RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/02/18/breaking-pompeo-responds-to-reports-democrats-secretly-met-with-iranian-terrorist-in-germany-n2561462

Speaking to reporters during a joint press conference with Ethiopian Foreign Minister Gedu Andargachew Tuesday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo responded to reporting that a number of Democrat Senators secretly met with Iranian Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference. 

“I have seen that piece about some senators meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif. This guy is designated by the United States of America. He’s the foreign minister for a country that shot down a commercial airliner and has yet to turn over the black boxes. This is the foreign minister of a country that killed an American on December 27. And it’s the foreign minister of a country who is the largest world sponsor of terror and the world’s largest sponsor of anti-Semitism,” Pompeo said. “If they met, I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy and not their own.” 

The news of the alleged secret Zarif meeting was first reported by Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist.  

“Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and other Democratic senators had a secret meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif during the Munich Security Conference last week, according to a source briefed by the French delegation to the conference. Murphy’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment by press time,” the outlet reported. 

https://www.nysun.com/editorials/pompeo-calls-out-the-democrats-over-secret/91020/

Good going to Secretary of State Pompeo for calling out a group of Democrats — including, apparently, Secretary of State Kerry — for reportedly meeting with the Iranians on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, and in secret. Mr. Pompeo was responding to a report of the parley in the Federalist. “If they met,” the secretary said, “I don’t know what they said. I hope they were reinforcing America’s foreign policy, not their own.”

Fat chance. The notion that they might be reinforcing America’s foreign policy was mocked by Senator Christopher Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who led the delegation. He had been stonewalling reports of the meeting for days. Then Mr. Murphy posted confession to meeting the Iranian, though he did, according to the Times, acknowledge that he lacks standing to “conduct diplomacy on behalf of the whole of the U.S. government.”

Mr. Murphy’s view is that “if [President] Trump isn’t going to talk to Iran, then someone should.” In other words, he’s going to defy the decision of the elected government of America to refrain from rushing into talks with the Iranian camarilla. He’s going to instead take it upon his own unauthorized self. Mr. Murphy says he has “no delusions” about Iran, but his actions belie that boast.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-campaign-against-bureaucratic-bloat-in-u-s-foreign-policy-11581974339?mod=opinion_lead_pos6

The press has been focused recently on Lt. Col Alexander Vindman’s departure from the National Security Council. But less noticed is the substantive overhaul of the council’s staffing practices, announced last fall by national security adviser Robert O’Brien. President Trump’s renovation of the White House’s top advisory body could help streamline American security for years to come.

The problems that plague the NSC trace to before its founding in 1947. The White House has long sought to centralize decision-making to overcome the political jockeying that often takes place within the national-security establishment. I have lived half of my professional life in the policy world of Washington and half in the financial world of New York. The former is much more Hobbesian and bitter than the latter—and always has bee

After securing victory in World War II, for example, federal policy makers were at each other’s throats over whether to share nuclear technology with the Soviet Union through the Baruch Plan. The branches of the armed services feuded over roles, missions and funding. President Truman and congressional leaders nonetheless produced a few lasting achievements, including the Marshall Plan and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

But the bitter postwar years also featured terrible blunders in China and Korea. Truman’s radical strategy to shrink the Navy, while declaring Korea outside America’s vital interest, led almost immediately to the Korean War. Journalist John Osborne told me that during those years he was run ragged between the White House and the Pentagon. Both were leaking classified information aimed at opponents in government.

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/480649-washington-needs-to-anticipate-irans-next-provocation

Signs are mounting that in Tehran, which faces rising pressures at home and abroad, the country’s powerful hardline conservatives are circling the wagons, raising the odds of still more Iranian global provocations. The question is whether Washington – which continues to tighten the economic screws on Tehran – is ready for what might come next.

In the latest conservative effort to solidify power, the country’s Guardian Council recently barred 9,500 prospective candidates (almost two-thirds of the 14,500 prospective candidates) in next month’s parliamentary elections, from running. The 12-member Guardian Council – an unelected body that includes six designees of the nation’s ultimate authority, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei – routinely bars hundreds if not thousands of would-be candidates from elections because they’re not conservative enough or committed enough to the regime’s revolutionary goals. This time, however, the barred candidates include nearly a third of the current parliament. The signal was clear. The Council not only wants to prevent new reformist candidates from winning office; it also wants to purge the parliament of members it considers too moderate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/02/10/must-america-be-in-the-middle-east/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_

Yes, but the strategic considerations have changed

Since World War II, the United States has identified a number of national interests in the Greater Middle East, a region often defined quite loosely as the Arab nations (including those of North Africa), Israel, and sometimes Turkey, as well as Iran, the Horn of Africa countries, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

During the Cold War period, from 1946 to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union, American bipartisan foreign policy identified a strategic need for the region’s petroleum. Gulf oil was seen as critical in augmenting America’s own seemingly finite supply or ensuring the free world’s access to it. Thus was born the post-war U.S. realist interest in the Middle East — a region that after the 15th-century discovery of the New World lost the strategic global position it had held since classical antiquity.

The United States backed most prominently the House of Saud and neighboring Persian Gulf monarchies and dictatorships on the rationale that they would endlessly pump oil and sell it to the West at a fair price. British Petroleum enjoyed a more or less controlling oil interest in Iran, and U.S. oil companies had a free hand in Saudi Arabia; both nations maneuvered with other regimes to develop oil-exporting industries. The ensuing conspiracy theories, coups, and succession scraps of Arab and Persian strongmen fueled a half century of “Great Satan” chanting and the burning of American flags on the Middle East street.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/01/trump_had_soleimani_in_his_crosshairs_for_a_long_time.html

Following the terrorist Qassem Soleimani’s death on President Trump’s orders, the media and the Democrat party have been like trapped rats, desperately rushing around to show that Trump is the bad guy in all this. They’ve played up WWIII, shared the Mullahs’ grief over the loss of their pet terrorist, and blamed Trump for the Iranian decision to shoot down a passenger plane that had left Tehran minutes before and only four hours after Iran sent 15 ballistic missiles at Iraqi bases housing American troops. With all those stories falling flat (and with Iranians in an uproar against their government for shooting down the plane), the media narrative is shifting to denigrating Trump’s decision-making.

One of the first lies the media told was that Trump totally flummoxed his national security team when he elected to order a strike against Soleimani:

When President Donald Trump’s national security team came to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, they weren’t expecting him to approve an operation to kill Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had gone to Palm Beach, Fla., to brief Trump on airstrikes the Pentagon had just carried out in Iraq and Syria against Iranian-sponsored Shiite militia groups.

One briefing slide shown to Trump listed several follow-up steps the U.S. could take, among them targeting Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ elite Quds Force, according to a senior U.S. official familiar with the discussions who was not authorized to talk about the meeting on the record.