The Hill: What does the world look like without American leadership in some form, when necessary, or a risk possibly worth taking? The headlines tell the daily story. Our foreign policy must be pragmatic, not of immediate convenience or wishful projection, as the Obama administration has employed for the past five years. President Obama’s precipitous withdrawal in policy approach and militarily has consequences.
WND.com: The smell of rank hypocrisy and naked cruelty fills the air at the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. 2,400 real refugees from violence in Iran and Iraq are being denied visas out of fear of displeasing the tyrants in Tehran. What can we say about such cowardice and betrayal of American values? This denial of entry to the Iranian refugees deserves exposure and condemnation.
Wall Street Journal: As it prepares for four more months of nuclear talks with Iran, the U.S. faces a disadvantage: Even if there is ultimately no agreement, Tehran will pocket the considerable concessions Washington has already made. The U.S. will need to correct strategic and tactical shortcomings by bolstering the credibility of the alternatives to making a deal.
Roll Call: Civil wars that might have initially only threatened the two dictators are now endangering the entire region and global security. The main culprit for the growing instability is no other party but the repressive theocracy in Iran. This is the view shared by many of our former colleagues in Congress, evident in a series of recent hearings which addressed the destabilizing role of Tehran in the Middle East.
The Hill: When a leader is in trouble, his instinct is to look elsewhere for a potential success. This suggests to many policy analysts that the president may be sorely tempted to go all-out for a deal with Iran — any deal he can portray as a success, even if it isn't. What would a serious post-nuclear strategy look like? I have long advocated supporting the internal Iranian opposition.
.jpg){kind=icon}
