RUTHFULLY YOURS

After Barack Obama’s eight long years of gutting America’s missile-defense capabilities, our nation has awakened to the nightmare of a North Korea armed with nuclear missiles capable of reaching U.S. territory.

Fortunately, Donald Trump, who, unlike his predecessor, takes his responsibility to defend the nation seriously, now resides in the White House, and Obama, one in a series of Democrat presidents who cleared the way for the nuclear adventurism of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), is on the outside looking in.

“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States,” President Trump told reporters yesterday after applauding the unanimous weekend approval of the toughest U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution against North Korea to date. “They will be met with fire, fury, and frankly power the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis issued a statement urging North Korea to back off or suffer the consequences. “The DPRK should cease any consideration of actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people,” he said. “While our State Department is making every effort to resolve this global threat through diplomatic means, it must be noted that the combined allied militaries now possess the most precise, rehearsed, and robust defensive and offensive capabilities on Earth.”

But not all of the blame for the status quo can be assigned to Democrats.

North Korea has long massed troops near the border with South Korea, effectively holding the population of nearby Seoul and other densely-populated areas hostage. The DPRK is thought to have the ability to quickly assault and subdue a large chunk of South Korea, with devastating consequences for the populace. The Korean War itself began June 25, 1950 but never technically ended. Hostilities were suspended when representatives from both countries signed an armistice agreement on July 27, 1953. The “final peaceful settlement” envisioned in the pact never happened. The U.S. was a major party to the armed conflict and it still has troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula.

“I think, basically, since the end of the Korean War, we’ve had a succession of administrations – Republican and Democratic – who have faced a very unhappy reality, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney told SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam on Wednesday’s “Breitbart News Daily” show.

“And that is the massive, if uneven, shall we say, North Korean military … so closely positioned at the Demilitarized Zone to Seoul, the capital of South Korea, that at will, from a standing start, they could essentially devastate the 24 or so million people who live in and around that capital city.”

Kim Jong-un “greatly accelerated the development and testing programs of all ranges of North Korea’s missile systems,” according to Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “During his five years in power, he has overseen three times as many missile launches as his father did during his eighteen-year reign.”

Kim wouldn’t actually have to incinerate a U.S. population center to inflict devastating damage on the nation. There is some evidence that the North Koreans have the ability to detonate a nuclear weapon on a satellite in orbit over U.S. territory in order to create an EMP, or electromagnetic pulse. An EMP could take the nation’s electric grid offline and fry the circuitry of everything from automobiles to smartphones to toasters.

National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said that an ongoing review of Iran policy will be completed by late summer. In the meantime, however, he has fired opponents of the Iran deal, including Derek Harvey, who reportedly drafted a comprehensive plan on how to withdraw from the agreement. A White House insider described Trump’s Iran policy as “completely gutted” in the aftermath of McMaster’s purge.

“Everything the president wants to do, McMaster opposes. Trump wants to get us out of Afghanistan — McMaster wants to go in. Trump wants to get us out of Syria — McMaster wants to go in. Trump wants to deal with the China issue — McMaster doesn’t. Trump wants to deal with the Islam issue — McMaster doesn’t. You know, across the board, we want to get rid of the Iran deal — McMaster doesn’t. It is incredible to watch it happening right in front of your face. Absolutely stunning.” — Former NSC official, Daily Caller.

“The President’s ultimate success will in large part depend on the degree of commitment to his agenda among the people he appoints to ensure its success…. The most important rule of presidential personnel management is to appoint people who are fully committed to the presidential agenda.” — “Personnel Is Policy,” The Heritage Foundation.

The ongoing purge of people loyal to U.S. President Donald J. Trump at the National Security Council, the main organization used by the president to develop national security policy, is part of a power struggle over the future direction of American foreign policy.

Trump campaigned on a promise radically to shift American foreign policy away from the “globalism” pursued by his predecessors to one of a “nationalism” which puts “America first.” He also vowed to: “defeat” Islamic extremism; “tear up” the nuclear deal with Iran; “reset” bilateral relations with Israel by moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem “on Day One” of his administration; and “direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.”

Trump’s election has set in motion a bitter power struggle between two main factions: those led by White House strategist Steve Bannon — who are devoted to implementing the president’s foreign policy agenda, and those led by National Security Advisor Herbert Raymond “H.R.” McMaster — who appear committed to perpetuating policies established by the Obama administration.

Since becoming national security advisor in February, McMaster has clashed with Trump and Bannon on policy relating to Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Islam, Israel, Iran, Mexico, NATO, North Korea, Russia and Syria, among others.

