It’s time to get serious about our response. Either we’re fighting to win or we’re going to continue to be big losers.
Unfortunately, it may require boots on the ground to fight the Islamic State. I don’t think it’s necessary to broadcast our strategy. (In fact, one of the most ridiculous policy blunders President Obama has committed was to announce our timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.) If military advisers recommend it, we should commit a limited—but sufficient—number of troops to fight on the ground. We could also easily expand air operations to make it impossible for ISIS to ever find safe haven anywhere in the region. Our policy of trying to be “advisers” in the field has certainly been a failure.
However, I have a unique perspective on what action we should take. While ISIS is our most violent enemy, they ended up with oil in Iraq and Syria that we should have taken. That oil, along with ransom and extortion, is funding their army. I’ve advocated bombing the hell out of those oil fields to cut off the source of their money. This would barely affect the world oil supply, but it would dramatically reduce their ability to fund terrorism.
We have to take that oil because it is the source of their wealth. We would hit them so hard and so fast in so many different ways they wouldn’t know what happened. And then we’d hit them again and again until ISIS ceased to exist as a threat to anybody.
We don’t have a choice. These people are medieval barbarians. They cut off heads, they drown people, they torture people, and we can’t allow them to ever gain a safe foothold anywhere.
The number of ISIS troops is relatively small. Our intelligence community has estimated that there are no more than 30,000 to 50,000 ISIS fighters. People are usually surprised by that number. ISIS has done such a good job promoting fear that people assume it to be a much larger force. It isn’t. The entire ISIS force probably wouldn’t even fill Yankee Stadium. So defeating them requires a real commitment to go after them relentlessly wherever they are, without stopping, until every one of them is dead—and always bringing in other countries to help out.
Iran is a much more complex problem.
I am not afraid to criticize President Obama when he gets it wrong. When he was running for president in 2008, he correctly said, “Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, and it denies the Holocaust.”
So why when Iran was struggling financially would he agree to a nuclear deal that releases billions of dollars’ worth of assets, which will further subsidize their terrorism business? It makes no sense.
Iran was a powerful nation until the religious fanatics took over. As long as those people remain in power, Iran will be our enemy and a threat to Israel’s existence. Their supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has promised that Israel won’t exist in 25 years. We have to take that threat seriously and act accordingly.
I’ve always loved and admired the Jewish people and supported the special relationship we have with Israel. The next president has to restore our traditionally strong partnership. We have been there for Israel and will continue to be there for Israel, because it is the one stable democracy in that region. It has become a fair-trading partner and a fellow pioneer on the frontiers of medicine, communications, technology, and energy development, which will benefit both of our nations well into the future.
The miles that separate us right now from Iran are only a temporary barrier for them. If, or when, they develop missiles that can reach this country they will become a much greater threat. Meanwhile, they are financially supporting terrorist groups all over the world—and those groups are a real threat to our country and to our military serving overseas. Our enemies no longer need huge armies or billion-dollar missile systems to attack this country. Technology has made it possible for one or two terrorists to inflict terrible damage on us. We’ve got to stop Iran from sponsoring these murderers.
But instead, we continue losing.
The deal President Obama negotiated with Iran was the worst I have ever seen. We couldn’t have done worse.
Iran was boxed in and the sanctions were hurting them. President Obama put his “legacy” on the line and before we walked into negotiations, the mullahs knew he had to have a deal or end up looking even more incompetent, so they fleeced him.
Disgraceful.
We did everything wrong in those negotiations. Instead of removing the sanctions that forced the Iranians to negotiate, we should have doubled or tripled the sanctions.
Remember the principal strategy of negotiation: The side that needs the deal the most is the one that should walk away with the least.
I would have increased the sanctions until the conditions there were so terrible that the Iranian leaders were begging for a deal.
I would have laid down certain conditions that had to be agreed to, starting with the release of our four prisoners.
I wouldn’t have settled for less than a complete dismantling of all their nuclear facilities, destruction of all their centrifuges, and on-site inspections anytime, anywhere.
We didn’t get any of that—none of it—and then we released billions of dollars that had been frozen.
We literally paid them to force us to accept a terrible deal. That would be like me beginning negotiations to build another magnificent skyscraper along the Hudson with 50-mile views in all directions, and walking out with approval to put up a small three-story building facing a wall.
Iran got what it wanted (the release of their seized assets) and in return gave up what might have seemed like huge concessions, only to find out that there were so many loopholes that it will be nearly impossible to enforce anything meaningful.
The possibility of Iran defying the world and developing a nuclear weapon is still very real. If the Iranians decide to prevent us (or the International Atomic Energy Agency) from inspecting their facilities, there isn’t too much that we can do about it other than take military action. The coalition of countries that enforced those sanctions is finished. Those countries—and several of them couldn’t care less about Israel—had people in Tehran talking business before the ink had dried on the side agreements.
And then President Obama wouldn’t let Congress look at the deal. Once the new Iranian “partners” start making money there is no way the sanctions can ever be put back into place.
Unfortunately, the deal is done. Once the sanctions are removed there is no going back, no “snapback.” Putting sanctions back in place unilaterally won’t do any good. I am especially good at reading a contract. There is always a loophole, we need to find it and, if necessary, they will pay big-league dollars.
Whatever it takes, whatever we have to do, Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear weapon.
There are many different ways to make sure that Iran is never armed with nuclear weapons. I’d be happy to sit down with the Iranian leaders when they understand that the best course for them, if they want to be a major player in the civilized world, is to close down their entire nuclear program. An Iran with a nuclear weapon would start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with potentially devastating consequences. The situation would rapidly escalate to being the most dangerous threat Israel has ever faced. And it would force us to use extreme measures in defense of Israel and other allies in the region.
That’s not going to happen, whatever Iran might think right now.
Today the world has to deal with two “sets” of China.