Posted on 01/03/2018 5:27:07 AM PST by SJackson
One would hardly know it from the establishment media but since December 28 Iranians have been taking it to the streets to protest Iran’s weak economy and high food prices. The Islamic regime reacted with violence and at this writing has killed more than 20 protesters. Mousa Ghazanfarabadi, head of the Revolutionary Court, warns that protesters will be charged with Moharebeh, “waging war against God,” which is punishable by death.
“The people of Iran are finally acting against the brutal and corrupt Iranian regime,” President Trump tweeted. “All of the money that President Obama so foolishly gave them went into terrorism and into their pockets. . . The people have little food, big inflation and no human rights. The U.S. is watching!”
Iranians took to the street in 2009 but POTUS 44 did nothing to support them and during his two terms essentially gave the oppressive Islamic regime everything it wanted. With Iranians protesting in greater numbers, the crew of POTUS 44 seems inclined to give the Islamic regime a pass and reserve their wrath for President Trump.
POTUS 44 claimed he was “troubled” by violence against the protesters, but it was “up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.” The former president was also wary of “the United States being the issue inside of Iran.”
Phillip Gordon, POTUS 44’s assistant secretary of state and White House coordinator for the Middle East, said President Trump should “Keep quiet and do nothing.” For Gordon, supporting the 2009 protesters would only have given the regime a pretext to crack down. Trump’s support for current protesters “certainly will not” be helpful, Gordon wrote. “Whatever Iranians think of their own government, they are unlikely to want as a voice for their grievances an American president who has relentlessly opposed economic relief for their country and banned them from traveling to the United States.” The Iranian regime itself escapes criticism.
Obama national security advisor Susan Rice told the world the Benghazi terrorist attack was all about an internet video. With Iranians protesters being slain in the streets, she wants President Trump to “be quiet.”
Ben Rhodes, POTUS 44’s former deputy national security advisor for strategic communication, tweeted that “The Iranian people are rightfully demanding dignity, less corruption, more opportunity, and greater control over their lives. In look at US twitter, it seems lost on too many that this is about what Iranians want for Iran, not about us.”
Rhodes, it might be recalled, was a key promoter of the Iran deal, an easy sell to reporters. “They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo,” he told the New York Times Magazine. “Their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. They literally know nothing.” So they willingly echoed everything POTUS 44 said about the Iran deal, the regime’s ticket to nuclear weapons.
Obama State Department mouthpiece Marie Harf, a faithful Hillary Clinton apologist, also supported the Iran deal. Last April on Fox News she claimed “The Iranians have upheld their part of the bargain,” and the Iranian nuclear program was “greatly diminished” as a result of the deal. On Sunday, with Iranian protesters in the streets, Harf explained that the Obama administration didn’t support the 2009 protests because “we were hearing from Iranians protesting on the streets that your support will not help us.”
Former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor held off on criticism of Iran’s Islamic regime but did write that “Trump loves protesters as long as they’re not American.”
In similar style, POTUS 44’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power wrote “We stand with the Iranian people so much that we won’t let them come here.”
In a 2003 piece in The New Republic, Power called for “a historical reckoning with crimes committed, sponsored or permitted by the United States.” And she called the United States an “empire,” another reason Obama tapped her for the UN post. His foreign policy was all about atoning for the sins of the American Evil Empire.
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when Iranians protested in 2009. As they take to the streets again she expressed a “hope” the Iranian regime would listen to them, but nothing beyond that. Former Secretary of State John Kerry called the protests “an Iranian moment and not anyone else’s.” And so on.
In 1979, the Iranian Islamic regime under the Ayatollah Khomeini invaded the U.S embassy in Tehran, took more than 60 hostages and held them for 444 days. The movie Argo showed how six were smuggled out, with help from Canada, but the embassy invasion was a humiliation for the United States under Democrat Jimmy Carter.
The Islamic Republic of Iran still chants “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel.” Iran remains the major sponsor of terrorism in the world and deprives the people of the most basic human rights. When Iranians rise up in protest, the regime charges that they are “waging war on God,” and slays them in the street.
President of the United States Donald Trump tweets out solidarity with the protesters and calls out the “brutal and corrupt Iranian regime.” POTUS 44 and his posse prefer to go easy on the Iranian regime and target president Trump instead. For all but the willfully blind, the difference should be clear.
The Left reserves its wrath for President Trump.
If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Other than talk, what should we do? I heard somebody on Fox (maybe it was John Bolton, I can’t remember for sure) say that the US could somehow restore the internet access that the regime is currently denying to its citizens. Not sure exactly how that could be accomplished, but it would be a big step if it can be done.
The state as god. No wonder leftists have such fondness for the current dictators in Iran.
Losers continue to be losers.
Tremendous truth in that.
Trump’s next tweet should be:
“We know our Iran policy is the correct policy because Iran sympathizer Susan Rice objects.”
I’m wondering though if there’s a case to be made for “better the devil you know”.
This revolt is totally leaderless. If they manage to toss out the mullahs who will fill the power vacuum?
Will we end up with another multi decade disaster like Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya...? And Iran is much bigger than any of these.
Do we have anyone in mind to take over the reins of power there or are we just going to settle with chaos, a multiyear civil war and million more refugees flooding the west?
I’m all for getting rid of the mullahs, but it’s worth asking, what’s going to replace them?
Do nothing. The American people should not make any sacrifices in blood or treasure for Iran. Eventually the medieval backward regime of the mullahs, that opposes the institutions, values, practices and freedoms people want, will collapse on its own because it is not sustainable. It will collapse sooner if people like Obama stop sending it hard currency and supporting it.
Enemy islamist soebarkah’s minions are the entire democrat party.
...and lots of RINOS to boot...and who should be booted.
bammy gave iran 30 B of our money, so of course he’s going to do all he can to save the corrupt *slamic regime that yells “death to America. Death to Israel.”
The crown prince is still alive. I remember reading a few years ago that he was named Iranian of the year in some type (may be Iranian exiles) poll. I would think if you’re old enough to remember pre 1979 Iran you might long for a Shah.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.