Iran Nuke Deal and Obama’s Seeming Agenda for Israel

Obama-Iran Deal - Israel Under Bus toon

John R. Houk

© December 18, 2013


The Obama Administration via John Kerry negotiated a deal with Iran that bends to everything Iran needs to arm itself with nuclear weapons. I can say that because Iran’s promises – particularly to the United States – have a history of no value and downright betrayal of international protocol. Can you say Tehran U.S. Embassy invasion and American hostages in 1979?


With this lack of Iranian trustworthiness Obama spearheads a nuclear deal with Iran based more on trust than verification which in the meantime sells out our principle Middle Eastern ally Israel and throws a monkey wrench in utilizing Saudi Arabia as a Middle Eastern friend. The biggest concern I have is the implication that the Iran Nuke Deal is probably to be used by Obama to further demonstrate his displeasure with Israel for not laying down to the outrageous demands of the Palestinian Authority for a sovereign Arab state called Palestine including robbing Jewish Israel of the Holy Temple site because conquering Muslims built a couple of Mosques on the holiest site of all Judaism. Obama’s pretensions for selling out the miracle of the Jewish State is certainly a part of reasoning for having the USA cozy up to such an evil nation as Radical Islamic Shi’ite Twelver Iran.


Now I appreciate that Saudi Arabia is uniting with their hated enemy the Jewish state of Israel against Iran, but that odd coupling has more to do with an existential National Interest against the designs of Iranian regional hegemonic desires. Israel is a Jewish state that all Muslims (Sunni and Shia) are taught to hate from their holy writings in the Quran, Hadith and Sira. Saudi Arabia is a Sunni nation dominated by Wahhabi Muslim Clerics that most Sunnis find a bit threatening with their purist back to Mohammed religious ideology. The things is about Saudi Arabia being Sunni is that Sunnis and Shias consider each other heretics by virtue of a disagreement on Caliphate succession in which the Sunnis ultimately began to dominate. That thousand year disagreement is showing up in the present between the Saudis and the Iranians in Islamic religious domination. For existential reasons the Saudis cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran. Hence, Israel and Saudi Arabia are unlikely allies against Iran and Obama’s idiotic diplomatic effort for America to trust a Muslim dominated nation like Iran.


Israel’s existential concerns about Iran are purely centered on Iran’s constant threat to wipe Israel off the map so that Muslims can once again rule the land of Jewish heritage. That means a hegemonic Iran will aid the Arabs (both Sunni and Shia) that call themselves Palestinians or support that so-called Arab-Palestinians to destroy Israel. If such a destruction of Israel was successful only the foolishness of Westerners like Obama would believe Iran would allow a Sunni controlled Arab sovereign state to exist. Or at least to exist independent of Shi’ite Twelver Iran’s control as a client state. Thus Hezbollah (Shi’ite-Lebanese Arabs) and Shi’ite-Alawite Arab Syrians are very important to Iran.


In case you haven’t notices there has been a slow genocide of the existing Christians stuck in Muslim controlled nations. And the Jews of the Middle East have mostly congregated in Israel. Jewish genocidal extermination would commence a la Nazi-style under the worst possible circumstances of the West laying down for a Caliphate agenda. The Quran, Hadith, Sira and Sharia Law encoded in Islam would lead to another global Jihad attempt to finish Islamic global domination. History shows how conquered people in Islamic imperialism fair under Islam. Keep in mind the Middle East, North Africa, Anatolia (Turkey) and Muslim Eastern Europe (Balkans) were all Christian lands before Islamic imperialism.


