Mark Levin: If Something Serious Isn’t Done, Iran Will Take This Attack as a First Step

CNS News ^ | September 17, 2019 | Michael Morris

[Kazan]

On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Monday, host Mark Levin warned that if something serious isn’t done, Iran will take this attack as a first step.

“I will say this, if something isn’t done, something serious and significant isn’t done respecting Iran, they’re going to take this as a first step,” stated Mark Levin. “I’m just telling you. They’re going to take this as a first step. So, we’ll see what happens.”

Mark Levin’s comments came after a Saudi Arabian oil facility was attacked by “cruise missiles and drones,” FOX News reported, that “were launched from Iranian soil,” and after Iran seized control of another oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.

Below is a transcript, in pertinent part, of Mark Levin’s remarks from his show on Monday:

“The Iranians are not going away.

“So what should the president do? Short of military action – and I’m not saying we should be short of military action, but if we are – what should we do? Should we lift our sanctions? No. There are five areas of waivers that the secretary of state’s office has argued should not be lifted, that is, they shouldn’t be imposed on Iran. Will the secretary of state change his mind now? I hope. There needs to be a lot of pressure on Iran.

“I read an article the other day – I don’t know if it’s right or not – that Iran’s pension funds are about to collapse, including with the military. Isn’t that a good thing? Wouldn’t that be great?

“So why would we give them a $15 billion bridge loan?

“Remember the gentleman who called last week? He had been from Eastern Europe, I believe. No, he was from France, I think – originally, now an American. He said, ‘Do you remember how Khomeini would up in Iran? Because the French government released him.’ The French make very, very stupid foreign policy decisions, which is why they’re a second- and third-tier country. I don’t think we need to be taking advice from Macron, who’s got 27 percent popularity in France, and has no background on anything, no background on anything.

“So the Iranians are pirates on the open sea. They took another oil tanker yesterday.

“If you go on the internet – you won’t read this in many newspapers because the media are the media – you’ll see they’re kidnapping British and Australians and others left and right now.

“This attack on Saudi Arabia should grab your attention because of its accuracy, the devastation and the technology involved.

“And as I told you before, maybe Rand Paul is not aware of this, the fifth fleet is harbored in Bahrain. Should we withdraw? Should we pull back? How about with China? They took over the South China Sea with their fake islands. Should we withdraw, pull back? Should we take our subs off of the Korean peninsula, remove them too? Where should we go? Where should we go? Just keep pulling back and back and back and let these various threats and enemies grow and grow and grow?

“Rand Paul asked a question over the weekend: ‘Why are we in Afghanistan?’ Is this guy an idiot? Does anybody know why we went into Afghanistan? Anybody? Everybody knows why we went into Afghanistan. Because the Taliban gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and if we take all of our troops out of Afghanistan, what do you think is going to happen?

“I mean, how many more times do we have to lose Americans, heroes, blood to go back and fight the same battles, go back and fight over the same territory? It’s— At one point we had over 140,000 troops in Afghanistan. We’re down to 14,000. We have about anywhere from 1,500 to 2,200 special forces in Syria. We have minimal presence in Iraq.

“We’re not an invading army. We’re not going to war with these countries. We’re trying to make sure we’re not attacked – yes, from 7,000 miles away – that we’re not attacked. We’re not colonialists. We’re not conquerors.

…

“I will say this, if something isn’t done, something serious and significant isn’t done respecting Iran, they’re going to take this as a first step. I’m just telling you. They’re going to take this as a first step. So, we’ll see what happens.

“But right now they’re controlling events – not the world – they’re controlling events.”

[central_va]

It’s a global market. The oils shortfall will be made up and gas prices in the USA will rise.

[central_va]

In 2018, the United States imported about 9.93 million barrels per day (MMb/d) of petroleum from about 86 countries. Petroleum includes crude oil, hydrocarbon gas liquids, refined petroleum products such as gasoline and diesel fuel, and biofuels including ethanol and biodiesel. Crude oil accounted for about 78% of U.S. gross petroleum imports in 2018, and non-crude oil petroleum accounted for about 22% of gross petroleum imports.

In 2018, the United States exported about 7.59 MMb/d of petroleum to 190 countries and 4 U.S. territories, of which about 26% was crude oil and 74% was non-crude oil petroleum. The resulting net imports (imports minus exports) of petroleum were about 2.34 MMb/d.

[Alberta's Child]

You know there is a whole range of military options than just invade or do nothing.

I know. In the U.S. government over the last 25+ years, those are options that are usually only considered as the first step to a decades-long U.S. military presence -- just like we've seen in about half the sh!t-holes in the Middle East, it seems.

This is John Bolton with his mask removed:

John Bolton Pushes to Send Your Kids Off to War in Iran

This guy is a deranged nut. A few interesting points jump out at me with this one ...

