A Nuclear Iran?

While people’s attentions have been focused on the war in Ukraine (if their Twitter bios are any indication), there have been some big goings on in the Middle East, namely Iran. A recent story from The Jerusalem Post suggests Iran might either be close to or has nuclear weapon capability. Granted, this is a report from Iran itself filtered through Al Jazeera (the Salon of the Islamic world in your humble reporter’s opinion), so we might have to take Iran’s word with a Mount Everest-sized grain of salt.

However, I happen to take a slightly less optimistic view of this news. For a few years now, I have predicted Iran would go nuclear sooner rather than later, and it wouldn’t be for power generation as the Iranian government and their Leftist enablers in America would have us believe. Think about it for a moment. Iran has one of the largest oil deposits in the world under their feet, so why would they want to go nuclear?

Here’s a hint: they’re not trying to go green, kids.

The fact of the matter is Iran has had nuclear designs since former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whom I affectionately call Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket) came onto the scene. At the time, Leftists swooned over Imadinnerjacket because he was critical of then-President George W. Bush. (That, and Leftists are massive dumbasses when it comes to the Middle East.) After a brief love affair, Leftists must have lost his number and promptly ghosted him. Either that, or it was his speech where he claimed there were no gay people in Iran (mainly because he killed them on sight). Six of one, half a dozen of another, I guess…

Anyway, we managed to stymie Iran’s nuclear development until President Barack Obama decided the people who loved to chant “Death to America” were trustworthy enough to honor a deal with us to not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for the easing of sanctions against them. Oh, and a tidy $1.7 billion in cash. No way that could backfire, amirite? Not with the brilliant foreign policy of John “I Was For Kissing Iran’s Ass Before I Was For It” Kerry!

As little faith as I have in Kerry’s ability to negotiate for a $5 foot long at Subway, I have even less faith in Iran telling us the truth. Not only do they have a vested interest in keeping their nuclear arms program on the lowest of down-lows, but they still see us as an enemy to be wiped from the face of this earth. Although with inflation these days, we may be downgraded from “Great Satan” to “Mostly Okay Satan” to save some money, but the point remains the same. We are less likely to see Seth Rogan winning a Best Actor Oscar than we are to making Iran our newest buddy.

Of course, no foreign policy blunder would be complete without some level of confusion. Although the Iran Deal promised it would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, there is some controversy over whether Iran actually kept up its end of the deal. Of course, when these accusations went public, Iran claimed it was the coalition that put the Iran Deal together that reneged on the agreement, which left them free to continue what they were most likely doing in the first place.

Complicating matters further is the aforementioned announcement came with a threat to attack Israel (who actually is a buddy globally) if they attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear development. Historically, the US and Israel have been on good terms, but recently that hasn’t always been the case. Thanks to former President Obama, Israel has learned it can’t always count on us to back its play on the geopolitical stage. Even with Obama’s former Vice President at the helm, there haven’t been any indications President Biden will be recycling the Obama approach. Even so, I’m guessing Israel might still have a few sleepless nights worrying.

After all, the President is a guy who thought dividing Iraq into three separate states was a good idea.

Either way, there may be some out there who question the Jerusalem Post‘s reporting since they have a vested interest in parroting the official line of the country. This is a fair point, in my opinion, but it also applies to Al Jazeera. If bias is a disqualifying point for one side, it needs to be a disqualifying point for both sides. Of course, Leftists don’t want that since they have a hate boner for Israel. Not their money, mind you. Just the country itself. Plus, the Left has raved about Al Jazeera’s reporting for years now, which calls into question how objective they can be with the Jerusalem Post. (Not to mention whether they know the first thing about actual reporting.)

For me, it’s pretty much a wash. If we’re being honest (and I really have no reason not to be here), it’s clear both the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera have agendas, which will skew everything from hard news to the weather report if unchecked. So, which side is telling the truth?

That’s when I apply a little common sense to see if I can find the more plausible/likely scenario. Neither Israel nor Iran has completely clean hands, but Iran has been playing around in the coal mines from a transparency perspective. They have a long track record of not digging our scene, which gives them every justification in their minds to try to pull one over on us. What better way to do that than by developing nuclear weapons in direct defiance of our efforts and the Iran Deal we put in place?