McMaster has also been accused of trying to undermine the president’s foreign policy agenda by removing from the National Security Council key Trump loyalists — K.T. McFarland, Adam Lovinger, David Cattler, Tera Dahl, Rich Higgins, Derek Harvey, and Ezra Cohen-Watnick— and replacing them with individuals committed to maintaining the status quo.

An analysis of the foreign policy views of McMaster and some of his senior staff at the National Security Council shows them to be overwhelmingly at odds with what Trump promised during the campaign.

Derek Harvey was a man who saw things coming. He had warned of Al Qaeda when most chose to ignore it. He had seen the Sunni insurgency rising when most chose to deny it.

The former Army colonel had made his reputation by learning the lay of the land. In Iraq that meant sleeping on mud floors and digging into documents to figure out where the threat was coming from.

It was hard to imagine anyone better qualified to serve as President Trump’s top Middle East adviser at the National Security Council than a man who had been on the ground in Iraq and who had seen it all.

Just like in Iraq, Harvey began digging at the NSC. He came up with a list of Obama holdovers who were leaking to the press. McMaster, the new head of the NSC, refused to fire any of them.

McMaster had a different list of people he wanted to fire. It was easy to make the list. Harvey was on it.

All you had to do was name Islamic terrorism as the problem and oppose the Iran Deal. If you came in with Flynn, you would be out. If you were loyal to Trump, your days were numbered.

And if you warned about Obama holdovers undermining the new administration, you were a target.

One of McMaster’s first acts at the NSC was to ban any mention of “Obama holdovers.” Not only did the McMaster coup purge Harvey, who had assembled the holdover list, but his biggest target was Ezra Watnick-Cohen, who had exposed the eavesdropping on Trump officials by Obama personnel.

Ezra Watnick-Cohen had provided proof of the Obama surveillance to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. McMaster, however, was desperately working to fire him and replace him with Linda Weissgold. McMaster’s choice to replace Watnick-Cohen was the woman who helped draft the Benghazi talking points which blamed the Islamic terrorist attack on a video protest.

After protests by Bannon and Kushner, President Trump overruled McMaster. Watnick-Cohen stayed. For a while. Now Ezra Watnick-Cohen has been fired anyway.

According to the media, Watnick-Cohen was guilty of “anti-Muslim fervor” and “hardline views.” And there’s no room for anyone telling the truth about Islamic terrorism at McMaster’s NSC.

McMaster had even demanded that President Trump refrain from telling the truth about Islamic terrorism.

Another of his targets was Rich Higgins, who had written a memo warning of the role of the left in undermining counterterrorism. Higgins had served as a director for strategic planning at the NSC. He had warned in plain language about the threat of Islamic terrorism, of Sharia law, of the Hijrah colonization by Islamic migrants, of the Muslim Brotherhood, and of its alliance with the left as strategic threats.

Higgins had stood by Trump during the Khizr Khan attacks. And he had written a memo warning that “the left is aligned with Islamist organizations at local, national, and international levels” and that “they operate in social media, television, the 24-hour news cycle in all media and are entrenched at the upper levels of the bureaucracies.”

Like Harvey and Ezra Watnick-Cohen, Higgins had warned of an enemy within. And paid the price.

The Israel angle on McMaster’s purge of Trump loyalists from the National Security Council is that all of these people are pro-Israel and oppose the Iran nuclear deal, positions that Trump holds.
McMaster in contrast is deeply hostile to Israel and to Trump. According to senior officials aware of his behavior, he constantly refers to Israel as the occupying power and insists falsely and constantly that a country named Palestine existed where Israel is located until 1948 when it was destroyed by the Jews.
Many of you will remember that a few days before Trump’s visit to Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – בנימין נתניהו and his advisers were blindsided when the Americans suddenly told them that no Israeli official was allowed to accompany Trump to the Western Wall.
What hasn’t been reported is that it was McMaster who pressured Trump to agree not to let Netanyahu accompany him to the Western Wall. At the time, I and other reporters were led to believe that this was the decision of rogue anti-Israel officers at the US consulate in Jerusalem. But it wasn’t. It was McMaster.
And even that, it works out wasn’t sufficient for McMaster. He pressured Trump to cancel his visit to the Wall and only visit the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial — ala the Islamists who insist that the only reason Israel exists is European guilt over the Holocaust.
In May, Adam Lovinger, a pro-Trump national security strategist on loan from the Pentagon’s office of net assessment was summarily informed that his security clearance was revoked. He was fired and escorted from the White House like a spy and put on file duty at the Pentagon.
Lovinger is a seasoned strategic analyst who McMaster hated because he supported India over Pakistan, among other things.
Lovinger has not been told the grounds for his sudden loss of clearance but Mike Cernovich reported that the grounds were that he traveled to Israel for a family bar mitzvah. In other words, there were no grounds for dismissal. His boss at the Pentagon — unbelievably named James Baker, is an Obama hire who hates Trump and supports Obama’s agenda.