The dhimma program utilized in Islam essentially transformed the Christian majority into the minority population. The dhimmi life imposed on non-Muslims was so oppressive that massive populations converted to Islam to leave dhimmitude behind. Consider some of these quotes pertaining to Islamizing the majority population:



“The two pillars of the nascent Islamic state in the conquered lands were the army — formed by Arab tribes and the slaves taken as spoils of war — and the conquered masses: tributaries, slaves, freed men, and converts, a workforce which fed the economic sector. The third pillar — juridical power — was being elaborated. It would undertake to balance and rectify the enormous demographic disparity between the conquered Peoples of the Book and the Muslims. – the legal institution would formulate a collection of laws which gradually whittled down the rights of the dhimmis and confined them to a cramped condition, by transferring to the umma all the key positions that the dhimmis had formerly held.” Pp. 69, 70



“In the lands conquered by jihad the Peoples of the Book formed majorities, among whom the Arabs of the first wave of Islamization and the Turks of the second wave were in the minority. Presumably the complex and little-known processes that transformed those majorities into minorities covered some three or four centuries for each wave of Islamization. By contracting it, the expression ‘religious minorities’ reverses a chronological process that had spread over centuries, whose result — the minority condition — is taken as its starting point.”


“This interpretation, which omits the essential phase when irreversible changes occurred, conceals the political aspect of dhimmitude and reduces it exclusively to a religious minority status. In addition, the formula becomes inadequate for certain regions, such as the Balkans, where non-Muslims were in the majority until the nineteenth century” P. 243


“Today, it would seem absurd to describe the Rumanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Greek and Israeli nations as former ‘tolerated religious minorities.’ Similarly, the common cliche second-class citizens has no meaning, because the dhimmis were not citizens and the term ‘second-class’ is devoid of the dhimma’s historical and juridical substrata.” Pp. 243,244


“dhimmitude reveals another reality. Here are peoples who, spread the Judeo-Christian civilization as far as Europe and Russia. Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, conquered by nomadic bands, taught their oppressors, with the patience of centuries, the subtle skills of governing empires, the need for law and order, the management of finances, the administration of town and countryside, the rules of taxation rather those of pillage, the sciences, philosophy, literature, and the arts, the organization and transmission of knowledge — in short, the rudiments and foundations of civilization.” P. 264


Decimated by razzias in the countryside, they sought refuge in the towns which they developed and embellished. Branded with opprobrium, the conquerors still chose to drag them from region to region in order to revive ravaged lands and restore ruined towns. Once again, they built, again they worked. Once again they were driven out, again pillaged and ransomed. And as they dwindled, drained of their blood and spirit, civilization itself disappeared, decadence stagnated, barbarism reigned over lands which, previously, when they were theirs, were lands of civilization, of crops and of plenty.” P. 265


“The elites who fled to Europe took their cultural baggage with them, their scholarship, and their knowledge of the classics of antiquity. Therefore, in the Christian lands of refuge — Spain, Provence, Sicily, Italy — cultural centers developed where Christians and Jews from Islamized lands taught to the young Europe the knowledge of the old pre-Islamic Orient, formerly translated into Arabic by their ancestors.” P. 265 (Quotes from Bat Ye’or in reviewing book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity, From Jihad to Dhimmitude;” The Middle East After the Islamic Conquest; By Rev. Bassam Michael Madany; [Middle East Resources])


See also a book review of Bat Ye’or’s book “Understanding Dhimmitude” posted on FrontPage Mag dated 7/19/13.


In understanding the theopolitical mindset encoded into Islam, you have to realize Obama’s Chamberlain-like nuke deal with Iran at worst will lead to a collapse of the global earth-governance system modelled after Western historical evolution – a global attack to spread Islam resulting in the nations of the earth choosing sides in WWIII. At best the Iran Nuke Deal will lead to an effective response by Israel which will also culminate in WWIII.


You can see how this nuke deal will threaten Israel, right? AND in the midst of this sell-out to Israel Secretary of State John Kerry is the instrument of President Barack Hussein Obama to twist the arms of Israel to a nation-destroying plan to establish a Jew-Hating sovereign Palestinian state. Let’s call it the Obama-Kerry Progressive One-State Solution for the Holy Land. I use the word “Progressive” because as time progresses Israel could again face a combination of a Diaspora and a Holocaust. First Obama buddies up with Iran, then lays the groundwork for forced indefensibility. Check out this small excerpt from Caroline Glick’s editorial from yesterday:


Kerry’s framework deal will involve the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of foreign-born Arabs, who have been living in al-Qaida-, Hamas- and PLO -controlled UN-run “refugee camps,” for the past four generations to the new state of “Palestine.”