Israel, on the other hand, doesn’t have any such motivation. They are stronger than they let on, but they still need our help to maintain that strength. And let’s not overlook the fact Israel has had nukes since the mid-to-late 60s and hasn’t once threatened to destroy us. That goes a long way with me.

When all these factors are considered, it’s more likely Iran has nuclear weapons, but has been slow-rolling us to give the impression they’re complying with the Iran Deal. There are just too many questions to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

And that should scare the shit out of us. The fact the prospect of a nuclear Iran isn’t even a blip on our proverbial radar is a bad sign foretelling a worse outcome unless we take it seriously.

In a society where we’re more worked up over the number of genders than we are a country that hates our guts and will be a nuclear power sooner rather than later, is it any wonder I think we’re doomed?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.

On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.

The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!

peaceful transfer of power

What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election

What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch

The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.

After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.

Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.

Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.

Guess which one I’m going with.

And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)

Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…

The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.

Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.

However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock (and, given the way 2020 has gone, I don’t blame you if you have), President Donald Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Twice.

That sound you hear is the sound of Leftists screaming in horror and their heads exploding.

I have written about this subject previously, but in the light of the Left’s screeching hissyfit over the President being nominated for it, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to take another look.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to those who advance global peace

What it really means – a once-prestigious award rarely given to truly deserving candidates anymore

Being nominated for a Nobel Prize, especially the Peace Prize, used to be a monumental honor because it showed you were a champion of world peace. In recent years, however, you could get a Cracker Jack box and receive a better prize with more of an impact to world peace. Especially those temporary tattoos! Those things are sweet!

But the question on the table is why the Nobel Peace Prize means as much as getting valedictorian of summer school. This can be explained by looking at two areas: the recent recipients, and the Nobel Committee itself.

Let’s start with the recent recipients. To put it mildly, the list reads like a Who’s Who of Who Not to Emulate. Sure, you have the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa, but you also have Amnesty International, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and Al Gore. To put it mildly, if the Peace Prize winners leaned any further left, they would be parallel with the ground.

And let’s not forget the aforementioned organizations have a track record of failure. Oh, they make great promises and have a vision few people would disagree with, but where are the results? I know, I know, societal change takes time, but at some point you have to ask whether the lofty vision and promises are resulting in actual change or are merely a front to score the change in people’s pockets.

Oh, and Amnesty International backs noted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, claiming he didn’t have a fair trial under “international standards.” Granted, they were given the Nobel Peace Prize before they stumped for a cop-killer, but hey. Leftists are going to Leftist.

So, who nominates these heads of knuckle for the Peace Prize? Why, that would be the Nobel Committee, of course! Although there are some areas where ideology can’t trump accomplishment, the Peace Prize has become an ideological award more than an award for accomplishments.

Like when former President Barack Obama won the Peace Prize in 2009.

At the time of the nomination, President Obama was lauded by the Nobel Committee for having the potential to bring world peace. Not that he brought it; he had the potential to do it. And this is after his main accomplishment was getting elected President of the United States by beating a weak Republican candidate. That’s like me being awarded the MVP of the Super Bowl because I have the potential to complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns. (To be fair, though, my elderly grandmother could complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns and she’s been dead for 2 years.)

This fact alone is an indictment of the Nobel Committee, or should be if we lived in a just and intelligent world. Given the fact it’s taken until this year for “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” to end, it’s pretty clear our world is neither just nor intelligent.

Even so, the Nobel Committee has the same problem the Left does: ideological blindness. By putting an ideology above picking the best candidate, the Nobel Committee might as well call themselves the Committee to Hand Out Undeserved Praise to Leftists Because Shut Up. And the kicker is by catering to the Left, the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten, well, less significant. Instead of picking candidates who might have actually done something to advance world peace, they’re picking people who haven’t done anything, but have the right position on issues.

Although President Trump has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, I’m not sure I would be keen on accepting it if he wins. Just the company of those who also won the award would be damning enough.