As for Iran, well, suffice it to say that McMaster supports the deal and refuses to publish the side deals Obama signed with the Iranians and then hid from the public.

The thing I can’t get my arms around in all of this is why in the world this guy hasn’t been fired. Mike Flynn was fired essentially for nothing. He was fired because he didn’t tell the Vice President everything that transpired in a phone conversation he had with the Russian ambassador. Whoopdy doo! Flynn had the conversation when he was on a 72 hour vacation with his wife after the election in the Caribbean and could barely hear because the reception was so bad. He found himself flooded with calls and had no one with him except his wife.
And for this he was fired.

McMaster disagrees and actively undermines Trump’s agenda on just about every salient issue on his agenda. He fires all of Trump’s loyalists and replaces them with Trump’s opponents, like Kris Bauman, an Israel hater and Hamas supporter who McMaster hired to work on the Israel-Palestinian desk. He allows anti-Israel, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, pro-Iran Obama people like Robert Malley to walk around the NSC and tell people what to do and think. He has left Ben (reporters know nothing about foreign policy and I lied to sell them the Iran deal) Rhodes’ and Valerie Jarrett’s people in place.
And he not only is remaining at his desk. He is given the freedom to fire Trump’s most loyal foreign policy advisers from the National Security Council.
One source claims that Trump’s political advisers are afraid of how it will look if he fires another national security adviser. But that makes no sense. Trump is being attacked for everything and nothing. Who cares if he gets attacked for doing something that will actually help him to succeed in office? Why should fear of media criticism play a role here or anywhere for this president and this administration?
Finally, there is the issue of how McMaster got there in the first place. Trump interviewed McMaster at Mara Lago for a half an hour. He was under terrible pressure after firing Flynn to find someone.
And who recommended McMaster? You won’t believe this.
Senator John McCain. That’s right. The NSA got his job on the basis of a recommendation from the man who just saved Obamacare.
Obviously, at this point, Trump has nothing to lose by angering McCain. I mean what will he do? Vote for Obamacare?

The New York Times reported last Friday that “an exodus is underway” in the State Department. The Times didn’t think this was good news; it gave space to one career diplomat who lamented that there was “complete and utter disdain for our expertise.”

This could be the best news to come out of Washington since the Trump administration took office.

We can only hope that with the departure of these failed State Department officials, their failed policies will be swept out along with them. Chief among these is the almost universally held idea that poverty causes terrorism. The United States has wasted uncounted (literally, because a great deal of it was in untraceable bags full of cash) billions of dollars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries in the wrongheaded assumption that Muslims turn to jihad because they lack economic opportunities and education. American officials built schools and hospitals, thinking that they were winning over the hearts and minds of the locals.

Fifteen years, thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars later, no significant number of hearts and minds have been won. This is partly because the premise is wrong. The New York Times reported in March that “not long after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001…Alan B. Krueger, the Princeton economist, tested the widespread assumption that poverty was a key factor in the making of a terrorist. Mr. Krueger’s analysis of economic figures, polls, and data on suicide bombers and hate groups found no link between economic distress and terrorism.”

CNS News noted in September 2013 that “according to a Rand Corporation report on counterterrorism, prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2009, ‘Terrorists are not particularly impoverished, uneducated, or afflicted by mental disease. Demographically, their most important characteristic is normalcy (within their environment). Terrorist leaders actually tend to come from relatively privileged backgrounds.’ One of the authors of the RAND report, Darcy Noricks, also found that according to a number of academic studies, ‘Terrorists turn out to be more rather than less educated than the general population.’”

Yet the analysis that poverty causes terrorism has been applied and reapplied and reapplied again. The swamp is in dire need of draining, and in other ways as well. From 2011 on, it was official Obama administration policy to deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. This came as a result of an October 19, 2011 letter from Farhana Khera of Muslim Advocates to John Brennan, who was then the Assistant to the President on National Security for Homeland Security and Counter Terrorism, and later served in the Obama administration as head of the CIA. The letter was signed not just by Khera, but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the United States: 57 Muslim, Arab, and South Asian organizations, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Relief USA; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC).

Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that the U.S. isn’t North Korea’s enemy and it doesn’t seek regime change as a way to neutralize the rogue regime’s nuclear weapons threat. But Kim Jong Un may have his doubts. Later the same day White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders answered a reporter’s question about the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike on North Korea by saying, “The President’s not going to broadcast any decisions, but all options are on the table.”

So why is the Secretary of State trying to take options off the table? There are two interpretations of Mr. Tillerson’s “no regime change” pledge. One is that he believes Kim Jong Un will negotiate away his nuclear weapons if the U.S. gives him security assurances and a big enough incentive. This would mean Mr. Tillerson has learned nothing from three decades of failed talks and the North Koreans’ own statements that it will never give up its nukes.

An alternative explanation is that Mr. Tillerson still hopes to convince China to help solve the North Korean problem, so he is playing the good cop in the dialogue with Beijing. While President Trump tweets his disappointment with China’s inaction and CIA Director Mike Pompeo hints that the U.S. should work toward the overthrow of Kim Jong Un, America’s leading diplomat offers cooperation to reduce the risk of a crisis on China’s doorstep.

Mr. Tillerson tried to play down his boss’s accusations that China failed to stop the Kims. “Only the North Koreans are to blame for this situation,” he said. “But we do believe China has a special and unique relationship because of this significant economic activity to influence the North Korean regime in ways that no one else can.”

That is true, but China is not going to be charmed into cutting off trade with North Korea. Years of futile U.S. pleading show that Beijing wants the Kim regime as a buffer state and perhaps as a thorn in the U.S. side. Nothing short of an imminent crisis will persuade China’s leaders that they should risk intervention in a dispute that they see as Washington’s responsibility to resolve.

The best way for the U.S. to win Chinese cooperation is to work toward regime change. While the Administration may not be able to make the fall of the Kims its explicit goal due to South Korean sensitivities, it can continue to tighten financial sanctions and take other measures that will ratchet up pressure on the regime. The allies can also strengthen their deterrent capabilities and defenses; South Korean President Moon Jae-in agreed this week to resume Thaad missile-defense deployment.

When Mr. Tillerson disavows regime change, he undermines these efforts and signals to Beijing and Pyongyang that the U.S. might be willing to pay another round of nuclear blackmail. Saying that North Korea is not an enemy even as it threatens American cities with its new long-range missiles is obviously false and makes the U.S. look weak. The Trump Administration needs a consistent message that tough action is coming and nothing is ruled out.

n early June, a group of concerned Americans of Iranian origin as well as other Americans held a meeting at the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C. to set the stage for regime change in Iran. They assembled at the House Visitors’ Center and discussed practical ideas for bringing about regime change in Iran. The impression the meeting made among those concerned with the situation in Iran and the Middle East was so positive that the event immediately made headlines around the world.

A number of prominent figures followed up on that event. A few days later, the former crown prince of Iran in exile, Reza Pahlavi, visited a number of House and Senate members, allegedly discussing very much the same possibilities. On June 14, 2017, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the United States policy toward Iran is based on the support of Iranian forces who can bring about peaceful regime change – to which the Iranian dissidents warmly responded by an open letter. On July 10, 2017, the Daily Caller broke the news of Secretary of Defense Mattis’s stance toward Iran to the effect that “Iran needs regime change for relations to improve with the U.S.”

On the other hand, the Iran regime’s lobby in America, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), immediately attacked the “June 8 Coalition” meeting in the press and on their blogs, as well as directly confronting the participants on social media with their Iran regime supporters’ echo chamber, which was set up by Trita Parsi and bragged about in the New York Times by former Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes.

Here is where we say, “Hold the presses!” The Iran lobby has run circles around Obama, Clinton, Kerry, the State Department, and Congress for more than a decade. If you don’t believe us, ask anyone at the National Endowment for Democracy. Or ask former U.S. Republican senator Mark Kirk, who blasted the lobby on the U.S. Senate floor. Or ask Democrat senator Bob Menendez, who also opposed the “Iran deal.”

Before we can contemplate regime change in Iran, we must set policy standards and implement a decisive plan of action to clean our own house and take down the Iranian regime-supporters in America. We should start by investigating and auditing all Iran lobby groups and their financial resources, the misuse of their 501(c)(3)s, and the possible misuse of their 501(c)(4)s, one of which should have never been approved, after a U.S. court sanctioned Trita Parsi and the NIAC and forced them to pay a $172,000 settlement to Hassan Daioleslam, who had exposed the illegal lobbying activities on behalf of the Iranian regime by Trita Parsi at the NIAC.

To improve the situation, President Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson should immediately consider John Bolton’s appointment to a now understaffed State Department. As Reza Parchizadeh has written before, former U.N. ambassador Bolton is perhaps the most experienced character in American politics when it comes to the Iranian regime and the Middle East. Bolton will bring his much needed experience and a coherent Iran policy, as well as order to State’s Middle East section.