1. Bolton was making this speech in mid-2017 when he was not even working in the U.S. government, and yet he's standing up there making statements about what the U.S. was going to do before 2019.

2. Notice that Bolton says nothing about protecting shipping interests, ensuring the free flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, or any "limited military options" at all. His only objective is "regime change" in Iran.

3. He's making this speech before a group of Iranian exiles known as MEK, which translates to the "People's Mojohedin of Iran." The MEK was classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government up until 2012.

4. In this speech he claims that he's been making speeches to this group for "eight years," and since this speech was given in 2017 then that means he was speaking to this MEK group while they were still considered a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION by the U.S. government.

There's just one example of the terrorist enablers who have polluted the upper ranks of the U.S. government for years. Do you really think these @ssholes are going to give you a straight answer about anything? LOL.

[Alberta's Child]

Was Thomas Jefferson a Globalist spouting Globalist drivel? Should we disband the USMC? From the Halls of Montezuma to the Shores of Tripoli we will fight our countries battles in the air on land and sea.

We've been through this before, dude. No offense, but it's getting painful to respond to this idiocy.

If President Jefferson had sent a detachment of Marines "to the Shores of Tripoli" to serve as a permanent armed force for an Islamic royal family instead of protecting U.S. shipping interests, he would have been hanged in front of the White House and Monticello would have been burned to the ground.

[wastedyears]

That “fight them there or fight them here” mentality is what got us thousands dead and trillions wasted. Should we do it again to see if we can get it right this time?

[Vermont Lt]

You are still fighting a war from 150 years ago. And your opinion outta?

Please explain to me where our National Interest lies with defending Saudi Oil?

This ought to be good from someone who pines for the days when you could own another human being.

[morphing libertarian]

you are satisfied leyting religious fanatics who already support terrorism have nukes and ICBMs. I am not.

[Alberta's Child]

If this thread doesn’t convince everyone that Libertarians are in control of Free Republic then nothing ever will.

Funny you should say that. A lot of "libertarians" were tossed off this website back in the mid-2000s because they dared to oppose the party line during the tenure of that retarded baboon, George W. Bush -- particularly with regard to all the tiresome, expensive and destructive military campaigns orchestrated by the cabal of globalists who polluted that administration.

These "libertarians" you speak of have been craving a leader like Donald Trump for years. You should thank them for sending Jeb Bush to a humiliating defeat, and then closing the book on the Clintons as well.

I don't know about you, but THIS is the guy I voted for in 2016.

[Alberta's Child]

Sorry, ML -- but that bullsh!t doesn't fly anymore. Waging a "war on terrorism" in Islamic dumps all over the Middle East while flooding this country with Islamic "refugees" from those same sh!t-holes is such a pathetic approach to rationalizing U.S. military intervention YET AGAIN.

The bullsh!t meter should have broken on this crap for every rational Freeper years ago.

[wastedyears]

What do endless wars and military adventures get us?

[central_va]

The choice is not between an endless war and doing nothing.

[central_va]

Libertarians are free traders and open border zealots.

[wastedyears]

Should we send troops to Venezuela to fight against socialism? Should we take action against every country that says something bad about us?

[Alberta's Child]

I put the word “libertarians” in quotes because that term is often applied to a lot of us who are not true libertarians at all.

And I’ve got some news for you, dude ... the biggest advocates of open borders and “free trade” in the GOP are the same war-mongering globalists who have been pushing for these military campaigns all over the world for years.

[central_va]

It’s Ok to be against a coordinated limited retaliatory strike against Iran but saying the choice is WAR( i.e. invasion) and doing nothing is totally preposterous and simplistic.

[Alberta's Child]

I agree that it would be “preposterous and simplistic” under normal circumstances, but it’s foolish to ignore recent history. When was the last time the U.S. initiated a “limited retaliatory strike” that didn’t eventually turn into a military occupation? Iraq? Libya? Syria? ... Bueller? Bueller?

[morphing libertarian]

don’t be an idiot.

[morphing libertarian]

ICBM’s fly with nuke warheads. Sorry AC the world is a dangerous place especially when religious fanatics develop weapons of mass destruction

[central_va]

When was the last time the U.S. initiated a “limited retaliatory strike” that didn’t eventually turn into a military occupation?

Many times. Here is only one example. Operation Praying Mantis

[Alberta's Child]

That’s exactly how you end up living in a police state under a government controlled by globalists and foreigners. A retarded baboon with a Texas accent mumbles a bunch of sh!t about “weapons of mass destruction,” “war on terror,” and “democracy,” and even a bunch of Freepers are willing to sign away their liberty and their sovereignty to people hell-bent on flooding this country with Mexicans and Muslims.