and its 55 electoral votes. Which may be true. Such has been the cultural and moral shift in America in just a few years.

Yet if the party is true to its past platforms and professed convictions, how can it endorse or equivocate on same-sex marriage?

As for whether one believes in Darwinian evolution, it is neither an inconsequential nor illegitimate question. For where one stands on biblical truth, natural law, a creator and intelligent design is a strong if not absolute indicator of where one comes down on abortion, same-sex marriage, assisted suicide, euthanasia and legalized narcotics.

To traditionalists, the de-Christianized and secularized character of American society is of greater concern than whose flag flies over Sebastopol.

And if the GOP visibly retreats or takes a stand of studied neutrality on these issues, it will lose the enthusiasm of the most ardent of its admirers. And the party can’t afford that.

Democrats and their media allies may be expected to elevate the social issues, both because they sever the GOP from the cultural-media mainstream, and they drive a wedge into the party base between economic and social conservatives.

One imagines those conservatives gathered at Club 21 were more interested in hearing how a President Walker would cut corporate and capital gains taxes than how soon Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

Since the Republican victory in November, it has not been a good quarter for the GOP. Obama, repudiated, seems liberated.

Ignoring GOP protests, he issued an executive amnesty for five million illegal immigrants. He promises to veto the Keystone XL pipeline. He taunted the GOP in his State of the Union. He is back to 50 percent approval in the polls.

The economy added 1 million jobs in three months. The Dow Jones Friday hit a record high. Senate Democrats are happily filibustering to death the House bill to defund amnesty. And if the Department of Homeland Security has to shut down for lack of funds, Obama and his media allies will see to it the GOP is blamed.

And the national rollouts of the Bush III and Walker campaigns have shown that neither is ready for prime time.

Weiner & Spitzer — Now More Than Ever!

Weiner Spitzer Now More Than Ever

By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Progressivism leads inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos.”

So writes editor R.V. Young in the summer issue of Modern Age, the journal of which Russell Kirk was founding editor.

The magazine arrived with the latest post from our cultural capital, where the front-runner in the mayoral race, Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, has been caught again “sexting” photos of his privates, this time to a 22-year-old woman.

That broke it for The New York Times:

“The serially evasive Mr. Weiner should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City.”

And Weiner’s conduct does seem weird, creepy, crazy.

But it was not illegal. And as it was between consenting adults, was it immoral — by the standards of modern liberalism?

In 1973, the “Humanist Manifesto II,” a moral foundation for much of American law, declared: “The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered ‘evil.’ … Individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.”

Is this not what Anthony was up to? Why then the indignation?

Consider how far we are along the path that liberalism equates with social and moral progress. Ronald Reagan was the first and is the only divorced and remarried man elected president.

But the front-runner in the New York mayor’s race today quit Congress as a serial texter of lewd photos to anonymous women. The front-runner in the city comptroller’s race was “Client No. 9” in the prostitution ring of the convicted madam who is running against him.

Weiner’s strongest challenger for mayor is a lesbian about to marry another lesbian. The sitting mayor and governor are divorced and living with women not their wives. The former mayor’s second wife had to go to court to stop his girlfriend from showing up at Gracie Mansion.

Weiner looks like a mainstream liberal.

On cable channels we hear cries that Weiner is “mentally sick.” Ex-colleague Rep. Jerrold Nadler says Weiner needs “psychiatric help.”

Whoa, Jerry. Up to 1973, the American Psychiatric Association said homosexuality was a mental disorder. The APA now regrets that. And why is Weiner’s private sexting a sign of mental illness, when kids all over America are engaged in the same thing every day?

Are we, possibly, a mentally and morally sick society?

Thirty years ago, homosexual acts were crimes.

The Supreme Court has since discovered sodomy to be a constitutional right. State courts are discovering another new right — of homosexuals to marry.

To call homosexuality unnatural, immoral or a mental disorder will soon constitute a hate crime in America.

Once we cast aside morality rooted in religion — as the “Humanist Manifesto II” insists we do — who draws the line on what is tolerable in the new dispensation?

Upon what moral ground do we stand to deny a man many wives, should he wish to leave behind many children, and the wives all consent to the arrangement? Biblically and historically, polygamy was more acceptable than homosexuality.

The second is now a constitutional right. Why not the first?

Are we not indeed headed “inevitably to utter irrationality and eventually political, as well as moral, chaos”?

Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton marched in gay pride parades with the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Anyone doubt that NAMBLA will one day succeed in having the age of consent for sex between men and boys dropped into the middle or low teens?

The Federal Drug Administration has approved over-the-counter sales of birth control pills to 11-year-old girls. High schools have been handing out condoms, pills and patches to students for years.

If sex among teenagers is natural and normal, and homosexual sex is natural and normal, upon what moral ground does liberalism stand to deny teens the right to consensual sex with the men and women they love?

Is denying this not age discrimination? What liberal can be for that?

Years ago, Dr. Judith Reisman exposed the fraud of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.

The only way Kinsey could have gathered the data for his “Sexual Behavior and the Human Male,” on how children and even infants supposedly enjoy and benefit from sex, is by interviewing perverts and child abusers, or conducting the perversions themselves. Yet, sex with sub-teens is surely on some future progressive agenda.

One suspects the Times does not really have any moral objection to what Weiner is up to on his cellphone.

The Times just does not want the city it celebrates as America’s citadel of progressivism to be made a staple of late night comedians — and a running joke for the rest of us out here in Cracker Country.

However, as America needs to see where progressivism is leading what we used to call God’s country, perhaps it might be well if New York came out of the closet by electing the ticket of Carlos Danger and Client No. 9.

To borrow a political slogan from ’72 : “Weiner & Spitzer — Now More Than Ever!”