Next, Congress needs to come down hard on senators and congressman who fundraise for Iran lobbies, which in turn benefits the Iranian regime that has openly declared the United States and her allies Israel and Saudi Arabia as the regime’s number-one enemies. The House members’ assisting the enemy, in any form, is unconscionable and must stop.

We must also remove the regime-supporters from the U.S. taxpayer-funded entities Voice of America Persian and Radio Farda and get back on a pro-democracy, pro-liberty, and pro-human rights mission. According to BBG Watch, during an address on Capitol Hill – as part of an event about regime change in Iran, coordinated with the office of Congressman Patrick Meehan (R-Pa.) – Reza Parchizadeh said:

The old media, including the state media directed towards Iran, must be completely overhauled and restructured. In that regard, Voice of America and Radio Farda stand at the forefront, as they have been stuffed with regime sympathizers. So biased has been their broadcast in favor of the Iranian regime that the people of Iran and the dissidents derogatorily call Voice of America the “Voice of Ayatollahs” and Radio Farda “Radio Khatami.”

Removing pro-regime agents and sympathizers from VOA and Radio Farda must be made a State Department priority, to be accomplished by November 30, 2017.

Bravo to Nikki Haley, America’s ambassador to the United Nations, who put out a statement on Sunday saying that contrary to some reports, the U.S. will not seek an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council in response to North Korea’s second launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

That’s a smart break from the longstanding U.S. pattern. Sidelining the UN Security Council may be small potatoes in the face of the daunting problem of ending the threat of North Korea, but it is at least a move in the right direction.

In the past, these crash meetings of the Security Council have served among other things to paper over the failures of U.S. policies meant to stop North Korea. U.S. officials are seen to be doing something — an emergency meeting of the Security Council! And on paper, they are. Another toothless UN statement is released, or eventually another UN sanctions resolution is approved. But North Korea carries on.

As a rule, American diplomats in response to North Korea’s rogue missile and nuclear tests have cultivated a routine of bluster, posturing and portentous UN huddles, all so ritually hollow and predictable that, as I wrote on PJMedia on Saturday, it quite likely serves by now to reassure Pyongyang that no serious response is in the offing. They’ve heard and seen it all before.

This past Saturday, the day after North Korea’s Friday ICBM launch, it looked as if the diplomatic response from the usual quarters was following the same old script — and on most fronts, it was. The White House condemned North Korea’s ICBM test, the State Department “strongly” condemned it, the UN and European Union condemned and called for North Korea to mind its manners. And, right on cue, CBS News reported that the U.S. was seeking an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.

In my commentary, on Saturday, I linked to that CBS dispatch, which was headlined: “U.S. wants emergency Security Council meeting over second North Korean ICBM test.” I warned that the UN Security Council’s record on North Korea has been one of abject failure, stretching back to 2006 (that’s when the UN Security Council, with Resolution 1718, set up a North Korea sanctions committee, and kicked off an 11-year run of demanding that North Korea abandon its ballistic missile and nuclear programs).

The day after CBS reported that the U.S. was seeking an emergency meeting of the Security Council, Haley released a statement saying:

Following North Korea’s second ICBM launch on Friday, many have asked whether the United States will seek an emergency Security Council session on Monday. Some have even misreported that we are seeking such a session. That is mistaken.

Rarely has it been such a pleasure to learn that I must offer a correction. But I offer it here, along with an apology to Haley, for taking at face value the CBS report, which cited as its source unnamed “U.N. diplomats familiar with ongoing negotiations.”

The rest of Haley’s statement spelled out precisely why the U.S. was not seeking an emergency Security Council meeting on North Korea. It’s worth quoting in full (boldface mine):

There is no point in having an emergency session if it produces nothing of consequence. North Korea is already subject to numerous Security Council resolutions that they violate with impunity and that are not complied with by all UN Member States. An additional Security Council resolution that does not significantly increase the international pressure on North Korea is of no value. In fact, it is worse than nothing, because it sends the message to the North Korean dictator that the international community is unwilling to seriously challenge him. China must decide whether it is finally willing to take this vital step. The time for talk is over. The danger the North Korean regime poses to international peace is now clear to all.

What Haley nails here is the need to send a message to Kim Jong Un that the U.S. is no longer interested in the usual diplomatic kabuki — which in the past helped one U.S. administration after another kick the growing North Korea threat down the road, and left Pyongyang room to continue equipping itself with weapons for mass murder. The usual formula no longer applies, says Haley: “The time for talk is over.”