Kerry’s plan will require Israeli society to destroy its cohesion through the dismemberment and destruction of hundreds of Jewish communities. As occurred before the Gaza withdrawal, it will require the government to oversee the demonization and criminalization of well over three million law abiding, patriotic Israeli citizens who oppose the mass expulsions.


Kerry’s parameters will require Israel to surrender its ability to defend itself against foreign aggression and Palestinian attacks. As for the Palestinians, implementation of the Kerry parameters will guarantee that all moderate elements in their society, including among Israeli Arabs, will be overwhelmed and destroyed. The PLO state in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, like the Hamas state in Gaza, will be breeding grounds for global jihadists. They will actively incite, organize and oversee an armed insurrection of the Arabs of the Galilee and the Negev, meting out punishment for all dissenters.


Glick’s analysis is merely shortened in the excerpt above. You should read her entire article to get a full grasp of how Obama is terminating Israel’s existence by proxy.


JRH 12/18/13 (Hat Tip: updates)

Please Support NCCR

Will Post-America Iraq Disintegrate?

Iraq Ethnic Map 2 lg

John R. Houk

© April 14, 2011


The Iraq Surge was pretty much a successful military venture; however it did not wrap things up in terms of reliable stability for Iraq as a sovereign nation that roughly has a majority population of Iran sympathizing Shias, a lesser minority of Sunnis who ruled the nation for a half century and the ever disenfranchised Kurds who tend to Sunni Muslims but are viewed as second class citizens by Sunni and Shia Arabs as well as by the Shias of Iran.


When President G.W. Bush finally rallied enough political support both at home and with the Coalition of the Willing to depose psycho-dictator Saddam Hussein, there were brief moments of the thought to divide Iraq (SA HERE) into three regional nations to accommodate Shias, Sunnis and Kurds. I say brief because it became evident a divided Iraq would make the Iraq area an easy target for Iranian invasion especially since the Iraqi Shias are very sympathetic to the Mullah ruled Iran. Also there is the question of who controls and/or benefits from the still profitable amounts in the ground in Iraq. There is no doubt one group would invade the other group to gain access to the oil to benefit which ever tribal minded Shia, Sunni or Kurd. Not to mention that Turkey was prepared to go to war to make sure a sovereign Kurdish nation did not exist on their southern border (See this possible recent development).


Because of Iran hegemonic regional designs coupled with a nationalistic Islamist Turkish government dominating that still hates Kurds, when the USA leaves Iraq the thin glue that has held the current Iraq together may dissolve rapidly. This is problematic because America does have an invested interest in the prayer that Iraq stabilizes internally. The disintegration of an Iraq central government will make Iraq a target for Iran to usurp the Shia portion of Iraq.


Also Turkey’s Islamist government has been reaching out to Iran lately. I see a possibility of Turkey and Iran clandestinely pulling off a form of a Hitler-Stalin pact. That pact led Hitler to invade Poland from the west and Stalin’s Red Army invading Poland from the east. A Turkey-Iran pact might look like Iran’s military annexing Iraq’s Shia locations and Turkey annexing the Kurd areas of northern Iraq.


Since I am by far no-means a geopolitical expert (I am just a no-name blogger), check out the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) email which speculates with clarity Iraq’s situation and why it matters to American National Interests.


JRH 4/14/11


ISW in Brief: An Uncertain Future for the U.S.-Iraq Partnership


By Ramzy Mardini

April 14, 2011

ISW Email


Last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited Iraq to discuss the timetable for the U.S. military’s withdrawal, currently scheduled to conclude by the end of this year. During his three-day visit, Secretary Gates met with Iraqi leaders and communicated the United States’ willingness to extend its troop presence beyond 2011 should the Iraqis make such a request. His visit comes amidst growing concerns that a December 2011 withdrawal will leave a dangerous security vacuum in Iraq.

