RUTHFULLY YOURS

Since Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president, all that has changed is U.S. policy towards Iran and the administration’s willingness to lie to the American people about it.

President Barack Obama personally guaranteed the peaceful nature of both Khamenei and Rouhani, saying: “Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.” To date, no such fatwa has been seen by anyone. Rouhani seems to have been lying.

The Iranians also keep threatening to “walk away from the nuclear ‘deal,'” even though there is no deal to walk away from as Iran has not signed anything yet.

Within the leaders of Iran’s regime, those who fail to live up to the Supreme Leader’s expectations are impeached or killed.

Ever since Hassan Rouhani became president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Americans have been told that a fundamental change had occurred, that the latest Iranian election had been a once-in-a-lifetime event, and that Iran’s formerly adversarial regime had been transformed into a moderate one.

In Iran, however, what has changed is precisely nothing. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is as powerful and dangerous as ever. Iranian support for terrorists has increased. And Iran’s genocidal rhetoric regarding Israel (“the malignant Zionist tumor”) and America (the great Satan) has not softened.

Since Rouhani replaced Ahmadinejad, all that has changed is U.S. policy towards Iran and the administration’s willingness to lie to the American people about it.

Bret Stephens at the Wall Street Journal really, really doesn’t like Donald Trump.

In an interview with CNN’s serial plagiarist Fareed Zakaria, Stephens said it is his goal to “make sure he [Trump] is the biggest loser in presidential history” and that “[i]t’s important that Donald Trump and what he represents – this kind of ethnic quote ‘conservatism’ or populism – be so decisively rebuked that the Republican party, the Republican voters learn their lesson that they cannot nominate a man so manifestly unqualified to be president in any way, shape, or form.”

In his latest piece, Stephens attempts to convince his readers that conservatives have some form of derangement syndrome over Mexico, and that, in fact, “Americans are blessed to have Mexico as our neighbor.” Given his background, we might expect Stephens to be less than objective toward Mexico. Stephens was raised in the centerpiece of Mexican corruption itself, Mexico City, where his father was a senior executive in a chemical company.

Stephens claims that “Mexico is a functioning democracy whose voters tend to favor pro-business conservatives, not a North American version of Libya, exporting jihad and boat people to its neighbors.”

Well, I suspect that a geography lesson is in order for the WSJ’s boy wonder. Mexico has a long and largely undefended land border with the country into which its illegal emigrants want to immigrate. So why would they pile onto boats? Perhaps if the Rio Grande were the width of the Mediterranean, naval transportation would be necessary, but until that biblical flood arrives, Mexicans can just walk across the border, or have a light, refreshing swim. Let’s call the Mexican illegals “land people” instead.

As for jihad, another teachable moment is required. Mexicans aren’t Muslims, but they do export an equally threatening revolutionary philosophy called the “La Raza” movement – one that a certain judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is potentially implicated in, giving a textbook example of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Only a direct and unequivocal US commitment can truly reassure Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that their recent grim histories of invasion, occupation and oppression will not be repeated. Obama has proven himself unequal to the task. Will the next president be any better?
Next month, my wife and leave on a trip to Europe. First, we will visit Lithuania, my wife’s home country, for two weeks to catch up with her family and old friends. This is my second visit to Lithuania, and I hope to gain further insights to the hopes and fears of the local people, ranging from 90-year-olds, who lived under both Nazi and Soviet occupation, to young adults, born after independence.

For Lithuania, along with Latvia and Estonia, geopolitical vulnerability is a permanent fact of life. Historical experience has taught harsh lessons. The enforced incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union back in 1940, notwithstanding their declared neutrality, has impelled them to choose a side.

As soon as accession to NATO was offered, they jumped at the chance to shore up their security. After all, Article 5 of this mutual defence pact reads:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

But does anybody seriously believe that either Germany or France, or for that matter, any other European country would have either the capacity or willingness to come to the aid of the Baltic States, if a resurgent Russia decided to put the treaty to the test? Consider the historical record. The Baltic states have long been expendable pawns. Remember Germany’s seizure of Klaipeda (Memel) from neutral Lithuania in March, 1939, and the secret clauses of the Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact of August, 1939, which doomed the Baltic States to Soviet occupation.

Lest we imagine that the denial of freedom and independence for the Baltic states was merely a totalitarian exercise, we read in, The President, The Pope and The Prime Minister, by Quadrant Editor John O’Sullivan, that independence for the Baltic States was very nearly thwarted, not merely by the still existent Soviet Union but also by Jacques Delors, chairman of the European Commission, Francois Mitterand of France, Helmut Kohl of Germany and the Bush Administration. Only Margaret Thatcher’s heroic intervention at the Rome summit of the European Community in October, 1990, saved the day for Baltic freedom. Remember, this was after the fall of the Berlin wall. As O’Sullivan records on pages 322-323 :

The United States was already applying pressure on the Baltic states against independence. Secretary of State James Baker had told the Lithuanians in May 1990 that they should “freeze” their declaration of independence – and the United States continued to exert such public and private pressure throughout that summer. At Rome, European Commission chairman Jacques Delors further proposed that the EC issue a declaration in favour of preserving the existing external borders of the USSR. That would have meant formal European approval for imprisoning the Baltics indefinitely, and would have damaged their morale, which was already depressed by the lack of Western support.