Secretary Gates’ visit coincides with growing Iraqi sentiment against an extended U.S. forces presence in Iraq. In stark contrast to Gates’ offer of an extension, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other members of his coalition have rejected the possibility of a continued U.S. military presence. Maliki reportedly told Gates during their meeting that his government opposes “any presence of U.S. troops or other foreign troops” and that Iraqi forces were capable of maintaining security and “countering any attack,” suggesting they were no longer in need of U.S. support. Maliki’s argument, however, contradicts statements made by senior Iraqi military officials that they will require additional U.S. assistance for years to come.


Yet, the strongest opposition to a continued U.S. presence comes from the firebrand Shi’a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose party holds 40 seats in the 325-seat Council of Representatives, more than any individual party in Iraq. Following last year’s election, Maliki relied on Sadr’s backing in order to retain his position as prime minister. Should Maliki come to support an extension by way of a renegotiated Security Agreement, he would surely lose Sadr’s support, a move which could jeopardize his premiership. If Maliki were to lose Sadrist backing, he would have to seek alliances elsewhere. Yet, even Iraqiyya—another major parliamentary bloc—has expressed mixed views toward a sustained U.S. presence.


The Sadrists have also been working to rally popular sentiment in favor of U.S. withdrawal, chiefly through anti-occupation demonstrations. On April 9, just one day after Gates’ departure, tens of thousands of Sadr loyalists flooded the streets in Baghdad to mark the eighth anniversary of the ousting of Saddam, with anti-American banners and slogans demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces. During the rally, Sadrist spokesman Salah al-Obaidi threatened to reinstate the Jaysh al-Mahdi (JAM) militia and escalate popular opposition in response to a sustained U.S. military presence. A recent report in al-Hayat suggests that the leaders of the Iranian-linked militant group, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, would consider rejoining the Sadrists if JAM is armed and reactivated, which would further reinforce JAM’s ability to destabilize Iraq.


Though an extension of the U.S. presence is a politically unattractive prospect for Iraqis, there are many unresolved issues that threaten to unravel recent security gains. Unsettled territorial disputes between Arabs and Kurds—particularly in the oil-rich city of Kirkuk—may escalate into a civil war between the Kurdish Peshmerga and Iraqi security forces should the U.S. military presence be removed. Recent events have demonstrated the importance of a U.S. presence to mediate between the two factions. A recent incident in which the KRG deployed Peshmerga forces south of Kirkuk City, without consulting U.S. and Iraqi officials, heightened tensions and required Vice President Joe Biden to intervene to defuse the conflict. Both sides have come to the verge of armed conflict on multiple occasions, only to be deterred by the presence of U.S. forces.


Additionally, though extremist groups have been degraded, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) remains active, and could seek to fill the security vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal. In one of their deadliest attacks in recent years, on March 29, 2011, AQI attacked a government building in Tikrit, killing 56 people and wounding scores more, including several provincial councilmen and the chief of police of Salah-ad-Din governorate. This incident demonstrates that AQI retains its ability to conduct high-profile attacks, prompting questions and concerns about the readiness of Iraq’s security forces.


Though the Iraqi military has made significant strides towards self-sufficiency, it remains unable to fill critical external defense functions, like protecting its borders and controlling its airspace. For example, Iraq’s Air Force lacks sufficient aircraft and trained pilots to defend Iraqi airspace from incursions. Moreover, reduced capabilities in logistics and intelligence also limit Iraq’s defenses. It is also likely that, following a complete U.S. withdrawal, other interested parties, such as Iran, may seek to expand their influence in the region by exploiting Iraq’s vulnerabilities.


All of these elements make a continued U.S.-Iraq partnership especially important post-2011; however, time is running out, and delicate diplomatic engagement will be required if any agreement is to be reached.


Will Post-America Iraq Disintegrate?

John R. Houk

© April 14, 2011


ISW in Brief: An Uncertain Future for the U.S.-Iraq Partnership


Ramzy Mardini is a Research Analyst at ISW.


The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization. ISW advances an informed understanding of military affairs through reliable research, trusted analysis, and innovative education. We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives.


ISW is a 501(c)(3) organization under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. All contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law.


Copyright (C) 2011 Institute for the Study of War All rights reserved.

%d bloggers like this: